Top Law Schools

mephistopheles wrote: the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high to not dip below.

Yeah I freely admit I have no idea what the distribution is like typically (if there is in fact a typical case) and how it looks at individual schools. Though I would actually be interested in this if anybody has input about their particular school's distribution (dunno if law students have any idea though).

stillwater wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:
the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution so the median, while the center grade, is not the mean. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high.

yea a 20% bulge seems extreme

I was just throwing an example out there. Grading curves are a black box, which is supposed to be a good thing.

ChampagnePapi wrote:

stillwater wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:
the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution so the median, while the center grade, is not the mean. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high.

yea a 20% bulge seems extreme

I was just throwing an example out there. Grading curves are a black box, which is supposed to be a good thing.

registrars hold inscrutable power

stillwater wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:
the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution so the median, while the center grade, is not the mean. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high.

yea a 20% bulge seems extreme

Or a shit ton of students are at exactly median. In which case, maybe you could say that 70% of the class is at or above median.

InGoodFaith wrote:

stillwater wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:
the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution so the median, while the center grade, is not the mean. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high.

yea a 20% bulge seems extreme

Or a shit ton of students are at exactly median. In which case, maybe you could say that 70% of the class is at or above median.

it seems unlikely that 20% over 50% would be sitting at exactly the same grade to the hundredth.

stillwater wrote: it seems unlikely that 20% over 50% would be sitting at exactly the same grade to the hundredth.

Agreed, but since we don't have an actual GPA number for median, people use the word liberally. I'm guessing even at schools where the median GPA is known, people that are slightly below it classify themselves as having median grades.

InGoodFaith wrote:

stillwater wrote: it seems unlikely that 20% over 50% would be sitting at exactly the same grade to the hundredth.

Agreed, but since we don't have an actual GPA number for median, people use the word liberally. I'm guessing even at schools where the median GPA is known, people that are slightly below it classify themselves as having median grades.

true, in practice you are probably closer to correct.

I know I cannot be the only one who finds Crowing's avatar hilarious. Or maybe I am just immature.

Crowing wrote:

mephistopheles wrote: the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high to not dip below.

Yeah I freely admit I have no idea what the distribution is like typically (if there is in fact a typical case) and how it looks at individual schools. Though I would actually be interested in this if anybody has input about their particular school's distribution (dunno if law students have any idea though).

Maybe we could build a chart that shows what % are above median and what % are below median for each school.

pedestrian wrote:

Crowing wrote:

mephistopheles wrote: the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high to not dip below.

Yeah I freely admit I have no idea what the distribution is like typically (if there is in fact a typical case) and how it looks at individual schools. Though I would actually be interested in this if anybody has input about their particular school's distribution (dunno if law students have any idea though).

Maybe we could build a chart that shows what % are above median and what % are below median for each school.

Schools worth going to don't really disclose the info. So that firms don't create cut offs.

Desert Fox wrote:

pedestrian wrote:

Crowing wrote:

mephistopheles wrote: the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high to not dip below.

Yeah I freely admit I have no idea what the distribution is like typically (if there is in fact a typical case) and how it looks at individual schools. Though I would actually be interested in this if anybody has input about their particular school's distribution (dunno if law students have any idea though).

Maybe we could build a chart that shows what % are above median and what % are below median for each school.

Schools worth going to don't really disclose the info. So that firms don't create cut offs.

meh, firms end up doing it anyways.

stillwater wrote:

pedestrian wrote:

JamesDean1955 wrote:
Theoretically, if the only factor in rankings was NLJ250 Placement (which it shouldn't be, but should definitely be included) then because USC > UCLA in the NLJ250 rankings, then USC > UCLA for USNWR.

Also, they are 15 on USNWR and 16 on this new NLJ250 list.

Are we looking at the same list? I see UCLA at 15 with 29.13% and USC at 16 with 28.64%. That difference is negligible to the point of being irrelevant but I don't see where USC>UCLA --> UCLA should fall in USNWR comes from.

Am I missing something?

Uhhhhhh, who cares about the USNWR?



also BU>BC and UCLA>USC, amirite??????

BU hired back 20% of their class. /end.

BCLS wrote:

stillwater wrote:

pedestrian wrote:

JamesDean1955 wrote:
Theoretically, if the only factor in rankings was NLJ250 Placement (which it shouldn't be, but should definitely be included) then because USC > UCLA in the NLJ250 rankings, then USC > UCLA for USNWR.

Also, they are 15 on USNWR and 16 on this new NLJ250 list.

Are we looking at the same list? I see UCLA at 15 with 29.13% and USC at 16 with 28.64%. That difference is negligible to the point of being irrelevant but I don't see where USC>UCLA --> UCLA should fall in USNWR comes from.

Am I missing something?

Uhhhhhh, who cares about the USNWR?



also BU>BC and UCLA>USC, amirite??????

BU hired back 20% of their class. /end.

I'm just stirring the pot

.

NycReturn wrote:It appears that PT students are reflected in these numbers. I am curious to hear anyone's thoughts on how this could be affecting schools such as Georgetown & Fordham. Is it correct to assume that PT students are less likely to place into NLJ 250 firms than FT at the same school and thus the FT %'s may actually be higher than the number shown on the list? If so, by how much?

Disclosure: I am new to these boards & strongly considering Fordham, so I apologize if this is considered 'trolling.' I am really just trying to get the best sense of my BigLaw employment prospects postgrad.

Impossible to know. But I think if the PT student is trying to get big law, that's fair game. But a school like Gtown may bring in people do law for their normal career. But from what I can tell, the norm is just people trying to be general lawyers.

I would not assume that Fordham FT students do better than PT. PT students are more likely to have professional experience which will help during OCI.

stillwater wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:
the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution so the median, while the center grade, is not the mean. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high.

yea a 20% bulge seems extreme

mephistopheles wrote:

stillwater wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:

Crowing wrote:
This is not actually true. I mean I'm sure firms DO take below median students, but that figure doesn't necessarily imply that.

practically, i think it does.

yea, wut????, how does that mean they don't dip below median?

the idea is that it's a positively skewed normal distribution. see champagnepapi, supra. but, 70% may be a bit high to not dip below.

One thing about Penn that I think can explain this is that Penn students are not allowed to list GPA or ranking or their resume, so it becomes very very difficult for firms to distinguish between the middle 50% or so of the class, thus ending up with a lot of people at median.

If the difference of top 25% and top 75% is like 3.4 vs 3.2 GPA, that's pretty damn hard to eyeball just looking at a giant list of B/B+/A-/A grades.

Some schools just have systems better set up to place people, whereas I hear all the time about UVA's system (OCI and grading systems) fucking people over that aren't at the top of the class

NYU also doesn't allow to put GPA and rank on the resume. I would think most schools in the T14 do the same.

SaintsTheMetal wrote: Some schools just have systems better set up to place people, whereas I hear all the time about UVA's system (OCI and grading systems) fucking people over that aren't at the top of the class

How does UVA's system work? I've heard this a lot on the board too, but I haven't seen specifics.

talesofyore wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote: Some schools just have systems better set up to place people, whereas I hear all the time about UVA's system (OCI and grading systems) fucking people over that aren't at the top of the class

How does UVA's system work? I've heard this a lot on the board too, but I haven't seen specifics.

Why would any school in the top 14 or even top 30 not set up a curve that puts as many students as possible above a 3.0? If you know you have a talent pool that will succeed during SA work and post-grad employment, why wouldn't you fluff the numbers so as too increase your NLJB and employment numbers?

somewhatwayward wrote:

Crowing wrote:

goldeneye wrote:Ouch, WUSTL got hammered. That class was 300 though. New 1L class is only 200.

It's up 3% from last year, which seems to be a pretty average increase considering the overall improvement between this year and last year.

Also posted this in the WUSTL thread:

It's not actually that bad when you consider that the schools ahead of WUSTL are 1) the T14 2) traditionally the 4 schools right outside the T14 (UCLA/UT/Vandy/USC) 3) schools known for being biglaw feeders (Fordham/BC/BU/GWU) 4) the inaugural graduating class of a tiny school that all attended on full schollys (UCI) and 5) UIUC. Lol UIUC is really the only one that surprises me.

That last quote sounds like some serious rationalization. Perhaps that is a little harsh since they basically placed in line with their peers ND and UIUC. I guess I am reacting to that in the context of the crazy blind love in the WUSTL c/o 2016 admissions thread.

I'll chime in a few of my thoughts:

We didn't get "hammered." We're right where we usually are, and up 3% from last year, which is consistent with a slow recovery like the one we're in. I don't think anyone is surprised by this data. Throw in AIII and prestigious state court clerkships and we come in right around 20%, which is about what I would have predicted before this data came out.

A couple of things related to our class demographics tend to hurt us a bit in job placement, and make things look a little worse for incoming 0Ls than they actually are: 1) big transfer classes, 2) decent sized LLM --> JD transfer classes (a lot of the Asian foreign students stick around and get JDs and shoot for jobs here), and 3) in the past few years, much bigger than average class sizes (our class is over 300, the current 1L class is at 200 I think). The transfers and LLM --> JD classes do worse on average than the students who are here from 1L on, and the bigger class size makes it harder to place everyone.

I'm not rationalizing our placement, because it's right where I thought it would be. And no way I would recommend paying sticker or close to it for a WUSTL degree absent some truly unique circumstances. WUSTL is not a biglaw powerhouse by any stretch, and expecting to land it is going to be a fool's errand for most students. But for those of you 0Ls and 1Ls wondering, "What are my odds at an NLJ 250 job if I go to WUSTL?" I'd say around 25%-30% for the c/o 2015-2016, if I were to speculate, due to 1) the number being deflated a bit by the LLM->JDs and transfers (which I'm not including in that estimate), 2) slow but continued market improvement, and 3) most importantly, a much smaller class size.

JamesDean1955 wrote:Penn takes the crown again. Take that, CCN.

hell yeah

law2015 wrote:I would not assume that Fordham FT students do better than PT. PT students are more likely to have professional experience which will help during OCI.

Purely subjective data but the people I know in this year's PT OCI class (that is, those participating in OCI for 2013 SA's) did very well.
(I think that law2015 is on to something - those students who stay in the PT program for the full 4 years do so because they are still working FT; this helps during OCI. Just MHO.)

Aroldis105 wrote:

talesofyore wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote: Some schools just have systems better set up to place people, whereas I hear all the time about UVA's system (OCI and grading systems) fucking people over that aren't at the top of the class

How does UVA's system work? I've heard this a lot on the board too, but I haven't seen specifics.

Why would any school in the top 14 or even top 30 not set up a curve that puts as many students as possible above a 3.0? If you know you have a talent pool that will succeed during SA work and post-grad employment, why wouldn't you fluff the numbers so as too increase your NLJB and employment numbers?

Don't they do this to some extent already?

Isnt Michigan's median GPA also lower than its "peers"?