Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

GULC v UMich?

Poll ended at Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:26 pm

GULC
18
35%
UMich
33
65%
 
Total votes: 51

User avatar
Hand
Posts: 3524
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Hand » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:38 pm

envisciguy wrote:
User1855 wrote:
envisciguy wrote:Are you taking into account the COL difference between DC and Ann Arbor? I have to assume that rent and COL in general is much cheaper in Ann Arbor and would offset part of the COA difference.


I didn't include COL bc my spouse has a good/portable job that will pay for COL in either city. COA calculated above is just tuition + books/supplies + accumulated interest - scholarships.


I don't understand this reasoning though. If you're paying substantially more in one city than another, that should be part of the calculation, regardless of the pot the money is actually coming from. Over the course of 3 years, the difference between the schools when factoring COL could make the schools much more comparable in terms of cost.


not if the income that is paying for this varies with the COL in the two areas

envisciguy
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby envisciguy » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:43 pm

Hand wrote:
envisciguy wrote:
User1855 wrote:
envisciguy wrote:Are you taking into account the COL difference between DC and Ann Arbor? I have to assume that rent and COL in general is much cheaper in Ann Arbor and would offset part of the COA difference.


I didn't include COL bc my spouse has a good/portable job that will pay for COL in either city. COA calculated above is just tuition + books/supplies + accumulated interest - scholarships.


I don't understand this reasoning though. If you're paying substantially more in one city than another, that should be part of the calculation, regardless of the pot the money is actually coming from. Over the course of 3 years, the difference between the schools when factoring COL could make the schools much more comparable in terms of cost.


not if the income that is paying for this varies with the COL in the two areas


Do you know that to be true in OP's case? OP said it was a "good/portable job." I assumed that meant the pay would be comparable in either place. If it changes based on location, then of course that should be a consideration as well and OP is justified in ignoring it.

User1855
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:46 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby User1855 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:48 pm

.
Last edited by User1855 on Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bruinfan10
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby bruinfan10 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:53 pm

TheodoreKGB wrote:
zacharus85 wrote:
TheodoreKGB wrote:You said you're focused on BigLaw, and Georgetown is cheaper, so I'd say Georgetown.

Most recent BigLaw #'s (2014):

Michigan: 43.3% of the class, 169 grads

Georgetown: 44.9% of the class, 281 grads

TheoKGB - you're not factoring in Federal Clerks, who go on to BigLaw. Umich has 41, GULC has 22. There is literally no reason to exclude clerks.

Everybody loves a soothsayer

Great point, it's complete speculation to say those federal clerks are going to land on their feet when they inevitably have to face the music and go through a real hiring process that leads to a permanent position. I mean, what's the difference between an AIII clerkship and a school funded fellowship, really? Both are temp positions, they pay in the same ballpark (poorly), schools rely on both to make their employment stats look better.

Very nice work zach--you've identified yet another way Michigan apologists are trying to make their rotting TTT look like a T10, which is arguably a more important metric than this T14 distinction people keep throwing around. This lates annual employment datapoint establishes that Michigan=GULC, end of story.

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10736
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Capitol_Idea » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:59 pm

bruinfan10 wrote:
TheodoreKGB wrote:
zacharus85 wrote:TheoKGB - you're not factoring in Federal Clerks, who go on to BigLaw. Umich has 41, GULC has 22. There is literally no reason to exclude clerks.

Everybody loves a soothsayer

Great point, it's complete speculation to say those federal clerks are going to land on their feet when they inevitably have to face the music and go through a real hiring process that leads to a permanent position. I mean, what's the difference between an AIII clerkship and a school funded fellowship, really? Both are temp positions, they pay in the same ballpark (poorly), schools rely on both to make their employment stats look better.

Very nice work zach--you've identified yet another way Michigan apologists are trying to make their rotting TTT look like a T10, which is arguably a more important metric than this T14 distinction people keep throwing around. This lates annual employment datapoint establishes that Michigan=GULC, end of story.

That is some epic trolling - just beautiful. I was actually angry at first until I did a double-take.

User avatar
bruinfan10
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby bruinfan10 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:42 pm

zacharus85 wrote:
bruinfan10 wrote:
TheodoreKGB wrote:
zacharus85 wrote:TheoKGB - you're not factoring in Federal Clerks, who go on to BigLaw. Umich has 41, GULC has 22. There is literally no reason to exclude clerks.

Everybody loves a soothsayer

Great point, it's complete speculation to say those federal clerks are going to land on their feet when they inevitably have to face the music and go through a real hiring process that leads to a permanent position. I mean, what's the difference between an AIII clerkship and a school funded fellowship, really? Both are temp positions, they pay in the same ballpark (poorly), schools rely on both to make their employment stats look better.

Very nice work zach--you've identified yet another way Michigan apologists are trying to make their rotting TTT look like a T10, which is arguably a more important metric than this T14 distinction people keep throwing around. This latest annual employment datapoint establishes that Michigan=GULC, end of story.

That is some epic trolling - just beautiful. I was actually angry at first until I did a double-take.

Get OUT of here with your god damn crystal ball, madame tussaud!

shadowfax
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:39 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby shadowfax » Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:03 pm

Michigan.

True the school is in an irreversible downward spiral. Detroit does not exist so there is no real local hiring market. They have put up beautiful new facilities. They just put in a program guaranteeing a 1L summer stipend. They have replaced their career services department.

Liberal? They have make a few odd recent hires that I think reinforces that vibe, from schools that seldom produce law professors, but in general it is law school and the vast majority of Prof's are top notch.

Georgetown is big with over 1700 students which when I visited I found overwhelming. Harvard size, but not Harvard. Ann Arbor is a great town.

biglawhopeful18
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby biglawhopeful18 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:29 pm

.
Last edited by biglawhopeful18 on Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

biglawhopeful18
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby biglawhopeful18 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:36 pm

.
Last edited by biglawhopeful18 on Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby OneLisfun » Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:52 am

zacharus85 wrote:Again: This is incredibly short-sighted.

Let's look at 2013 BL + FC, for instance:

GULC - 300/645 = 46.5%
UMich - 228/399 = 57%

Also, that year Georgetown had 11.3% school-funded jobs. That is bad. In contrast, UMich had 3. Not percent. 3 jobs. which is less than 1%. UMich, in the long run, does way better by a clear margin.

Edit: Also, GULC has a small endowment fund so is dependent on large class sizes. Which means it either has to get less selective (hurting it in the rankings and for future hiring) as fewer people go to law school or it has to forgo money it desperately needs to function.



Your numbers are incorrect. Michigan did not have 3 students with school-funded jobs that year, they had 14 (you left out the short-term guys). Additionally, I'd just like to point out that people acting as though a school like Michigan and a school like GULC have equivalent government prospects is not in accord with the opinion of almost anyone who works in prestigious government in DC, and it is likely that the students with government jobs at GULC have better ones than the people who have those jobs at UMich. Lastly, students at Georgetown on the whole apply for more competitive markets on average than students at UMich, so if the poster wants only DC or NY, I don't see how one could argue that UMich is clearly the better choice when what separates them in the most recent year we have data for is about 5% (easily at least around that difference is accounted for by people at UMich not going after as competitive of markets).
Just to clarify my point, a school like Duke is in a less competitive market, but it's numbers are consistently so much higher than GULC's that it's clear Duke will have the better employment prospects, even in NY, enough so that it would be wise to choose it over GULC, but this does not seem to be the case for UMich. A person who wants NY big law should choose which of these two schools he/she prefers based on the scholarship money and where he/she would prefer to live for three years.

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10736
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Capitol_Idea » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:19 am

OneLisfun wrote:
zacharus85 wrote:Again: This is incredibly short-sighted.

Let's look at 2013 BL + FC, for instance:

GULC - 300/645 = 46.5%
UMich - 228/399 = 57%

Also, that year Georgetown had 11.3% school-funded jobs. That is bad. In contrast, UMich had 3. Not percent. 3 jobs. which is less than 1%. UMich, in the long run, does way better by a clear margin.

Edit: Also, GULC has a small endowment fund so is dependent on large class sizes. Which means it either has to get less selective (hurting it in the rankings and for future hiring) as fewer people go to law school or it has to forgo money it desperately needs to function.



Your numbers are incorrect. Michigan did not have 3 students with school-funded jobs that year, they had 14 (you left out the short-term guys). Additionally, I'd just like to point out that people acting as though a school like Michigan and a school like GULC have equivalent government prospects is not in accord with the opinion of almost anyone who works in prestigious government in DC, and it is likely that the students with government jobs at GULC have better ones than the people who have those jobs at UMich. Lastly, students at Georgetown on the whole apply for more competitive markets on average than students at UMich, so if the poster wants only DC or NY, I don't see how one could argue that UMich is clearly the better choice when what separates them in the most recent year we have data for is about 5% (easily at least around that difference is accounted for by people at UMich not going after as competitive of markets).
Just to clarify my point, a school like Duke is in a less competitive market, but it's numbers are consistently so much higher than GULC's that it's clear Duke will have the better employment prospects, even in NY, enough so that it would be wise to choose it over GULC, but this does not seem to be the case for UMich. A person who wants NY big law should choose which of these two schools he/she prefers based on the scholarship money and where he/she would prefer to live for three years.


For future reference - we intentionally leave out short-term job people on all sides - we count them in the 'unemployed' category because long-term their job prospects are still unknown. The best, if imperfect, metric we have for finding out if a school is 'worth it' is Full-Time Long-Term Big-Law and Federal Clerkships, with a side-eye thrown at School Funded 'Long-Term' positions.

Additionally, we don't need anecdata about 'prestigious government' jobs (lol) - we have hard numbers. Georgetown hires into government work at a slightly higher rate (Umich 43/390 = 11%, GULC 87/626 = 13.9%), but A. this isn't a significant difference and B. government work (ESPECIALLY entry-level) is not 'prestigious' - the pay does not make up for sticker debt and we're generally not talking BigFed like DOJ, etc. Your better bet for 'prestigious' government work is to come from certain BigLaw firms (Think WilmerHale, Simpson Thacher to some extent, etc.). Again, this swings in favor of UMich.

AGAIN, this time with emphasis, we are looking at UMich in a slump year vs. GULC going as hard as it can. If we assume that UMich will not be able to leverage its past success and prior penetration of major markets to bounce back, then *maybe* there is an argument here. Even then I'd still pick UMich over GULC because GULC is facing some serious problems to which it has no solution: too many students, not enough of an endowment to reduce class size, and a heavy reliance on transfers.

Are you a UMich student? If so, I'd gladly welcome some actual intel on what's going on up there that would indicate a GULC preference. If you're a GULC student, then you are a bad person for recommending the school and should be ashamed. I am a GULC student, by the way, and I'm not about to begin apologizing for the school (even though I did just fine at EIW/OCI I'm not blind to the school's overall failings).

If you are not at either school or, God forbid, a 0L, then desperately bad things need to happen with your genitals and a blender. Good day.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby ConfusedL1 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:40 am

zacharus85 wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:
zacharus85 wrote:Again: This is incredibly short-sighted.

Let's look at 2013 BL + FC, for instance:

GULC - 300/645 = 46.5%
UMich - 228/399 = 57%

Also, that year Georgetown had 11.3% school-funded jobs. That is bad. In contrast, UMich had 3. Not percent. 3 jobs. which is less than 1%. UMich, in the long run, does way better by a clear margin.

Edit: Also, GULC has a small endowment fund so is dependent on large class sizes. Which means it either has to get less selective (hurting it in the rankings and for future hiring) as fewer people go to law school or it has to forgo money it desperately needs to function.


Your numbers are incorrect. Michigan did not have 3 students with school-funded jobs that year, they had 14 (you left out the short-term guys). Additionally, I'd just like to point out that people acting as though a school like Michigan and a school like GULC have equivalent government prospects is not in accord with the opinion of almost anyone who works in prestigious government in DC, and it is likely that the students with government jobs at GULC have better ones than the people who have those jobs at UMich. Lastly, students at Georgetown on the whole apply for more competitive markets on average than students at UMich, so if the poster wants only DC or NY, I don't see how one could argue that UMich is clearly the better choice when what separates them in the most recent year we have data for is about 5% (easily at least around that difference is accounted for by people at UMich not going after as competitive of markets).
Just to clarify my point, a school like Duke is in a less competitive market, but it's numbers are consistently so much higher than GULC's that it's clear Duke will have the better employment prospects, even in NY, enough so that it would be wise to choose it over GULC, but this does not seem to be the case for UMich. A person who wants NY big law should choose which of these two schools he/she prefers based on the scholarship money and where he/she would prefer to live for three years.


For future reference - we intentionally leave out short-term job people on all sides - we count them in the 'unemployed' category because long-term their job prospects are still unknown. The best, if imperfect, metric we have for finding out if a school is 'worth it' is Full-Time Long-Term Big-Law and Federal Clerkships, with a side-eye thrown at School Funded 'Long-Term' positions.

Additionally, we don't need anecdata about 'prestigious government' jobs (lol) - we have hard numbers. Georgetown hires into government work at a slightly higher rate (Umich 43/390 = 11%, GULC 87/626 = 13.9%), but A. this isn't a significant difference and B. government work (ESPECIALLY entry-level) is not 'prestigious' - the pay does not make up for sticker debt and we're generally not talking BigFed like DOJ, etc. Your better bet for 'prestigious' government work is to come from certain BigLaw firms (Think WilmerHale, Simpson Thacher to some extent, etc.). Again, this swings in favor of UMich.

AGAIN, this time with emphasis, we are looking at UMich in a slump year vs. GULC going as hard as it can. If we assume that UMich will not be able to leverage its past success and prior penetration of major markets to bounce back, then *maybe* there is an argument here. Even then I'd still pick UMich over GULC because GULC is facing some serious problems to which it has no solution: too many students, not enough of an endowment to reduce class size, and a heavy reliance on transfers.

Are you a UMich student? If so, I'd gladly welcome some actual intel on what's going on up there that would indicate a GULC preference. If you're a GULC student, then you are a bad person for recommending the school and should be ashamed. I am a GULC student, by the way, and I'm not about to begin apologizing for the school (even though I did just fine at EIW/OCI I'm not blind to the school's overall failings).

If you are not at either school or, God forbid, a 0L, then desperately bad things need to happen with your genitals and a blender. Good day.


You sound like a bitterly let down person.

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10736
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Capitol_Idea » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:45 am

Top 5% of class, going to V10. So no.

I just keep my eyes open and don't drink the Kool-Aid. I encourage others to do the same so they don't end up in debt they can't pay.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby ConfusedL1 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:58 am

zacharus85 wrote:Top 5% of class, going to V10. So no.

I just keep my eyes open and don't drink the Kool-Aid. I encourage others to do the same so they don't end up in debt they can't pay.


Glad to hear you're not in a bad position (I mean that sincerely)

Maybe some honey would help more than a blender for encouragement? :P

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10736
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Capitol_Idea » Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:20 am

Stick around TLS in general and grab some popcorn - I *am* the honey.

And advice is rarely seriously targeted to any individual - but meant to stay in the thread for future readers with similar questions. The occasional lambasting of people is what makes it fun.

User avatar
tealeaves12
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:49 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby tealeaves12 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:43 am

.
Last edited by tealeaves12 on Fri May 01, 2015 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby OneLisfun » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:08 am

zacharus85 wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:
zacharus85 wrote:Again: This is incredibly short-sighted.

Let's look at 2013 BL + FC, for instance:

GULC - 300/645 = 46.5%
UMich - 228/399 = 57%

Also, that year Georgetown had 11.3% school-funded jobs. That is bad. In contrast, UMich had 3. Not percent. 3 jobs. which is less than 1%. UMich, in the long run, does way better by a clear margin.

Edit: Also, GULC has a small endowment fund so is dependent on large class sizes. Which means it either has to get less selective (hurting it in the rankings and for future hiring) as fewer people go to law school or it has to forgo money it desperately needs to function.



Your numbers are incorrect. Michigan did not have 3 students with school-funded jobs that year, they had 14 (you left out the short-term guys). Additionally, I'd just like to point out that people acting as though a school like Michigan and a school like GULC have equivalent government prospects is not in accord with the opinion of almost anyone who works in prestigious government in DC, and it is likely that the students with government jobs at GULC have better ones than the people who have those jobs at UMich. Lastly, students at Georgetown on the whole apply for more competitive markets on average than students at UMich, so if the poster wants only DC or NY, I don't see how one could argue that UMich is clearly the better choice when what separates them in the most recent year we have data for is about 5% (easily at least around that difference is accounted for by people at UMich not going after as competitive of markets).
Just to clarify my point, a school like Duke is in a less competitive market, but it's numbers are consistently so much higher than GULC's that it's clear Duke will have the better employment prospects, even in NY, enough so that it would be wise to choose it over GULC, but this does not seem to be the case for UMich. A person who wants NY big law should choose which of these two schools he/she prefers based on the scholarship money and where he/she would prefer to live for three years.


For future reference - we intentionally leave out short-term job people on all sides - we count them in the 'unemployed' category because long-term their job prospects are still unknown. The best, if imperfect, metric we have for finding out if a school is 'worth it' is Full-Time Long-Term Big-Law and Federal Clerkships, with a side-eye thrown at School Funded 'Long-Term' positions.

Additionally, we don't need anecdata about 'prestigious government' jobs (lol) - we have hard numbers. Georgetown hires into government work at a slightly higher rate (Umich 43/390 = 11%, GULC 87/626 = 13.9%), but A. this isn't a significant difference and B. government work (ESPECIALLY entry-level) is not 'prestigious' - the pay does not make up for sticker debt and we're generally not talking BigFed like DOJ, etc. Your better bet for 'prestigious' government work is to come from certain BigLaw firms (Think WilmerHale, Simpson Thacher to some extent, etc.). Again, this swings in favor of UMich.

AGAIN, this time with emphasis, we are looking at UMich in a slump year vs. GULC going as hard as it can. If we assume that UMich will not be able to leverage its past success and prior penetration of major markets to bounce back, then *maybe* there is an argument here. Even then I'd still pick UMich over GULC because GULC is facing some serious problems to which it has no solution: too many students, not enough of an endowment to reduce class size, and a heavy reliance on transfers.

Are you a UMich student? If so, I'd gladly welcome some actual intel on what's going on up there that would indicate a GULC preference. If you're a GULC student, then you are a bad person for recommending the school and should be ashamed. I am a GULC student, by the way, and I'm not about to begin apologizing for the school (even though I did just fine at EIW/OCI I'm not blind to the school's overall failings).

If you are not at either school or, God forbid, a 0L, then desperately bad things need to happen with your genitals and a blender. Good day.




1) I didn't suggest anyone go to either of these schools, I suggested that the differences between the hard numbers between the two are small enough that the decision of which school to go to should be based on other things that are not the raw percentages, especially when considering everything.

2) Regardless of what "we" (I assume this means people on TLS) do, you are saying to me that I am a bad person for recommending GULC, when the reality here is that you are clearly just putting up numbers to make an argument for UMich that are not properly representative of the situation over there: "That is bad. In contrast, UMich had 3. Not percent. 3 jobs. which is less than 1%. UMich, in the long run, does way better by a clear margin." If you think the best metric is whatever you wrote out in the post I'm quoting from you, that should be the metric you use when talking about a school, not picking out and misrepresenting a small piece of data to make UMich look good.

3) Yes, we do need anecdata about government jobs, because those percentages just tell you how many people have government jobs, not where they're located or what the jobs are. I'm aware there are stats that say the overall percentage of students in government jobs. (Again though, maybe the two schools are similar in this area. Maybe they're not.)


4) You say GULC is in a boom year, I would call that a trend, as would many others (it went up 3% from last year, not 10, as it went up from its numbers the year before that). UMich, on the other hand, went down a solid amount. (A rough analogy (that obviously has its flaws); think of stocks, one does not just average the last five data points, one looks at trends as well as where the numbers have been.)

5) You never addressed what I said about GULC having students who try for more competitive markets. Again, this means that when looking at raw percentages alone, it's safe to say that for someone who will be trying for NY, the amount higher that UMich is for the total amount of people who will be working at any large firm is misrepresenting the reality of how much (if at all) better it is for getting NY big law.

Edit: Last thing. You wrote that GULC is facing some problems to which it has no solutions, but what problems are these exactly? Yes, they have a large class size, yet they seem to have been improving year over year. If anything, it looks like UMich is the one that may have these kinds of systemic problems you refer to (in reality though, I don't buy into this on either side. Both schools give you about a 50-50 shot at getting big law or a federal clerkship, and neither school seems to have any problems that will prevent them from doing this in the future. Sacrificing three years of your life for an extremely negligibly, possibly nonexistent, better chance at big law does not make sense, especially if you're also going to have to pay more money for it.) My basic point in all of this is these schools are the same idea, if you want to save people from debt by stopping them from going to GULC, I just can't see how you would see UMich as good enough to take the gamble.

That is all.

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10736
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Capitol_Idea » Thu Apr 16, 2015 11:34 am

1) The difference, long-term, is not small enough such that GULC is clearly equal or even close to UMich.

2) The metric I'm using is the most commonly and most logically rigorous, for the reasons I already gave upthread.

Read literally any other thread where competent people are discussing how to analyze outcomes. Here, I found one for you:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=245859

3) The people I know here who obtained government jobs had prior connections/experience (GULC's evening division skews this). This is irrelevant for general analysis because NO entry-level government jobs pay near enough to justify sticker-debt (which OP is taking on) and it's irrelevant here because OP isn't seeking government jobs anyway.

4) I did not say GULC is in a boom year. There is a big difference between 'boom year' and 'barely treading water,' the latter being a much more accurate characterization. There was a very moderate gain in percentages (less than 2%) - BUT this came from a reduction in class size (645 to 626) rather than a boost in Long-term BigLaw employment (300 up to 303 - WOW!). Also it's important to put this in the context of the market - GULC got a serious hit in the recession because of its history of shady practices that barely keep it in the t14. It's recovering but it is still consistently behind the rest of the pack.

5) I didn't address it because it is dumb. No one who has ever seriously been through OCI thinks students try for one market, fail, and then just don't get employed. People generally bid multiple markets, and will downgrade to secondary markets if they have to in order to get employed. In any case, we don't have the data to suggest whether more people who get into these big markets in either school are getting BigLaw jobs or something crappy just to keep on surviving, so it's kind of moot.

Regarding GULC problems: I've already said upthread a decent bit about this: Applications to law schools are down and the law economy isn't getting better. GULC has institutional issues that prevent it from meaningfully adapting to this: it can't cut class size because of a small endowment (they need the tuition money), and they can't reduce their reliance on transfers (like OP) for the same reason. OP will be one among many transfers at GULC (100! That is a criminal amount). As belts tighten, GULC is not going to be able to keep up. If we look, say, 3 years back at 2011 numbers, we see that UMich was rocking 44% BigLaw employment compared to GULC's 37%. Is that super huge? No - not enough to justify sticker debt vs. scholly. But $30K? I'd pay that for that little bit of extra security any day of the week.

krads153
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby krads153 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:31 pm

zacharus85 wrote:1) The difference, long-term, is not small enough such that GULC is clearly equal or even close to UMich.

2) The metric I'm using is the most commonly and most logically rigorous, for the reasons I already gave upthread.

Read literally any other thread where competent people are discussing how to analyze outcomes. Here, I found one for you:

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 2&t=245859

3) The people I know here who obtained government jobs had prior connections/experience (GULC's evening division skews this). This is irrelevant for general analysis because NO entry-level government jobs pay near enough to justify sticker-debt (which OP is taking on) and it's irrelevant here because OP isn't seeking government jobs anyway.

4) I did not say GULC is in a boom year. There is a big difference between 'boom year' and 'barely treading water,' the latter being a much more accurate characterization. There was a very moderate gain in percentages (less than 2%) - BUT this came from a reduction in class size (645 to 626) rather than a boost in Long-term BigLaw employment (300 up to 303 - WOW!). Also it's important to put this in the context of the market - GULC got a serious hit in the recession because of its history of shady practices that barely keep it in the t14. It's recovering but it is still consistently behind the rest of the pack.

5) I didn't address it because it is dumb. No one who has ever seriously been through OCI thinks students try for one market, fail, and then just don't get employed. People generally bid multiple markets, and will downgrade to secondary markets if they have to in order to get employed. In any case, we don't have the data to suggest whether more people who get into these big markets in either school are getting BigLaw jobs or something crappy just to keep on surviving, so it's kind of moot.

Regarding GULC problems: I've already said upthread a decent bit about this: Applications to law schools are down and the law economy isn't getting better. GULC has institutional issues that prevent it from meaningfully adapting to this: it can't cut class size because of a small endowment (they need the tuition money), and they can't reduce their reliance on transfers (like OP) for the same reason. OP will be one among many transfers at GULC (100! That is a criminal amount). As belts tighten, GULC is not going to be able to keep up. If we look, say, 3 years back at 2011 numbers, we see that UMich was rocking 44% BigLaw employment compared to GULC's 37%. Is that super huge? No - not enough to justify sticker debt vs. scholly. But $30K? I'd pay that for that little bit of extra security any day of the week.



Also let's keep in mind that Michigan was possibly the last T-14 to cut down class sizes (I personally don't think the admin are on top of their game). Since the most recent employment numbers came out for class of 2014, Michigan has cut its class size by 40 to 50, so I expect that the BL+Clerkship numbers will go up for Michigan for classes of 2016 onward (i think they cut for class of 2016 onward...), whereas GULC already cut its class size for the class of 2014.

Michigan also has one of the biggest endowments of all of the law schools, so if it uses that to cut class sizes even more, it would probably improve BL+clerkship percentages drastically. I honestly think all law schools should just cut down to like 200; if everyone were as small as Cornell, etc. then larger schools like Mich, etc. should have even better BL+clerkship percentages.
Last edited by krads153 on Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hand
Posts: 3524
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Hand » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:33 pm

So, OP, what did you decide?

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby OneLisfun » Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:10 pm

zacharus85 wrote:1) The difference, long-term, is not small enough such that GULC is clearly equal or even close to UMich.

2) The metric I'm using is the most commonly and most logically rigorous, for the reasons I already gave upthread.

Read literally any other thread where competent people are discussing how to analyze outcomes. Here, I found one for you:

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 2&t=245859

3) The people I know here who obtained government jobs had prior connections/experience (GULC's evening division skews this). This is irrelevant for general analysis because NO entry-level government jobs pay near enough to justify sticker-debt (which OP is taking on) and it's irrelevant here because OP isn't seeking government jobs anyway.

4) I did not say GULC is in a boom year. There is a big difference between 'boom year' and 'barely treading water,' the latter being a much more accurate characterization. There was a very moderate gain in percentages (less than 2%) - BUT this came from a reduction in class size (645 to 626) rather than a boost in Long-term BigLaw employment (300 up to 303 - WOW!). Also it's important to put this in the context of the market - GULC got a serious hit in the recession because of its history of shady practices that barely keep it in the t14. It's recovering but it is still consistently behind the rest of the pack.

5) I didn't address it because it is dumb. No one who has ever seriously been through OCI thinks students try for one market, fail, and then just don't get employed. People generally bid multiple markets, and will downgrade to secondary markets if they have to in order to get employed. In any case, we don't have the data to suggest whether more people who get into these big markets in either school are getting BigLaw jobs or something crappy just to keep on surviving, so it's kind of moot.

Regarding GULC problems: I've already said upthread a decent bit about this: Applications to law schools are down and the law economy isn't getting better. GULC has institutional issues that prevent it from meaningfully adapting to this: it can't cut class size because of a small endowment (they need the tuition money), and they can't reduce their reliance on transfers (like OP) for the same reason. OP will be one among many transfers at GULC (100! That is a criminal amount). As belts tighten, GULC is not going to be able to keep up. If we look, say, 3 years back at 2011 numbers, we see that UMich was rocking 44% BigLaw employment compared to GULC's 37%. Is that super huge? No - not enough to justify sticker debt vs. scholly. But $30K? I'd pay that for that little bit of extra security any day of the week.



One thing I would just like to separate here is the difference between a school being worse overall and worse for getting NY big law. I am not claiming that Michigan is not better for a person who is from Chicago who wants Chicago big law (I'm not sure about this, but it's probably true I guess).

Regardless of the students trying for one market and failing thing, it is a fact that if a student puts half his bids into DC and he has a 20% chance at each of those firms based on his gpa, and then puts in the other half of his bids into the market where he has a 40% chance at each firm, and at a separate school, that same student with the same prospects puts all 100% of his bids into the market with the 40% chance per firm, and this scenario happens numerous times (or other ones like it) on the whole, yes, I do believe that could account for around 5% or so of a difference that wouldn't be there otherwise.

We all know that Georgetown does not have a true home market, because while it is easier to get DC big law from there than other comparable schools, it is still harder to get than NY, so for purposes of this discussion, it could be said to have the equivalent of no home market.

Georgetown's three largest employers are DC, NY, and Cali, with DC being the largest by far. UMich, on the other hand, has as its top 3 as NY, Illinois, and Michigan. (about 14% are in Michigan) (Interestingly, they both have about the same exact percentage in NY, not that I believe that to be dispositive at all, just interesting.)

I understand that there's no piece of paper with an exact percentage on it like the stats you like, and which I also like and understand are the main thing to look at, but to discount everything that can't be known entirely when we see these clear pieces of evidence that conservatively would account for at least a 3% difference, when there's a 5% difference or in a certain type of year, a 7% difference between GULC and UMich, that is really not enough to choose UMich over GULC for NY if there's any other reason the person has to prefer GULC.

To take an exaggerated example of this, we can all look at UT's employment stats and in certain years decide that UT must be about the same for NY big law as GULC. The percentages show it, and you can't prove otherwise, but if you use your common sense, it is clear that UT has many students from Texas there who are trying for Texas and getting it and then making the school have large employment numbers that would not apply to a market like NY or DC, and furthermore, would not apply to any person going there who is not from Texas, and especially not to anyone from NY or DC. In this case, if you are at all reasonable, in a year where UT and GULC had the same placement, I think you'd agree that it almost certainly took far less for a person at GULC to have gotten NY big law that year than a similar person who was at UT that year.

UMich is a far lesser version of that. However, 14% in Michigan, a 14% that does not exist at GULC for any market, is a hard number that I think would be worth looking at when comparing the two schools, rather than simply adding up the big law plus fed clerk number at both schools and comparing them. 7% (being generous here in my opinion) doesn't look as good when you start looking at these things. That number starts to seem more like, at best, a 3 or 4% better chance at NY big law (and in a year where they are 5% apart like the most recent year, 1-2%)

krads153
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby krads153 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:25 pm

OneLisfun wrote:
zacharus85 wrote:1) The difference, long-term, is not small enough such that GULC is clearly equal or even close to UMich.

2) The metric I'm using is the most commonly and most logically rigorous, for the reasons I already gave upthread.

Read literally any other thread where competent people are discussing how to analyze outcomes. Here, I found one for you:

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 2&t=245859

3) The people I know here who obtained government jobs had prior connections/experience (GULC's evening division skews this). This is irrelevant for general analysis because NO entry-level government jobs pay near enough to justify sticker-debt (which OP is taking on) and it's irrelevant here because OP isn't seeking government jobs anyway.

4) I did not say GULC is in a boom year. There is a big difference between 'boom year' and 'barely treading water,' the latter being a much more accurate characterization. There was a very moderate gain in percentages (less than 2%) - BUT this came from a reduction in class size (645 to 626) rather than a boost in Long-term BigLaw employment (300 up to 303 - WOW!). Also it's important to put this in the context of the market - GULC got a serious hit in the recession because of its history of shady practices that barely keep it in the t14. It's recovering but it is still consistently behind the rest of the pack.

5) I didn't address it because it is dumb. No one who has ever seriously been through OCI thinks students try for one market, fail, and then just don't get employed. People generally bid multiple markets, and will downgrade to secondary markets if they have to in order to get employed. In any case, we don't have the data to suggest whether more people who get into these big markets in either school are getting BigLaw jobs or something crappy just to keep on surviving, so it's kind of moot.

Regarding GULC problems: I've already said upthread a decent bit about this: Applications to law schools are down and the law economy isn't getting better. GULC has institutional issues that prevent it from meaningfully adapting to this: it can't cut class size because of a small endowment (they need the tuition money), and they can't reduce their reliance on transfers (like OP) for the same reason. OP will be one among many transfers at GULC (100! That is a criminal amount). As belts tighten, GULC is not going to be able to keep up. If we look, say, 3 years back at 2011 numbers, we see that UMich was rocking 44% BigLaw employment compared to GULC's 37%. Is that super huge? No - not enough to justify sticker debt vs. scholly. But $30K? I'd pay that for that little bit of extra security any day of the week.



One thing I would just like to separate here is the difference between a school being worse overall and worse for getting NY big law. I am not claiming that Michigan is not better for a person who is from Chicago who wants Chicago big law (I'm not sure about this, but it's probably true I guess).

Regardless of the students trying for one market and failing thing, it is a fact that if a student puts half his bids into DC and he has a 20% chance at each of those firms based on his gpa, and then puts in the other half of his bids into the market where he has a 40% chance at each firm, and at a separate school, that same student with the same prospects puts all 100% of his bids into the market with the 40% chance per firm, and this scenario happens numerous times (or other ones like it) on the whole, yes, I do believe that could account for around 5% or so of a difference that wouldn't be there otherwise.

We all know that Georgetown does not have a true home market, because while it is easier to get DC big law from there than other comparable schools, it is still harder to get than NY, so for purposes of this discussion, it could be said to have the equivalent of no home market.

Georgetown's three largest employers are DC, NY, and Cali, with DC being the largest by far. UMich, on the other hand, has as its top 3 as NY, Illinois, and Michigan. (about 14% are in Michigan) (Interestingly, they both have about the same exact percentage in NY, not that I believe that to be dispositive at all, just interesting.)

I understand that there's no piece of paper with an exact percentage on it like the stats you like, and which I also like and understand are the main thing to look at, but to discount everything that can't be known entirely when we see these clear pieces of evidence that conservatively would account for at least a 3% difference, when there's a 5% difference or in a certain type of year, a 7% difference between GULC and UMich, that is really not enough to choose UMich over GULC for NY if there's any other reason the person has to prefer GULC.

To take an exaggerated example of this, we can all look at UT's employment stats and in certain years decide that UT must be about the same for NY big law as GULC. The percentages show it, and you can't prove otherwise, but if you use your common sense, it is clear that UT has many students from Texas there who are trying for Texas and getting it and then making the school have large employment numbers that would not apply to a market like NY or DC, and furthermore, would not apply to any person going there who is not from Texas, and especially not to anyone from NY or DC. In this case, if you are at all reasonable, in a year where UT and GULC had the same placement, I think you'd agree that it almost certainly took far less for a person at GULC to have gotten NY big law that year than a similar person who was at UT that year.

UMich is a far lesser version of that. However, 14% in Michigan, a 14% that does not exist at GULC for any market, is a hard number that I think would be worth looking at when comparing the two schools, rather than simply adding up the big law plus fed clerk number at both schools and comparing them. 7% (being generous here in my opinion) doesn't look as good when you start looking at these things. That number starts to seem more like, at best, a 3 or 4% better chance at NY big law (and in a year where they are 5% apart like the most recent year, 1-2%)


TL;only skimmed.....not sure what you're getting at. Just wanted to point out that there is basically no such thing as "biglaw" in the state of Michigan....so I don't think that Michigan's BL+federal clerkship numbers even count firm employment in the state of Michigan. A lot of Michigan people want to stay in Michigan and these people don't look elsewhere even if they have competitive grades...but that's not even counted in the biglaw numbers, so what's your point again?

Anyway Michigan reduced its class size after these numbers came out by 40 to 50, so that should only help. GULC on the other hand is still accepting massive amounts of transfers.

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10736
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Capitol_Idea » Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:29 pm

Too many words all around. Yes there may be some self-selection. Yes there may be nuances based on which market you're targeting. Our difference is that Onelisfun doesn't think the difference trumps the grey area nuance, and I think it does long-term.

Also this:

Hand wrote:So, OP, what did you decide?

User avatar
gilessanderson
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:10 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby gilessanderson » Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:36 pm

Someone please correct me if i'm wrong, but if you're referring to GULCs intent to enroll form to hold onto your scholarship, from my understanding it's not binding. You could submit it and still go to umich. Just a heads of if you want a little more time to think about it

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: Have to decide TODAY - GULC v UMich

Postby Moneytrees » Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:44 pm

Well one thing in GULC's favor is that they have decreased their class sizes. Maybe not by as much as they should have, but still, it's a step in the right direction. In this case, it's such a close call that I think OP should decide based on other factors, like where he/she wants to spend 3 years for school.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CMac86, MikkelVilla and 3 guests