RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here! Forum

[Mr. Matlock]

So... just to be clear, we shouldn't be speculating on the demise of big law, just its pay structure? SOMEONE here has the answers... but who? I think we need a 3L opinion now.

[Cleareyes]

I find it interesting that you use 167s and 170s s your markers rather than Harvard grads vs lowly Northwestern grads. Static view of human intelligence? Anyway, I don't know the answer to that question, but I think that it is at least sometimes. Intellectual skills aren't like physical strength. It's not just about cumulative strength.

And I agree with you about spending money getting top firms to do mundane tasks and how silly it is. That stuff should be moved in house or farmed out to mid rate firms. That's the kind of fat I'm talking about, and it's already getting hacked away at.

I don't know about Harvard versus Northwestern, the difference between CCN and DCG is 0.003 GPA points and 3.03 LSAT points, averaged at the medians. Meanwhile, CCN puts on average 71% of its grads into V100 firms, while DCG puts only 45%. Unless law firms really think that the education at CCN is almost twice as good, I'd say I'm not the only one with a static view of human intelligence...

I don't like your math. Not one bit. Of course I was a fluffy sociology major with a 1.7 GPA, but I don't like it, and I'll tell you why. I'm going to abstract the argument for the sake of me not having to like plug in real numbers.

Let's say group A goes into school with a mean quality of 100 and a standard deviation of 3. Let's then say that group B goes into school with an average quality of 102 and a standard deviation of 3. Now let's say that school A adds 4 points of value and school B adds 5 points of value. School A now has an average quality of 104 and school B now has an average quality of 107. If the cutoff point for biglaw is 104 then school A will place about half its class and school B could place like 85%. The absolute difference in student quality is low, but it's all about the comparative quality. And that's just one plausible scenario to explain the differences. We also have to consider region and alumni network etc...etc..

Anyway, I don't subscribe to a static view of human intelligence.

[Cleareyes]

So... just to be clear, we shouldn't be speculating on the demise of big law, just its pay structure? SOMEONE here has the answers... but who? I think we need a 3L opinion now.

Speculation is fun. If the New York Times can do it why can't we?

[rayiner]

When I said biglaw is dead, I was obviously being a bit tongue-in-cheek. What I mean is that I think the idea of there being a "market rate" for biglaw firms is going to go out the window. For every make-or-break merger that your average NLJ250 firm handles, how many far more routine issues does it work with? Are $160k/pop associates really necessary for that sort of work? Ultimately, market forces are going to force a bell-curve on the use of biglaw services and as a result on biglaw salaries.

[Cleareyes]

+!
I won't be specific just to protect the innocent, but just think about (or if you don't know off-hand, look into) which cases Big Law handles. From the cases I know, just think Fortune 50 company being hit with a lawsuit that would eliminate half its profits, another being IP sued in a manner that could put it out of business, a different type massive company being sued for multi-billions. May sound kind of rare, but go into business. How many mergers, how many suits of every type are you constantly hit with.

AND ITE, the number of suits, IMO, will drastically increase - when people get desperate, they sue and sue - companies will sue companies, people will go after big cash, everything from malpractice suits to suits against companies, from what I hear, is already jacking up....

Big Law is not dead, but like PK says, the way they compensate newbies may change - which I think could be for the better. Instead of hiring 10 people at 130K each and working them 16 hours a day, they may hire at first 10 people at 100K each, because there's only 10 hours a day - tuitions need to start coming down (they have increased absurdly) due to decreased pay, so debt loads will come down - and as the economy picks up, maybe the pay stays 100K and the hours more reasonable - they don't bet as much on each employee, and hire 13 at 100K instead of 10 at 130K - they are used less for the reasons everyone states above (less people wanting to pay for 1st year assocs) so work fewer hours but the lower pay offsets that. In the end, the more sweatshopish model that handed all the cash to a few while working them to death, maybe, is replaced by a better model for all: for the company, the clients, and law students.

Sorry for being positive/optimistic. I know it's not so in fashion. Big Law dead? Um... I guess Microsoft will just turn to a mid-size firm the next time Apple sues it...

Big lawsuits have not increased so far ITE. They may not. Different recessions have different rules.

I also don't think schools will decrease tuition. Harvard doesn't have to. If Harvard doesn't have to then Columbia feels it doesn't have to or it would be acknowledging Harvard's superiority etc...etc...

Maybe at the bottom end we'll see a fall in tuition but at the top if there is an economic pressure (and since big law will continue hiring from the T14 and continue paying graduates well there may not be a pressure) it will come in the form of stagnant tuition and possibly more scholarships.

[rayiner]

I don't like your math. Not one bit. Of course I was a fluffy sociology major with a 1.7 GPA, but I don't like it, and I'll tell you why. I'm going to abstract the argument for the sake of me not having to like plug in real numbers.

Let's say group A goes into school with a mean quality of 100 and a standard deviation of 3. Let's then say that group B goes into school with an average quality of 102 and a standard deviation of 3. Now let's say that school A adds 4 points of value and school B adds 5 points of value. School A now has an average quality of 104 and school B now has an average quality of 107. If the cutoff point for biglaw is 104 then school A will place about half its class and school B could place like 85%. The absolute difference in student quality is low, but it's all about the comparative quality. And that's just one plausible scenario to explain the differences. We also have to consider region and alumni network etc...etc..

Anyway, I don't subscribe to a static view of human intelligence.

You have to look at things in terms of scarcity. Statistically-speaking are almost three times as many folks who are DCG-grade material as ones who are CCN-grade material. So while the quality difference might seem small in numerical terms, the scarcity difference is huge, and the latter is really what matters for supply/demand-type calculations.

Beyond that, I'm convinced that the difference in value-added between a CCN-education and a DCG-education is just about nil. Regions and alumni networks are a factor, of course, but frankly I have no idea how to account for that.

[davosdank]

I don't like your math. Not one bit. Of course I was a fluffy sociology major with a 1.7 GPA, but I don't like it, and I'll tell you why. I'm going to abstract the argument for the sake of me not having to like plug in real numbers.

Let's say group A goes into school with a mean quality of 100 and a standard deviation of 3. Let's then say that group B goes into school with an average quality of 102 and a standard deviation of 3. Now let's say that school A adds 4 points of value and school B adds 5 points of value. School A now has an average quality of 104 and school B now has an average quality of 107. If the cutoff point for biglaw is 104 then school A will place about half its class and school B could place like 85%. The absolute difference in student quality is low, but it's all about the comparative quality. And that's just one plausible scenario to explain the differences. We also have to consider region and alumni network etc...etc..

Anyway, I don't subscribe to a static view of human intelligence.

You have to look at things in terms of scarcity. Statistically-speaking are almost three times as many folks who are DCG-grade material as ones who are CCN-grade material. So while the quality difference might seem small in numerical terms, the scarcity difference is huge, and the latter is really what matters for supply/demand-type calculations.

Beyond that, I'm convinced that the difference in value-added between a CCN-education and a DCG-education is just about nil. Regions and alumni networks are a factor, of course, but frankly I have no idea how to account for that.

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

Cornell and GULC in particular don't match up with CCN

[RVP11]

Schools won't drop their tuition because, apparently, people are going to be more willing than ever to pay it.

[davosdank]

Schools won't drop their tuition because, apparently, people are going to be more willing than ever to pay it.

very good point, of course, by a UVA 0L

[Cleareyes]

I don't like your math. Not one bit. Of course I was a fluffy sociology major with a 1.7 GPA, but I don't like it, and I'll tell you why. I'm going to abstract the argument for the sake of me not having to like plug in real numbers.

Let's say group A goes into school with a mean quality of 100 and a standard deviation of 3. Let's then say that group B goes into school with an average quality of 102 and a standard deviation of 3. Now let's say that school A adds 4 points of value and school B adds 5 points of value. School A now has an average quality of 104 and school B now has an average quality of 107. If the cutoff point for biglaw is 104 then school A will place about half its class and school B could place like 85%. The absolute difference in student quality is low, but it's all about the comparative quality. And that's just one plausible scenario to explain the differences. We also have to consider region and alumni network etc...etc..

Anyway, I don't subscribe to a static view of human intelligence.

You have to look at things in terms of scarcity. Statistically-speaking are almost three times as many folks who are DCG-grade material as ones who are CCN-grade material. So while the quality difference might seem small in numerical terms, the scarcity difference is huge, and the latter is really what matters for supply/demand-type calculations.

Beyond that, I'm convinced that the difference in value-added between a CCN-education and a DCG-education is just about nil. Regions and alumni networks are a factor, of course, but frankly I have no idea how to account for that.

I KNEW I was a rare and precious flower!

Scarcity does play a role, but not the role it would play in normal calculations because of the cutoff. You make market big law you've made market big law. Someone in the top quartile at CCN is much rarer than someone in the medium quartile of DCG, and yet at present they are getting the same salary (more or less). I know that's part of the reason you think the compensation model will break down, but it's also part of the reason my back of the envelope calculations look the way they do.

[rayiner]

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

I disagree with your disagreement, but frankly I don't think either of us can back our arguments up with numbers. That being said, I think we can look to the behavior of law firms for some insight. By all reports law firms care very little about your coursework, etc, or even your grades in your 2L and 3L years. This indicates they place a law value on the value-added by most of your law-school education. If this is the case, I don't see how they would place much value at all on the far lesser differences between the quality of the education at various top schools...

[davosdank]

I don't like your math. Not one bit. Of course I was a fluffy sociology major with a 1.7 GPA, but I don't like it, and I'll tell you why. I'm going to abstract the argument for the sake of me not having to like plug in real numbers.

Let's say group A goes into school with a mean quality of 100 and a standard deviation of 3. Let's then say that group B goes into school with an average quality of 102 and a standard deviation of 3. Now let's say that school A adds 4 points of value and school B adds 5 points of value. School A now has an average quality of 104 and school B now has an average quality of 107. If the cutoff point for biglaw is 104 then school A will place about half its class and school B could place like 85%. The absolute difference in student quality is low, but it's all about the comparative quality. And that's just one plausible scenario to explain the differences. We also have to consider region and alumni network etc...etc..

Anyway, I don't subscribe to a static view of human intelligence.

You have to look at things in terms of scarcity. Statistically-speaking are almost three times as many folks who are DCG-grade material as ones who are CCN-grade material. So while the quality difference might seem small in numerical terms, the scarcity difference is huge, and the latter is really what matters for supply/demand-type calculations.

Beyond that, I'm convinced that the difference in value-added between a CCN-education and a DCG-education is just about nil. Regions and alumni networks are a factor, of course, but frankly I have no idea how to account for that.

I KNEW I was a rare and precious flower!

Scarcity does play a role, but not the role it would play in normal calculations because of the cutoff. You make market big law you've made market big law. Someone in the top quartile at CCN is much rarer than someone in the medium quartile of DCG, and yet at present they are getting the same salary (more or less). I know that's part of the reason you think the compensation model will break down, but it's also part of the reason my back of the envelope calculations look the way they do.

i will refer to cleareyes as sensei,

Sensei: is this the correct spelling of sensei?

also, will you explain the bolded part of your statement?

edit: rayenir, lol @ your post, you disagree w/my disagreement heh. but I think you're now overstepping the line of what is typical and what is rational

[rayiner]

I KNEW I was a rare and precious flower!

Scarcity does play a role, but not the role it would play in normal calculations because of the cutoff. You make market big law you've made market big law. Someone in the top quartile at CCN is much rarer than someone in the medium quartile of DCG, and yet at present they are getting the same salary (more or less). I know that's part of the reason you think the compensation model will break down, but it's also part of the reason my back of the envelope calculations look the way they do.

Of course you're precious cleareyes, otherwise I would <3 so much! But yeah, your last sentence is basically a distillation of our points...

EDIT: davosdank, I don't see what is so irrational about it. Law firms seem to care little about the substantive education you receive at a school. That's why they don't really look at 2L/3L grades, and why your 2L/3L elective coursework holds so little weight. Ie: law firms appear to believe that there is little to no value-added by 2/3's of your law school education. If firms hold such views, how could they possibly be concerned about the small differences in quality between the 1L years at CCN or DCG?

[06072010]

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

I disagree with your disagreement, but frankly I don't think either of us can back our arguments up with numbers. That being said, I think we can look to the behavior of law firms for some insight. By all reports law firms care very little about your coursework, etc, or even your grades in your 2L and 3L years. This indicates they place a law value on the value-added by most of your law-school education. If this is the case, I don't see how they would place much value at all on the far lesser differences between the quality of the education at various top schools...

They place a very high value on the quality of your law school institution, mostly because it's a proxy for your ability. Second, clients look for name schools. It's easier to shell out 350 / hr for a HYS grad than a NYLS grad.

[Cleareyes]

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

I disagree with your disagreement, but frankly I don't think either of us can back our arguments up with numbers. That being said, I think we can look to the behavior of law firms for some insight. By all reports law firms care very little about your coursework, etc, or even your grades in your 2L and 3L years. This indicates they place a law value on the value-added by most of your law-school education. If this is the case, I don't see how they would place much value at all on the far lesser differences between the quality of the education at various top schools...

It could indicate that, or it could indicate that they believe that the value the institution adds isn't captured by specific coursework or grades.

If it were all about LSAT/Ugrad GPA why would they use a rough proxy like "What school you got into." They could easily ask for that information during OCI and use that to make their decisions. Instead they look at your performance in the school at question. Now I think I know the Rayiner argument here. The Rayiner argument is that they are looking at your performance within a competition pool created by the school, so it's about how you perform relative to other high LSAT GPA people. And I think that's right to some degree. I also think that we are ignoring fluffy factors like alumni networks, location, etc... that we can't account for, and doing so BECAUSE we can't account for them, which is one of the major flaws in this kind of reasoning. Difficult to analyze variables get ignored and shoved to the side even though they remain important despite being difficult to analyze.

[davosdank]

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

I disagree with your disagreement, but frankly I don't think either of us can back our arguments up with numbers. That being said, I think we can look to the behavior of law firms for some insight. By all reports law firms care very little about your coursework, etc, or even your grades in your 2L and 3L years. This indicates they place a law value on the value-added by most of your law-school education. If this is the case, I don't see how they would place much value at all on the far lesser differences between the quality of the education at various top schools...

It could indicate that, or it could indicate that they believe that the value the institution adds isn't captured by specific coursework or grades.

If it were all about LSAT/Ugrad GPA why would they use a rough proxy like "What school you got into." They could easily ask for that information during OCI and use that to make their decisions. Instead they look at your performance in the school at question. Now I think I know the Rayiner argument here. The Rayiner argument is that they are looking at your performance within a competition pool created by the school, so it's about how you perform relative to other high LSAT GPA people. And I think that's right to some degree. I also think that we are ignoring fluffy factors like alumni networks, location, etc... that we can't account for, and doing so BECAUSE we can't account for them, which is one of the major flaws in this kind of reasoning. Difficult to analyze variables get ignored and shoved to the side even though they remain important despite being difficult to analyze.

i'm fucking sick of these well thought out, intelligent, rational posts

[Cleareyes]

I don't like your math. Not one bit. Of course I was a fluffy sociology major with a 1.7 GPA, but I don't like it, and I'll tell you why. I'm going to abstract the argument for the sake of me not having to like plug in real numbers.

Let's say group A goes into school with a mean quality of 100 and a standard deviation of 3. Let's then say that group B goes into school with an average quality of 102 and a standard deviation of 3. Now let's say that school A adds 4 points of value and school B adds 5 points of value. School A now has an average quality of 104 and school B now has an average quality of 107. If the cutoff point for biglaw is 104 then school A will place about half its class and school B could place like 85%. The absolute difference in student quality is low, but it's all about the comparative quality. And that's just one plausible scenario to explain the differences. We also have to consider region and alumni network etc...etc..

Anyway, I don't subscribe to a static view of human intelligence.

You have to look at things in terms of scarcity. Statistically-speaking are almost three times as many folks who are DCG-grade material as ones who are CCN-grade material. So while the quality difference might seem small in numerical terms, the scarcity difference is huge, and the latter is really what matters for supply/demand-type calculations.

Beyond that, I'm convinced that the difference in value-added between a CCN-education and a DCG-education is just about nil. Regions and alumni networks are a factor, of course, but frankly I have no idea how to account for that.

I KNEW I was a rare and precious flower!

Scarcity does play a role, but not the role it would play in normal calculations because of the cutoff. You make market big law you've made market big law. Someone in the top quartile at CCN is much rarer than someone in the medium quartile of DCG, and yet at present they are getting the same salary (more or less). I know that's part of the reason you think the compensation model will break down, but it's also part of the reason my back of the envelope calculations look the way they do.

i will refer to cleareyes as sensei,

Sensei: is this the correct spelling of sensei?

also, will you explain the bolded part of your statement?

edit: rayenir, lol @ your post, you disagree w/my disagreement heh. but I think you're now overstepping the line of what is typical and what is rational

Basically I am assuming that after a certain level quality isn't very important because it's high enough to hit the cutoff. It's like in applications. Once you are good enough to get into Yale (or a full ride at whatever your top school is.) it doesn't really matter how much better than that you are. Rayiner seems to be talking about divisions above that "in vs out" binary situation.

[rayiner]

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

I disagree with your disagreement, but frankly I don't think either of us can back our arguments up with numbers. That being said, I think we can look to the behavior of law firms for some insight. By all reports law firms care very little about your coursework, etc, or even your grades in your 2L and 3L years. This indicates they place a law value on the value-added by most of your law-school education. If this is the case, I don't see how they would place much value at all on the far lesser differences between the quality of the education at various top schools...

They place a very high value on the quality of your law school institution, mostly because it's a proxy for your ability. Second, clients look for name schools. It's easier to shell out 350 / hr for a HYS grad than a NYLS grad.

That's exactly my point. Law firms would much rather hire CCN grads than DCG grads because the former has a higher-quality student body, not so much because they believe that the former adds a ton of value to incoming associates in the form of a far superior education.

[06072010]

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

I disagree with your disagreement, but frankly I don't think either of us can back our arguments up with numbers. That being said, I think we can look to the behavior of law firms for some insight. By all reports law firms care very little about your coursework, etc, or even your grades in your 2L and 3L years. This indicates they place a law value on the value-added by most of your law-school education. If this is the case, I don't see how they would place much value at all on the far lesser differences between the quality of the education at various top schools...

It could indicate that, or it could indicate that they believe that the value the institution adds isn't captured by specific coursework or grades.

If it were all about LSAT/Ugrad GPA why would they use a rough proxy like "What school you got into." They could easily ask for that information during OCI and use that to make their decisions. Instead they look at your performance in the school at question. Now I think I know the Rayiner argument here. The Rayiner argument is that they are looking at your performance within a competition pool created by the school, so it's about how you perform relative to other high LSAT GPA people. And I think that's right to some degree. I also think that we are ignoring fluffy factors like alumni networks, location, etc... that we can't account for, and doing so BECAUSE we can't account for them, which is one of the major flaws in this kind of reasoning. Difficult to analyze variables get ignored and shoved to the side even though they remain important despite being difficult to analyze.

Yeah, I agree with that. But they DO ask "what school you got into?" by choosing to OCI at Columbia but not at NYLS. Even the lower-ranked kids at Mich get baller jobs, so there has to be some institutional value beyond just an ordering mechanism within itself.

[ruleser]

+!
I won't be specific just to protect the innocent, but just think about (or if you don't know off-hand, look into) which cases Big Law handles. From the cases I know, just think Fortune 50 company being hit with a lawsuit that would eliminate half its profits, another being IP sued in a manner that could put it out of business, a different type massive company being sued for multi-billions. May sound kind of rare, but go into business. How many mergers, how many suits of every type are you constantly hit with.

AND ITE, the number of suits, IMO, will drastically increase - when people get desperate, they sue and sue - companies will sue companies, people will go after big cash, everything from malpractice suits to suits against companies, from what I hear, is already jacking up....

Big Law is not dead, but like PK says, the way they compensate newbies may change - which I think could be for the better. Instead of hiring 10 people at 130K each and working them 16 hours a day, they may hire at first 10 people at 100K each, because there's only 10 hours a day - tuitions need to start coming down (they have increased absurdly) due to decreased pay, so debt loads will come down - and as the economy picks up, maybe the pay stays 100K and the hours more reasonable - they don't bet as much on each employee, and hire 13 at 100K instead of 10 at 130K - they are used less for the reasons everyone states above (less people wanting to pay for 1st year assocs) so work fewer hours but the lower pay offsets that. In the end, the more sweatshopish model that handed all the cash to a few while working them to death, maybe, is replaced by a better model for all: for the company, the clients, and law students.

Sorry for being positive/optimistic. I know it's not so in fashion. Big Law dead? Um... I guess Microsoft will just turn to a mid-size firm the next time Apple sues it...

Big lawsuits have not increased so far ITE. They may not. Different recessions have different rules.

I also don't think schools will decrease tuition. Harvard doesn't have to. If Harvard doesn't have to then Columbia feels it doesn't have to or it would be acknowledging Harvard's superiority etc...etc...

Maybe at the bottom end we'll see a fall in tuition but at the top if there is an economic pressure (and since big law will continue hiring from the T14 and continue paying graduates well there may not be a pressure) it will come in the form of stagnant tuition and possibly more scholarships.

Don't know, this is just year one of this mess and the Dean of Stanford was quoted saying there had to be some loan forgiveness or something, because Stanford grads weren't being able to get by due to revoked/delayed offers, etc. This will pressure downwards. Also, the biggest pressure downwards in history - credit crunch. The only reason tuition has been able to increase so much is because people have been able (and willing) to borrow whatever it took. Not only will people be less willing, but credit will be less available. Tuition will have to come down - maybe they will do it as "increased scholarships", as reducing tution by so-called grants without actually lowering it, but it will have to come down - certainly outside of Top 14, without question outside T25, very possibly right up to top 5... and maybe beyond.

[Cleareyes]

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

I disagree with your disagreement, but frankly I don't think either of us can back our arguments up with numbers. That being said, I think we can look to the behavior of law firms for some insight. By all reports law firms care very little about your coursework, etc, or even your grades in your 2L and 3L years. This indicates they place a law value on the value-added by most of your law-school education. If this is the case, I don't see how they would place much value at all on the far lesser differences between the quality of the education at various top schools...

It could indicate that, or it could indicate that they believe that the value the institution adds isn't captured by specific coursework or grades.

If it were all about LSAT/Ugrad GPA why would they use a rough proxy like "What school you got into." They could easily ask for that information during OCI and use that to make their decisions. Instead they look at your performance in the school at question. Now I think I know the Rayiner argument here. The Rayiner argument is that they are looking at your performance within a competition pool created by the school, so it's about how you perform relative to other high LSAT GPA people. And I think that's right to some degree. I also think that we are ignoring fluffy factors like alumni networks, location, etc... that we can't account for, and doing so BECAUSE we can't account for them, which is one of the major flaws in this kind of reasoning. Difficult to analyze variables get ignored and shoved to the side even though they remain important despite being difficult to analyze.

i'm fucking sick of these well thought out, intelligent, rational posts

I forgot to add that another issue is that once you are in the door, it is what you do there that matters (to a large degree) and personal/social issues become paramount. This is a bug (feature?) with many workplaces. Once someone has the job they have inertia on their side, social connections, etc... I know big law doesn't suffer from this in the long term, since associates get ground up and spit out, but I think this explains at least part of the 2nd and 3rd year grades not mattering phenomenon. You get your summer job, you get inertia and independent data collected, and they don't care so much about the grades.

[rayiner]

Yeah, I agree with that. But they DO ask "what school you got into?" by choosing to OCI at Columbia but not at NYLS. Even the lower-ranked kids at Mich get baller jobs, so there has to be some institutional value beyond just an ordering mechanism within itself.

That doesn't necessarily follow. It could just be that law firms think that placing 30th percentile at Michigan still places you far higher in the absolute total ordering than placing 90th percentile at NYLS. Considering that the numeric indicators of the two student bodies are almost completely disjoint, this wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.

[06072010]

I absolutely disagree with the value of the 2 institutions being equal.

I disagree with your disagreement, but frankly I don't think either of us can back our arguments up with numbers. That being said, I think we can look to the behavior of law firms for some insight. By all reports law firms care very little about your coursework, etc, or even your grades in your 2L and 3L years. This indicates they place a law value on the value-added by most of your law-school education. If this is the case, I don't see how they would place much value at all on the far lesser differences between the quality of the education at various top schools...

They place a very high value on the quality of your law school institution, mostly because it's a proxy for your ability. Second, clients look for name schools. It's easier to shell out 350 / hr for a HYS grad than a NYLS grad.

That's exactly my point. Law firms would much rather hire CCN grads than DCG grads because the former has a higher-quality student body, not so much because they believe that the former adds a ton of value to incoming associates in the form of a far superior education.

Sorry dude, I misunderstood your original post but I think that's right. Maybe there is some marginal educational value, but I think that's just pillow talk, you know?

[rayiner]

And I think that's right to some degree. I also think that we are ignoring fluffy factors like alumni networks, location, etc... that we can't account for, and doing so BECAUSE we can't account for them, which is one of the major flaws in this kind of reasoning. Difficult to analyze variables get ignored and shoved to the side even though they remain important despite being difficult to analyze.

That is a good point, but I'm operating under the assumption that fluffy factors account for a relatively small portion of the overall behavior. You may disagree with this assumption.

[Cleareyes]

Yeah, I agree with that. But they DO ask "what school you got into?" by choosing to OCI at Columbia but not at NYLS. Even the lower-ranked kids at Mich get baller jobs, so there has to be some institutional value beyond just an ordering mechanism within itself.

Every time someone says baller on this site I think of Skee-Lo. EVERY TIME. I didn't think about him this frequently in 1995!

Anyway, yeah, of course the firms let the schools do some of their research. But I think you were right in that Michigan grads are just more marketable even when they don't have better skills.