Top Law Schools

What should I choose: Hofstra 25K a year or Cardozo at sticker? Based on this NLJ250 list, Cardozo looks a lot better. The question is if its worth 27k a year more than Hofstra.

Alright, to put a little perspective on people who are really trying to extrapolate usefulness out of this data, here is a really crappy handmade timeline to give you an idea what a clusterfuck the economy was going through when during this time.



There is no trend that can be formed from these numbers because it was a snapshot of the economy with its pants down. 2011 data we'll be able to say "ok this is the lowest of lows", and then we can expect marginal improvement from every year after that. But the awkward timing of the c/o 2010 data gives it almost no useful value.

edit: just to clarify since I did a terrible job labeling. The second to last bar is the time that OCI was generally being held, and the last bar is generally about the time that firms made offers to students, after they went through their 2L SA.


*Thanks to eskimo for the data

lawfreak wrote:What should I choose: Hofstra 25K a year or Cardozo at sticker? Based on this NLJ250 list, Cardozo looks a lot better. The question is if its worth 27k a year more than Hofstra.

Big Shrimpin wrote:

lawfreak wrote:What should I choose: Hofstra 25K a year or Cardozo at sticker? Based on this NLJ250 list, Cardozo looks a lot better. The question is if its worth 27k a year more than Hofstra.

Thanks for the encouragement! You must be a really good person.

lawfreak wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:

lawfreak wrote:What should I choose: Hofstra 25K a year or Cardozo at sticker? Based on this NLJ250 list, Cardozo looks a lot better. The question is if its worth 27k a year more than Hofstra.

Thanks for the encouragement! You must be a really good person.

Go back to your thread

amirite?

I can't wait until the usnews rankings come out.

Big Shrimpin wrote:amirite?

I can't wait until the usnews rankings come out.

For it being like 3 weeks away, I'm really disappointed at the lack of speculation threads.

skoobily doobily wrote:Alright, to put a little perspective on people who are really trying to extrapolate usefulness out of this data, here is a really crappy handmade timeline to give you an idea what a clusterfuck the economy was going through when during this time.



There is no trend that can be formed from these numbers because it was a snapshot of the economy with its pants down. 2011 data we'll be able to say "ok this is the lowest of lows", and then we can expect marginal improvement from every year after that. But the awkward timing of the c/o 2010 data gives it almost no useful value.

edit: just to clarify since I did a terrible job labeling. The second to last bar is the time that OCI was generally being held, and the last bar is generally about the time that firms made offers to students, after they went through their 2L SA.


*Thanks to eskimo for the data

What are you talking about? Why is OCI relevant? The data for this article is the number of first-year associates that law firms hire for 2011.

Master Tofu wrote:
What are you talking about? Why is OCI relevant? The data for this article is the number of first-year associates that law firms hire for 2011.

ummm, no? The data for the article was c/o 2010, who were offered/no-offered summer of 2009, who went through OCI in 2008.

Right, so I still don't understand why OCI is relevant. As you noted, Summer 2009 already corrected for whatever wrong perceptions that the firms had while making offers during OCI.

Attorney wrote:
This year's numbers, for the math-challenged 164 LSATs at BU who hate splitters for unknown reasons.

And the WUSTL/Minn spread has been constant for years. It never changes. The BC/BU -> WUSTL spread blah blah blah blah blah blah .....Iowa, Wisconsin, UNC, etc. (half of the 20s schools) if this were an ongoing phenomenon.

EDIT: Regarding your 164, I just find it amazing that a (reverse) splitter hates (regular) splitters so much. It's just really bizarre?

I literally laughed out loud at the weak attempt to act like you weren't being a douche with the LSAT comment. "I just wanted to discuss BU's attitude towards splitters! What's your take, partner?" The edit doesn't soften the douchiness, buddy. Hate to be the one to say it, but considering WUSTL is the highest ranked school in your list of schools on your profile, I'm not so sure you're even entitled to be a LSAT score douche, even if you wanted to show everyone on the board your low character. Get a life.

Also, hate to beat this over your head considering the BU dude alread mentioned it, but

Blindmelon wrote: USC down to Fordhamish are peers.

BUT NO, WUSTL IS T20! We place a few percentage points higher than BU and ND! Isn't there a thread out there asking why TLSers rag on WUSTL? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

tlslsnlsp wrote:

Attorney wrote:
This year's numbers, for the math-challenged 164 LSATs at BU who hate splitters for unknown reasons.

And the WUSTL/Minn spread has been constant for years. It never changes. The BC/BU -> WUSTL spread blah blah blah blah blah blah .....Iowa, Wisconsin, UNC, etc. (half of the 20s schools) if this were an ongoing phenomenon.

EDIT: Regarding your 164, I just find it amazing that a (reverse) splitter hates (regular) splitters so much. It's just really bizarre?

I literally laughed out loud at the weak attempt to act like you weren't being a douche with the LSAT comment. "I just wanted to discuss BU's attitude towards splitters! What's your take, partner?" The edit doesn't soften the douchiness, buddy. Hate to be the one to say it, but considering WUSTL is the highest ranked school in your list of schools on your profile, I'm not so sure you're even entitled to be a LSAT score douche, even if you wanted to show everyone on the board your low character. Get a life.

Also, hate to beat this over your head considering the BU dude alread mentioned it, but

Blindmelon wrote: USC down to Fordhamish are peers.

BUT NO, WUSTL IS T20! We place a few percentage points higher than BU and ND! Isn't there a thread out there asking why TLSers rag on WUSTL? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

First of all, cool story bro. Are you stuck in the 2006 Interwebz? Johnny just discovered the word "douche" and found it hilarious?

Second of all, who are you quoting with the "T20" crap? There is no meaningful ranking there... that's actually what we've been discussing the whole time in the WUSTL thread... that #19 is not meaningfully different than #22 or #24, it just SEEMS like it is because it's in the "teens" instead of the 20s. Hence the WUSTL hate from BU/BC people (who have higher placement and feel they deserve higher rankings on a list that has little to do with placement) and hence why I lol'd at the "golden #19" comments such as yours here. WUSTL and say ND, Emory, and especially Illinois are all T25 and relatively interchangeable by most metrics.

WUSTL-haters are obsessed with U.S. News rankings and the "magic #19" which they think is somehow much better than something in the 20s... only because it happens to be the last integer in the teens. If WUSTL was #20, no one would bitch so much about the oh-so vaunted ranking. But I digress.

Attorney wrote: But I digress.

You certainly do, considering my post was mainly about calling you out on trying to soften your low-blow move of singling out a poster's (perfectly fine) LSAT score in a derogatory way. It's something I've seen several times, usually the ones who aren't quite impressive (can I assume, based on your list of schools, that your LSAT score isn't quite 180 either?) are the ones quickest to belittle those slightly less impressive than themselves.I hope not everyone at WUSTL is like that.

lisjjen wrote:

TheThreader wrote:Why does everyone recommend Texas so much. It look like they place terribly? Is the Texas legal market just a joke now?

I'd be interested in knowing this as well.

shameless mini-bump

tlslsnlsp wrote:

Attorney wrote: But I digress.

You certainly do, considering my post was mainly about calling you out on trying to soften your low-blow move of singling out a poster's (perfectly fine) LSAT score in a derogatory way. It's something I've seen several times, usually the ones who aren't quite impressive (can I assume, based on your list of schools, that your LSAT score isn't quite 180 either?) are the ones quickest to belittle those slightly less impressive than themselves.I hope not everyone at WUSTL is like that.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. It's my GPA you should be picking on. Like many splitters, if I had made straight A's, I'd be applying only to the upper T14. But I obviously did not. Did you really miss the whole splitter vs. reverse splitter thing going on with that 164 comment? I was bringing him down to my level, the splitter level. Not looking down at him from a high or mighty perch of someone with all the bases covered.

So you think I'm trolling him so bad, but I'm more or less just pointing out that we are one and the same. Both of us are/were splitters, whether forward or reverse. Since BU gives schollies to reverse splitters, and WUSTL gives schollies to regular splitters, it's almost like we're mirror images of each other. But he, and most BU peeps, would probably never admit to that.

At the end of the day, he should be happy that his Big Law prospects are greatly improved by attending a school in BosWash and not obsess over WUSTL's "golden #19" as he usually does on TLS (and did long before I ever trolled him or his 164).

This thread has been extremely helpful; I anticipate hearing back from Chicago and Cornell even more now before sending in a deposit to a school.

neonx wrote:This thread has been extremely helpful; I anticipate hearing back from Chicago and Cornell even more now before sending in a deposit to a school.

Honestly, if your profile is correct and you're in with money at virtually every school from Columbia to Duke, you shouldn't even be seriously considering Cornell based off of one year's NLJ250 employment data in one of the most anomalous hiring years in recent history.

lawfreak wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:

lawfreak wrote:What should I choose: Hofstra 25K a year or Cardozo at sticker? Based on this NLJ250 list, Cardozo looks a lot better. The question is if its worth 27k a year more than Hofstra.

Thanks for the encouragement! You must be a really good person.

Wait, you're actually serious.

YourCaptain wrote:

lawfreak wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:

lawfreak wrote:What should I choose: Hofstra 25K a year or Cardozo at sticker? Based on this NLJ250 list, Cardozo looks a lot better. The question is if its worth 27k a year more than Hofstra.

Thanks for the encouragement! You must be a really good person.

Wait, you're actually serious.

Sadly, yes: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=148172

Everyone tried to slap some sense into the kid, but it didn't work.

OGR3 wrote:
Sadly, yes: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=148172

Everyone tried to slap some sense into the kid, but it didn't work.

That is one of the most depressing things I've read in a while.

Helmholtz wrote:

neonx wrote:This thread has been extremely helpful; I anticipate hearing back from Chicago and Cornell even more now before sending in a deposit to a school.

Honestly, if your profile is correct and you're in with money at virtually every school from Columbia to Duke, you shouldn't even be seriously considering Cornell based off of one year's NLJ250 employment data in one of the most anomalous hiring years in recent history.

Well Cornell traditionally does very well (far better than its relative rank). I think that last year was more of an anomaly for the school than this year.

YourCaptain wrote:

OGR3 wrote:
Sadly, yes: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=148172

Everyone tried to slap some sense into the kid, but it didn't work.

That is one of the most depressing things I've read in a while.

Your avatar is very depressing with that annoying hat.

irishman86 wrote:Isn't this data way too old to be helpful? Like a previous poster sad, the New York market has improved in the past year while Chicago/LA/SF have tanked even more. And yes, there were a ton of no-offers in New York for the Class of 2010 because firms had ginormous class sizes and were unprepared for the banking crisis. The data isn't that useful because it was somewhat of a fluke year.

+1

showNprove wrote:Next year's NLJ250 stats will still be bad, maybe worse, than this year's. Firms and students had no idea what to do about OCI hiring in August 2009. We won't get stable post-recession statistics for another 2 years (e.g., Class of 2012, which did OCI in August 2010).

+1

columbia86 wrote:

irishman86 wrote:Isn't this data way too old to be helpful? Like a previous poster sad, the New York market has improved in the past year while Chicago/LA/SF have tanked even more. And yes, there were a ton of no-offers in New York for the Class of 2010 because firms had ginormous class sizes and were unprepared for the banking crisis. The data isn't that useful because it was somewhat of a fluke year.

+1

Maybe. A lot of people are convinced the Class of 2010 numbers are the "new normal." Plenty of informed posters on this board are convinced this is what legal hiring is going to look like for the foreseeable future.

My opinion is that while the bottom out year(s) will be the worst, we'll only see slight improvement. I don't think we're going back to pre-ITE hiring anytime soon. Class of 2010/11 may end up being the worst in absolute terms, but I think that hiring for the next few classes will look more like 2010/11 than 2006/07.

There are also signs that *could* be interpreted as long term corrections in the marketplace. It is generally accepted that more and more clients are pushing back against 1st year associates, applications for law schools are down, a couple of schools are holding the line on tuition, and it seems like some law schools are shrinking the size of their classes (with one openly admitting it). At my school, the most recent entering class is about 40 students smaller than normal.