SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby nouseforaname123 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:13 pm

DukeofCambridge wrote:
kalvano wrote:
DukeofCambridge wrote:
First off, not the appropriate thread for this. Second, you're a fucking moron. He graduated summa from SMU with his BA. His JD was cum laude.



Obviously, I disagree with your second point.

Also, other than my latin honors mixup, why was my post inappropriate?


Your premise was that "if this is what a summa grad gets ...."

There were four summa grads last year. I only know two of them, and I know they are currently in AIII clerkships. The vast majority of magna grads ended up in Dallas Biglaw. Your whole premise is off because of your latin honors mixup.

maxmartin
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby maxmartin » Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:26 pm

Is the song implying the employment from smu is inflated ? :x

User avatar
DukeofCambridge
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby DukeofCambridge » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:18 pm

kalvano wrote:
DukeofCambridge wrote:
kalvano wrote:[quote="DukeofCambridge"

Well, because one, it's a pretty goddamn important mixup to base an entire post off of. That is a major difference in grades. Second, admitted students threads are not the appropriate place to debate whether or not one should attend a school. They are for questions about the school and the admissions process there. Near as I can tell, the only thing you've ever had to do with SMU on here was a run-by shitting on of the school in this thread.


Doesn't the title of this thread indicate it is for applicants who are/may be considering where to attend?

Given that an academically successful(although I initially got the extent of his academic success wrong) grad made a song about how the [employment/salary]"numbers are all bull****", I thought that was something prospective students would be interested in knowing about.

FWIW, I think students at all schools should do the actual due diligence(as in go to law school transparency, check out recent grads, look at the NALP numbers etc). Also, I got to SMU by clicking through abovethelaw links re: law revue. I was impressed with how good/funny their videos were, but thought that this one would have been helpful to prospective applicants as a factor to consider when deciding where to attend.

I have since been informed that "Debating the merits of a school is off topic to waitlists/acceptances/denials." but regardless, the initial motivation to post wasn't malice but a desire to share information that some may have found helpful.

User avatar
ArchieHicox
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby ArchieHicox » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:55 pm

According to SMU.... Summu Cum Laude is a 3.8 GPA and Cum Laude is a 3.2 GPA. And the difference between top 2% and top 30% is so, so significant. You can't fuck up a detail like that and argue your point is still valid.

http://www.law.smu.edu/Registrar/Gradua ... dures.aspx

What I don't really get is why you are posting on a thread for people considering SMU, on TLS telling people to look at LawSchoolTransparency and slamming a school you aren't considering. Its fucking insulting to be honest that you think people haven't done their basic homework. Who would be reading about SMU, posting on this thread on this SITE, and not aware of resources like LST?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby kalvano » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:56 pm

DukeofCambridge wrote:Given that an academically successful(although I initially got the extent of his academic success wrong) grad made a song about how the [employment/salary]"numbers are all bull****", I thought that was something prospective students would be interested in knowing about.


Undergrad success is totally irrelevant. And the difference between summa cum laude and general cum laude is a massive difference in law school success.

And it's the SMU Follies. It's parody and humour. Not an actual dig at the school. They mock professors, students, everything. According to Law School Transparency, SMU has fairly decent employment numbers, numbers that are in no way belied by my experiences there.

And you've yet to address what the motivation is for all of a sudden coming in to the SMU thread solely for the purpose of shitting on the school, a school you obviously know nothing about.

I like to think I am pretty straightforward in my opinion on the school, both good and bad, and while there is some merit to a debate about the extent of any inflation of SMU's employment numbers (I don't think they are too much, if at all...SMU is still, by and large, quite successful in Dallas), using school-sponsored student parody videos is a terrible way to go about initiating a debate.

User avatar
DukeofCambridge
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby DukeofCambridge » Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:29 pm

ha-ri wrote:What I don't really get is why you are posting on a thread for people considering SMU, on TLS telling people to look at LawSchoolTransparency and slamming a school you aren't considering. Its fucking insulting to be honest that you think people haven't done their basic homework. Who would be reading about SMU, posting on this thread on this SITE, and not aware of resources like LST?


First off, it's not "slamming" a school to post links to videos that students of the school have created regarding their experiences. I've already indicated how I found the videos, and my motivation for posting them here.

There are many people applying to, or considering, many schools that haven't done their due diligence. I myself did not know about LST until reading about it on insidethelawschoolscam. Regardless, the personal experiences of individuals also add to the information that people are considering when they are picking a school.

For example, I know of only two people who have graduated from school X(ranked in the 40's/50's in NYC), one was unemployed for a year before going to work as a patent troll for 35k while the other, more recent grad is "volunteering" at a non-profit. The point here isn't that this personal anecdote about some attendees of School X is helpful to those considering another school located halfway across the country, but that as a prospective student, I would have liked to know of the career outcomes that are possible or likely.

When I stumbled upon this example, of this clearly well talented student who did academically well at this school, I thought prospective students would find this information helpful - I have nothing against that graduate or of the school in question.

Finally, the humor may be self-deprecating, but prospective students may find it interesting to see why these specific themes are so often the subject of the videos(is it because the principals believe in the veracity of overall point?). If you click through to the follies link, you'll see other similar videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ExEe9nJhE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaRCrYtCLbA

Holynorth
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Holynorth » Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:49 pm

.
Last edited by Holynorth on Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DukeofCambridge
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby DukeofCambridge » Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:36 pm

"The mods gave you a warning, so clearly you're wrong with your opinion on what it is."

With reasoning like that, I wish you the best in your future endeavours on what it is.

The "warning" referred to the fact that discussing the merits of a school was off-topic on this specific thread, not that my "opinion" was wrong. Note also, my "opinion" was that students should view videos created by students at the school in considering whether to attend. I responded to the several ad-hominems because I was questioned and only to indicate that the original post was not motivated by ill will.

User avatar
po1
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:52 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby po1 » Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:47 pm

DukeofCambridge wrote:"The mods gave you a warning, so clearly you're wrong with your opinion on what it is."

With reasoning like that, I wish you the best in your future endeavours on what it is.

The "warning" referred to the fact that discussing the merits of a school was off-topic on this specific thread, not that my "opinion" was wrong. Note also, my "opinion" was that students should view videos created by students at the school in considering whether to attend. I responded to the several ad-hominems because I was questioned and only to indicate that the original post was not motivated by ill will.


You must be super awkward in real life.

User avatar
DukeofCambridge
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby DukeofCambridge » Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:54 pm

po1 wrote:
DukeofCambridge wrote:You must be super awkward in real life.


I absolutely love ad-hominems. Why? because it shows that those who disagree with you can't or aren't willing to argue with you on the merits.

Take a page out of what other individuals have done: even though they've disagreed with my assertion, they've addressed that assertion head on. I think you'll find that's more persuasive to rational third parties.

User avatar
tfer2222
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby tfer2222 » Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:58 pm

DukeofCambridge wrote:
ha-ri wrote:What I don't really get is why you are posting on a thread for people considering SMU, on TLS telling people to look at LawSchoolTransparency and slamming a school you aren't considering. Its fucking insulting to be honest that you think people haven't done their basic homework. Who would be reading about SMU, posting on this thread on this SITE, and not aware of resources like LST?


First off, it's not "slamming" a school to post links to videos that students of the school have created regarding their experiences. I've already indicated how I found the videos, and my motivation for posting them here.

There are many people applying to, or considering, many schools that haven't done their due diligence. I myself did not know about LST until reading about it on insidethelawschoolscam. Regardless, the personal experiences of individuals also add to the information that people are considering when they are picking a school.

For example, I know of only two people who have graduated from school X(ranked in the 40's/50's in NYC), one was unemployed for a year before going to work as a patent troll for 35k while the other, more recent grad is "volunteering" at a non-profit. The point here isn't that this personal anecdote about some attendees of School X is helpful to those considering another school located halfway across the country, but that as a prospective student, I would have liked to know of the career outcomes that are possible or likely.

When I stumbled upon this example, of this clearly well talented student who did academically well at this school, I thought prospective students would find this information helpful - I have nothing against that graduate or of the school in question.

Finally, the humor may be self-deprecating, but prospective students may find it interesting to see why these specific themes are so often the subject of the videos(is it because the principals believe in the veracity of overall point?). If you click through to the follies link, you'll see other similar videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ExEe9nJhE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaRCrYtCLbA


I go to school X and I am starting at an nyc v15 next fall. just sayin'

But most people obviously go to smu to practice in Texas. Dallas more specifically. So pointing out the lack of nyc associates from schools in this range is pointless. Schools outside T14 are mostly regional. Therefore: NYC = t14 + top kids from NYC regional schools.

Besides, SMU has RELATIVELY decent placement, in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 0314155413 It's not hard to get biglaw if you get top 10%.

and

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=smu UT is only at like 75% or something.
Last edited by tfer2222 on Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Holynorth
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Holynorth » Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:02 pm

.
Last edited by Holynorth on Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DukeofCambridge
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby DukeofCambridge » Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:25 pm

Holynorth wrote:My appeal to authority is based on the fact that it's their rules. You were disagreeing and shown to be wrong. Just stop and leave. Not only were you incredibly wrong with your accusation against SMU, everyone here has done their research on SMU and is happy to attend.



Ummm ... No. I didn't disagree with "their rules" I included links to videos and put forward a premise(that individuals should view the student-created videos and consider their message in their decision process). Also, I didn't levy any "accusation" that I could be objectively "incredibly wrong" about.

The moderator indicated that this specific premise was irrelevant to the discussion on this thread without addressing the merits of said premise. Subsequently, other individuals engaged in amateur hour insults, questioned my motivations, and somewhat(though not directly) addressed the point by indicating that their experience with the topics in the videos was a) different and/or b) wasn't that bad.

Regardless, it's obvious that at least one person clicked through to the student created videos and asked about their implications so my goal of helping to make this information available to people who may find it helpful has been accomplished. Continuing to hurl invective isn't likely to be helpful - especially when all I've done is post links to a video created by an academically successful student, and then tracked that student's career outcome.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby kalvano » Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:28 pm

I like that you keep focusing on PARODY VIDEOS created especially for the annual event where law students MOCK THE SCHOOL.

User avatar
DukeofCambridge
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby DukeofCambridge » Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:34 pm

"
tfer2222 wrote:


I go to school X and I am starting at an nyc v15 next fall. just sayin'

But most people obviously go to smu to practice in Texas. Dallas more specifically. So pointing out the lack of nyc associates from schools in this range is pointless. Schools outside T14 are mostly regional. Therefore: NYC = t14 + top kids from NYC regional schools.

Besides, SMU has RELATIVELY decent placement, in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 0314155413 It's not hard to get biglaw if you get top 10%.

and

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=smu UT is only at like 75% or something. [/quote]" [trying to get the quote box to work ...]

First off, congratulations. Second, thanks for addressing the point about career outcomes and providing information that prospective students will no doubt find helpful. I do have one substantive point though. If you click through to the LST report, you'll see that the most recent salary data(which I use as a proxy of determining actual biglaw placement) isn't reported. If you go to the data available in 2011, 16.1% of the class reported salaries equal to or greater than 130k, but its impossible to see from this data how many students reported salaries of 160k.

Also, although 16.1% of the 2011 class earned 130k or higher, almost double that percentage, 32% was either unemployed or did not report a salary.

maxmartin
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby maxmartin » Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:46 pm

DukeofCambridge wrote:"
tfer2222 wrote:


I go to school X and I am starting at an nyc v15 next fall. just sayin'

But most people obviously go to smu to practice in Texas. Dallas more specifically. So pointing out the lack of nyc associates from schools in this range is pointless. Schools outside T14 are mostly regional. Therefore: NYC = t14 + top kids from NYC regional schools.

Besides, SMU has RELATIVELY decent placement, in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 0314155413 It's not hard to get biglaw if you get top 10%.

and

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=smu UT is only at like 75% or something.
" [trying to get the quote box to work ...]

First off, congratulations. Second, thanks for addressing the point about career outcomes and providing information that prospective students will no doubt find helpful. I do have one substantive point though. If you click through to the LST report, you'll see that the most recent salary data(which I use as a proxy of determining actual biglaw placement) isn't reported. If you go to the data available in 2011, 16.1% of the class reported salaries equal to or greater than 130k, but its impossible to see from this data how many students reported salaries of 160k.

Also, although 16.1% of the 2011 class earned 130k or higher, almost double that percentage, 32% was either unemployed or did not report a salary.[/quote]



Is it possible big law Dallas don't pay that much because of low cost of living and low state income tax? In my opinion 130K in Dallas beats 160K in NYC by miles. :)

wannabelawstudent
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby wannabelawstudent » Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:53 pm

Yes that is why and its a common viewpoint Max. (Houston biglaw can reach 160k which is insane)

maxmartin
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby maxmartin » Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:00 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:Yes that is why and its a common viewpoint Max. (Houston biglaw can reach 160k which is insane)


Hey Wannabe, thanks for BC information, did you decide where to attend? You can PM me.

User avatar
DukeofCambridge
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby DukeofCambridge » Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:02 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:Yes that is why and its a common viewpoint Max. (Houston biglaw can reach 160k which is insane)



Agreed, when taking cost of living into account either 130K or 160K + bonus is amazing in TX vs. NY. Of course, based on 2011 numbers, all else being equal, you are twice as likely to be unemployed or not reporting a salary vs. earning 130k or higher.

User avatar
tfer2222
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby tfer2222 » Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:26 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:Yes that is why and its a common viewpoint Max. (Houston biglaw can reach 160k which is insane)


Where is this "Dallas at 130" thing coming from? Biglaw in Dallas starts at 160, just like Biglaw in Houston and Biglaw in NYC. The differences between texas and larger markets is usually just in the salary increases and bonuses. And even then, most national firms (jones day, weil, gdc, skadden) still pay NYC market/raises/bonuses to associates in their Texas offices (whether it be Dallas or Houston).

Sure there are some firms that may start at 130, but, in Dallas, they probably wouldn't constitute "biglaw" in the first place.

TLDR: Dallas market is 160. The only market I can think of right now that doesn't start at 160 is Miami.
Last edited by tfer2222 on Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

ChadMichael
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:21 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby ChadMichael » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:55 pm

Well now...that was entertaining. Who's ready for another long week of possible silence?

18dvineshay
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:32 am

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby 18dvineshay » Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:52 am

ChadMichael wrote:Well now...that was entertaining. Who's ready for another long week of possible silence?


Sigh.... Silence sucks.

wannabelawstudent
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby wannabelawstudent » Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:33 am

tfer2222 wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:Yes that is why and its a common viewpoint Max. (Houston biglaw can reach 160k which is insane)


Where is this "Dallas at 130" thing coming from? Biglaw in Dallas starts at 160, just like Biglaw in Houston and Biglaw in NYC. The differences between texas and larger markets is usually just in the salary increases and bonuses. And even then, most national firms (jones day, weil, gdc, skadden) still pay NYC market/raises/bonuses to associates in their Texas offices (whether it be Dallas or Houston).

Sure there are some firms that may start at 130, but, in Dallas, they probably wouldn't constitute "biglaw" in the first place.

TLDR: Dallas market is 160. The only market I can think of right now that doesn't start at 160 is Miami.

That's simply not true. The Dallas Market is 130k for a large majority of lawyers who will work in BigLaw. While some (only like a couple) pay 160k, most pay 130k. Saying biglaw in Dallas starts at 160k is just wrong.

http://www.nalp.org/buying_power_index_class_of_2011

User avatar
tfer2222
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby tfer2222 » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:47 am

wannabelawstudent wrote:
tfer2222 wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:Yes that is why and its a common viewpoint Max. (Houston biglaw can reach 160k which is insane)


Where is this "Dallas at 130" thing coming from? Biglaw in Dallas starts at 160, just like Biglaw in Houston and Biglaw in NYC. The differences between texas and larger markets is usually just in the salary increases and bonuses. And even then, most national firms (jones day, weil, gdc, skadden) still pay NYC market/raises/bonuses to associates in their Texas offices (whether it be Dallas or Houston).

Sure there are some firms that may start at 130, but, in Dallas, they probably wouldn't constitute "biglaw" in the first place.

TLDR: Dallas market is 160. The only market I can think of right now that doesn't start at 160 is Miami.

That's simply not true. The Dallas Market is 130k for a large majority of lawyers who will work in BigLaw. While some (only like a couple) pay 160k, most pay 130k. Saying biglaw in Dallas starts at 160k is just wrong.

http://www.nalp.org/buying_power_index_class_of_2011


I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you know exactly what you're talking about. You need to do research before you post things like this. I did an SA in Dallas and had several "biglaw" offers there. I do know what I'm talking about.

That "135K" on the NALP form you posted is the "median reported private practice" starting salary. "Biglaw Market Salary" is obviously not the MEDIAN private practice salary in Dallas. "Market" means what the majority of the biggest (i.e. "biglaw") firms pay in the city. In Dallas: it is 160. The firms are "biglaw" and thus pay "competitive market salary" for that city. Which is--big surprise here-- 160.

"Only like a couple" firms start at 160 in Dallas??? lol...ok lets see. Actual "Biglaw" Firm Offices in Dallas that Start at 160:

Baker Botts
Vinson Elkins
Fulbright
Weil
Gibson Dunn
Jones Day
Baker & McKenzie
Hunton & Williams
DLA Piper
Fish & Richardson
Haynes & Boone
K&L Gates
Morgan Lewis
Patton Boggs
Locke Lord
Thompson & Knight
Bracewell & Giuliani
Akin Gump
Sidley Austin
Alston & Bird
Bryan Cave
Andrews Kurth

and Even:
Jackson Walker
Gardere
and Winstead.


Dallas "biglaw" market salary is 160. End of story. If it's not paying market 160, its probably not "biglaw"

wannabelawstudent
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: SMU c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby wannabelawstudent » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:59 am

I mean, we're talking ancedata vs reported salary here.

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

There's a geographic breakdown of salary by law firm size, yes, SOME, may break, 160k, but most do not. Maybe you're looking at 2010 data when it was around 160 but it HAS fallen. (See this which is the same data I reported earlier, but 2 years before the link in my post above: http://www.nalp.org/buying_power_index_class_of_2010 )

LST Salary Data for class of 2011:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... class=2011

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... class=2011

Sorry man, but I'll take verified data over anac 'I know what I'm talking about' data anyday.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw, charmonster, ellielaw, Google [Bot], Nickel94, nslaw123, pillowsoftcurls, potterotter, ReadyToStart, sonyco and 16 guests