Baylor or Texas Tech Forum

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

By the way, SMU, Baylor, and UH would all be T1's if it weren't for the fact the other law schools deans/admissions deans fucking hate them. They get pwned in the peer review score, the biggest single factor in the USNWR. 2.6, 2.4, and 2.6 respectively.

TX should have four T1's, or whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

That is interesting. Reasons or evidence why other deans hating them?

ETA- answered above.

I have no idea, but generally peer scores don't trail lawyers/judges scores by much.
In, for example, SMU's case:
lawyers/judges 3.5
peer review score 2.6

.9?

For reference:
UT-Austin
lawyers/judges 4.3
peer review score 4.1


.2 is about what you see across the board, and of course some schools have more. I saw a bunch of .4 spreads, like UF and Utah. CU has a .3 spread

[nouseforaname123]

Just for fun, Ill play too.

YSH > UT > T14 >> UHLC/SMU > Baylor >>>> Tech > STCL /St Mary's > Wesleyan/TSU

insightfulness/value/humor of posts regarding Texas:

nouseforaname, kalvano, b.gump (dare i say)>>>>>>>>1Ls>>>>>>nova>>other 0Ls

Agreed. Nova just wants us to know how much better her school is.

How are my assumptions based on generic job categories? I broke down the information by firm size and clerkships.

Firm size is just a flawed proxy for quality of job. To make a true comparison we need Baylor's salary data (I applaud Tech for releasing such detailed salary data).

For example, Thompson Coe in Dallas has 130+ attorneys and starts associates at $87k. Zelle Hoffman has less than 100 attorneys nationwide and starts attorneys at $125k. There are some smaller firms paying more, some larger firms paying less.

I'm not saying your comparison is invalid, just slightly flawed.

And who really cares what the student body looks like? Arent employment statistics all that matter? If not, it damn well should be. Because when someone says "peer school," I sure dont initially think LSAT and GPA median. I think about the jobs the graduates get.

This stuff is all circular. A school attracts more qualified students, its rank increases, and more employers want to hire from that school. Even more qualified students now want to attend that school....

We both know we are stubborn.

That's what makes this so much fun.

But it seems like you are refusing to really look at the employment data and are entrenched in the thought that since Baylor has a higher rank and has higher LSAT and GPA medians that it fits better with UT/UH/SMU. I am just disagreeing based on the employment data and saying that Tech should be considered with Baylor, regardless of its higher rank and incoming class numbers.

Nah. The rank isn't really relevant to me. I do think the reputation score matters, somewhat. I think across all objective measurements, with the exception of cost, Baylor separates itself from Tech. Sure, in some particular categories the advantage may be slight, but when you can't point to one objective measurement beyond cost that Tech beats Baylor at, I don't see the two schools as peer schools.

To be clear, I am not saying Tech is bad choice. I certainly believe in keeping debt low. A Tech grad played a key role in my decision to turn down big firms. I don't want you to think I hate Tech or don't respect it. I just don't see it at quite the same level as SMU/UH/Baylor.

[Jeremyl]

Baylor is hell

/thread

[b.gump81]

This stuff is all circular. A school attracts more qualified students, its rank increases, and more employers want to hire from that school. Even more qualified students now want to attend that school....

This is kind of the crux of what I am saying. The rank is higher; it attracts more qualified students. But the employers aren't completing the circle. The employment numbers (granted they may not be perfect, but they are the best we have) show that Baylor is not meeting the level its rank and student numbers would indicate. I guess I should have worded my question as "who cares what the student body looks like if the employers don't?" Rank and LSAT and gpa medians will only get you so far. Employment data is the most important by far, and that is the category where baylor and tech are similar

Nah. The rank isn't really relevant to me. I do think the reputation score matters, somewhat. I think across all objective measurements, with the exception of cost, Baylor separates itself from Tech. Sure, in some particular categories the advantage may be slight, but when you can't point to one objective measurement beyond cost that Tech beats Baylor at, I don't see the two schools as peer schools.

To be clear, I am not saying Tech is bad choice. I certainly believe in keeping debt low. A Tech grad played a key role in my decision to turn down big firms. I don't want you to think I hate Tech or don't respect it. I just don't see it at quite the same level as SMU/UH/Baylor.

1 or 2 students is not separating itself. And when you add the huge factor of debt, that 1 or 2 student difference becomes even more insignificant.

I'm not trying to lump uh/smu/Baylor/tech all together. I'm just trying to say uh/smu>>tech/Baylor, regarding employment. And that debt, location, atmosphere, desired employment, etc. are considerations that prospective students use when deciding to jump up or down between the two tiers.

[texas man]

To make a true comparison we need Baylor's salary data (I applaud Tech for releasing such detailed salary data).

Try this link: Baylor 2010 Employment Statistics

[b.gump81]

To make a true comparison we need Baylor's salary data (I applaud Tech for releasing such detailed salary data).

Try this link: Baylor 2010 Employment Statistics

I just found this site. It only has 2011 2010 data and isn't as detailed as what has already been posted, but it is pretty useful for comparing schools quickly.

http://placementsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/

As a side note, I was shocked at how bad TxWes actually was. I also thought uh's numbers would have been better.

ETA: even though it says it is 2011 report, it is really the data from 2010. It says 2011 because it is released in 2011.

[nouseforaname123]

To make a true comparison we need Baylor's salary data (I applaud Tech for releasing such detailed salary data).

Try this link: Baylor 2010 Employment Statistics

I just found this site. It only has 2011 data and isn't as detailed as what has already been posted, but it is pretty useful for comparing schools quickly.

http://placementsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/

As a side note, I was shocked at how bad TxWes actually was. I also thought uh's numbers would have been better.

Thanks for the posting the link:

Percentage of graduating class employed at 50+ attorney firms:

UT:
29.8%

SMU:
20.8%

UH:
16.5%

BU:
10.4%

TTU:
5.2%

On the theory that firms with 26+ attorneys should still be decent jobs with benefits and a reasonable standard of living, percentage of class at 26+ attorney firms:

UT:
31.6%

SMU:
27%

UH:
21.1%

BU:
19.1%

TTU:
8.5%

UT cleans up in government, but the report has three different categories: Govt, Federal, and State & Local. I didn't see an explanation of the categories. It would also be nice to know what short term employment means.

Percentage of the class in short term employment:

UT:
11.6%

SMU:
7.7%

UH:
2.1%

BU:
10.4%

TTU:
15.7%

[kalvano]

I also like that the report breaks down amount of student employed by the school.

[legalese_retard]

By the way, SMU, Baylor, and UH would all be T1's if it weren't for the fact the other law schools deans/admissions deans fucking hate them. They get pwned in the peer review score, the biggest single factor in the USNWR. 2.6, 2.4, and 2.6 respectively.

TX should have four T1's, or whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

That is interesting. Reasons or evidence why other deans hating them?

ETA- answered above.

I have no idea, but generally peer scores don't trail lawyers/judges scores by much.
In, for example, SMU's case:
lawyers/judges 3.5
peer review score 2.6

.9?

For reference:
UT-Austin
lawyers/judges 4.3
peer review score 4.1


.2 is about what you see across the board, and of course some schools have more. I saw a bunch of .4 spreads, like UF and Utah. CU has a .3 spread

Most of the deans and professors in these ratings are from the east coast and california. Southern schools typically score lower rep wise because of this. The only "southern" schools in the T14 are UVA and Duke. Since the vast majority of SMU/UH/Baylor students stay within the state of Texas, the deans/professors are going to be unfamiliar with the quality of these schools.

[b.gump81]

Percentage of graduating class employed at 50+ attorney firms:

UT:
29.8%

SMU:
20.8%

UH:
16.5%

BU:
10.4%

TTU:
5.2%

You continue to only look at one year at a time (and only the years that help your argument the most). It is also a little misleading to only use percentages and not include the actual number of students. Baylor’s percentages are going to be higher because their class size is so much smaller than Tech’s. Although they only have a couple more students in these categories, the percentage difference makes it seem like it is a lot more, when it really isn’t that big of a difference.

For 51-500+ in 2011 2010, Baylor had 17 students while Tech had 11 (other years the difference was only 1 or 2 students). This is a difference of six students, meaning there isn’t much of a difference or amount in employers that hire at these two schools. And if you take an average of the last four years, Baylor only has 4 3 more students per year in firms 51-500+!!!

Percentage of the class in short term employment:

UT:
11.6%

SMU:
7.7%

UH:
2.1%

BU:
10.4%

TTU:
15.7%

Again, this is a little misleading. You asked for a category that Tech beats out Baylor, and here it is:

For 2011 2010, Baylor had 143 employed out of 162 (88.27%). Tech had 196 out of 210 (93.33%). Then, looking at the short term and long term numbers, Baylor had 120 in Long-Term out of the 143 employed (which is 74% of the entire class). Tech had 162 in Long-Term out of the 196 employed (77.14% of the entire class). Unfortunately, Baylor does not break down full-time and part-time in their own data, like Tech does, so I can’t analyze the other years, but I assume it would be about the same.

I’d much rather have a better shot at full-time legal employment than the shot at being one of the extra 4 3 students that go into firms 51-500+, especially when it will cost me twice as much to get those 4 spots and when the atmosphere will make me want to slit my wrists.

ETA: I originally thought the ABA data was for 2011, but it is actually for 2010

[nouseforaname123]

You continue to only look at one year at a time (and only the years that help your argument the most).

I'm looking at the data available. The nice thing about this data is that it is published through a clearing house, so the data should mean the same thing, school-to-school.

It is also a little misleading to only use percentages and not include the actual number of students. Baylor’s percentages are going to be higher because their class size is so much smaller than Tech’s. Although they only have a couple more students in these categories, the percentage difference makes it seem like it is a lot more, when it really isn’t that big of a difference.

Using percentages is the only way to standardize the data for class size. All other variables being equal, would you prefer a 10% chance at a desired outcome or a 5% chance at a desired outcome.

Assuming that job prospects roughly correlate to class rank, when Baylor places 10% of their class in certain positions, and TTU places 5%, even though in absolute terms they placed a similar number of students in those positions, it becomes clear that employers are favoring Baylor. In other words, employers are reaching deeper into the class at Baylor. Do you deny this?

ETA: What do you make of what happens to the employment rates once you include 26+ attorney firms?

BU:
19.1%

TTU:
8.5%

For 51-500+ in 2011, Baylor had 17 students while Tech had 11 (other years the difference was only 1 or 2 students). This is a difference of six students, meaning there isn’t much of a difference or amount in employers that hire at these two schools. And if you take an average of the last four years, Baylor only has 4 more students per year in firms 51-500+!!!

You're still failing to account for class size. Percentages are the only way to account for class size. For the 2012 NLJ Go-To-Law-Schools list, Georgetown placed 198 grads in NLJ250 firms while Penn placed 156. Yet Georgetown's placement is less impressive because it graduates 600 JD's/year. Penn, on the other hand, graduated just 250 JD's. Penn was #1 on the list and GULC #14. Your methodology of looking at raw data would seem to suggest that Georgetown has better placement than Penn.

Ignoring all other variables, which position would you prefer to be in?

160 students chasing ~17 jobs or 210 students chasing ~11 jobs?

Percentage of the class in short term employment:

UT:
11.6%

SMU:
7.7%

UH:
2.1%

BU:
10.4%

TTU:
15.7%

Again, this is a little misleading. You asked for a category that Tech beats out Baylor, and here it is:

For 2011, Baylor had 143 employed out of 162 (88.27%). Tech had 196 out of 210 (93.33%). Then, looking at the short term and long term numbers, Baylor had 120 in Long-Term out of the 143 employed (which is 74% of the entire class). Tech had 162 in Long-Term out of the 196 employed (77.14% of the entire class). Unfortunately, Baylor does not break down full-time and part-time in their own data, like Tech does, so I can’t analyze the other years, but I assume it would be about the same.

1. Re: employed at graduation, I do not use that metric because we don't know the quality of the jobs. I'm fine using firm size as a rough proxy for job quality, but once you get to firm sizes below 26 attorneys, I think you start running into at least some shitlaw.

2. Re: Long-Term, Short-Term employment, go back and look at the data. Add up the Long-Term and Short-Term categories and the sum does not equal the number of employed grads, at either school. You aren't comparing apples to oranges using Tech vs. Baylor's Long-Term employment. Baylor is only reporting Long-Term/Short-Term status for 134 out its 143 graduates. The unknown status of the 9 grads could really swing the data hard, in either direction. Tech is reporting Long-Term/Short-Term status for 195 out its 196 employed graduates. That's why I only looked at students known to be reporting Short-Term employment, whatever that may mean. ETA: Yes, the unknowns at Baylor could skew the Short-Term data as well.

[kiwi4president]

Those percentages aren't taking into account the short term employment or temp jobs that can be described as less than optimal.

[nouseforaname123]

Those percentages aren't taking into account the short term employment or temp jobs that can be described as less than optimal.

Which percentages and what assumptions are you making for temp jobs that can be described as less than optimal?

[shifty_eyed]

To be honest, the only thing that this thread has confirmed is that UH and SMU are vastly better options than Baylor or Tech. I hate to be drinking the TLS koolaid on this one, but RETAKE while you still can!!!

[kiwi4president]

I was just trying to point out that the percentages posted above are including short term employment as gainful employment. When one subtracts short term employment from overall employment those percentages become, in some cases, much smaller. Since short term employment is above 10% for baylor and texas tech it should be taken very seriously in deciding between the two schools.

[b.gump81]

Using percentages is the only way to standardize the data for class size. All other variables being equal, would you prefer a 10% chance at a desired outcome or a 5% chance at a desired outcome.

Assuming that job prospects roughly correlate to class rank, when Baylor places 10% of their class in certain positions, and TTU places 5%, even though in absolute terms they placed a similar number of students in those positions, it becomes clear that employers are favoring Baylor. In other words, employers are reaching deeper into the class at Baylor. Do you deny this?

First of all, I would like to point out that you are saying a 5% difference means the two schools are not peer schools. This is the same amount of difference between SMU and UH and also the same as between UH and Baylor. Would you say that the 5% difference between those schools is different than the 5% between Baylor and Tech? So, even with all things equal, I think this isn’t enough of a difference, in my opinion, to say they aren’t peer schools.

Furthermore, it isn’t just a matter of preferring a 10% chance over a 5%. First of all, things aren’t equal, and that inequality may have a direct impact on this percentage. A tech student will have half the debt of a Baylor student, which likely affects some of the numbers. A student with less debt may be more inclined to not pursue Biglaw/money and pursue the “nobler” causes and jobs they came to law school for. I know this applies to me. I am right outside top 10%, and I have decided I want nothing to do with Biglaw. And the fact that I will have around 50K in debt allows me to do this. If I had gone to Baylor, I would be close to 150K in debt, and I would be forced to try and get that Biglaw job. Therefore, I think at least 1 or 2 more students at Tech than Baylor self-select not to go to Biglaw, making that 5% actually a little more misleading. So I guess what I am trying to say is that ultimately the difference in how deep employers will go in the class likely isn’t even a full 5%.

Also, as you already mentioned, Baylor’s incoming class LSAT and GPA medians are higher, meaning that extra 5% isn’t much of an “extra” chance. It is arguably harder to be in top 10% at Baylor than it is to be top 5% at Tech.

You're still failing to account for class size. Percentages are the only way to account for class size. For the 2012 NLJ Go-To-Law-Schools list, Georgetown placed 198 grads in NLJ250 firms while Penn placed 156. Yet Georgetown's placement is less impressive because it graduates 600 JD's/year. Penn, on the other hand, graduated just 250 JD's. Penn was #1 on the list and GULC #14. Your methodology of looking at raw data would seem to suggest that Georgetown has better placement than Penn.

Ignoring all other variables, which position would you prefer to be in?

160 students chasing ~17 jobs or 210 students chasing ~11 jobs?

This data actually kind of gives me a good way to illustrate my point above. Your Georgetown/Penn example has a difference of 350 students between the size of the graduating classes. The percentages in Biglaw for the two are also a 2:1 ratio, just like Baylor/tech. However, the fact that there are 350 more students at Georgetown than Penn, while there are only ~40 more at tech than Baylor, means the rare occasion of students self-selecting not to go into Biglaw will have less of an impact on the difference of Georgetown/Penn than Baylor/Tech. While a couple Tech students self-selecting not to go Biglaw due to debt will make a bigger impact on the percentage difference, a couple Georgetown students (or hell, even 20 students) wouldn’t make as big of a difference just because there are so many of them. Furthermore, Penn is incredibly expensive (like all T14s and Baylor), so there will be more “selling out” on the reasons they came to law school (PI, government, etc) for biglaw.

2. Re: Long-Term, Short-Term employment, go back and look at the data. Add up the Long-Term and Short-Term categories and the sum does not equal the number of employed grads, at either school. You aren't comparing apples to oranges using Tech vs. Baylor's Long-Term employment. Baylor is only reporting Long-Term/Short-Term status for 134 out its 143 graduates. The unknown status of the 9 grads could really swing the data hard, in either direction. Tech is reporting Long-Term/Short-Term status for 195 out its 196 employed graduates. That's why I only looked at students known to be reporting Short-Term employment, whatever that may mean. ETA: Yes, the unknowns at Baylor could skew the Short-Term data as well.

do you really think those 9 students that Baylor didn’t report have awesome full-time legal jobs? I didn’t think so.

I was just trying to point out that the percentages posted above are including short term employment as gainful employment. When one subtracts short term employment from overall employment those percentages become, in some cases, much smaller. Since short term employment is above 10% for baylor and texas tech it should be taken very seriously in deciding between the two schools.

all our numbers do account for this. There aren't any short-term positions for Baylor or Tech in firms 50+.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

B Gump.

I agree with you that STCL is not a peer with Tech. This new argument is way forced though. From a purely financial standpoint, no one is going to choose Tech over Baylor assuming equal COA.

Every single statistical indicator shows Baylor>>>Tech. I'd rather go to Tech, and I'd certainly rather go to Tech if Baylor was going to cost me another 40/50k. But Baylor grads, on the average, are higher up on the totem poll.

[b.gump81]

B Gump.

I agree with you that STCL is not a peer with Tech. This new argument is way forced though. From a purely financial standpoint, no one is going to choose Tech over Baylor assuming equal COA.

Every single statistical indicator shows Baylor>>>Tech. I'd rather go to Tech, and I'd certainly rather go to Tech if Baylor was going to cost me another 40/50k. But Baylor grads, on the average, are higher up on the totem poll.

I just showed that every statistical indicator doesnt show Baylor>>>Tech. Tech has a higher percentage in full-time legal jobs than Baylor. I've also showed that the ones that do show Baylor>Tech are not actually that big a difference.

If 1 or 2 students a year or a 5% chance is enough for you to say Baylor is not a peer school, then so be it. But just saying they have higher numbers, without taking into account how marginal the difference really is, and that they are therefore not peer schools isn't the same thing. If Yale has better numbers than stanford in nearly every category, even though they are marginal, would you really say they aren't peer schools? If SMU had marginally better numbers than UH in about every category, would you say they aren't peer schools?

At the very least, I think you have to agree the data shows they are more of a peer school to Tech than their USNWR rank would indicate.

Also, your "financial standpoint" isn't a great comparison for schools because it depends on how many students actually report their income data. We've already heard from a credible source that a Tech student making $160,000 didn't report. You have to look at more than just average income.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

At the very least, I think you have to agree the data shows they are more of a peer school to Tech than their USNWR rank would indicate.

I'll agree here.

[nouseforaname123]

First of all, I would like to point out that you are saying a 5% difference means the two schools are not peer schools. This is the same amount of difference between SMU and UH and also the same as between UH and Baylor. Would you say that the 5% difference between those schools is different than the 5% between Baylor and Tech? So, even with all things equal, I think this isn’t enough of a difference, in my opinion, to say they aren’t peer schools.

1. You're ignoring that when you include 26+ attorney law firms, Baylor tightens up with SMU/UH, and Baylor creates some separation with Tech.

2. What the data says to me is that the same relative class standing at Baylor/UH/SMU should get you roughly equal employment outcomes; we can't say the same for Tech. Just roughly eyeballing it, magna/coif/LR @ Baylor/SMU/UH = biglaw. We can't say the same for Tech. At Baylor/SMU/UH ~Top 10-30% = 26+ attorney firm. At Tech, Top 10%/magna/coif/LR = 26+ attorney firm. Add in the fact that Baylor's LSAT/GPA medians are basically the same as SMU/UH. The average student at Baylor also gets in to SMU/UH. The overwhelming majority of SMU/UH/Baylor students also were or would have been admitted to Tech. Using your number from earlier, perhaps a third of Tech students also got into SMU/UH/Baylor? I just don't see Baylor and Tech on the same level.


As I've said repeatedly, I'm not trashing Tech here. I do believe, however, that there is separation between Baylor and Tech.

Furthermore, it isn’t just a matter of preferring a 10% chance over a 5%. First of all, things aren’t equal, and that inequality may have a direct impact on this percentage. A tech student will have half the debt of a Baylor student, which likely affects some of the numbers. A student with less debt may be more inclined to not pursue Biglaw/money and pursue the “nobler” causes and jobs they came to law school for. I am right outside top 10%, and I have decided I want nothing to do with Biglaw.

You're confusing cost of attendance with debt. You don't think there are a handful of students at Baylor who have low debt, qualify for biglaw, but have no interest in it? Say there are a handful of students like you at Tech (and not to be an ass, but I don't think outside of Top 10% at Tech will get you biglaw), you don't think there are a handful of students like that Baylor?

While a couple Tech students self-selecting not to go Biglaw due to debt will make a bigger impact on the percentage difference, a couple Georgetown students (or hell, even 20 students)wouldn’t make as big of a difference just because there are so many of them.

Seriously? This is exactly why percentages are so important in making these comparisons. You have to be trolling me now. A couple = 2. 2/210 = < 1%. 20/637 = 3.1%. 20 Georgetown students self-selecting out of biglaw will have a much bigger impact on Georgetown's placement RATE than "a couple of Tech students self-selecting" out of biglaw. This is why we use percentages. Beyond that, you're back to your assumption that 1 or 2 people at Tech are self-selecting out of biglaw while none are at Baylor. I don't buy it.

[SunshineMagic]

--LinkRemoved--

[Grond]

From a conversation I had with someone involved in the recruiting process at a larger Dallas-based firm:

Top 10 school with ties (not that concerned with grades) > UT top 25% >> SMU/UH/BU top 10% >> Tech top 10% and LR >>>>STCL top of class and EB. Maaaaaaaaybe a top of class and EB from Saint Mary's. TWU and TSU = no.

I've never met a non-Tech grad that thought that Tech was as good as BU. (To be fair, I know way more BU grads.) Still, I wouldn't advise anyopne to go to BU without a fat scholly.

Edit: Doesn't Lubbock suck just as much as Waco?

[Titleist]

From a conversation I had with someone involved in the recruiting process at a larger Dallas-based firm:

Top 10 school with ties (not that concerned with grades) > UT top 25% >> SMU/UH/BU top 10% >> Tech top 10% and LR >>>>STCL top of class and EB. Maaaaaaaaybe a top of class and EB from Saint Mary's. TWU and TSU = no.

I've never met a non-Tech grad that thought that Tech was as good as BU. (To be fair, I know way more BU grads.) Still, I wouldn't advise anyopne to go to BU without a fat scholly.

Edit: Doesn't Lubbock suck just as much as Waco?

FWIW- law school cities in Texas.

Austin > San Antonio/Dallas/Houston> Ft. Worth >>>>>Waco>>>>>>>>>>Baylor.

[b.gump81]

1. You're ignoring that when you include 26+ attorney law firms, Baylor tightens up with SMU/UH, and Baylor creates some separation with Tech.

It still isn't enough of a difference to change anything I have been saying all along. It isn't enought to say that it is UH/SMU/Baylor>>Tech instead of UH/SMU>>Baylor/Tech

2. What the data says to me is that the same relative class standing at Baylor/UH/SMU should get you roughly equal employment outcomes; we can't say the same for Tech. Just roughly eyeballing it, magna/coif/LR @ Baylor/SMU/UH = biglaw.

Where do you get this? If only 10% of Baylor gets biglaw, they will likely have one of those credentials in addition to top 10-15%, just like at Tech. if Tech has about 5-6% get Biglaw, then they will have one of those credentials in addition to top 10-15%. The difference isn't that big, and we have been going back and forth ovr this too long. SMU and UH have higher class ranks percentage, by another 5 to 10%, which is why I have been arguing UH/SMU>>Baylor/Tech.

At Baylor/SMU/UH ~Top 10-30% = 26+ attorney firm. At Tech, Top 10%/magna/coif/LR = 26+ attorney firm.

Again youre minimizing the tech stats and inflating the baylor stats. when did 15-19% become closer to 30% than 10%? SMU and UH have closer to 30% in firms with 26+. Eyeballing, I would think Baylor has close to 17% average over the last three years. Tech is around 9-10%. Is it really that big a stretch to you that I am saying 17 is closer to 10 than it is to 30?

Add in the fact that Baylor's LSAT/GPA medians are basically the same as SMU/UH. The average student at Baylor also gets in to SMU/UH. The overwhelming majority of SMU/UH/Baylor students also were or would have been admitted to Tech. Using your number from earlier, perhaps a third of Tech students also got into SMU/UH/Baylor? I just don't see Baylor and Tech on the same level.

I disagree with most of this. I don't think the average Baylor student got into SMU/UH. I think it is higher than 30%, but I don't think it is 50%. You seem to forget that Baylor's fall numbers are a lot higher for Fall quarter than its other quarters. These students (fall) most likely got into SMU and UH. But the other two quarters didn't.

Furthermore, it isn’t just a matter of preferring a 10% chance over a 5%. First of all, things aren’t equal, and that inequality may have a direct impact on this percentage. A tech student will have half the debt of a Baylor student, which likely affects some of the numbers. A student with less debt may be more inclined to not pursue Biglaw/money and pursue the “nobler” causes and jobs they came to law school for. I am right outside top 10%, and I have decided I want nothing to do with Biglaw.

You're confusing cost of attendance with debt. You don't think there are a handful of students at Baylor who have low debt, qualify for biglaw, but have no interest in it? Say there are a handful of students like you at Tech (and not to be an ass, but I don't think outside of Top 10% at Tech will get you biglaw), you don't think there are a handful of students like that Baylor?

I said there would be 1 or 2 MORE at Tech than Baylor. I never doubted that Baylor has some students that dont sell out. But I think the fact that Tech has lower debt/student in general, it is more likely that students will self-select out of biglaw.

And why would you think outside top 10% at Tech wouldnt have a shot at Biglaw, after all the data I have painstakingly posted? For all you know, I could be top 12%, on LR, had a 1L SA, and am brothers with the hiring partner. Even with all things equal, most firms at Tech OCI require only top 15-20%. Just because 6-7% of class ends up in Biglaw doesnt mean that only TOP 10% had a shot.

Seriously? This is exactly why percentages are so important in making these comparisons. You have to be trolling me now. A couple = 2. 2/210 = < 1% 20/637 = 3.1%. 20 Georgetown students self-selecting out of biglaw will have a much bigger impact on Georgetown's placement RATE than "a couple of Tech students self-selecting" out of biglaw. This is why we use percentages. Beyond that, you're back to your assumption that 1 or 2 people at Tech are self-selecting out of biglaw while none are at Baylor. I don't buy it.

Georgetown ~30% in biglaw (198/600). Penn had ~60% (156/250). A 3% difference doesnt really mean as much to me when the gap is that large (30%). But when the gap is only 5%, like it is with baylor and Tech, a 1% difference means a heck of a lot more. Dont troll the troll.

Ok, I really do enjoy this stuff, because I feel like it gives me a chance to try and correct some misconceptions about Tech, but I have to get to studying. I find that people largely buy into the USNWR and automatically write it off as a typical TTT. Even if we don't agree on whether Baylor and Tech are peer schools, you at least have to agree Tech is not a typical TTT and has numbers higher than its rank would indicate and that Baylor has worse employment numbers than its rank would indicate. USNWR is a horrible, horrible thing.

[b.gump81]

From a conversation I had with someone involved in the recruiting process at a larger Dallas-based firm:

Top 10 school with ties (not that concerned with grades) > UT top 25% >> SMU/UH/BU top 10% >> Tech top 10% and LR >>>>STCL top of class and EB. Maaaaaaaaybe a top of class and EB from Saint Mary's. TWU and TSU = no.

I've never met a non-Tech grad that thought that Tech was as good as BU. (To be fair, I know way more BU grads.) Still, I wouldn't advise anyopne to go to BU without a fat scholly.

Edit: Doesn't Lubbock suck just as much as Waco?

Id largely agree with this, except that I think more Baylor students will also have to have LR than SMU and UH and that makes it more comparable to Tech than those schools. I'd also say most people you talk to dont think Tech is as good as Baylor because they didn't look at the data that closely. People rely on what they have heard, what they see in USNWR, and what they are told on TLS.