Agreed (on both counts), but there are about a million assumptions needed to justify the bashing; some of them are more reasonable, while others simply aren't. Among them:rayiner wrote:FWIW, the GULC bashing is based on people not really understanding the available employment stats. People at Cornell, etc, shouldn't really be breathing easy in this economy either.gilchristh wrote:Yeah, I agree that Mark is generally very helpful, but I think I understand where wtx was coming from. It's hard to NOT get defensive when GULC seems to get disproportionately bashed on here. We've already made our decision, and we're most likely not going into it blindfolded (considering we're on here doing our "homework"), so listening to all the negative crap all the time gets frustrating.
With that said, wtx, Mark is generally a very helpful guy. He means well.
1) GULC students don't understand the stats (questionable at best);
2) everyone wants Biglaw (I would say this is considerably less likely at GULC than at many other T-14s, with GULC's PI focus);
3) people who are going to other T-14s are much safer (as you mentioned);
4) people are going to law school with no job-seeking skills of their own (again, I think this is less likely at GULC and NU, with their common non-trad bent); and
5) we're focusing exclusively on percent of the class, forgetting that there is an astronomically higher NUMBER of people in the top 1/3 at GULC than there is at, say, Cornell or Duke (more bodies in top 1/3 means more people getting jobs... although the flip side is more bodies also OUTSIDE the top 1/3 at greater risk).
These are all questionable to varying degrees (some more solid, some less), and there are plenty more I could list. I find all the bashing to be incredibly presumptuous.
