Chances at potential schools Forum

[Tls2016]

Do people define chances at biglaw by how deep a firm will go into a class? I thought that was usually firm specific. I don't know of any general rule that all of biglaw follows.

Edit: just to be clear, people do strike out with good grades and other people with lower grades can get jobs. There isn't a reasonable bright line that says "Your GPA guarantees you biglaw. And everyone else is screwed."
People bid poorly, interview terribly and other anomalies happen. That's why people say to mass mail before OCI and really hustle to get a job. But plenty of people don't listen or maybe are just over confident.

[Tls2016]

Curve changed, entering class size has dropped from 376 for Class of 2013 to 267 for Class of 2018. Not saying Michigan is the place to go for biglaw but what we really want to know is whether a firm will reach deeper into a class as Mich vs other schools. The LST data is masked by so much self selection and year to year variation that its ridiculous to make a judgment based on it. Cornell, for example, has gone from 38% BL 100+ lawyers in the c/o 2011 to 64% in the c/o 2014. Did firms just realize that they are a powerhouse above all but Columbia or Penn. Furthermore if we pretend that this data is good enough to make decisions on, someone who wanted biglaw in the c/o 2012 would have been right to choose Duke over Cornell based on it yet by the time they graduate, that decision looks ridiculous.

I think you are over simplifying your analysis. The class of 2011 graduated into the worst market since 1994.
http://www.nalp.org/2011selectedfindingsrelease

Fair enough. I was using that as an illustration but my point still stands that the tremendous variation in year to year let alone 3 year(which is the timeframe decisions are most likely going to be made on) LST statistics combined with the clear indications of self selection bias make it a problematic indicator of biglaw prospects if we define that as how deep a given firm is willing to go into a class.

Also not sure how big of a legal market Detroit ever had but again I don't know enough to dispute that. As for your last point, LST data is better than nothing, doesn't mean its a good idea to base decisions on it. It's has significant and fundamental flaws. The number were actually looking for is the people who want biglaw and can't get it because they are too low in their class at Mich but would be able to get it from a similar position at non t6 t14s. LST doesn't give us nearly enough info for that.

LST doesn't have access to that info probably because of privacy reasons. Career services should have it, if they are any good.
Again, assuming class rank = big law is a mistake.

[jnwa]

Curve changed, entering class size has dropped from 376 for Class of 2013 to 267 for Class of 2018. Not saying Michigan is the place to go for biglaw but what we really want to know is whether a firm will reach deeper into a class as Mich vs other schools. The LST data is masked by so much self selection and year to year variation that its ridiculous to make a judgment based on it. Cornell, for example, has gone from 38% BL 100+ lawyers in the c/o 2011 to 64% in the c/o 2014. Did firms just realize that they are a powerhouse above all but Columbia or Penn. Furthermore if we pretend that this data is good enough to make decisions on, someone who wanted biglaw in the c/o 2012 would have been right to choose Duke over Cornell based on it yet by the time they graduate, that decision looks ridiculous.

I think you are over simplifying your analysis. The class of 2011 graduated into the worst market since 1994.
http://www.nalp.org/2011selectedfindingsrelease

Fair enough. I was using that as an illustration but my point still stands that the tremendous variation in year to year let alone 3 year(which is the timeframe decisions are most likely going to be made on) LST statistics combined with the clear indications of self selection bias make it a problematic indicator of biglaw prospects if we define that as how deep a given firm is willing to go into a class.

Also not sure how big of a legal market Detroit ever had but again I don't know enough to dispute that. As for your last point, LST data is better than nothing, doesn't mean its a good idea to base decisions on it. It's has significant and fundamental flaws. The number were actually looking for is the people who want biglaw and can't get it because they are too low in their class at Mich but would be able to get it from a similar position at non t6 t14s. LST doesn't give us nearly enough info for that.

LST doesn't have access to that info probably because of privacy reasons. Career services should have it, if they are any good.
Again, assuming class rank = big law is a mistake.

I'm not saying LST is bad i just recognize its limitations. As far as the class rank thing, if an 0L says I want biglaw and I want to go to the school that gives me the best chance at biglaw. Id assume that a better shot at biglaw means you don't have to get as high grades to get a biglaw job. Someone who kills 1L and just wants biglaw will get it from anywhere in the t14. Obv interviewing skills and work experience affect it as well but thats on the individual not the school.

[Tls2016]

I know of no published data anywhere that correlates grades with biglaw firm placement. As I said different firms have different cut offs. I'm not sure where you will find that data.

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

[RZ5646]

Why does Michigan suck?

It "sucks" because it places a noticeably smaller percentage of its graduating classes into big law + fed clerk jobs, which is the metric used by most of TLS to measure a school's value, than nearly every other t14 school.

here's a post from another thread ranking all of them:

NVM, did it really quickly.

Big Law + Fed Clerk Numbers for T-14 (added from LST reports)

Columbia University 79%
University of Pennsylvania 78%
University of Chicago 76%
Stanford University 75%
Cornell University 74%
New York University 71%
Harvard University 71%
Duke University 70%
University of Virginia 68%
Northwestern University 65%
University of California - Berkeley 62%
Yale University 61%
University of Michigan 54%
Georgetown University 48%

Of course these numbers do blow away all non-t14s in terms of big law + fed clerk placement.

In honour of the Feb LSAT what is the flaw in this argument?

It places HYS too low because it ignores outcomes better than biglaw or fedclerk.

But you guys are right: with OP's numbers and URM status, he'll have his pick of HYS and won't need to worry about any other T14s anyway.

[jnwa]

I know of no published data anywhere that correlates grades with biglaw firm placement. As I said different firms have different cut offs. I'm not sure where you will find that data.

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

So if I was to say I want the best chance at biglaw you'd say go to Cornell over Harvard? Because Cornell places better than them in Biglaw?

[lymenheimer]

I know of no published data anywhere that correlates grades with biglaw firm placement. As I said different firms have different cut offs. I'm not sure where you will find that data.

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

So if I was to say I want the best chance at biglaw you'd say go to Cornell over Harvard? Because Cornell places better than them in Biglaw?

Also because if your options are between Cornell and Harvard, you probably have a decent scholarship to Cornell.

[jnwa]

I know of no published data anywhere that correlates grades with biglaw firm placement. As I said different firms have different cut offs. I'm not sure where you will find that data.

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

So if I was to say I want the best chance at biglaw you'd say go to Cornell over Harvard? Because Cornell places better than them in Biglaw?

Also because if your options are between Cornell and Harvard, you probably have a decent scholarship to Cornell.

Fair but assuming need based aid to Harvard equalled the Cornell scholarship. I want biglaw my chances of getting it are better out of Cornell than Harvard based on the LST numbers . I don't buy that.

[deant286]

I know of no published data anywhere that correlates grades with biglaw firm placement. As I said different firms have different cut offs. I'm not sure where you will find that data.

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

So if I was to say I want the best chance at biglaw you'd say go to Cornell over Harvard? Because Cornell places better than them in Biglaw?

Also because if your options are between Cornell and Harvard, you probably have a decent scholarship to Cornell.

Fair but assuming need based aid to Harvard equalled the Cornell scholarship. I want biglaw my chances of getting it are better out of Cornell than Harvard based on the LST numbers . I don't buy that.

Need based aid won't get near a big scholarship from Cornell, which would likely be in play for someone able to get into Harvard.

HYS have lower big law numbers bc students there self select out in favor of those unique and generally unattainable jobs.

Harvard would obviously be more of a guarantee for big law, but Cornell would still give you a very good shot with the added bonus of keeping you out of much debt.

[ssppiikkeerr]

Sorry to cut in on the discussion, but I have a non argument related question.

Do y'all think I should write a addendum for my W's and lower GPA in my CC?
I ask because I don't feel the reason why I got a few Ws and a lower GPA are valid. I mean I practically just screwed around within my first year trying to figure out what I wanted to do and what I thought was interesting. This led me to drop a few math courses I carried no interest in, and get a few lower grades in some science courses. I was younger, stupid, and just didn't understand the value of an education. Since I left the CC and focused on my education I have gotten a 4.0 during my two years at UT. I just felt like the jump in GPA between CC and UT would speak for itself.

[Tls2016]

I know of no published data anywhere that correlates grades with biglaw firm placement. As I said different firms have different cut offs. I'm not sure where you will find that data.

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

So if I was to say I want the best chance at biglaw you'd say go to Cornell over Harvard? Because Cornell places better than them in Biglaw?

Are you incapable of any deeper analysis than looking at 2 numbers and seeing which is bigger? You seem upset that Cornell places well in bigaw or something, or maybe shocked that Cornell does better than Harvard?

Cornell grads are getting biglaw. If that is what you want, go for it. It's like you think Cornell is some low grade school that can't possibly be in Harvards league. Wake up to reality. Biglaw in NYC isn't that hard to get and most people feel it's a pretty terrible job, so I'm not sure why you are shocked Cornell does well. ( edit: you will find grads from lots of schools in biglaw and they are all doing similar work for similar pay. Your summer class might even have kids from Hofstra, St. John's or Fordham!)

You keep demanding info that isn't available. If you want to try to get GPA ranges for biglaw, which I told you twice are firm specific and are held at schools by career services. You can try prying that info out. You probably won't succeed. Firms and schools keep that locked down as far as I know.
You are way too immersed in rankings so do what you want and good luck.

[Tls2016]

Sorry to cut in on the discussion, but I have a non argument related question.

Do y'all think I should write a addendum for my W's and lower GPA in my CC?
I ask because I don't feel the reason why I got a few Ws and a lower GPA are valid. I mean I practically just screwed around within my first year trying to figure out what I wanted to do and what I thought was interesting. This led me to drop a few math courses I carried no interest in, and get a few lower grades in some science courses. I was younger, stupid, and just didn't understand the value of an education. Since I left the CC and focused on my education I have gotten a 4.0 during my two years at UT. I just felt like the jump in GPA between CC and UT would speak for itself.

Sorry to derail your thread. OP keep the thread on you.

No, I don't think you need an addendum. I think you have a solid shot everywhere. Just do perfect apps and apply early. If you want an addendum, you can write one but it isn't necessary.

If you really have concerns, ask in Mike Spiveys thread. They are great about answering questions like this.

OP: I think you are going to do well.

[Tiago Splitter]

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

Can you explain this? It seems like you're saying better grades don't improve your chances at biglaw, which of course can't be true, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.

[Tls2016]

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

Can you explain this? It seems like you're saying better grades don't improve your chances at biglaw, which of course can't be true, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Yeah, you're right I wasn't clear.
Of course grades matter.
My point was that we don't have public data for how low in the class firms will go, which is what I think OP wanted. The metric that we have is the percentage of class placed in biglaw. We don't have a correlation within that percentage to know what the grades the people getting biglaw had at the time of OCI.

My guess is that the argument would be that Harvard is automatically better for biglaw because you don't need as good of grades, even though Harvard places fewer people percentage wise in biglaw. Somewhere I read the argument that a Hamilton was a problem because Columbia grads need to be much higher than in their class than Harvard for biglaw.

The question seemed to be that LST data is useless without knowing the grades of people who are in biglaw.
If you know of public data somewhere that shows biglaw correlated with grades of the students, I think that is what they were looking for.(of course we know that LST data has shown that you can get biglaw from more schools than people used to think years ago.)

I was also trying to make the point that getting a job isn't a guarantee even if you are above firm cutoffs. Some 0Ls may not understand that getting a job isn't like law school's admissions, where if you have certain numbers you get accepted to schools.

[BasilHallward]

Why does Michigan suck?

It "sucks" because it places a noticeably smaller percentage of its graduating classes into big law + fed clerk jobs, which is the metric used by most of TLS to measure a school's value, than nearly every other t14 school.

here's a post from another thread ranking all of them:

NVM, did it really quickly.

Big Law + Fed Clerk Numbers for T-14 (added from LST reports)

Columbia University 79%
University of Pennsylvania 78%
University of Chicago 76%
Stanford University 75%
Cornell University 74%
New York University 71%
Harvard University 71%
Duke University 70%
University of Virginia 68%
Northwestern University 65%
University of California - Berkeley 62%
Yale University 61%
University of Michigan 54%
Georgetown University 48%

Of course these numbers do blow away all non-t14s in terms of big law + fed clerk placement.

I wouldn't say that UT"s 46.4% BL+FC is "blown away" by M and GT.

[jnwa]

Usually the shot at big law is based on the percentage of grads who are employed in biglaw and not correlated to grades.

Can you explain this? It seems like you're saying better grades don't improve your chances at biglaw, which of course can't be true, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Yeah, you're right I wasn't clear.
Of course grades matter.
My point was that we don't have public data for how low in the class firms will go, which is what I think OP wanted. The metric that we have is the percentage of class placed in biglaw. We don't have a correlation within that percentage to know what the grades the people getting biglaw had at the time of OCI.

My guess is that the argument would be that Harvard is automatically better for biglaw because you don't need as good of grades, even though Harvard places fewer people percentage wise in biglaw. Somewhere I read the argument that a Hamilton was a problem because Columbia grads need to be much higher than in their class than Harvard for biglaw.

The question seemed to be that LST data is useless without knowing the grades of people who are in biglaw.
If you know of public data somewhere that shows biglaw correlated with grades of the students, I think that is what they were looking for.(of course we know that LST data has shown that you can get biglaw from more schools than people used to think years ago.)

I was also trying to make the point that getting a job isn't a guarantee even if you are above firm cutoffs. Some 0Ls may not understand that getting a job isn't like law school's admissions, where if you have certain numbers you get accepted to schools.

Me criticizing the validity of LST data for OP's question does not mean i think LST is useless. Additionally me saying that LST isnt a great method for looking at biglaw chances doesnt not mean i think there's a better one.

My assumption was your second paragraph. I think the best school for biglaw is the one where you can get the lowest grades and still get biglaw if you want it. Theres some problems with thinking that way as your last sentence points out but i'm assuming meeting a firm's cutoff is the biggest hurdle to getting a job and the only one that your choice of law school has an effect on. Im probably overemphasizing grades as a predictor of OCI success but if youre a shitty interviewer your choice of school wont affect your interview skills, if you dont have any work experience youre a k-jd no matter whether youre at Yale or Columbia or Georgetown. However if youre a median student then while your school choice does play a role in what that means for your job opportunities. Obviously there are issues around quantifying median without adjusting for class quality but the choice is a complicated one that should be based on more than JUST misleading data.

Also you mentioned in an earlier post that i had some sort of hate for Cornell or was blinded by the Harvard prestige and thats not the case at all. Cornell does great at getting a huge chunk of the class what they want. I just think that the comparison vs Harvard illustrates a drawback of an over-reliance on LST numbers.

[deant286]

Why does Michigan suck?

It "sucks" because it places a noticeably smaller percentage of its graduating classes into big law + fed clerk jobs, which is the metric used by most of TLS to measure a school's value, than nearly every other t14 school.

here's a post from another thread ranking all of them:

NVM, did it really quickly.

Big Law + Fed Clerk Numbers for T-14 (added from LST reports)

Columbia University 79%
University of Pennsylvania 78%
University of Chicago 76%
Stanford University 75%
Cornell University 74%
New York University 71%
Harvard University 71%
Duke University 70%
University of Virginia 68%
Northwestern University 65%
University of California - Berkeley 62%
Yale University 61%
University of Michigan 54%
Georgetown University 48%

Of course these numbers do blow away all non-t14s in terms of big law + fed clerk placement.

I wouldn't say that UT"s 46.4% BL+FC is "blown away" by M and GT.

I was only referring to Michigan when I said that, but you're right it doesn't blow UT away. However, an 8% difference is not insignificant.