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.
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 12:00 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote: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.


do you know what "biglaw" means?? if they aren't paying market 160, ITS NOT BIGLAW. what part of it don't you get? we aren't talking about "median reported salaries." the issue was "big law market" compensation in Dallas. Which is 160.

"biglaw" does not mean "a large firm for that city" and "biglaw market" does not mean "median salary for 'large' or 'private' firms in that city"

http://www.top-law-schools.com/introduc ... iglaw.html

you clearly don't understand the difference between "biglaw market" compensation and "median compensation"

lol "verified data" go check the starting salaries for all of those firms I listed on NALP.

I suddenly regret trying to correct a 0L
Last edited by tfer2222 on Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 12:05 pm

You're more than welcome to provide any data to counter my point besides "I know because I was a SA in the region so I'm the final word on the matter."

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 12:08 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:You're more than welcome to provide any data to counter my point besides "I know because I was a SA in the region so I'm the final word on the matter."


your trouble isn't data dude. it's terminology. Do you know what "median" means? Do you think that means "biglaw market" in this case?

Did you not see that list of biglaw firms I posted? Go check their Dallas starting salaries on NALP.

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 12:20 pm

do you know what "biglaw" means?? if they aren't paying market 160, ITS NOT BIGLAW. what part of it don't you get? we aren't talking about "median reported salaries." the issue was "big law market" compensation in Dallas. Which is 160.

"biglaw" does not mean "a large firm for that city" and "biglaw market" does not mean "median salary for 'large' or 'private' firms in that city"


Wait so a 160k salary means it's big law? Not firm size? Seriously...I've never heard of anyone say that salary compensation is the indicator if it's big law or not. Again I'm not even gonna bother if you if you're just gonna link some TLS article from 2010 about big law.

Honestly, idc cause I'm not going to SMU. Regardless, the point originally made was that Dallas 130k is better than 160k in New York (which we both agree), so if Dallas pays 160k that's even more for Dallas Big Law over NYC big law.

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 12:27 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:
do you know what "biglaw" means?? if they aren't paying market 160, ITS NOT BIGLAW. what part of it don't you get? we aren't talking about "median reported salaries." the issue was "big law market" compensation in Dallas. Which is 160.

"biglaw" does not mean "a large firm for that city" and "biglaw market" does not mean "median salary for 'large' or 'private' firms in that city"


Wait so a 160k salary means it's big law? Not firm size? Seriously...I've never heard of anyone say that salary compensation is the indicator if it's big law or not. Again I'm not even gonna bother if you if you're just gonna link some TLS article from 2010 about big law.

Honestly, idc cause I'm not going to SMU. Regardless, the point originally made was that Dallas 130k is better than 160k in New York (which we both agree), so if Dallas pays 160k that's even more for Dallas Big Law over NYC big law.


Sorry man, I wasn't trying to be a dick. But "biglaw," while not a technically defined term, is universally understood as the largest most competitive firms in a city, which typically all pay the same competitive salary (i.e. "market salary") and serve the biggest clients. I'm assuming you aren't in law school yet? because you usually would have figured this out pretty quickly.

If you get a "big law" gig in Dallas, you'll make 160 your first year, just like in NYC. However, Most Texas-based "biglaw" firms follow a more compressed salary increase from year to year. (With the exception of the national firms that pay NYC lockstep in all offices - GDC, weil, JD, etc)

jcg
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:10 am

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

Postby jcg » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:55 pm

Accepted via call!!! I live in Cali and would love to move to Dallas!

User avatar
crchildress
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:44 pm

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

Postby crchildress » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:38 pm

jcg wrote:Accepted via call!!! I live in Cali and would love to move to Dallas!


Congratulations, it looks like you are going to get your wish!

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

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

Postby wannabelawstudent » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:41 pm

Looks like SMU kicked me out of the fbook group for not depositing :(.

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

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

Postby ChadMichael » Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:23 pm

jcg wrote:Accepted via call!!! I live in Cali and would love to move to Dallas!


Full time or part time? Also what day did you go completed? Sorry, still waiting to hear back and real nervous.

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

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

Postby maxmartin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:13 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:Looks like SMU kicked me out of the fbook group for not depositing :(.

Are u joking? I have not joined yet.

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

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

Postby wannabelawstudent » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:19 pm

maxmartin wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:Looks like SMU kicked me out of the fbook group for not depositing :(.

Are u joking? I have not joined yet.

Why would I be joking? (Tbf I believe they said they would and it'd turn into the class of 2016 group). They may have done it earlier but I just noticed.

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

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

Postby maxmartin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:33 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:Looks like SMU kicked me out of the fbook group for not depositing :(.

Are u joking? I have not joined yet.

Why would I be joking? (Tbf I believe they said they would and it'd turn into the class of 2016 group). They may have done it earlier but I just noticed.

If it would be a class page, then makes sense. Still their action is quick. :mrgreen:

chrisokc
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:43 pm

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

Postby chrisokc » Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:59 pm

tfer2222 wrote:
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, all these firms have offices in Texas, and they all start at $160k/year. They are "biglaw" firms. "Biglaw" firms pay $160k/year in Dallas, Houston, New York, Los Angeles, and many other major cities.

Go here: http://www.nalpdirectory.com/
Search Dallas, TX
Click on the firm of your choice
Click on compensation and benefits

If any of you choose to attend SMU, can beat roughly eighty percent of your classmates, aren't morbidly obese or otherwise disgusting looking, and aren't a total asshole, you have a strong chance of working at one of these firms with a starting salary of $160,000 per year.
Last edited by chrisokc on Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

timshellaw
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:33 pm

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

Postby timshellaw » Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:03 pm

maxmartin wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:Looks like SMU kicked me out of the fbook group for not depositing :(.

Are u joking? I have not joined yet.

Why would I be joking? (Tbf I believe they said they would and it'd turn into the class of 2016 group). They may have done it earlier but I just noticed.

If it would be a class page, then makes sense. Still their action is quick. :mrgreen:


I used to work for my UG's admissions office and we'd periodically do this, especially after seat deposits. Never realized how awkward that was for the student!

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

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

Postby kalvano » Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:33 pm

chrisokc wrote:Wannabelawstudent, all these firms have offices in Texas, and they all start at $160k/year. They are "biglaw" firms. "Biglaw" firms pay $160k/year in Dallas, Houston, New York, Los Angeles, and many other major cities.

Go here: http://www.nalpdirectory.com/
Search Dallas, TX
Click on the firm of your choice
Click on compensation and benefits

If any of you choose to attend SMU, can beat roughly eighty percent of your classmates, aren't morbidly obese or otherwise disgusting looking, and aren't a total asshole, you have a strong chance of working at one of these firms with a starting salary of $160,000 per year.



He's a 0L quoting median reported salaries to declare what Biglaw firms pay. I don't think the argument is worth your time.

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

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

Postby wannabelawstudent » Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:45 pm

Well I was trying to use firm size to determine big law. If there's a different definition (like the one the poster up on the page said) then I'm wrong.

Regardless, my point was that 130k in Dallas is better than 160k in NYC (which I think we all agree upon). That was the original point I was trying to make. If its 160k then that's even better.

Stevoman
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:28 am

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

Postby Stevoman » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:42 pm

Did I really just read 3 pages of bickering, all incited by someone taking the Follies seriously?

kalvano wrote:I don't think the argument is worth your time.


And for the record, this is the first thing you guys are going to learn after a few classroom discussions when you start next fall. :)

User avatar
mandimeoutof10
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:45 pm

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

Postby mandimeoutof10 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:14 pm

Biglaw is 160!
No, It's 130 in TX!
Def 160 mah dude.
Nah bro, it's firm size!
You srs bro?
You're an idiot.
You mad?

http://i.imgur.com/L7GVcZh.gif

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

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

Postby tfer2222 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:01 pm

mandimeoutof10 wrote:Biglaw is 160!
No, It's 130 in TX!
Def 160 mah dude.
Nah bro, it's firm size!
You srs bro?
You're an idiot.
You mad?

http://i.imgur.com/L7GVcZh.gif


lol

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

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

Postby ChadMichael » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:13 am

Anyone thinking today is the day some more of us hear back?

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

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

Postby 18dvineshay » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:52 am

ChadMichael wrote:Anyone thinking today is the day some more of us hear back?


being as its SMU founding day i say i doubt it but still gonna be hoping for it!!

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

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

Postby ChadMichael » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:53 am

18dvineshay wrote:
ChadMichael wrote:Anyone thinking today is the day some more of us hear back?


being as its SMU founding day i say i doubt it but still gonna be hoping for it!!


Last week ASD and now Foundation Day . . . this wait is horrendous. Hopefully next week they don't have some big event.

joman8390
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:36 pm

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

Postby joman8390 » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:23 pm

.
Last edited by joman8390 on Fri May 29, 2015 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mandimeoutof10
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:45 pm

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

Postby mandimeoutof10 » Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:12 pm

When are the next deposit deadlines and does the SMU waitlist tend to move around those dates?

User avatar
crchildress
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:44 pm

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

Postby crchildress » Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:23 pm

mandimeoutof10 wrote:When are the next deposit deadlines and does the SMU waitlist tend to move around those dates?


May 15, and we can only hope.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger, hwwong, Jgats, mudiverse, tangers91, xn3345 and 15 guests