dingbat wrote:I do respect your opinion and while I sometimes disagree, I think you're one of the better informed and more intelligent posters here.romothesavior wrote:Okay, didn't realize we were talking about different years. I'm skeptical of LST at times. I mean, break down their Fordham c/o 2009 data... the exact same %age of people work in firms under <145k, 145-160k, 160k, and >160k? Am I reading that right? That is sketch as hell. But I mean, the data is apparently the best we can do for salary info, so I suppose I will defer to it.Tiago Splitter wrote:The LST chart for c/o 2009 does show about 50% making 145K or more. C/O 2008 is more than 55% making 150K+.
And yes dingbat, I do agree that c/o 2010 data is not indicative of the current state of hiring. But it isn't anywhere near pre-ITE either. Probably closer to the former than the latter.
I am sometimes a little too fast to spout out answers, I know the NY market better than most 0Ls. My firm does business with numerous biglaw firms, whether directly or through the IBs we work closely with. (not to mention my personal contacts and the fact that I research the shit out of things)
sounds like a lot of sketch fordham employment data to me; they were after all tangentially implicated in the employment reporting scandals...though it does seem like fordham gives me better biglaw odds than dozo.
sounds like my chances at biglaw or gov in dc are pretty poor at all these schools. is dc that much tougher than ny?