Top Law Schools

UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

<80% FTBR = garbage

starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

<80% FTBR = garbage

84% this year. 79% was last year

starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

HYS
CCNP
DCN
B
MVG

Also, NYC to 190

starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

Kind of, but you figure UVA has to find jobs for roughly ~100 more students than either school; it's why UVA is going for a class size of 300 now rather than ~350. My class, 2015, I think is the last "big" class.

I can also attest to the fact that a lot of folks looking for PI type jobs end up taking the "school funded" job from UVA since it's just a fellowship that you can use at the PI (and some gov I think?) of your choice. So people who might otherwise have been fighting for a firm job or some other kind of employment just end up taking the PI job right out of school, which is what many of them wanted in the first place - obviously I don't have statistics on this, but yeah.

UVAIce wrote:

starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

Kind of, but you figure UVA has to find jobs for roughly ~100 more students than either school; it's why UVA is going for a class size of 300 now rather than ~350. My class, 2015, I think is the last "big" class.

I can also attest to the fact that a lot of folks looking for PI type jobs end up taking the "school funded" job from UVA since it's just a fellowship that you can use at the PI (and some gov I think?) of your choice. So people who might otherwise have been fighting for a firm job or some other kind of employment just end up taking the PI job right out of school, which is what many of them wanted in the first place - obviously I don't have statistics on this, but yeah.

FULL DAMAGE CONTROL

OP should change the thread title to "Ethics in gaming (the #s) journalism"

rpupkin wrote:

Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.

Yeah definitely, I don't disagree with this. It's better than nothing. But say you have a class of 300 people like Emory and you are consistently providing 50 jobs to these students. That is a clear sign that your classes are simply too big.

I could be wrong, but I was also under the impression that only a few of these school funded jobs are genuinely good opportunities.

Moneytrees wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.

Yeah definitely, I don't disagree with this. It's better than nothing. But say you have a class of 300 people like Emory and you are consistently providing 50 jobs to these students. That is a clear sign that your classes are simply too big.

I could be wrong, but I was also under the impression that only a few of these school funded jobs are genuinely good opportunities.

By top schools, I presume he meant only T13

The Dark Shepard wrote:

Moneytrees wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.

Yeah definitely, I don't disagree with this. It's better than nothing. But say you have a class of 300 people like Emory and you are consistently providing 50 jobs to these students. That is a clear sign that your classes are simply too big.

I could be wrong, but I was also under the impression that only a few of these school funded jobs are genuinely good opportunities.

By top schools, I presume he meant only T13

Perhaps, but earlier a poster was discussing these types of jobs in relation to the top 40 schools.

The Dark Shepard wrote:

Moneytrees wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.

Yeah definitely, I don't disagree with this. It's better than nothing. But say you have a class of 300 people like Emory and you are consistently providing 50 jobs to these students. That is a clear sign that your classes are simply too big.
I could be wrong, but I was also under the impression that only a few of these school funded jobs are genuinely good opportunities.

By top schools, I presume he meant only T13

Yeah, I was thinking more about schools like NYU and Berkeley. Outside of the top 10 or so schools, I agree that these school-funded jobs are mostly just devices to game the stats and rankings.

New ones:

108: Catholic (Columbus) - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-46%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46%
113: Seattle - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-49%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49%
122: Hofstra - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-58%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57%
RNP: Ave Maria - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-37%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-36%
RNP: Capital - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-39%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-39%
RNP: Florida Coastal - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-35%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-35%
RNP: Liberty - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-47%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46%
RNP: Northern Kentucky - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
RNP: Puerto Rico - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-16%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-16%
RNP: Widener-DE - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
RNP: Widener-Harrisburg - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-54%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54%

BigZuck wrote:

starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

HYS
CCNP
DCN
B
MVG
MG

Also, NYC to 190

this should be the official roster.. duke in particular has completely screwed things up with its monumental leap

Great job with these links... it would be nice to have all the links on page 1. Thanks.

Saddle Up wrote:Great job with these links... it would be nice to have all the links on page 1. Thanks.

The Links and Data for Top 50 are listed in the spreadsheet's "percentages" worksheet.

2013:


Columbia: 73.2 + 4.8 = 78%
Stanford: 48.5 + 29.4 = 77.8%
Chicago: 62.3 + 10.2 = 72.6%
Harvard: 54.5 + 17.0 = 71.5%
Penn: 59.8 + 9.3 = 69.1%
Cornell: 57.5 + 10.9 = 68.4%
NYU: 58.3 + 8.8 = 67.0%
Yale: 30.5 + 35 = 65.5%
Northwestern: 55.6 + 7.7 = 63.4%
UVA: 50 + 12.9 = 62.9%
Duke: 51.4 + 8.7 = 60.2%
Michigan: 49.4 + 7.8 = 57.1%
Berkeley: 47.8 + 8.0 = 55.8%
GULC: 41.4 + 5.1 = 46.5%
Vanderbilt: 35.9 + 9.2 = 45.1%
Texas: 33.3 + 9.0 = 42.3%
UCLA: 32.5 + 6.9 = 39.5%
Fordham: 34.1 + 2.5 = 36.6%
Boston College: 29.6 + 4.3 = 34%
Notre Dame: 28.3 + 5.4 = 33.7%
USC (LinkRemoved): 29.8 + 3.8 = 33.6%
WUSTL: 29 + 3.3 = 32.3%
Illinois: 24.7 + 3.4 = 28.1%
BU: 24.1 +2.5 = 26.6%
William and Mary: 21.7 + 3.7 = 25.3%
Alabama: 12.0 + 10.2 = 22.3%
Ohio State: 16.9 + 4.4 = 21.3%
Washington and Lee: 16.1 + 3.5 = 19.6%
Minnesota: 13.5 + 3.6 = 17.1%
Wake Forest: 13.2 + 3.1 = 16.3%
Hastings: 13.4 + 1.6 = 15%


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=226198

2010-2013:

Stanford: 77%
Columbia: 74.5%
Penn: 71.25%
Harvard: 70.25%
Chicago: 67.5%
Cornell: 65.25%
Yale: 64.5%
NYU: 63.25%
Northwestern: 60%
Duke: 59.75%
UVA: 58.25%
Berkeley: 57.75%
Michigan: 52%
GULC: 44.25%

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=245071

Tiago Splitter wrote:2013:

Yale: 30.5 + 35 = 65.5%

2010-2013:

Yale: 64.5%

Yale is such a TTTrap

>quoting that whole thing

The Dark Shepard wrote:Yale is such a TTTrap

The crazy thing about the stats we have is the worship of jobs that so many of my classmates did not want, and that many of the people who landed them will exit out of as soon as possible. It would be nice to have some data on how many people land quality PI and government jobs where people actually build careers. For example, I imagine much of the difference between NYU and Columbia has to do with NYU's reputation in PI, but we just can't tell with the current data. Same is true of Yale obviously.

.

USC is here: http://weblaw.usc.edu/assets/docs/caree ... duates.pdf

Like 40 for USC. Pretty solid improvement across the board

Tiago Splitter wrote:Like 40 for USC. Pretty solid improvement across the board

41.01% for BLFD, but a 11% hike in school funded...

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Like 40 for USC. Pretty solid improvement across the board

not bad for a TTT. maybe i won't have to leave USC off my resume

While school size sort of matters, it really isn't as big of a deal as you all are making it out to be. Schools don't really get quotas from firms. It is only a big deal when that school owns a small market and pumps out too many graduates.

The reason why UVA lags is probably two fold. 1) Pre-select system ass fucks everyone not in the top 25%. It gives all the interviews to the people who need them the least. 2) It feeds into DC, which is a tough as hell market.

The reason Columbia, Penn, NYU, and Cornell tend to do better is because people go there looking for NYC Biglaw and that is easy to get.

If everyone at Michigan tried for NYC biglaw, they'd have Penn like numbers.

Trying to get your "chances" of biglaw from what percent got it, doesn't work when you are trying to measure beyond 15-20% accuracy.

When you go below T14, regional biases fuck it up even more.