Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than... Forum

[09042014]

Honestly Chicago's probably never going to recover.

There is no structural reason to think this. The non NYC markets lag NYC economically so it will just take a while.

Another thing that hurt is that Chicago firm prestige whored. In 2009 a lot of them only went to Harvard, UChi, Northwestern and Michigan. The number of summer associate spots got cut into 40% of what it used to be, but placement at Uchi, Northwestern and Michigan didn't drop to 40% of what it used to be.

[Kswizzie]

Don't be ridiculous the BigLaw hiring model has survived and emerged stronger from every economic downturn since the turn of the last century. Think it won't recover now? Go talk to an old person about the great depression.

There are not enough facepalm .jpgs out there to respond to this. The fact that you think the biglaw hiring mode being used today was used in the 1930s shows that you don't understand the biglaw hiring model.

Go talk to hiring partners and ask them if they expect their class sizes to ever return to anything even comparable to what they were 5-6 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out#Up_or_Out

Still in place today...

[romothesavior]

Don't be ridiculous the BigLaw hiring model has survived and emerged stronger from every economic downturn since the turn of the last century. Think it won't recover now? Go talk to an old person about the great depression.

There are not enough facepalm .jpgs out there to respond to this. The fact that you think the biglaw hiring mode being used today was used in the 1930s shows that you don't understand the biglaw hiring model.

Go talk to hiring partners and ask them if they expect their class sizes to ever return to anything even comparable to what they were 5-6 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out#Up_or_Out

Still in place today...

And it will probably still be in place for years to come. Just because the hiring model's structure remains the same doesn't mean the legal economy hasn't radically changed. I guess we're just not on the same page here. Firms may still use an "up and out" model (although many hiring gurus think it will disappear or at least be used less). That doesn't mean that class sizes will ever recover.

[Kswizzie]

Don't be ridiculous the BigLaw hiring model has survived and emerged stronger from every economic downturn since the turn of the last century. Think it won't recover now? Go talk to an old person about the great depression.

There are not enough facepalm .jpgs out there to respond to this. The fact that you think the biglaw hiring mode being used today was used in the 1930s shows that you don't understand the biglaw hiring model.

Go talk to hiring partners and ask them if they expect their class sizes to ever return to anything even comparable to what they were 5-6 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out#Up_or_Out

Still in place today...

And it will probably still be in place for years to come. Just because the hiring model's structure remains the same doesn't mean the legal economy hasn't radically changed. I don't think we're on the same page here... Firms may still use an "up and out" model, but that doesn't mean that class sizes will ever recover.

I think we are gradually getting closer to the same place. There is no question that for nearly all firms the big law pyramid has gotten smaller. But its hard to say that class sizes will never recover. Law firms haven't fundamentally changed their business model so when the next boom comes along they will probably hire big classes.

[fatduck]

Honestly Chicago's probably never going to recover.

There is no structural reason to think this. The non NYC markets lag NYC economically so it will just take a while.

Another thing that hurt is that Chicago firm prestige whored. In 2009 a lot of them only went to Harvard, UChi, Northwestern and Michigan. The number of summer associate spots got cut into 40% of what it used to be, but placement at Uchi, Northwestern and Michigan didn't drop to 40% of what it used to be.

Sorry I was unclear. I wasn't talking about the Chicago legal market specifically. I was just talking shit about Chicago as a city

[09042014]

Don't be ridiculous the BigLaw hiring model has survived and emerged stronger from every economic downturn since the turn of the last century. Think it won't recover now? Go talk to an old person about the great depression.

There are not enough facepalm .jpgs out there to respond to this. The fact that you think the biglaw hiring mode being used today was used in the 1930s shows that you don't understand the biglaw hiring model.

Go talk to hiring partners and ask them if they expect their class sizes to ever return to anything even comparable to what they were 5-6 years ago.

The hiring model hasn't changed. The number of hires is down, but the model is exactly the same. Summer hiring was down 44% for 2010 summers, but firm revenue wasn't down nearly that much.

2011 hiring saw a lot of the top firms hiring big increases from 2010. Smaller firms and shakey firms held steady.

2008-09 were the absolute peak. I bet we'll see early to mid 2005 numbers within 3 years.

[romothesavior]

I think we are gradually getting closer to the same place. There is no question that for nearly all firms the big law pyramid has gotten smaller. But its hard to say that class sizes will never recover. Law firms haven't fundamentally changed their business model so when the next boom comes along they will probably hire big classes.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/ ... -law-.html

And DF, I agree the model may not change, but I don't think it will ever get back to what it was. Clients are much less willing to pay that kind of dough for biglaw work, and outsourcing and contracted temp attorneys may start to have a real impact on the number of associates being hired (depending on who you talk to).

[Hannibal]

I think we are gradually getting closer to the same place. There is no question that for nearly all firms the big law pyramid has gotten smaller. But its hard to say that class sizes will never recover. Law firms haven't fundamentally changed their business model so when the next boom comes along they will probably hire big classes.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/ ... -law-.html

And DF, I agree the model may not change, but I don't think it will ever get back to what it was. Clients are much less willing to pay that kind of dough for biglaw work, and outsourcing and contracted temp attorneys may start to have a real impact on the number of associates being hired (depending on who you talk to).

They say that while they consider themselves to be strapped for cash. As they get more and more flush there's no reason they wouldn't go back.

[Kswizzie]

I think we are gradually getting closer to the same place. There is no question that for nearly all firms the big law pyramid has gotten smaller. But its hard to say that class sizes will never recover. Law firms haven't fundamentally changed their business model so when the next boom comes along they will probably hire big classes.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/ ... -law-.html

And DF, I agree the model may not change, but I don't think it will ever get back to what it was. Clients are much less willing to pay that kind of dough for biglaw work, and outsourcing and contracted temp attorneys may start to have a real impact on the number of associates being hired (depending on who you talk to).

They say that while they consider themselves to be strapped for cash. As they get more and more flush there's no reason they wouldn't go back.

Ever been hungover and tell yourself you will never drink again?

[09042014]

I think we are gradually getting closer to the same place. There is no question that for nearly all firms the big law pyramid has gotten smaller. But its hard to say that class sizes will never recover. Law firms haven't fundamentally changed their business model so when the next boom comes along they will probably hire big classes.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/ ... -law-.html

And DF, I agree the model may not change, but I don't think it will ever get back to what it was. Clients are much less willing to pay that kind of dough for biglaw work, and outsourcing and contracted temp attorneys may start to have a real impact on the number of associates being hired (depending on who you talk to).

Until we see huge revenue drops at big firms I'm not buying it. The economy has already stabilized. If clients were going to suddenly start penny pinching it would have happened during the recession.

It doesn't really matter for us though. We sink or swim this August. Hiring absolutely isn't going to pick up by then.

[romothesavior]

I hope you're all right, but I won't believe it until I see it. It seems like most hiring experts and hiring peeps at big firms think things have changed for good.

[keg411]

I've been watching this thing for the past few years, and I have to say, I agree with DF. For all of the claims that things have changed "forever", I'll believe it when I see it. Law is one of the most change-averse fields out there, NYC is busy as all get out, and the lateral market has picked up enormously (though the lateral market started picking up a year ago; which is about right).

I think there are some secondary markets that may not recover entirely and I don't think that hiring will go back to 2007-08 levels, but I agree that '05 levels sound about right.

[FuManChusco]

While I agree with most of your remarks, I think you're giving USC a bit too much credit.

Eh, I dunno. The old data seems to show UCLA/UT/Vandy/USC being definitely above the regional schools below them.

I'd like to see the old data. If you're referring to what I think you are, even BC was placing 40% into the nlj250. times have changed. maybe it's just a subconscious thing for me. I see USC as a stand alone between the 15-17 group and the 19-30 crowd.

[MrAnon]

St. Louis is not exactly a major hiring market.

It attracts students who want to feel like they go to a destination school. Emory is another example. So they criss cross the country to attend what is very much a regional school. Not exactly the brightest student body.

Who knows really how many of the students find jobs.

[fatduck]

St. Louis is not exactly a major hiring market.

It attracts students who want to feel like they go to a destination school. Emory is another example. So they criss cross the country to attend what is very much a regional school. Not exactly the brightest student body.

Who knows really how many of the students find jobs.

Was your post carefully crafted to make as little sense as possible?

If WUSTL were a destination school it would mean people go to WUSTL so they can live and work in the Midwest. By saying WUSTL is "very much a regional school" you're saying its placement is limited to the Midwest.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?

[Hannibal]

Do not feed the trolls.

[fatduck]

[ihp12]

It seems like splitters get admitted to most of the schools in the 19-25 range. Maybe more just attend WUSTL because of the generous scholarship $?

Fordham/BU/BC/UCD/UCH/etc all have less affinity towards splitters, not to mention I think WUSTL is definitely the most willing to take extremesplitters (e.g. something like a 2.5 GPA) compared to even other splitterfriendly schools like GW/Illinois. That being said, midwestern schools all seem to be in love with splitters.

And we love them right back.

When you think about it, WUSTL is smart to take splitters. Since the LSAT is the best statistical predictor of success in law school, shouldn't you be willing to forgive a low GPA in favor of a high LSAT?

As for gaming the rankings (which again every school does), assuming WUSTL has somehow cheated the system, should we fault them for doing so? Rankings consistently are shown to be the number one factor students use in picking a school. So if a school can somehow inflate its rankings relative to its actual quality, eventually its quality might catch up to its ranking because it can attract top students.

[jdstl]

Another thing WUSTL law has going for it is the upward trend of the University as a whole. Their med-school and undergrad have become truly elite, and I think that will tend to create some spillover effects toward the law school.

[bk1]

And we love them right back.

When you think about it, WUSTL is smart to take splitters. Since the LSAT is the best statistical predictor of success in law school, shouldn't you be willing to forgive a low GPA in favor of a high LSAT?

As for gaming the rankings (which again every school does), assuming WUSTL has somehow cheated the system, should we fault them for doing so? Rankings consistently are shown to be the number one factor students use in picking a school. So if a school can somehow inflate its rankings relative to its actual quality, eventually its quality might catch up to its ranking because it can attract top students.

I'm not going to argue whether it is smart/right/whatever to take supersplitters, though I can think of several arguments in both directions (e.g. should a 170+ LSAT really forgive somebody for having a sub 3 gpa? a sub 2.5 gpa?). WUSTL isn't "cheating the system" per se, but they are taking it to a further extent than other schools (e.g. Fordham may take a 3.3/168 and not a 2.9/168 whereas WUSTL would take both, even though both applicants have pretty much the same effect on a school's medians).

Whether this should be lauded or praised was not my point, my point was that in reality there certainly is a stigma attached to it. I actually don't really believe your top students argument considering student quality is a pretty subjective metric here and it isn't like firms are going to care that the school has an LSAT median that is 2 points higher.

[fatduck]

And we love them right back.

When you think about it, WUSTL is smart to take splitters. Since the LSAT is the best statistical predictor of success in law school, shouldn't you be willing to forgive a low GPA in favor of a high LSAT?

As for gaming the rankings (which again every school does), assuming WUSTL has somehow cheated the system, should we fault them for doing so? Rankings consistently are shown to be the number one factor students use in picking a school. So if a school can somehow inflate its rankings relative to its actual quality, eventually its quality might catch up to its ranking because it can attract top students.

I'm not going to argue whether it is smart/right/whatever to take supersplitters, though I can think of several arguments in both directions (e.g. should a 170+ LSAT really forgive somebody for having a sub 3 gpa? a sub 2.5 gpa?). WUSTL isn't "cheating the system" per se, but they are taking it to a further extent than other schools (e.g. Fordham may take a 3.3/168 and not a 2.9/168 whereas WUSTL would take both, even though both applicants have pretty much the same effect on a school's medians).

Whether this should be lauded or praised was not my point, my point was that in reality there certainly is a stigma attached to it. I actually don't really believe your top students argument considering student quality is a pretty subjective metric here and it isn't like firms are going to care that the school has an LSAT median that is 2 points higher.

Perhaps there's a stigma because the high gpa students massively outnumber the high lsat students...

[bk1]

Perhaps there's a stigma because the high gpa students massively outnumber the high lsat students...

I would think that high GPA students tend to be the hard working anal types whereas low GPA types tend to be lazy shits who don't give a fuck. I could definitely see the former group being mad at the latter for finding a way into the same position through a lot less work.

[fatduck]

Perhaps there's a stigma because the high gpa students massively outnumber the high lsat students...

I would think that high GPA students tend to be the hard working anal types whereas low GPA types tend to be lazy shits who don't give a fuck. I could definitely see the former group being mad at the latter for finding a way into the same position through a lot less work.

Yea that seems pretty accurate. Seems kind of weird to take it out on a law school, though.

[ihp12]

Perhaps there's a stigma because the high gpa students massively outnumber the high lsat students...

I would think that high GPA students tend to be the hard working anal types whereas low GPA types tend to be lazy shits who don't give a fuck. I could definitely see the former group being mad at the latter for finding a way into the same position through a lot less work.

Yea that seems pretty accurate. Seems kind of weird to take it out on a law school, though.

Since the LSAT is a better predictor, I guess they should be taking it out on reality.

[bk1]

Yea that seems pretty accurate. Seems kind of weird to take it out on a law school, though.

It is weird but not surprising when that school is seen as an unrepentant bastion of splitterdom.