M vs V vs P for corporate law Forum

[como]

Remind me of which school produces graduates so skilled in the dark arts of sentence fragmentation.

Oh man, I forgot that grammar is very important on an internet forum. I am a disgrace.

I was just giving you a good-natured ball-bust anyway. Clearly, my post was an attempt at humor, considering I made fun of Duke's frattyness rather than any substantive aspect of its educational value.

I guess I overestimated your sense of humor.

[03121202698008]

Seriously, these are all peer schools with nearly equal shots at NYC regardless of what the other posters ITT may think. The disparity is largely due to self-selection of the students themselves.

OP, make sure you visit and pick based upon atmosphere, $$, etc. I found Penn's facilities, for instance, to be much worse than I would have expected and they will be under construction for the next 3 years.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Although NY firm placement is pretty similar straight out from school for MVP, I'd give one particular edge to Penn for corporate types interested in a DE Court of Chancery clerkship (which you should at least consider if interested in corporate litigation or even transactional work).

Penn's corporate faculty members are very close to members of the Court of Chancery and Delaware Supreme Court, and several members of Delaware's state and federal judiciary adjunct there). In fact, 4 of the 10 Chancery clerks starting this fall took the same class at Penn with Vice Chancellor Strine in Spring '09.

They're not as similar as you may think. From what I've seen, Michigan has perhaps half the placement power of Penn in New York.

You're being a little generous to Michigan here, don't you think?

[03121202698008]

Although NY firm placement is pretty similar straight out from school for MVP, I'd give one particular edge to Penn for corporate types interested in a DE Court of Chancery clerkship (which you should at least consider if interested in corporate litigation or even transactional work).

Penn's corporate faculty members are very close to members of the Court of Chancery and Delaware Supreme Court, and several members of Delaware's state and federal judiciary adjunct there). In fact, 4 of the 10 Chancery clerks starting this fall took the same class at Penn with Vice Chancellor Strine in Spring '09.

They're not as similar as you may think. From what I've seen, Michigan has perhaps half the placement power of Penn in New York.

You can't look at straight Martin Dale numbers, etc. Many students at Michigan self-select away from NYC the same way most Penn students self-select outside of Philly. If you were to look at just numbers, it would appear that Temple places better in Philly than Penn...but that is definitely not the case.

Michigan tends to draw a lot of students from the West coast...who return to the West Coast. So, you may have 130-140 students shooting for NYC...if that...not all 360.

An example of what looking at just raw numbers can produce:
http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/blo ... y_id=10864

Does anyone really think Michigan places better into BigLaw than HYS? No, but if you don't count self-selection and take solely the percent of class getting Big Law...it would appear that way.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

[03121202698008]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

I figured when I saw your profile... I was in the quad yesterday...can't wait until next month. I was really posting about the guy above you...lazy quoting.

[Reedie]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

Quakeroats had produced his own numbers using a roughly similar methodology to Leiter's elite firm placement study, which is where this is coming from. I'll let him decide if he wants to post it or not.

[quakeroats]

Although NY firm placement is pretty similar straight out from school for MVP, I'd give one particular edge to Penn for corporate types interested in a DE Court of Chancery clerkship (which you should at least consider if interested in corporate litigation or even transactional work).

Penn's corporate faculty members are very close to members of the Court of Chancery and Delaware Supreme Court, and several members of Delaware's state and federal judiciary adjunct there). In fact, 4 of the 10 Chancery clerks starting this fall took the same class at Penn with Vice Chancellor Strine in Spring '09.

They're not as similar as you may think. From what I've seen, Michigan has perhaps half the placement power of Penn in New York.

You're being a little generous to Michigan here, don't you think?

You can't look at straight Martin Dale numbers, etc. Many students at Michigan self-select away from NYC the same way most Penn students self-select outside of Philly. If you were to look at just numbers, it would appear that Temple places better in Philly than Penn...but that is definitely not the case.

Michigan tends to draw a lot of students from the West coast...who return to the West Coast. So, you may have 130-140 students shooting for NYC...not all 360.

When a plurality of Michigan students target New York (data here: http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA1839.pdf), I'd say it's hard to hard to argue that other students going elsewhere means much for this discussion.

Michigan places less well in its primary market than Penn. It doesn't even have to place its subpar grads there à la NYU, Columbia, or Cornell and it still can't compete with its peers.

[03121202698008]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

Quakeroats had produced his own numbers using a roughly similar methodology to Leiter's elite firm placement study, which is where this is coming from. I'll let him decide if he wants to post it or not.

That doesn't mean he is correct.

[03121202698008]

When a plurality of Michigan students target New York (data here: http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA1839.pdf), I'd say it's hard to hard to argue that other students going elsewhere means much for this discussion.

Michigan places less well in its primary market than Penn. It doesn't even have to place its subpar grads there à la NYU, Columbia, or Cornell and it still can't compete with its peers.

Because we all know that the official LSAC guide contains the most up-to-date and correct information...and Cooley has 99.8% job placement. Even that guide still says only 147 students took the NY bar that year...out of 360. And it says nothing about why the other students went to the other jurisdictions. Where are you getting your placement data to suggest that those other 213 students couldn't have had a shot at NYC if they wanted it?

I think you are confusing cause/effect here.

[Reedie]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

Quakeroats had produced his own numbers using a roughly similar methodology to Leiter's elite firm placement study, which is where this is coming from. I'll let him decide if he wants to post it or not.

That doesn't mean he is correct.

I just thought you might want some idea about what his basis for his claims was when evaluating them. Sorry if I was wrong.

[quakeroats]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

Quakeroats had produced his own numbers using a roughly similar methodology to Leiter's elite firm placement study, which is where this is coming from. I'll let him decide if he wants to post it or not.

That doesn't mean he is correct.

Of course, it doesn't mean I'm not either.

[FlightoftheEarls]

When a plurality of Michigan students target New York (data here: http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA1839.pdf), I'd say it's hard to hard to argue that other students going elsewhere means much for this discussion.

Why? NYC is by far the easiest market for our grads to break into, GPA-wise. The fact that we spread our class out to the other major markets perhaps more than any other school makes an enormous difference in terms of how many people we could be placing into NYC.

[03121202698008]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

Quakeroats had produced his own numbers using a roughly similar methodology to Leiter's elite firm placement study, which is where this is coming from. I'll let him decide if he wants to post it or not.

That doesn't mean he is correct.

Of course, it doesn't mean I'm not either.

I'm legitimately curious...post your #'s and the sources of your data.

Unless you surveyed students to see how many wanted NYC but couldn't get it...your data cannot speak towards this.

[quakeroats]

When a plurality of Michigan students target New York (data here: http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA1839.pdf), I'd say it's hard to hard to argue that other students going elsewhere means much for this discussion.

Michigan places less well in its primary market than Penn. It doesn't even have to place its subpar grads there à la NYU, Columbia, or Cornell and it still can't compete with its peers.

Because we all know that the official LSAC guide contains the most up-to-date and correct information...and Cooley has 99.8% job placement. Even that guide still says only 147 students took the NY bar that year...out of 360. And it says nothing about why the other students went to the other jurisdictions. Where are you getting your placement data to suggest that those other 213 students couldn't have had a shot at NYC if they wanted it?

I think you are confusing cause/effect here.

I don't think one data point that we'd consider wildly exaggerated need impede consideration of others. Do you?

[03121202698008]

When a plurality of Michigan students target New York (data here: http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA1839.pdf), I'd say it's hard to hard to argue that other students going elsewhere means much for this discussion.

Michigan places less well in its primary market than Penn. It doesn't even have to place its subpar grads there à la NYU, Columbia, or Cornell and it still can't compete with its peers.

Because we all know that the official LSAC guide contains the most up-to-date and correct information...and Cooley has 99.8% job placement. Even that guide still says only 147 students took the NY bar that year...out of 360. And it says nothing about why the other students went to the other jurisdictions. Where are you getting your placement data to suggest that those other 213 students couldn't have had a shot at NYC if they wanted it?

I think you are confusing cause/effect here.

I don't think one data point that we'd consider wildly exaggerated need impede consideration of others. Do you?

I still don't see how you are calculating how many wanted NYC and couldn't get it...short of surveying students at Michigan. You cannot take mobility of students from a school known not to have a true home market and consider the fact that only 147 students took the NY bar means they have shitty placement. You also aren't considering clerkships where students may not have taken the bar that year...

A dataset to consider:

if 10 students wanted NYC and only 5 got it == 50% placement rate
if 5 students wanted NYC and 3 got it == 60% placement rate
if 2 students wanted NYC and 2 got it == 100% placement rate

[quakeroats]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

Quakeroats had produced his own numbers using a roughly similar methodology to Leiter's elite firm placement study, which is where this is coming from. I'll let him decide if he wants to post it or not.

That doesn't mean he is correct.

Of course, it doesn't mean I'm not either.

I'm legitimately curious...post your #'s and the sources of your data.

Unless you surveyed students to see how many wanted NYC but couldn't get it...your data cannot speak towards this.

That's an impossible standard. By the same logic, one could conclude that such a survey is of no use because students may have lied.

[03121202698008]

That's an impossible standard. By the same logic, one could conclude that such a survey is of no use because students may have lied.

Agreed...that's why placement studies are all bullshit. See the data set i edited into my last post.

To lower the margin of error you would have to start calculating in firms attending OCI, interview bids, # of bids a firm wanted to hire and how many were given to M proportional to interview rate at P, etc.

That doesn't mean you take only one set of data and then advertise that you have made a calculation which proves something.

[Reedie]

That's an impossible standard. By the same logic, one could conclude that such a survey is of no use because students may have lied.

Agreed...that's why placement studies are all bullshit. See the data set i edited into my last post.

To lower the margin of error you would have to start calculating in firms attending OCI, interview bids, # of bids a firm wanted to hire and how many were given to M proportional to interview rate at P, etc.

If you think all the available data is bullshit on what basis are you convinced that it couldn't be true that Penn places much much better than Michigan?

[quakeroats]

Just so it's clear, both of my posts in this thread were intended to convey serious sarcasm. Quakeroats is all kinds of wrong if he thinks that Michigan is a "distant fourth" to D, P, and V for how well the school can place into the NYC market.

Quakeroats had produced his own numbers using a roughly similar methodology to Leiter's elite firm placement study, which is where this is coming from. I'll let him decide if he wants to post it or not.

Here are my earlier posts:

I haven’t done much talking in this thread, but I’d like some advice on whether what I’m seeing in Duke’s employment numbers is real or imagined—if not a bit of both.


In trying to get a sense of how well one school places students relative to others, I’ve read a lot of data others have compiled. Brian Leiter has his rankings, U.S. News puts out some statistics as do the ABA, the NLJ, etc. I think Professor Leiter comes closest to tracking down which schools have the strongest ability to place graduates with his, “The Top 15 Schools From Which the Most "Prestigious" Law Firms Hire New Lawyers.” I wanted to take this a bit further, so I added and removed a few things. First, since positions at the New York offices of New York firms at the top of the Vault rankings are widely regarded as the most difficult to obtain (there are notable exceptions, i.e., Munger, which I’m going to exclude for lack of time), I excluded all firms not based in New York. I took the rest of what amounts to the Vault 8 and totaled up all associates working at each firm; I excluded Berkeley and Georgetown for lack of time. I then came up with the total number of graduates sent to firms in New York from law school websites and promotional materials. I then compared the total number of graduates working in Vault 8 firms for each school with the total number of graduates each school sent to New York and came up with a ratio of one to the other with higher numbers showing a strong ability to place well than lower numbers.

The results were surprising:


--ImageRemoved--

Duke’s preformed outstandingly well, far above all of its peers and more in line with Columbia than Michigan or Virginia. After compiling this I later used the new ABA data for students practicing in New York which moved Duke into first place. Using the same ABA data I ran a larger analysis comparing Chicago and Duke over the entire Vault 100. While Chicago maintained some advantage through the first 25 firms this diminished to a virtual tie by the 100th firm.

I can think of the usual problems (small sample size, self-selection, etc.) with a survey like this, but I thought this could further the discussion in some small way. If nothing else, it can serve as a way of distinguishing Duke from MVPB for those interested in New York.

@quakeroats:
I think the selection variable pretty much makes its impossible to deduce any conclusions from your data. As far as I understand, NY is the most competitive market meaning that a good percentage of students simply cannot break into it. The fact that only 23% are in NY does not mean that Duke does well there, it could simply mean that only the best Duke students can get a job there. That being said, I think this data could be useful if it included all of the major markets to reduce the uncertainty regarding selection into a single market (after all, most people do work in large cities).

Either way, its pretty awesome that you took the time to calculate all this data, thanks !

I'd agree that's probably the case. That would argue against comparisons with YHS with this methodology, but it should work more appropriately outside of HYSCC. Comparing Duke and Michigan works well as an example. They both send a plurality of students to New York. They're both located hundreds of miles from the city. They attract similar students with similar LSAT and UGPA numbers. They both even send roughly the same percentage of their class to New York. Give all of that, Michigan has a lot of difficulty placing students in the most elite firms in this analysis. If we expand this to other data points (Wachtell doesn't seem to recruit at or hire from Michigan, Duke's clerkship placement (especially Article III where it's more in line with Chicago than MVPB) is much stronger than Michigan's, the most recent OCI was much far worse at Michigan than at Duke), the case becomes even stronger.

I've expanded this a little bit--although it remains incomplete--to secondary and tertiary markets (D.C., California, Texas) for Duke relative to others and the pattern seems to hold. I think the totality of the evidence moves Duke into a stronger position than it's normally given credit for on TLS. Far from being at the bottom of the T14, I'd argue that HYSCCD is more appropriate than not, and I would say the weight of the evidence seems to agree.

Duke’s preformed outstandingly well, far above all of its peers and more in line with Columbia than Michigan or Virginia. After compiling this I later used the new ABA data for students practicing in New York which moved Duke into first place. Using the same ABA data I ran a larger analysis comparing Chicago and Duke over the entire Vault 100. While Chicago maintained some advantage through the first 25 firms this diminished to a virtual tie by the 100th firm.

I can think of the usual problems (small sample size, self-selection, etc.) with a survey like this, but I thought this could further the discussion in some small way. If nothing else, it can serve as a way of distinguishing Duke from MVPB for those interested in New York.

I'm not Duke 2013 but I stumbled upon your post (slow day at work). Interesting stuff. But it does seems to penalize schools in large markets whose top students would likely be offered the same pay at a non-V8 but still very prestigious firms; I'm talking about Michigan, Northwestern, and GULC. Also it seems to penalize schools whose lower gpa graduates would end up in NY anyway like Columbia, NYU, and Cornell.

Nevertheless it probably would work well for schools not near a major market like UVA, Duke, and Penn.

I'd agree with your critique as fas as Northwestern is concerned. Since Michigan places a plurality of its grads in New York (not to mention the other reasons I cited in a prior post) I think the comparison there is pretty apt. I didn't look at Georgetown but I suspect that having 600 grads would put it at the bottom of any assessment. This assessment probably does penalize schools like Columbia and NYU, but other data help make the picture clearer in those cases as they do for Penn and Cornell.

[03121202698008]

That's an impossible standard. By the same logic, one could conclude that such a survey is of no use because students may have lied.

Agreed...that's why placement studies are all bullshit. See the data set i edited into my last post.

To lower the margin of error you would have to start calculating in firms attending OCI, interview bids, # of bids a firm wanted to hire and how many were given to M proportional to interview rate at P, etc.

If you think all the available data is bullshit on what basis are you convinced that it couldn't be true that Penn places much much better than Michigan?

Testimonials from students I know who attend and have gone through OCI at both schools. Not accurate I agree, but at least not ignoring a major fact. At a school like Penn where most want NYC or DC, you can reasonably assume that anyone who got one or the other wanted it. At a school like M where students scatter, you cannot assume all students wanted NYC. (I mean, all Penn students could want NYC but their placement is actually shitty and so many end up in DC... Or they could all want DC and fall back on NYC.)

[03121202698008]

So your numbers are entirely based on the Vault 8? What about the other 242+ Big Law offices in NYC. I mean, if the Vault 8 took all of Penn for example, then Penn may be underrepresented in the lower ranked Vault firms.

By the own admission of your data, all you can say is that Penn had more Vault 8 associates than M...but you cannot calculate the rest of Big Law off your data or even assume that 100% of the schools shot for it. You are overlooking the fact that 147 students from M could well be 100% of those who wanted it. M has a lot of public service/clerkship/West coast oriented students.

[3ThrowAway99]

As has been stated, I think these three schools are fairly similar in terms of corporate law placement, which is why it is surprising to me that Penn wins by a landslide in the poll (USNews ranking bias to some extent maybe??).


EDIT: It looks like in 2008 NLJ data Penn did considerably outperform M and V... but as has been indicated by other poster(s) trying to figure out what statistics are most relevant (and how to break the stats down in terms of this question) is difficult (much of it being beyond my comprehension at this point quite honestly).

[CG614]

ITT: Blowhard tries to defend the school he is attending, while everyone else helplessly tries to show him facts.

[03121202698008]

ITT: Blowhard tries to defend the school he is attending, while everyone else helplessly tries to show him facts.

ITT: Someone ignores all tenets of creating statistics and then draws overbroad conclusions.