BL Partners Study (RED) Rep Feedback Loop (BLUE) (SEE OP) Forum

[pancakes3]

Voicing your opinions absent fact or logic is not analysis.

[dabigchina]

jesus christ can we ban this guy already.

[McJimJam]

Post removed.

[PeanutsNJam]

Why is this thread only 5 pages long, are there not enough people feeding the troll? Allow me.

First, the numbers used by the feedback loop ranking list are completely wrong. At GW, only 77.4% are employed upon graduation, not 81.7%. Secondly, of that 77.4%, 26.9% are school-funded. School-funded jobs are like being the librarian. They're highly undesirable and are akin to being unemployed. That leaves 50.5% of the graduating class that has any long-term full-time JD-required job within 9 months of graduation.

GW's LSAT median is 165, not 167. That is a huge difference.

Lastly, long-term outcomes only include biglaw partnerships, so it is woefully insufficient data. There is self-selection; not everybody wants to be a biglaw partner. Becoming President is a more significant achievement that attaining partnership, correct? You will notice that GW has produced no Presidents of the United States (despite, may I add, a very large graduating class), while Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Northampton, Cincinnati, and Kansas have. I believe these to be solid grounds upon which to exclaim that GW inferior to the aforementioned law schools.

Ah, but you want to address people who choose to enter the private sector? Very well. Of the 134 associates currently working at William and Connolly, the best law firm in DC according to Vault, exactly ONE of them graduated from GW. A powerhouse, indeed. There is also the issue of class size. Last year, GW's class size was 580.

The fact that there is a partner at a firm from GW means they found that job 20 years ago. What anybody should be concerned with is how GW places people into jobs now, and I think as reasonable people, we can agree that the only constant in this world is entropy. And right now (within the last 5-ish years, or however long people stay associates), 1 out of 580 graduates lands a job at the best law firm in DC. Wait, no, this is over the span of multiple years, so it's probably more like one out of thousands of graduates.

Hell, as I briefly scanned the profiles, it turns out most of their associates are from T10 law schools. Barely any are even from Georgetown. So there goes G/G.

[lawschoolftw]

Why is this thread only 5 pages long, are there not enough people feeding the troll? Allow me.

First, the numbers used by the feedback loop ranking list are completely wrong. At GW, only 77.4% are employed upon graduation, not 81.7%. Secondly, of that 77.4%, 26.9% are school-funded. School-funded jobs are like being the librarian. They're highly undesirable and are akin to being unemployed. That leaves 50.5% of the graduating class that has any long-term full-time JD-required job within 9 months of graduation.

GW's LSAT median is 165, not 167. That is a huge difference.

Lastly, long-term outcomes only include biglaw partnerships, so it is woefully insufficient data. There is self-selection; not everybody wants to be a biglaw partner. Becoming President is a more significant achievement that attaining partnership, correct? You will notice that GW has produced no Presidents of the United States (despite, may I add, a very large graduating class), while Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Northampton, Cincinnati, and Kansas have. I believe these to be solid grounds upon which to exclaim that GW inferior to the aforementioned law schools.

Ah, but you want to address people who choose to enter the private sector? Very well. Of the 134 associates currently working at William and Connolly, the best law firm in DC according to Vault, exactly ONE of them graduated from GW. A powerhouse, indeed. There is also the issue of class size. Last year, GW's class size was 580.

The fact that there is a partner at a firm from GW means they found that job 20 years ago. What anybody should be concerned with is how GW places people into jobs now, and I think as reasonable people, we can agree that the only constant in this world is entropy. And right now (within the last 5-ish years, or however long people stay associates), 1 out of 580 graduates lands a job at the best law firm in DC. Wait, no, this is over the span of multiple years, so it's probably more like one out of thousands of graduates.

Hell, as I briefly scanned the profiles, it turns out most of their associates are from T10 law schools. Barely any are even from Georgetown. So there goes G/G.

I lol every time someone says "g/g"."

[downbeat14]

.

[lawschoolftw]

Brianiac you know you should:

Retake the LSAT so you arent stuck at Gw!!! no!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, despite brianiac's brilliant trolling, as a GW alum, it makes me sad that this is what GW is becoming associated with.

[BearLaw]

Brianiac you know you should:

Retake the LSAT so you arent stuck at Gw!!! no!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, despite brianiac's brilliant trolling, as a GW alum, it makes me sad that this is what GW is becoming associated with.

Get mad at your admissions bros.

ITT desperate troll demands replacing meaningless rankings with only slightly less (more?) meaningless stats the rankings are partially based on.

More at 11!

[starry eyed]

So... in other words, GW produces more street-smart attorneys who are slick enough to manipulate their way to partner?

[hairbear7]

If I am concerned about LONG-TERM goals and want to become partner, should I go to G/G over my offers at Yale/Stanford?

[TLSModBot]

If I am concerned about LONG-TERM goals and want to become partner, should I go to G/G over my offers at Yale/Stanford?

Obviously

[The Dark Shepard]

Why is this thread only 5 pages long, are there not enough people feeding the troll? Allow me.

First, the numbers used by the feedback loop ranking list are completely wrong. At GW, only 77.4% are employed upon graduation, not 81.7%. Secondly, of that 77.4%, 26.9% are school-funded. School-funded jobs are like being the librarian. They're highly undesirable and are akin to being unemployed. That leaves 50.5% of the graduating class that has any long-term full-time JD-required job within 9 months of graduation.

You are using two different metrics in this. Only 13.4% of the LTFT legal positions are school-funded. The 26.9% includes short term and part time work funded by the school. Use the asterisk next to the Employment Score, not the total School-Funded Rate.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

This is a fantastic insight on where to go to law school in 1986. Not so helpful for 2015.

[UnicornHunter]

To be fair, I am kind of poking the troll, which I shouldn't do, because I'm supposed to prevent derails in the on-topics.

Briniac, I combined your threads because both are really you just saying "USNWR is wrong," when everyone with any sense on this website believes that already (quoting DaRascal doesn't support anything). Your argument that everyone here is "T14 or bust!!" is based on a really selective, reductive reading of the advice that's given on this site, and I didn't want to see that argument take over two threads rather than one. Whether you're trolling or believe this is the best way to go about your argument, the resulting discussion is unproductive. What do you actually want to accomplish in these conversations?

Okay I understand your point now. It's not that you disagree with my message, but you disagree with how I'm going about doing it. Instead of focusing on what TLS is doing wrong, I should be focusing on why my preferred methods are better. That is a fair criticism. I am going to reset my arguments.

Argument 1
I think long-term outcomes are important, because 9 month outcomes are not as instructive. Although it is no silver bullet, partnership prospects in biglaw happen to serve many purposes. It relates to long term outcomes. It relates to special and unique skills. It relates to not just ivory tower book smarts, but real working knowledge of law. So I'd like to reset this argument by talking about how my combined biglaw partnership ranking can help people choosing to enter the private sector.

Argument 2
I believe there is a reputational positive feedback loop at play. I think this is destructive and is distorting the rankings. I make two assertions. First, I assert that certain schools like Yale and Georgetown have been OVERVALUED by this system. And I assert that other schools may be UNDERVALUED. Second, I assert that using the Tipping the Scales rankings REMOVES THESE DISTORTIONS and gives a more objective view of law school quality.

I thank the board for hearing me out. Let us proceed with an orderly discussion.

JFC, for shits and giggles, I will respond to your post in a disorderly way.


Long term outcomes are important. I agree that Yale has been overvalued, but only because I think all law school is overvalued. Yale is still, hands down, the best law school in the country. I don't want to speak for Nony, but it's pretty clear she agrees with the substance and the format of what you're saying. I mean, there are so many blatant flaws with the partner metrics that it's insane anyone would seriously think they could be anything more meaningful than just kind of useful trivia. As much as we all would like better information on long term outcomes, the fact is there's really not much out there. It's probably because once you get your first job, where you went to school stops being a significant factor in your career progression. Nony did clearly say that you were arguing against a strawman, after all. The study found that there were about 25,000 partners named over the past 25 years. Given that an average of 50,000 people go to law school every year, that study measures the outcomes of 2% of all law graduates.