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

[Attorney]

I guess if I make fun of the school it's because of it being overrated w/r/t employment

I think if we've learned anything in this thread, it's that even if there is a small spread between WU's USN ranking and its placement, the overrated schools w/r/t employment are actually some of its peers right behind it in the rankings. Such as UNC, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Maybe what makes WUSTL a bigger target for the TLS masses is that it has a ranking that is barely into the "teens" instead of 20s. Or that it is a small wealthy private school instead of a Big Ten public. Who knows! But the employment prospects versus its ranking and geographic location are pretty good.

[Blindmelon]

I guess if I make fun of the school it's because of it being overrated w/r/t employment

I think if we've learned anything in this thread, it's that even if there is a small spread between WU's USN ranking and its placement, the overrated schools w/r/t employment are actually some of its peers right behind it in the rankings. Such as UNC, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Maybe what makes WUSTL a bigger target for the TLS masses is that it has a ranking that is barely into the "teens" instead of 20s. Or that it is a small wealthy private school instead of a Big Ten public. Who knows! But the employment prospects versus its ranking and geographic location are pretty good.

If you ignore than BU/BC trounce it biglaw-wise, then its ranked accordingly.

[Hannibal]

Could someone point me to an article or thread where we found out educational quality directly corresponded to NLJ250 placement? Thanks in advance.

[Attorney]

If you ignore than BU/BC trounce it biglaw-wise, then its ranked accordingly.

See, I suppose this is exactly it. The WUSTL bashers are all students or alums at the very few schools ranked behind it that place better (due to far more advantageous locations). BU, BC, and this year it will probably be that smaller law school straight out of Chicago's suburbs, ND. Sometimes it is students at GW and even Fordham, but not nearly as much. It's always you Bostonians with that bad taste in your mouth!

I suppose everyone hates WUSTL because it is #19, and consistently #19. This is apparently a tremendously enviable position just because it is in the "teens" instead of the 20s. No one seems to care about the schools that are farrrrrrr more overrated with regard to placement, because they are a few places back in the 20s.

19 is really just a number. Like 20. Or 21. Get over it already?

Could someone point me to an article or thread where we found out educational quality directly corresponded to NLJ250 placement? Thanks in advance.

And as Hannibal points out, quality rankings =/= placement rankings. US News doesn't even pretend to rank schools based on placement.

EDIT: I take that back above, 1/5th of the US News scoring system is apparently based on "placement" but using some fairly dubious numbers ("% employed after nine months") instead of Big Law numbers. I suppose that's understandable because they have to rank ALL the law schools and not just the T1 schools. Also, if you substituted the SLJ250 numbers, the overall rankings would change little since placement is only given a 20% weighting toward the overall quality scores.

[JCougar]

18 clerks of the graduating class, but no breakdown of how many of them were AIII.I assume they'll release that data eventually, until then, its pretty meaningless.

Ummm...

including those with U.S. Courts of Appeals judges for the 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits.

Other clerkships are with U.S. District Court judges in California, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia; with a state supreme court justice in Wisconsin; and with judges on a number of other federal and state courts.

Assuming that there's only one clerk in each position listed, you have at least 6 CoA clerks, 5 US district court clerks, and one on a state supreme court. I don't know exactly which ones are Art. III, but that's at least 12 clerks in some pretty enviable positions. And that's assuming that there's not more than one in each district/circuit listed. They very well could be doubling up on the Illinois, Missouri districts, or the 8th or 7th circuits. 12 people is about 5% of the class, so you can add that to the 19% that got NLJ 250 jobs in a bad economy.

[JCougar]

Those charts reflect discounts, not writeoffs. Many large clients, like the type that lock in 20 million plus worth of work per year, will ask that rates be frozen from the previous year, in order to get a discount. They will ask this on all levels of associates and furthermore they will ask for a discount on the bill generally, like 5% or 10%. The firms arent exactly losing money on these deals. Funny that some partner tried to plead poverty with you over this. Oftentimes business owners will say anything to rationalize lower wages. Believe me, if firms in NYC were losing money on associates at any level then those associates would cease to be in flash.

Even if they do represent discounts rather than writeoffs, it still supports my argument. Not that it matters, since you offered zero evidence that they actually are discounts rather than writeoffs.

I don't find it that hard to believe that someone with zero practical experience comes into a firm and provides less than $300,000 worth of service. In fact, it's well known in the business world that workers don't really pay off until after at least a year or two. Training new people is extremely costly.

Having an army of 7th and 8th years hanging around the firm is no picnic from a billing standpoint either. There is only so much they can do. Work doesn't rise to the level of 7th year associate? Can't give it to them. Got to find someone who is billing level appropriate. There are only so many briefs for a 7th year can write. Lots of work involves day to day discovery issues, grinding drafting work.

This simply doesn't make any sense. 7th and 8th year associates still end up finding enough work to bill 2000 hours a year, so they're not sitting around with a shortage of work. If they decide they don't want to do stuff, it's their loss, and they have to find billable hours elsewhere. These associates aren't making that much more money as a proportion of what they made to start off with, but you can bet they are many times more effective, and can command a higher billing rate from clients.

This isn't all that hard to believe.

[MrAnon]

If a client doesnt want to pay for first years then they find a client who does and staff them on that case. It is a rare client that refuses to pay for first years even though the wall street journal or whatever might make it seem like examples abound. And again, if they refuse to pay for them, then they dont get them. The clients isnt asking for free labor.

[20160810]

To drive the point home, here are some schools' 19-30 US News rankings versus their ordinal Big Law placement rankings.

WUSTL 19/24 (-5)
Minnesota 22/35 (-13)
Indiana 27/50+ (-23)
UC Davis 28/39 (-11)
UNC 28/48 (-20)

It seems a bit ignorant to say WUSTL's placement ranking is so much worse than its USN ranking, when other schools ranked right behind it appear to "game the rankings" to a much larger extent.

Look at the region though. NLJ250 firms tend disproportionately to be in NYC and DC, where by and large none of those schools place. There are plenty of good, 100-person-or-so firms in markets like Charlotte, Sacramento, Indianapolis, MSP where those schools do well and placement in those firms is just not reflected in NLJ250 stats. That's why those "biglaw placement" rankings tend to have Fordham as T20 even though it's certainly a peer school with any of the ones you just listed.

[flcath]

I think the WUSTL hate is circular (or perhaps a downward spiral): semi-legitimate reasons to dislike the school (or feel that it's slightly overrated... these have been rehashed well ITT) led to recognizable anti-WUSTL memes.

These memes were funny (partly b/c of the illogical animus many have), which led to them growing stronger, which made them even funnier...

For example, I have absolutely nothing against WUSTL, but I laughed my ass off reading this: --LinkRemoved--

[JCougar]

If a client doesnt want to pay for first years then they find a client who does and staff them on that case. It is a rare client that refuses to pay for first years even though the wall street journal or whatever might make it seem like examples abound. And again, if they refuse to pay for them, then they dont get them. The clients isnt asking for free labor.

Who said clients don't want to pay for first years? They'll pay up to a point, but they've been increasingly picky lately.

I can't believe you're telling me that discounts/writeoffs don't exist, or if they do, they're not disproportionately focused on work done by new associates. Your position just doesn't make any sense.

Unless that WSJ article is wrong, firms simply don't take in their sticker-price of billable hours. And since first-year associates can be billed at about $200/hour to clients, the most they could pull in for 2000 billable hours per year is $400,000, before any discounts. After discounts/writeoffs, that's likely to drop significantly lower, to between $300-350K. So you have an associate working for $160K, and you add in perks, healthcare, and other benefits, plus you add in rent on their office space plus the same for their secretary and his/her salary, tell me how you come up with anything less than $350K?

Perhaps firms like the V25 or so can charge more than $200/hour for new associates, but I can't imagine it being that much more.

If I'm wrong, I'd like you to point out how.

[JCougar]

I'm only a 1L, so I don't know anything for certain. From what I can gather (and these are general, rough estimates), top 20-25% will probably get you some interviews, but you are far from safe. Top 1/3 might even do it if you have good WE or connections, and I've heard of people down to median getting NLJ 250 jobs (but they are a rare, rare exception).

I'd say anything outside top 10-15% is going to mean you have to interview really well to get a job out of OCI. ITE has made it so that few people at a school like WUSTL are "safe." But if you're top 20%, you'll be in a good place to get interviews and hopefully give yourself a real shot at an NLJ 250 job.

This is kind of terrifying. I thought the percentage was much higher. I very much want to get biglaw in either STL, KC or Chicago, and you're saying outside of top 10-15%, there's not a good chance of that? Just a chance?

I have to agree with Romo as far as the class of 2011 and 2012 go. As far as our class, we simply don't know...it's going to be better probably, but no one knows how much better. Your class, the class of 2014 will be significantly better.

In good times, the top third at WUSTL had a very good chance at biglaw somewhere, and above median with good experience gave you a decent shot. During this recession, I'd say you need top 20% or so. There's really no debate as to whether that's going to get better, but nobody really knows how much better.

WUSTL has a great career services office that works with you to find jobs outside of OCI, and they have decent connections to midwestern Midlaw. Furthermore, they do job fairs around the country to help students connect with employers in their home regions. I'm not denying its struggles to get people into biglaw ITE, but saying that it's a strictly regional school, or that you have to be top 10% to get a Cali or NY job is nonsense. Maybe top 10% if you want to go to one of these places with no ties to the region, but that's true for pretty much every school. Unless you're graduating from Harvard, trying to get a job in NYC or California without ties to the region is going to be difficult unless your grades are very good. Firms simply think you're going to take off after a year or two if you have no family ties to make you want to stay, no matter what school you went to.

Also, if you have concerns about regionality, you can easily look up the firms that do OCI here on the NALP directory. We have firms from all over the country. WUSTL's "regionality" is way overstated on here. You need at least top third to get interviews at these firms, but they're not coming here to interview for nothing. We have about 10% of our class coming from California each year...that means there's about 27 California students. And even in this recession, we've had over 10 California firms come out. If California students disperse equally among the general student population, 9 of them will be in the top third. So you have 10 CA firms and you're competing for jobs with 9 other Cali students in the top third. Not all firms that come out hire someone, but you're going to get a chance at an interview.

[seriously????]

LR Graduates are the students who get into the top firms, but I think that most of the STL biglaw hirings are given to people who have previous ties to St.Louis or Missouri, which counts for a significant part of WUSTL's biglaw placements. So, my hypothesis is that those in the top third and are not from the area have a slim chance at biglaw. Hopefully that is proven wrong. But I think it does make sense, because how can students not from STL convey their love of the city during OCI when they spend a bulk of their only year there studying?

Also, for someone who mentioned that there are several 100 person firms in Indy, I would appreciate if that person could cite some names. Because, while researching the placements of IUB students, I have not found many examples of large midlaw firm hirings.

[Bumi]

Unless you're graduating from Harvard, trying to get a job in NYC or California without ties to the region is going to be difficult unless your grades are very good. Firms simply think you're going to take off after a year or two if you have no family ties to make you want to stay, no matter what school you went to.

I should start by saying that I am a miserable unlearned 0L. But did you really just say that you need ties to New York if you want to get a job there, unless you went to Harvard or are top 10%?

[beaubois]

For example, I have absolutely nothing against WUSTL, but I laughed my ass off reading this: --LinkRemoved--

That is hilarious!!!

[Attorney]

Unless you're graduating from Harvard, trying to get a job in NYC or California without ties to the region is going to be difficult unless your grades are very good. Firms simply think you're going to take off after a year or two if you have no family ties to make you want to stay, no matter what school you went to.

I should start by saying that I am a miserable unlearned 0L. But did you really just say that you need ties to New York if you want to get a job there, unless you went to Harvard or are top 10%?

I think he really means Big Law in NYC from midwestern schools, and you can replace Harvard with say U of Chicago.

[Bumi]

I think he really means Big Law in NYC from midwestern schools, and you can replace Harvard with say U of Chicago.

Yeah, when you replace all the words in his statement with new words, it sounds perfectly reasonable.

[JCougar]

Unless you're graduating from Harvard, trying to get a job in NYC or California without ties to the region is going to be difficult unless your grades are very good. Firms simply think you're going to take off after a year or two if you have no family ties to make you want to stay, no matter what school you went to.

I should start by saying that I am a miserable unlearned 0L. But did you really just say that you need ties to New York if you want to get a job there, unless you went to Harvard or are top 10%?

Maybe top 10% is an exaggeration for T14 schools, especially those that already on the East Coast, but ITE, it's not much of an exaggeration. Also, I didn't say you "needed" ties, I just said that I think it would be difficult. It's somewhat of a moot point, because half of the T14 is close enough to NYC to constitute "ties." But, regarding schools like Berkeley, Northwestern, Michigan, etc., I'm not sure how far below top 10% you can be if you want to just move to NYC cold after graduation, without having any ties to the area. You better be pretty convincing in your interview that you won't leave NYC after two years, or you better have written on to law review. Similarly, if you go to Georgetown and have no connections to California, I don't think you have a good chance of moving out there unless you are on Law Review. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, though.

I think all schools' so-called "mobility" is more a reflection of where the student body comes from rather than the fact that you can work wherever you want after graduation without any personal ties to the city. The only way you have truly national job prospects is if your credentials are so good that firms are willing to take the chance on you leaving after 2 years. And I don't think simply being above median at a T10 makes the grade.

[Attorney]

I think he really means Big Law in NYC from midwestern schools, and you can replace Harvard with say U of Chicago.

Yeah, when you replace all the words in his statement with new words, it sounds perfectly reasonable.

This works in many different situations on the Internet, by the way. Good luck!

[rundoxierun]

Unless you're graduating from Harvard, trying to get a job in NYC or California without ties to the region is going to be difficult unless your grades are very good. Firms simply think you're going to take off after a year or two if you have no family ties to make you want to stay, no matter what school you went to.

I should start by saying that I am a miserable unlearned 0L. But did you really just say that you need ties to New York if you want to get a job there, unless you went to Harvard or are top 10%?

Maybe top 10% is an exaggeration for T14 schools, especially those that already on the East Coast, but ITE, it's not much of an exaggeration. Also, I didn't say you "needed" ties, I just said that I think it would be difficult. It's somewhat of a moot point, because half of the T14 is close enough to NYC to constitute "ties." But, regarding schools like Berkeley, Northwestern, Michigan, etc., I'm not sure how far below top 10% you can be if you want to just move to NYC cold after graduation, without having any ties to the area. You better be pretty convincing in your interview that you won't leave NYC after two years, or you better have written on to law review. Similarly, if you go to Georgetown and have no connections to California, I don't think you have a good chance of moving out there unless you are on Law Review. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, though.

I think all schools' so-called "mobility" is more a reflection of where the student body comes from rather than the fact that you can work wherever you want after graduation without any personal ties to the city. The only way you have truly national job prospects is if your credentials are so good that firms are willing to take the chance on you leaving after 2 years. And I don't think simply being above median at a T10 makes the grade.

huh? surely you mistyped.

ETA: http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/factsa ... fault.aspx

[JCougar]

huh? surely you mistyped.

ETA: http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/factsa ... fault.aspx

How many of those people had no ties to the region, or were not on Law Review?

[rundoxierun]

huh? surely you mistyped.

ETA: http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/factsa ... fault.aspx

How many of those people had no ties to the region, or were not on Law Review?

What? dude, Michigan sends like 80 ppl a year to NYC. Far beyond what could be explained by what you suggest. NYC is like a shared market for all T14 schools. This is common knowledge(and I dont mean TLS common knowledge).

[JCougar]

huh? surely you mistyped.

ETA: http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/factsa ... fault.aspx

How many of those people had no ties to the region, or were not on Law Review?

What? dude, Michigan sends like 80 ppl a year to NYC. Far beyond what could be explained by what you suggest. NYC is like a shared market for all T14 schools. This is common knowledge(and I dont mean TLS common knowledge).

Well, maybe Michigan is different given it's historical prestige and lack of a big home market. I don't know.

I still stand by my statements regarding the lower half of the T14 and true national mobility.

[jcunni5]

huh? surely you mistyped.

ETA: http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/factsa ... fault.aspx

How many of those people had no ties to the region, or were not on Law Review?

What? dude, Michigan sends like 80 ppl a year to NYC. Far beyond what could be explained by what you suggest. NYC is like a shared market for all T14 schools. This is common knowledge(and I dont mean TLS common knowledge).

Well, maybe Michigan is different given it's historical prestige and lack of a big home market. I don't know.

I still stand by my statements regarding the lower half of the T14 and true national mobility.

no offense dude this couldn't be more wrong, NYC is the easiest market for any T14 to break into, if you are at median your best bet is to bid all NYC. Sure you have to have a reason to want to be in NY, but when its the biggest legal market and the biggest city no one really questions you that much.

[FiveSermon]

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

Bad biglaw placement?

[quadsixm]

[[