TripTrip wrote: spyke123 wrote: Ling520 wrote:
wert3813 wrote:...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.
It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).
I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.
I agree completely. I feel that applicants especially TLSers seem to put too much emphasis on numbers... even going to proclaim that this cycle will be "epic" and "schools will do whatever it takes to maintain medians"ust because there are fewer applicants.
Evidence so far however... does not seem to confirms....(it is true the cycle is far from over but.. its not starting as epic as many have thought.)
That's because you're thinking of "epic" qualitatively. Quantitatively, it is a good cycle for applicants over at least one of the medians (especially LSAT) because there are fewer of those people. That doesn't mean there won't be rejections above the medians... There most certainly will. All that it means is that there will have to be fewer rejections above both medians.
Saying we were wrong about the "epic ness" of the cycle because a few splitters got held or dinged is like saying that the Mars rover was useless because we haven't found life there: it's missing the point.
I already demonstrated that ~40% of splitters won't get in to Harvard.
I certianly see your point but I still believe there is no evidence yet to confirm the "epicness" of the cycle quantitatively.
First , I don't think we are talking about "a few splitters getting held or dinged", rather Harvard just held a plenty of people with very solid numbers and nyu seems to be also holding a decent number of people with above median numbers in the limbo.
Second, there hasn't been a meaningful increase in splitter love from top schools either.
In conclusion, I believe your analysis is a solid one but will just remain a hypothesis unless we see more evidence that people with similar numbers are faring relaively better than those from previous cycles i.e. we see an increase in acceptances for people with borderline or/and splitter numbers on tls/lsn
Of course I don't have hard data to back up my claims and the cycle is still early but these are the impressions I get actively browsing through this cycles application hreads.