Georgetown's surprisingly high acceptance standard (FT)! Forum

[ravens20]

NLJ and Article III Clerkships
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

1. Stanford - 77.1%
2. Yale - 72.1%
3. Harvard - 65.7%
4. Virginia - 65.2%
5. Michigan - 64.9%
6. Columbia - 64.0%
7. Chicago - 63.1%
8. Northwestern - 62.7%
9. Penn - 61.7%
10. Duke - 61.5%
11. Berkeley - 58.1%
12. NYU - 57.4%
13. Vanderbilt - 55.0%
14. Cornell - 52.4%
15. Georgetown - 48.4%
16. Texas - 47.5%
17. USC - 47.2%
18. UCLA - 41.9%
19. Boston College - 38.0%
20. Notre Dame - 37.8%

This is an extremely misleading chart that combines the 2008 pre-crash clerkship data with the 2009 post-crash data for NLJ250. As a result the NYC biglaw feeder schools (Columbia, NYU, Chicago, Penn, Cornell) all take a huge hit in terms of NLJ placement from their 2008 numbers but there is no data to see whether those students who were left out fled to clerkships in the aftermath of the tightened job market. I know for instance that this past year was the best ever for NYU in terms of clerkship placement and I suspect the same increase could be seen in the other schools.

I'm not necessarily saying that Fortissimo is wrong about Gtown (especially looking at its historic placement percentages) but I'm just pointing out that this chart may be deceiving because it is combining two sets of data from two different years.

[Jackie O]

You're making two errors:

1) Assuming FT folks get most of the jobs. This is not true. I've heard from GULC students that firms don't care at OCI, and PT is full of people with WE and connections that help them get jobs. Eg: lots of patent folks go PT while working as an agent for a firm that they'll have an offer at at graduation.

2) Not talking into account the large transfer class in computing your FT/PT breakdown.

1) I was indeed waiting (vainly) for someone with real knowledge to debunk my assumption (the reason I emphasized the word "assume" so many times).
2) Where can I find out the FT/PT breakdown for 2L and 3L? Will the transfer be evident on the final transcript? Just out of curiosity, since you stated that the firms don't care.

I do believe that a fair amount of PT students are there simply because they couldn't get into the FT program in the first place. They mostly likely do not have meaningful connections that would significantly enhance their future job searching. Am I right?

stop hating on PT students - you're being a douche with all of your false assumptions and pissing me off

vast majority of PTers have jobs worth keeping while in law school and that's why they choose PT - also, the gap between PT and FT admissions has closed in a lot this year so stop acting like we're all idiots incapable of landing a job

tyia

also please just stfu:

I think that GULC suffers in ranking whenever people take into account the PT stats. And I do think that, to future employers, there is a difference between the FT program and the PT one.

hope you don't choose gulc and have to deal with us insufferable PT students

[kalvano]

How many schools actually notate the difference between a PT student and a FT student on the actual degree?

I mean, a JD is a JD, regardless of whether it took 3 or 4 years to get.

[rayiner]

You're making two errors:

1) Assuming FT folks get most of the jobs. This is not true. I've heard from GULC students that firms don't care at OCI, and PT is full of people with WE and connections that help them get jobs. Eg: lots of patent folks go PT while working as an agent for a firm that they'll have an offer at at graduation.

2) Not talking into account the large transfer class in computing your FT/PT breakdown.

1) I was indeed waiting (vainly) for someone with real knowledge to debunk my assumption (the reason I emphasized the word "assume" so many times).
2) Where can I find out the FT/PT breakdown for 2L and 3L? Will the transfer be evident on the final transcript? Just out of curiosity, since you stated that the firms don't care.

I do believe that a fair amount of PT students are there simply because they couldn't get into the FT program in the first place. They mostly likely do not have meaningful connections that would significantly enhance their future job searching. Am I right?

There are 100 FT transfers and no PT transfers, so the graduating class has a smaller proportion of PT students than the entering class.

Also, many PT students don't have meaningful connections, but most FT sudents don't either. And while many PT students couldn't get into FT, my research suggests that employers don't really care about the PT status as long as the person had a credible job.

[violinst]

You're making two errors:

1) Assuming FT folks get most of the jobs. This is not true. I've heard from GULC students that firms don't care at OCI, and PT is full of people with WE and connections that help them get jobs. Eg: lots of patent folks go PT while working as an agent for a firm that they'll have an offer at at graduation.

2) Not talking into account the large transfer class in computing your FT/PT breakdown.

1) I was indeed waiting (vainly) for someone with real knowledge to debunk my assumption (the reason I emphasized the word "assume" so many times).
2) Where can I find out the FT/PT breakdown for 2L and 3L? Will the transfer be evident on the final transcript? Just out of curiosity, since you stated that the firms don't care.

I do believe that a fair amount of PT students are there simply because they couldn't get into the FT program in the first place. They mostly likely do not have meaningful connections that would significantly enhance their future job searching. Am I right?

stop hating on PT students - you're being a douche with all of your false assumptions and pissing me off

vast majority of PTers have jobs worth keeping while in law school and that's why they choose PT - also, the gap between PT and FT admissions has closed in a lot this year so stop acting like we're all idiots incapable of landing a job

tyia

also please just stfu:

I think that GULC suffers in ranking whenever people take into account the PT stats. And I do think that, to future employers, there is a difference between the FT program and the PT one.

hope you don't choose gulc and have to deal with us insufferable PT students

You are taking it personally. Please don't. I am a 0L, so all I have are just stats that I can get online. According to LSAC's website, the differences in numbers (mostly in the LSAT) are quite dramatic: PT's 75% = FT's 25% =167. And that was based on the most recent data. Rankings are just numbers as well, and they are based on other numbers. I do think that GULC's ranking (not quality of teaching, quality of life, spirit, morale...) suffers because of PT's lower numbers, but that does not mean in any way that I think PTs are "insufferable" as people. I am certain that many PTs are in the program because they have real jobs, but I am also sure that many of them are there simply because they couldn't get into the FT program in the first place. Even though I am a 0L who doesn't know much, I do think that this is the reality. Am I wrong?

About my assumptions. They are what they are, my educated guesses. They are educated since schools use LSAT scores to partially predict law performances, and law performances are directly linked to employment. I personally do not believe that my LSAT score would predict my performance, but stats are all I have got. Since there are differences in FT/PT stats, I thought that it's meaningful to differentiate the two groups STATISTICALLY (even if the resulting percentages are the same as before). Don't take it personally.

[MF248]

One of the big things that hurts it's ranking is its size. I can't remember if it was Leiter, or Dean Z that said it, (I think it was Dean Z on her blog) but $$ spent per student is one of the largest factors in the USNWR rankings and it hurts schools that have large class sizes & take advantage of economies of scale. I'm pretty sure in the post she even claimed that was the one reason she thinks Yale is ranked over Harvard, and one of the reasons that the T14 is able to stay the same over such a long time -- other schools can't match their endowments what they're able to spend per student.

[soullesswonder]

Maybe I missed it, but appears that no one has called out the OP for assuming that scoring 3 points less on your LSAT destines you to rank in the bottom of your class. That's really the underpinning for his flagrant attempt to throw PT students under the bus.

Btw, I'm sure employers HATE PT students. I can't tell you how many hiring partners have been quoted as saying, "I'm so tired of dealing with these slightly older and more mature students who know how to hold down a meaningful job even while they're grinding through LS..."

[rayiner]

Maybe I missed it, but appears that no one has called out the OP for assuming that scoring 3 points less on your LSAT destines you to rank in the bottom of your class. That's really the underpinning for his flagrant attempt to throw PT students under the bus.

Btw, I'm sure employers HATE PT students. I can't tell you how many hiring partners have been quoted as saying, "I'm so tired of dealing with these slightly older and more mature students who know how to hold down a meaningful job even while they're grinding through LS..."

Since the PT students are only curved against each other, he doesn't even need to make that assumption. He's just making the wildly inaccurate assumption that the PT stigma alone will ensure that the FT students get all the jobs.

[soullesswonder]

Maybe I missed it, but appears that no one has called out the OP for assuming that scoring 3 points less on your LSAT destines you to rank in the bottom of your class. That's really the underpinning for his flagrant attempt to throw PT students under the bus.

Btw, I'm sure employers HATE PT students. I can't tell you how many hiring partners have been quoted as saying, "I'm so tired of dealing with these slightly older and more mature students who know how to hold down a meaningful job even while they're grinding through LS..."

Since the PT students are only curved against each other, he doesn't even need to make that assumption. He's just making the wildly inaccurate assumption that the PT stigma alone will ensure that the FT students get all the jobs.

Didn't know that (although I probably should have guessed due to the different rate of progression) - and that just makes this whole thing more ridiculous.

[violinst]

You're making two errors:

1) Assuming FT folks get most of the jobs. This is not true. I've heard from GULC students that firms don't care at OCI, and PT is full of people with WE and connections that help them get jobs. Eg: lots of patent folks go PT while working as an agent for a firm that they'll have an offer at at graduation.

2) Not talking into account the large transfer class in computing your FT/PT breakdown.

1) I was indeed waiting (vainly) for someone with real knowledge to debunk my assumption (the reason I emphasized the word "assume" so many times).
2) Where can I find out the FT/PT breakdown for 2L and 3L? Will the transfer be evident on the final transcript? Just out of curiosity, since you stated that the firms don't care.

I do believe that a fair amount of PT students are there simply because they couldn't get into the FT program in the first place. They mostly likely do not have meaningful connections that would significantly enhance their future job searching. Am I right?

There are 100 FT transfers and no PT transfers, so the graduating class has a smaller proportion of PT students than the entering class.

Also, many PT students don't have meaningful connections, but most FT sudents don't either. And while many PT students couldn't get into FT, my research suggests that employers don't really care about the PT status as long as the person had a credible job.

Not to be offensive to anyone personally, what is the number of PTs who couldn't get into the FT program and who do not have meaningful jobs/connections? I know that this is a question that's impossible to answer, but I can't leave an obvious rock unturned. While those PTs may very well be very competent, they are in a disadvantaged position I assume, and GULC's employment ranking may suffer as a result. (a statistical issue)

But again, rankings don't mean shit. It's the individuals that will make or break.

[violinst]

Maybe I missed it, but appears that no one has called out the OP for assuming that scoring 3 points less on your LSAT destines you to rank in the bottom of your class. That's really the underpinning for his flagrant attempt to throw PT students under the bus.

Btw, I'm sure employers HATE PT students. I can't tell you how many hiring partners have been quoted as saying, "I'm so tired of dealing with these slightly older and more mature students who know how to hold down a meaningful job even while they're grinding through LS..."

Since the PT students are only curved against each other, he doesn't even need to make that assumption. He's just making the wildly inaccurate assumption that the PT stigma alone will ensure that the FT students get all the jobs.

Didn't know that (although I probably should have guessed due to the different rate of progression) - and that just makes this whole thing more ridiculous.

What do I know? I only thought that a FT program is more credible academically than a PT program, and that the legal profession is a highly academic profession (meritocracy). That's the foundation of my assumption. Is it ridiculous? It is if you say so.

Statistically, with everything else being equal, a large group of students with a 3-point-high LSAT average will LIKELY perform better in law school than a another large group of students with the lower average. This is not true about individuals. Now that rayiner says some PTs may have meaningful connections, I can certainly buy that.

I am arguing things statistically, and so many people take it personally.

[Esc]

The person who pointed out that SCOTUS clerkships are too small of a sample size to be meaningful is right. Its not very helpful when looking at schools to see that School A had 2 SCOTUS clerks compared to School B's 4, or whatever.

But just to jump into the fray...the people who are going back and forth about SCOTUS clerk placement are forgetting one thing: the feeder judges. Not all COA judges are created equal. A disproportionate number of SCOTUS clerks come from the feeder judges, because they are the most prestigious COA judges, and SCOTUS justices are used to using them as clerk pipelines. A school's SCOTUS clerk placement is, from what I understand, directly related to the number of Feeder Clerkship placement.

Feeder judges are not evenly distributed either. They are located on the most prestigious circuits, and many are conservative, because of SCOTUS's conservative bent (justices increasingly tend to hire clerks who ideologically agree with them, and this appears to be especially true for the highly ideological conservative 5 on SCOTUS). From what I understand the D.C. circuit is quite conservative, very prestigious, and very well connected to SCOTUS - note that several justices, including Roberts, were previously D.C. circuit judges.

My guess is that GULC's lower Article III placement and better SCOTUS placement is due to regional bias - while GULC may not be that great for clerkships, its close proximity to the D.C. Circuit allows it to place disproportionately well on that circuit, just as Penn places well in the 3rd, Texas places well in the 5th, and UCLA places well in the 9th. And because so many feeder judges are on the D.C. circuit, this increases the number of GULC grads who are SCOTUS clerk candidates, statistically increasing their chances of getting SCOTUS clerkships.

My $0.02. I didn't look at the numbers, so feel free to correct me if the numbers show I'm completely wrong

[SHARK WEEK!]

I just looked at GULC's data on LSAC's website, and I was surprised to see that the full-time students there have the following numbers:

167/170/172 (this places GULC right between T6 and the rest of T14)
3.42/3.67/3.81

These numbers are better than those of many higher-ranked schools, and I am surprised because GULC does not seem to get much respect here (whether one likes the school is a different matter).
I also looked at the most current employment data
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1
If one assumes that most of those jobs went to full-time students (a reasonable assumption?), then GULC actually does very well placement-wise.

I am not trolling for GULC. I am just genuinely surprised.

GPA Fail. Thoughts?

[Jackie O]

Not to be offensive to anyone personally, what is the number of PTs who couldn't get into the FT program and who do not have meaningful jobs/connections? I know that this is a question that's impossible to answer, but I can't leave an obvious rock unturned. While those PTs may very well be very competent, they are in a disadvantaged position I assume, and GULC's employment ranking may suffer as a result. (a statistical issue)

But again, rankings don't mean shit. It's the individuals that will make or break.

What do I know? I only thought that a FT program is more credible academically than a PT program, and the legal profession is a highly academic profession (meritocracy). That's the foundation of my assumption. Is it ridiculous? It is if you say so.

I am arguing things statistically, and so many people take it personally.

Do not worry violinst; I am not personally offended by you

I am frustrated with your "educated guesses" and would prefer that you stop slamming PT students in all of your posts - don't want you to spread your assumptions to other unknowledgeable 0Ls

[APimpNamedSlickback]

OP, can you provide evidence that quantifies the extent to which PTers are actually putting downward pressure on Georgetown's ranking? GULC's medians are ALREADY on par with many of the schools ranked higher, so I suspect that something other than admissions statistics is at play.

You're really just conjecturing here in a way that I don't think is very helpful.

[rayiner]

You're making two errors:

1) Assuming FT folks get most of the jobs. This is not true. I've heard from GULC students that firms don't care at OCI, and PT is full of people with WE and connections that help them get jobs. Eg: lots of patent folks go PT while working as an agent for a firm that they'll have an offer at at graduation.

2) Not talking into account the large transfer class in computing your FT/PT breakdown.

1) I was indeed waiting (vainly) for someone with real knowledge to debunk my assumption (the reason I emphasized the word "assume" so many times).
2) Where can I find out the FT/PT breakdown for 2L and 3L? Will the transfer be evident on the final transcript? Just out of curiosity, since you stated that the firms don't care.

I do believe that a fair amount of PT students are there simply because they couldn't get into the FT program in the first place. They mostly likely do not have meaningful connections that would significantly enhance their future job searching. Am I right?

There are 100 FT transfers and no PT transfers, so the graduating class has a smaller proportion of PT students than the entering class.

Also, many PT students don't have meaningful connections, but most FT sudents don't either. And while many PT students couldn't get into FT, my research suggests that employers don't really care about the PT status as long as the person had a credible job.

Not to be offensive to anyone personally, what is the number of PTs who couldn't get into the FT program and who do not have meaningful jobs/connections? I know that this is a question that's impossible to answer, but I can't leave an obvious rock unturned. While those PTs may very well be very competent, they are in a disadvantaged position I assume, and GULC's employment ranking may suffer as a result. (a statistical issue)

But again, rankings don't mean shit. It's the individuals that will make or break.

It's hard to say what the precise stats are (what's a meaningful connection?) in any case it's irrelevant. You're assuming that employers distinguish between PT and FT students. They don't. There is a good reason for this: they get to put "JD, Georgetown University" on their firm website either way - the PT degree isn't distinguished in any way.

[violinst]

The person who pointed out that SCOTUS clerkships are too small of a sample size to be meaningful is right. Its not very helpful when looking at schools to see that School A had 2 SCOTUS clerks compared to School B's 4, or whatever.

But just to jump into the fray...the people who are going back and forth about SCOTUS clerk placement are forgetting one thing: the feeder judges. Not all COA judges are created equal. A disproportionate number of SCOTUS clerks come from the feeder judges, because they are the most prestigious COA judges, and SCOTUS justices are used to using them as clerk pipelines. A school's SCOTUS clerk placement is, from what I understand, directly related to the number of Feeder Clerkship placement.

Feeder judges are not evenly distributed either. They are located on the most prestigious circuits, and many are conservative, because of SCOTUS's conservative bent (justices increasingly tend to hire clerks who ideologically agree with them, and this appears to be especially true for the highly ideological conservative 5 on SCOTUS). From what I understand the D.C. circuit is quite conservative, very prestigious, and very well connected to SCOTUS - note that several justices, including Roberts, were previously D.C. circuit judges.

My guess is that GULC's lower Article III placement and better SCOTUS placement is due to regional bias - while GULC may not be that great for clerkships, its close proximity to the D.C. Circuit allows it to place disproportionately well on that circuit, just as Penn places well in the 3rd, Texas places well in the 5th, and UCLA places well in the 9th. And because so many feeder judges are on the D.C. circuit, this increases the number of GULC grads who are SCOTUS clerk candidates, statistically increasing their chances of getting SCOTUS clerkships.

My $0.02. I didn't look at the numbers, so feel free to correct me if the numbers show I'm completely wrong

A sound analysis.

[violinst]

OP, can you provide evidence that quantifies the extent to which PTers are actually putting downward pressure on Georgetown's ranking? GULC's medians are ALREADY on par with many of the schools ranked higher, so I suspect that something other than admissions statistics is at play.

You're really just conjecturing here in a way that I don't think is very helpful.

One of the evidences is that the USNWR ranking combines both the incoming FT and PT stats. If only the FT stats are used, GULC's ranking may be higher (again, nothing against PTs. These are just numbers).

Statistically, if some of the PTs are in a disadvantaged position in OCI solely because of their PT status, and/or some of PTs are favorably sought-after because of their meaningful experiences/connections that can't be otherwise maintained under the FT program, for the purpose of calculating and comparing employment data among T14 schools, GULC's PT stats should be eliminated, since none of the other T14 schools has a PT program . To put it simply, I think that GULC's PT employment stats introduce distortions to a comparison/ranking of T14 employment data

[violinst]

It's hard to say what the precise stats are (what's a meaningful connection?) in any case it's irrelevant. You're assuming that employers distinguish between PT and FT students. They don't. There is a good reason for this: they get to put "JD, Georgetown University" on their firm website either way - the PT degree isn't distinguished in any way.

This is indeed news to me, but I will buy it, though I don't think that my previous assumption that employers do distinguish between PTs and FTs is ridiculous, as someone else said.

By the way, whether one can put down "JD, Georgetown University" on the website is not at all the kind of consideration done by employers (if that's true, GPA wouldn't matter much any more). So I would say that, if firms don't distinguish between PT and FT students, they do it for other (good) reasons, such as the equal competitiveness of the programs and the study bodies.

[Action Jackson]

He probably posted a picture from a site that doesn't allow hotlinking.

GULC gets hated on because of its PT program, its large class size, and its competitive environment. TBH I don't think it's a better school than any of the schools ranked higher than it.

It also has super shitty clerkship placement...(ditto with academia placement).

If OP is going to link employment data, at least add in clerkships please because in general clerkships >> biglaw in terms of how difficult they are to get.

http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2000 ... erks.shtml

Better than UPenn at least. Also, Leiter used the FT+PT number, though I doubt that any one in the PT program would do clerkship. If Leiter had only used the FT number, GULC could have ranked much higher!

I just want to point out that Leiter sorted that list by the number of clerks, NOT by the clerks/class size. The way he rounds the ratio also diminishes the difference between school.

Basically, my point is just that Penn does better than GULC, and if you don't see that from his data you're misreading his data.

[violinst]

He probably posted a picture from a site that doesn't allow hotlinking.

GULC gets hated on because of its PT program, its large class size, and its competitive environment. TBH I don't think it's a better school than any of the schools ranked higher than it.

It also has super shitty clerkship placement...(ditto with academia placement).

If OP is going to link employment data, at least add in clerkships please because in general clerkships >> biglaw in terms of how difficult they are to get.

http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2000 ... erks.shtml

Better than UPenn at least. Also, Leiter used the FT+PT number, though I doubt that any one in the PT program would do clerkship. If Leiter had only used the FT number, GULC could have ranked much higher!

I just want to point out that Leiter sorted that list by the number of clerks, NOT by the clerks/class size. The way he rounds the ratio also diminishes the difference between school.

Basically, my point is just that Penn does better than GULC, and if you don't see that from his data you're misreading his data.

My bad. I only looked at the same Rounded 0.01 percentage and blindly followed Leiter's ranking. I didn't bother to calculate the percentages further to get more accurate results.

[09042014]

OP, can you provide evidence that quantifies the extent to which PTers are actually putting downward pressure on Georgetown's ranking? GULC's medians are ALREADY on par with many of the schools ranked higher, so I suspect that something other than admissions statistics is at play.

You're really just conjecturing here in a way that I don't think is very helpful.

One of the evidences is that the USNWR ranking combines both the incoming FT and PT stats. If only the FT stats are used, GULC's ranking may be higher (again, nothing against PTs. These are just numbers).

USNWR only included PT stats on their rankings on their last rankings. Gtown has been 14 for years.

[violinst]

OP, can you provide evidence that quantifies the extent to which PTers are actually putting downward pressure on Georgetown's ranking? GULC's medians are ALREADY on par with many of the schools ranked higher, so I suspect that something other than admissions statistics is at play.

You're really just conjecturing here in a way that I don't think is very helpful.

One of the evidences is that the USNWR ranking combines both the incoming FT and PT stats. If only the FT stats are used, GULC's ranking may be higher (again, nothing against PTs. These are just numbers).

USNWR only included PT stats on their rankings on their last rankings. Gtown has been 14 for years.

You meant FT stats, right? Interesting to know.

[soullesswonder]

OP, can you provide evidence that quantifies the extent to which PTers are actually putting downward pressure on Georgetown's ranking? GULC's medians are ALREADY on par with many of the schools ranked higher, so I suspect that something other than admissions statistics is at play.

You're really just conjecturing here in a way that I don't think is very helpful.

One of the evidences is that the USNWR ranking combines both the incoming FT and PT stats. If only the FT stats are used, GULC's ranking may be higher (again, nothing against PTs. These are just numbers).

USNWR only included PT stats on their rankings on their last rankings. Gtown has been 14 for years.

You meant FT stats, right? Interesting to know.

.

[SilverE2]

OP, can you provide evidence that quantifies the extent to which PTers are actually putting downward pressure on Georgetown's ranking? GULC's medians are ALREADY on par with many of the schools ranked higher, so I suspect that something other than admissions statistics is at play.

You're really just conjecturing here in a way that I don't think is very helpful.

One of the evidences is that the USNWR ranking combines both the incoming FT and PT stats. If only the FT stats are used, GULC's ranking may be higher (again, nothing against PTs. These are just numbers).

USNWR only included PT stats on their rankings on their last rankings. Gtown has been 14 for years.

You meant FT stats, right? Interesting to know.

Yes, full time stats. Not only that, with Georgetown's increase in their part time standards, Class of 2013 PT stats are bound to be VERY close to their FT stats.