Enough with the GULC bashing

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:38 pm

midwest17 wrote:
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?"


Yep - this. That is why we look at percentages. Absolute numbers are (nearly) meaningless.

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 5:41 pm

BigLaw_Lit wrote: 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.


Also, just want to point out that on the underemployment front, GULC had a relatively good year last year. If we look at the last three years:

Duke: 12, 10, 12 -> avg: 11
Northwestern: 11, 13, 12 -> avg: 12
Cornell: 6, 20, 13 -> avg: 13
Georgetown: 16, 23, 13 -> avg: 17

You don't self-select into unemployment. I know that DC is tough and that GULCers would on the whole probably rather stay there, but at the end of the day, no one is willfully choosing unemployment in DC over getting a job in NYC.

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 5:43 pm

I have pretty much said what I wanted to say - I just want to highlight that none of my claims were biased on absolute numbers - which I agree are not helpful.

Cotiger: Last year is most relevant though. Also, its not like you can suddenly decide to switch markets after failing. Your best bet at biglaw success is likely during OCI.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15475
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:53 pm

OP your hypothesis is reasonable but it's not one on which I'd gamble 200k. Ultimately the problem is the data we can rely on (large firm + fed clerkship) shows GULC behind the rest of the T-14 and you have to look at the rest of the data in a very optimistic light to bring GULC to a point where it's equal to those other schools.

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 5:54 pm

BigLaw_Lit wrote:I have pretty much said what I wanted to say - I just want to highlight that none of my claims were biased on absolute numbers - which I agree are not helpful.

Cotiger: Last year is most relevant though.


:?: So if today were Dec 5, 2012 instead of Dec 5, 2013, and our latest stats were for C/O 2011, then you would agree with my assessment?

Could you explain why data from a class that graduated 5 years before you do is significantly more relevant than data from a class that graduated 6 years before you do?

ETA: Dude, if you want to go to GULC, go to GULC. It's a fine school. But don't go under the impression that it has general employment outcomes equal to the schools ranked above it. I don't know why you're trying to justify the decision in that way.

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

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby redsoxfan1989 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:59 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
midwest17 wrote:
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?"


Yep - this. That is why we look at percentages. Absolute numbers are (nearly) meaningless.


I think the absolute numbers are useful to a point, especially when considering whether to go to a school that does not "feed" new associates to firms in the destination you want to end up. It at least has made me even less keen on Duke considering the paltry number of associates they seem to send produce to Boston. Destination is key when choosing a law school among similarly ranked schools and should not be discounted.

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 6:09 pm

cotiger wrote:
BigLaw_Lit wrote:I have pretty much said what I wanted to say - I just want to highlight that none of my claims were biased on absolute numbers - which I agree are not helpful.

Cotiger: Last year is most relevant though.


:?: So if today were Dec 5, 2012 instead of Dec 5, 2013, and our latest stats were for C/O 2011, then you would agree with my assessment?

Could you explain why data from a class that graduated 5 years before you do is significantly more relevant than data from a class that graduated 6 years before you do?

ETA: Dude, if you want to go to GULC, go to GULC. It's a fine school. But don't go under the impression that it has general employment outcomes equal to the schools ranked above it. I don't know why you're trying to justify the decision in that way.


Sure: The legal market has collapsed in recent years and every market has reacted and recovered differently. New York has been been quickest to recover and DC and Chicago have been slower. Consequently, it is important to look at the latest results to have a better sense of current market conditions.

I can't keep coming back to this thread. I have made a lot of points that I think are valid. If you disagree with me that is fine and there is some evidence to support your conclusions.

redsox: you are right there is some value in absolute numbers in that high sample sizes help substantiate the data. If a class of 2 places everyone in biglaw that is not as impressive as a class of 100 placing everyone in biglaw.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:12 pm

redsoxfan1989 wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:
midwest17 wrote:
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?"


Yep - this. That is why we look at percentages. Absolute numbers are (nearly) meaningless.


I think the absolute numbers are useful to a point, especially when considering whether to go to a school that does not "feed" new associates to firms in the destination you want to end up. It at least has made me even less keen on Duke considering the paltry number of associates they seem to send produce to Boston. Destination is key when choosing a law school among similarly ranked schools and should not be discounted.


I agree with you on your point about destination. When you are moving beyond the T6, destination does become a small factor. For instance (all things equal - which they usually are not) choose Northwestern over Cornell if you want Chicago big law.

However I'm still not sure that looking at the absolute number of associates they send to a given location is all that helpful. I believe percents are more useful. Sure, GULC might send 15 people to Boston, whereas Duke sends 10 (totally made up numbers by the way), but that is a much lower % at GULC due to the much larger class size, meaning your own chances as a student are lower (all things equal).

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 6:15 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:OP your hypothesis is reasonable but it's not one on which I'd gamble 200k. Ultimately the problem is the data we can rely on (large firm + fed clerkship) shows GULC behind the rest of the T-14 and you have to look at the rest of the data in a very optimistic light to bring GULC to a point where it's equal to those other schools.


Tiago I think this is a good place to end the discussion. I just would change "very optimistic" to slightly optimistic. Over half of GULC's grads making 100k+ (without taking into account clerkships) makes its stats pretty close to most t14. Does the DC bias and pi and government bias bridge the gap? Nobody can prove it - but my point is that it might.

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 6:16 pm

BigLaw_Lit wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:OP your hypothesis is reasonable but it's not one on which I'd gamble 200k. Ultimately the problem is the data we can rely on (large firm + fed clerkship) shows GULC behind the rest of the T-14 and you have to look at the rest of the data in a very optimistic light to bring GULC to a point where it's equal to those other schools.


Tiago I think this is a good place to end the discussion. I just would change "very optimistic" to slightly optimistic. Over half of GULC's grads making 100k+ (without taking into account clerkships) makes its stats pretty close to most t14. Does the DC bias and pi and government bias bridge the gap? Nobody can prove it - but my point is that it might.


You keep saying that you're not going to respond anymore, yet you keep responding...

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15475
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:16 pm

lawschool22 wrote:However I'm still not sure that looking at the absolute number of associates they send to a given location is all that helpful. I believe percents are more useful. Sure, GULC might send 15 people to Boston, whereas Duke sends 10 (totally made up numbers by the way), but that is a much lower % at GULC due to the much larger class size, meaning your own chances as a student are lower (all things equal).

Sure if it's 15 to 10 to a given region it's not helpful. But if the dominant office in a smaller market has five GULC grads and no one from Duke that's a point in GULC's favor.

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 6:18 pm

BigLaw_Lit wrote:
cotiger wrote:
BigLaw_Lit wrote:I have pretty much said what I wanted to say - I just want to highlight that none of my claims were biased on absolute numbers - which I agree are not helpful.

Cotiger: Last year is most relevant though.


:?: So if today were Dec 5, 2012 instead of Dec 5, 2013, and our latest stats were for C/O 2011, then you would agree with my assessment?

Could you explain why data from a class that graduated 5 years before you do is significantly more relevant than data from a class that graduated 6 years before you do?

ETA: Dude, if you want to go to GULC, go to GULC. It's a fine school. But don't go under the impression that it has general employment outcomes equal to the schools ranked above it. I don't know why you're trying to justify the decision in that way.


Sure: The legal market has collapsed in recent years and every market has reacted and recovered differently. New York has been been quickest to recover and DC and Chicago have been slower. Consequently, it is important to look at the latest results to have a better sense of current market conditions.


Current market conditions? You'll be graduating in 2017. That's why I made the point that the two classes are 5 and 6 years removed from you. If we could see what the results for the class graduating a year ahead of us were, then sure, that would be much more relevant than older data. The difference in predictive power between graduating classes 5 years prior vs 6 years prior, though, is not significant.
Last edited by cotiger on Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:20 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:However I'm still not sure that looking at the absolute number of associates they send to a given location is all that helpful. I believe percents are more useful. Sure, GULC might send 15 people to Boston, whereas Duke sends 10 (totally made up numbers by the way), but that is a much lower % at GULC due to the much larger class size, meaning your own chances as a student are lower (all things equal).

Sure if it's 15 to 10 to a given region it's not helpful. But if the dominant office in a smaller market has five GULC grads and no one from Duke that's a point in GULC's favor.


I agree with that. If you have pretty specific goals in mind as to where you want to end up, it definitely makes sense to research what the dominate schools are in those places that will be hiring you.

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

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby redsoxfan1989 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:23 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:However I'm still not sure that looking at the absolute number of associates they send to a given location is all that helpful. I believe percents are more useful. Sure, GULC might send 15 people to Boston, whereas Duke sends 10 (totally made up numbers by the way), but that is a much lower % at GULC due to the much larger class size, meaning your own chances as a student are lower (all things equal).

Sure if it's 15 to 10 to a given region it's not helpful. But if the dominant office in a smaller market has five GULC grads and no one from Duke that's a point in GULC's favor.


That's sort of what the situation is like in Boston. I think most Duke grads gun for NY or CA BigLaw anyways judging by the bar exams stats on LST. Ultimately, when it comes to choosing between the bottom end of the T-14, money has to be a huge factor. I wonder if GULC will be generous with aid this cycle to preserve their stats.

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 6:26 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:However I'm still not sure that looking at the absolute number of associates they send to a given location is all that helpful. I believe percents are more useful. Sure, GULC might send 15 people to Boston, whereas Duke sends 10 (totally made up numbers by the way), but that is a much lower % at GULC due to the much larger class size, meaning your own chances as a student are lower (all things equal).

Sure if it's 15 to 10 to a given region it's not helpful. But if the dominant office in a smaller market has five GULC grads and no one from Duke that's a point in GULC's favor.


Is it? I guess it matters for alumni networking, but "Duke didn't send anyone to this market" isn't the same thing as "Duke couldn't have sent anyone to this market," or "I won't get this market if I go to Duke."

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

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby redsoxfan1989 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:31 pm

midwest17 wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:However I'm still not sure that looking at the absolute number of associates they send to a given location is all that helpful. I believe percents are more useful. Sure, GULC might send 15 people to Boston, whereas Duke sends 10 (totally made up numbers by the way), but that is a much lower % at GULC due to the much larger class size, meaning your own chances as a student are lower (all things equal).

Sure if it's 15 to 10 to a given region it's not helpful. But if the dominant office in a smaller market has five GULC grads and no one from Duke that's a point in GULC's favor.


Is it? I guess it matters for alumni networking, but "Duke didn't send anyone to this market" isn't the same thing as "Duke couldn't have sent anyone to this market," or "I won't get this market if I go to Duke."


I think my bottom line point is that although the T-14 schools can place you nationwide, outside of HYS and maybe even the T6 some do better in some markets and worse in others. Do the research. Obviously, this applies more strongly to the lower T14 and getting a legal/substantive JD preferred job period should be the highest priority for prospective law students, but don't discount it.

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 6:36 pm

redsoxfan1989 wrote:I think my bottom line point is that although the T-14 schools can place you nationwide, outside of HYS and maybe even the T6 some do better in some markets and worse in others. Do the research. Obviously, this applies more strongly to the lower T14 and getting a legal/substantive JD preferred job period should be the highest priority for prospective law students, but don't discount it.


All I'm saying is that it's very difficult to do the research because the relevant data isn't available. Ideally, to determine how well a school places in a market, we would compute (number of people who got jobs in X market) / (number of people who were trying to get jobs in X market). The numerator is observable, but the denominator isn't (or rather, we don't have the data for the denominator).

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

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby redsoxfan1989 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:40 pm

midwest17 wrote:
redsoxfan1989 wrote:I think my bottom line point is that although the T-14 schools can place you nationwide, outside of HYS and maybe even the T6 some do better in some markets and worse in others. Do the research. Obviously, this applies more strongly to the lower T14 and getting a legal/substantive JD preferred job period should be the highest priority for prospective law students, but don't discount it.


All I'm saying is that it's very difficult to do the research because the relevant data isn't available. Ideally, to determine how well a school places in a market, we would compute (number of people who got jobs in X market) / (number of people who were trying to get jobs in X market). The numerator is observable, but the denominator isn't (or rather, we don't have the data for the denominator).


I don't think we need to necessarily know how many people sought jobs in a market to get a good read on placement. For example, if the location of firms visiting for 2L and 3L OCI were obtainable, we could ascertain the demand (or, alternatively, interest) in hiring law students from a certain school.

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 6:47 pm

redsoxfan1989 wrote:
midwest17 wrote:
redsoxfan1989 wrote:I think my bottom line point is that although the T-14 schools can place you nationwide, outside of HYS and maybe even the T6 some do better in some markets and worse in others. Do the research. Obviously, this applies more strongly to the lower T14 and getting a legal/substantive JD preferred job period should be the highest priority for prospective law students, but don't discount it.


All I'm saying is that it's very difficult to do the research because the relevant data isn't available. Ideally, to determine how well a school places in a market, we would compute (number of people who got jobs in X market) / (number of people who were trying to get jobs in X market). The numerator is observable, but the denominator isn't (or rather, we don't have the data for the denominator).


I don't think we need to necessarily know how many people sought jobs in a market to get a good read on placement. For example, if the location of firms visiting for 2L and 3L OCI were obtainable, we could ascertain the demand (or, alternatively, interest) in hiring law students from a certain school.


Maybe. But my guess is that firms don't just choose where to go to OCI based on which school's they're willing to hire from; they probably also take into account the likelihood that anyone from that school will be interested in working at the firm.

Of course, if a firm isn't at OCI you're going to have to hustle more to get a job there. But I'm guessing there are small markets that send few/no firms to OCI at Harvard/Yale, but if someone from one of those schools really wanted those markets (even if the school has never in history sent a graduate there) I doubt they'd have trouble.

There are various ways you can gather information about this question. But at the end of the day you're still making assumptions, so it's not as simple as just saying "do the research."

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15475
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:53 pm

midwest17 wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:However I'm still not sure that looking at the absolute number of associates they send to a given location is all that helpful. I believe percents are more useful. Sure, GULC might send 15 people to Boston, whereas Duke sends 10 (totally made up numbers by the way), but that is a much lower % at GULC due to the much larger class size, meaning your own chances as a student are lower (all things equal).

Sure if it's 15 to 10 to a given region it's not helpful. But if the dominant office in a smaller market has five GULC grads and no one from Duke that's a point in GULC's favor.


Is it? I guess it matters for alumni networking, but "Duke didn't send anyone to this market" isn't the same thing as "Duke couldn't have sent anyone to this market," or "I won't get this market if I go to Duke."

The problem is you don't really know what could have been, so we've gotta use the limited data we have. The reality is that people from your school are more likely to go out of their way to help you get hired, and having some people from your school at an office shows that a) the firm actually hires from your school and b) there will probably be some people pulling for you during the process. One thing you can do if you're at this point in your decisionmaking is to look at NALP and see where a particular office does OCI.

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

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby redsoxfan1989 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:54 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
midwest17 wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:However I'm still not sure that looking at the absolute number of associates they send to a given location is all that helpful. I believe percents are more useful. Sure, GULC might send 15 people to Boston, whereas Duke sends 10 (totally made up numbers by the way), but that is a much lower % at GULC due to the much larger class size, meaning your own chances as a student are lower (all things equal).

Sure if it's 15 to 10 to a given region it's not helpful. But if the dominant office in a smaller market has five GULC grads and no one from Duke that's a point in GULC's favor.


Is it? I guess it matters for alumni networking, but "Duke didn't send anyone to this market" isn't the same thing as "Duke couldn't have sent anyone to this market," or "I won't get this market if I go to Duke."

The problem is you don't really know what could have been, so we've gotta use the limited data we have. The reality is that people from your school are more likely to go out of their way to help you get hired, and having some people from your school at an office shows that a) the firm actually hires from your school and b) there will probably be some people pulling for you during the process. One thing you can do if you're at this point in your decisionmaking is to look at NALP and see where a particular office does OCI.


Link to NALP? Great suggestion, many thanks in advance

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15475
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:55 pm

http://www.nalpdirectory.com/

This may not always be 100% accurate and changes from year to year, but generally gives a pretty good idea.

HYSenberg
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:10 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby HYSenberg » Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:37 pm

If you want to go to GULC so badly, go to GULC. Don't get mad because people don't share your prerogative though. That augers poorly for a future law student.

User avatar
jone7007
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:06 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby jone7007 » Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:02 am

I think GULC hiring data is hard to compare to other schools. At GULC you have 2 (large) groups of students, those targeting BIGLAW and those targeting BIG (Federal) Government (me), plus a few targeting PI. Where as at most T14 schools, you have those targeting BIGLAW, plus a few targeting PI and a few targeting BIG Government. It would be interesting if someone better than numbers than I could figure out how to compare placement for those at GULC seeking BIGLAW and BIGLAW salaries with other T14 and some lower schools (like UofT Austin).

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby timbs4339 » Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:47 pm

jone7007 wrote:I think GULC hiring data is hard to compare to other schools. At GULC you have 2 (large) groups of students, those targeting BIGLAW and those targeting BIG (Federal) Government (me), plus a few targeting PI. Where as at most T14 schools, you have those targeting BIGLAW, plus a few targeting PI and a few targeting BIG Government. It would be interesting if someone better than numbers than I could figure out how to compare placement for those at GULC seeking BIGLAW and BIGLAW salaries with other T14 and some lower schools (like UofT Austin).


You might be in the best position to get the %age of students who struck out at OCI from another student or your OCS.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest