Are Duke and Northwestern on par with MVP... Forum

[RVP11]

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.

Why wouldn't you include non-Vault firms?

[quakeroats]

A quick google search on NLJ 250 law firm placement, Michigan is #6 at 51% and Duke is #10 at 49.8% : http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.
2. That doesn't include clerks

I know it doesn't include clerks, aren't we talking about firm placement?

Yes we are. If you exclude the top of the class you get a different answer.

[quakeroats]

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.

Why wouldn't you include non-Vault firms?

I'd exclude a lot more than that depending on what I'm trying to measure. There are too many variables in the full 250 (secondary market firms, firms that don't pay market rates, etc.) that seem more confounding than helpful.

[Teoeo]

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.

Why wouldn't you include non-Vault firms?

I'd exclude a lot more than that depending on what I'm trying to measure. There are too many variables in the full 250 (secondary market firms, firms that don't pay market rates, etc.) that seem more confounding than helpful.

here is a vault survey among hiring partners - http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/edu ... aw-ranking, michigan is #2 and duke is #12

here is the SCOTUS clerkship rankings - http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2000 ... erks.shtml, michigan is#9 and duke is #18

[RVP11]

I'd exclude a lot more than that depending on what I'm trying to measure. There are too many variables in the full 250 (secondary market firms, firms that don't pay market rates, etc.) that seem more confounding than helpful.

Why would you exclude secondary market firms, then?

And how many NLJ250 firms don't pay market (meaning what's roughly market salary in their market)? Not that many, dude.

The stats are not confounding - and the toughest thing about the NLJ250 stats vis a vis V100 stats is that clerks are not included in the NLJ250 numbers - just inconvenient for what you're arguing.

[AreJay711]

A quick google search on NLJ 250 law firm placement, Michigan is #6 at 51% and Duke is #10 at 49.8% : http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.
2. That doesn't include clerks

This includes clerks -- http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

1. Stanford - 77.1%
2. Yale - 72.1%
3. Harvard - 65.7%
4. Virginia - 65.2%
5. Michigan - 64.9%
6. Columbia - 64.0%
7. Chicago - 63.1%
8. Northwestern - 62.7%
9. Penn - 61.7%
10. Duke - 61.5%
11. Berkeley - 58.1%
12. NYU - 57.4%
13. Vanderbilt - 55.0%
14. Cornell - 52.4%
15. Georgetown - 48.4%
16. Texas - 47.5%
17. USC - 47.2%
18. UCLA - 41.9%
19. Boston College - 38.0%
20. Notre Dame - 37.8%

I remember when I came on here for the first time in earnest this fall: I believed this argument until I looked at the numbers. Also, according to the peer assessment scores on USNWR Michigan = 4.6; Duke= 4.2

[Teoeo]

A quick google search on NLJ 250 law firm placement, Michigan is #6 at 51% and Duke is #10 at 49.8% : http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.
2. That doesn't include clerks

This includes clerks -- http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

1. Stanford - 77.1%
2. Yale - 72.1%
3. Harvard - 65.7%
4. Virginia - 65.2%
5. Michigan - 64.9%
6. Columbia - 64.0%
7. Chicago - 63.1%
8. Northwestern - 62.7%
9. Penn - 61.7%
10. Duke - 61.5%
11. Berkeley - 58.1%
12. NYU - 57.4%
13. Vanderbilt - 55.0%
14. Cornell - 52.4%
15. Georgetown - 48.4%
16. Texas - 47.5%
17. USC - 47.2%
18. UCLA - 41.9%
19. Boston College - 38.0%
20. Notre Dame - 37.8%

I remember when I came on here for the first time in earnest this fall: I believed this argument until I looked at the numbers. Also, according to the peer assessment scores on USNWR Michigan = 4.6; Duke= 4.2

I'm sure his previous posts refute this thoroughly xD

[prezidentv8]

A quick google search on NLJ 250 law firm placement, Michigan is #6 at 51% and Duke is #10 at 49.8% : http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.
2. That doesn't include clerks

This includes clerks -- http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

1. Stanford - 77.1%
2. Yale - 72.1%
3. Harvard - 65.7%
4. Virginia - 65.2%
5. Michigan - 64.9%
6. Columbia - 64.0%
7. Chicago - 63.1%
8. Northwestern - 62.7%
9. Penn - 61.7%
10. Duke - 61.5%
11. Berkeley - 58.1%
12. NYU - 57.4%
13. Vanderbilt - 55.0%
14. Cornell - 52.4%
15. Georgetown - 48.4%
16. Texas - 47.5%
17. USC - 47.2%
18. UCLA - 41.9%
19. Boston College - 38.0%
20. Notre Dame - 37.8%

I remember when I came on here for the first time in earnest this fall: I believed this argument until I looked at the numbers. Also, according to the peer assessment scores on USNWR Michigan = 4.6; Duke= 4.2

Soooo....I only skimmed this thread, but...in terms of placement in the NLJ250 and clerkships, we're squabbling over a difference of about 3.5% between Duke and Mich? I mean, I'll concede that Mich has the better rep, but I'm not sure that this whole issue merits much discussion. My advice to OP - when placement issues are this tight or even close to comparable, consider school-specific preferences (epic basketball team, school culture, clinics, a preference for cold weather, career goals, etc.) and scholarship amounts (obvious).

[quakeroats]

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.

Why wouldn't you include non-Vault firms?

I'd exclude a lot more than that depending on what I'm trying to measure. There are too many variables in the full 250 (secondary market firms, firms that don't pay market rates, etc.) that seem more confounding than helpful.

here is a vault survey among hiring partners - http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/edu ... aw-ranking, michigan is #2 and duke is #12

here is the SCOTUS clerkship rankings - http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2000 ... erks.shtml, michigan is#9 and duke is #18

Yale is 10th on that survey and we don't have any information on response rates or how the 400 surveys were sent out and to whom. SCOTUS clerks are so few and far between that the only real inference seems to be that Yale beats everyone else.

[RVP11]

in terms of placement in the NLJ250 and clerkships, we're squabbling over a difference of about 3.5% between Duke and Mich?

Yep. That's why drawing distinctions among MVPDCN(G?) is so useless.

The fact that the placement differences are small and only vary +/- <5% year to year just suggest that firms view them about equivalently. Which means placement shouldn't be a huge factor in choosing which school in this group to attend.

[AreJay711]

Soooo....I only skimmed this thread, but...in terms of placement in the NLJ250 and clerkships, we're squabbling over a difference of about 3.5% between Duke and Mich? I mean, I'll concede that Mich has the better rep, but I'm not sure that this whole issue merits much discussion. My advice to OP - when placement issues are this tight or even close to comparable, consider school-specific preferences (epic basketball team, school culture, clinics, a preference for cold weather, career goals, etc.) and scholarship amounts (obvious).

No, we're bitching because quaker is doing his normal Duke> MVP bs again. You are right in what you say but, like I said, when I first came on here, I really bought quaker's foolishness until I had time to really research it fully. About the only thing on here that he is right about is that it is warmer in NC than MI.

[quakeroats]

A quick google search on NLJ 250 law firm placement, Michigan is #6 at 51% and Duke is #10 at 49.8% : http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

1. That includes mostly non-Vault firms and doesn't note where the grad is practicing.
2. That doesn't include clerks

This includes clerks -- http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

1. Stanford - 77.1%
2. Yale - 72.1%
3. Harvard - 65.7%
4. Virginia - 65.2%
5. Michigan - 64.9%
6. Columbia - 64.0%
7. Chicago - 63.1%
8. Northwestern - 62.7%
9. Penn - 61.7%
10. Duke - 61.5%
11. Berkeley - 58.1%
12. NYU - 57.4%
13. Vanderbilt - 55.0%
14. Cornell - 52.4%
15. Georgetown - 48.4%
16. Texas - 47.5%
17. USC - 47.2%
18. UCLA - 41.9%
19. Boston College - 38.0%
20. Notre Dame - 37.8%

I remember when I came on here for the first time in earnest this fall: I believed this argument until I looked at the numbers. Also, according to the peer assessment scores on USNWR Michigan = 4.6; Duke= 4.2

Peer assessment scores have issues. From what I remember about 70% of peers respond and 30ish% of lawyers/judges do the same.

As for the composite, the clerkship data is adjusted. Here's a better listing: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... news-.html

[los blancos]

in terms of placement in the NLJ250 and clerkships, we're squabbling over a difference of about 3.5% between Duke and Mich?

Yep. That's why drawing distinctions among MVPDCN(G?) is so useless.

The fact that the placement differences are small and only vary +/- <5% year to year just suggest that firms view them about equivalently. Which means placement shouldn't be a huge factor in choosing which school in this group to attend.

TITCR. Swap Boalt for GTTTTown in that list.

They're all peer schools.

[RVP11]

Peer assessment scores have issues. From what I remember about 70% of peers respond and 30ish% of lawyers/judges do the same.

Sure, the respondence rates are low, but does that refute anything when the results are consistent and you can't point to a reason why people who like certain schools would be more/less likely to respond?

Why do the lawyer/judge scores always show MV > Duke? They're at lot more consistent year-to-year than the placement statistics you cite. Are you suggesting that people who like Duke are less likely to respond?

[quakeroats]

Peer assessment scores have issues. From what I remember about 70% of peers respond and 30ish% of lawyers/judges do the same.

Sure, the respondence rates are low, but does that refute anything when the results are consistent and you can't point to a reason why people who like certain schools would be more/less likely to respond?

Why do the lawyer/judge scores always show MV > Duke? They're at lot more consistent year-to-year than the placement statistics you cite. Are you suggesting that people who like Duke are less likely to respond?

I'd say it makes it too difficult to base any firm conclusions on. Leiter had a good critique of the surveys. From memory his points were that low response rates, poor question phrasing and an arbitrary scale meant that little could be taken from them. For our purposes, why even bother with them? I'd saying looking at who firms actually hire is a better metric than peer/lawyer assessment scores with these problems.

[RVP11]

I'd saying looking at who firms actually hire is a better metric than peer/lawyer assessment scores with these problems.

But not looking at secondary market firms? Not looking at firms who don't pay market? Ignoring showNprove's thread? Ignoring the fact that year-to-year variability of small % differences among a group of schools suggests that they're roughly equivalent in the eyes of law firms?

You're leaving a lot unexplained here, dude.

[quakeroats]

I'd saying looking at who firms actually hire is a better metric than peer/lawyer assessment scores with these problems.

But not looking at secondary market firms? Not looking at firms who don't pay market? Ignoring showNprove's thread? Ignoring the fact that year-to-year variability of small % differences among a group of schools suggests that they're roughly equivalent in the eyes of law firms?

You're leaving a lot unexplained here, dude.

In order:
I think performance at the top is a reasonable proxy for what's below.
Ditto.
I didn't ignore it. I said the data was less than reliable.
The data I've compiled in past threads, which amounts to counting associates at firms would seem to argue against this.

[AreJay711]

I'd saying looking at who firms actually hire is a better metric than peer/lawyer assessment scores with these problems.

But not looking at secondary market firms? Not looking at firms who don't pay market? Ignoring showNprove's thread? Ignoring the fact that year-to-year variability of small % differences among a group of schools suggests that they're roughly equivalent in the eyes of law firms?

You're leaving a lot unexplained here, dude.

In order:
I think performance at the top is a reasonable proxy for what's below.
Ditto.
I didn't ignore it. I said the data was less than reliable.
The data I've compiled in past threads, which amounts to counting associates at firms would seem to argue against this.

Counting associates? Are you serious? That is worse than any other measurement because it is affected be any number of factors.

[RVP11]

The data I've compiled in past threads, which amounts to counting associates at firms would seem to argue against this.

Counting associates brings in a ton more factors, and self-selection will play an even larger role. That's a horrible way to come to decent conclusions about how law schools place 2Ls and 3Ls.

[quakeroats]

The data I've compiled in past threads, which amounts to counting associates at firms would seem to argue against this.

Counting associates brings in a ton more factors, and self-selection will play an even larger role. That's a horrible way to come to decent conclusions about how law schools place 2Ls and 3Ls.

It brings in many fewer issues than assessments scores with 30% response rates and poor question phrasing. Outside of Yale-type problems I'd say it's a pretty good measure.

[AreJay711]

The data I've compiled in past threads, which amounts to counting associates at firms would seem to argue against this.

Counting associates brings in a ton more factors, and self-selection will play an even larger role. That's a horrible way to come to decent conclusions about how law schools place 2Ls and 3Ls.

It brings in many fewer issues than peer assessments scores with 30% response rates and poor question phrasing.

If I'm still an associate after 4 or 5 years then I didn't do what I really wanted (though obviously it wouldn't be a terrible thing).

[quakeroats]

The data I've compiled in past threads, which amounts to counting associates at firms would seem to argue against this.

Counting associates brings in a ton more factors, and self-selection will play an even larger role. That's a horrible way to come to decent conclusions about how law schools place 2Ls and 3Ls.

It brings in many fewer issues than peer assessments scores with 30% response rates and poor question phrasing.

If I'm still an associate after 4 or 5 years then I didn't do what I really wanted (though obviously it wouldn't be a terrible thing).

It's a reasonable assumption than many students at other schools feel the same way. In the absence of some factor(s) that makes one more likely to leave or leave earlier as a graduate of one school over another--Yale is a clear example of this--it seems reasonable to assume things are pretty much equal. There's absolutely no way to prove or disprove this with the data we have, but I don't think it's much of a stretch barring issues I'm not aware of.

[Bronte]

30 years ago there was no USNWR ranking. I've outlined the rest in prior posts. Feel free to do 10 minutes of research.

Again, this prior posts crap is a cop out. As if you have some widely-known, unrefuted theory. Nobody's going to look through your prior posts. If you want people to believe you're quite clearly false assertions, you'll need to provide your proof again. Otherwise, can it, huh?

At least he has offered some actual evidence to back up his claims. What have you offered?

What evidence? All he's done is reference his prior posts. My only "claim" is the status quo: that MVPDNCetc are roughly equivalent, with geographical strengths. This is the null hypothesis; I don't have to provide evidence. But I will anyway:

Most recent NLJ250 survey:
Michigan 51%
Duke 49.8%

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

Most recent federal clerkship data (USNWR):
Michigan 13.9%
Duke 11.9%

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=75513

Most recent Brian Leiter prestigious law firm ranking:
Michigan/Duke tied for 10th place

http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Only Vault 100 placement stats I've ever seen (really old):
Duke 55.8%
Michigan 41.3% (tied with UVA)

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=135954

Average USNWR ranking this millenium:
Michigan: around 8th
Duke: around 11th

http://www.prelawhandbook.com/law_schoo ... 00_present

Vault employability survey:
Michigan: 2nd
Duke: 12th

http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/blo ... y_id=10864

Again, I believe most of these data sources / rankings are highly flawed, and that the only valid conclusion to draw is that Michigan, Duke, Virginia, etc. are peer schools. I've yet to see a shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

[09042014]

2009 is an unrepresentative year to use data from. Schools that place more into NYC got hammered. It's why Northwestern had the most big law hires. That isn't the case in reality, and certainly won't be for class of 2012, 13 or 14.

[Bronte]

2009 is an unrepresentative year to use data from. Schools that place more into NYC got hammered. It's why Northwestern had the most big law hires. That isn't the case in reality, and certainly won't be for class of 2012, 13 or 14.

Is this to me? Because my point is that all the data is crap. There is no transparency. However, what flawed data exists does not indicate that Duke is better than Virginia or Northwestern or Michigan and certainly does not indicate that Michigan is a "gonna be with BC in 30 years."

You know as well as I do that whether you use 2009, 2007, or 1985, you'll find all these schools, including Michigan, right where they've always been. NLJ 250 and Vault 100 are flawed, NYC-centric lists in the first place. It doesn't matter which year you use to make the point that these schools are in the same tier.