Enough with the GULC bashing

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
BigLaw_Lit
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:19 am

Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby BigLaw_Lit » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:05 pm

Unbiased 0L calling it like I see it - I have seen a few threads hinting at this but I am going to say it straight out:

1. 1n 2012, over 50% made over 100k (most at 160k) at graduation. (314/626)

2. Also had 55 Public Interest fellows (in 2013 - likely similar in 2012) and 43 pursued clerkships - might be some overlap but likely not too much. Many of these graduates could have likely got biglaw right after graduation

3. Overwhelmingly targeting DC - the hardest market (only 18% in new york), which is pretty unique among t14.

4. The recent full time classes that released employment stats had median LSATs between 170 and 171 - why would New York firms look at them any differently than Penn and Cornell.

Conclusion: GULC is really just as good as any lower t14.


Sources:
1. http://law.georgetown.edu/careers/ocs/u ... ry-6-5.pdf
2. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/campus-se ... -3-13.docx
Last edited by BigLaw_Lit on Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby californiauser » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:07 pm

Didn't read the links, but are part-timers who already had jobs in law school counted in the post-graduate employment $ amounts?

BigLaw_Lit
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:19 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby BigLaw_Lit » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:09 pm

Yes - but many part timers who are making over 100k after graduation would likely have had to leave their old jobs.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15413
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby sublime » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:14 pm

..

BigLaw_Lit
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:19 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby BigLaw_Lit » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:23 pm

1. Only 112 grads go to New York - why should class size matter. Also I am not convinced large class, while keeping high admission standards is so bad - more alumni and name recognition

2. I am not at GULC is what I meant by unbiased.

3. Based on current stats GULC is pretty similar to Michigan and I think the DC bias and public interest bias accounts for most of the differences between Cornell (In 2009, GULC even beat Cornell on NLJ go to ranking) and possibly even Penn.

Thanks for the points - just trying to start an honest debate.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15413
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby sublime » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:33 pm

..

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby cotiger » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:43 pm

cotiger wrote:Let's also assume that every person working in a SmallLaw firm (1-99 lawyers) wanted to be there. This is HIGHLY unlikely to the point of absurdity, but just for argument let's say it's true. As pointed out earlier, GULC has a lot more of these jobs than other T14.

Next, let's assume that every school-funded job is totally legit and desired. This is unlikely to be the case, as most of these jobs appeared only with the start of the crash, but we'll just go with it. DNC don't really have any school-funded positions, while GULC has a significant number.

[Also assuming all PI and Business jobs are sought-after positions]

The result of this?
Cornell: 94, 76, 85 -> avg: 85
Duke: 85, 82, 85 -> avg: 84
Northwestern: 87, 77, 76 -> avg: 80
Georgetown: 81, 62, 73 -> avg: 72

Notice that GULC is the lowest every single year.

There's one last category that we can add to GULC, though, that raises its scores: JD advantage. Again, it is unlikely (or at least unverifiable) that every single one of these jobs was a sought-after position like biglaw/fedclerk are, but for the sake of argument let's say they were.

Results:
Duke: 87, 87 -> avg: 87
Northwestern: 85, 85 -> avg: 85
Cornell: 76, 85 -> avg: 81
Georgetown: 72, 85 -> avg: 79

The BEST that can be said for GULC is that if we calculate everything using assumptions (some of which are frankly absurd) that are absolutely most favorable to GULC, they STILL come in last. And if, on the other hand, those people who are in 2-10 person law firms weren't actually gunning for SmallLaw, then GULC loses by an even greater amount.

This is in addition to the the significantly higher percentage of unemployed or underemployed students coming out of GULC.

So EVEN IF all of those 2-10 person law firm grads are happy to be there, and we assume that GULC has similar positive placement with other schools, GULC is STILL worse because their negative outcomes are so much higher.


HTH.
Last edited by cotiger on Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15413
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby sublime » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:44 pm

..

User avatar
hephaestus
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby hephaestus » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:57 pm

sublime wrote:Thanks for doing the research I was too lazy to cotiger.

+1.

BigLaw_Lit
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:19 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby BigLaw_Lit » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:10 pm

Thanks for the info cotiger:

Points:

1. You make fun of the large amount of grads in 1-99 people firms (even saying its absurd that these are desirable - the data proves what you call absurd is in fact the truth). The fact is that over 92% of GULC grads in the private sector (who cares if they are at small firms) are making over 100K (seems pretty solid) and like I said over 50% of the class is making over 100k (most making 160k). It just doesn't matter if they were working at small firms

2. You next talk about school-funded positions. GULC has 13.3% according to LST, but students who seek public interest jobs need to take these positions for a little. That doesn't mean they won't have good careers. NYU is supposedly a PI powerhouse but according to LST 12.9% of NYU grads are school funded. If anything the high PI rates prove the PI bias at GULC

3. If there is any school where JD advantage jobs might actually be good jobs its at GULC - lots of JD advantage jobs in government, lobbying etc. We can't assume they are good jobs but we can't assume they aren't. The real question is what is GULC's underemployment rate (LST). In 2012, GULC had 12.8% underemployment, which is similar to Cornell (13.2%), Duke (11.6%), and Northwestern (11.5%)

4. Finally, GULC's DC bias almost definitely hurts its grads - it is widely accepted as the hardest market and its GULCs #1 market. So all things considered GULC is doing pretty darn well.

in the process
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby in the process » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:14 pm

BigLaw_Lit wrote:Unbiased 0L calling it like I see it - I have seen a few threads hinting at this but I am going to say it straight out:

1. 1n 2012, over 50% made over 100k (most at 160k) at graduation. (314/626)

2. Also had 55 Public Interest fellows (in 2013 - likely similar in 2012) and 43 pursued clerkships - might be some overlap but likely not too much. Many of these graduates could have likely got biglaw right after graduation

3. Overwhelmingly targeting DC - the hardest market (only 18% in new york), which is pretty unique among t14.

4. The recent full time classes that released employment stats had median LSATs between 170 and 171 - why would New York firms look at them any differently than Penn and Cornell.

Conclusion: GULC is really just as good as any lower t14.




Sources:
1. http://law.georgetown.edu/careers/ocs/u ... ry-6-5.pdf
2. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/campus-se ... -3-13.docx
Last edited by in the process on Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

in the process
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby in the process » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:16 pm

Ok, so I normally wouldn't get involved in such a discussion being that I'm a 0L, however I do feel I have something to add here.

I was recently given the opportunity (through a family friend) to pick the brain of the chairman/managing partner of a major firm (V50). One of the things I asked him was how he (and other alike firms) views specific schools when hiring and how much of a difference, if any, comparably ranked schools can have over one another.

He basically said the order is H.....Colum........NYU/Penn (he said Penn. is viewed no lesser than NYU). (As an aside, in his mind Columbia is way ahead of Chicago)

When I asked him about Cornell and Georgetown being at the bottom of the T-14 he responded with "what's the T-14, is that the U.S. news rankings?".....when I responded in the affirmative he laughed and said "don't go to Georgetown, although the rankings are generally correct they rely on too many non-essential indicators". He continued "Cornell and Georgetown aren't even close, if you have to choose you should definitely go with Cornell".

Yes, you can argue that his perspective is based solely on his BigLaw experience, but for most people here that's all that matters.

Being that I'd already seen this sentiment expressed ad nauseam on TLS it wasn't much of a surprise to hear him say it, but nonetheless it was a pretty strong confirmation.

BigLaw_Lit
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:19 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby BigLaw_Lit » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:21 pm

Look, I have to get back to my work. I just am getting sick of all the GULC bashing (anecdotal stories or whatever), which I don't think is deserved.

Bottom Line:

Over half of GULC grads make 100k+ even with a probable PI, government, and DC biglaw bias at GULC. It's a good school - I can't prove it but the data helps support is likely just as good as most lower t14.

I'm out

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby twenty » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:32 pm

GULC is definitely underrated for several reasons. The JD-preferred placement is worlds better than JD-preferred placement at most other law schools which often gets overlooked, the DC market is notoriously hard to break into (though is arguably better than NYC in terms of QoL), the PI spots a GULC would get become financially more bearable due to their awesome LRAP, and GULC is actually quite a bit less stingy than TLSers think because people with GULC-negotiable-numbers usually withdraw before negotiating.

However, it's still worse than the rest of the T14.

Conclusion:

T13 > GULC, not T13 >>>>>>>> GULC.

Paul Campos
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby Paul Campos » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:36 pm

I think it's notable that GULC reports salary data for 98% of its private sector grads, but only 31% of its public sector grads. This is especially curious since public sector salaries are generally public as a legal matter. Schools are allowed per NALP standards to report salaries for graduates when graduates don't self-report, if sufficient information is available from other sources for this purpose. Obviously a huge percentage of GULC graduates don't self-report their salaries (at least 69% of those in the public sector). This makes the assertion that GULC managed to determine the salaries of basically all 330+ 2012 graduates who took private sector jobs interesting.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby twenty » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:45 pm

Paul Campos wrote:I think it's notable that GULC reports salary data for 98% of its private sector grads, but only 31% of its public sector grads.


Where is this statistic? I'm curious to see what it is for other schools.

User avatar
midwest17
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby midwest17 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:53 pm

in the process wrote:Ok, so I normally wouldn't get involved in such a discussion being that I'm a 0L, however I do feel I have something to add here.

I was recently given the opportunity (through a family friend) to pick the brain of the chairman/managing partner of a major firm (V50). One of the things I asked him was how he (and other alike firms) views specific schools when hiring and how much of a difference, if any, comparably ranked schools can have over one another.

He basically said the order is H.....Colum........NYU/Penn (he said Penn. is viewed no lesser than NYU). (As an aside, in his mind Columbia is way ahead of Chicago)

When I asked him about Cornell and Georgetown being at the bottom of the T-14 he responded with "what's the T-14, is that the U.S. news rankings?".....when I responded in the affirmative he laughed and said "don't go to Georgetown, although the rankings are generally correct they rely on too many non-essential indicators". He continued "Cornell and Georgetown aren't even close, if you have to choose you should definitely go with Cornell".

Yes, you can argue that his perspective is based solely on his BigLaw experience, but for most people here that's all that matters.

Being that I'd already seen this sentiment expressed ad nauseam on TLS it wasn't much of a surprise to hear him say it, but nonetheless it was a pretty strong confirmation.


Meh. My understanding is that managing partners are never involved in the hiring of new associates.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby cotiger » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:54 pm

To all people (edit: I guess really just OP?) asserting that GULC SmallLaw/School Funded/JD Advantage jobs are legit, and therefore it's awesome:

That was the point of my post. Even if you assume that all of those jobs were gunned for by GULCers, they still come in dead last. It's unlikely that everyone who is working in a 20 person firm would rather be there than in biglaw, but even if we assume that they do, GULC comes in dead last.

As twentypercentmore noted, it's T13>GULC, not T13>>>>>GULC, but there's still absolutely a notable difference.

GULC has some specific things going for it compared to the 13 schools above them. But general employment results are not one of them.
Last edited by cotiger on Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Campos
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby Paul Campos » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:55 pm

twentypercentmore wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:I think it's notable that GULC reports salary data for 98% of its private sector grads, but only 31% of its public sector grads.


Where is this statistic? I'm curious to see what it is for other schools.


It's in the employment stats linked in the OP

User avatar
midwest17
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby midwest17 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:59 pm

cotiger wrote:To all people asserting that GULC SmallLaw/School Funded/JD Advantage jobs are legit:

That was the point of my post. Even if you assume that all of those jobs were gunned for by GULCers, they still come in dead last. It's unlikely that everyone who is working in a 20 person firm would rather be there than in biglaw, but even if we assume that they do, GULC comes in dead last.

As twentypercentmore noted, it's T13>GULC, not T13>>>>>GULC, but there's still absolutely a notable difference.

GULC has some specific things going for it compared to the 13 schools above them. But general employment results are not one of them.


You've claimed this in several threads, but it's not quite right. Your analysis looks at the assumption "all SmallLaw/PI/JDA... jobs are legit." That's different from the "Georgetown's PI, etc jobs are more likely to be legit than other T14s PI, etc jobs" assumption, which is what I think people are claiming.

BigLaw_Lit
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:19 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby BigLaw_Lit » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:04 pm

I said I was done but I can't help myself.

Cotiger and Twenty:

My point is once you establish according to just raw stats t13>GULC but not t13>>>GULC. (I think more than half making 100k+ establishes this)

You have to wonder what impact the Government and PI Bias and the DC biglaw bias has on GULC. I can't prove it but I don't think it is unreasonable to claim that if I student wants New York that he/she will have just as easy of a time at GULC and at Michigan.

Firm jobs aren't an exact science, according to the OCI threads plenty of people from Columbia, NYU, and Penn missed biglaw. At a certain point you have to say the schools are similar and it is way more important what their grades are and what markets they are looking for.
Last edited by BigLaw_Lit on Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby cotiger » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:12 pm

midwest17 wrote:
cotiger wrote:To all people asserting that GULC SmallLaw/School Funded/JD Advantage jobs are legit:

That was the point of my post. Even if you assume that all of those jobs were gunned for by GULCers, they still come in dead last. It's unlikely that everyone who is working in a 20 person firm would rather be there than in biglaw, but even if we assume that they do, GULC comes in dead last.

As twentypercentmore noted, it's T13>GULC, not T13>>>>>GULC, but there's still absolutely a notable difference.

GULC has some specific things going for it compared to the 13 schools above them. But general employment results are not one of them.


You've claimed this in several threads, but it's not quite right. Your analysis looks at the assumption "all SmallLaw/PI/JDA... jobs are legit." That's different from the "Georgetown's PI, etc jobs are more likely to be legit than other T14s PI, etc jobs" assumption, which is what I think people are claiming.


True.

But Duke and Cornell don't really have JD advantage jobs (Cornell is literally zero), and Northwestern's can also be reasonably claimed as legit due to the b-school connection. Counting GULC's but not Northwestern's strikes me as absurd.

Twentypercentmore explained how PI jobs aren't ones that you can just waltz into after striking out of biglaw, and furthermore it strikes me as perfectly reasonable that ~7% of Northwestern grads would want to go into PI. Counting GULC's 20%+ and not those others strikes me as absurd.

I've never seen any kind of justification why GULC's SmallLaw results are desirable, while other T14 schools' are not. If anyone could place into desirable SmallLaw, it would be Yale, and 95% of Yalies going into private practice go to biglaw. This tells me that people prefer biglaw. Why would you count GULC's SmallLaw as desirable, but not DNC? That strikes me as.. you guessed it.. absurd.

ETA: Certainly, though, GULC's big advantage is in DC PI. It can be superior for DC PI while still having worse overall employment outcomes.

The point is that for the average person who is going to law school without a super specific end result in mind, GULC is going to be worse than the rest of the T14. If, on the other hand, you do have a very specific end result that you value very highly and that plays into GULC's strengths (ie DC-centric PI or DC biglaw), then GULC makes sense. This is the same reasoning that if all you want to do is have a small practice in West Virginia, it makes more sense to go to the University of West Virginia than it does to go to Columbia. That doesn't mean that WV is on the same level as CLS.
Last edited by cotiger on Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

redsoxfan1989
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby redsoxfan1989 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:21 pm

FWIW as someone who is likely to be debating GULC, Michigan, Cornell, and Duke (unless I get some surprising news in the next few months), I looked up the numbers of BigLaw associates on the top firms' websites in my target market (Boston). Surprisingly, GULC produced more associates than those other three schools. Some of this may be a matter of the number of grads GULC produces every year, but it was still a surprise nonetheless.

User avatar
midwest17
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby midwest17 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:24 pm

redsoxfan1989 wrote:FWIW as someone who is likely to be debating GULC, Michigan, Cornell, and Duke (unless I get some surprising news in the next few months), I looked up the numbers of BigLaw associates on the top firms' websites in my target market (Boston). Surprisingly, GULC produced more associates than those other three schools. Some of this may be a matter of the number of grads GULC produces every year, but it was still a surprise nonetheless.


It's probably mostly to do with class size. "Number of GULCers in X firm" isn't a very good metric when what you're really curious about is "how likely am I to get a job at this firm if I go to GULC?"

willmendel
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:07 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby willmendel » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:30 pm

Just based on what I'm seeing in the posts, the big viewpoint that the OP and mostly everyone else disagrees about was already stated, but apparently not noted:


sublime wrote:All good man. The self selection is a decent point to make, but even with self selection into PI, they still have the lowest employment score and highest unemplyment rate (I believe) in the T14. Not to mention the almost 15% school funded jobs.

Also, the not giving out scholarship money thing hurts. They run it like a diploma mill.



OP, it's not the GULC is a bad school. It's still the 14th best school in the country and one of the best schools in the world. It's just that law schools seem to self-divide into tiers, based on employment.

Harvard, yale, and standford are at the top. They all have insane numbers. But beyond these three, there's a noticeable dropoff.

Then, there's CCN. They all place similar to one another, and then there's another slight dropoff. This continues down the t-13, but for the most part, the middle of the t-13 places about the same and the lower t-13 places about the same relative to each other.

But then, there's GULC. the dropoff from the lower t-13 to gulc is significant. But, the dropoff from gulc to EVERY OTHER law school is also significant. What people are saying when they say the 'gulc sucks' or whatever is that it's the worst t-14.

If you were on a website called tippy-top-law-schools, they'd be saying that CCN sucks and making the same relativistic claims. And if you were on a website called pretty-damn-good-law-schools, they'd be talking about how good gulc, ucla, ut, vandy, etc all are and how much schools like emory, notre dame, BU, etc all suck.

another way to think about it: If you were looking at it linearly, say that you made a graph of employment rates. 100 was at the top, and 0 was at the bottom. I'm making these numbers up fr dramatic effect, but it's almost as if HYS were all plateaued together around 95... say, 94, 95, and 96. And then, CCN all plateaued around 85: like 84, 85, 85. And then the middle of the t-14 were all around 80, and the lower t-13 was all clustered around 75.

Gulc would be alone around 65, and UT/vandy/ucla/ucs/etc would be clustered around 55. Yes, gulc is a great school. but the numbers show that it's consistently worse than the rest of the t-14 and the dropoff, while still keeping gulc far above any non-t-14 school, is steep. These numbers above are made up so you can visualize the difference easier. It's hard to really see the big gaps when you're dealing with great schools placing like 90% and terrible schools placing like 65%. But, on a condensed scale, these numbers aren't too far off (relatively).




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests