Why the hate on Gtown? Forum

[Robespierre]

most of the people I know here at GULC aren't interested in BigLaw

OK, then, 31% of the GULC class of '11 got NLJ250 jobs. What percentage would you say WANTED an NLJ250 job? Just curious.

[Gooses]

most of the people I know here at GULC aren't interested in BigLaw

OK, then, 31% of the GULC class of '11 got NLJ250 jobs. What percentage would you say WANTED an NLJ250 job? Just curious.

If you remove transfers from that percentage it would probably drop to 25% ish.

[IAFG]

most of the people I know here at GULC aren't interested in BigLaw

OK, then, 31% of the GULC class of '11 got NLJ250 jobs. What percentage would you say WANTED an NLJ250 job? Just curious.

If you remove transfers from that percentage it would probably drop to 25% ish.

You think transfers do better than home growns? Very doubtful.

[mvonh001]

so essentially what that says, and this is in relation to all the schools' employment statistics, is that if you are in the top 31% of the class you can get a good job (NLJ250). And then by definition, if you went to Penn and were in the top 58% you would be able to get a job pretty easily (relative to someone who was not in the top 58%.)

And if all of what i just said is true, then why would i go to GULC over say, USC, which says that 34% of the students get to large firms?

And im assuming that more of those 34% are in big law in CA, actually i dont need to assume because LST reports that the majority are working in CA.

So if i wanted to work big law in CA then my best bet would be to go to USC or UCLA (and be in the top 25%), as opposed to Gtown or any other T14??

Edit -
I take that back, now looking at the numbers it says that USC only 25% of the class makes $145,000.00 as opposed to GULC which is says that 30% make $160,000.00.

[bk1]

so essentially what that says, and this is in relation to all the schools' employment statistics, is that if you are in the top 31% of the class you can get a good job (NLJ250). And then by definition, if you went to Penn and were in the top 58% you would be able to get a job pretty easily (relative to someone who was not in the top 58%.)

There isn't a perfect correlation between grades and biglaw. You're ignoring the significant number of people who get other desirable jobs (PI/gov/fed clerkships).

[mvonh001]

but what if there only desire is to go to big law? or what if everyone wanted big law (hypo), then based on the numbers then as long as you are in the top 30% at gulc then you are getting into big law?

[bk1]

but what if there only desire is to go to big law? or what if everyone wanted big law (hypo), then based on the numbers then as long as you are in the top 30% at gulc then you are getting into big law?

People in the top 1/3 at GULC still strike out of getting biglaw. Heck, people in the top 10% will strike out (though it is rarer). As I said, there is not a perfect correlation between grades and getting biglaw. There is more to getting biglaw than grades, though grades are a substantial portion of it.

[aca0260]

most of the people I know here at GULC aren't interested in BigLaw

OK, then, 31% of the GULC class of '11 got NLJ250 jobs. What percentage would you say WANTED an NLJ250 job? Just curious.

If you remove transfers from that percentage it would probably drop to 25% ish.

You think transfers do better than home growns? Very doubtful.

What? He's saying transfers want biglaw more than non-transfers. I definitely agree - transfers are often giving up scholarships and paying sticker and the from my experience they all want biglaw. Overall, the PI streak is so strong at Georgetown I think it makes up for the 5-10% difference in biglaw placement with lower T14. The class is large but every major law firm in the country comes to EIW. I think it's silly to pick a school like Michigan over Georgetown because you think you're worried about biglaw prospects. Go where it is cheaper or where you are happier - the difference is negligible and sensationalized by TLS.

[SportsFan]

so essentially what that says, and this is in relation to all the schools' employment statistics, is that if you are in the top 31% of the class you can get a good job (NLJ250). And then by definition, if you went to Penn and were in the top 58% you would be able to get a job pretty easily (relative to someone who was not in the top 58%.)

There isn't a perfect correlation between grades and biglaw. You're ignoring the significant number of people who get other desirable jobs (PI/gov/fed clerkships).

Plus people over-performing and underperforming due to work experience and personality.

[dingbat]

most of the people I know here at GULC aren't interested in BigLaw

OK, then, 31% of the GULC class of '11 got NLJ250 jobs. What percentage would you say WANTED an NLJ250 job? Just curious.

If you remove transfers from that percentage it would probably drop to 25% ish.

You think transfers do better than home growns? Very doubtful.

Actually, I'll give some credence. I've heard time and again from recruiters that transfers are evaluated based on their class rank at their old school. Typically, to transfer, you need to be top 10% at a T1 or top 5% at a lower school. At a good chunk of T1 schools, top 10% will be able to get a biglaw interview (at some T1s, significantly more) and at many T2s top 5% can get you an interview - if a firm shows up. Similarly, if the firm doesn't typically do OCI, they'll frequently listen to someone who's top 5% (if they have non-OCI slots available).
This means that most transfers are competitive for biglaw jobs. While I'd like to see hard numbers, I can see the argument that a lot of the transfers get biglaw, and therefore the statement is correct.

To give it an example, I'd be willing to say that a top 10% student at GW is more competitive than a median student at Georgetown. Therefore, if that top 10% student transfers, s/he will probably do better than a homegrown at or below median

[Robespierre]

This discussion about transfers is all well and good, but I'm more interested in swtlilsoni saying her friends at GULC are mostly not interested in biglaw. Of the GULC 2Ls who are eligible for OCI, what proportion would you say want a biglaw job? 85%? 65%? 45%?

Because, if the answer is 45%, then GULC's 31% NLJ250 placement looks very good. If the answer is 85%, not so much, and the "hate" is justified (which is the point of the thread).

[xjustyoursmile]

So here's the way I see it. If studying for the LSAT has taught us anything, it's not to play the 'what if' game while makin assumptions.

Let's look at what we have:

First, we have to know how many GULC students actually want BigLaw. We can't get that info from a student or even multiple students. There are so many students attending GULC that it just wouldn't be representative.

We have the percentage of how many go to BigLaw, but without know how many people were even gunning for BigLaw in the first place we can't understand the data entirely. Whether all who wanted BigLaw got it or only a small percentage we can't know for sure. After all, it is possible that since the school is in DC that more people would be going for government jobs even if they don't get it. We just don't have that hard data.

Second, looking at the salary stats we come to a similar conclusion. GULC shows that a certain percentage starts with a higher salary than a lower percentage from (let'd just say) USC. But where's that money coming from? A job in DC or a job in CA? How many people were gunning for those salary jobs? We just don't know. We'd like to imagine that everyone is going for BigLaw and the bet jobs but we don't have the details. TLS is only a small percentage of all applicants and gets smaller when you spread those member over all the schools givig us a tiny perspective when it comes to opinions and what things are like.

I think what it really comes down to is research. Why do people hate on GULC? I have no idea, but maybe it's because of the mishabdling of the numbers and not uderstanding what those numbers are really telling us. This includes that these numbers ultimately give us more questions than answers and that brings us uncertainty. But we're goig to get that uncertainty with any school because there's too many specifics that come into play including how each induvidual deals with law school and what they want to get out of it.


EDIT: Sorry about typos, I'm on my phone.

[banjo]

Everyone has to make their own decision about how to factor in things like student body, self-selection, bidding on tough markets, etc. Personally, I am going to take the NLJ + clerkship data at face value, making exceptions only for HYS (due to the unchallenged consensus regarding their placement power). Maybe this will lead me to believe that NU is much better than NYU (because I don't adjust for NU's WE-heavy student body or NYU's PI focus), but I'm fine with that level of error.

[IAFG]

Everyone has to make their own decision about how to factor in things like student body, self-selection, bidding on tough markets, etc. Personally, I am going to take the NLJ + clerkship data at face value, making exceptions only for HYS (due to the unchallenged consensus regarding their placement power). Maybe this will lead me to believe that NU is much better than NYU (because I don't adjust for NU's WE-heavy student body or NYU's PI focus), but I'm fine with that level of error.

I agree that the risk accessment is a personal choice due to the lack of data, but betting on NU is questionable. I think if GULC instituted a new 90%+ WE requirement, they would do much better than they do now.

My dream metric would be based on how deeply into the class firms go. And it wouldn't favor NU over NYU.

[Crowing]

I find it pretty amazing that GULC's placement isn't worse considering how humongous their class is compared to Cornell, NU, and Duke.