Toughts on the T14 breakdown? Forum

[RVP11]

Yeah, how can you divine class rank from firm bios? Unless it lists Order of the Coif or latin honors, I don't know how.

It's near impossible with UVA, for example. The only two distinctions here are Law Review and Order of the Coif.

Law Review is the top 25 people by grades (roughly top 7%) after 1L and the top 15 people on write-on. Someone could easily have VLR on their resume and have been in the bottom quarter of the class. So VLR tells us very little about someone's actual class rank, and hence desirability.

Order of the Coif is the top 10% (GPA of about 3.65) at graduation. You could be median after the first year and graduate with a 3.7. You could have a 4.0 after the first year and graduate with a 3.5. So again, this distinction doesn't tell us much about how good someone's grades were after 1L.

This is all aside from the fact that very few people with T10 degrees and honors distinctions (Law Review, magna, Stone, whatever) go to a Mountain West as their first job. The sample size would be miniscule. In the good economy, my guess is very close to zero went this route. And I can't think of a single firm in the region that is so selective that, in the good economy, class rank was a huge issue for anyone coming from any T10 with decent grades. So even if it WERE possible to draw some distinctions (assuming the data was good and we could see each person's class rank on their firm bio), there probably wouldn't be enough of a difference to draw any reasonable conclusion.

[McNabb]

HYS
CC
NMBVP
DN
GC

Before you flame me, this is just how I personally feel and wanted to here some thoughts from others.

Without looking at your previous posts I am nearly 100 percent sure that you are going to UVA (or if not, Michigan) since UVA posters on this site seem to be obsessed with putting NYU in the MVPB tier. For the life of me I have no idea why, but they start countless threads about it or post it in completely unrelated threads.

All such posters seem to ignore V100 placement, NLJ250 placement, Leiter's elite firm index, hiring rates for median students (i.e. how far into the class biglaw firms go), etc.

V100 summer associate placement (2006):
http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html
V100 placement divided by percentage of students working in firms (as of 2008): (does not include HYS)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=24207
Leiter's elite firm placement rankings (also as of 2008):
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Now all of these factors may have a big city bias, but that hardly seems to prevent schools like Duke from doing comparatively better than UVA or Michigan in these measures. Not to mention that a good chunk of the 15 firms Leiter refers to are either headquartered or have offices in Washington DC (UVa's area of strength) and UVA places the worst out of any T14 besides Berkeley in these elite firms.

Instead, pro-UVA posters focus on lawyer/judge scores (while conveniently leaving out the peer rep scores) and how UVA has historically had a marginally better or equal score to NYU. Now I'm not dismissing that metric and perhaps it can be used to point out why UVA grads get great clerkships. However, if that metric really demonstrated how the legal community viewed UVA then why is that NYU grads get hired at better firms and at a higher rate in biglaw? If it is just because NYU is in New York, then how do you explain Duke's numbers? As for how national the schools are, these are the top schools - placement nationally shouldn't be a problem given some connection or demonstrated interest in a region. I know for a fact that Columbia, NYU, and Chicago all place very well in California (I won't speak for Virginia here because I have no idea how its placement is on the west coast although I assume it is still pretty strong). As for how the schools are doing in the economy...according to posters on this site and 2 students that I know at NYU Law, students at and even below median are still landing V100 gigs (although with less callbacks than normal). Again, I can't speak for UVA here but students at CCN seem to be doing well considering how the economy is going.

Let me be perfectly clear here though...I don't think that the differences between the schools are that great and frankly this whole tier system probably creates arbitrary distinctions between what are essentially 14 damn good law schools. But if you insist on referring to tiers within the top 14 schools, evidence seems to show that there is more separating NYU from UVA than there is between UVA and Northwestern/Duke.

You seem to be almost totally ignoring non NYC placement in your attempt to say that NYU is a stronger school than Michigan, UVA, and Boalt. All of those placement studies you linked to are heavily NYC biased (not big city biased as you tried to pass off). When you start looking at NYU's placement into California, DC (and by the way you are incorrect about those studies focusing on elite DC firms, they don't. Those studies almost completely ignore highly elite and selective DC firms like Kellog Huber) Chicago, Texas, and the south NYU either loses out to or does comparably to MBVP. NYU completely loses out to Columbia and Chicago in non NYC markets. NYU grads actually aren't getting hired at better firms at a higher rate either, as you claim, they are getting hired at a higher rate at--gasp-- NYC firms. You are placing a heavy emphasis on the firms that are ranked highest by Vault, which are overwhelmingly in NYC, that's why you are seeing NYU looking so good.

Hell when you look at the "V10" Stanford doesn't do too well, but I hope you wouldn't say that NYU out places Stanford. When you look at super elite firms outside of NYC ( and just so you know when you look at how much bigger NYU is than all of MBVP and the fact that NYU students are obviously highly likely to choose NYC the only V10 firms that NYU really seems to murder MBVP at are Wachtell and Cravath. Simpson Thatcher, Sullivan, Davis Polk etc. all hire from MBVP in droves. If you look at the non NYC V10 firms NYU actually does either the same or worse than MBVP (Covington DC and Kirkland Chicago).

In terms of explaining Duke's high placement into "better"firms (which you call the V10 and V100, which is really kind of false, because the hyper elite firms are often not in the V10 like Susman Godfrey, Keker, Irell, Williams and Connolly, Kellog Huber, Barlitt Beck, Boies, etc. which are all more selective than any V10 except Wachtell and Cravath) it's pretty simple. The schools where most students want to work in NYC are going to have the "best" placement by your measure because what you are using as the "best" firms are the V10 which are mostly NYC firms. Duke, Penn, NYU and even Cornell actually all beat out schools like Stanford by a good amount because the people who go to those schools overwhelmingly go for NYC jobs. The Stanford people are going for Munger which isn't in the V10 but is much more selective than say Davis Polk, which is V10 and will have way more NYU students going for it, boosting their V10 numbers and making their placement look "better" than Stanford's on the leiter rankings and the NLJ 250.

Look at how NYU does at those hyper elite firms I mentioned that are not in NYC, you will see that it gets measurably outdone by Columbia and Chicago and that it aligns perfectly with MBVP. Furthermore, outside of Wachtell and Cravath MBVP all do very closely (really the same when you look at class size and the fact that people there don't go for NYC like NYU people do) and you will see why NYU really isn't any different from MBVP.

As far as NYU students doing better than MBVP ones ITE generally, there is a very obvious explanation for that. Most NYU students are trying to get a job in the easiest market to land one, from a school located in that market. It's really no wonder that most of them are able to get "V100" jobs compared to MBVP students. For example many people at UVA are probably gunning for DC, a much more selective market than NYC and one that has a lot less V100 jobs (making matters worse, many of DC's most desirable firms--like Kellogg Huber-- are not even in the V100 even though they are super selective).

It only makes sense that if you have a school where half of the class is aiming for large firms that are easier to get hired by like Milibank Tweed and even Davis Polk, and you have another school where half of the class wants to work at say Covington DC or Williams and Connolly, the former are going to come out better. You can see the same thing with a school lilke Boalt where people are probably going for firms like Keker, Gibson, Mofo, and Munger in a market that has been hit very hard and was always a lot more selective than NYC to begin with. Boalt students are not going to have the success rate at those firms that NYU students are going to have at Debevoise and Davis Polk because those firms are more selective and smaller.


When you look at things like clerkships and non NYC placement NYU doesn't place "better" than MBVP, but when you ignore those things and use NYC placement NYU starts looking like it's in a whole other league than MBVP. I'm sure if you ignored NYC placement, and focused heavily on California placement Boalt would start looking like it was in another league from NYU and be a "top 5".

[stratocophic]

HYS
CC
NMBVP
DN
GC

Before you flame me, this is just how I personally feel and wanted to here some thoughts from others.

Without looking at your previous posts I am nearly 100 percent sure that you are going to UVA (or if not, Michigan) since UVA posters on this site seem to be obsessed with putting NYU in the MVPB tier. For the life of me I have no idea why, but they start countless threads about it or post it in completely unrelated threads.

All such posters seem to ignore V100 placement, NLJ250 placement, Leiter's elite firm index, hiring rates for median students (i.e. how far into the class biglaw firms go), etc.

V100 summer associate placement (2006):
http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html
V100 placement divided by percentage of students working in firms (as of 2008): (does not include HYS)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=24207
Leiter's elite firm placement rankings (also as of 2008):
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Now all of these factors may have a big city bias, but that hardly seems to prevent schools like Duke from doing comparatively better than UVA or Michigan in these measures. Not to mention that a good chunk of the 15 firms Leiter refers to are either headquartered or have offices in Washington DC (UVa's area of strength) and UVA places the worst out of any T14 besides Berkeley in these elite firms.

Instead, pro-UVA posters focus on lawyer/judge scores (while conveniently leaving out the peer rep scores) and how UVA has historically had a marginally better or equal score to NYU. Now I'm not dismissing that metric and perhaps it can be used to point out why UVA grads get great clerkships. However, if that metric really demonstrated how the legal community viewed UVA then why is that NYU grads get hired at better firms and at a higher rate in biglaw? If it is just because NYU is in New York, then how do you explain Duke's numbers? As for how national the schools are, these are the top schools - placement nationally shouldn't be a problem given some connection or demonstrated interest in a region. I know for a fact that Columbia, NYU, and Chicago all place very well in California (I won't speak for Virginia here because I have no idea how its placement is on the west coast although I assume it is still pretty strong). As for how the schools are doing in the economy...according to posters on this site and 2 students that I know at NYU Law, students at and even below median are still landing V100 gigs (although with less callbacks than normal). Again, I can't speak for UVA here but students at CCN seem to be doing well considering how the economy is going.

Let me be perfectly clear here though...I don't think that the differences between the schools are that great and frankly this whole tier system probably creates arbitrary distinctions between what are essentially 14 damn good law schools. But if you insist on referring to tiers within the top 14 schools, evidence seems to show that there is more separating NYU from UVA than there is between UVA and Northwestern/Duke.

You seem to be almost totally ignoring non NYC placement in your attempt to say that NYU is a stronger school than Michigan, UVA, and Boalt. All of those placement studies you linked to are heavily NYC biased (not big city biased as you tried to pass off). When you start looking at NYU's placement into California, DC (and by the way you are incorrect about those studies focusing on elite DC firms, they don't. Those studies almost completely ignore highly elite and selective DC firms like Kellog Huber) Chicago, Texas, and the south NYU either loses out to or does comparably to MBVP. NYU completely loses out to Columbia and Chicago in non NYC markets. NYU grads actually aren't getting hired at better firms at a higher rate either, as you claim, they are getting hired at a higher rate at--gasp-- NYC firms. You are placing a heavy emphasis on the firms that are ranked highest by Vault, which are overwhelmingly in NYC, that's why you are seeing NYU looking so good.

Hell when you look at the "V10" Stanford doesn't do too well, but I hope you wouldn't say that NYU out places Stanford. When you look at super elite firms outside of NYC ( and just so you know when you look at how much bigger NYU is than all of MBVP and the fact that NYU students are obviously highly likely to choose NYC the only V10 firms that NYU really seems to murder MBVP at are Wachtell and Cravath. Simpson Thatcher, Sullivan, Davis Polk etc. all hire from MBVP in droves. If you look at the non NYC V10 firms NYU actually does either the same or worse than MBVP (Covington DC and Kirkland Chicago).

In terms of explaining Duke's high placement into "better"firms (which you call the V10 and V100, which is really kind of false, because the hyper elite firms are often not in the V10 like Susman Godfrey, Keker, Irell, Williams and Connolly, Kellog Huber, Barlitt Beck, Boies, etc. which are all more selective than any V10 except Wachtell and Cravath) it's pretty simple. The schools where most students want to work in NYC are going to have the "best" placement by your measure because what you are using as the "best" firms are the V10 which are mostly NYC firms. Duke, Penn, NYU and even Cornell actually all beat out schools like Stanford by a good amount because the people who go to those schools overwhelmingly go for NYC jobs. The Stanford people are going for Munger which isn't in the V10 but is much more selective than say Davis Polk, which is V10 and will have way more NYU students going for it, boosting their V10 numbers and making their placement look "better" than Stanford's on the leiter rankings and the NLJ 250.

Look at how NYU does at those hyper elite firms I mentioned that are not in NYC, you will see that it gets measurably outdone by Columbia and Chicago and that it aligns perfectly with MBVP. Furthermore, outside of Wachtell and Cravath MBVP all do very closely (really the same when you look at class size and the fact that people there don't go for NYC like NYU people do) and you will see why NYU really isn't any different from MBVP. As far as NYU students doing better than MBVP ones ITE generally, there is a very obvious explanation for that. Most NYU students are trying to get a job in the easiest market to land one, from a school located in that market. It's really no wonder that most of them are able to get "V100" jobs compared to MBVP students. For example many people at UVA are probably gunning for DC, a much more selective market than NYC and one that has a lot less V100 jobs (making matters worse, many of DC's most desirable firms--like Kellogg Huber-- are not even in the V100 even though they are super selective). It only makes sense that if you have a school where half of the class is aiming for large firms that are easier to get hired by like Milibank Tweed and even Davis Polk, and you have another school where half of the class wants to work at say Covington DC or Williams and Connolly, the former are going to come out better. You can see the same thing with a school lilke Boalt where people are probably going for firms like Keker, Gibson, Mofo, and Munger in a market that has been hit very hard and was always a lot more selective than NYC to begin with. Boalt students are not going to have the success rate at those firms that NYU students are going to have at Debevoise and Davis Polk because those firms are more selective and smaller.


When you look at things like clerkships and non NYC placement NYU doesn't place "better" than MBVP, but when you ignore those things and use NYC placement NYU starts looking like it's in a whole other league than MBVP. I'm sure if you ignored NYC placement, and focused heavily on California placement Boalt would start looking like it was in another league from NYU and be a "top 5".

tl:dnr

Looks like someone's counting on Dean Tom to be trolling for WLers to let in just kidding

[elmagic]

Y
HS
CCN
BMVP
DNC
G

[TheWire]

With respective to the NYU discussion, I think some people miss the point as to why NYU is ranked in a higher tier than MPVB.

Although I agree that there are certain markets where NYU might place "only" as well as MPVB, NYU also has the advantage of being a dominant powerhouse in a highly desirable market. Because so many NYU students actually do end up at the elite NY firms, it will remain a much easier market to "break" into for NYU students than any school outside of the t5.

Since NYU is nearly >= MPVB in every market (obviously B would have an Advantage in Cali and I'm sure other exceptions do exist, but they are exceptions) and since NYU has a DISTINCT advantage against those schools for breaking the NY market (which isn't a bad option for a lot of students wanting Big Law), I am surprised to see so many people try to discredit its proper place in the rankings.

[McNabb]

With respective to the NYU discussion, I think some people miss the point as to why NYU is ranked in a higher tier than MPVB.

Although I agree that there are certain markets where NYU might place "only" as well as MPVB, NYU also has the advantage of being a dominant powerhouse in a highly desirable market. Because so many NYU students actually do end up at the elite NY firms, it will remain a much easier market to "break" into for NYU students than any school outside of the t5.

Since NYU is nearly >= MPVB in every market (obviously B would have an Advantage in Cali and I'm sure other exceptions do exist, but they are exceptions) and since NYU has a DISTINCT advantage against those schools for breaking the NY market (which isn't a bad option for a lot of students wanting Big Law), I am surprised to see so many people try to discredit its proper place in the rankings.

Well that's the problem, NYU isn't > MPVB in any market except for NYC (which is in stark contrast to Columbia and Chicago which are stronger than MPVB in multiple markets, not just their home markets') . If your bolded was true then NYU would be a stronger school than MPVB, but that's not the case.

As far as NYU being a dominant powerhouse in a highly desirable market the same thing can be said for Michigan, UVA, and Boalt. Michigan is dominant in Chicago after UChicago (similar to how NYU is dominant in NYC behind CLS) Boalt is dominant in the highly desirable California market (with the obvious exceptions of HYS and arguable CC), and UVA is dominant after HYS in the highly desirable DC market as well as the south. This argument about NYU being dominant in one desirable market can easily be used by multiple schools. Obviously though this is a pointless argument as people who favor NYU (or any other school) are going to favor it regardless and feel that it is stronger than whatever school they don't favor.

[sophia.olive]

thats it: paste usnews ranking here.......

when is the new one coming out

[ravens20]

Without looking at your previous posts I am nearly 100 percent sure that you are going to UVA (or if not, Michigan) since UVA posters on this site seem to be obsessed with putting NYU in the MVPB tier. For the life of me I have no idea why, but they start countless threads about it or post it in completely unrelated threads.

All such posters seem to ignore V100 placement, NLJ250 placement, Leiter's elite firm index, hiring rates for median students (i.e. how far into the class biglaw firms go), etc.

V100 summer associate placement (2006):
http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html
V100 placement divided by percentage of students working in firms (as of 2008): (does not include HYS)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=24207
Leiter's elite firm placement rankings (also as of 2008):
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Now all of these factors may have a big city bias, but that hardly seems to prevent schools like Duke from doing comparatively better than UVA or Michigan in these measures. Not to mention that a good chunk of the 15 firms Leiter refers to are either headquartered or have offices in Washington DC (UVa's area of strength) and UVA places the worst out of any T14 besides Berkeley in these elite firms.

Instead, pro-UVA posters focus on lawyer/judge scores (while conveniently leaving out the peer rep scores) and how UVA has historically had a marginally better or equal score to NYU. Now I'm not dismissing that metric and perhaps it can be used to point out why UVA grads get great clerkships. However, if that metric really demonstrated how the legal community viewed UVA then why is that NYU grads get hired at better firms and at a higher rate in biglaw? If it is just because NYU is in New York, then how do you explain Duke's numbers? As for how national the schools are, these are the top schools - placement nationally shouldn't be a problem given some connection or demonstrated interest in a region. I know for a fact that Columbia, NYU, and Chicago all place very well in California (I won't speak for Virginia here because I have no idea how its placement is on the west coast although I assume it is still pretty strong). As for how the schools are doing in the economy...according to posters on this site and 2 students that I know at NYU Law, students at and even below median are still landing V100 gigs (although with less callbacks than normal). Again, I can't speak for UVA here but students at CCN seem to be doing well considering how the economy is going.

Let me be perfectly clear here though...I don't think that the differences between the schools are that great and frankly this whole tier system probably creates arbitrary distinctions between what are essentially 14 damn good law schools. But if you insist on referring to tiers within the top 14 schools, evidence seems to show that there is more separating NYU from UVA than there is between UVA and Northwestern/Duke.

You seem to be almost totally ignoring non NYC placement in your attempt to say that NYU is a stronger school than Michigan, UVA, and Boalt. All of those placement studies you linked to are heavily NYC biased (not big city biased as you tried to pass off). When you start looking at NYU's placement into California, DC (and by the way you are incorrect about those studies focusing on elite DC firms, they don't. Those studies almost completely ignore highly elite and selective DC firms like Kellog Huber) Chicago, Texas, and the south NYU either loses out to or does comparably to MBVP. NYU completely loses out to Columbia and Chicago in non NYC markets. NYU grads actually aren't getting hired at better firms at a higher rate either, as you claim, they are getting hired at a higher rate at--gasp-- NYC firms. You are placing a heavy emphasis on the firms that are ranked highest by Vault, which are overwhelmingly in NYC, that's why you are seeing NYU looking so good.

Hell when you look at the "V10" Stanford doesn't do too well, but I hope you wouldn't say that NYU out places Stanford. When you look at super elite firms outside of NYC ( and just so you know when you look at how much bigger NYU is than all of MBVP and the fact that NYU students are obviously highly likely to choose NYC the only V10 firms that NYU really seems to murder MBVP at are Wachtell and Cravath. Simpson Thatcher, Sullivan, Davis Polk etc. all hire from MBVP in droves. If you look at the non NYC V10 firms NYU actually does either the same or worse than MBVP (Covington DC and Kirkland Chicago).

In terms of explaining Duke's high placement into "better"firms (which you call the V10 and V100, which is really kind of false, because the hyper elite firms are often not in the V10 like Susman Godfrey, Keker, Irell, Williams and Connolly, Kellog Huber, Barlitt Beck, Boies, etc. which are all more selective than any V10 except Wachtell and Cravath) it's pretty simple. The schools where most students want to work in NYC are going to have the "best" placement by your measure because what you are using as the "best" firms are the V10 which are mostly NYC firms. Duke, Penn, NYU and even Cornell actually all beat out schools like Stanford by a good amount because the people who go to those schools overwhelmingly go for NYC jobs. The Stanford people are going for Munger which isn't in the V10 but is much more selective than say Davis Polk, which is V10 and will have way more NYU students going for it, boosting their V10 numbers and making their placement look "better" than Stanford's on the leiter rankings and the NLJ 250.

Look at how NYU does at those hyper elite firms I mentioned that are not in NYC, you will see that it gets measurably outdone by Columbia and Chicago and that it aligns perfectly with MBVP. Furthermore, outside of Wachtell and Cravath MBVP all do very closely (really the same when you look at class size and the fact that people there don't go for NYC like NYU people do) and you will see why NYU really isn't any different from MBVP.

As far as NYU students doing better than MBVP ones ITE generally, there is a very obvious explanation for that. Most NYU students are trying to get a job in the easiest market to land one, from a school located in that market. It's really no wonder that most of them are able to get "V100" jobs compared to MBVP students. For example many people at UVA are probably gunning for DC, a much more selective market than NYC and one that has a lot less V100 jobs (making matters worse, many of DC's most desirable firms--like Kellogg Huber-- are not even in the V100 even though they are super selective).

It only makes sense that if you have a school where half of the class is aiming for large firms that are easier to get hired by like Milibank Tweed and even Davis Polk, and you have another school where half of the class wants to work at say Covington DC or Williams and Connolly, the former are going to come out better. You can see the same thing with a school lilke Boalt where people are probably going for firms like Keker, Gibson, Mofo, and Munger in a market that has been hit very hard and was always a lot more selective than NYC to begin with. Boalt students are not going to have the success rate at those firms that NYU students are going to have at Debevoise and Davis Polk because those firms are more selective and smaller.


When you look at things like clerkships and non NYC placement NYU doesn't place "better" than MBVP, but when you ignore those things and use NYC placement NYU starts looking like it's in a whole other league than MBVP. I'm sure if you ignored NYC placement, and focused heavily on California placement Boalt would start looking like it was in another league from NYU and be a "top 5".

1) I have a sneaking suspicion that you are Kurama in disguise once again.

2) Never once did I claim that NYU places better than MVPB outside of New York City. Instead, my only claim was that if you want biglaw you are better off going to NYU. Why? Because for most people looking to break into biglaw only one thing really matters: their likelihood of landing a biglaw job. In that measure, NYU beats UVA (since you are likely Kurama I will use this school as an example). You can brush that aside and claim that this is only because NYU is in the biggest market...but my response to that is who cares? If your goal is to make biglaw then the advantages of being in a big city are real. Now if you really want to work in some sort of litigation boutique in DC then of course you should go to UVA...but if you are just trying to make it into biglaw, then NYU grads do better. And lets not pretend that NYU isn't national...it does very well on the West Coast...certainly better than V and P, and arguably better than M.

2) A secondary issue is how prestigious/elite the firm one is getting hired into is. You say that the V100 is NYC biased and doesn't capture the most "selective" firms. Well the issue I was addressing is not getting into the most "selective" firms or even the most desirable firms...it is getting into what knowledgeable sources have determined are the most prestigious BIGLAW firms. And again, who cares if it is NYC-biased? If that is where the most pretigious biglaw firms are then so be it. Obviously the term biglaw stretches beyond the firms identified by the V100, but then you can look at other measures like NLJ250 and see similar results. If you want to make your point you have to refer to some widely accepted definition of prestigious biglaw firms and cite some placement stats; you can't just refer to smaller firms that aren't classical definitions of biglaw (i.e. firms that are both big and well paying) or just namedrop firms that you consider prestigious.

3) And I never referred to V10 placement, but only to Leiter's "elite" 15 firms. And you are lying if you are stating that many of these firms don't have offices in DC - 12 of those 15 firms have offices in DC (4 of them are headquartered there). So UVA should presumably do well in these firms given its strength in DC. Now perhaps you are right in that UVA grads are targeting some other firms but I was only talking about placement into the firms that Leiter identifies as being "elite". And the NYC bias doesn't account for why Duke, Northwestern, and even Georgetown had better placement rates than UVA in these firms....it can't be completely due to self-selection out of these firms by UVA grads.

3) As for your defense of why NYU is doing better than UVA ITE, I think you are missing the most important consideration: getting a biglaw job. Perhaps UVA graduates are gunning for more selective jobs in a more selective market, but that very fact makes trying to crack biglaw easier from NYU...New York City has more jobs available and NYU has a great reputation there. Now if you are making the point that these UVA grads could get those same jobs that you claim are easier to get in New York City then my response is why don't they? Surely their loathing of NYC isn't so great that they would rather not have a biglaw job at all than get one from New York. Biglaw firms (and at least according to Vault and Leiter more prestigious/better law firms) are hiring deeper into the class at NYU and its a much bigger school. How does that not show that it is better?

4) Finally, why do you bring up Columbia and Chicago? I never claimed that NYU was equal to those schools in terms of biglaw placement but only that there is a difference between NYU and MVPB. And though this difference is minor it seems to be much greater than the difference between MVP and Duke/Northwestern.

[im_blue]

Without looking at your previous posts I am nearly 100 percent sure that you are going to UVA (or if not, Michigan) since UVA posters on this site seem to be obsessed with putting NYU in the MVPB tier. For the life of me I have no idea why, but they start countless threads about it or post it in completely unrelated threads.

All such posters seem to ignore V100 placement, NLJ250 placement, Leiter's elite firm index, hiring rates for median students (i.e. how far into the class biglaw firms go), etc.

V100 summer associate placement (2006):
http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html
V100 placement divided by percentage of students working in firms (as of 2008): (does not include HYS)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=24207
Leiter's elite firm placement rankings (also as of 2008):
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Now all of these factors may have a big city bias, but that hardly seems to prevent schools like Duke from doing comparatively better than UVA or Michigan in these measures. Not to mention that a good chunk of the 15 firms Leiter refers to are either headquartered or have offices in Washington DC (UVa's area of strength) and UVA places the worst out of any T14 besides Berkeley in these elite firms.

Instead, pro-UVA posters focus on lawyer/judge scores (while conveniently leaving out the peer rep scores) and how UVA has historically had a marginally better or equal score to NYU. Now I'm not dismissing that metric and perhaps it can be used to point out why UVA grads get great clerkships. However, if that metric really demonstrated how the legal community viewed UVA then why is that NYU grads get hired at better firms and at a higher rate in biglaw? If it is just because NYU is in New York, then how do you explain Duke's numbers? As for how national the schools are, these are the top schools - placement nationally shouldn't be a problem given some connection or demonstrated interest in a region. I know for a fact that Columbia, NYU, and Chicago all place very well in California (I won't speak for Virginia here because I have no idea how its placement is on the west coast although I assume it is still pretty strong). As for how the schools are doing in the economy...according to posters on this site and 2 students that I know at NYU Law, students at and even below median are still landing V100 gigs (although with less callbacks than normal). Again, I can't speak for UVA here but students at CCN seem to be doing well considering how the economy is going.

Let me be perfectly clear here though...I don't think that the differences between the schools are that great and frankly this whole tier system probably creates arbitrary distinctions between what are essentially 14 damn good law schools. But if you insist on referring to tiers within the top 14 schools, evidence seems to show that there is more separating NYU from UVA than there is between UVA and Northwestern/Duke.

You seem to be almost totally ignoring non NYC placement in your attempt to say that NYU is a stronger school than Michigan, UVA, and Boalt. All of those placement studies you linked to are heavily NYC biased (not big city biased as you tried to pass off). When you start looking at NYU's placement into California, DC (and by the way you are incorrect about those studies focusing on elite DC firms, they don't. Those studies almost completely ignore highly elite and selective DC firms like Kellog Huber) Chicago, Texas, and the south NYU either loses out to or does comparably to MBVP. NYU completely loses out to Columbia and Chicago in non NYC markets. NYU grads actually aren't getting hired at better firms at a higher rate either, as you claim, they are getting hired at a higher rate at--gasp-- NYC firms. You are placing a heavy emphasis on the firms that are ranked highest by Vault, which are overwhelmingly in NYC, that's why you are seeing NYU looking so good.

Hell when you look at the "V10" Stanford doesn't do too well, but I hope you wouldn't say that NYU out places Stanford. When you look at super elite firms outside of NYC ( and just so you know when you look at how much bigger NYU is than all of MBVP and the fact that NYU students are obviously highly likely to choose NYC the only V10 firms that NYU really seems to murder MBVP at are Wachtell and Cravath. Simpson Thatcher, Sullivan, Davis Polk etc. all hire from MBVP in droves. If you look at the non NYC V10 firms NYU actually does either the same or worse than MBVP (Covington DC and Kirkland Chicago).

In terms of explaining Duke's high placement into "better"firms (which you call the V10 and V100, which is really kind of false, because the hyper elite firms are often not in the V10 like Susman Godfrey, Keker, Irell, Williams and Connolly, Kellog Huber, Barlitt Beck, Boies, etc. which are all more selective than any V10 except Wachtell and Cravath) it's pretty simple. The schools where most students want to work in NYC are going to have the "best" placement by your measure because what you are using as the "best" firms are the V10 which are mostly NYC firms. Duke, Penn, NYU and even Cornell actually all beat out schools like Stanford by a good amount because the people who go to those schools overwhelmingly go for NYC jobs. The Stanford people are going for Munger which isn't in the V10 but is much more selective than say Davis Polk, which is V10 and will have way more NYU students going for it, boosting their V10 numbers and making their placement look "better" than Stanford's on the leiter rankings and the NLJ 250.

Look at how NYU does at those hyper elite firms I mentioned that are not in NYC, you will see that it gets measurably outdone by Columbia and Chicago and that it aligns perfectly with MBVP. Furthermore, outside of Wachtell and Cravath MBVP all do very closely (really the same when you look at class size and the fact that people there don't go for NYC like NYU people do) and you will see why NYU really isn't any different from MBVP.

As far as NYU students doing better than MBVP ones ITE generally, there is a very obvious explanation for that. Most NYU students are trying to get a job in the easiest market to land one, from a school located in that market. It's really no wonder that most of them are able to get "V100" jobs compared to MBVP students. For example many people at UVA are probably gunning for DC, a much more selective market than NYC and one that has a lot less V100 jobs (making matters worse, many of DC's most desirable firms--like Kellogg Huber-- are not even in the V100 even though they are super selective).

It only makes sense that if you have a school where half of the class is aiming for large firms that are easier to get hired by like Milibank Tweed and even Davis Polk, and you have another school where half of the class wants to work at say Covington DC or Williams and Connolly, the former are going to come out better. You can see the same thing with a school lilke Boalt where people are probably going for firms like Keker, Gibson, Mofo, and Munger in a market that has been hit very hard and was always a lot more selective than NYC to begin with. Boalt students are not going to have the success rate at those firms that NYU students are going to have at Debevoise and Davis Polk because those firms are more selective and smaller.


When you look at things like clerkships and non NYC placement NYU doesn't place "better" than MBVP, but when you ignore those things and use NYC placement NYU starts looking like it's in a whole other league than MBVP. I'm sure if you ignored NYC placement, and focused heavily on California placement Boalt would start looking like it was in another league from NYU and be a "top 5".

1) I have a sneaking suspicion that you are Kurama in disguise once again.

LOL glad to see I'm not the only one who thought so.

[TheWire]

Without looking at your previous posts I am nearly 100 percent sure that you are going to UVA (or if not, Michigan) since UVA posters on this site seem to be obsessed with putting NYU in the MVPB tier. For the life of me I have no idea why, but they start countless threads about it or post it in completely unrelated threads.

All such posters seem to ignore V100 placement, NLJ250 placement, Leiter's elite firm index, hiring rates for median students (i.e. how far into the class biglaw firms go), etc.

V100 summer associate placement (2006):
http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html
V100 placement divided by percentage of students working in firms (as of 2008): (does not include HYS)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=24207
Leiter's elite firm placement rankings (also as of 2008):
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Now all of these factors may have a big city bias, but that hardly seems to prevent schools like Duke from doing comparatively better than UVA or Michigan in these measures. Not to mention that a good chunk of the 15 firms Leiter refers to are either headquartered or have offices in Washington DC (UVa's area of strength) and UVA places the worst out of any T14 besides Berkeley in these elite firms.

Instead, pro-UVA posters focus on lawyer/judge scores (while conveniently leaving out the peer rep scores) and how UVA has historically had a marginally better or equal score to NYU. Now I'm not dismissing that metric and perhaps it can be used to point out why UVA grads get great clerkships. However, if that metric really demonstrated how the legal community viewed UVA then why is that NYU grads get hired at better firms and at a higher rate in biglaw? If it is just because NYU is in New York, then how do you explain Duke's numbers? As for how national the schools are, these are the top schools - placement nationally shouldn't be a problem given some connection or demonstrated interest in a region. I know for a fact that Columbia, NYU, and Chicago all place very well in California (I won't speak for Virginia here because I have no idea how its placement is on the west coast although I assume it is still pretty strong). As for how the schools are doing in the economy...according to posters on this site and 2 students that I know at NYU Law, students at and even below median are still landing V100 gigs (although with less callbacks than normal). Again, I can't speak for UVA here but students at CCN seem to be doing well considering how the economy is going.

Let me be perfectly clear here though...I don't think that the differences between the schools are that great and frankly this whole tier system probably creates arbitrary distinctions between what are essentially 14 damn good law schools. But if you insist on referring to tiers within the top 14 schools, evidence seems to show that there is more separating NYU from UVA than there is between UVA and Northwestern/Duke.

You seem to be almost totally ignoring non NYC placement in your attempt to say that NYU is a stronger school than Michigan, UVA, and Boalt. All of those placement studies you linked to are heavily NYC biased (not big city biased as you tried to pass off). When you start looking at NYU's placement into California, DC (and by the way you are incorrect about those studies focusing on elite DC firms, they don't. Those studies almost completely ignore highly elite and selective DC firms like Kellog Huber) Chicago, Texas, and the south NYU either loses out to or does comparably to MBVP. NYU completely loses out to Columbia and Chicago in non NYC markets. NYU grads actually aren't getting hired at better firms at a higher rate either, as you claim, they are getting hired at a higher rate at--gasp-- NYC firms. You are placing a heavy emphasis on the firms that are ranked highest by Vault, which are overwhelmingly in NYC, that's why you are seeing NYU looking so good.

Hell when you look at the "V10" Stanford doesn't do too well, but I hope you wouldn't say that NYU out places Stanford. When you look at super elite firms outside of NYC ( and just so you know when you look at how much bigger NYU is than all of MBVP and the fact that NYU students are obviously highly likely to choose NYC the only V10 firms that NYU really seems to murder MBVP at are Wachtell and Cravath. Simpson Thatcher, Sullivan, Davis Polk etc. all hire from MBVP in droves. If you look at the non NYC V10 firms NYU actually does either the same or worse than MBVP (Covington DC and Kirkland Chicago).

In terms of explaining Duke's high placement into "better"firms (which you call the V10 and V100, which is really kind of false, because the hyper elite firms are often not in the V10 like Susman Godfrey, Keker, Irell, Williams and Connolly, Kellog Huber, Barlitt Beck, Boies, etc. which are all more selective than any V10 except Wachtell and Cravath) it's pretty simple. The schools where most students want to work in NYC are going to have the "best" placement by your measure because what you are using as the "best" firms are the V10 which are mostly NYC firms. Duke, Penn, NYU and even Cornell actually all beat out schools like Stanford by a good amount because the people who go to those schools overwhelmingly go for NYC jobs. The Stanford people are going for Munger which isn't in the V10 but is much more selective than say Davis Polk, which is V10 and will have way more NYU students going for it, boosting their V10 numbers and making their placement look "better" than Stanford's on the leiter rankings and the NLJ 250.

Look at how NYU does at those hyper elite firms I mentioned that are not in NYC, you will see that it gets measurably outdone by Columbia and Chicago and that it aligns perfectly with MBVP. Furthermore, outside of Wachtell and Cravath MBVP all do very closely (really the same when you look at class size and the fact that people there don't go for NYC like NYU people do) and you will see why NYU really isn't any different from MBVP.

As far as NYU students doing better than MBVP ones ITE generally, there is a very obvious explanation for that. Most NYU students are trying to get a job in the easiest market to land one, from a school located in that market. It's really no wonder that most of them are able to get "V100" jobs compared to MBVP students. For example many people at UVA are probably gunning for DC, a much more selective market than NYC and one that has a lot less V100 jobs (making matters worse, many of DC's most desirable firms--like Kellogg Huber-- are not even in the V100 even though they are super selective).

It only makes sense that if you have a school where half of the class is aiming for large firms that are easier to get hired by like Milibank Tweed and even Davis Polk, and you have another school where half of the class wants to work at say Covington DC or Williams and Connolly, the former are going to come out better. You can see the same thing with a school lilke Boalt where people are probably going for firms like Keker, Gibson, Mofo, and Munger in a market that has been hit very hard and was always a lot more selective than NYC to begin with. Boalt students are not going to have the success rate at those firms that NYU students are going to have at Debevoise and Davis Polk because those firms are more selective and smaller.


When you look at things like clerkships and non NYC placement NYU doesn't place "better" than MBVP, but when you ignore those things and use NYC placement NYU starts looking like it's in a whole other league than MBVP. I'm sure if you ignored NYC placement, and focused heavily on California placement Boalt would start looking like it was in another league from NYU and be a "top 5".

1) I have a sneaking suspicion that you are Kurama in disguise once again.

LOL glad to see I'm not the only one who thought so.

definitely +1

[castanea]

I would generally agree with the breakdown most people give. My only question is about Georgetown. Does the number of students in the part time program figure into the percentages given for Biglaw placement? If they are included, I would think it quite possible full time students actually place much better than the percentages indicate (I have no data to support this, just a feeling that Biglaw is less likely to hire PT than FT). Anyone know whether PT is included?

[im_blue]

I would generally agree with the breakdown most people give. My only question is about Georgetown. Does the number of students in the part time program figure into the percentages given for Biglaw placement? If they are included, I would think it quite possible full time students actually place much better than the percentages indicate (I have no data to support this, just a feeling that Biglaw is less likely to hire PT than FT). Anyone know whether PT is included?

PT is included since they're graduates just like FT. I know a GULC PT graduate who says that PT isn't as much of a stigma as commonly believed, as long as your grades are good.

[Borhas]

thank god somebody made this a thread! This topic is almost never discussed in trollish detail

[showNprove]

.

[Bronte]

1) I have a sneaking suspicion that you are Kurama in disguise once again.

LOL glad to see I'm not the only one who thought so.

definitely +1

Me too, but he makes a good argument.

[McNabb]

Without looking at your previous posts I am nearly 100 percent sure that you are going to UVA (or if not, Michigan) since UVA posters on this site seem to be obsessed with putting NYU in the MVPB tier. For the life of me I have no idea why, but they start countless threads about it or post it in completely unrelated threads.

All such posters seem to ignore V100 placement, NLJ250 placement, Leiter's elite firm index, hiring rates for median students (i.e. how far into the class biglaw firms go), etc.

V100 summer associate placement (2006):
http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html
V100 placement divided by percentage of students working in firms (as of 2008): (does not include HYS)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=24207
Leiter's elite firm placement rankings (also as of 2008):
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Now all of these factors may have a big city bias, but that hardly seems to prevent schools like Duke from doing comparatively better than UVA or Michigan in these measures. Not to mention that a good chunk of the 15 firms Leiter refers to are either headquartered or have offices in Washington DC (UVa's area of strength) and UVA places the worst out of any T14 besides Berkeley in these elite firms.

Instead, pro-UVA posters focus on lawyer/judge scores (while conveniently leaving out the peer rep scores) and how UVA has historically had a marginally better or equal score to NYU. Now I'm not dismissing that metric and perhaps it can be used to point out why UVA grads get great clerkships. However, if that metric really demonstrated how the legal community viewed UVA then why is that NYU grads get hired at better firms and at a higher rate in biglaw? If it is just because NYU is in New York, then how do you explain Duke's numbers? As for how national the schools are, these are the top schools - placement nationally shouldn't be a problem given some connection or demonstrated interest in a region. I know for a fact that Columbia, NYU, and Chicago all place very well in California (I won't speak for Virginia here because I have no idea how its placement is on the west coast although I assume it is still pretty strong). As for how the schools are doing in the economy...according to posters on this site and 2 students that I know at NYU Law, students at and even below median are still landing V100 gigs (although with less callbacks than normal). Again, I can't speak for UVA here but students at CCN seem to be doing well considering how the economy is going.

Let me be perfectly clear here though...I don't think that the differences between the schools are that great and frankly this whole tier system probably creates arbitrary distinctions between what are essentially 14 damn good law schools. But if you insist on referring to tiers within the top 14 schools, evidence seems to show that there is more separating NYU from UVA than there is between UVA and Northwestern/Duke.

You seem to be almost totally ignoring non NYC placement in your attempt to say that NYU is a stronger school than Michigan, UVA, and Boalt. All of those placement studies you linked to are heavily NYC biased (not big city biased as you tried to pass off). When you start looking at NYU's placement into California, DC (and by the way you are incorrect about those studies focusing on elite DC firms, they don't. Those studies almost completely ignore highly elite and selective DC firms like Kellog Huber) Chicago, Texas, and the south NYU either loses out to or does comparably to MBVP. NYU completely loses out to Columbia and Chicago in non NYC markets. NYU grads actually aren't getting hired at better firms at a higher rate either, as you claim, they are getting hired at a higher rate at--gasp-- NYC firms. You are placing a heavy emphasis on the firms that are ranked highest by Vault, which are overwhelmingly in NYC, that's why you are seeing NYU looking so good.

Hell when you look at the "V10" Stanford doesn't do too well, but I hope you wouldn't say that NYU out places Stanford. When you look at super elite firms outside of NYC ( and just so you know when you look at how much bigger NYU is than all of MBVP and the fact that NYU students are obviously highly likely to choose NYC the only V10 firms that NYU really seems to murder MBVP at are Wachtell and Cravath. Simpson Thatcher, Sullivan, Davis Polk etc. all hire from MBVP in droves. If you look at the non NYC V10 firms NYU actually does either the same or worse than MBVP (Covington DC and Kirkland Chicago).

In terms of explaining Duke's high placement into "better"firms (which you call the V10 and V100, which is really kind of false, because the hyper elite firms are often not in the V10 like Susman Godfrey, Keker, Irell, Williams and Connolly, Kellog Huber, Barlitt Beck, Boies, etc. which are all more selective than any V10 except Wachtell and Cravath) it's pretty simple. The schools where most students want to work in NYC are going to have the "best" placement by your measure because what you are using as the "best" firms are the V10 which are mostly NYC firms. Duke, Penn, NYU and even Cornell actually all beat out schools like Stanford by a good amount because the people who go to those schools overwhelmingly go for NYC jobs. The Stanford people are going for Munger which isn't in the V10 but is much more selective than say Davis Polk, which is V10 and will have way more NYU students going for it, boosting their V10 numbers and making their placement look "better" than Stanford's on the leiter rankings and the NLJ 250.

Look at how NYU does at those hyper elite firms I mentioned that are not in NYC, you will see that it gets measurably outdone by Columbia and Chicago and that it aligns perfectly with MBVP. Furthermore, outside of Wachtell and Cravath MBVP all do very closely (really the same when you look at class size and the fact that people there don't go for NYC like NYU people do) and you will see why NYU really isn't any different from MBVP.

As far as NYU students doing better than MBVP ones ITE generally, there is a very obvious explanation for that. Most NYU students are trying to get a job in the easiest market to land one, from a school located in that market. It's really no wonder that most of them are able to get "V100" jobs compared to MBVP students. For example many people at UVA are probably gunning for DC, a much more selective market than NYC and one that has a lot less V100 jobs (making matters worse, many of DC's most desirable firms--like Kellogg Huber-- are not even in the V100 even though they are super selective).

It only makes sense that if you have a school where half of the class is aiming for large firms that are easier to get hired by like Milibank Tweed and even Davis Polk, and you have another school where half of the class wants to work at say Covington DC or Williams and Connolly, the former are going to come out better. You can see the same thing with a school lilke Boalt where people are probably going for firms like Keker, Gibson, Mofo, and Munger in a market that has been hit very hard and was always a lot more selective than NYC to begin with. Boalt students are not going to have the success rate at those firms that NYU students are going to have at Debevoise and Davis Polk because those firms are more selective and smaller.


When you look at things like clerkships and non NYC placement NYU doesn't place "better" than MBVP, but when you ignore those things and use NYC placement NYU starts looking like it's in a whole other league than MBVP. I'm sure if you ignored NYC placement, and focused heavily on California placement Boalt would start looking like it was in another league from NYU and be a "top 5".

1) I have a sneaking suspicion that you are Kurama in disguise once again.

2) Never once did I claim that NYU places better than MVPB outside of New York City. Instead, my only claim was that if you want biglaw you are better off going to NYU. Why? Because for most people looking to break into biglaw only one thing really matters: their likelihood of landing a biglaw job. In that measure, NYU beats UVA (since you are likely Kurama I will use this school as an example). You can brush that aside and claim that this is only because NYU is in the biggest market...but my response to that is who cares? If your goal is to make biglaw then the advantages of being in a big city are real. Now if you really want to work in some sort of litigation boutique in DC then of course you should go to UVA...but if you are just trying to make it into biglaw, then NYU grads do better. And lets not pretend that NYU isn't national...it does very well on the West Coast...certainly better than V and P, and arguably better than M.

2) A secondary issue is how prestigious/elite the firm one is getting hired into is. You say that the V100 is NYC biased and doesn't capture the most "selective" firms. Well the issue I was addressing is not getting into the most "selective" firms or even the most desirable firms...it is getting into what knowledgeable sources have determined are the most prestigious BIGLAW firms. And again, who cares if it is NYC-biased? If that is where the most pretigious biglaw firms are then so be it. Obviously the term biglaw stretches beyond the firms identified by the V100, but then you can look at other measures like NLJ250 and see similar results. If you want to make your point you have to refer to some widely accepted definition of prestigious biglaw firms and cite some placement stats; you can't just refer to smaller firms that aren't classical definitions of biglaw (i.e. firms that are both big and well paying) or just namedrop firms that you consider prestigious.

3) And I never referred to V10 placement, but only to Leiter's "elite" 15 firms. And you are lying if you are stating that many of these firms don't have offices in DC - 12 of those 15 firms have offices in DC (4 of them are headquartered there). So UVA should presumably do well in these firms given its strength in DC. Now perhaps you are right in that UVA grads are targeting some other firms but I was only talking about placement into the firms that Leiter identifies as being "elite". And the NYC bias doesn't account for why Duke, Northwestern, and even Georgetown had better placement rates than UVA in these firms....it can't be completely due to self-selection out of these firms by UVA grads.

3) As for your defense of why NYU is doing better than UVA ITE, I think you are missing the most important consideration: getting a biglaw job. Perhaps UVA graduates are gunning for more selective jobs in a more selective market, but that very fact makes trying to crack biglaw easier from NYU...New York City has more jobs available and NYU has a great reputation there. Now if you are making the point that these UVA grads could get those same jobs that you claim are easier to get in New York City then my response is why don't they? Surely their loathing of NYC isn't so great that they would rather not have a biglaw job at all than get one from New York. Biglaw firms (and at least according to Vault and Leiter more prestigious/better law firms) are hiring deeper into the class at NYU and its a much bigger school. How does that not show that it is better?

4) Finally, why do you bring up Columbia and Chicago? I never claimed that NYU was equal to those schools in terms of biglaw placement but only that there is a difference between NYU and MVPB. And though this difference is minor it seems to be much greater than the difference between MVP and Duke/Northwestern.

The fatal flaw that you seem to be making is that you seem to consider biglaw any firm job in NYC, and any firm job outside of NYC as not being biglaw (and realistically I"m probably going to either Penn or Columbia just so you know). Also not trying to bash you but I can tell you aren't very familiar with non NYC firms. That leiter study focuses heavily on firms that are based in NYC, not only that but they are firms that really have some pretty small and low playing firms in DC. DC is a very different type of market than NYC, much more lit focused. Many of the "elite" firms on that list are transactional focused and thus their non NYC offices are really just little satellites. You don't seem to be too aware of elite firms like Williams and Connolly (which is really more selective than any V10 except arguable Wachtell), also that firm isn't a "boutique". Also just so you know those smaller firms I mentioned are all regarded as elite and are big targets for the most elite schools. I know the best way to help you understand this, because if you don't agree/understand the following then you basically have to believe that NYU is not only stronger than MVBP but HYS as well.

Have you never wondered why HYS all get beat out (by a pretty sizable level at that) by NYU (not to mention Duke) in the nlj250? It's because what are often regarded as the most elite and desirable firms are NOT in NYC like people on here will have you to believe, they also are not really in the V10 (excluding Wachtell and Cravath). What really makes HYS stronger than CC and NYU (besides their clerkship ability) is their placement into uber elite firms like the one's I mentioned earlier. Frankly at the sort of firms you are discussing their isn't much difference between Stanford Penn and NYU. It's when you look at the uber elite firms like Williams and Connolly, Munger, and Jenner and Block where the big differences comes out. When you just ignore the most elite and selective firms that aren't in NYC (which you are) NYU comes out ahead of all of HYS (which is exactly what the nlj 250 and leiter placements tend to do, and why NYU does come out ahead of Stanford in those studies). Do you think that NYU out places Stanford, because based on your logic and argument you really have to believe that.

Instead of saying that NYU gives you the greatest chance of landing a biglaw job in comparison to MPBV, like you have been, a better thing to say is that it gives you the best chance of landing a biglaw job in NYC. It does not give you a better shot at landing a biglaw job in California, Texas, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, the Pacific Northwest, or Florida than MPVB. But again you are probably a fan/student/graduate of NYU so this is a pointless argument, you're going to find some way of seeing NYU as being stronger than it really is (most of that being based around the fact that you probably want to work in NYC).

Also why are you saying that NYU out places MVP in California? When you look at class size it doesn't, they do about the same (actually the schools all do about the same outside of their home markets. ie NYU does about the same as Michigan in Cali, the same as UVA in Chicago, the same as Penn in DC etc.)


Finally instead of saying that according to Vault and Leiter firms are hiring more and deeper into NYU than MBPV you should say that according to Vault and Leiter NYC firms are hiring more and deeper into NYU than MBPV--which is not exactly shocking or a sign of NYU superiority. I'm sure Cali firms hire more from Boalt and they do from NYU, and that DC firms hire more from UVA than they do from NYU. It seems that the biggest mistake you are making is that you dont realize that for those that don't want to work in NYC, NYU really doesn't differ in placement ability form any of MBPV, and that that is simply not true of Chicago and Columbia.


Oh yeah, Eagles over Ravens any day!

[RVP11]

With posts this long, it has to be Kurama.

[ravens20]

With posts this long, it has to be Kurama.

lolol

[YCrevolution]

..

[ravens20]

The fatal flaw that you seem to be making is that you seem to consider biglaw any firm job in NYC, and any firm job outside of NYC as not being biglaw (and realistically I"m probably going to either Penn or Columbia just so you know). Also not trying to bash you but I can tell you aren't very familiar with non NYC firms. That leiter study focuses heavily on firms that are based in NYC, not only that but they are firms that really have some pretty small and low playing firms in DC. DC is a very different type of market than NYC, much more lit focused. Many of the "elite" firms on that list are transactional focused and thus their non NYC offices are really just little satellites. You don't seem to be too aware of elite firms like Williams and Connolly (which is really more selective than any V10 except arguable Wachtell), also that firm isn't a "boutique". Also just so you know those smaller firms I mentioned are all regarded as elite and are big targets for the most elite schools. I know the best way to help you understand this, because if you don't agree/understand the following then you basically have to believe that NYU is not only stronger than MVBP but HYS as well.

Have you never wondered why HYS all get beat out (by a pretty sizable level at that) by NYU (not to mention Duke) in the nlj250? It's because what are often regarded as the most elite and desirable firms are NOT in NYC like people on here will have you to believe, they also are not really in the V10 (excluding Wachtell and Cravath). What really makes HYS stronger than CC and NYU (besides their clerkship ability) is their placement into uber elite firms like the one's I mentioned earlier. Frankly at the sort of firms you are discussing their isn't much difference between Stanford Penn and NYU. It's when you look at the uber elite firms like Williams and Connolly, Munger, and Jenner and Block where the big differences comes out. When you just ignore the most elite and selective firms that aren't in NYC (which you are) NYU comes out ahead of all of HYS (which is exactly what the nlj 250 and leiter placements tend to do, and why NYU does come out ahead of Stanford in those studies). Do you think that NYU out places Stanford, because based on your logic and argument you really have to believe that.

Instead of saying that NYU gives you the greatest chance of landing a biglaw job in comparison to MPBV, like you have been, a better thing to say is that it gives you the best chance of landing a biglaw job in NYC. It does not give you a better shot at landing a biglaw job in California, Texas, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, the Pacific Northwest, or Florida than MPVB. But again you are probably a fan/student/graduate of NYU so this is a pointless argument, you're going to find some way of seeing NYU as being stronger than it really is (most of that being based around the fact that you probably want to work in NYC).

Also why are you saying that NYU out places MVP in California? When you look at class size it doesn't, they do about the same (actually the schools all do about the same outside of their home markets. ie NYU does about the same as Michigan in Cali, the same as UVA in Chicago, the same as Penn in DC etc.)


Finally instead of saying that according to Vault and Leiter firms are hiring more and deeper into NYU than MBPV you should say that according to Vault and Leiter NYC firms are hiring more and deeper into NYU than MBPV--which is not exactly shocking or a sign of NYU superiority. I'm sure Cali firms hire more from Boalt and they do from NYU, and that DC firms hire more from UVA than they do from NYU. It seems that the biggest mistake you are making is that you dont realize that for those that don't want to work in NYC, NYU really doesn't differ in placement ability form any of MBPV, and that that is simply not true of Chicago and Columbia.


Oh yeah, Eagles over Ravens any day!

My friend Donovan...it seems like we are just talking past one another.

-You keep referring to the "outside NYC" NYU = MVP argument. That is not my point...only that according to various sources that rank/categorize biglaw firms, NYU places better than MVP in terms of the rate of graduates who get biglaw. Whether you like those rankings, think there are other more elite firms, or think they are NYC-biased is irrelevant...my only point is that according to these sources, the percentage of placement is higher at NYU.
-You keep talking about smaller, "more selective" firms. I am talking about classical biglaw firms (i.e. firms that are both large and pay well). I realize that the term "biglaw" can be kind of ambiguous at times, but I think that the definition I am using is pretty much standard.
-I didn't really reference the NLJ250 and just mentioned it in passing, but I'll address your point. YHS's NLJ250 placement being lower than expected can be explained by academic placement, clerkships, public interest, or any other number of things that these elite schools are known for. Now of course the same could be argued for UVA...but self selection out of NLJ250 doesn't seem to account for how large of a gap there is between NYU and UVA when you consider that UVA kids don't go into academia or clerkships at the same rate as Stanford kids. And if you don't like the NLJ250 then use V100 placement which is more in line with what you might expect according to US News Rankings. But you have to use something..you can't just claim that UVA has similar rates of biglaw placement without citing anything.
-I'll retract my point about NYU's west coast biglaw placement being superior to MVP because I can't remember where I got that information from to provide a citation. I will post it if I can find it though.

Look man, I am not saying that picking NYU over UVA is the right choice for everyone. UVA is an excellent school and there are about a million different reasons to go there over NYU (better weather, clerkships, beautiful school, want to work in DC litigation, etc). Same applies to Michigan (sports, the most beautiful campus of an school IMO) and Penn (the Ivy with the most down-to-earth students). All I am saying is that if you want biglaw in general, then the statistics show that you have a better chance of getting that job from NYU. Perhaps that is because there just are so many biglaw jobs in New York City and not because NYU places better than UVA outside the city, but that doesn't change the fact that NYU places more of its grads into such jobs. But don't take my word, or Leiter's, or Vault's word for it...just check out some of the threads by 2Ls who went through OCI. There definitely appears to be a difference between NYU and UVA in biglaw placement ITE. That is all I am saying.

And one last point: this whole time we have been focusing on biglaw placement, but there are other reasons why NYU is ranked where it is. It has a strong student body (at least determined by LSAT/GPA, however flawed that may be). People talk about UVa's comparable lawyer/judge scores but forget to mention NYU's better peer rep scores. It has elite programs in tax law, criminal law, and international law. It has one of the best LRAP programs, great public interest placement due to its PILC fair, funding for public interest students, tons of clinics, and lots of dedicated centers. It also keeps stealing renowned professors from other schools and has a pretty accomplished faculty on par with Columbia and Chicago. None of these factors make NYU better than MVP but they all do help explain why it is well-regarded and highly ranked.

[jawsthegreat]

The fatal flaw that you seem to be making is that you seem to consider biglaw any firm job in NYC, and any firm job outside of NYC as not being biglaw (and realistically I"m probably going to either Penn or Columbia just so you know). Also not trying to bash you but I can tell you aren't very familiar with non NYC firms. That leiter study focuses heavily on firms that are based in NYC, not only that but they are firms that really have some pretty small and low playing firms in DC. DC is a very different type of market than NYC, much more lit focused. Many of the "elite" firms on that list are transactional focused and thus their non NYC offices are really just little satellites. You don't seem to be too aware of elite firms like Williams and Connolly (which is really more selective than any V10 except arguable Wachtell), also that firm isn't a "boutique". Also just so you know those smaller firms I mentioned are all regarded as elite and are big targets for the most elite schools. I know the best way to help you understand this, because if you don't agree/understand the following then you basically have to believe that NYU is not only stronger than MVBP but HYS as well.

Have you never wondered why HYS all get beat out (by a pretty sizable level at that) by NYU (not to mention Duke) in the nlj250? It's because what are often regarded as the most elite and desirable firms are NOT in NYC like people on here will have you to believe, they also are not really in the V10 (excluding Wachtell and Cravath). What really makes HYS stronger than CC and NYU (besides their clerkship ability) is their placement into uber elite firms like the one's I mentioned earlier. Frankly at the sort of firms you are discussing their isn't much difference between Stanford Penn and NYU. It's when you look at the uber elite firms like Williams and Connolly, Munger, and Jenner and Block where the big differences comes out. When you just ignore the most elite and selective firms that aren't in NYC (which you are) NYU comes out ahead of all of HYS (which is exactly what the nlj 250 and leiter placements tend to do, and why NYU does come out ahead of Stanford in those studies). Do you think that NYU out places Stanford, because based on your logic and argument you really have to believe that.

Instead of saying that NYU gives you the greatest chance of landing a biglaw job in comparison to MPBV, like you have been, a better thing to say is that it gives you the best chance of landing a biglaw job in NYC. It does not give you a better shot at landing a biglaw job in California, Texas, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, the Pacific Northwest, or Florida than MPVB. But again you are probably a fan/student/graduate of NYU so this is a pointless argument, you're going to find some way of seeing NYU as being stronger than it really is (most of that being based around the fact that you probably want to work in NYC).

Also why are you saying that NYU out places MVP in California? When you look at class size it doesn't, they do about the same (actually the schools all do about the same outside of their home markets. ie NYU does about the same as Michigan in Cali, the same as UVA in Chicago, the same as Penn in DC etc.)


Finally instead of saying that according to Vault and Leiter firms are hiring more and deeper into NYU than MBPV you should say that according to Vault and Leiter NYC firms are hiring more and deeper into NYU than MBPV--which is not exactly shocking or a sign of NYU superiority. I'm sure Cali firms hire more from Boalt and they do from NYU, and that DC firms hire more from UVA than they do from NYU. It seems that the biggest mistake you are making is that you dont realize that for those that don't want to work in NYC, NYU really doesn't differ in placement ability form any of MBPV, and that that is simply not true of Chicago and Columbia.


Oh yeah, Eagles over Ravens any day!

My friend Donovan...it seems like we are just talking past one another.

-You keep referring to the "outside NYC" NYU = MVP argument. That is not my point...only that according to various sources that rank/categorize biglaw firms, NYU places better than MVP in terms of the rate of graduates who get biglaw. Whether you like those rankings, think there are other more elite firms, or think they are NYC-biased is irrelevant...my only point is that according to these sources, the percentage of placement is higher at NYU.
-You keep talking about smaller, "more selective" firms. I am talking about classical biglaw firms (i.e. firms that are both large and pay well). I realize that the term "biglaw" can be kind of ambiguous at times, but I think that the definition I am using is pretty much standard.
-I didn't really reference the NLJ250 and just mentioned it in passing, but I'll address your point. YHS's NLJ250 placement being lower than expected can be explained by academic placement, clerkships, public interest, or any other number of things that these elite schools are known for. Now of course the same could be argued for UVA...but self selection out of NLJ250 doesn't seem to account for how large of a gap there is between NYU and UVA when you consider that UVA kids don't go into academia or clerkships at the same rate as Stanford kids. And if you don't like the NLJ250 then use V100 placement which is more in line with what you might expect according to US News Rankings. But you have to use something..you can't just claim that UVA has similar rates of biglaw placement without citing anything.
-I'll retract my point about NYU's west coast biglaw placement being superior to MVP because I can't remember where I got that information from to provide a citation. I will post it if I can find it though.

Look man, I am not saying that picking NYU over UVA is the right choice for everyone. UVA is an excellent school and there are about a million different reasons to go there over NYU (better weather, clerkships, beautiful school, want to work in DC litigation, etc). Same applies to Michigan (sports, the most beautiful campus of an school IMO) and Penn (the Ivy with the most down-to-earth students). All I am saying is that if you want biglaw in general, then the statistics show that you have a better chance of getting that job from NYU. Perhaps that is because there just are so many biglaw jobs in New York City and not because NYU places better than UVA outside the city, but that doesn't change the fact that NYU places more of its grads into such jobs. But don't take my word, or Leiter's, or Vault's word for it...just check out some of the threads by 2Ls who went through OCI. There definitely appears to be a difference between NYU and UVA in biglaw placement ITE. That is all I am saying.

And one last point: this whole time we have been focusing on biglaw placement, but there are other reasons why NYU is ranked where it is. It has a strong student body (at least determined by LSAT/GPA, however flawed that may be). People talk about UVa's comparable lawyer/judge scores but forget to mention NYU's better peer rep scores. It has elite programs in tax law, criminal law, and international law. It has one of the best LRAP programs, great public interest placement due to its PILC fair, funding for public interest students, tons of clinics, and lots of dedicated centers. It also keeps stealing renowned professors from other schools and has a pretty accomplished faculty on par with Columbia and Chicago. None of these factors make NYU better than MVP but they all do help explain why it is well-regarded and highly ranked.

[timshel]

I'm not even going to bring up Game 6 of that 2001 series. I'll never forget when Mike Bibby's nose somehow fouled Kobe Bryant's elbow.[/quote]

haha...yeah, that game was fixed

[Kronk]

Napoleon! Give me some of your toughts!