2011 Top 50 Go-To Law Schools Forum

[mst]

People on this board that treat this as some kind of legal hearing or something can sometimes be annoying....everyone's got to be a lawyer.

The "IMO" and "probably" did not qualify the bolded statements. Further, the bolded statements are indeed wild conjecture.

I think you might have missed my true point here entirely. I bet you're a riot at parties.

OK...? 0L fail. I was standing up for the poster that you reamed for no reason. You're not worth wasting my (virtual) breath.

The poster you were standing up for wasn't exactly being picked on or reamed. He/she was kinda being a bit of an ass. But so was everyone else I guess. Let's let this thread go.

[Other25BeforeYou]

NYU's drop could very likely be associated with its huge PI schtick. 70+ in PI (in positions that generally are good enough for biglaw placement) makes a big difference in %, and honestly if you had the choice of chasing big-law with a probability of being no-offered or deferred and then being let go in a few years regardless vs pursuing notable PI with one of the most generous LRAP's in existence, which would you choose? Columbia & Chicago just don't attact the same kind of PI-leaning folks, nor do they place as well into PI, as NYU. When you combine NYU's PI & NLJ250 numbers you get numbers comparable or better than Chicago's and Columbia's, assuming their prestigious PI placement is not nearly as high as NYU's (a leap of faith has to be made here, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one).

But normally NYU places about 8% of their students into PI gigs, whereas class of 2010 was 15%. So the additional people doing PI only accounts for 7% of their drop.

[mst]

NYU's drop could very likely be associated with its huge PI schtick. 70+ in PI (in positions that generally are good enough for biglaw placement) makes a big difference in %, and honestly if you had the choice of chasing big-law with a probability of being no-offered or deferred and then being let go in a few years regardless vs pursuing notable PI with one of the most generous LRAP's in existence, which would you choose? Columbia & Chicago just don't attact the same kind of PI-leaning folks, nor do they place as well into PI, as NYU. When you combine NYU's PI & NLJ250 numbers you get numbers comparable or better than Chicago's and Columbia's, assuming their prestigious PI placement is not nearly as high as NYU's (a leap of faith has to be made here, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one).

But normally NYU places about 8% of their students into PI gigs, whereas class of 2010 was 15%. So the additional people doing PI only accounts for 7% of their drop.

There was a market crash too bro.

If NYU is at 42% and 15% are going PI, that puts it at 57% assuming that those PI folks coulda gotten biglaw, which they very well could have. Assuming that Chi and Columbia continually just DONT do PI (0-3% as mentioned in the other thread), the difference in placement ability is completely negligible.

Note: All of this data confirms what TLS already believes (CCN can pull biglaw from below median, MVP can pull from at median), and Cornell is weird.

[thelaststraw05]

What are people's thoughts on Michigan?

It seems to be placing a little bit below weight. Is this because it doesn't have a home market like most of the rest of the top 10 and doesn't place into NYC as well as Penn and UVA?

[03121202698008]

What are people's thoughts on Michigan?

It seems to be placing a little bit below weight. Is this because it doesn't have a home market like most of the rest of the top 10 and doesn't place into NYC as well as Penn and UVA?

How do you know how Michigan places in NYC? You can't go by aggregate numbers since most M students aren't bidding on NYC.

[BrownBears09]

Seriously, it looks like a good day to go to Penn, Chicago, and Columbia, averaging across all 3 years. At WORST, you have a 50-50 chance of making $160,000 after graduation.

This list doesn't count regional self-selection, clerkships, public interest, and academia. Also, remember, top schools (especially Penn) admit a lot of students for "diversity" (racial and "amazing softs") purposes with low numbers, so if you're a "normal" student at one of these schools, not being at the bottom of the class is a reasonable assumption. 20% (regionalism, clerkships, public interest) + 20% (diversity admits with low numbers, bottom of the class) = 40% + 50% (NLJ 250)=90%. Pretty good odds for the top 6, I'd say.

But I'm a 0L and very possibly a future U Penn troll, so feel free to ignore me.

I literally lol'd when I read this logic. Regardless of the numbers, why would one assume that "diversity" students end up at the bottom of the class and "normal (lol)" students always end up above them? Not to mention you're trying to perfectly correlate admissions indexes to eventual class rank (lol). Please tell me you're an obvious troll. (And ffs, at least type "UPenn" correctly.)

[ebo]

What are the other 90% of W&L grads doing?

[rman1201]

What are the other 90% of W&L grads doing?

--ImageRemoved--

[Magnificent]

NYU's drop could very likely be associated with its huge PI schtick. 70+ in PI (in positions that generally are good enough for biglaw placement) makes a big difference in %, and honestly if you had the choice of chasing big-law with a probability of being no-offered or deferred and then being let go in a few years regardless vs pursuing notable PI with one of the most generous LRAP's in existence, which would you choose? Columbia & Chicago just don't attact the same kind of PI-leaning folks, nor do they place as well into PI, as NYU. When you combine NYU's PI & NLJ250 numbers you get numbers comparable or better than Chicago's and Columbia's, assuming their prestigious PI placement is not nearly as high as NYU's (a leap of faith has to be made here, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one).

But normally NYU places about 8% of their students into PI gigs, whereas class of 2010 was 15%. So the additional people doing PI only accounts for 7% of their drop.

There was a market crash too bro.

If NYU is at 42% and 15% are going PI, that puts it at 57% assuming that those PI folks coulda gotten biglaw, which they very well could have. Assuming that Chi and Columbia continually just DONT do PI (0-3% as mentioned in the other thread), the difference in placement ability is completely negligible.

Note: All of this data confirms what TLS already believes (CCN can pull biglaw from below median, MVP can pull from at median), and Cornell is weird.

where is this 15% coming from?

do you have factual data to back this up or is it hearsay or conjecture?

also what makes you think that PI positions didn't feel the same pinch as any other part of the economy when it came to jobs after the downturn?

I mean maybe your right and NYU students are just so awesome that PI employer who have decreased jobs available had decided to hire twice as many as they did before. Or that somehow with the downturn only NYU students got more interested in PI. Unless there are facts to back up your assertions, they are just that assertions. So excuse us if we just don't fall in line to believe what you are saying.

[wiseowl]

NYU's drop could very likely be associated with its huge PI schtick. 70+ in PI (in positions that generally are good enough for biglaw placement) makes a big difference in %, and honestly if you had the choice of chasing big-law with a probability of being no-offered or deferred and then being let go in a few years regardless vs pursuing notable PI with one of the most generous LRAP's in existence, which would you choose? Columbia & Chicago just don't attact the same kind of PI-leaning folks, nor do they place as well into PI, as NYU. When you combine NYU's PI & NLJ250 numbers you get numbers comparable or better than Chicago's and Columbia's, assuming their prestigious PI placement is not nearly as high as NYU's (a leap of faith has to be made here, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one).

But normally NYU places about 8% of their students into PI gigs, whereas class of 2010 was 15%. So the additional people doing PI only accounts for 7% of their drop.

There was a market crash too bro.

If NYU is at 42% and 15% are going PI, that puts it at 57% assuming that those PI folks coulda gotten biglaw, which they very well could have. Assuming that Chi and Columbia continually just DONT do PI (0-3% as mentioned in the other thread), the difference in placement ability is completely negligible.

Note: All of this data confirms what TLS already believes (CCN can pull biglaw from below median, MVP can pull from at median), and Cornell is weird.

where is this 15% coming from?

do you have factual data to back this up or is it hearsay or conjecture?

also what makes you think that PI positions didn't feel the same pinch as any other part of the economy when it came to jobs after the downturn?

I mean maybe your right and NYU students are just so awesome that PI employer who have decreased jobs available had decided to hire twice as many as they did before. Or that somehow with the downturn only NYU students got more interested in PI. Unless there are facts to back up your assertions, they are just that assertions. So excuse us if we just don't fall in line to believe what you are saying.

How many different versions of this are you going to post? We heard you the first three times.

[thelaststraw05]

What are people's thoughts on Michigan?

It seems to be placing a little bit below weight. Is this because it doesn't have a home market like most of the rest of the top 10 and doesn't place into NYC as well as Penn and UVA?

How do you know how Michigan places in NYC? You can't go by aggregate numbers since most M students aren't bidding on NYC.

You are right, places was the wrong word. I'm trying to figure out why Michigan underperformed peer schools. I am not trying to rag on Michigan at all, I would say there is about a 95% likelihood I'll be a Michigan 1L next year. I'm just trying to understand the data.

[03121202698008]

What are people's thoughts on Michigan?

It seems to be placing a little bit below weight. Is this because it doesn't have a home market like most of the rest of the top 10 and doesn't place into NYC as well as Penn and UVA?

How do you know how Michigan places in NYC? You can't go by aggregate numbers since most M students aren't bidding on NYC.

You are right, places was the wrong word. I'm trying to figure out why Michigan underperformed peer schools. I am not trying to rag on Michigan at all, I would say there is about a 95% likelihood I'll be a Michigan 1L next year. I'm just trying to understand the data.

But what I'm saying is, there is no way to tell that it underperformed. You're looking at number of associates. If 100 people at CLS wanted NYC, and 50 got it...that's 50%. If only 20 people at M wanted NYC, and 20 got it, that's 100%. But in the aggregate, CLS has more associates.

[rayiner]

NYU's drop could very likely be associated with its huge PI schtick. 70+ in PI (in positions that generally are good enough for biglaw placement) makes a big difference in %, and honestly if you had the choice of chasing big-law with a probability of being no-offered or deferred and then being let go in a few years regardless vs pursuing notable PI with one of the most generous LRAP's in existence, which would you choose? Columbia & Chicago just don't attact the same kind of PI-leaning folks, nor do they place as well into PI, as NYU. When you combine NYU's PI & NLJ250 numbers you get numbers comparable or better than Chicago's and Columbia's, assuming their prestigious PI placement is not nearly as high as NYU's (a leap of faith has to be made here, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one).

But normally NYU places about 8% of their students into PI gigs, whereas class of 2010 was 15%. So the additional people doing PI only accounts for 7% of their drop.

There was a market crash too bro.

If NYU is at 42% and 15% are going PI, that puts it at 57% assuming that those PI folks coulda gotten biglaw, which they very well could have. Assuming that Chi and Columbia continually just DONT do PI (0-3% as mentioned in the other thread), the difference in placement ability is completely negligible.

Note: All of this data confirms what TLS already believes (CCN can pull biglaw from below median, MVP can pull from at median), and Cornell is weird.

This data has nothing to do with who can pull biglaw from where in the class. These folks were all hired before the crash, and thus (from the T14) include people way below the median.

What this data reflects is who got no-offered, which is largely independent of grades and mostly dependent on market and firm. Lots of people with great grades didn't get a job while people with lesser grades did. Eg. Before the crash, Latham was the "cool" V10. Lots of people wih great grades took a Latham offer for the summer then got no-offered full-time. Meanwhile people with similar or even lower grades ended up at Skadden got full-time offers (after deferral).

Arguing about the rank-order of the schools based on this data is dumb. Duke isn't a TTT b/c it placed 38% rather than 45% like the other lower T14. It just placed more people in Atlanta, etc, which had vicious offer rates. While NYC gave offers to 90% of summer associates, the top ATL firms gave offers to only 50%.

[rayiner]

What are people's thoughts on Michigan?

It seems to be placing a little bit below weight. Is this because it doesn't have a home market like most of the rest of the top 10 and doesn't place into NYC as well as Penn and UVA?

How do you know how Michigan places in NYC? You can't go by aggregate numbers since most M students aren't bidding on NYC.

You are right, places was the wrong word. I'm trying to figure out why Michigan underperformed peer schools. I am not trying to rag on Michigan at all, I would say there is about a 95% likelihood I'll be a Michigan 1L next year. I'm just trying to understand the data.

Michigan places most of it's people into New York, but places a significant amount into Chicago. In Chicago, every firm no-offered people. Law review folks from Michigan who went to Sidley or Kirkland got no-offered at a higher rate than top 1/3 people from Penn who went to Weil. That was just the market.

[wiseowl]

This data has nothing to do with who can pull biglaw from where in the class. These folks were all hired before the crash, and thus (from the T14) include people way below the median.

What this data reflects is who got no-offered, which is largely independent of grades and mostly dependent on market and firm. Lots of people with great grades didn't get a job while people with lesser grades did. Eg. Before the crash, Latham was the "cool" V10. Lots of people wih great grades took a Latham offer for the summer then got no-offered full-time. Meanwhile people with similar or even lower grades ended up at Skadden got full-time offers (after deferral).

Arguing about the rank-order of the schools based on this data is dumb. Duke isn't a TTT b/c it placed 38% rather than 45% like the other lower T14. It just placed more people in Atlanta, etc, which had vicious offer rates. While NYC gave offers to 90% of summer associates, the top ATL firms gave offers to only 50%.

Bingo, though I'll quibble a bit with saying they were all hired before the crash. Lehman crashed literally in the middle of OCI/callback season.

Regardless, 2008 OCI/hiring season was the most weird and anomalous that probably has ever occurred, save for maybe 2001 for obvious reasons. As many have said, next year's numbers from 2009 OCI will look even worse, but at least they will be consistent and not basically firm and market-specific like this one was.

People in this thread saying that this list "settles" questions, using it to cheerlead for their favorite school, or seriously waffling on attending because of the data probably don't have to worry about NLJ hiring.

This is only one data point out of dozens you should consider when deciding where to go.

[thelaststraw05]

What are people's thoughts on Michigan?

It seems to be placing a little bit below weight. Is this because it doesn't have a home market like most of the rest of the top 10 and doesn't place into NYC as well as Penn and UVA?

How do you know how Michigan places in NYC? You can't go by aggregate numbers since most M students aren't bidding on NYC.

You are right, places was the wrong word. I'm trying to figure out why Michigan underperformed peer schools. I am not trying to rag on Michigan at all, I would say there is about a 95% likelihood I'll be a Michigan 1L next year. I'm just trying to understand the data.

School 2010 2011 change
Cornell 41.5 58.3 16.8
Chicago 53.1 59 5.9
Penn 50.8 53.1 2.3
Harvard 47.6 49.7 2.1
Columbia 54.4 55.2 0.8
Yale 35.3 33.8 -1.5
Boalt 50 45.6 -4.4
GULC 42.8 37.6 -5.2
Virginia 52.8 46.8 -6
NYU 50.1 43.3 -6.8
Michigan 51 42.4 -8.6
NW 55.9 44.4 -11.5
Duke 49.8 38 -11.8
Stanford 54.1 41.6 -12.5

Sorry, what I am speaking of is the fact that Michigan saw a decline of nearly 9% from 2010-2011. As a result, it is now ranked 10th in percent of graduating class employed by the NLJ250. Last year it was ranked 6th and placed a full 51% in NLJ250 jobs.

[rayiner]

This data has nothing to do with who can pull biglaw from where in the class. These folks were all hired before the crash, and thus (from the T14) include people way below the median.

What this data reflects is who got no-offered, which is largely independent of grades and mostly dependent on market and firm. Lots of people with great grades didn't get a job while people with lesser grades did. Eg. Before the crash, Latham was the "cool" V10. Lots of people wih great grades took a Latham offer for the summer then got no-offered full-time. Meanwhile people with similar or even lower grades ended up at Skadden got full-time offers (after deferral).

Arguing about the rank-order of the schools based on this data is dumb. Duke isn't a TTT b/c it placed 38% rather than 45% like the other lower T14. It just placed more people in Atlanta, etc, which had vicious offer rates. While NYC gave offers to 90% of summer associates, the top ATL firms gave offers to only 50%.

Bingo, though I'll quibble a bit with saying they were all hired before the crash. Lehman crashed literally in the middle of OCI/callback season.

Fair point. Lehman filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15. The DOW dropped 500 points that day, but firms didn't just start canceling pending callbacks immediately, b/c the hiring plans had been place for months at that point and nobody wanted to overreact to what could've been a market fluctuation.

Depending on market/school, most of the hiring was in a late stage by Sept. 15. NYC firms send out callback invitations within a couple of days of OCI (which was early/mid August in a lot of places) so lots of people interviewing with the big NYC firms already had offers in hand by Sept. 15. The firms that were able to change their hiring in time were the ones in markets with a normally extended callback timeline (most places besides NYC/DC/LA). In October when it sunk in that we were in a real recession, places like Atlanta were canceling callback invitations but NYC had pretty much already finished hiring.

[rayiner]

Sorry, what I am speaking of is the fact that Michigan saw a decline of nearly 9% from 2010-2011. As a result, it is now ranked 10th in percent of graduating class employed by the NLJ250. Last year it was ranked 6th and placed a full 51% in NLJ250 jobs.

Dude there was an intervening recession. Which explains the drop.

Also, this shit fluctuates a lot year to year (look at how close the whole 6-10 range is on that list numerically). Last year I was ragging on Michigan for being a TTT b/c they had 0 people in my firm's summer class, but this year they had the same as Penn/VA/NU.

[FiveSermon]

This data has nothing to do with who can pull biglaw from where in the class. These folks were all hired before the crash, and thus (from the T14) include people way below the median.

What this data reflects is who got no-offered, which is largely independent of grades and mostly dependent on market and firm. Lots of people with great grades didn't get a job while people with lesser grades did. Eg. Before the crash, Latham was the "cool" V10. Lots of people wih great grades took a Latham offer for the summer then got no-offered full-time. Meanwhile people with similar or even lower grades ended up at Skadden got full-time offers (after deferral).

Arguing about the rank-order of the schools based on this data is dumb. Duke isn't a TTT b/c it placed 38% rather than 45% like the other lower T14. It just placed more people in Atlanta, etc, which had vicious offer rates. While NYC gave offers to 90% of summer associates, the top ATL firms gave offers to only 50%.

Bingo, though I'll quibble a bit with saying they were all hired before the crash. Lehman crashed literally in the middle of OCI/callback season.

Fair point. Lehman filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15. The DOW dropped 500 points that day, but firms didn't just start canceling pending callbacks immediately, b/c the hiring plans had been place for months at that point and nobody wanted to overreact to what could've been a market fluctuation.

Depending on market/school, most of the hiring was in a late stage by Sept. 15. NYC firms send out callback invitations within a couple of days of OCI (which was early/mid August in a lot of places) so lots of people interviewing with the big NYC firms already had offers in hand by Sept. 15. The firms that were able to change their hiring in time were the ones in markets with a normally extended callback timeline (most places besides NYC/DC/LA). In October when it sunk in that we were in a real recession, places like Atlanta were canceling callback invitations but NYC had pretty much already finished hiring.

Yeah, I did OCI in 2008 and it was mostly over, including callbacks, when Lehman crashed. HLS was a slight exception to this, inasmuch as their OCI and callback week occurred later than other schools'. I believe this point was documented on ATL.

Also, Rayiner is correct about the data reflecting market offer rates more than placement potential.

Dammit so I can't financially justify going to Cornell at sticker?

[rayiner]

Dammit so I can't financially justify going to Cornell at sticker?

It depends on your risk/reward calculus. I personally think C/O 2013 will be in decent shape at least within T14 (back over 50% NLJ250 placement), with C/O 2014 being somewhat better. It won't be 2006, 2007 when below median people from CCN were getting V10 offers, but it might be as good as C/O 2004 (did OCI in the 2001-2002 recession) when MVPNDNC placed in the 50-55% range.

[FiveSermon]

Dammit so I can't financially justify going to Cornell at sticker?

It depends on your risk/reward calculus. I personally think C/O 2013 will be in decent shape at least within T14 (back over 50% NLJ250 placement), with C/O 2014 being somewhat better. It won't be 2006, 2007 when below median people from CCN were getting V10 offers, but it might be as good as C/O 2004 (did OCI in the 2001-2002 recession) when MVPNDNC placed in the 50-55% range.

Is Penn that much better than Cornell? Like is it worth waiting a year to retake the LSAT just to aim for Penn?

[skoobily doobily]

in c/o 09 Emory puts 23% in biglaw, Georgia state is unranked

Atlanta turns out 42% offer rates (per DF data), the lowest in the nation.

other atlanta feeders like Duke, Vandy, UGA, get hammered.

Emory puts 21% in, and Georgia state puts 13% and moves up into the top 50.

wut?

[Sandro]

in c/o 09 Emory puts 23% in biglaw, Georgia state is unranked

Atlanta turns out 42% offer rates (per DF data), the lowest in the nation.

other atlanta feeders like Duke, Vandy, UGA, get hammered.

Emory puts 21% in, and Georgia state puts 13% and moves up into the top 50.

wut?

GSU must be doing something right ?

[rayiner]

Dammit so I can't financially justify going to Cornell at sticker?

It depends on your risk/reward calculus. I personally think C/O 2013 will be in decent shape at least within T14 (back over 50% NLJ250 placement), with C/O 2014 being somewhat better. It won't be 2006, 2007 when below median people from CCN were getting V10 offers, but it might be as good as C/O 2004 (did OCI in the 2001-2002 recession) when MVPNDNC placed in the 50-55% range.

Is Penn that much better than Cornell? Like is it worth waiting a year to retake the LSAT just to aim for Penn?

I would much rather go to Penn than Cornell, but the decision has to be based on personal factors.
MVPBDNC have been shifting around in the NLJ250 rankings for years now and IMHO between those schools a lot more depends on your specific situation than what school you go to.

[Trequartista]

Dammit so I can't financially justify going to Cornell at sticker?

It depends on your risk/reward calculus. I personally think C/O 2013 will be in decent shape at least within T14 (back over 50% NLJ250 placement), with C/O 2014 being somewhat better. It won't be 2006, 2007 when below median people from CCN were getting V10 offers, but it might be as good as C/O 2004 (did OCI in the 2001-2002 recession) when MVPNDNC placed in the 50-55% range.

Is Penn that much better than Cornell? Like is it worth waiting a year to retake the LSAT just to aim for Penn?

No.