Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby LawIdiot86 » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:57 pm

There are some memes that are tossed around TLS that seem worth discussing:

1. BC/BU outperform other T30 in placement. While this may have been true in 2010, it doesn't look true for 2011. Does this mean Boston is recovering at a lower rate or that Boston firms are finally opening more to students outside the immediate region?

2. Some schools were hit far harder than this numbers/ranking change might indicate. Penn went from placing 187 in 2006 (http://mblog.lib.umich.edu/OCSlawcareers/archives/2007/02/largest_law_fir_1.html and http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/20080414gotoschools.jpg) to 156 in 2011. That's only a 16% drop. GULC went from 332 to 198 (40%) and Texas went from 194 to 82 (58%); Vandy went from 97 to 43 (56%) and BU went from 113 to 48 (58%). USC somehow declined only 20% (85 to 68). Berkeley seemed to buck the big schools declining by large percentages trend, dropping from its peak of 166 to 140 (17%). Cornell seemed to do the worst of small schools, going from 117 to 72 (38%) and NYU did horribly going from 359 to 187 (48%).

What's interesting is the theory of very loyal alumni at USC doesn't translate to other smaller schools like Cornell or Vandy. One reason I thought of for NYU/GULC/GWU/Texas/Mich/UCLA doing so bad is that because they have huge classes, even firms with loyal alumni, decided that ITE they would hire 1 person from their alma mater instead of the prior 2-3. This wouldn't explain why Columbia (25%), Berkeley and UVA (29%) maintained even with 300+ class sizes though.

3. How do schools that place 10-30 people at firms handle recruiting/OCS differently from schools that place dozens or none? Given the resources needed for counselors to network with firms, it would seem like a losing proposition for a school like Samford that sends 11 students to biglaw (7%) to dedicate OCS funds to getting those 11 students jobs given how those resources could be spent targeting PI/gov't/small law/etc. Are those 11 the top 5% plus top 10% and journal e-board/legacy/URM who are hustling on their own or do schools dedicate a disproportionate level of resources to the top 10% so they get big law and then permit the schools to fudge average salary statistics?

4. I can't copy the tables to Excel given the DRM, but what schools noticeably outperformed or underperformed (10 spots or more) their USNWR ranking? Clearly Indiana underperformed (USNWR #23, not in NLJ top 50), as did Iowa (USNWR #27, not in NLJ top 50). Temple outperformed (USNWR #61, NLJ #46) as did Seton Hall (USNWR #61, NLJ #39).

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby beachbum » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:00 pm

Here's a TLS meme that actually does appear to have some grounding in reality: T13. Discuss.

LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby LawIdiot86 » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:09 pm

beachbum wrote:Here's a TLS meme that actually does appear to have some grounding in reality: T13. Discuss.


GULC has the largest class size by a wide wide margin and is the only T14 with a part time program. Also, its business school lacks the prestige of Kellogg, Darden or Wharton (and maybe Fuqua) or the Ivy prestige of Cornell or UPenn among the MVPBDCNGT peer group. And it lacks a plausible alternative market like Texas (Texas), Boalt (Cali), Michigan (Chicago, I know it sucks), Duke (Atlanta), UPenn (Philly), Northwestern (Chicago), so it has to overstuff the only markets that don't care about ties (NY and DC). And for years it had a stupid policy that only 60 students a semester (out of 1,300 eligible) could do internships for two or three credits; Duke sends people to DC for 10 credit semester internships. Also, it never has established strong ties with banking/finance/consulting firms or non-DOJ/State federal employers for internships/summer positions that look good for Biglaw.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby NYC Law » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:12 pm

If anyone wants to look at the changes from last year to this, here

It looks like, overall, William & Mary was last year's biggest fluke.

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Wholigan » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:16 pm

pugilistjd wrote:
NinerFan wrote: What is your point from this? Are you of the belief that if the respondent % was, say, 50%, that if it was instead 100%, that some schools would have a lower %? A higher response rate will not make any of these school percentages go down. The numbers are a floor, not a ceiling.

If you're trying to make another point, it's not coming across to anyone, so assuming you're not a troll, take some time and type out what exactly you're trying to say.



My point is that NLJ should publish their respondent numbers. I'm not sure why people think this is unreasonable.


It doesn't appear you actually read the articles in the NLJ, only looked at the chart. If you read the articles, it is clear that their assertion is that all 250 firms are factored in. I'm not sure what else you want them to do - at some point, you have to trust their journalistic integrity, unless there is some reason to doubt the accuracy, which I haven't seen you come close to articulating in the past several pages where you have tried to derail the thread.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby skers » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:27 pm

LawIdiot86 wrote:
beachbum wrote:Here's a TLS meme that actually does appear to have some grounding in reality: T13. Discuss.


GULC has the largest class size by a wide wide margin and is the only T14 with a part time program. Also, its business school lacks the prestige of Kellogg, Darden or Wharton (and maybe Fuqua) or the Ivy prestige of Cornell or UPenn among the MVPBDCNGT peer group. And it lacks a plausible alternative market like Texas (Texas), Boalt (Cali), Michigan (Chicago, I know it sucks), Duke (Atlanta), UPenn (Philly), Northwestern (Chicago), so it has to overstuff the only markets that don't care about ties (NY and DC). And for years it had a stupid policy that only 60 students a semester (out of 1,300 eligible) could do internships for two or three credits; Duke sends people to DC for 10 credit semester internships. Also, it never has established strong ties with banking/finance/consulting firms or non-DOJ/State federal employers for internships/summer positions that look good for Biglaw.


I think this data and the bloodbath of the Michigan OCI thread a couple years ago shows that Chicago is not a target market for Michigan. They may have a slight bump in hiring there, but it's nothing like Philly for Penn or Chicago for Northwestern.

T13 seems absolutely accurate given the gap in GULC's placement and everyone else. I mean tt's hard to account for GULC's fed gov. placement, though I'd be surprised if it were that much greater than the t13. Also, GULC blows with clerkships compared to most of the t13, furthering that gap idea.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby 09042014 » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:35 pm

beachbum wrote:Here's a TLS meme that actually does appear to have some grounding in reality: T13. Discuss.


TBF I started that meme because of NLJ data.

LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby LawIdiot86 » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:41 pm

TemporarySaint wrote:
LawIdiot86 wrote:
beachbum wrote:Here's a TLS meme that actually does appear to have some grounding in reality: T13. Discuss.


GULC has the largest class size by a wide wide margin and is the only T14 with a part time program. Also, its business school lacks the prestige of Kellogg, Darden or Wharton (and maybe Fuqua) or the Ivy prestige of Cornell or UPenn among the MVPBDCNGT peer group. And it lacks a plausible alternative market like Texas (Texas), Boalt (Cali), Michigan (Chicago, I know it sucks), Duke (Atlanta), UPenn (Philly), Northwestern (Chicago), so it has to overstuff the only markets that don't care about ties (NY and DC). And for years it had a stupid policy that only 60 students a semester (out of 1,300 eligible) could do internships for two or three credits; Duke sends people to DC for 10 credit semester internships. Also, it never has established strong ties with banking/finance/consulting firms or non-DOJ/State federal employers for internships/summer positions that look good for Biglaw.


I think this data and the bloodbath of the Michigan OCI thread a couple years ago shows that Chicago is not a target market for Michigan. They may have a slight bump in hiring there, but it's nothing like Philly for Penn or Chicago for Northwestern.

T13 seems absolutely accurate given the gap in GULC's placement and everyone else. I mean tt's hard to account for GULC's fed gov. placement, though I'd be surprised if it were that much greater than the t13. Also, GULC blows with clerkships compared to most of the t13, furthering that gap idea.


The problem with kicking GULC out of the T14 is that they still place their usual 1-2 SC clerks a year, still placed 198 people at firms (third of any school, no T30 placed half that many), and still have firms like CSM at OCI. Also, there was that survey from a few months ago that showed the graduated the largest number of individuals who eventually became partners at firms. They may underperform in AIII clerkships, but it seems like they have developed an unusual business model of huge class sizes that is unique among the T14 (similar to Yale's PI/Gov) and whose total performance makes it very distinguishable from the T30.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby rad lulz » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:42 pm

.
Last edited by rad lulz on Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby 09042014 » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:45 pm

TemporarySaint wrote:
LawIdiot86 wrote:
beachbum wrote:Here's a TLS meme that actually does appear to have some grounding in reality: T13. Discuss.


GULC has the largest class size by a wide wide margin and is the only T14 with a part time program. Also, its business school lacks the prestige of Kellogg, Darden or Wharton (and maybe Fuqua) or the Ivy prestige of Cornell or UPenn among the MVPBDCNGT peer group. And it lacks a plausible alternative market like Texas (Texas), Boalt (Cali), Michigan (Chicago, I know it sucks), Duke (Atlanta), UPenn (Philly), Northwestern (Chicago), so it has to overstuff the only markets that don't care about ties (NY and DC). And for years it had a stupid policy that only 60 students a semester (out of 1,300 eligible) could do internships for two or three credits; Duke sends people to DC for 10 credit semester internships. Also, it never has established strong ties with banking/finance/consulting firms or non-DOJ/State federal employers for internships/summer positions that look good for Biglaw.


I think this data and the bloodbath of the Michigan OCI thread a couple years ago shows that Chicago is not a target market for Michigan. They may have a slight bump in hiring there, but it's nothing like Philly for Penn or Chicago for Northwestern.

T13 seems absolutely accurate given the gap in GULC's placement and everyone else. I mean tt's hard to account for GULC's fed gov. placement, though I'd be surprised if it were that much greater than the t13. Also, GULC blows with clerkships compared to most of the t13, furthering that gap idea.



I think Michigan is still a good school for Chicago, but you absolutely need solid ties. By telling everyone to focus on Chicago, Michigan OCS basically told a bunch of people with zero ties to bid on a market that was collapsing. Chicago for class of '11 was really terrible.

Northwestern on the other hand is a tie to Chicago. Just attending is good enough. But Chicago as a market still sucks. But attending Michigan is not a tie to Chicago. Which is why it was really stupid to tell students to bid there.

Ironically it was Northwestern's national placement that saved it in '11.

User avatar
FlightoftheEarls
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby FlightoftheEarls » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:12 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I think Michigan is still a good school for Chicago, but you absolutely need solid ties. By telling everyone to focus on Chicago, Michigan OCS basically told a bunch of people with zero ties to bid on a market that was collapsing. Chicago for class of '11 was really terrible.

Northwestern on the other hand is a tie to Chicago. Just attending is good enough. But Chicago as a market still sucks. But attending Michigan is not a tie to Chicago. Which is why it was really stupid to tell students to bid there.

I think this is pretty spot on. Being in Chicago for NU or UChi is enough to create some legitimate ties, whereas being at Michigan isn't really enough to do that on its own. Attending Michigan alone was occasionally fine when the economy was booming and firms everywhere were competing for students, even if not at the level that NYC firms were. When firms became extremely selective about their hires, only Michigan students with past Chicago ties were legitimately competitive. Those that turned to Chicago as a refuge from NYC without pre-existing relationships to the city were, in hindsight, destined for trouble.

They certainly found it.

User avatar
pugilistjd
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby pugilistjd » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:25 pm

Wholigan wrote:It doesn't appear you actually read the articles in the NLJ, only looked at the chart. If you read the articles, it is clear that their assertion is that all 250 firms are factored in. I'm not sure what else you want them to do - at some point, you have to trust their journalistic integrity, unless there is some reason to doubt the accuracy, which I haven't seen you come close to articulating in the past several pages where you have tried to derail the thread.


LOL journalistic integrity? It wouldn't be in NLJ's best interest to reveal a lacking response rate ifthat were the case. What I've been saying is that the response rate is uncertain, which leaves room for doubt. There's a pretty simple solution to that problem: match up the grads with the firms. Why is that so unreasonable?

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby rad lulz » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:26 pm

.
Last edited by rad lulz on Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby NYC Law » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:28 pm

pugilistjd wrote:
Wholigan wrote:It doesn't appear you actually read the articles in the NLJ, only looked at the chart. If you read the articles, it is clear that their assertion is that all 250 firms are factored in. I'm not sure what else you want them to do - at some point, you have to trust their journalistic integrity, unless there is some reason to doubt the accuracy, which I haven't seen you come close to articulating in the past several pages where you have tried to derail the thread.


LOL journalistic integrity? It wouldn't be in NLJ's best interest to reveal a lacking response rate ifthat were the case. What I've been saying is that the response rate is uncertain, which leaves room for doubt. There's a pretty simple solution to that problem: match up the grads with the firms. Why is that so unreasonable?


Dude I'm pretty sure all of the NLJ 250 firms respond to the NLJ survey, since they, y'know, wanna be ranked by the NLJ 250.

lawyerwannabe
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby lawyerwannabe » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:30 pm

rad lulz wrote:
LawIdiot86 wrote:MVPBDCNGT peer group

Stop.


Ya. TX-trolling needs to be forever put to rest. Just because it tied GULC (for one year!) does not make it a peer school. As soon as TX tied GULC, T13 started to be used. Not even sure if GULC is a peer school to those schools anymore, let alone TX.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby kaiser » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:32 pm

I've been exclusively saying T13 for the past year, and not even as a joke. Its not like 14 wasn't in itself an arbitrary and silly-sounding distinction. So making 14 into 13 is no weirder sounding.

lawyerwannabe
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby lawyerwannabe » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:36 pm

kaiser wrote:I've been exclusively saying T13 for the past year, and not even as a joke. Its not like 14 wasn't in itself an arbitrary and silly-sounding distinction. So making 14 into 13 is no weirder sounding.


In all fairness, while 14 may seem arbitrary, it really is not.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/dissecti ... kings.html

User avatar
pugilistjd
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby pugilistjd » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:36 pm

NYC Law wrote:Dude I'm pretty sure all of the NLJ 250 firms respond to the NLJ survey, since they, y'know, wanna be ranked by the NLJ 250.


Why would a firm need to provide any other information besides a head count to be ranked?

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby NYC Law » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:37 pm

pugilistjd wrote:
NYC Law wrote:Dude I'm pretty sure all of the NLJ 250 firms respond to the NLJ survey, since they, y'know, wanna be ranked by the NLJ 250.


Why would a firm need to provide any other information besides a head count to be ranked?


This is part of that headcount.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby 09042014 » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:40 pm

lawyerwannabe wrote:
rad lulz wrote:
LawIdiot86 wrote:MVPBDCNGT peer group

Stop.


Ya. TX-trolling needs to be forever put to rest. Just because it tied GULC (for one year!) does not make it a peer school. As soon as TX tied GULC, T13 started to be used. Not even sure if GULC is a peer school to those schools anymore, let alone TX.


GULC and UT tied for 15. You can't have 15 T14.

User avatar
pugilistjd
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby pugilistjd » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:41 pm

NYC Law wrote:This is part of that headcount.


Really? I'm pretty sure a firm can write down just a head count... as in the number of heads and nothing else.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby kaiser » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:42 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
lawyerwannabe wrote:
rad lulz wrote:
LawIdiot86 wrote:MVPBDCNGT peer group

Stop.


Ya. TX-trolling needs to be forever put to rest. Just because it tied GULC (for one year!) does not make it a peer school. As soon as TX tied GULC, T13 started to be used. Not even sure if GULC is a peer school to those schools anymore, let alone TX.


GULC and UT tied for 15. You can't have 15 T14.


No, they didn't tie for 15. That doesn't make sense. If you have a 3 person race, and 1 person clearly wins, and the other 2 tie, you don't say they tied for 3rd. You say they tied for 2nd.

lawyerwannabe
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby lawyerwannabe » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:42 pm

.
Last edited by lawyerwannabe on Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:46 pm

Doesn't matter either way. The T14 distinction is for schools that were, at some point or another, in the top 10 law schools. Since UT was never in the top 10, they still aren't a T14.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby skers » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:49 pm

lawyerwannabe wrote:
rad lulz wrote:
LawIdiot86 wrote:MVPBDCNGT peer group

Stop.


Ya. TX-trolling needs to be forever put to rest. Just because it tied GULC (for one year!) does not make it a peer school. As soon as TX tied GULC, T13 started to be used. Not even sure if GULC is a peer school to those schools anymore, let alone TX.


The most accurate grouping is GTVUCLAUSC




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.