2Ls and 2010 Summer Offers (% of class w/offers) Forum

[Alexandria]

NYC is the safety city for a whole lot of Michigan students (beyond the ones for whom it is their first choice, obviously... and there are tons of native NYers here). The firms there don't care if you have connections to the city, and there is a wide range of firms in terms of selectivity. While Michigan does spread out more than most top schools, NYC has always seemed to me like obviously the most common place my classmates are headed.

[Anonymous User]

I'd say below HYS and Columbia (not even sure of Chicago since I know people above median who got locked out and had to mass mail secondary markets), that you need to be AT LEAST top 1/3 of your class to have a decent shot at a biglaw job.

Definitely false. NYU and Chicago median students all had a "decent shot" at biglaw. I know plenty of people at both NYU and Columbia, and the consensus from both schools is quite similar.

[RVP11]

Even at UVA, I'd still say median-ish had a decent shot at BigLaw in some market. Just probably not in DC. The unusual thing about ITE was people as high as top 25% struck out on BigLaw (due to unlucky OGI bidding, choosing a super competitive market, not being a stud in interviews, etc.) while some people median and slightly below managed to get offers.

If I had to give a rough breakdown based completely on anecdotal evidence, I'd say:

Top third: Generally getting BigLaw
Middle third: Very dependent on which market the person was targeting - difference between those going for DC and those going for NYC or markets in the South
Bottom third: Haven't heard of anyone getting a BigLaw offer

[Hitachi]

I saw Michigan's OCI list. If memory serves me right, there were about the same number of Chicago offices at OCI as NYC offices. There actually might have been slightly more NYC offices than Chicago offices....

There were actually almost twice as many New York offices as Chicago offices

[Alexandria]

Even at UVA, I'd still say median-ish had a decent shot at BigLaw in some market. Just probably not in DC. The unusual thing about ITE was people as high as top 25% struck out on BigLaw (due to unlucky OGI bidding, choosing a super competitive market, not being a stud in interviews, etc.) while some people median and slightly below managed to get offers.

If I had to give a rough breakdown based completely on anecdotal evidence, I'd say:

Top third: Generally getting BigLaw
Middle third: Very dependent on which market the person was targeting - difference between those going for DC and those going for NYC or markets in the South
Bottom third: Haven't heard of anyone getting a BigLaw offer

But how do you even know who's in each third? I mean, you can get some sense of who is doing particularly well. But beyond that... I haven't the foggiest idea who is middle third or bottom third at Michigan. Does UVA publish lists???

[ughOSU]

Apparently a rumor on auto admit had 50% of Duke 2Ls still looking to line up a gig for next summer. Is this really true? How about the rest of the lower T14?

Great thread, although I am a little bit surprised that you're so surprised about this, given how convinced you were for the inelasticity of demand for T14. These employment "statistics" are the reason I feel that people with T14 numbers may be going lower T30 w/ full rides ITE. Anyway, I honestly don't want to derail this thread because I appreciate what it's doing.

I asked about OCI when I toured NU early november, and the tour guide estimated that around 50% hit on OCI this year (so I guess I'm confirming the previous NU #'s cited as far as they can be confirmed, although it was from a student working for the admissions committee, and if I had to guess, I'd guess they told their tour guides to qualify their esitmate with "well we don't know yet and it may be higher, but among my friends _____").

It depends. Remember, there is still an opportunity cost, even if you're going on a full ride. Even if you take on no tuition debt, it's still costing you $135k+ if you're like a lot of T14 people and have decent prospects with your BA/BS.

I understand that, but I hate the opportunity cost argument. It's one of those arguments that economists tend to believe is so elegant, flawless and above the fray. I think debt and lost income are somewhat distinct, although a strong argument could be made once you go into debt that they aren't. I don't feel like making an argument against that right now, however I will lodge my biggest complaint with the way opportunity cost is used. I'll assume that your $135k example is $75k opportunity cost and $60k COA (seems reasonable assuming you currently have a job and will be working in the summers). I have yet to see someone add that $75k opportunity cost to a $200k COA. By your logic, the total cost of attending a more expensive school at sticker is $275k. I go back and forth on whether it's worth it. I've pretty much exhausted myself trying to figure it out, and I still have no idea. Hopefully we can get some more concrete numbers shortly which should at least help a bit.

e: edited numbers down a bit to be more accurate

[Oban]

Anyone know how Columbia did during this OCI?

[rondemarino]

Any word out of Boalt and UCLA?

[ughOSU]

Any word out of Boalt and UCLA?

heard some rumors on these forums that Boalt got hurt big time. Nothing first-hand though.

[kurama20]

Any word out of Boalt and UCLA?

heard some rumors on these forums that Boalt got hurt big time. Nothing first-hand though.

OK wha'ts going on at Boalt? People are repeatedly talking about how they got hammered worse than any top 10 (maybe worse than any top 14 outside of GULC). Even a Boalt 2L who transferred out said how few firms came to OCI and how many people didn't get offers. Is all this common TLS rumormongoring or is Boalt really hurting? What is causing Boalt to suffer so much in comparison to its peers (MVP)?

[RVP11]

Even at UVA, I'd still say median-ish had a decent shot at BigLaw in some market. Just probably not in DC. The unusual thing about ITE was people as high as top 25% struck out on BigLaw (due to unlucky OGI bidding, choosing a super competitive market, not being a stud in interviews, etc.) while some people median and slightly below managed to get offers.

If I had to give a rough breakdown based completely on anecdotal evidence, I'd say:

Top third: Generally getting BigLaw
Middle third: Very dependent on which market the person was targeting - difference between those going for DC and those going for NYC or markets in the South
Bottom third: Haven't heard of anyone getting a BigLaw offer

But how do you even know who's in each third? I mean, you can get some sense of who is doing particularly well. But beyond that... I haven't the foggiest idea who is middle third or bottom third at Michigan. Does UVA publish lists???

This is completely based on anecdotal evidence and word of mouth. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[wesleybs]

But how do you even know who's in each third? I mean, you can get some sense of who is doing particularly well. But beyond that... I haven't the foggiest idea who is middle third or bottom third at Michigan. Does UVA publish lists???

At UVA, we know what top 25% is, the median. Furthermore, we know what each year's LR grade-on cutoff is (roughly 7%). CSO also gives the general breakdown for top, middle, and bottom 3rd gpa as well.

Edit: So if someone knows his GPA, he knows whether he is in the bottom, middle, or top third (not to mention top 1/4 or median).

[Anonymous User]

Any word out of Boalt and UCLA?

heard some rumors on these forums that Boalt got hurt big time. Nothing first-hand though.

OK wha'ts going on at Boalt? People are repeatedly talking about how they got hammered worse than any top 10 (maybe worse than any top 14 outside of GULC). Even a Boalt 2L who transferred out said how few firms came to OCI and how many people didn't get offers. Is all this common TLS rumormongoring or is Boalt really hurting? What is causing Boalt to suffer so much in comparison to its peers (MVP)?

Location? I think that 2L said that there was a large drop in offices at OCI partly because very few offices from out of state were there.

[rayiner]

I understand that, but I hate the opportunity cost argument. It's one of those arguments that economists tend to believe is so elegant, flawless and above the fray.

Opportunity cost isn't economics, it's basic personal finance. If I can get out of school and make say $50k/year average with my BA/BS, and my law school tuition is $45k/year, then the cost of attending law school is $285k (ignoring inflation, raises, etc). This is regardless of how I'm financing things --- even if my parents pay all my tuition and living expenses, it's still costing $285k. If I get a full ride, it's still costing me $150k.

So if you're comparing going to a T14 full tuition versus lower T30 full ride, you gotta compare a total cost of $285k to $150k, not $135k to $0k.

Then it becomes an analysis of risk aversion and career prospects. Statistically, the T14 is still probably the better option. Say there are two salaries: $135k and $60k. A T14 gives you a 50% chance at the former, while a lower T30 gives you a 10% chance. Thus your gross expected return from the T14 over 10 years (ignoring raises, inflation) is $975k. For the lower T30, it's $675k.

[Hitachi]

Well, maybe you should use economics rather than simplistic figures, because the chance to work for 50K/year isn't worth 50K and doesn't even necessarily have positive utility, unless you seek infinite money. My goal in working is to earn enough money to stop working. For me, 3 years of not working, then 20 years of working, then 50 years of retirement is just as good as 20 years of working, then 53 years of retirement. Sure, going to school isn't quite retirement, but certainly 20 hrs/week of optional school stuff (most of which you can spend browsing the internet on your laptop) doesn't compare to a real job. Therefore, working for a lower salary would inevitably require more total work over my lifetime, so it wouldn't be desirable (absent some great difference in the quality of work, of course).

[rayiner]

Well, maybe you should use economics rather than simplistic figures, because the chance to work for 50K/year doesn't necessarily have positive utility, unless you seek infinite money. My goal in working is to earn enough money to stop working. For me, 3 years of not working, then 20 years of working, then 50 years of retirement is just as good as 20 years of working, then 53 years of retirement. Sure, going to school isn't quite retirement, but certainly 20 hrs/week of optional school stuff (most of which you can spend browsing the internet on your laptop) doesn't compare to a real job. Therefore, working for a lower salary would inevitably require more total work over my lifetime, so it wouldn't be desirable (absent some great different in the quality of work, of course).

The what now?

[Hitachi]

The what now?

Briefly, the chance to work for 50K is not the same as getting 50K free (and it might not even be worth anything), because you are trading something for it, so you can't compare it equally to tuition.

[ughOSU]

I understand that, but I hate the opportunity cost argument. It's one of those arguments that economists tend to believe is so elegant, flawless and above the fray.

Opportunity cost isn't economics, it's basic personal finance. If I can get out of school and make say $50k/year average with my BA/BS, and my law school tuition is $45k/year, then the cost of attending law school is $285k (ignoring inflation, raises, etc). This is regardless of how I'm financing things --- even if my parents pay all my tuition and living expenses, it's still costing $285k. If I get a full ride, it's still costing me $150k.

So if you're comparing going to a T14 full tuition versus lower T30 full ride, you gotta compare a total cost of $285k to $150k, not $135k to $0k.

Then it becomes an analysis of risk aversion and career prospects. Statistically, the T14 is still probably the better option. Say there are two salaries: $135k and $60k. A T14 gives you a 50% chance at the former, while a lower T30 gives you a 10% chance. Thus your gross expected return from the T14 over 10 years (ignoring raises, inflation) is $975k. For the lower T30, it's $675k.

Agreed, although I don't believe you really contradicted anything I said. And in my situation I would expect to be in the 10% if I took the lower school. I have good connections though. More importantly, NOT getting the $135k job hurts your QOL much more when you are $200k deep in loans you have to pay back. When you're less than $50k deep, I'm sure you could be reasonably comfortable on a $60k job (granted not as comfortable as you would be with a $135k job).

This question has lots of variables. Like I said, I don't know. And if I did have a job with growth opportunities where I was making $50k per year, I would stay put for another year for sure.

[blsingindisguise]

Brooklyn is at more than 7 at V100. Including myself, I know 20 people who remained at the school and have accepted offers. The other roughly 20 people in the top 10% at the end of last year have transferred and of the ones I keep in contact with, all have received V100 offers. I would say the final breakdown is around 5-6% of the class. Not spectacular by any means but certainly glad I turned down the opportunities to transfer and stayed here with the full ride ITE.

Are you including people who accepted government and non-V100 offers? Otherwise this doesn't sound right.

[ziggysmarley]

Any word out of Boalt and UCLA?

I haven't heard any official numbers about UCLA, but I know a lot of kids with offers.

[Anonymous User]

anecdotally, Boalt was hit hard. A lot of decent (read, middle ish) kids with no jobs.

[Anonymous User]

Any word out of Boalt and UCLA?

I haven't heard any official numbers about UCLA, but I know a lot of kids with offers.

I would expect UCLA's statistics to be like USC's, about 1/3. They used to do so similarly. Just speculation though.

anecdotally, Boalt was hit hard. A lot of decent (read, middle ish) kids with no jobs.

Yeah, I know someone on California Law Review with no offer. I guess this is the downside of having a write-on law review.

[bahama]

Opportunity cost isn't economics, it's basic personal finance. If I can get out of school and make say $50k/year average with my BA/BS, and my law school tuition is $45k/year, then the cost of attending law school is $285k (ignoring inflation, raises, etc). This is regardless of how I'm financing things --- even if my parents pay all my tuition and living expenses, it's still costing $285k. If I get a full ride, it's still costing me $150k.

So if you're comparing going to a T14 full tuition versus lower T30 full ride, you gotta compare a total cost of $285k to $150k, not $135k to $0k.

Then it becomes an analysis of risk aversion and career prospects. Statistically, the T14 is still probably the better option. Say there are two salaries: $135k and $60k. A T14 gives you a 50% chance at the former, while a lower T30 gives you a 10% chance. Thus your gross expected return from the T14 over 10 years (ignoring raises, inflation) is $975k. For the lower T30, it's $675k.

Your opportunity cost arguement overstates the cost since you will have living expenses either way and if you are working you'll take a hit on taxes and work related expenses that you wouldn't have as a student.

A more intuitive way to look at it is to compare where one would be after 3 years.
- Say 15k in savings with no major debt for the person who doesn't go vs. 200k in debt for the person who goes = $215k real cost
- Of course as you said where it gets interesting is when you look at the job prospects after 3 years as well: $65k for the person who has been working against ??? for the person who went to law school.

[edcrane]

Your opportunity cost arguement overstates the cost since you will have living expenses either way and if you are working you'll take a hit on taxes and work related expenses that you wouldn't have as a student.

You're correct about living expenses (if you include both debt incurred for living expenses and the full amount of lost compensation, you're double counting expenses) but incorrect about taxes. Consumption financed through debt is generally no cheaper than consumption financed through cash. This is because loans are paid back with after tax money (even when interest is tax deductible, which it won't be if you end up in biglaw).

[rayiner]

Your opportunity cost arguement overstates the cost since you will have living expenses either way and if you are working you'll take a hit on taxes and work related expenses that you wouldn't have as a student.

You don't need to include cost of living in the calculation. Consider one year where your alternative job would've paid $45k. Your T14 tuition is $50k, your T30 tuition is $0 (full scholarship), and your living expenses are $15k whether you go to school or work.

No LS: $45k - $15k = $30k
T14: $0k - $50k - $15k = $-65k
T30: $0k - $15k = -$15k

Either way the T30 costs you $45k/year compared to working.

Now you're right, I didn't include taxes you'd pay on the job, but I also didn't factor in the taxes (and interest) you'd need to pay on any money you use to pay your tuition and living expenses. Eg: your $15k cost of living in LS is really $20k pre-tax, your $50k tuition is really $65k pre-tax, etc.