UVA vs UT Forum

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Do you have some real connection to Texas already? Are you a Texan?

Basic background info:
Strong ties to Texas and would most likely want to return

Did you even read the thread?

None of that appeared in the first post. I was responding to OP based on the thread title and the OP.

I passed over his expanded post because I usually coast by most people's advice in threads like this, because it's often 0Ls spoonfeeding BS to the OP.

Yeah, I edited down the first post and put the details in an more recent update.

Lived in Texas for the majority of my life, done undergrad and grad school in Texas and both my family, and my girlfriend's family are from Texas (Dallas and Houston). I don't have a direct link to Austin, which would make me think if I go to UVA Austin probably will not be an option for me.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

A quick addition: congratulations, dude! I'm happy for you.

Thanks a lot!!! I've never been so happy making such a tough decision.

[vanwinkle]

I passed over his expanded post because I usually coast by most people's advice in threads like this. It's often 0Ls spoonfeeding BS to the OP or posting responses that are definitely tl;dr-worthy.

Or, occasionally, it's questions asked by people that were already answered. There's lots of dumb bullshit in the threads here.

[RVP11]

Given how difficult Austin jobs are supposed to be to obtain, I don't think you'd be giving up that much going with UVA. You'd be gaining a lot in overall prospects (academia, DFW/Houston BigLaw if that's what you're considering as a fallback) for what is not a huge difference in cost over three years.

[RVP11]

Given how difficult Austin jobs are supposed to be to obtain, I don't think you'd be giving up that much going with UVA. You'd be gaining a lot in overall prospects (academia, DFW/Houston BigLaw if that's what you're considering as a fallback) for [strike]what is not a huge difference in[/strike] twice the cost over three years.

ftfy

Twice of $1 is $2.

Wow that's a huge difference.

We're talking about $30,000 or $40,000 (whatever the financial aid package from UT takes it to?) overall difference. When you're already giving up quite a bit in lost income over 3 years by making the law school investment, that's not a lot of money.

[RVP11]

I passed over his expanded post because I usually coast by most people's advice in threads like this. It's often 0Ls spoonfeeding BS to the OP or posting responses that are definitely tl;dr-worthy.

Or, occasionally, it's questions asked by people that were already answered. There's lots of dumb bullshit in the threads here.

Fine, let OP call me out on it. I inconvenienced him for maybe 15 seconds by being a little lazy and impatient. We don't need to have a side discussion about RVP11's lack of TLS etiquette. This is more distracting from the main point of the thread than my accidental scroll past OP's second, explanatory post ever did.

[RVP11]

Maybe we have different socioeconomic backgrounds - and I'm not really interested in sparring at the moment - but to me $37,000 + interest is a significant amount of money.

What if it doubled your chances of making BigLaw or just decent enough money to pay that debt down?

[DoubleChecks]

I think "UVA doubles your odds at BigLaw over Texas, especially when OP wants to practice in Texas" is the weakest argument on this page. The percentages on the NLJ 250 rankings are nowhere near double.

i have to agree -- i dont think UVA would double TX biglaw prospects for OP

but as someone else said, i really dont think OP can go wrong w/ either decision here -- he should prob just do whats most comfortable

[vanwinkle]

Fine, let OP call me out on it. I inconvenienced him for maybe 15 seconds by being a little lazy and impatient. We don't need to have a side discussion about RVP11's lack of TLS etiquette. This is more distracting from the main point of the thread than my accidental scroll past OP's second, explanatory post ever did.

It doesn't inconvenience just OP but everyone who's reading the thread. If you wanna contribute you should actually read what's going on first, otherwise these obnoxious side arguments will happen. These side arguments are distracting, so you can avoid them by, you know, reading before you jump in.

[vanwinkle]

I think "UVA doubles your odds at BigLaw over Texas, especially when OP wants to practice in Texas" is the weakest argument on this page. The percentages on the NLJ 250 rankings are nowhere near double.

Agreed. UVA will do better, but "double" is a little outrageous.

[RVP11]

I think "UVA doubles your odds at BigLaw over Texas, especially when OP wants to practice in Texas" is the weakest argument on this page. The percentages on the NLJ 250 rankings are nowhere near double.

Yeah dude that's why I said "what if?" and didn't specify Texas. It was a hypothetical showing that, given certain circumstances, $37,000 plus interest might actually be an insignificant difference.

And in some years the difference actually has been close to double.

Try 52% to 27%

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 7904900045

[RVP11]

I think "UVA doubles your odds at BigLaw over Texas, especially when OP wants to practice in Texas" is the weakest argument on this page. The percentages on the NLJ 250 rankings are nowhere near double.

Agreed. UVA will do better, but "double" is a little outrageous.

Not only did I never actually make that assertion, I never specified in Texas. It was a hypothetical illustrating my point that $37k + interest is not necessarily a significant amount - you have to assess what you're gaining out of the increased outlay.

And outrageous? Hardly.

Here are the differences:

2005 - UVA 52%, UT 27%
2007 - UVA 58%, UT 38%
2008 - UVA 57%, UT under 40%...they don't appear on the top 20 list at least
2009 - UVA 53%, UT 37%

Double is not accurate, and it's an exaggeration (big part of why I never asserted it). But it's not outrageous.

What's interesting is that the class of 2005 interviewed when the economy was still recovering, I believe. Notice that UT's numbers had dipped down pretty significantly while UVA's hadn't. We obviously will know a whole lot more once we see the numbers for the class of 2010 and *shudders* the class of 2011, but it wouldn't shock me to see UT fall under 25% while UVA maintains around 40%.

[vanwinkle]

I love the whole "double isn't outrageous, and I'm going to vigorously defend its accuracy, even while I continue to assert I never said it" dichotomy. That's highly entertaining.

Also, where did those numbers come from? You're just quoting percentages without really explaining even what they're percentages of, let alone providing sources.

[vanwinkle]

percentages of graduates landing in NLJ 250 firms

NLJ 250 is a terrible way to measure UT's placement, because of how many solid firms there are in Texas that pay market or close to it but aren't on the NLJ 250. For Class of 2005, the NLJ 250 + non-NLJ 250 placement from UT is very close to UVA's. Not all of those non-NLJ 250 firms are going to be paying market or close to it, but a lot are, and it's going to make that gap a lot closer than it appears.

Keep in mind that I'm a UVA student and pro-UVA, so I'm not saying this out of any pro-Texas bias or anything.

[Esc]

For the umpteenth time, UT's NLJ placement is an underestimate of its market-salary placement, since a significant number of Texas firms that pay market don't fall within the NLJ 250.

[RVP11]

I love the whole "double isn't outrageous, and I'm going to vigorously defend its accuracy, even while I continue to assert I never said it" dichotomy. That's highly entertaining.

Also, where did those numbers come from? You're just quoting percentages without really explaining even what they're percentages of, let alone providing sources.

WTF do you think the percentages are for? I know that you and everyone in this thread knows. Don't play dumb. I quoted a post that said the NLJ250 rankings were nowhere near double.

And I accidentally deleted my cites when I posted. Sue me.

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf
http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/20080 ... chools.jpg
http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/20090 ... chools.jpg
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

Happy?

Feel free to engage me in argument. I took the time to call you out on labeling something "outrageous" just as you took the time to call me out for asking a hypothetical question of another poster which you construed as me making an assertion.

[vanwinkle]

For the umpteenth time, UT's NLJ placement is an underestimate of its market-salary placement, since a significant number of Texas firms that pay market don't fall within the NLJ 250.

Yeah, this. This is what I was referring to.

[Esc]

I love the whole "double isn't outrageous, and I'm going to vigorously defend its accuracy, even while I continue to assert I never said it" dichotomy. That's highly entertaining.

Also, where did those numbers come from? You're just quoting percentages without really explaining even what they're percentages of, let alone providing sources.

WTF do you think the percentages are for? I know that you and everyone in this thread knows. Don't play dumb. I quoted a post that said the NLJ250 rankings were nowhere near double.

And I accidentally deleted my cites when I posted. Sue me.

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf
http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/20080 ... chools.jpg
http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/20090 ... chools.jpg
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

Happy?

Feel free to engage me in argument. I took the time to call you out on labeling something "outrageous" just as you took the time to call me out for asking a hypothetical question of another poster which you construed as me making an assertion.

I'm not sure what your problem is here....do you just not like UT?

[vanwinkle]

Feel free to engage me in argument. I took the time to call you out on labeling something "outrageous" just as you took the time to call me out for asking a hypothetical question of another poster which you construed as me making an assertion.

I am engaging you in argument. And calling UVA's BigLaw placement double UT's is outrageous, and it is something that you brought up (even if just as a hypothetical) which warranted it being called out as outrageous. Distracting the OP with untrue hypotheticals is pretty stupid, and it's just as outrageous as a hypothetical as it is as an assertion of truth, since either way it's not true.

It's hilarious that you keep referring to it as just a hypothetical and yet you seem obsessed with defending the truth of it. Can you pick one or the other?

[RVP11]

For the umpteenth time, UT's NLJ placement is an underestimate of its market-salary placement, since a significant number of Texas firms that pay market don't fall within the NLJ 250.

Who, and how many SAs are they hiring compared to how many the V100/NLJ250 offices in Texas are hiring?

I'm not being skeptical here. I'm honestly curious to find out. Usually when this comes up people throw out one extreme example (like Susman Godfrey ) and call it an argument.

I'd seriously love to compile a list of market-paying TX firms that are not in the V100 or NLJ250 and get a good idea of how the number of SAs they hire might impact UT's V100/NLJ250 numbers.

[RVP11]

I love the whole "double isn't outrageous, and I'm going to vigorously defend its accuracy, even while I continue to assert I never said it" dichotomy. That's highly entertaining.

Also, where did those numbers come from? You're just quoting percentages without really explaining even what they're percentages of, let alone providing sources.

WTF do you think the percentages are for? I know that you and everyone in this thread knows. Don't play dumb. I quoted a post that said the NLJ250 rankings were nowhere near double.

And I accidentally deleted my cites when I posted. Sue me.

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf
http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/20080 ... chools.jpg
http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/20090 ... chools.jpg
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

Happy?

Feel free to engage me in argument. I took the time to call you out on labeling something "outrageous" just as you took the time to call me out for asking a hypothetical question of another poster which you construed as me making an assertion.

I'm not sure what your problem is here....do you just not like UT?

How does this post suggest I don't like UT?

[270910]

For the umpteenth time, UT's NLJ placement is an underestimate of its market-salary placement, since a significant number of Texas firms that pay market don't fall within the NLJ 250.

NLJ 250 is a terrible way to measure UT's placement, because of how many solid firms there are in Texas that pay market or close to it but aren't on the NLJ 250.

WTF? Prove it.

I get that this is a nice theory, and I'm all about pointing out that the NLJ 250 and V100 are both extremely NYC mega-firm centric.

But I highly doubt that there's a bumper crop of TX firms hiring between 1 and 165 attorneys (roughly speaking the NLJ 250 cutoff) sucking up so many UT grads every year and showering them in such riches that its NLJ placement stat isn't, like for every other school out there, a good approximation of its placement power at high starting salary firms.

[RVP11]

I'm all about pointing out that the NLJ 250 and V100 are both extremely NYC mega-firm centric.

Even that's being generous.

Vault stops being ridiculously NYC-centric at around V25, though the V100 is primarily NYC/DC/California/Chicago.

That NLJ250 has any regional bias whatsoever is debatable. There are plenty of small market (MUCH smaller than DFW/Houston - both top 10 legal markets) firms in there. And every non-NLJ250 firm I've ever seen hires like 2-5 people per year, if at all. People love to talk about all the boutiques out there, but no one has ever sat down and shown their impact on law school hiring.

[DoubleChecks]

For the umpteenth time, UT's NLJ placement is an underestimate of its market-salary placement, since a significant number of Texas firms that pay market don't fall within the NLJ 250.

NLJ 250 is a terrible way to measure UT's placement, because of how many solid firms there are in Texas that pay market or close to it but aren't on the NLJ 250.

WTF? Prove it.

I get that this is a nice theory, and I'm all about pointing out that the NLJ 250 and V100 are both extremely NYC mega-firm centric.

But I highly doubt that there's a bumper crop of TX firms hiring between 1 and 165 attorneys (roughly speaking the NLJ 250 cutoff) sucking up so many UT grads every year and showering them in such riches that its NLJ placement stat isn't, like for every other school out there, a good approximation of its placement power at high starting salary firms.

mm well in the context of this argument, they are just saying NLJ250 is an "underestimate"

since the %'s of UT placement and UVA placement were already of a certain closeness that even a 5% change one way could affect the support for one side of the argument, it stands that it may very well matter

but this is of course focusing on a hypothetical, so even im getting confused about what the argument is about -- though imo, RVP's hypothetical in this thread is quite misleading for curious readers or the OP (given the context of the whole thing)

[RVP11]

mm well in the context of this argument, they are just saying NLJ250 is an "underestimate"

since the %'s of UT placement and UVA placement were already of a certain closeness that even a 5% change one way could affect the support for one side of the argument, it stands that it may very well matter

but this is of course focusing on a hypothetical, so even im getting confused about what the argument is about -- though imo, RVP's hypothetical in this thread is quite misleading for curious readers or the OP (given the context of the whole thing)

Yeah, I'm already regretting I posed the hypo. I was just trying to get across that $37k might not be that much.

Showing UT's placement is underestimated by NLJ250 wouldn't be sufficient. We'd have to see why UVA's placement isn't similarly understimated. I don't think UT has some deathgrip on firms that pay $160k but aren't in the NLJ250.