below median @ MVP - plan?

(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.
User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I do not disagree but unfortunately USNWR does.


USNWR doesn't disagree either. Just draw the line at T7 rather than T6. The latter is entirely a TLS-invention anyway.

User avatar
Ruxin1
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby Ruxin1 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:22 pm

rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I do not disagree but unfortunately USNWR does.


USNWR doesn't disagree either. Just draw the line at T7 rather than T6. The latter is entirely a TLS-invention anyway.


The TLS tier system (t6, t10, t14 etc.) is in regard to difficulty of admission, not employment prospects as well. This seems to always get conflated.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby birdlaw117 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:23 pm

rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I do not disagree but unfortunately USNWR does.


USNWR doesn't disagree either. Just draw the line at T7 rather than T6. The latter is entirely a TLS-invention anyway.

The gap between NYU and Penn in USNWR's scores is as big as between NYU and H (maybe bigger). So in that sense they disagree.

But yeah, I'm with you on T7 making more sense, particularly since TLS seems very NYC biglaw driven.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby birdlaw117 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:24 pm

Ruxin1 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I do not disagree but unfortunately USNWR does.


USNWR doesn't disagree either. Just draw the line at T7 rather than T6. The latter is entirely a TLS-invention anyway.


The TLS tier system (t6, t10, t14 etc.) is in regard to difficulty of admission, not employment prospects as well. This seems to always get conflated.

And if this is the case then there should be even more justification for T7, not less.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:33 pm

Ruxin1 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I do not disagree but unfortunately USNWR does.


USNWR doesn't disagree either. Just draw the line at T7 rather than T6. The latter is entirely a TLS-invention anyway.


The TLS tier system (t6, t10, t14 etc.) is in regard to difficulty of admission, not employment prospects as well. This seems to always get conflated.

It was a lot more useful when 1) TLS was only about admissions and 2) everyone at every T14 had a stellar chance at employment so employment outcomes mattered very little to T14 applicants. We seem to have a hard time growing with the change. I imagine/hope someday the "rankings" will reference some sort of employment index along the lines of what Rayiner has slowly been refining. It seems like we are moving that way.

User avatar
Greenandgold
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby Greenandgold » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:37 pm

birdlaw117 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I do not disagree but unfortunately USNWR does.


USNWR doesn't disagree either. Just draw the line at T7 rather than T6. The latter is entirely a TLS-invention anyway.

The gap between NYU and Penn in USNWR's scores is as big as between NYU and H (maybe bigger). So in that sense they disagree.

But yeah, I'm with you on T7 making more sense, particularly since TLS seems very NYC biglaw driven.


It's bigger.

Y 100
S 96
H 95
C 94
C 93
N 92
B 87
P 87
V 87
M 86
D 84
N 83
G 82
C 81

User avatar
Ruxin1
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby Ruxin1 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:38 pm

Greenandgold wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I do not disagree but unfortunately USNWR does.


USNWR doesn't disagree either. Just draw the line at T7 rather than T6. The latter is entirely a TLS-invention anyway.

The gap between NYU and Penn in USNWR's scores is as big as between NYU and H (maybe bigger). So in that sense they disagree.

But yeah, I'm with you on T7 making more sense, particularly since TLS seems very NYC biglaw driven.


It's bigger.

Y 100
S 96
H 95
C 94
C 93
N 92
B 87
P 87
V 87
M 86
D 84
N 83
G 82
C 81


The point is those numbers don't give you a job, and isn't that what matters?

G is 1 and 2 points away from Northwestern and Duke and LOL if you think they are close...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:52 pm

Op here; thanks again all. When should I begin contacting the smaller market/smaller (non-big law) firms? ASAP, end of the summer?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:56 pm

Ruxin1 wrote:
Greenandgold wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:
rayiner wrote:USNWR doesn't disagree either. Just draw the line at T7 rather than T6. The latter is entirely a TLS-invention anyway.

The gap between NYU and Penn in USNWR's scores is as big as between NYU and H (maybe bigger). So in that sense they disagree.

But yeah, I'm with you on T7 making more sense, particularly since TLS seems very NYC biglaw driven.


It's bigger.

Y 100
S 96
H 95
C 94
C 93
N 92
B 87
P 87
V 87
M 86
D 84
N 83
G 82
C 81


The point is those numbers don't give you a job, and isn't that what matters?

G is 1 and 2 points away from Northwestern and Duke and LOL if you think they are close...


And HLS down to NYU is the same gap as UVA down to Duke or Duke down to Cornell.

User avatar
Greenandgold
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby Greenandgold » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:57 pm

Ruxin1 wrote:
The point is those numbers don't give you a job, and isn't that what matters?

G is 1 and 2 points away from Northwestern and Duke and LOL if you think they are close...


40% of those rankings are purely the opinions of others about the quality of the school. Those opinions do get you jobs. Regardless, I wasn't arguing for the U.S. News ranking system, I was just providing the normalized scores that birdlaw was referring too.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:01 pm

Greenandgold wrote:
Ruxin1 wrote:
The point is those numbers don't give you a job, and isn't that what matters?

G is 1 and 2 points away from Northwestern and Duke and LOL if you think they are close...


40% of those rankings are purely the opinions of others about the quality of the school. Those opinions do get you jobs. Regardless, I wasn't arguing for the U.S. News ranking system, I was just providing the normalized scores that birdlaw was referring too.


The problem is that most of the 40% is the opinions of other law professors (LOL), which is completely irrelevant.

The lawyer-judge ranking has some utility, but it's reporting rate is very low and it's not weighted. The opinions of a lawyer in NY matters as much as the opinion of a lawyer in St. Louis, even though the former should carry far more weight because that market has far more jobs.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby birdlaw117 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:04 pm

Yeah, let's not pretend that the rankings don't have a strong correlation with job opportunities. On the flip side, let's also not pretend it's even close to a perfect correlation.

I was basically just supporting the idea that USNWR shows a big gap between 6 and 7. And I've already given my opinion on T6/7.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:43 pm

birdlaw117 wrote:Yeah, let's not pretend that the rankings don't have a strong correlation with job opportunities. On the flip side, let's also not pretend it's even close to a perfect correlation.

I was basically just supporting the idea that USNWR shows a big gap between 6 and 7. And I've already given my opinion on T6/7.

Uhhh okay? But we don't have to guess at "correlation" based on USNWR since we have much better data to reference. USNWR shouldn't even enter into a discussion about employment.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:02 pm

IAFG wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:Yeah, let's not pretend that the rankings don't have a strong correlation with job opportunities. On the flip side, let's also not pretend it's even close to a perfect correlation.

I was basically just supporting the idea that USNWR shows a big gap between 6 and 7. And I've already given my opinion on T6/7.

Uhhh okay? But we don't have to guess at "correlation" based on USNWR since we have much better data to reference. USNWR shouldn't even enter into a discussion about employment.


Which is what it really circles back to, right? The CCN MVPB DNCG tiering is just not useful when you're asking for bidding advice or the like. People should just say what school the go to--it's not really much less anonymous to say "Michigan" versus "MVP", especially when the latter inevitably leads to "well is it MV or P because that changes my advice."

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby birdlaw117 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:25 pm

IAFG wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:Yeah, let's not pretend that the rankings don't have a strong correlation with job opportunities. On the flip side, let's also not pretend it's even close to a perfect correlation.

I was basically just supporting the idea that USNWR shows a big gap between 6 and 7. And I've already given my opinion on T6/7.

Uhhh okay? But we don't have to guess at "correlation" based on USNWR since we have much better data to reference. USNWR shouldn't even enter into a discussion about employment.

Yes and no. For ease of discussion tiering is convenient, and that is very related to USNWR. Also, the data you speak of isnt that great and can only measure placement as opposed to opportunities.

But I definitely agree that USNWR is not an employment measuring tool, it's just that it is somewhat beneficial for discussions because it's convenient. Obviously real data is more relevant, and obviously no school is identical to its peers.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:28 pm

birdlaw117 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:Yeah, let's not pretend that the rankings don't have a strong correlation with job opportunities. On the flip side, let's also not pretend it's even close to a perfect correlation.

I was basically just supporting the idea that USNWR shows a big gap between 6 and 7. And I've already given my opinion on T6/7.

Uhhh okay? But we don't have to guess at "correlation" based on USNWR since we have much better data to reference. USNWR shouldn't even enter into a discussion about employment.

Yes and no. For ease of discussion tiering is convenient, and that is very related to USNWR. Also, the data you speak of isnt that great and can only measure placement as opposed to opportunities.


USNWR doesn't even measure placement, much less opportunities. It measures what faculties think of each other and who spends the most $$ on overhead.

User avatar
Julio_El_Chavo
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby Julio_El_Chavo » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:28 pm

Penn's suddenly awesome placement relative to M and V is relatively new and shouldn't be seen as a definite trend that's going to continue in the future.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby birdlaw117 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:33 pm

rayiner wrote:USNWR doesn't even measure placement, much less opportunities. It measures what faculties think of each other and who spends the most $$ on overhead.

Yes I realize this. When I made that point it was addressin the shortcomings of nlj 250 and other data, not trying to show that USNWR was good.

My point was that discussing things within tiers can be helpful for conversations and generic advice, while obviously more specific advice cannot be very accurate based on tiers, but rather requires specific school and target market, etc. information.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:34 pm

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:Penn's suddenly awesome placement relative to M and V is relatively new and shouldn't be seen as a definite trend that's going to continue in the future.


Penn was right up there with Columbia in NLJ 250 placement back for C/O 2005. It's a trend that will continue so long as New York remains the dominant legal market and other markets remain soft: i.e. for the foreseeable future.

User avatar
Julio_El_Chavo
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby Julio_El_Chavo » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:35 pm

rayiner wrote:
Julio_El_Chavo wrote:Penn's suddenly awesome placement relative to M and V is relatively new and shouldn't be seen as a definite trend that's going to continue in the future.


Penn was right up there with Columbia in NLJ 250 placement back for C/O 2005. It's a trend that will continue so long as New York remains the dominant legal market and other markets remain soft: i.e. for the foreseeable future.


What makes you think that New York is going to remain dominant relative to the other legal markets?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:36 pm

birdlaw117 wrote:
rayiner wrote:USNWR doesn't even measure placement, much less opportunities. It measures what faculties think of each other and who spends the most $$ on overhead.

Yes I realize this. When I made that point it was addressin the shortcomings of nlj 250 and other data, not trying to show that USNWR was good.

My point was that discussing things within tiers can be helpful for conversations and generic advice, while obviously more specific advice cannot be very accurate based on tiers, but rather requires specific school and target market, etc. information.


I don't think the tiers are even very useful for generic advice. For C/O 2011, the generic question: "I'm slightly below median, what are my chance at OCI?" had very different answers at Michigan/Virginia/Cornell versus Duke/Northwestern/Chicago/Berkeley versus Columbia/NYU/Penn.

User avatar
Greenandgold
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby Greenandgold » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 pm

rayiner wrote:
Julio_El_Chavo wrote:Penn's suddenly awesome placement relative to M and V is relatively new and shouldn't be seen as a definite trend that's going to continue in the future.


Penn was right up there with Columbia in NLJ 250 placement back for C/O 2005. It's a trend that will continue so long as New York remains the dominant legal market and other markets remain soft: i.e. for the foreseeable future.


Penn's NLJ250 numbers can't be compared to Columbia's. Penn reports their students placement on behalf of firms who withhold this information, Columbia does not.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby birdlaw117 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:50 pm

rayiner wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:
rayiner wrote:USNWR doesn't even measure placement, much less opportunities. It measures what faculties think of each other and who spends the most $$ on overhead.

Yes I realize this. When I made that point it was addressin the shortcomings of nlj 250 and other data, not trying to show that USNWR was good.

My point was that discussing things within tiers can be helpful for conversations and generic advice, while obviously more specific advice cannot be very accurate based on tiers, but rather requires specific school and target market, etc. information.


I don't think the tiers are even very useful for generic advice. For C/O 2011, the generic question: "I'm slightly below median, what are my chance at OCI?" had very different answers at Michigan/Virginia/Cornell versus Duke/Northwestern/Chicago/Berkeley versus Columbia/NYU/Penn.

Yeah, but that's because that's a silly question and you can't give very good advice for any situation. I definitely get your point and don't really disagree, I just see it with more gradation than you apparently. No biggie.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby rayiner » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:53 pm

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Julio_El_Chavo wrote:Penn's suddenly awesome placement relative to M and V is relatively new and shouldn't be seen as a definite trend that's going to continue in the future.


Penn was right up there with Columbia in NLJ 250 placement back for C/O 2005. It's a trend that will continue so long as New York remains the dominant legal market and other markets remain soft: i.e. for the foreseeable future.


What makes you think that New York is going to remain dominant relative to the other legal markets?


NY has always been dominant, having the lion's share of financial activity and thus legal in the country. The bubble actually represented an anomaly. Construction/lending dramatically increased the amount of financial and legal activity in the South. That state of affairs is not returning for a long time. The midwest outside of Chicago has been in decline for a long time, and even during the boom firms in those areas weren't exactly thriving. Chicago itself isn't declining, but isn't growing at more than a snail's pace. During the boom firms in Chicago picked up a lot of financial work, but that doesn't seem to be recovering any time soon either. DC will of course continue to be a huge legal market, but it's certainly not growing in this era of federal belt-tightening. If we're not in a tech bubble right now, but rather something sustainable, Berkeley's prospects might continue to rise with the economy in SF.

What we're really in now is the new normal. New York is the only city with enough financial activity to support a dozen firms with 100+ student SA classes. Firms elsewhere will continue to hire at a reduced headcount, but the popping of the mortgage-backed securities bubble means even the biggest Chicago or LA firms don't need more than 50-60 SA's.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: below median @ MVP - plan?

Postby BruceWayne » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:54 pm

What makes no sense is how the people who like to point out the reputation score gaps from US News as a way to justify NYU somehow being stronger for employment always use the US News ACADEMIC reputation scores. If you check the scores given by lawyers/judges it has NEVER had a higher ranking than MVPB and often times it gets a lower score than Michigan and UVA. I've never understood that reasoning. So are you saying that law professor opinions as oposed to practicing lawyers and judges are more indicative of employment prospects??? I've been confused by that for a while.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.