lawgod wrote:Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?
wut?
lawgod wrote:Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?
Sentry wrote:Perdevise wrote:What is the difference between a PI/gov SA and just PI/Gov?
I think the PI/Gov SA people split and did half their summer at PI/gov and half as an SA.
Sentry wrote:lawgod wrote:Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?
wut?
lawgod wrote:Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?
Assuming a class size of 210 (including transfers) at UChicago, for the class of 2012:
7.1% in the V5
8.6% in the V5-10 range (so 15.7% total in the V10)
16.2% in the V11-20 range (so 31.9% total in the V20)
6.2% in the V21-30 range (so 38.1% total in the V30)
13.8% in the V31-50 range (so 51.9% total in the V50)
11.4% in the V51-100 range (so 63.3% total in the V100)
5.7% at firms not in Vault, but in the NLJ250 (so 69% total in the V100/NLJ250)
I should add that the Vault rankings don't really do UChicago justice since they're so NYC-centric and most people from UChicago choose to go other places (mainly, the city of Chicago).
lawgod wrote:Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?
Anonymous User wrote:
It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:
birdlaw117 wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:
Just so we're clear. I'm supposed to believe an Anonymous User who claims to have access to the names and what they are doing of everyone in the class, but has to estimate the number of students in the class? And then decides to lower the estimate, thereby boosting the %? Okay. That sounds reasonable.
Sentry wrote:birdlaw117 wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:
Just so we're clear. I'm supposed to believe an Anonymous User who claims to have access to the names and what they are doing of everyone in the class, but has to estimate the number of students in the class? And then decides to lower the estimate, thereby boosting the %? Okay. That sounds reasonable.
Everybody at Chicago gets the list.
birdlaw117 wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:
Just so we're clear. I'm supposed to believe an Anonymous User who claims to have access to the names and what they are doing of everyone in the class, but has to estimate the number of students in the class? And then decides to lower the estimate, thereby boosting the %? Okay. That sounds reasonable.
Return to “Legal Employment�
The online users are hidden on this forum.