M vs V vs P for corporate law Forum

[quakeroats]

4. I think the proper conclusion here is that you're attending UVA Law and the weight of the evidence--my method, Leiter's, OCI 2009, A3 clerkships, etc.--has caused a bit of cognitive dissonance to work its magic on you.

Usually when it gets down to moments like this, I just quote and respond with a simple

But this... oh my goodness. An ad hominim, against the poster as well as the way the damn school decides to name its fall recruitment program (I see what you did there), citing to BRIAN LEITER for authority (really?), somehow claiming Duke "yaaay first SCOTUS clerk in a decade" Law has anything like a tangible advantage over UVA in the clerkship beat (the most recent numbers have duke > UVA by 1% in total A3 placement, the year before UVA > duke by ~1% - way to be), and coming on the heels of taking V1 through V13 or some bullshit, counting only current associates in their (occasionally existent) DC offices then dividing by the square root of the distance between the moon and Durham or some fucking thing to approximate DC placement. It's just too fuckin' much, friend.

Duke is an excellent school. So is UVA. In many respects they are frighteningly similar. A student will receive a top-notch education and bountiful employment prospects out of either school, and putting the data under a microscope will not yield ammunition for trolls for either school. But when you, trolling as hard and as naively as possible for Duke, start calling out somebody for responding to your random ass trolly data and accusations with sanity and knowledge... it's just priceless. Absofuckinglutely priceless. There's no better term. It's TLS at it's finest.

While I do wish that God will have mercy on your soul, and while I must award you no points, you can have this as a consolation:

You don't appear to understand what ad hominem means:

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[5][6][7][8][9] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone. "X's argument is invalid because X's analogy is false, there are differences between a republic and a democracy. But then again, X is idiotically ignorant." is gratuitously abusive but is not a fallacy because X's argument is actually addressed directly in the opening statement. "X is idiotically ignorant" is not a fallacy of itself. It is an argument that X doesn't know the difference between a republic and a democracy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homin ... ected=true

I'll respond further shortly.

[vamedic03]

4. I think the proper conclusion here is that you're attending UVA Law and the weight of the evidence--my method, Leiter's, OCI 2009, A3 clerkships, etc.--has caused a bit of cognitive dissonance to work its magic on you.

Usually when it gets down to moments like this, I just quote and respond with a simple

But this... oh my goodness. An ad hominim, against the poster as well as the way the damn school decides to name its fall recruitment program (I see what you did there), citing to BRIAN LEITER for authority (really?), somehow claiming Duke "yaaay first SCOTUS clerk in a decade" Law has anything like a tangible advantage over UVA in the clerkship beat (the most recent numbers have duke > UVA by 1% in total A3 placement, the year before UVA > duke by ~1% - way to be), and coming on the heels of taking V1 through V13 or some bullshit, counting only current associates in their (occasionally existent) DC offices then dividing by the square root of the distance between the moon and Durham or some fucking thing to approximate DC placement. It's just too fuckin' much, friend.

Duke is an excellent school. So is UVA. In many respects they are frighteningly similar. A student will receive a top-notch education and bountiful employment prospects out of either school, and putting the data under a microscope will not yield ammunition for trolls for either school. But when you, trolling as hard and as naively as possible for Duke, start calling out somebody for responding to your random ass trolly data and accusations with sanity and knowledge... it's just priceless. Absofuckinglutely priceless. There's no better term. It's TLS at it's finest.

While I do wish that God will have mercy on your soul, and while I must award you no points, you can have this as a consolation:

You don't appear to understand what ad hominem means:

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[5][6][7][8][9] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone. "X's argument is invalid because X's analogy is false, there are differences between a republic and a democracy. But then again, X is idiotically ignorant." is gratuitously abusive but is not a fallacy because X's argument is actually addressed directly in the opening statement. "X is idiotically ignorant" is not a fallacy of itself. It is an argument that X doesn't know the difference between a republic and a democracy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homin ... ected=true

I'll respond further shortly.

How about you try to just stop arguing against reason and sanity?

[270910]

reason and sanity

WONDER TWIN POWERS - ACTIVATE! Form of: Coherent argument!

[Chuch]

http://www.lawschool100.com/

[quakeroats]

reason and sanity

WONDER TWIN POWERS - ACTIVATE! Form of: Coherent argument!

Appeal to authority!

[Reedie]

ITT posters mistake sarcasm and hyperbole for reasoned arguments.


God, I can't imagine a set of responses that could be less helpful. Vamedic03, you carelessly throw out terms like "useless," and claim that "for this to have meaning..." it would "have to" look like some study you've imagined, which conveniently doesn't even exist. Those claims go way beyond what your argument establishes. All you've established is that there are certain factors this data does not adjust for (such as changes in the number of students going to DC from year to year). That in no way proves that the information is "useless."

Solid information about job prospects after law school is hard to come by. The information found in the most prominent rankings, so often used here to create meaningless tiers (such as "T14") is subject to manipulation and possibly outright distortion by the law schools themselves. Different law schools vary in their openness and record keeping for things like OCI placement. The idea of trying to use the associates currently working at firms to try to get an idea of where firms hire is--in that environment--a very good one (and one that doesn't originate with oats').

That information is not perfect. It's not even great. One of the problems with this information is that different law schools have student bodies which target different parts of the country. The idea that oats has is to analyze the number of associates working at "elite" firms ONLY as a percentage of students who wind up in a *specific* market (in the case we are debating here DC). Nobody, not one single poster here, has suggested a better way to try to adjust for geographic preference. Perhaps, instead of resorting to rudeness and ridicule, it might be more productive to actually SUGGEST some better ways of trying to handle that problem.

[vamedic03]

ITT posters mistake sarcasm and hyperbole for reasoned arguments.


God, I can't imagine a set of responses that could be less helpful. Vamedic03, you carelessly throw out terms like "useless," and claim that "for this to have meaning..." it would "have to" look like some study you've imagined, which conveniently doesn't even exist. Those claims go way beyond what your argument establishes. All you've established is that there are certain factors this data does not adjust for (such as changes in the number of students going to DC from year to year). That in no way proves that the information is "useless."

Solid information about job prospects after law school is hard to come by. The information found in the most prominent rankings, so often used here to create meaningless tiers (such as "T14") is subject to manipulation and possibly outright distortion by the law schools themselves. Different law schools vary in their openness and record keeping for things like OCI placement. The idea of trying to use the associates currently working at firms to try to get an idea of where firms hire is--in that environment--a very good one (and one that doesn't originate with oats').

That information is not perfect. It's not even great. One of the problems with this information is that different law schools have student bodies which target different parts of the country. The idea that oats has is to analyze the number of associates working at "elite" firms ONLY as a percentage of students who wind up in a *specific* market (in the case we are debating here DC). Nobody, not one single poster here, has suggested a better way to try to adjust for geographic preference. Perhaps, instead of resorting to rudeness and ridicule, it might be more productive to actually SUGGEST some better ways of trying to handle that problem.

Reedie - You missed the point. The point that Disco_Barred and I have argued is this: running stats on how many associates from a given firm are alumni from a given school versus a given year's number of students going into a given market is useless. If you want to peruse a firm's website to get the feel of its associates, that can be useful... trying to make statistics from it in an amateurish manner, is not useful.

Further, the problem that I have with Quakeroats is that he used attempted to use simple calculations to add an air of authority to his rather useless calculations.

Is there a great way to differentiate the top law schools? Not really - there's a reason that people on here talk about them in bands and groups - because we can't differentiate but so much. At a certain point, its really splitting hairs to try and differentiate on the basis of numbers. If you get into Virginia & Duke, your decision of which school to go to should be based on your feel and fit with the schools - not on the basis of some sort of contrived bullshit metrics that Quakeroats is posting.

And, if you really think that the T14 is a meaningless tier, I suggest you wade into the legal employment forums and see the vast difference between OCI's in the Top 14 and OCI's outside of the T14 - its truly a monumental difference.

FWIW, I'll take the USNEWS's stats over QuakerOats stats any day of the week.

[Reedie]

Reedie - You missed the point. The point that Disco_Barred and I have argued is this: running stats on how many associates from a given firm are alumni from a given school versus a given year's number of students going into a given market is useless. If you want to peruse a firm's website to get the feel of its associates, that can be useful... trying to make statistics from it in an amateurish manner, is not useful.

You have not proven that point. Flawed information and useless information are two different animals.

At a certain point, its really splitting hairs to try and differentiate on the basis of numbers. If you get into Virginia & Duke, your decision of which school to go to should be based on your feel and fit with the schools - not on the basis of some sort of contrived bullshit metrics that Quakeroats is posting.

While I'd agree that the choice between Virginia and Duke should primarily be based on your impression from visits and talks with students, I do think students ought to be interested secondarily with the (minor) differences between the placement of the two schools. In fact, I'd tell a student who was targeting DC that I suspect Virginia has an advantage (though certainly not a large one) in that market. Given that that's my impression, it's curious that this particular (limited) set of data isn't supporting it. If enough studies seem to find Duke out placing Virginia in DC, I'd be liable to change my mind.

And, if you really think that the T14 is a meaningless tier, I suggest you wade into the legal employment forums and see the vast difference between OCI's in the Top 14 and OCI's outside of the T14 - its truly a monumental difference.

Talk about crap data! First of all, I don't know why you'd describe the difference in OCI between UCLA and Georgetown as "vast." Second, I don't know why you think OCI data is a great metric of which law schools are "better."

[quakeroats]

Reedie - You missed the point. The point that Disco_Barred and I have argued is this: running stats on how many associates from a given firm are alumni from a given school versus a given year's number of students going into a given market is useless. If you want to peruse a firm's website to get the feel of its associates, that can be useful... trying to make statistics from it in an amateurish manner, is not useful.

You have not proven that point. Flawed information and useless information are two different animals.

At a certain point, its really splitting hairs to try and differentiate on the basis of numbers. If you get into Virginia & Duke, your decision of which school to go to should be based on your feel and fit with the schools - not on the basis of some sort of contrived bullshit metrics that Quakeroats is posting.

While I'd agree that the choice between Virginia and Duke should primarily be based on your impression from visits and talks with students, I do think students ought to be interested secondarily with the (minor) differences between the placement of the two schools. In fact, I'd tell a student who was targeting DC that I suspect Virginia has an advantage (though certainly not a large one) in that market. Given that that's my impression, it's curious that this particular (limited) set of data isn't supporting it. If enough studies seem to find Duke out placing Virginia in DC, I'd be liable to change my mind.

And, if you really think that the T14 is a meaningless tier, I suggest you wade into the legal employment forums and see the vast difference between OCI's in the Top 14 and OCI's outside of the T14 - its truly a monumental difference.

Talk about crap data! First of all, I don't know why you'd describe the difference in OCI between UCLA and Georgetown as "vast." Second, I don't know why you think OCI data is a great metric of which law schools are "better."

I'll just let these last two Reedie posts stand as generally identical to my own thoughts.

I'll certainly concede that it's possible to not be able to draw a valid conclusion from a set of data. However, I don't think that's the situation we're facing. Drawing a Duke-beats-UVA-in-elite-D.C.-employment conclusion based only on the UVA v. Duke data isn't something I stand behind. I haven't run it on enough firms--mostly because I intend to work in New York, but also because I just haven't had the time--for this to be a complete depiction. I do think that the New York data I posted earlier and this D.C. data (to a much lesser degree) along with the other factors I've cited paint a troubling picture for those who choose Michigan--and to a lesser extent UVA--over Penn or Duke when their main goal is working for a top law firm. I wouldn't argue that one's changes of top-firm placement are generally better at a T14 than a T25. I also wouldn't argue that within the T14 someone placing well in the class won't have to worry much about anything we're discussing. What I would argue is that choosing Michigan--and to a lesser extent Virginia--over Penn/Duke for corporate placement seems to be a mistake. That (and similar problems) are common issues here and many posters believe that MVP equals three nearly equal schools. I'd say, based on my data and the other points I've mentioned that this belief isn't correct.

[vamedic03]

Reedie - You missed the point. The point that Disco_Barred and I have argued is this: running stats on how many associates from a given firm are alumni from a given school versus a given year's number of students going into a given market is useless. If you want to peruse a firm's website to get the feel of its associates, that can be useful... trying to make statistics from it in an amateurish manner, is not useful.

You have not proven that point. Flawed information and useless information are two different animals.

At a certain point, its really splitting hairs to try and differentiate on the basis of numbers. If you get into Virginia & Duke, your decision of which school to go to should be based on your feel and fit with the schools - not on the basis of some sort of contrived bullshit metrics that Quakeroats is posting.

While I'd agree that the choice between Virginia and Duke should primarily be based on your impression from visits and talks with students, I do think students ought to be interested secondarily with the (minor) differences between the placement of the two schools. In fact, I'd tell a student who was targeting DC that I suspect Virginia has an advantage (though certainly not a large one) in that market. Given that that's my impression, it's curious that this particular (limited) set of data isn't supporting it. If enough studies seem to find Duke out placing Virginia in DC, I'd be liable to change my mind.

And, if you really think that the T14 is a meaningless tier, I suggest you wade into the legal employment forums and see the vast difference between OCI's in the Top 14 and OCI's outside of the T14 - its truly a monumental difference.

Talk about crap data! First of all, I don't know why you'd describe the difference in OCI between UCLA and Georgetown as "vast." Second, I don't know why you think OCI data is a great metric of which law schools are "better."

I'll just let these last two Reedie posts stand as generally identical to my own thoughts.

I'll certainly concede that it's possible to not be able to draw a valid conclusion from a set of data. However, I don't think that's the situation we're facing. Drawing a Duke-beats-UVA-in-elite-D.C.-employment conclusion based only on the UVA v. Duke data isn't something I stand behind. I haven't run it on enough firms--mostly because I intend to work in New York, but also because I just haven't had the time--for this to be a complete depiction. I do think that the New York data I posted earlier and this D.C. data (to a much lesser degree) along with the other factors I've cited paint a troubling picture for those who choose Michigan--and to a lesser extent UVA--over Penn or Duke when their main goal is working for a top law firm. I wouldn't argue that one's changes of top-firm placement are generally better at a T14 than a T25. I also wouldn't argue that within the T14 someone placing well in the class won't have to worry much about anything we're discussing. What I would argue is that choosing Michigan--and to a lesser extent Virginia--over Penn/Duke for corporate placement seems to be a mistake. That (and similar problems) are common issues here and many posters believe that MVP equals three nearly equal schools. I'd say, based on my data and the other points I've mentioned that this belief isn't correct.

Your data is a load of BS as are your conclusions. See above posts for your fallacies. Congrats on your decision to attend Duke - stop trying to justify it to the rest of the world. Rather than worry about which school places into which firm, start worrying about getting the grades during 1L that you will need at ANY of the lower T-14 to have a shot at the elite firms.

[270910]

[M]any posters believe that MVP equals three nearly equal schools. I'd say, based on my data and the other points I've mentioned that this belief isn't correct.

[vamedic03]

Reedie - You missed the point. The point that Disco_Barred and I have argued is this: running stats on how many associates from a given firm are alumni from a given school versus a given year's number of students going into a given market is useless. If you want to peruse a firm's website to get the feel of its associates, that can be useful... trying to make statistics from it in an amateurish manner, is not useful.

You have not proven that point. Flawed information and useless information are two different animals.

At a certain point, its really splitting hairs to try and differentiate on the basis of numbers. If you get into Virginia & Duke, your decision of which school to go to should be based on your feel and fit with the schools - not on the basis of some sort of contrived bullshit metrics that Quakeroats is posting.

While I'd agree that the choice between Virginia and Duke should primarily be based on your impression from visits and talks with students, I do think students ought to be interested secondarily with the (minor) differences between the placement of the two schools. In fact, I'd tell a student who was targeting DC that I suspect Virginia has an advantage (though certainly not a large one) in that market. Given that that's my impression, it's curious that this particular (limited) set of data isn't supporting it. If enough studies seem to find Duke out placing Virginia in DC, I'd be liable to change my mind.

And, if you really think that the T14 is a meaningless tier, I suggest you wade into the legal employment forums and see the vast difference between OCI's in the Top 14 and OCI's outside of the T14 - its truly a monumental difference.

Talk about crap data! First of all, I don't know why you'd describe the difference in OCI between UCLA and Georgetown as "vast." Second, I don't know why you think OCI data is a great metric of which law schools are "better."

1) Um, if you consider QuakerOats's quackery to be a study, then there's no point in having any discussion.

1)(a) Again, the problem with his data is that he's trying to compare apples to oranges - the total number of associates from a given school cannot be compared to the total number of graduating students each year going to a given market. The data you would have to compare would be associates of a given graduation year with that year's number going to a particular market. Otherwise, this is all meaningless.

1)(b) Using the V10 or 5 "elite" DC firms is really not a very good metric. First, as stated above, there are more than 5 "elite" DC firms. Second, the V10 excludes some very good and selective firms, even in NYC (example - Kirkland, Paul Weiss, and Debevoise all fall outside of the V10... and Patterson Belknap (which is extremely selective) is barely V100).

1)(c) If you're not Top 10-15% and/or law review - you're not going to have much of a shot at these firms regardless of where you go. And, if you are Top 10-15% and/or law review at MVP or D, you have a strong shot at these firms regardless of which school you are at.

1)(d) Word to the wise - find the school that you would be happy being median at.

2) Based on the metrics y'all are using, OCI is as good, if not better of an indicator. If a given firm doesn't come to OCI, then you aren't going to have a very strong shot at it. OCI is an EXTREMELY important factor in choosing schools and one would be wise to look closely at each school's OCI, evaluate the bidding system, look at the numbers of offices and employers attending, and the strength of career services for whatever school you go to.

As I've stated above, I don't care whether UPenn or Duke or Northwestern edge out Virginia or Michigan on some metric - they are too close to readily distinguish between beyond fit and feel. If you're in the running for a top firm or clerkship after 1L at any of these schools, you will be in an excellent position. I just have a huge beef with throwing up useless, meaningless, or whatever term you choose to use (while I'm at it, stopping being a friggin' jackass about diction) number and statistics and hide behind it as a screen for trolling for the school that you're choosing to attend.

[quakeroats]

Reedie - You missed the point. The point that Disco_Barred and I have argued is this: running stats on how many associates from a given firm are alumni from a given school versus a given year's number of students going into a given market is useless. If you want to peruse a firm's website to get the feel of its associates, that can be useful... trying to make statistics from it in an amateurish manner, is not useful.

You have not proven that point. Flawed information and useless information are two different animals.

At a certain point, its really splitting hairs to try and differentiate on the basis of numbers. If you get into Virginia & Duke, your decision of which school to go to should be based on your feel and fit with the schools - not on the basis of some sort of contrived bullshit metrics that Quakeroats is posting.

While I'd agree that the choice between Virginia and Duke should primarily be based on your impression from visits and talks with students, I do think students ought to be interested secondarily with the (minor) differences between the placement of the two schools. In fact, I'd tell a student who was targeting DC that I suspect Virginia has an advantage (though certainly not a large one) in that market. Given that that's my impression, it's curious that this particular (limited) set of data isn't supporting it. If enough studies seem to find Duke out placing Virginia in DC, I'd be liable to change my mind.

And, if you really think that the T14 is a meaningless tier, I suggest you wade into the legal employment forums and see the vast difference between OCI's in the Top 14 and OCI's outside of the T14 - its truly a monumental difference.

Talk about crap data! First of all, I don't know why you'd describe the difference in OCI between UCLA and Georgetown as "vast." Second, I don't know why you think OCI data is a great metric of which law schools are "better."

I'll just let these last two Reedie posts stand as generally identical to my own thoughts.

I'll certainly concede that it's possible to not be able to draw a valid conclusion from a set of data. However, I don't think that's the situation we're facing. Drawing a Duke-beats-UVA-in-elite-D.C.-employment conclusion based only on the UVA v. Duke data isn't something I stand behind. I haven't run it on enough firms--mostly because I intend to work in New York, but also because I just haven't had the time--for this to be a complete depiction. I do think that the New York data I posted earlier and this D.C. data (to a much lesser degree) along with the other factors I've cited paint a troubling picture for those who choose Michigan--and to a lesser extent UVA--over Penn or Duke when their main goal is working for a top law firm. I wouldn't argue that one's changes of top-firm placement are generally better at a T14 than a T25. I also wouldn't argue that within the T14 someone placing well in the class won't have to worry much about anything we're discussing. What I would argue is that choosing Michigan--and to a lesser extent Virginia--over Penn/Duke for corporate placement seems to be a mistake. That (and similar problems) are common issues here and many posters believe that MVP equals three nearly equal schools. I'd say, based on my data and the other points I've mentioned that this belief isn't correct.

Your data is a load of BS as are your conclusions. See above posts for your fallacies. Congrats on your decision to attend Duke - stop trying to justify it to the rest of the world. Rather than worry about which school places into which firm, start worrying about getting the grades during 1L that you will need at ANY of the lower T-14 to have a shot at the elite firms.

Ignoring and misinterpreting what I've said is certainly your right. There was a similar thread last year saying much of what's been discussed here that you may have handled in a similar fashion. I chose my school after looking at all of what's been mentioned here in addition to many other items.

To summarize one (hopefully) last time my main conclusion:

If what is most important to you in choosing a law school is working in the New York office of a V10 firm headquartered in New York you would be wise to choose HYS over everyone, followed by CC, then NPD, and then everyone else. The difference between these first three tiers and everyone else is more substantial than is commonly believed for this very specific conclusion. Most of the data I've gathered (the super majority of which I haven't created) supports this conclusion.


There are all sorts of reasons my conclusion could be wrong or misleading, but after looking at all the available data I don't find that to be the case. You've yet to cite anything that doesn't reduce to, "this is all unknowable; your data is nonsense." Again, this conclusion is your right, but keep in mind you're not just disagreeing with me. You'd also be in disagreement with Brian Leiter, Michael Sullivan, and others who have run similar studies with similar methodologies in similar ways.

[270910]

[pelmen74]

This thread is going in circles. It needs to end...

[jbjb1]

I think it is worth looking into that Michigan does not have a single graduate at Wachtell which is the most coveted law firm. Not one!!! It is surprising given Michigan's rich law history and generally strong reputation in the legal market. Outside of Wachtell I would say that chances at any of the other firms are equal among M, V, and P. Differences in raw #'s are mainly due to self-selection. Michigan needs to join the Wachtell club, though.

[03121202698008]

I think it is worth looking into that Michigan does not have a single graduate at Wachtell which is the most coveted law firm. Not one!!! It is surprising given Michigan's rich law history and generally strong reputation in the legal market. Outside of Wachtell I would say that chances at any of the other firms are equal among M, V, and P. Differences in raw #'s are mainly due to self-selection. Michigan needs to join the Wachtell club, though.

That's because Wachtell doesn't recruit at Michigan's OCI. Also, this thread is old...

[jbjb1]

I think it is worth looking into that Michigan does not have a single graduate at Wachtell which is the most coveted law firm. Not one!!! It is surprising given Michigan's rich law history and generally strong reputation in the legal market. Outside of Wachtell I would say that chances at any of the other firms are equal among M, V, and P. Differences in raw #'s are mainly due to self-selection. Michigan needs to join the Wachtell club, though.

That's because Wachtell doesn't recruit at Michigan's OCI. Also, this thread is old...

It's old? There are several posts written in July. Old is several months or a year.

Why doesn't Wachtell go to Michigan and even if they don't shouldn't there be SOME Michigan grads at Wachtell? There are even people from Northwestern and Duke at Wachtell. What gives? Can you also answer my post in the Michigan thread? Many thanks.

[03121202698008]

I think it is worth looking into that Michigan does not have a single graduate at Wachtell which is the most coveted law firm. Not one!!! It is surprising given Michigan's rich law history and generally strong reputation in the legal market. Outside of Wachtell I would say that chances at any of the other firms are equal among M, V, and P. Differences in raw #'s are mainly due to self-selection. Michigan needs to join the Wachtell club, though.

That's because Wachtell doesn't recruit at Michigan's OCI. Also, this thread is old...

It's old? There are several posts written in July. Old is several months or a year.

Why doesn't Wachtell go to Michigan and even if they don't shouldn't there be SOME Michigan grads at Wachtell? There are even people from Northwestern and Duke at Wachtell. What gives? Can you also answer my post in the Michigan thread? Many thanks.

Firms tend to traditionally only recruit at certain schools regardless of the rankings. There are firms that recruit at Michigan but not Penn, etc. Since these firms hire almost exclusively from OCIs, if they don't go there then there won't be any grads from that school.

[vamedic03]

I think it is worth looking into that Michigan does not have a single graduate at Wachtell which is the most coveted law firm. Not one!!! It is surprising given Michigan's rich law history and generally strong reputation in the legal market. Outside of Wachtell I would say that chances at any of the other firms are equal among M, V, and P. Differences in raw #'s are mainly due to self-selection. Michigan needs to join the Wachtell club, though.

That's because Wachtell doesn't recruit at Michigan's OCI. Also, this thread is old...

It's old? There are several posts written in July. Old is several months or a year.

Why doesn't Wachtell go to Michigan and even if they don't shouldn't there be SOME Michigan grads at Wachtell? There are even people from Northwestern and Duke at Wachtell. What gives? Can you also answer my post in the Michigan thread? Many thanks.

Who cares whether or not a certain firm recruits at Michigan? Odds are you won't be in the top 5%... if you are, you're not going to worry about Wachtell.

/thread

[jbjb1]

Wachtell is not just any firm. Odds are I won't be top 5% but if I were I would def be pining for Wachtell.

I think it is worth looking into that Michigan does not have a single graduate at Wachtell which is the most coveted law firm. Not one!!! It is surprising given Michigan's rich law history and generally strong reputation in the legal market. Outside of Wachtell I would say that chances at any of the other firms are equal among M, V, and P. Differences in raw #'s are mainly due to self-selection. Michigan needs to join the Wachtell club, though.

That's because Wachtell doesn't recruit at Michigan's OCI. Also, this thread is old...

It's old? There are several posts written in July. Old is several months or a year.

Why doesn't Wachtell go to Michigan and even if they don't shouldn't there be SOME Michigan grads at Wachtell? There are even people from Northwestern and Duke at Wachtell. What gives? Can you also answer my post in the Michigan thread? Many thanks.

Who cares whether or not a certain firm recruits at Michigan? Odds are you won't be in the top 5%... if you are, you're not going to worry about Wachtell.

/thread

[03121202698008]

Wachtell is not just any firm. Odds are I won't be top 5% but if I were I would def be pining for Wachtell.

Even top 5% isn't a great shot for Wachtell because they take so few people. Also, common practice is to quote and write your stuff on the bottom not the top...since you know...we read top to bottom...and you are adding on.

[jbjb1]

Wachtell is not just any firm. Odds are I won't be top 5% but if I were I would def be pining for Wachtell.

Even top 5% isn't a great shot for Wachtell because they take so few people. Also, common practice is to quote and write your stuff on the bottom not the top...since you know...we read top to bottom...and you are adding on.

Sorry for breaking the law.

[03121202698008]

Wachtell is not just any firm. Odds are I won't be top 5% but if I were I would def be pining for Wachtell.

Even top 5% isn't a great shot for Wachtell because they take so few people. Also, common practice is to quote and write your stuff on the bottom not the top...since you know...we read top to bottom...and you are adding on.

Sorry for breaking the law.

LOL, normally I wouldn't say anything but twice now I was like...wtf did he quote me/that guy? Only after a second did I realize you wrote at the top.

[vamedic03]

Wachtell is not just any firm. Odds are I won't be top 5% but if I were I would def be pining for Wachtell a feeder clerkship.

fixed that for you.