Tiago Splitter wrote:TemporarySaint wrote:
Why would we assume that they're all decent PI jobs just by looking at random percentages? My statement wasn't intended to just be pointed at NYU (we hear the PI bias bit thrown around at a lot of schools) as we've seen just about every school have huge increase in PI placement ITE and I'm not going to buy that a widespread increase in PI placement is due just to self-selection. It's hard to tell.
I don't think it's hard to tell at all. NYU was pretty consistently around 10% in PI before the class of 2010. I'm sure the 2011 numbers will also show an increase. The rest of the people who had been going to firms appear to have headed to government and clerkships. The only conclusion to draw is that the "self-selection" towards PI/Gov occurred after those searching for firms couldn't get jobs in private practice.
All of which isn't to say that NYU sucks, just that the economy went to shit for a couple of years and people who otherwise would have gone into firms had to find other options. But the 10% going into PI in good times and bad may very well be finding elite PI jobs.
I do enjoy that people have taken this as an opportunity to white knight NYU. Like I said earlier, I was making a general response to ITE PI-selection claims (if you read earlier my response was orginally at a Michigan PI selection claim). I do think it's difficult generally (and especially ITE) to tell who is self-selecting into PI and who is settling for it after striking out. There's some of both. Evidence about 20 above median types can only tell so much considering what percentage 20 people is out of NYU's total class and even percentage of those above median (less than 1%).