Thread for those considering WUSTL with $$$ over T-14 Forum

[romothesavior]

I doubt WUSTL is more "MEGA-regional" than Norte Dame. It's OCI list looks just as good. Hell, it's probably not better than Illinois, Wisconsin, or Minnesota (just that people from Minn hardly go to U of I and vice versa). WashU is a rankings overperformer because the school (in all fields) whores itself to USNEWS.

FWIW, I would reserve a term like mega-regional for Vandy, Texas, UCLA/USC. Because they are probably as good as the lower T14 in their home markets, but not everywhere else.

I agree with this. WUSTL, ND, Illinois, and UMN are very much peers and have roughly the same national reach (Wisconsin seems to be a bit more limited). I use the term "quasi-national" to describe them because they are solid regionally and are able to get students back where they came from, but they generally aren't going to open up markets. They are definitely a step below Vandy, Texas, UCLA, and USC, because those are dominant in their regions and have better biglaw placement, whereas WUSTL and the other T20s are very similar in the Midwest region. They have no home market to dominate that can absorb large chunks of students. It is what really hurts us in firm placement.

[09042014]

I doubt WUSTL is more "MEGA-regional" than Norte Dame. It's OCI list looks just as good. Hell, it's probably not better than Illinois, Wisconsin, or Minnesota (just that people from Minn hardly go to U of I and vice versa). WashU is a rankings overperformer because the school (in all fields) whores itself to USNEWS.

FWIW, I would reserve a term like mega-regional for Vandy, Texas, UCLA/USC. Because they are probably as good as the lower T14 in their home markets, but not everywhere else.

I agree with this. WUSTL, ND, Illinois, and UMN are very much peers and have roughly the same national reach (Wisconsin seems to be a bit more limited). I use the term "quasi-national" to describe them because they are solid regionally and are able to get students back where they came from, but they generally aren't going to open up markets. They are definitely a step below Vandy, Texas, UCLA, and USC, because those are dominant in their regions and have better biglaw placement, whereas WUSTL and the other T20s are very similar in the Midwest region. They have no home market to dominate that can absorb large chunks of students. It is what really hurts us in firm placement.

That and Chicago is still TTT as fuck as a market. I swear I saw McDermott throw a Michigan and Illinois student into a big cage on Lower Wacker. Last man standing got the offer. (was later no offered after summer).

[romothesavior]

Yep, the Chicago market is awful. I knew it was bad, but it took OCI for me to realize just how bad.

[09042014]

Yep, the Chicago market is awful. I knew it was bad, but it took OCI for me to realize just how bad.

Actual footage of UIUC OCI. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE5V0iQdB10

[Betharl]

For C/O 2011 Illinois placed 11% in the NLJ250 (13% at Wash U). After 9 months, fully 20% were either unemployed or had an unknown employment status. Only 16% were employed in a firm of 50+ attorneys (the line where, for practical purposes, $100k+ local mid-law starts). Another 5% were in a federal clerkship.

So 16% + 5% means at least 21% of people in the class that was most affected by the recession landed great gigs. If we assume hiring will pick up a little bit in the next couple years, maybe these midwestern schools will get back to putting 25-30% of their students into prestigious employment. The odds aren't great, but you've still got a shot. Sure, the t14 will place better, but the cost differential is so large for some applicants that, even if one is set on Big Law, it's a really tough decision.

[rayiner]

For C/O 2011 Illinois placed 11% in the NLJ250 (13% at Wash U). After 9 months, fully 20% were either unemployed or had an unknown employment status. Only 16% were employed in a firm of 50+ attorneys (the line where, for practical purposes, $100k+ local mid-law starts). Another 5% were in a federal clerkship.

So 16% + 5% means at least 21% of people in the class that was most affected by the recession landed great gigs. If we assume hiring will pick up a little bit in the next couple years, maybe these midwestern schools will get back to putting 25-30% of their students into prestigious employment. The odds aren't great, but you've still got a shot. Sure, the t14 will place better, but the cost differential is so large for some applicants that, even if one is set on Big Law, it's a really tough decision.

If you want big law, the cost differential is quite small compared to the lifetime expected earnings. We're talking 20% versus 50-60% at the T14. If the cost-difference is $175k, then big law has to give you lifetime expected earnings of less than $450k over small law in order for the full-ride to have a higher expected return.

[Betharl]

The way I see it, if we are only concerned with getting Big Law/not getting Big Law, there are 4 possible scenarios.

Student A 20% chance at Big Law = Takes large scholarship at UIUC/ND/WUSTL
Student B 60% chance at Big Law = Pays sticker or close to sticker at a t14, pays 175K more than student A.

Scenario 1, 8% probability: A gets Big Law B doesn't. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 2, 12% probability: Both get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 3, 32% probability: Both do not get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 4, 48% probability: B gets Big Law A doesn't. Student B wins financially in the long run.

Student A wins 52% of the time. Now, this is a very simple analysis and does not take into account other advantages of attending a t14 school (greater lay prestige, possibly better Big Law exit opportunities, better flexibility/mobility, etc.). Of course, 60% Big Law probability is also generous for some t14s (I'm looking at you Michigan and Georgetown). I have also not attempted to place a numerical value on how much one student beats the other by (for instance, in scenario 1, A crushes B financially, in Scenario 2 the difference isn't nearly as great), which is important, because it's possible student B beats student A by enough in scenario 4 to make up for the fact that student B only "wins" 48% of the time. Regardless, if one really wanted to look at this from an expected value point of view, it gets a little murky and certainly isn't a slam dunk for choosing the t14.

[Nova]

The way I see it, if we are only concerned with getting Big Law/not getting Big Law, there are 4 possible scenarios.

Student A 20% chance at Big Law = Takes large scholarship at UIUC/ND/WUSTL
Student B 60% chance at Big Law = Pays sticker or close to sticker at a t14, pays 175K more than student A.

Scenario 1, 8% probability: A gets Big Law B doesn't. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 2, 12% probability: Both get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 3, 32% probability: Both do not get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 4, 48% probability: B gets Big Law A doesn't. Student B wins financially in the long run.

Student A wins 52% of the time. Now, this is a very simple analysis and does not take into account other advantages of attending a t14 school (greater lay prestige, possibly better Big Law exit opportunities, better flexibility/mobility, etc.). Of course, 60% Big Law probability is also generous for some t14s (I'm looking at you Michigan and Georgetown). I have also not attempted to place a numerical value on how much one student beats the other by (for instance, in scenario 1, A crushes B financially, in Scenario 2 the difference isn't nearly as great), which is important, because it's possible student B beats student A by enough in scenario 4 to make up for the fact that student B only "wins" 48% of the time. Regardless, if one really wanted to look at this from an expected value point of view, it gets a little murky and certainly isn't a slam dunk for choosing the t14.

Good God. I hope I win the coin flip.

[rayiner]

The way I see it, if we are only concerned with getting Big Law/not getting Big Law, there are 4 possible scenarios.

Student A 20% chance at Big Law = Takes large scholarship at UIUC/ND/WUSTL
Student B 60% chance at Big Law = Pays sticker or close to sticker at a t14, pays 175K more than student A.

Scenario 1, 8% probability: A gets Big Law B doesn't. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 2, 12% probability: Both get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 3, 32% probability: Both do not get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 4, 48% probability: B gets Big Law A doesn't. Student B wins financially in the long run.

Student A wins 52% of the time. Now, this is a very simple analysis and does not take into account other advantages of attending a t14 school (greater lay prestige, possibly better Big Law exit opportunities, better flexibility/mobility, etc.). Of course, 60% Big Law probability is also generous for some t14s (I'm looking at you Michigan and Georgetown). I have also not attempted to place a numerical value on how much one student beats the other by (for instance, in scenario 1, A crushes B financially, in Scenario 2 the difference isn't nearly as great), which is important, because it's possible student B beats student A by enough in scenario 4 to make up for the fact that student B only "wins" 48% of the time. Regardless, if one really wanted to look at this from an expected value point of view, it gets a little murky and certainly isn't a slam dunk for choosing the t14.

Your analysis gives equal weight to the 32% of cases where student A "wins" by not getting big law as the 48% of cases where student B "wins" by getting big law. Which is obviously non-sensical. You'd much rather "win" in the latter way than the former way. You have to weigh the probability of each outcome with the value of each outcome.

[Betharl]

The way I see it, if we are only concerned with getting Big Law/not getting Big Law, there are 4 possible scenarios.

Student A 20% chance at Big Law = Takes large scholarship at UIUC/ND/WUSTL
Student B 60% chance at Big Law = Pays sticker or close to sticker at a t14, pays 175K more than student A.

Scenario 1, 8% probability: A gets Big Law B doesn't. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 2, 12% probability: Both get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 3, 32% probability: Both do not get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 4, 48% probability: B gets Big Law A doesn't. Student B wins financially in the long run.

Student A wins 52% of the time. Now, this is a very simple analysis and does not take into account other advantages of attending a t14 school (greater lay prestige, possibly better Big Law exit opportunities, better flexibility/mobility, etc.). Of course, 60% Big Law probability is also generous for some t14s (I'm looking at you Michigan and Georgetown). I have also not attempted to place a numerical value on how much one student beats the other by (for instance, in scenario 1, A crushes B financially, in Scenario 2 the difference isn't nearly as great), which is important, because it's possible student B beats student A by enough in scenario 4 to make up for the fact that student B only "wins" 48% of the time. Regardless, if one really wanted to look at this from an expected value point of view, it gets a little murky and certainly isn't a slam dunk for choosing the t14.

Your analysis gives equal weight to the 32% of cases where student A "wins" by not getting big law as the 48% of cases where student B "wins" by getting big law. Which is obviously non-sensical. You'd much rather "win" in the latter way than the former way. You have to weigh the probability of each outcome with the value of each outcome.

Yeah, exactly, I did not bother to give weights (as I mentioned in the discussion below the scenarios). You are probably right that student B would "win" by a large enough margin in scenario 4 to compensate for the fact that student A wins 52% of the time. However, there is still something to be said for winning more often in terms of risk aversion. Also, note that these numbers change quite a bit if you fiddle with them slightly. Plug in a 50% Big law probability for Georgetown/whoever and keep 20% for the T1. In that case, the T1 would win 60% of the time. Would 40% x the financial gain of when Georgetown wins beat 60% x the weighted average of the financial gain when the T1 wins? I think it's probably hard to say. But crunch the numbers if you'd like! My point is, I think the expected value probably ends up being pretty close.

[rayiner]

The way I see it, if we are only concerned with getting Big Law/not getting Big Law, there are 4 possible scenarios.

Student A 20% chance at Big Law = Takes large scholarship at UIUC/ND/WUSTL
Student B 60% chance at Big Law = Pays sticker or close to sticker at a t14, pays 175K more than student A.

Scenario 1, 8% probability: A gets Big Law B doesn't. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 2, 12% probability: Both get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 3, 32% probability: Both do not get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 4, 48% probability: B gets Big Law A doesn't. Student B wins financially in the long run.

Student A wins 52% of the time. Now, this is a very simple analysis and does not take into account other advantages of attending a t14 school (greater lay prestige, possibly better Big Law exit opportunities, better flexibility/mobility, etc.). Of course, 60% Big Law probability is also generous for some t14s (I'm looking at you Michigan and Georgetown). I have also not attempted to place a numerical value on how much one student beats the other by (for instance, in scenario 1, A crushes B financially, in Scenario 2 the difference isn't nearly as great), which is important, because it's possible student B beats student A by enough in scenario 4 to make up for the fact that student B only "wins" 48% of the time. Regardless, if one really wanted to look at this from an expected value point of view, it gets a little murky and certainly isn't a slam dunk for choosing the t14.

Your analysis gives equal weight to the 32% of cases where student A "wins" by not getting big law as the 48% of cases where student B "wins" by getting big law. Which is obviously non-sensical. You'd much rather "win" in the latter way than the former way. You have to weigh the probability of each outcome with the value of each outcome.

Yeah, exactly, I did not bother to give weights (as I mentioned in the discussion below the scenarios). You are probably right that student B would "win" by a large enough margin in scenario 4 to compensate for the fact that student A wins 52% of the time. However, there is still something to be said for winning more often in terms of risk aversion. Also, note that these numbers change quite a bit if you fiddle with them slightly. Plug in a 50% Big law probability for Georgetown/whoever and keep 20% for the T1. In that case, the T1 would win 60% of the time. Would 40% x the financial gain of when Georgetown wins beat 60% x the weighted average of the financial gain when the T1 wins? I think it's probably hard to say. But crunch the numbers if you'd like! My point is, I think the expected value probably ends up being pretty close.

Your scenario presupposes someone so risk-averse that they consider $50k + no debt equivalent to $160k + debt. If you are indeed that risk averse, then it's pretty close. As you get less risk averse, the T14 wins by increasingly larger margin.

The proper way to do an expected value calculation for a risk-neutral person is to look at the lifetime earnings delta between someone who makes big law and someone who doesn't, discounted by the probabilities. Say that someone who goes into big law makes $1.5 million more over his or her lifetime than someone who doesn't. That puts GULC at about $500k over a UIUC. The two only become even if you assume that big law is worth $500k more than small law over one's lifetime. Over a 40-year career that's only $12.5k/year, which I think is unrealistically low.

[09042014]

The way I see it, if we are only concerned with getting Big Law/not getting Big Law, there are 4 possible scenarios.

Student A 20% chance at Big Law = Takes large scholarship at UIUC/ND/WUSTL
Student B 60% chance at Big Law = Pays sticker or close to sticker at a t14, pays 175K more than student A.

Scenario 1, 8% probability: A gets Big Law B doesn't. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 2, 12% probability: Both get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 3, 32% probability: Both do not get Big Law. Student A wins financially in the long run.
Scenario 4, 48% probability: B gets Big Law A doesn't. Student B wins financially in the long run.

Student A wins 52% of the time. Now, this is a very simple analysis and does not take into account other advantages of attending a t14 school (greater lay prestige, possibly better Big Law exit opportunities, better flexibility/mobility, etc.). Of course, 60% Big Law probability is also generous for some t14s (I'm looking at you Michigan and Georgetown). I have also not attempted to place a numerical value on how much one student beats the other by (for instance, in scenario 1, A crushes B financially, in Scenario 2 the difference isn't nearly as great), which is important, because it's possible student B beats student A by enough in scenario 4 to make up for the fact that student B only "wins" 48% of the time. Regardless, if one really wanted to look at this from an expected value point of view, it gets a little murky and certainly isn't a slam dunk for choosing the t14.

Your analysis gives equal weight to the 32% of cases where student A "wins" by not getting big law as the 48% of cases where student B "wins" by getting big law. Which is obviously non-sensical. You'd much rather "win" in the latter way than the former way. You have to weigh the probability of each outcome with the value of each outcome.

Also it presumes that these probabilities are independent of each other, they aren't. They are based on the same person so they will be heavily dependent. Scenario 1 is a lot less likely than 8% because you'd roughly do equally well at both schools. There are probably a few freak scenarios where that could happen, but generally, if you could big law at A, you could have at B.

And to give hypothetical guesses to the values Rayiner is talking about:

Scenario 2) A beats B by about 200K
Scenario 3) A beats B by about 200K
Scenario 4) B beats A by a lot. 5 years of salary in big law is about a million dollars. 5 years in shit law is probably a quarter million. And the exit options are a lot better.

Also, I'd guess the real chances are more like 25% at the T30s, and 75% at the T14 after you take out PI people.

[2014]

Somehow weight has to be given to the fact that most BigLawl people fizzle out after what 3 years? And almost all don't make it past 7. For those who find themselves out of a job two years in having less debt from the WUSTLs of the world surely is more appealing than having paid sticker at Michigan, paid it down for two years and finding yourself now "only" 150k in debt instead of 180 or w/e the numbers are. Yeah you had 2 or 3 years of experience but at that point you still might find yourself unemployed with more debt than the Mid or Shitlaw WUSTL grad and so despite being part of that 48%, is the T14 grad at that point actually winning?

Overall setting it up as a statistical decision is basically impossible, too many factors.

[Birdnals]

I am glad I am not the only one who considered this an option. I got accepted to NU (sticker), but ended up deciding on Wustl with 120k scholarship instead (still keeping my fingers crossed for Webster society though!)

To me it came down to:
1. From St. Louis, and miss my hometown after working away from it
2. Cost/quality of living in St. Louis vs. Chicago (where I live now)
3. Have a mid-law back up either way (uncle is named partner)
4. Would like to work biglaw, but don’t want to be chained to it if I find myself burnt out with it after a year or 2.

http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/law-s ... versation/

That article helped me breath a little easier that my decision wasn’t completely retarded, however I understand how many on this site may think it is.

[Samara]

I doubt WUSTL is more "MEGA-regional" than Norte Dame. It's OCI list looks just as good. Hell, it's probably not better than Illinois, Wisconsin, or Minnesota (just that people from Minn hardly go to U of I and vice versa). WashU is a rankings overperformer because the school (in all fields) whores itself to USNEWS.

FWIW, I would reserve a term like mega-regional for Vandy, Texas, UCLA/USC. Because they are probably as good as the lower T14 in their home markets, but not everywhere else.

I agree with this. WUSTL, ND, Illinois, and UMN are very much peers and have roughly the same national reach (Wisconsin seems to be a bit more limited). I use the term "quasi-national" to describe them because they are solid regionally and are able to get students back where they came from, but they generally aren't going to open up markets. They are definitely a step below Vandy, Texas, UCLA, and USC, because those are dominant in their regions and have better biglaw placement, whereas WUSTL and the other T20s are very similar in the Midwest region. They have no home market to dominate that can absorb large chunks of students. It is what really hurts us in firm placement.

Fair enough. I was (lazily perhaps) lumping WUSTL in with Vandy, etc. because that's what CanadianWolf wanted to compare and there isn't a different school that would be more of a corollary for the Midwest. I still don't think WUSTL v. BC/BU or UCLA/USC or Vandy/Texas is a useful comparison. Why would you ever take WUSTL over BU/BC if you want Boston?

[CanadianWolf]

It would only come into play if WashUStL was offering more scholarship money & , possibly, one was open to other markets.

P.S. I suspect that many apply to WashUStL hoping for a large scholarship even though targeting Los Angeles, Boston or Dallas/Houston as well as Chicago and DC. It would be interesting to see a survey of WashUStL students' first & second choice markets.

California law schools seem to demand high GPAs in addition to solid LSAT scores before offering scholarship money, whereas WashUStL prefers solid LSAT scores. WashUStL may be more generous to certain categories of students, such as URMs, then BU, BC, USC, UCLA, etc.

My point is that students apply to various law schools for various reasons & not necessarily by target market. First, one needs to be accepted, second is affordability, then prestige or even a change of scenery may come into play. The result is that folks targeting Boston, Los Angeles, Texas & elsewhere beyond St. Louis & the Midwest end up at WashUStL due to scholarship money &/or a lack of other attractive options.

[CanadianWolf]

If WashUStL wants to become a national law school in terms of placement & prominence, it needs to attract students targeting diverse markets beyond the Midwest. Does anyone believe that the majority of Michigan law students are targeting Detroit & Chicago ? Same for Duke--which doesn't even have a Detroit or Chicago nearby.

Michigan, Duke, Notre Dame & WashUStL attract students from all over the country who are targeting markets based throughout the US. None of these four law schools has a strong market in its home area. It seems reasonable to me to assume that many WashUStL law students are targeting markets on either coast & clearly outside of the Midwest.

[romothesavior]

Your scenario presupposes someone so risk-averse that they consider $50k + no debt equivalent to $160k + debt. If you are indeed that risk averse, then it's pretty close. As you get less risk averse, the T14 wins by increasingly larger margin.

I agree with just about everything you've said here. Knowing what I know now, I think it would take close to a full ride to take WUSTL over Northwestern.

I'll just say that one other nice thing about less debt (besides the risk aversion) is the ability to be more flexible with your career. 200k is a ton of debt that locks you in to biglaw. Even if you land it, and you probably will from a school like Northwestern, you have to keep it for a while. That might not be appealing to a lot of people. I know a couple of people who are actually gunning for small firms, and others who took the big firms only because of their debts.

But yes, overall I think I agree with T14 over WUSTL in most cases, even with big scholarships. I took WUSTL over Cornell with 75k at WUSTL because of my aversion to New York and my desire to wind up in St. Louis. It was a gamble, but I don't think it was irrational. WUSTL over Northwestern if you're gunning for Chicago? Now that's silly.

[rayiner]

Somehow weight has to be given to the fact that most BigLawl people fizzle out after what 3 years? And almost all don't make it past 7. For those who find themselves out of a job two years in having less debt from the WUSTLs of the world surely is more appealing than having paid sticker at Michigan, paid it down for two years and finding yourself now "only" 150k in debt instead of 180 or w/e the numbers are. Yeah you had 2 or 3 years of experience but at that point you still might find yourself unemployed with more debt than the Mid or Shitlaw WUSTL grad and so despite being part of that 48%, is the T14 grad at that point actually winning?

Overall setting it up as a statistical decision is basically impossible, too many factors.

If you flame out of big law after three years, you've still come out ahead over someone who took scholarship at T40 and ended up in small law. Even after three years in big law, you've probably made $250k more than you would have in small law. That's way more than most full tuition scholarships are worth.

As for exits, there is a possibility you'll be unemployed after big law. There is also a possibility you'll exit into a mid-size firm that hires from big law washouts. There is also the possibility you'll end up working at a cushy in-house position, the government, etc. It's not like after you leave big law you're similarly situated to someone who never got it in the first place, at least if you make it a few years.

[Birdnals]

I guess the way I look at it; I didn’t see paying HYS tuition for a non-HYS degree as worth it to me personally. I would rather pay less than in-state Missouri tuition for a Wustl degree. I get everybody’s circumstances are different, but I feel like my decision was the most prudent for my situation.

[Soaphead_Church]

Actually, Wash U (I am a student there, for full disclosure) is not quite a rankings whore. It dropped this year in the rankings specifically because it started reporting employment data more honestly. The Dean basically held a meeting to tell students about what was happening- the upshot was that honest reporting was going to be costly in the rankings. So, at least right now, I think Wash U is slightly underrated in that regard.

When you say the Dean "basically held a meeting to tell students about what was happening," what do you mean? Could you be more specific?

[bk1]

I'll just say that one other nice thing about less debt (besides the risk aversion) is the ability to be more flexible with your career. 200k is a ton of debt that locks you in to biglaw. Even if you land it, and you probably will from a school like Northwestern, you have to keep it for a while. That might not be appealing to a lot of people. I know a couple of people who are actually gunning for small firms, and others who took the big firms only because of their debts.

This is fair, but for people making this decision I would expand on the "not appealing" aspect. Small firms don't do the same kind of work that large firms do. You're often looking at different practice areas so for a lot of people this flexibility to be able to do personal injury or insurance defense isn't necessarily appealing once they realize what working at a small firm generally entails.

But yes, overall I think I agree with T14 over WUSTL in most cases, even with big scholarships. I took WUSTL over Cornell with 75k at WUSTL because of my aversion to New York and my desire to wind up in St. Louis. It was a gamble, but I don't think it was irrational. WUSTL over Northwestern if you're gunning for Chicago? Now that's silly.

This is so credited. If someone is unwilling to work in NYC I hesitate ever recommending that that person take a T14 at sticker.

[2014]

Actually, Wash U (I am a student there, for full disclosure) is not quite a rankings whore. It dropped this year in the rankings specifically because it started reporting employment data more honestly. The Dean basically held a meeting to tell students about what was happening- the upshot was that honest reporting was going to be costly in the rankings. So, at least right now, I think Wash U is slightly underrated in that regard.

When you say the Dean "basically held a meeting to tell students about what was happening," what do you mean? Could you be more specific?

Someone in another thread (probably buried in the Accepted/WL/Denied thread) said that the dean either sent an email or had a brief meeting where he basically told the students "Hey so in an effort to be transparent we abided by the more stringent ABA requirements a year before required and it is quite likely that it will in the short term negatively impact our USNWR ranking". I think everyone expects WUSTL to be back up to somewhere in the 18-20 range next year when everyone else adopts the new standards as every other category put WUSTL in that range.

[romothesavior]

It was a big town hall meeting with the administration and faculty. They talked about the rankings drop (this was before it even happened), job placement, and new initiatives.

[splitsplat]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=183509