From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby NYC Law » Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:51 am

Looks like someone will become more acquainted with Mr. Edward Hardy after all.

User avatar
thexfactor
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:40 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby thexfactor » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:04 am

johansantana21 wrote:
dood wrote:
MrAnon wrote:
dood wrote:at the DC law school softball tourney last saturday - at least 10 out of 14 3Ls on my GW team were going to vault firms and only maybe 1 or 2 of us are top 15% / on LR.

different people have different experiences and OPs experience sucks but could happen at any T20 school including fordham, even a lower T14.


Are you suggesting that 70% of GW's class gets BIGLAW?


no, not at all. im suggesting there's a large student body and each person's experience with GW, the CDO, prof, etc are going to be different. my experience at gw = the extreme opposite of the OP's experience.


You have IP tho



IP secure bro....

User avatar
kwais
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby kwais » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:51 am

This thread made me really happy. Only wish OP would return and defend.

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby Big Shrimpin » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:09 pm

dood wrote:
MrAnon wrote:
dood wrote:at the DC law school softball tourney last saturday - at least 10 out of 14 3Ls on my GW team were going to vault firms and only maybe 1 or 2 of us are top 15% / on LR.

different people have different experiences and OPs experience sucks but could happen at any T20 school including fordham, even a lower T14.


Are you suggesting that 70% of GW's class gets BIGLAW?


no, not at all. im suggesting there's a large student body and each person's experience with GW, the CDO, prof, etc are going to be different. my experience at gw = the extreme opposite of the OP's experience.


Same. For example, this semester, I'm in a small (like 15 dooders) IP class. It's a mix of PT/FT students (3L day and 3/4L night), pretty evenly split. At the beginning of the semester, we did an "introduce yourself" icebreaker. IIRC, like 12/15 in that class have firm gigs for after graduation. Outside of that class, I know an additional 10 IP people, and the firm gig ratio is around 7/10. Of the non-IP dooders I know, the firm gig ratio is probably closer to around 3/10. IPSECURE, sorry OP.

c3pO4
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby c3pO4 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:10 pm

Big Shrimpin wrote:
dood wrote:
MrAnon wrote:
dood wrote:at the DC law school softball tourney last saturday - at least 10 out of 14 3Ls on my GW team were going to vault firms and only maybe 1 or 2 of us are top 15% / on LR.

different people have different experiences and OPs experience sucks but could happen at any T20 school including fordham, even a lower T14.


Are you suggesting that 70% of GW's class gets BIGLAW?


no, not at all. im suggesting there's a large student body and each person's experience with GW, the CDO, prof, etc are going to be different. my experience at gw = the extreme opposite of the OP's experience.


Same. For example, this semester, I'm in a small (like 15 dooders) IP class. It's a mix of PT/FT students (3L day and 3/4L night), pretty evenly split. At the beginning of the semester, we did an "introduce yourself" icebreaker. IIRC, like 12/15 in that class have firm gigs for after graduation. Outside of that class, I know an additional 10 IP people, and the firm gig ratio is around 7/10. Of the non-IP dooders I know, the firm gig ratio is probably closer to around 3/10. IPSECURE, sorry OP.


IP so secure

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby run26.2 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:29 pm

Veyron wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Veyron wrote:Define summer job: do they have employment that is (a) paid and (b) likely to lead to a job after graduation? Or does "job" mean internship to you?

My thoughts as well. I would be very surprised to hear that more than a very small handful of sub-median people at a T20 have a job that satisfies both (a) and (b). Not saying they won't get one down the road since a lot of small and mid-sized firms, local government positions, PI jobs, etc. are on a later timetable, but the majority of hiring so far has been paid SA work for decent-sized firms. If a bunch of sub-median people at GWU are getting respectable, paid SA work, then they must be placing like a T14.


Like a T6.


Bunch of sub-median people at Penn have SAs this year. T6 distinction is worthless.

Not really.

YHS CCP.

Still relevant.

User avatar
dood
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:59 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby dood » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:25 pm

johansantana21 wrote:
dood wrote:
MrAnon wrote:
dood wrote:at the DC law school softball tourney last saturday - at least 10 out of 14 3Ls on my GW team were going to vault firms and only maybe 1 or 2 of us are top 15% / on LR.

different people have different experiences and OPs experience sucks but could happen at any T20 school including fordham, even a lower T14.


Are you suggesting that 70% of GW's class gets BIGLAW?


no, not at all. im suggesting there's a large student body and each person's experience with GW, the CDO, prof, etc are going to be different. my experience at gw = the extreme opposite of the OP's experience.


You have IP tho


yeah but on my softball team only 2 people (including me had IP).

all im saying is that experiences vary but general employment averages to what law school transparency reports (something like $160K for 30% of class), not as bad as OP suggests.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby romothesavior » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:41 pm

dood wrote:all im saying is that experiences vary but general employment averages to what law school transparency reports (something like $160K for 30% of class), not as bad as OP suggests.

Your school places less than 25% into NLJ 250 firms, and you think 30% are making 160k? Come on dooder, be real here.

User avatar
dood
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:59 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby dood » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:27 pm

romothesavior wrote:
dood wrote:all im saying is that experiences vary but general employment averages to what law school transparency reports (something like $160K for 30% of class), not as bad as OP suggests.

Your school places less than 25% into NLJ 250 firms, and you think 30% are making 160k? Come on dooder, be real here.


dunno, whatever law school transparency reports is prolly right. if its 25%, then its 25%.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby Veyron » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:31 pm

dood wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
dood wrote:all im saying is that experiences vary but general employment averages to what law school transparency reports (something like $160K for 30% of class), not as bad as OP suggests.

Your school places less than 25% into NLJ 250 firms, and you think 30% are making 160k? Come on dooder, be real here.


dunno, whatever law school transparency reports is prolly right. if its 25%, then its 25%.


His point is that a fair number of NLJ 250 firms don't pay 160.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby romothesavior » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:47 pm

Veyron wrote:
dood wrote:
romothesavior wrote:Your school places less than 25% into NLJ 250 firms, and you think 30% are making 160k? Come on dooder, be real here.


dunno, whatever law school transparency reports is prolly right. if its 25%, then its 25%.


His point is that a fair number of NLJ 250 firms don't pay 160.

Yeah this. Not only would I say a"fair number" don't pay 160, but the majority don't. 160 is the norm in only a few markets, and even in the markets where it is "market," a substantial number of firms don't pay that.

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby run26.2 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:28 pm

Veyron wrote:
dood wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
dood wrote:all im saying is that experiences vary but general employment averages to what law school transparency reports (something like $160K for 30% of class), not as bad as OP suggests.

Your school places less than 25% into NLJ 250 firms, and you think 30% are making 160k? Come on dooder, be real here.


dunno, whatever law school transparency reports is prolly right. if its 25%, then its 25%.


His point is that a fair number of NLJ 250 firms don't pay 160.

And dood's point is that LST is not reporting on the % at NLJ 250s, but on the actual salaries. Of the reported salaries, over 38% are 160 or above. See --LinkRemoved--.

Of course, the salary data is not comprehensive, and with only 57% of the salaries reported, you could expect a significantly smaller percentage to be at 160. Btw - even if none of the reported salaries were at 160, you would still have about 22% of the class making 160, assuming LST's data is correct.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby johansantana21 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:35 pm

Of course, the salary data is not comprehensive, and with only 57% of the salaries reported, you could expect a significantly smaller percentage to be at 160. Btw - even if none of the reported salaries were at 160, you would still have about 22% of the class making 160, assuming LST's data is correct.


22% is a lot less than 30%.

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby run26.2 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:37 pm

johansantana21 wrote:
Of course, the salary data is not comprehensive, and with only 57% of the salaries reported, you could expect a significantly smaller percentage to be at 160. Btw - even if none of the reported salaries were at 160, you would still have about 22% of the class making 160, assuming LST's data is correct.


22% is a lot less than 30%.

True, but it's also a lot more than 10%. And I would guess at least some of the unreported data points are at 160.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby johansantana21 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:43 pm

run26.2 wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:
Of course, the salary data is not comprehensive, and with only 57% of the salaries reported, you could expect a significantly smaller percentage to be at 160. Btw - even if none of the reported salaries were at 160, you would still have about 22% of the class making 160, assuming LST's data is correct.


22% is a lot less than 30%.

True, but it's also a lot more than 10%. And I would guess at least some of the unreported data points are at 160.


Why would you assume that?

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby run26.2 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:00 pm

johansantana21 wrote:
run26.2 wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:
Of course, the salary data is not comprehensive, and with only 57% of the salaries reported, you could expect a significantly smaller percentage to be at 160. Btw - even if none of the reported salaries were at 160, you would still have about 22% of the class making 160, assuming LST's data is correct.


22% is a lot less than 30%.

True, but it's also a lot more than 10%. And I would guess at least some of the unreported data points are at 160.


Why would you assume that?

Well there are 230-something people unaccounted for, i.e. lots. I'm guessing GW's data collection wasn't perfect, so they may have missed a few at 160. I doubt if they did miss some that it was very many, though. Schools try hard to find out how many people make market.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby johansantana21 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:23 pm

They would have had to miss quite a few just to get to 25%.

I don't see why someone would not report a market paying job. I highly doubt it would account for more than a few % at best. Even then GW won't place better than 25% into 160k+ jobs.

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby Big Shrimpin » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:56 pm

johansantana21 wrote:I don't see why someone would not report a market paying job.


Spamfilters?

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby stratocophic » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:59 pm

romothesavior wrote:
Veyron wrote:
dood wrote:
romothesavior wrote:Your school places less than 25% into NLJ 250 firms, and you think 30% are making 160k? Come on dooder, be real here.


dunno, whatever law school transparency reports is prolly right. if its 25%, then its 25%.


His point is that a fair number of NLJ 250 firms don't pay 160.

Yeah this. Not only would I say a"fair number" don't pay 160, but the majority don't. 160 is the norm in only a few markets, and even in the markets where it is "market," a substantial number of firms don't pay that.
Lot of IP boutiques pay more than their city's market rate though, even a few of the IP boutiques in a place like St. Louis pay pretty close to NY market. Could have a pretty sizable impact (b/c smaller IP firms aren't NLJ, these are often the kinds of places taking people w/o top grades in the first place). Plus at least 2 or 3 of the big Vault firms in Atlanta (just to name one market, not sure if other cities do this too or not but I think Kilpatrick may do it in every office, maybe A+B and King too? I dunno) pay 160 to only their IP groups despite market being 135 or 145.

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby run26.2 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:09 pm

Big Shrimpin wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:I don't see why someone would not report a market paying job.


Spamfilters?

Because providing the information to the schools is purely voluntary. For instance, I literally just filled out the form for my school. I could choose not to or I could forget or I could be too busy to do so, etc.

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby Big Shrimpin » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:16 pm

run26.2 wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:I don't see why someone would not report a market paying job.


Spamfilters?

Because providing the information to the schools is purely voluntary. For instance, I literally just filled out the form for my school. I could choose not to or I could forget or I could be too busy to do so, etc.



Gotcha. I could imagine that, after I start work next fall, I might not notice the requests (especially if email requests) amidst the deluge of firm emails, training, meetings, etc.

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby run26.2 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:19 pm

Big Shrimpin wrote:
run26.2 wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:I don't see why someone would not report a market paying job.


Spamfilters?

Because providing the information to the schools is purely voluntary. For instance, I literally just filled out the form for my school. I could choose not to or I could forget or I could be too busy to do so, etc.



Gotcha. I could imagine that, after I start work next fall, I might not notice the requests (especially if email requests) amidst the deluge of firm emails, training, meetings, etc.

I might have forgotten, except for this thread. Who knows, maybe they would have sent a follow up.

ajmax8
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 11:29 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby ajmax8 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:37 pm

I logged in just to post because I saw that picture. And now it's taken down (rightfully so, on this site), but.....wow.

GeeDubTransfer
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:05 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby GeeDubTransfer » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:18 pm

It is hard to read the initial post and sit back and not say something. I don't really post much on TLS, but I look at this site from time to time. This was on the main feed the other day, and I wanted to address a few things when I had some time. This rant is for both future and current students.

1) I am a transfer (as you can tell from my username), and I think I can provide good insight because of this. My old school was around T50, and I think/thought it was decently well respected. You should hear the horror stories from my old classmates about how their OCI went and how the job search is going for current 3Ls. The legal market sucks. Get over it. This is the world we live in, and it is bad for every school. I knew that before I went to law school, and you should have known that too. Oh, and please do not get me started on my old school’s CSO. I haven’t visited GW’s, but wow my old school’s CSO was a joke. I have heard most school’s CSOs aren’t really great. It is up to you, I guess.
2) Going to any school does not guarantee you Big Law. U of Chicago places the most people (percentage wise – I will come back to this) in NLJ 250 according to LST. Yet, over 40% there do not get Big Law. Further, I know countless people at way better schools than GW without Big Law. Not everyone can get Big Law. Did this student really think everyone should get Big Law and everyone he/she knows should get Big Law at a T20? Let’s be real.
3) I am confused why GW is a target for this student. Do not be mad for your failed research. GW's Big Law placement is commensurate with its ranking. Only BC, BU, and Fordham do better of the lower ranked schools. Those are all good schools who could easily be ranked above GW if the rankings were not such BS. It is not like you have American U placing more in Big Law than GW. Oh wait, American didn't even make the top 50 in Big Law placement. It is not like GW is a T14. GW basically places like its ranking should place (20th v. 22nd). Maybe this student thought he/she was attending a T5.
4) GW places a LOT of students in Big Law. Let’s not just look at the percentages. According to LST, GW places more students in Big Law than every school in America (9th overall) except for GTown, Michigan, NYU, Berk, UVA, Harvard, UPenn, and Columbia. I think the fact that firms are willing to take such a large number of GW kids is actually pretty impressive. That is a lot of students with GW on their resumes entering Big Law. Sure, GW has a lot of students but firms don’t care how many students your school has. The fact is that firms are willing to hire a lot of GW students into Big Law. This must say at least something about the school’s reputation.
4) Big Law is a special beast. Big Law is business. Because of this, grades and journal do not tell the whole story. Someone who shows special qualities can get Big Law (if you don’t know what these are, I can’t help you). This poster seems like a jerk. I am not surprised Big Law didn't want him. He/she would not be fun to work with. Someone mentioned a good amount of their buddies from the softball tournament got Big Law. I am not surprised. Those people are probably cool and would be a blast to work with, in addition to being smart and hard working. Poster would probably be the guy complaining he was called out on strike three looking and he deserves a fourth strike instead of just enjoying the game.
5) As I say with any profession, professional school, or anything in life really, for every bad story there is a good story. One person’s experience should not dissuade you. But you should go in with open eyes and reservations, unlike poster.
6) At my old school, I hated some professors (One in particular. Seriously, this guy was a prick). I also had some great ones. It is the same at GW. Some professors are wonderful, others stink. Professors don’t get hired for teaching skills at any law school and that should be considered a fact. Further, I don’t care about the professors. I came to law school to get a job, not play footsy or became buddies with professors. Is every client going to be a joy to work with? I think not.
7) I have Big Law lined up. I won’t get into particulars because I would be known pretty easily if someone read this thread. All I will say is that my grades from my old school are not deserving of Big Law. But I have other qualities that made me attractive (I am assuming). No I am not a URM. At the end of the day, GW got my foot in the door. We had an enormous OCI compared to my old school and compared with my friends at similarly ranked schools. GW will not get you a job, no school will. If you are weird, can’t dress well, can’t interview well, are not polite, etc., you better be top 5% and on the GW Law Review. If you don’t have persistence, if you don’t want to do whatever it takes to get big law, if you think it should be handed to you, you won’t get big law. GW did, however, get my foot in the right doors. I did the rest. I created my own luck. (I am not IP, by the way. And I have no work experience except for the clothing store I worked at in high school.)
8) If you attend GW, you ARE attending a T20. It is not over ranked. It is not over rated. It is a T20. Look at the hard numbers. Compare it with similarly ranked schools. Compare it with higher ranked schools. Compare it with lower ranked schools. It is a T20. Not a T5 and not a T50. Every school is pretty much getting the screws right now. It is just the way it is. If you want to be guaranteed a big pay out after law school, don’t go to law school because it is not guaranteed no matter where you go.
9) I probably did not cover everything. That is OK. I do not have the time. But I did write a lot, and I have finals to worry about and other stuff to do (as we all do). I will not sit here and say GW is perfect. It is far from it. Most schools probably are far from it as well. I haven’t even been here long enough to give a legitimate appraisal of the school. But this poster is a jerk, and I take offense to his post. I can’t just sit back and let him ream GW for future students to read. Every school is overpriced. No school guarantees a job. Every school has a few or many horrible professors. Not every school places in Big Law. Get over it. Instead of whining on some thread, do something about your situation. GW gives you very good opportunities. You have to seize them yourself.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: From a current GW student- do not go to this school.

Postby Veyron » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:23 pm

2) Going to any school does not guarantee you Big Law. U of Chicago places the most people (percentage wise – I will come back to this) in NLJ 250 according to LST. Yet, over 40% there do not get Big Law. Further, I know countless people at way better schools than GW without Big Law. Not everyone can get Big Law. Did this student really think everyone should get Big Law and everyone he/she knows should get Big Law at a T20? Let’s be real.


Yah mang, U Chicago totes curbstomps Yale when it comes to biglaw placement.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nobiggie, Tiddlywinks and 1 guest