Georgetown sticker Forum

[hashashin]

your GULC cheerleading is a little overbearing.

Necessary corrective hyperbole, unfortunately, since most of this board relies more on snark than analysis when it comes to GULC (e.g. rickgrimes); this is one of TLS's charms...but can end up being dangerously uninformative to 0Ls.

[stillwater]

your GULC cheerleading is a little overbearing.

Necessary corrective hyperbole, unfortunately, since most of this board relies more on snark than analysis when it comes to GULC (e.g. rickgrimes); this is one of TLS's charms...but can end up being dangerously uninformative to 0Ls.

Well - i think paying sticker for GULC is completely insane in any circumstance. BUT to each their own.

[Tiago Splitter]

GULC has lagged behind most of the T-14 in BigLaw placement every year since at least 2005. The relative worst years for other T-14's bring them down to GULC's level, but never below. The PI/Gov phenomenon that people use to explain this appears relatively new and even if it's true buying in requires quite the leap of faith compared to just focusing on Biglaw/Fed Clerk data.


2010
2009
2008
2007

[cotiger]

The problem with this assertion is that even if you consider all of GULC's Gov/PI stuff as super awesome, they still come in behind the lowest performing other schools of the T14.

Here is a thread about that: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p7216961

This is not to say that GULC is a bad school, or that it wouldn't work for OP (especially considering the patent-eligible URM thing), but GULC absolutely does have worse overall placement than the rest of the T14.

Yeah? For the c/o 2012 you actually have Cornell and NU and GULC showing up as 85 % EACH (Your AVERAGE has GULC about TWO PERCENT behind Cornell); why is this a significant difference?

Northwestern: 85, 85 -> avg: 85
Cornell: 76, 85 -> avg: 81
Georgetown: 72, 85 -> avg: 79

GULC's enormous class size hurt it significantly more than other schools during the class of 2011. So yeah, no shit 2011 #s were somewhat lower (again, by 4% in comparison with Cornell).

Couple things.

First, you picked the stat that was being the most generous to GULC. This assumed that every single Gov, PI, school-funded, and JD advantage job was as desirable as a biglaw or clerkship gig. This is a heroic assumption.

Second, despite this generosity, GULC still came in last. They got hammered due to the biglaw crash of 2011? Great, Cornell's biglaw percentage (ie their specialty) went from 74% to 39%. And they STILL beat GULC. GULC's lack of reliance on biglaw for their outcomes more than makes up for any size-based excuses you want to make. And regardless, it's still a relevant data point. Who's to say that C/O 2017 won't face a similar situation?

Finally, even ignoring all of the above, and assuming that GULC's positive outcomes place equally strongly with the lowest performing T14s, GULC still gives you a hugely larger chance of a disastrously negative outcome. To quote what I've already written:

Lastly, looking at unambiguously negative outcomes (ST, PT, non-professional, or unemployed) shows major problems at GULC.

Northwestern: 11, 13, 12 -> 3 yr avg: 12
Cornell: 6, 20, 13 -> 3 yr avg: 13
Georgetown: 16, 23, 13 -> 3 yr avg: 17

17% is not just some "kids near the bottom of the class who are struggling." That's inching towards 1/5 of the class with disastrous (not just undesirable) outcomes. If above-median grades avoid that fate, that would mean that fully 1/3 of the below-median students at GULC have terrible outcomes. That's not as bad as many schools, sure. But there is a reason why TLS tends to hold Georgetown in lower standing than the other members of the T14.

As it is, I think the difference between 12/13 and 17 underemployment is pretty big (50% more at GULC). But if you add school-funded jobs, the gap changes to 22 for GULC vs 12/13 for NU/Cornell. That's again approaching twice the likelihood of a negative outcome.

[EvMont]

Well - i think paying sticker for GULC is completely insane in any circumstance. BUT to each their own.

+1

[hephaestus]

Yeah? For the c/o 2012 you actually have Cornell and NU and GULC showing up as 85 % EACH (Your AVERAGE has GULC about TWO PERCENT behind Cornell); why is this a significant difference?

Northwestern: 85, 85 -> avg: 85
Cornell: 76, 85 -> avg: 81
Georgetown: 72, 85 -> avg: 79

GULC's enormous class size hurt it significantly more than other schools during the class of 2011. So yeah, no shit 2011 #s were somewhat lower (again, by 4% in comparison with Cornell).

Your big law stats from earlier do not paint an accurate picture. ABA data for Georgetown's class of 2012 shows 42.9% of grads in firms of 100+ (a pretty inclusive definition of big law by most standards). Cornell's data from the same year sits at 62.1%. This is a cavernous difference and you cannot credibly claim that G big law placement = DCN.

Data from here: http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/

[cotiger]

Also, could you show us the firm for which DOOK grads have a lower grade cutoff than GULC grads do?

Ok, let's just look at those who decided to go law firms or got federal clerkships (thus eliminating the issue of self-selecting into Gov/PI) for the C/O 2012 (thus eliminating the "unfair" C/O 2011).

Of those grads who went into private practice or got a federal clerkship, only 83% of those at GULC got BigLaw or a federal clerkship, compared to 94% at Duke. I'm skeptical that this famous GULC self-selection extends into choosing SmallLaw.

I have no idea if firms have a higher grade cutoff for GULC. My uninformed opinion is that they probably do not. But that doesn't mean that's it's just as easy for those GULC grads above the cutoff to get the jobs that they want due to its size.

[cotiger]

Yeah? For the c/o 2012 you actually have Cornell and NU and GULC showing up as 85 % EACH (Your AVERAGE has GULC about TWO PERCENT behind Cornell); why is this a significant difference?

Northwestern: 85, 85 -> avg: 85
Cornell: 76, 85 -> avg: 81
Georgetown: 72, 85 -> avg: 79

GULC's enormous class size hurt it significantly more than other schools during the class of 2011. So yeah, no shit 2011 #s were somewhat lower (again, by 4% in comparison with Cornell).

Your big law stats from earlier do not paint an accurate picture. ABA data for Georgetown's class of 2012 shows 42.9% of grads in firms of 100+ (a pretty inclusive definition of big law by most standards). Cornell's data from the same year sits at 62.1%. This is a cavernous difference and you cannot credibly claim that G big law placement = DCN.

Data from here: http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/

He wasn't referring to biglaw there. That's FTLT JD required+JD advantage over all categories of employment, including school-funded.

[hashashin]

GULC has lagged behind most of the T-14 in BigLaw placement every year since at least 2005. The relative worst years for other T-14's bring them down to GULC's level, but never below. The PI/Gov phenomenon that people use to explain this appears relatively new and even if it's true buying in requires quite the leap of faith compared to just focusing on Biglaw/Fed Clerk data.


2010
2009
2008
2007

Um...that's NOT what your data says, UNLESS you have an extremely exacting definition of "LAGGING BEHIND." In 2007, GULC was 5 % behind Berkeley; in 2008, it was only 5% behind Michigan; in 2009, GULC was 1.3 % AHEAD of Cornell and ~7% behind Duke; in 2010, GULC was 0.45% behind Duke. In 2005, GULC was 5% behind Berkeley but in 2006, GULC was 5% AHEAD of Berk.

As to your point about the PI/Gov phenom being "relatively new," did you just pull that one out of your ass? Throughout EACH of the years that you cited above, GULC has KILLED Duke, NU and Cornell for PI and Government placement.

[Tiago Splitter]

GULC has lagged behind most of the T-14 in BigLaw placement every year since at least 2005. The relative worst years for other T-14's bring them down to GULC's level, but never below. The PI/Gov phenomenon that people use to explain this appears relatively new and even if it's true buying in requires quite the leap of faith compared to just focusing on Biglaw/Fed Clerk data.


2010
2009
2008
2007

Um...that's NOT what your data says, UNLESS you have an extremely exacting definition of "LAGGING BEHIND." In 2007, GULC was 5 % behind Berkeley; in 2008, it was only 5% behind Michigan; in 2009, GULC was 1.3 % AHEAD of Cornell and ~7% behind Duke; in 2010, GULC was 0.45% behind Duke. In 2005, GULC was 5% behind Berkeley.

As to your point about the PI/Gov phenom being "relatively new," did you just pull that one out of your ass? Throughout EACH of the years that you cited above, GULC has KILLED Duke, NU and Cornell for PI and Government placement.

You're agreeing with what I said. In each year one other T-14 drops down and places with GULC. But overall, GULC consistently lags behind most other T-14's. The problem is that GULC never throws up a big placement number that makes you think it's possible it actually has strong placement. I mean, it's not a good look when the best you can do is say things like "one year we were only 5% behind Berkeley, another year just 7% behind Duke."

As to the second point, I thought you were opposed to snark over data? Show me where you get the PI/Gov numbers for 2007-2008.

[cotiger]

GULC has lagged behind most of the T-14 in BigLaw placement every year since at least 2005. The relative worst years for other T-14's bring them down to GULC's level, but never below. The PI/Gov phenomenon that people use to explain this appears relatively new and even if it's true buying in requires quite the leap of faith compared to just focusing on Biglaw/Fed Clerk data.


2010
2009
2008
2007

Um...that's NOT what your data says, UNLESS you have an extremely exacting definition of "LAGGING BEHIND." In 2007, GULC was 5 % behind Berkeley; in 2008, it was only 5% behind Michigan; in 2009, GULC was 1.3 % AHEAD of Cornell and ~7% behind Duke; in 2010, GULC was 0.45% behind Duke. In 2005, GULC was 5% behind Berkeley.

LOL I think you just proved his point. Other schools' worst years are still better than GULC, usually by several percentage points.

[hashashin]

Also, could you show us the firm for which DOOK grads have a lower grade cutoff than GULC grads do?

Ok, let's just look at those who decided to go law firms or got federal clerkships (thus eliminating the issue of self-selecting into Gov/PI) for the C/O 2012 (thus eliminating the "unfair" C/O 2011).

Of those grads who went into private practice or got a federal clerkship, only 83% of those at GULC got BigLaw or a federal clerkship, compared to 94% at Duke. I'm skeptical that this famous GULC self-selection extends into choosing SmallLaw.

I have no idea if firms have a higher grade cutoff for GULC. My uninformed opinion is that they probably do not. But that doesn't mean that's it's just as easy for those GULC grads above the cutoff to get the jobs that they want due to its size.

I DO agree with and concede this point. The BOTTOM of the barrel outcomes at GULC (i.e. bottom 30% or so) HAVE BEEN significantly worse than the rest of the T14 due to its large class size, but the bottom 1/3 outcomes at ANY of the rest of the lower T14 will probably fuck you financially. That said, this is one factor that certainly deserves consideration w.r.t GULC v. DNC. OP should be aware, however, that (whether originally planned or not), starting with the c/o 2016, the administration has begun to curtail class size significantly to meet the challenges of the (not really) NEW market (they really have been dropping the ball on this one for a while). While it may not sound like much, our class was SIX percent smaller than that of the previous year's, and the plan is to reduce class more substantially for the coming year. This really does make things better for people matriculating now.

[stillwater]

Also, could you show us the firm for which DOOK grads have a lower grade cutoff than GULC grads do?

Ok, let's just look at those who decided to go law firms or got federal clerkships (thus eliminating the issue of self-selecting into Gov/PI) for the C/O 2012 (thus eliminating the "unfair" C/O 2011).

Of those grads who went into private practice or got a federal clerkship, only 83% of those at GULC got BigLaw or a federal clerkship, compared to 94% at Duke. I'm skeptical that this famous GULC self-selection extends into choosing SmallLaw.

I have no idea if firms have a higher grade cutoff for GULC. My uninformed opinion is that they probably do not. But that doesn't mean that's it's just as easy for those GULC grads above the cutoff to get the jobs that they want due to its size.

I DO agree with and concede this point. The BOTTOM of the barrel outcomes at GULC (i.e. bottom 30% or so) HAVE BEEN significantly worse than the rest of the T14 due to its large class size, but the bottom 1/3 outcomes at ANY of the rest of the lower T14 will probably fuck you financially. That said, this is one factor that certainly deserves consideration w.r.t GULC v. DNC. OP should be aware, however, that (whether originally planned or not), starting with the c/o 2016, the administration has begun to curtail class size significantly to meet the challenges of the (not really) NEW market (they really have been dropping the ball on this one for a while). While it may not sound like much, our class was SIX percent smaller than that of the previous year's, and the plan is to reduce class more substantially for the coming year. This really does make things better for people matriculating now.

more like bottom 50%

[hashashin]

GULC has lagged behind most of the T-14 in BigLaw placement every year since at least 2005. The relative worst years for other T-14's bring them down to GULC's level, but never below. The PI/Gov phenomenon that people use to explain this appears relatively new and even if it's true buying in requires quite the leap of faith compared to just focusing on Biglaw/Fed Clerk data.


2010
2009
2008
2007

Um...that's NOT what your data says, UNLESS you have an extremely exacting definition of "LAGGING BEHIND." In 2007, GULC was 5 % behind Berkeley; in 2008, it was only 5% behind Michigan; in 2009, GULC was 1.3 % AHEAD of Cornell and ~7% behind Duke; in 2010, GULC was 0.45% behind Duke. In 2005, GULC was 5% behind Berkeley.

LOL I think you just proved his point. Other schools' worst years are still better than GULC, usually by several percentage points.

Yeah...the point was that, considering GULC's PI/GOV emphasis, the fact that biglaw percentages have been even comparable signifies Nothing OTHER than comparable placement power.

[stillwater]

GULC has lagged behind most of the T-14 in BigLaw placement every year since at least 2005. The relative worst years for other T-14's bring them down to GULC's level, but never below. The PI/Gov phenomenon that people use to explain this appears relatively new and even if it's true buying in requires quite the leap of faith compared to just focusing on Biglaw/Fed Clerk data.


2010
2009
2008
2007

Um...that's NOT what your data says, UNLESS you have an extremely exacting definition of "LAGGING BEHIND." In 2007, GULC was 5 % behind Berkeley; in 2008, it was only 5% behind Michigan; in 2009, GULC was 1.3 % AHEAD of Cornell and ~7% behind Duke; in 2010, GULC was 0.45% behind Duke. In 2005, GULC was 5% behind Berkeley.

LOL I think you just proved his point. Other schools' worst years are still better than GULC, usually by several percentage points.

Yeah...the point was that, considering GULC's PI/GOV emphasis, the fact that biglaw percentages have been even comparable signifies Nothing OTHER than comparable placement power.

b/c the fed govt has been hiring in DROVES in the last 5 years

[hashashin]

Also, could you show us the firm for which DOOK grads have a lower grade cutoff than GULC grads do?

Ok, let's just look at those who decided to go law firms or got federal clerkships (thus eliminating the issue of self-selecting into Gov/PI) for the C/O 2012 (thus eliminating the "unfair" C/O 2011).

Of those grads who went into private practice or got a federal clerkship, only 83% of those at GULC got BigLaw or a federal clerkship, compared to 94% at Duke. I'm skeptical that this famous GULC self-selection extends into choosing SmallLaw.

I have no idea if firms have a higher grade cutoff for GULC. My uninformed opinion is that they probably do not. But that doesn't mean that's it's just as easy for those GULC grads above the cutoff to get the jobs that they want due to its size.

I DO agree with and concede this point. The BOTTOM of the barrel outcomes at GULC (i.e. bottom 30% or so) HAVE BEEN significantly worse than the rest of the T14 due to its large class size, but the bottom 1/3 outcomes at ANY of the rest of the lower T14 will probably fuck you financially. That said, this is one factor that certainly deserves consideration w.r.t GULC v. DNC. OP should be aware, however, that (whether originally planned or not), starting with the c/o 2016, the administration has begun to curtail class size significantly to meet the challenges of the (not really) NEW market (they really have been dropping the ball on this one for a while). While it may not sound like much, our class was SIX percent smaller than that of the previous year's, and the plan is to reduce class more substantially for the coming year. This really does make things better for people matriculating now.

more like bottom 50%

Hmmm? Really? 51% of the class in the private sector, making >100K, PLUS 4% AIII clerkships PLUS (being conservative) AT LEAST 10-15% of the class in LRAP eligible public sector positions equals (AT WORST) 65 to 70% of the class in desirable outcomes.

[hashashin]

Yeah...the point was that, considering GULC's PI/GOV emphasis, the fact that biglaw percentages have been even comparable signifies Nothing OTHER than comparable placement power.[/quote]

b/c the fed govt has been hiring in DROVES in the last 5 years[/quote]

LOL. No one said anything about DROVES, brah. This is like TWELVE percent of the class.

[hashashin]

GULC has lagged behind most of the T-14 in BigLaw placement every year since at least 2005. The relative worst years for other T-14's bring them down to GULC's level, but never below. The PI/Gov phenomenon that people use to explain this appears relatively new and even if it's true buying in requires quite the leap of faith compared to just focusing on Biglaw/Fed Clerk data.


2010
2009
2008
2007

Um...that's NOT what your data says, UNLESS you have an extremely exacting definition of "LAGGING BEHIND." In 2007, GULC was 5 % behind Berkeley; in 2008, it was only 5% behind Michigan; in 2009, GULC was 1.3 % AHEAD of Cornell and ~7% behind Duke; in 2010, GULC was 0.45% behind Duke. In 2005, GULC was 5% behind Berkeley.

As to your point about the PI/Gov phenom being "relatively new," did you just pull that one out of your ass? Throughout EACH of the years that you cited above, GULC has KILLED Duke, NU and Cornell for PI and Government placement.

You're agreeing with what I said. In each year one other T-14 drops down and places with GULC. But overall, GULC consistently lags behind most other T-14's. The problem is that GULC never throws up a big placement number that makes you think it's possible it actually has strong placement. I mean, it's not a good look when the best you can do is say things like "one year we were only 5% behind Berkeley, another year just 7% behind Duke."

As to the second point, I thought you were opposed to snark over data? Show me where you get the PI/Gov numbers for 2007-2008.

Don't know where to get data for 2007-2008. But for the class of 2010, ABA has 129/647 = 20% of the class in Full time, Long term PI + Government jobs (82 Gov, 47 PI). You haven't really made a halfway persuasive case that GULC had no PI emphasis in 2007-2008; care to provide any data yourself that would challenge the widely shared presumption that GULC is IN FACT a public-interest oriented T14?

[Tiago Splitter]

Don't know where to get data for 2007-2008. But for the class of 2010, ABA has 129/647 = 20% of the class in Full time, Long term PI + Government jobs (82 Gov, 47 PI). You haven't really made a halfway persuasive case that GULC had no PI emphasis in 2007-2008; care to provide any data yourself that would challenge the widely shared presumption that GULC is NOT a public-interest oriented T14?

Again, the only pre-ITE data we have, back when self-selection was easier to identify, shows GULC putting fewer people into PI/Gov than Berkeley and Michigan and roughly the same percentage as NYU. I'm not trying to make any kind of case--I honestly don't know if GULC's PI/Gov placement makes up for its biglaw struggles. The only point I was responding to is that 2011-2012 were some kind of outliers. People can look at all of this info (here's 2006 if anyone wants it) and make up their own minds. For me, without a substantial scholarship GULC is just too risky when you combine the high COL, the uncertain placement numbers, and the fact that PI/Gov jobs don't get handed to you on a silver platter like biglaw jobs do.

[Sinatra]

I'm curious as to how much of the class bids solely on DC biglaw instead of focusing on NYC.

[nebula666]

I'm curious as to how much of the class bids solely on DC biglaw instead of focusing on NYC.

I would think a decent amount considering a majority of them could have likely gone to Cornell and had a better shot at both biglaw and NYC specifically.

[hephaestus]

Yeah? For the c/o 2012 you actually have Cornell and NU and GULC showing up as 85 % EACH (Your AVERAGE has GULC about TWO PERCENT behind Cornell); why is this a significant difference?

Northwestern: 85, 85 -> avg: 85
Cornell: 76, 85 -> avg: 81
Georgetown: 72, 85 -> avg: 79

GULC's enormous class size hurt it significantly more than other schools during the class of 2011. So yeah, no shit 2011 #s were somewhat lower (again, by 4% in comparison with Cornell).

Your big law stats from earlier do not paint an accurate picture. ABA data for Georgetown's class of 2012 shows 42.9% of grads in firms of 100+ (a pretty inclusive definition of big law by most standards). Cornell's data from the same year sits at 62.1%. This is a cavernous difference and you cannot credibly claim that G big law placement = DCN.

Data from here: http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/

He wasn't referring to biglaw there. That's FTLT JD required+JD advantage over all categories of employment, including school-funded.

I know. I was referring to the initial large post but there were too many quotes.

[hashashin]

Yeah? For the c/o 2012 you actually have Cornell and NU and GULC showing up as 85 % EACH (Your AVERAGE has GULC about TWO PERCENT behind Cornell); why is this a significant difference?

Northwestern: 85, 85 -> avg: 85
Cornell: 76, 85 -> avg: 81
Georgetown: 72, 85 -> avg: 79

GULC's enormous class size hurt it significantly more than other schools during the class of 2011. So yeah, no shit 2011 #s were somewhat lower (again, by 4% in comparison with Cornell).

Your big law stats from earlier do not paint an accurate picture. ABA data for Georgetown's class of 2012 shows 42.9% of grads in firms of 100+ (a pretty inclusive definition of big law by most standards). Cornell's data from the same year sits at 62.1%. This is a cavernous difference and you cannot credibly claim that G big law placement = DCN.

Data from here: http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/

He wasn't referring to biglaw there. That's FTLT JD required+JD advantage over all categories of employment, including school-funded.

I know. I was referring to the initial large post but there were too many quotes.

To reiterate: the claim is not that biglaw placement numbers literally EQUAL DCN stats, but that, considering GULC's reputational equivalence and vastly disparate PI/Gov emphasis w.r.t to those schools, GULC's placement POWER is probably roughly equivalent. I don't see this assertion as being all that controversial.

[04102014]

To reiterate: the claim is not that biglaw placement numbers literally EQUAL DCN stats, but that, considering GULC's reputational equivalence and vastly disparate PI/Gov emphasis w.r.t to those schools, GULC's placement POWER is probably roughly equivalent. I don't see this assertion as being all that controversial.

Measuring placement POWER while minimizing the importance of placement NUMBERS seems foolish.

[hashashin]

To reiterate: the claim is not that biglaw placement numbers literally EQUAL DCN stats, but that, considering GULC's reputational equivalence and vastly disparate PI/Gov emphasis w.r.t to those schools, GULC's placement POWER is probably roughly equivalent. I don't see this assertion as being all that controversial.

Measuring placement POWER while minimizing the importance of placement NUMBERS seems foolish.

Lol wut? Numbers, in this context, includes both biglaw and pi/gov; inferences about power are drawn from all relevant #s. Any other aphorisms you wanna impart to us?