hume85 wrote: Desert Fox wrote:
Goblin Tacos wrote:Seems like class size makes a big difference for percentage. Look in that range of schools from ND to Emory. Firms seem to just say "we're taking 40 students to fill out what we didn't want from the t14." Or rather the same big firms say we'll take about 2-4 students from these schools and that number just happens to sum up to 40.
I think this is actually a factor. A firm will go to Northwestern and interview with 20 people, give 4-5 a callback. And they'll go to Michigan and give 4-5 a callback. And then to Georgetown and give 4-5 a callback. They are being way more selective at Gulc than Northwestern without intending to be.
It's not always so clear cut because many times a firm will go interview 120 Georgetown students, but I think the trend shows some bias.
I think this may be one of the reasons that Penn outperforms some of its peer schools (MV) when it comes to placement statistics
Honestly though, those placement statistics matter a lot. Do smaller class sizes inflate these percentages? Of course. But smaller class sizes mean less competition, and that placement % is ROUGHLY (of course there are factors such as self-selection, under-reporting, etc. that make placement stats not quite equal to placement ability, but these are common factors across T14 schools) your % shot at obtaining biglaw.
In other words, maybe biglaw will hire 120 students from each of MVP. Does this mean Penn is held in higher regard over M & V? No, they are perceived as peers. But does this mean you have a better shot at getting biglaw from Penn? Of course, it's much easier to be one of the 120 students out of a class of 250 vs. 350, 400, etc.
IMO, this makes MVP NOT peer schools, as there are obvious measurable comparative advantages to attending the school with the smaller class size. Thus there is a disconnect between perception and reality.