michwolv wrote: It sounds like all she was saying in that e-mail is that, if debt is your only concern, don't worry so much because you can probably get a high-paying job in NYC if you want one. I don't think she is wrong.
Your argument is circular. Your statement above is the very concept that posters have been drawing into question based on available data. You refute it by saying that Michigan students don't want to be in NYC anyway. The school comes back and says, your job in NYC will clear your massive debt; we say, this is not indicated by the same data you dismissed with the assumption NYC was not important; then you say the school is right, plenty of people go to NYC from Michigan, and then there people are again saying, okay, prove it! and you can't.
I won't make a conclusive statement either way because, as you love to point out, how BigZuck or I know, we're not there? Maybe its easy to get to NYC from Michigan AND 82% of Michigan grads hate new york -- but then why would the school itself jump to new york as a definitive example?
Also, you say "Probably". Gottschalk never conditioned it; she said, you can get the job.. if she had told me you can "probably" get the job I'd have a little more respect, but still, "probably" implies 50%+ chance. As referenced above, nowhere is that conclusion supported. So its really more like "maybe" you can get the job to pay off your debt.
My argument is not circular. Try to follow:
1) Most Michigan students do not focus on NYC
2) Those that do are generally able to find work there.
3) If the above poster's only goal is a high-paying job irrespective of location, she should focus on NYC.
4) The above poster has a high likelihood of finding work in NYC.
Premises 1 & 2 are the keys here, but are not really measurable through LST. The counter-argument is far more problematic. It goes like this:
1) A lower percentage of Michigan students work in Biglaw, which is primarily based in NYC.
2) Therefore, a lower percentage of Michigan students are capable of finding work in Biglaw.
The missing premise is the percentage of the class that is seeking
jobs in NYC. Without this premise, the same argument can be used to elevate Penn above Yale.
Edit: I agree that it is unethical for law school administrators to be at all misleading when it comes to job placement. Gottschalk's adcomm should have chosen her words more carefully.