admisionquestion wrote:Yeah i agree with all that. Im asking the opposite question, given the biglaw data, is there any reason to still see mvp as a peer group. Seeks much more like the new world order is:
Asside from merrely personal factors, why would anyone take mvbcgnu over p?
Because people may think your absolute chances of Biglaw at any T-14 are similar enough, that personal factors and how you "feel" about a certain school can outweigh differences in job prospects. It may seem weird to say that in a year when Penn apparently put almost twice the percentage of grads in Biglaw as Michigan, but I continue to believe whatever advantage Penn (or Columbia, or Chicago) might have is still not game-changing. I can't really give a great explanation for how schools considered peer could have such drastically different results in a year, but people have tried (Michigan's reliance on Chicago, secondary markets, OCS screwing up that year, etc.--none are satisfactory, but they do sorta make sense) I still think if you go to Michigan and get median grades and do your due diligence and bid smart at OCI, your absolute chances at landing a job are similar enough to a median Penn student (but I concede Penn probably does have an advantage, and depending on what your definition of "significant" is it may be significant--5%? 10%?).
Outside of Biglaw, there may be job-related reasons to go to other schools. UVA enjoys being close to DC--they are over-represented on the DC clerking circuit and DC law firms (which are harder to get than NY firms), and you have access to DC for clinics and 1L summer work. If you want to work in the South you probably want to go to Duke or UVA over UPenn.