Bosque wrote:I think you already accounted for this in your disclaimers, but since those are raw numbers you really need to adjust for class size. Also, I am willing to bet that a higher percentage of Duke students go into transactional work. Finally, we don't really know how many people WANTed to go to LA.
Anyway, just thought I would point out a few more reasons why you cannot really rely on that test.
All good points, and I did mention the class size. I also never suggested that the picture was even close to complete - merely that Michigan seems to have a slightly more established presence. I do agree that there's the possibility of a potential litigation bias (that could go either way, but I just selected that search at random), but I am curious as to why you would be willing to bet that more Duke students would do transactional as compared to Michigan students. Also, keep in mind that the search wasn't only litigation associates, but all associates at these firms.
Either way, switching out Litigation for the generic transactional search (Corporate/M&A) adds a couple new firms and keeps most of the former ones:GDC:
Mich: 0(0)DLA Piper
(LA Downtown/LA Century City):
Mich: 0(0) Milbank:
Mich: 5(1)Morgan Lewis:
Mich: 5(2)Paul Hastings:
Mich: 1(1)Sheppard Mullin
(LA Downtown/LA Century City/OC offices):
For the LA offices of the top Corporate/M&A firms for SoCal, that changes the total to:
This data contains all the same flaws as Bosque and I pointed out before, the most important of which is that if fails to answer how many people actually wanted
to go to that market. Both schools can get you there just fine, and how much each school fits you should be a far more important consideration that the desired placement of former students.