Top Law Schools

Aren't Duke and UVA reasonable comparisons though? Like they both probably have their fair share of people who are averse to NYC and who want difficult southern markets or DC. Maybe Michigan has a slightly larger PI crowd but it can't be the only explanation.

Like I know a chill, sociable median URM female who struck out among others, so Michigan kind of confuses me.

Mal Reynolds wrote:Aren't Duke and UVA reasonable comparisons though? Like they both probably have their fair share of people who are averse to NYC and who want difficult southern markets or DC. Maybe Michigan has a slightly larger PI crowd but it can't be the only explanation.

Duke and UVA were barely ahead of Michigan before this year though. No idea what's going on at this point with Michigan.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Aren't Duke and UVA reasonable comparisons though? Like they both probably have their fair share of people who are averse to NYC and who want difficult southern markets or DC. Maybe Michigan has a slightly larger PI crowd but it can't be the only explanation.

Duke and UVA were barely ahead of Michigan before this year though. No idea what's going on at this point with Michigan.

Maybe without having a real home market they've been banished to the bottom of the T14 with the only other T14 with that situation? I don't know.

OneLisfun wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Aren't Duke and UVA reasonable comparisons though? Like they both probably have their fair share of people who are averse to NYC and who want difficult southern markets or DC. Maybe Michigan has a slightly larger PI crowd but it can't be the only explanation.

Duke and UVA were barely ahead of Michigan before this year though. No idea what's going on at this point with Michigan.

Maybe without having a real home market they've been banished to the bottom of the T14 with the only other T14 with that situation? I don't know.

I can believe that it's better than Detroit but is Duke's home market really much of a thing?

And what other T14 are you referring to?

BigZuck wrote:

OneLisfun wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Aren't Duke and UVA reasonable comparisons though? Like they both probably have their fair share of people who are averse to NYC and who want difficult southern markets or DC. Maybe Michigan has a slightly larger PI crowd but it can't be the only explanation.

Duke and UVA were barely ahead of Michigan before this year though. No idea what's going on at this point with Michigan.

Maybe without having a real home market they've been banished to the bottom of the T14 with the only other T14 with that situation? I don't know.

I can believe that it's better than Detroit but is Duke's home market really much of a thing?

And what other T14 are you referring to?

GULC

Doesnt GULC have a home market though?

BigZuck wrote:Doesnt GULC have a home market though?

Not in my opinion because DC is much harder to get than NY, even from GULC. The idea of a home market is schools having markets that because of their location are actually easier to get than NY from that school. So the NY schools get a NY boost, Chicago schools it's easier to get Chicago than NY, UT (not a T14 but whatever) has Texas which is easier to get from there than NY, it is widely believed that from UVA or Duke there are certain areas to get in the south that are easier to get from those schools than NY, etc. From GULC, NY is easier to get than DC, so in effect, GULC does not have a real home market. Home market meaning a market students can get from a given school that is easier to get than NYC, thereby increasing employment numbers.

Mal Reynolds wrote:Aren't Duke and UVA reasonable comparisons though? Like they both probably have their fair share of people who are averse to NYC and who want difficult southern markets or DC. Maybe Michigan has a slightly larger PI crowd but it can't be the only explanation.

But aren't southern markets only difficult because they are so ties sensitive? I think people with southern ties would be more likely to go to these schools at which point biglaw (or at least 100+ firms that count for this metric) from them would be easy to get in these markets. Personal anecdotal experience has been most people with southern ties got 1L SAs regardless of grades at NU, which I would think was indicative of 2L.

OneLisfun wrote:The idea of a home market is schools having markets that because of their location are actually easier to get than NY from that school. So the NY schools get a NY boost, Chicago schools it's easier to get Chicago than NY, UT (not a T14 but whatever) has Texas which is easier to get from there than NY,

Honestly, I think the self-selection factor for UT students choosing Texas over NYC is underrated. If more UT students sought NYC (and that means paying to go to NYC for the job fair because few NYC firms come to OCI), I think UT's placement in NYC would be much higher. From what I've seen, NYC big law is just as attainable as Texas big law with the caveat that grades seem to matter a bit more, while personality & connections matter a lot less. For an out of state student w/o strong Texas ties, I would suspect NYC would be easier than Houston or Dallas.

OneLisfun wrote:

BigZuck wrote:Doesnt GULC have a home market though?

Not in my opinion because DC is much harder to get than NY, even from GULC. The idea of a home market is schools having markets that because of their location are actually easier to get than NY from that school. So the NY schools get a NY boost, Chicago schools it's easier to get Chicago than NY, UT (not a T14 but whatever) has Texas which is easier to get from there than NY, it is widely believed that from UVA or Duke there are certain areas to get in the south that are easier to get from those schools than NY, etc. From GULC, NY is easier to get than DC, so in effect, GULC does not have a real home market. Home market meaning a market students can get from a given school that is easier to get than NYC, thereby increasing employment numbers.

I don't think this characterization is really accurate. At least from the Chicago schools, NY is definitely still easier than Chicago. I'm guessing NY is still easier than everywhere else. The issue is more just DC is particularly difficult, mostly as a function of who is bidding there. DC from UChicago my year was actually fairly easy.

shifty_eyed wrote:

OneLisfun wrote:The idea of a home market is schools having markets that because of their location are actually easier to get than NY from that school. So the NY schools get a NY boost, Chicago schools it's easier to get Chicago than NY, UT (not a T14 but whatever) has Texas which is easier to get from there than NY,

Honestly, I think the self-selection factor for UT students choosing Texas over NYC is underrated. If more UT students sought NYC (and that means paying to go to NYC for the job fair because few NYC firms come to OCI), I think UT's placement in NYC would be much higher. From what I've seen, NYC big law is just as attainable as Texas big law with the caveat that grades seem to matter a bit more, while personality & connections matter a lot less. For an out of state student w/o strong Texas ties, I would suspect NYC would be easier than Houston or Dallas.

Yes, but UT is filled with students from Texas, so the effect still clouds the employment numbers as far as evaluating one's chances at NYC big law by looking at overall employment as compared to a school like GULC, where there aren't many students from a particular state filling up the school and entering a market, that for them, is easier to enter. So you can look at the GULC 48% and say, alright must be about a 48% shot at NYC, and that's not completely unreasonable, but to look at UT's numbers and make an assumption like that will cost you if you're selecting UT based on NYC employment prospects.

Firms coming to your OCI is an extremely big part of getting a job there. If less NYC firms are coming to your OCI, it will be harder to get NYC from your school. That's why Cornell outdoes its level of prestige so much with employment numbers, (in addition to the fact that the students do target NYC).


(Just to make clear though, of course whatever percentage of UT students getting NYC is a lot lower than the number would be if they all wanted it, it still wouldn't be smart to say that if all UT students targeted NY and didn't want Texas at all that their big law numbers would be anywhere near what they are though.)

skers wrote:

OneLisfun wrote:

BigZuck wrote:Doesnt GULC have a home market though?

Not in my opinion because DC is much harder to get than NY, even from GULC. The idea of a home market is schools having markets that because of their location are actually easier to get than NY from that school. So the NY schools get a NY boost, Chicago schools it's easier to get Chicago than NY, UT (not a T14 but whatever) has Texas which is easier to get from there than NY, it is widely believed that from UVA or Duke there are certain areas to get in the south that are easier to get from those schools than NY, etc. From GULC, NY is easier to get than DC, so in effect, GULC does not have a real home market. Home market meaning a market students can get from a given school that is easier to get than NYC, thereby increasing employment numbers.

I don't think this characterization is really accurate. At least from the Chicago schools, NY is definitely still easier than Chicago. I'm guessing NY is still easier than everywhere else. The issue is more just DC is particularly difficult, mostly as a function of who is bidding there. DC from UChicago my year was actually fairly easy.

UChicago is a T5 and I'm sure it's not that difficult to enter any market from there. It's hard to say what's easier or harder from a school like that, but for lower ranked schools in the T14, home markets make the employment numbers higher because a lot of the students there are often from around that area and can use their ties to enter that market. I guess I don't know if it's easier to get Chicago from Northwestern than it is to get NY from there, I know someone who went there who said it was easier to get Chicago (he was from Chicago), but who knows, at the very least, it's comparable/debatable, and this isn't the case for DC vs. NY for GULC students.

UT has a job fair for NYC firms in NYC. Most of the top NYC firm participate, so while it is harder because you have to actually go to NYC, I don't think it's fair to say that they don't recruit UT students. I think that's what Cornell does too.

shifty_eyed wrote:UT has a job fair for NYC firms in NYC. Most of the top NYC firm participate, so while it is harder because you have to actually go to NYC, I don't think it's fair to say that they don't recruit UT students. I think that's what Cornell does too.

I didn't say they don't. I'm sure top third students at UT have a pretty good shot at NYC. However, at any T14, you have a very good shot at 50th percentile. That's not the case at UT.

I don't know exactly how it works for Cornell, but I can tell you that there are definitely far more NYC big law firms recruiting from Cornell than from UT (at least as compared to the size of the class, probably still greater even without accounting for the size of the classes), and the grades that one would need from Cornell to get big law are almost certainly substantially lower than they would need to be at UT to get NYC big law.


Edit: Also, as far as your top NYC firms comment, I don't know exactly how that works, those firms may need you be be top 10% at either Cornell or UT, I simply do not know (although I would guess they can be lower at Cornell). Looking at the numbers, I'm guessing that where Cornell rakes it in is all the rest of the NLJ 250 type firms that are scooping up bunches of their below median and around median students, and still paying them the market 160k salary. Something that likely won't be happening at UT.

Cobretti wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Aren't Duke and UVA reasonable comparisons though? Like they both probably have their fair share of people who are averse to NYC and who want difficult southern markets or DC. Maybe Michigan has a slightly larger PI crowd but it can't be the only explanation.

But aren't southern markets only difficult because they are so ties sensitive? I think people with southern ties would be more likely to go to these schools at which point biglaw (or at least 100+ firms that count for this metric) from them would be easy to get in these markets. Personal anecdotal experience has been most people with southern ties got 1L SAs regardless of grades at NU, which I would think was indicative of 2L.

The legal market in the South does things a little bit different from the rest of the country, or at least that has been my experience. For example, I know that the bigger firms in Alabama are known for bringing in a lot of 1L SAs from across the country and not coming close to giving 100% offers. I think most people are aware of the fact that the dominant custom in Texas is to split your summer with two firms.

Our CSO gives out a list of firms before bidding begins for OGI (OCI everywhere else) and quite a few firms from Atlanta, Richmond, etc. are higher on the selectivity scale than NYC firms. You also see a lot of the trends that are fairly common knowledge (e.g. Latham NYC is far easier to get than Latham D.C. - to be honest, almost every firm's DC office is grade sensitive).

Southern firms are certainly more ties conscious, but the higher you go on the totem pole, think of firms like King & Spalding in Atlanta, and they tend to care a little less about ties and more about your grades and school. I think what really gives schools like UVA and Duke an advantage compared to others in the T-14 when it comes to getting legal work in the South is that the firms actually come to our OCI/OGI.

This is a little bit of an anecdote, but if you have top grades from UVA (law review, etc.) and bid all NYC you will likely have double digit call-backs and double digit offers with minimal effort. If you bid all DC you can easily end up with single digit call-backs and offers. I would love to take a real poll of the people I know on law review, because I'm fairly certain that our split is something like 65% DC, 20% NYC V10, and 15% random local market (Texas, Virginia, Georgia, etc.).

Edit: So I actually chatted with someone, and my initial guess was off. It's more along the lines of 80% DC and a grab bag for the other 20%.

OneLisfun wrote:

shifty_eyed wrote:UT has a job fair for NYC firms in NYC. Most of the top NYC firm participate, so while it is harder because you have to actually go to NYC, I don't think it's fair to say that they don't recruit UT students. I think that's what Cornell does too.

I didn't say they don't. I'm sure top third students at UT have a pretty good shot at NYC. However, at any T14, you have a very good shot at 50th percentile. That's not the case at UT.

I don't know exactly how it works for Cornell, but I can tell you that there are definitely far more NYC big law firms recruiting from Cornell than from UT (at least as compared to the size of the class, probably still greater even without accounting for the size of the classes), and the grades that one would need from Cornell to get big law are almost certainly substantially lower than they would need to be at UT to get NYC big law.

I could be way off base here but I think Shifty's point is more this:

shifty_eyed wrote:Honestly, I think the self-selection factor for UT students choosing Texas over NYC is underrated. If more UT students sought NYC (and that means paying to go to NYC for the job fair because few NYC firms come to OCI), I think UT's placement in NYC would be much higher.

And less, "It's as easy to get NYC big law at UT as it is at Cornell."

BigZuck wrote:

OneLisfun wrote:

shifty_eyed wrote:UT has a job fair for NYC firms in NYC. Most of the top NYC firm participate, so while it is harder because you have to actually go to NYC, I don't think it's fair to say that they don't recruit UT students. I think that's what Cornell does too.

I didn't say they don't. I'm sure top third students at UT have a pretty good shot at NYC. However, at any T14, you have a very good shot at 50th percentile. That's not the case at UT.

I don't know exactly how it works for Cornell, but I can tell you that there are definitely far more NYC big law firms recruiting from Cornell than from UT (at least as compared to the size of the class, probably still greater even without accounting for the size of the classes), and the grades that one would need from Cornell to get big law are almost certainly substantially lower than they would need to be at UT to get NYC big law.

I could be way off base here but I think Shifty's point is more this:

shifty_eyed wrote:Honestly, I think the self-selection factor for UT students choosing Texas over NYC is underrated. If more UT students sought NYC (and that means paying to go to NYC for the job fair because few NYC firms come to OCI), I think UT's placement in NYC would be much higher.

And less, "It's as easy to get NYC big law at UT as it is at Cornell."

Look at what I put in parenthesis in my 6:53 post. I was responding with the knowledge that she had read what I put in those parenthesis, and still came back and wrote that.

I didn't go back to read all of your edits before responding.

I think we all mostly agree that we can't look at NYC big law placement and assume it equals placement potential of a school unless most students target NYC big law. This is what GULC and Michigan apologists always say, right? Of course I don't know exactly how far NYC firms will go into the class at UT, and I agree that they reach lower into the classes of T14 schools. I just think more students at UT who might be marginal candidates for TX big law should consider targeting NYC. It's typical advice for students at lower t14s with lower grades, and I think it is good advice for UT (and probably USC/UCLA) students who want big law. This might be a way for those schools to boost their BLFC %. That's all.

shifty_eyed wrote:I didn't go back to read all of your edits before responding.

I think we all mostly agree that we can't look at NYC big law placement and assume it equals placement potential of a school unless most students target NYC big law. This is what GULC and Michigan apologists always say, right? Of course I don't know exactly how far NYC firms will go into the class at UT, and I agree that they reach lower into the classes of T14 schools. I just think more students at UT who might be marginal candidates for TX big law should consider targeting NYC. It's typical advice for students at lower t14s with lower grades, and I think it is good advice for UT (and probably USC/UCLA) students who want big law. This might be a way for those schools to boost their BLFC %. That's all.

Sure, if they're not from Texas, I wholeheartedly agree. If they are from Texas or have strong ties to Texas and go to UT, I disagree, as someone like that who can't get Texas is not going to be able to get NYC. Generally, for secondary markets, they are easier to get than NYC if you have ties, and harder to get if you don't, so I would think it could be easier for a person at UT who's not from Texas, or another state considered to be ties, to get NY. UT could have better employment numbers possibly if students did what you're saying, but they would probably be demolished if suddenly UT students from Texas with median grades decided they'd put two thirds of their bids in for NYC firms.

Also, just to make clear, the typical advice at lower T14s is not to target NYC with lower grades. NYC is considered harder to get than secondary markets that you have ties to. At a lower T14, they will advise students with lower grades that the best move is to target secondary markets that they have ties to, as those are easier to get than NYC. That is the classic advice from career services. However, they will also make clear that targeting a secondary market you don't have ties to is an extremely bad move, so much below median grades with no secondary market ties is just not a great situation to be in at a lower T14.

Edit: Also, as a sidenote, if it's only the top NYC firms that are coming to this UT fair thing, it's not going to help boost employment stats for anyone with not great grades to try for that, because the absolute top NYC firms are only going to be taking very top grades from UT. If there are regular level NYC big law firms, or even upper level but just not v5 or 10 or whatever, then that's where what I wrote would come into play.

OneLisfun wrote:UT could have better employment numbers possibly if students did what you're saying, but they would probably be demolished if suddenly UT students from Texas with median grades decided they'd put two thirds of their bids in for NYC firms.

The NYC program for UT students is separate from the UT OCI where Texas firms come. So you can do both programs and not sacrifice any bids. Your entire OCI can be Texas firms, and you can do the entirety of the NYC job fair.

cannibal ox wrote:

OneLisfun wrote:UT could have better employment numbers possibly if students did what you're saying, but they would probably be demolished if suddenly UT students from Texas with median grades decided they'd put two thirds of their bids in for NYC firms.

The NYC program for UT students is separate from the UT OCI where Texas firms come. So you can do both programs and not sacrifice any bids. Your entire OCI can be Texas firms, and you can do the entirety of the NYC job fair.

Okay, I'm talking more about how she said "target NYC." I wouldn't consider it targeting NYC to try for Texas, strike out, then go to that job fair if that's how it works. I doubt students with Texas ties who go to UT who strike out would be getting picked up at a job fair like that, but it couldn't hurt to try I guess.

The job fair is before OCI.

A range of V-rankings firms participate in the NYC job fair, but only 21 total came last fall. I think if more UT students actually came to the fair, more firms might come, but that's pure speculation.

And while this is just one data point, I'm a lifelong Texan who struck out in Texas and not in NYC or LA.

OneLisfun wrote:

cannibal ox wrote:

OneLisfun wrote:UT could have better employment numbers possibly if students did what you're saying, but they would probably be demolished if suddenly UT students from Texas with median grades decided they'd put two thirds of their bids in for NYC firms.

The NYC program for UT students is separate from the UT OCI where Texas firms come. So you can do both programs and not sacrifice any bids. Your entire OCI can be Texas firms, and you can do the entirety of the NYC job fair.

Okay, I'm talking more about how she said "target NYC." I wouldn't consider it targeting NYC to try for Texas, strike out, then go to that job fair if that's how it works. I doubt students with Texas ties who go to UT would be getting picked up at a job fair like that, but it couldn't hurt to try I guess.

Is it really enough of a concern from NYC firms that people with TX ties are going to bail for a TX firm? I thought the churn and burn setup of NYC accounted for associates with all types of ties dropping out after a couple years in NYC biglaw. Unless I'm horribly misinterpreting what you mean.

OneLisfun wrote:If they are from Texas or have strong ties to Texas and go to UT, I disagree, as someone like that who can't get Texas is not going to be able to get NYC.

Like, I get that this logically make sense so I don't blame you for thinking it. And maybe most of the time that's how it works out.

But you're wrong.

Also, not sure if it matters but NYC fair is before OCI. So you strike out on NYC before striking out on TX, not vice versa.

eta: missed the scoopage