adrib wrote:so, it sounds like everyone was mostly dressed casual instead of business casual? i want to go casual to the UT ASD, but i'm scared. what are y'all doing?
I wore khakis and a polo and was almost over-dressed.
adrib wrote:so, it sounds like everyone was mostly dressed casual instead of business casual? i want to go casual to the UT ASD, but i'm scared. what are y'all doing?
So of the 97% employed from the class of 2009, a full quarter made big law money?chrisokc wrote:I've heard that usually when schools give employment percentages, it is for just those employed - in any kind of job.fathergoose wrote:And the slide of percentages at the end, was that the percent of the total class or the percent of the people employed or the percent people employed in legal jobs.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that a quarter of the 2009 class was making big law money.
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
I think that's right. SMU is ranked highly on the number of grads in the big firms. Higher than a lot of schools "ranked" higher than it in US News. To me, the only measure of a school is based on the job that I get afterward. I do not care about how "friendly" the faculty is, or how pretty the grounds are.fathergoose wrote:So of the 97% employed from the class of 2009, a full quarter made big law money?chrisokc wrote:I've heard that usually when schools give employment percentages, it is for just those employed - in any kind of job.fathergoose wrote:And the slide of percentages at the end, was that the percent of the total class or the percent of the people employed or the percent people employed in legal jobs.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that a quarter of the 2009 class was making big law money.
That would be impressive.
Yeah, I don't really find it hard to believe. NLJ has them ranked 28th for placement into the NLJ 250. I don't know how they get those numbers, but one would think it would be fairly reliable given the fact that it's an unaffiliated third party. I think they had them at like 23% of the class going into biglaw.chrisokc wrote:I think that's right. SMU is ranked highly on the number of grads in the big firms. Higher than a lot of schools "ranked" higher than it in US News. To me, the only measure of a school is based on the job that I get afterward. I do not care about how "friendly" the faculty is, or how pretty the grounds are.fathergoose wrote:So of the 97% employed from the class of 2009, a full quarter made big law money?chrisokc wrote:I've heard that usually when schools give employment percentages, it is for just those employed - in any kind of job.fathergoose wrote:And the slide of percentages at the end, was that the percent of the total class or the percent of the people employed or the percent people employed in legal jobs.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that a quarter of the 2009 class was making big law money.
That would be impressive.
Yes, the uh, quality of life at SMU is high. You could do a hell of a lot worse.cafloyd12 wrote:On a lighter note, I agree about friendly faculty/aesthetically pleasing campus being a moot point. However, I did find the campus to be pretty stunning.
On an even lighter note, I fell in love with every female I saw while I was there. I had always heard that SMU had a very attractive female presence, but I apparently underestimated the validity of that claim.
The whole part of town is sweet. Cool restaurants and bars, Northpark Mall, close to downtown and all it offers...FunkyJD wrote:Yes, the uh, quality of life at SMU is high. You could do a hell of a lot worse.cafloyd12 wrote:On a lighter note, I agree about friendly faculty/aesthetically pleasing campus being a moot point. However, I did find the campus to be pretty stunning.
On an even lighter note, I fell in love with every female I saw while I was there. I had always heard that SMU had a very attractive female presence, but I apparently underestimated the validity of that claim.
+1.chrisokc wrote:I think the faculty tried to put it as kindly as possibly when they were talking about mobility. SMU places really, really well in Dallas. If you're going to be unhappy in Dallas, SMU may not be your best bet. A lot of people don't seem to grasp this very easily. If you want to work in Houston, go to UH. If you want to work in Chicago, at least go to Illinois. However, if you want to work in Chicago, you get to compete with Univ. of Chicago, Northwestern, and WUSTL. If you want to work in NY, aside from needing your head examined, you get to compete with all the big dogs. Guess what? SMU is the only school in Dallas. Try to find me a larger market that just has one school. Sure, UT is there, but they aren't RIGHT there. UT is going to be less personal, and more competitive. SMU is going to be more personal, smaller, and strategically positioned to provide some unique benefits to those seeking employment in Dallas. I truly believe that.
+1 (substitute UT WL for UGA WL)FunkyJD wrote:+1.chrisokc wrote:I think the faculty tried to put it as kindly as possibly when they were talking about mobility. SMU places really, really well in Dallas. If you're going to be unhappy in Dallas, SMU may not be your best bet. A lot of people don't seem to grasp this very easily. If you want to work in Houston, go to UH. If you want to work in Chicago, at least go to Illinois. However, if you want to work in Chicago, you get to compete with Univ. of Chicago, Northwestern, and WUSTL. If you want to work in NY, aside from needing your head examined, you get to compete with all the big dogs. Guess what? SMU is the only school in Dallas. Try to find me a larger market that just has one school. Sure, UT is there, but they aren't RIGHT there. UT is going to be less personal, and more competitive. SMU is going to be more personal, smaller, and strategically positioned to provide some unique benefits to those seeking employment in Dallas. I truly believe that.
I think I'm going to be more upset if I get WL'd or rejected by SMU than I was when I was WL'd by UT. I may not end up going to SMU even if I am accepted, but as Dallas is one of the three legal markets that interests me, I really would like to have the option to consider.
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
Man. I just wonder if we need more law schools. I would rather the cash have gone towards boosting UT-Arlington or another Texas school up to tier-one research university status; or shoring up the University of Houston Law Center so the poor kids down there don't have to pay higher tuition.UTL_plz wrote:I believe i read an article recently saying that UNT would soon roll out with a law school. I don't think it will be able to compete with SMU, but it will be a public good since it will offer a great education for a public school price.
Fortunately for us, we'll hit the job market first.UTL_plz wrote:I believe i read an article recently saying that UNT would soon roll out with a law school. I don't think it will be able to compete with SMU, but it will be a public good since it will offer a great education for a public school price.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
chrisokc wrote:I think the faculty tried to put it as kindly as possibly when they were talking about mobility. SMU places really, really well in Dallas. If you're going to be unhappy in Dallas, SMU may not be your best bet. A lot of people don't seem to grasp this very easily. If you want to work in Houston, go to UH. If you want to work in Chicago, at least go to Illinois. However, if you want to work in Chicago, you get to compete with Univ. of Chicago, Northwestern, and WUSTL. If you want to work in NY, aside from needing your head examined, you get to compete with all the big dogs. Guess what? SMU is the only school in Dallas. Try to find me a larger market that just has one school. Sure, UT is there, but they aren't RIGHT there. UT is going to be less personal, and more competitive. SMU is going to be more personal, smaller, and strategically positioned to provide some unique benefits to those seeking employment in Dallas. I truly believe that.
UTL_plz wrote:I believe i read an article recently saying that UNT would soon roll out with a law school. I don't think it will be able to compete with SMU, but it will be a public good since it will offer a great education for a public school price.
Hey, man, don't be so disillusioned. I just searched Baker Botts Dallas office - 32 vs. 33 attorneys for the two schools in question. Also, you might want to check some of the firms based in Dallas - Haynes & Boone, Thompson & Knight...Fyre182 wrote:why do people believe that more than 5% of SMU will actually have BIGLAW salaries? Or, anyone other than the top 5% will ever be employed at one of the BIGLAW firms in texas V&E, Baker Botts, L&W etc.
why are people suggesting that SMU will place better than UT-- even in Dallas?
I am disillusioned
A simple search on V & E's page will show the huge disparity between the two schools.
http://www.velaw.com/lawyers/lawyersear ... p=&id=1134
http://www.velaw.com/lawyers/lawyersear ... p=&id=1134
Note that almost all of the SMU grads working for V&E are coif (meaning top 5% grads), many are LR presidents etc. We are talking roughly 5-10 students a year that will ever have a shot.
Notice that the UT list is almost half Partners. Notice that the disparity is 210 to 30. The disparity is even larger at other firms, check them yourself.
I repeat, I am disillusioned
I have also considered that the search may find undergraduate institutions. This was fruitless, every single person I clicked on from UT was a UT Law grad.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
Check the data before you come in here with that shizznit:Fyre182 wrote:why do people believe that more than 5% of SMU will actually have BIGLAW salaries? Or, anyone other than the top 5% will ever be employed at one of the BIGLAW firms in texas V&E, Baker Botts, L&W etc.
why are people suggesting that SMU will place better than UT-- even in Dallas?
I am disillusioned
A simple search on V & E's page will show the huge disparity between the two schools.
http://www.velaw.com/lawyers/lawyersear ... p=&id=1134
http://www.velaw.com/lawyers/lawyersear ... p=&id=1134
Note that almost all of the SMU grads working for V&E are coif (meaning top 5% grads), many are LR presidents etc. We are talking roughly 5-10 students a year that will ever have a shot.
Notice that the UT list is almost half Partners. Notice that the disparity is 210 to 30. The disparity is even larger at other firms, check them yourself.
I repeat, I am disillusioned
I have also considered that the search may find undergraduate institutions. This was fruitless, every single person I clicked on from UT was a UT Law grad.
Hell, L&W doesn't even have a Dallas office.Fyre182 wrote:why do people believe that more than 5% of SMU will actually have BIGLAW salaries? Or, anyone other than the top 5% will ever be employed at one of the BIGLAW firms in texas V&E, Baker Botts, L&W etc.
why are people suggesting that SMU will place better than UT-- even in Dallas?
I am disillusioned
A simple search on V & E's page will show the huge disparity between the two schools.
http://www.velaw.com/lawyers/lawyersear ... p=&id=1134
http://www.velaw.com/lawyers/lawyersear ... p=&id=1134
Note that almost all of the SMU grads working for V&E are coif (meaning top 5% grads), many are LR presidents etc. We are talking roughly 5-10 students a year that will ever have a shot.
Notice that the UT list is almost half Partners. Notice that the disparity is 210 to 30. The disparity is even larger at other firms, check them yourself.
I repeat, I am disillusioned
I have also considered that the search may find undergraduate institutions. This was fruitless, every single person I clicked on from UT was a UT Law grad.
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login