My only point is that we say on TLS (obviously correctly):
"Definitely go to CCN w/ $ over BU w/ $$"
Which is correct, and no one here would dispute it. But I'm proposing that that paradigm get carried forward to the ex post evaluation a little too much. For example, I think I'd (narrowly) prefer to be top 20% at BU than median at CLS, based purely on job prospects.
TLS offers school-selection advice to 0Ls, but it also offers job advice to 1L/2L/3Ls. I'm proposing that it does the former far more effectively than the latter.
Not sure I agree with the 20% BU vs median CLS statement but I agree with the general point. When you choose CCN over T2 $$$, it's with the expectation of- median CCN = biglaw..median T25 = I hope I get a job. However, top 10% T25 and the whole calculus changes. This is probably why you get so many people saying that they'll take the money and then 'work hard' to get top 10%. Doesn't work since only 10% of the people are in the top 10%.
I think I'm more optimistic than you. I think ND (and BU) will end up placing ~30% of the c/o 2013 into Biglaw/Art. 3. And bear in mind, while that's considered optimistic for around here, it's actually less than we placed for c/o 2010
. (I agree that they'll drop a little more for c/o 2012.)
And while both ranks are at the bottom of their respective school's realistic BL marketability range, I think I'd rather be out their trying to sell top 20% BU creds than median CLS creds. I wonder if ppl who'd favor the latter do it for some vague 'down the road' benefits like academia placement (Lol... why not POTUS?) or consulting.