Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby BruceWayne » Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:03 pm

bigben wrote:
RVP11 wrote:YS: 90%
H: 80%
CC: 70%
N: 60%
MVPBDCN: 50%
G: 40%
UT/Vandy/UCLA/USC: 20% to 25%
BC/BU/Fordham/GW: 10% to 15%
Most other T50s: under 10%

This looks roughly accurate. I don't think I would separate NYU, but other than that it looks good.


Seriously? You'd separate Harvard but not NYU???? TLS really has a weird thing about not liking Harvard and loving NYU. It's just strange.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby bigben » Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:10 pm

BruceWayne wrote:Seriously? You'd separate Harvard but not NYU???? TLS really has a weird thing about not liking Harvard and loving NYU. It's just strange.

This has nothing to do with what I "like," it's a question of fact. On the other hand, my conclusion isn't scientific at all. It's simply based on anecdotes on the internet and from people that I know personally at S and H regarding people that couldn't find a job in a large firm. I'd personally attend Harvard over Stanford, btw. Someone else was correct to mention that it has more to do with 180 students vs like 600 than the reputations of the schools. If anything, the placement rates in conjunction with the class sizes make H look like it has a better rep.
Last edited by bigben on Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby BruceWayne » Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:16 pm

bigben wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:Seriously? You'd separate Harvard but not NYU???? TLS really has a weird thing about not liking Harvard and loving NYU. It's just strange.

This has nothing to do with what I "like," it's a question of fact. On the other hand, my conclusion isn't scientific at all. It's simply based on anecdotes on the internet and from people that I know personally at S and H regarding people that couldn't find a job in a large firm. I'd personally attend Harvard over Stanford, btw. Someone else was correct to mention that it has more to do with 180 students vs like 600 than the reputations of the schools. If anything, the placement rates in conjunction with the class sizes make H look like it has a better rep.


The bolded is what I'm getting at.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby bigben » Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:19 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
bigben wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:Seriously? You'd separate Harvard but not NYU???? TLS really has a weird thing about not liking Harvard and loving NYU. It's just strange.

This has nothing to do with what I "like," it's a question of fact. On the other hand, my conclusion isn't scientific at all. It's simply based on anecdotes on the internet and from people that I know personally at S and H regarding people that couldn't find a job in a large firm. I'd personally attend Harvard over Stanford, btw. Someone else was correct to mention that it has more to do with 180 students vs like 600 than the reputations of the schools. If anything, the placement rates in conjunction with the class sizes make H look like it has a better rep.

The bolded is what I'm getting at.

Ok...at this point I'm not sure whether you agree or disagree with the above conjectured placement rates.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'd probably revise it to say:
Y - 100%
HS - 80%

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby RVP11 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:06 pm

dissonance1848 wrote:Also, it is clear that MVPB do better than NDC in general. They should not be lumped together.


There may be plenty of things wrong with my predictions, but this isn't one of them. The MVPB/DNC divide doesn't exist for BigLaw placement. As someone said before, Boalt might actually be the weakest of that group. And Northwestern and Duke are definitely in the same tier as MVP for big firm placement over the last few years.

User avatar
St.Remy
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:12 pm

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby St.Remy » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:32 pm

RVP11 wrote:
dissonance1848 wrote:Also, it is clear that MVPB do better than NDC in general. They should not be lumped together.


There may be plenty of things wrong with my predictions, but this isn't one of them. The MVPB/DNC divide doesn't exist for BigLaw placement. As someone said before, Boalt might actually be the weakest of that group. And Northwestern and Duke are definitely in the same tier as MVP for big firm placement over the last few years.


NU and Duke are definitely same tier as MVP for Biglaw, but I get the impression that they lag behind in the "academia/prestigious PI/gov work" mentioned in the original post. An interesting thing to note though is that in terms of federal clerkships NU and Duke actually do better than MVP in terms of percentage, but those two schools do worse than MVP in terms of Supreme Court clerkships.

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

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby rayiner » Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:01 pm

Also, it is clear that MVPB do better than NDC in general. They should not be lumped together.


I don't see how that is clear at all. The accounts of M's and B's OCI don't seem any better than D or C at all. Having seen callback/offer data for M, V, and N, I can say that none have a really clear advantage. I think Penn is the only school in the group with a clear advantage, if only because it is a core recruiting school for V25 NYC firms. ITE, those are the only firms that are still hiring tons of SAs.

I also think aggregate big-law placement is a poor metric to use to compare T14 law schools. Firms don't hire mechanically by GPA, and law students by and large don't do a very good job of bidding. At the same time, firms might have more callback slots at their core recruiting schools even if they have similar GPA cut-offs at peer schools.

For example, consider Duke and NU. Historically, Duke fed into the NYC offices of V50 firms, while NU placed into the Chicago offices of V50 firms. This was not a matter of "placement power" but rather self-selection. It was just as easy or easier to get a job in the NYC office of the same firm, but most people came to NU to work in Chicago so that's where they went. Firm hiring practices reflected this self-selection: NYC offices had more interview/callback slots at Duke, Chicago offices had more interview/callback slots at NU.

So what happens ITE? First, a lot of people at NU still bid in Chicago. TLS aside, it's hard to tell people who grew up in the Midwest and want to stay here that they need to go to NYC just to get a job. Second, for people who do target the NYC offices, the relative GPA cut-offs don't change. Firms still consider the two schools to be peers. Third, the the allocation of interviews/callbacks doesn't really change. Firms still expect to hire more people out of Duke. What's the result? Firms end up hiring more people at Duke than NU, but from a similar range of class-ranks.

Now let's consider how this impacts other schools. It severely hurts schools like Berkeley and Michigan. Firms might consider them just as good as their core recruiting schools, and apply similar GPA cut-offs, but because they historically never hired tons of people at a time from those schools they don't allocate many slots to them. This even hurts U of C, which firms might consider a peer to Columbia or NYU but who nonetheless won't hire as much from.

ITE, hiring in the T7-14 band is more influenced by market/firm affinity than anything else. There are a couple of DC firms where I'd rather be one of the few NU grads gunning for DC than one of the many UVA grads. There are a couple of Chicago firms that hire tons more NU people than Michigan people. There are a couple of NYC firms that hire extensively from Penn but don't even do OCI at NU. Once you start breaking up the MVPBDNC band, you have to quantify those variables, and you really can't in any accurate way.

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

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby IAFG » Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:23 pm

rayiner wrote:
Also, it is clear that MVPB do better than NDC in general. They should not be lumped together.


I don't see how that is clear at all. The accounts of M's and B's OCI don't seem any better than D or C at all. Having seen callback/offer data for M, V, and N, I can say that none have a really clear advantage. I think Penn is the only school in the group with a clear advantage, if only because it is a core recruiting school for V25 NYC firms. ITE, those are the only firms that are still hiring tons of SAs.

I also think aggregate big-law placement is a poor metric to use to compare T14 law schools. Firms don't hire mechanically by GPA, and law students by and large don't do a very good job of bidding. At the same time, firms might have more callback slots at their core recruiting schools even if they have similar GPA cut-offs at peer schools.

For example, consider Duke and NU. Historically, Duke fed into the NYC offices of V50 firms, while NU placed into the Chicago offices of V50 firms. This was not a matter of "placement power" but rather self-selection. It was just as easy or easier to get a job in the NYC office of the same firm, but most people came to NU to work in Chicago so that's where they went. Firm hiring practices reflected this self-selection: NYC offices had more interview/callback slots at Duke, Chicago offices had more interview/callback slots at NU.

So what happens ITE? First, a lot of people at NU still bid in Chicago. TLS aside, it's hard to tell people who grew up in the Midwest and want to stay here that they need to go to NYC just to get a job. Second, for people who do target the NYC offices, the relative GPA cut-offs don't change. Firms still consider the two schools to be peers. Third, the the allocation of interviews/callbacks doesn't really change. Firms still expect to hire more people out of Duke. What's the result? Firms end up hiring more people at Duke than NU, but from a similar range of class-ranks.

Now let's consider how this impacts other schools. It severely hurts schools like Berkeley and Michigan. Firms might consider them just as good as their core recruiting schools, and apply similar GPA cut-offs, but because they historically never hired tons of people at a time from those schools they don't allocate many slots to them. This even hurts U of C, which firms might consider a peer to Columbia or NYU but who nonetheless won't hire as much from.

ITE, hiring in the T7-14 band is more influenced by market/firm affinity than anything else. There are a couple of DC firms where I'd rather be one of the few NU grads gunning for DC than one of the many UVA grads. There are a couple of Chicago firms that hire tons more NU people than Michigan people. There are a couple of NYC firms that hire extensively from Penn but don't even do OCI at NU. Once you start breaking up the MVPBDNC band, you have to quantify those variables, and you really can't in any accurate way.

TL;DR

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Percentage of students that could've gotten biglaw from...

Postby JusticeHarlan » Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:40 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
bigben wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:Seriously? You'd separate Harvard but not NYU???? TLS really has a weird thing about not liking Harvard and loving NYU. It's just strange.

This has nothing to do with what I "like," it's a question of fact. On the other hand, my conclusion isn't scientific at all. It's simply based on anecdotes on the internet and from people that I know personally at S and H regarding people that couldn't find a job in a large firm. I'd personally attend Harvard over Stanford, btw. Someone else was correct to mention that it has more to do with 180 students vs like 600 than the reputations of the schools. If anything, the placement rates in conjunction with the class sizes make H look like it has a better rep.


The bolded is what I'm getting at.

Which data are you looking at that has H > S? One pretty good proxy for elite schools, Article III clerkships, have an edge to Stanford ('09 data, '08 data). What measure are you looking at where Harvard beats Stanford? I'm honestly curious; I have no horse in this race, just want to know what numbers you're looking at that suggest otherwise.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JD_Kingfish and 2 guests