2011 Top 50 Go-To Law Schools Forum

[showNprove]

What in the world are you talking about? Cornell has very good clerkship placement.

They don't have good clerkship placement. Not that it's a big deal; 58% would be very good even if they literally sent no one federal.

In 2008, Cornell sent 10.9% to Art. III clerkships. That was better than Chicago, Columbia, Berkeley, NYU, Northwestern, and Georgetown.

[flcath]

What in the world are you talking about? Cornell has very good clerkship placement.

They don't have good clerkship placement. Not that it's a big deal; 58% would be very good even if they literally sent no one federal.

In 2008, Cornell sent 10.9% to Art. III clerkships. That was better than Chicago, Columbia, Berkeley, NYU, Northwestern, and Georgetown.

http://lawclerkaddict2009.blogspot.com/ ... chart.html

[jcunni5]

Just to show how dumb you all are being lets look at last years numbers and show the effect of random small changes. Last year stats show Chicago placed 110/207= 53.1% and NYU placed 236/471=50.1%. Clearly this means Chicago is superior for all time, right? Say randomly Chicago over-enrolled a bit again and next year for whatever reason a 2-3 of the firms that Chicago students go for take 2-3 less Chicago students than usual causing Chicago's placement to be 102/205=49.8%. That same year NYU's class was slight smaller than usual and they placed 242/465=52%.

This is what you guys are arguing about. Things that can be affected by changes this small.

Last year every MVP outplaced NYU, people said this was because NYC was the hardest hit which seemed to be the cause of NYU's underperformance. The reason people are ragging on NYU is because unlike the other NYC schools NYU actually did worse and VPB outplaced it. People are just suggesting that NYU is overrated, we definitely need more data, but i think we can say that at least this year (the year of the data not presently) NYU got pwned although this is not predictive of next year or the year after that.

Leaked OCI results from class of 2011 put it better than CC by a slim margin. At least 10% above MVPDNC.

Whatever caused the gap in numbers this year, it's not loss of hiring power.

fair enough, but if they keep getting no offered it's not gonna help haha jk

[showNprove]

What in the world are you talking about? Cornell has very good clerkship placement.

They don't have good clerkship placement. Not that it's a big deal; 58% would be very good even if they literally sent no one federal.

In 2008, Cornell sent 10.9% to Art. III clerkships. That was better than Chicago, Columbia, Berkeley, NYU, Northwestern, and Georgetown.

http://lawclerkaddict2009.blogspot.com/ ... chart.html

OK? One, that is only COA. Two, Cornell is still placing in line with the likes of NYU and Georgetown in your data, so I don't see how you can compare it to a T60 school.

[09042014]

2011 data will be a better indication of how the schools actually place ITE.

Until the 2011 data actually does come out (and it's fine, just like this year's).

Then the 2012 chart will be the truly telling one.

No, at OCI 2009 firms changed their hiring preferences significantly due to the economy. 2010 was like 2009 but slightly better. And 2011 OCI will probably only be slightly better than 2010.

The 2011 chart will be the first one from the new normal.

But again nobody should take these charts as absolute strength of schools. But I'm guessing we'll see CCN > MVPBDNC like we were from 2005-2008 data.

[los blancos]

this thread is funny

[Attorney]

This year's numbers, for the math-challenged 164 LSATs at BU who hate splitters for unknown reasons.

ND 23.84
WUSTL 18.96
Minnesota 11.97

23.84/18.96 = 1.257
18.96/11.97 = 1.584

Oh shit, I'm right again even with the new ITE numbers! And you are still not only obsessive about WUSTL's "golden #19" (lol) but constantly failing at math.

You get riled up so easily, its hilarious. BC places... 33.58/18.96 = 1.77 times better than WUSTL! You realize I'm only trolling you because you decided to state that WUSTL places massively better than Minnesota - a complete load of crap. USC down to Fordhamish are peers. No one cares who does or doesn't take splitters, everyone just hates people like you who try to claim superiority for silly reasons.

Also, ragging on someone because of their LSAT score.. seriously? And you wonder why WUSTL gets trolled so much?

I'm not riled up, lulz, you are the one with never-ceasing sour grapes even after you "apologize" for being unable to cite things you incorrectly claim people have said. And the WUSTL/Minn spread has been constant for years. It never changes. The BC/BU -> WUSTL spread is abnormally high this year because NYC/BOS hiring was so much better than CHI. Next year they'll be back to the standard relative rates.

If it makes you feel better, if BC (which placed a lot better than BU, huh? OMG!) was consistently that much better than the midwestern schools, I'd say they place GIGANTORNORMOUSLY better than WUSTL and a word doesn't even come to mind to how much better that placement would be than Minnesota, Indiana, Georgia, UC Davis, Iowa, Wisconsin, UNC, etc. (half of the 20s schools) if this were an ongoing phenomenon.

EDIT: Regarding your 164, I just find it amazing that a (reverse) splitter hates (regular) splitters so much. It's just really bizarre?

[Other25BeforeYou]

2011 data will be a better indication of how the schools actually place ITE.

Until the 2011 data actually does come out (and it's fine, just like this year's).

Then the 2012 chart will be the truly telling one.

No, at OCI 2009 firms changed their hiring preferences significantly due to the economy. 2010 was like 2009 but slightly better. And 2011 OCI will probably only be slightly better than 2010.

The 2011 chart will be the first one from the new normal.

But again nobody should take these charts as absolute strength of schools. But I'm guessing we'll see CCN > MVPBDNC like we were from 2005-2008 data.

But some schools did more than "slightly" better in 2010 OCI than in 2009 OCI. If some but not all schools bounce back more quickly, there's no reason to think 2009 OCI as opposed to 2010 OCI is the "new normal."

[showNprove]

Next year's NLJ250 stats will still be bad, maybe worse, than this year's. Firms and students had no idea what to do about OCI hiring in August 2009. We won't get stable post-recession statistics for another 2 years (e.g., Class of 2012, which did OCI in August 2010).

[09042014]

But some schools did more than "slightly" better in 2010 OCI than in 2009 OCI. If some but not all schools bounce back more quickly, there's no reason to think 2009 OCI as opposed to 2010 OCI is the "new normal."

I'm not aware of which schools did significantly better in 2010.

Taking this data to the .01th of a percentage point is silly. Even in the boom era the data moved around. +/-5 points isn't relevant.

If you want to see what the chances of striking out are at each school, look at leaked OCI data.

[keg411]

Keep in mind that there were V100 firms this fall hiring no-offered C/O 2010 people in New York. So the original numbers might have looked even worse.

Also, as for the WUSTL-troll, Chicago has yet to get any better in terms of OCI/hiring. In fact, the Chicago (as a market, as opposed to as a school) numbers are likely to look even worse the next couple of years.

[irishman86]

Isn't this data way too old to be helpful? Like a previous poster sad, the New York market has improved in the past year while Chicago/LA/SF have tanked even more. And yes, there were a ton of no-offers in New York for the Class of 2010 because firms had ginormous class sizes and were unprepared for the banking crisis. The data isn't that useful because it was somewhat of a fluke year.

[flcath]

Isn't this data way too old to be helpful? Like a previous poster sad, the New York market has improved in the past year while Chicago/LA/SF outside of DC have tanked even more.

Beats nothing.

[TheThreader]

Why does everyone recommend Texas so much. It look like they place terribly? Is the Texas legal market just a joke now?

[irishman86]

Isn't this data way too old to be helpful? Like a previous poster sad, the New York market has improved in the past year while Chicago/LA/SF outside of DC have tanked even more.

Beats nothing.

I guess.

Also, fwiw, NLJ 250=/= biglaw.

Still, I bet the data looks very different for Classes 2011 and 2012.

[thesealocust]

Also, fwiw, NLJ 250=/= biglaw.

Yes it does.

I did the math a long time ago, because that statement really started annoying me. The NLJ 250 is a list of the largest firms, in order. I pulled that list, plus the list of starting salaries for associates, and found out something like 90%+ of the 1st year associates in the NLJ 250 make 6 figure starting salaries. Since a 6 figure starting salary at a large law firm is a very handy definition of big law, and since the students from top schools are least likely to be the ones going to the sub-6-figure NLJ 250 firms, it's an almost perfect proxy for big law (except that it fails to include boutique firms with big law type pay but smaller footprints).

[BruceWayne]

No, at OCI 2009 firms changed their hiring preferences significantly due to the economy. 2010 was like 2009 but slightly better. And 2011 OCI will probably only be slightly better than 2010.

The 2011 chart will be the first one from the new normal.

But again nobody should take these charts as absolute strength of schools. But I'm guessing we'll see CCN > MVPBDNC like we were from 2005-2008 data.

What are you talking about? The 2005-2008 data shows CC beating MVPBCN routinely (other than least year's NU at the top). There was a slight flux where NU did better than average, but other than that the hiring hasn't really changed in regards to CC. The "change" has been that, in all the years of nlj 250 placement stats, NYU hasn't been ahead of all of MVBP or NU in any year. There hasn't been a change in absolute strength in schools, NYU was never consistently ahead of MVBP. TLS just extrapolated that from US News. We didn't see CCN> MVPDNC from 2005-2008. We saw CC>MVPDNG.

[fatduck]

Also, fwiw, NLJ 250=/= biglaw.

Yes it does.

I did the math a long time ago, because that statement really started annoying me. The NLJ 250 is a list of the largest firms, in order. I pulled that list, plus the list of starting salaries for associates, and found out something like 90%+ of the 1st year associates in the NLJ 250 make 6 figure starting salaries. Since a 6 figure starting salary at a large law firm is a very handy definition of big law, and since the students from top schools are least likely to be the ones going to the sub-6-figure NLJ 250 firms, it's an almost perfect proxy for big law (except that it fails to include boutique firms with big law type pay but smaller footprints).

Isn't that what people mean when they say NLJ 250 != biglaw? I always assumed people were saying that many of the most prestigious schools probably send a significant percentage of graduates to boutique firms that pay biglaw salaries and are more selective than many NLJ 250 firms, like a corollary to the "this is worthless without clerkships" argument.

[thesealocust]

Also, fwiw, NLJ 250=/= biglaw.

Yes it does.

I did the math a long time ago, because that statement really started annoying me. The NLJ 250 is a list of the largest firms, in order. I pulled that list, plus the list of starting salaries for associates, and found out something like 90%+ of the 1st year associates in the NLJ 250 make 6 figure starting salaries. Since a 6 figure starting salary at a large law firm is a very handy definition of big law, and since the students from top schools are least likely to be the ones going to the sub-6-figure NLJ 250 firms, it's an almost perfect proxy for big law (except that it fails to include boutique firms with big law type pay but smaller footprints).

Isn't that what people mean when they say NLJ 250 != biglaw? I always assumed people were saying that many of the most prestigious schools probably send a significant percentage of graduates to boutique firms that pay biglaw salaries and are more selective than many NLJ 250 firms, like a corollary to the "this is worthless without clerkships" argument.

My impression is that people usually say "NLJ 250 != biglaw" to imply that not all NLJ 250 firms are big law. Could be wrong though, it's been a while.

[lisjjen]

Why does everyone recommend Texas so much. It look like they place terribly? Is the Texas legal market just a joke now?

I'd be interested in knowing this as well.

[lawfreak]

How on earth is Seton Hall higher up on that list than Cardozo? Cardozo is ranked 52 and located in Manhatten while Seton Hall is ranked at 72 and located in Jersey.

[ballpop]

How on earth is Seton Hall higher up on that list than Cardozo? Cardozo is ranked 52 and located in Manhatten while Seton Hall is ranked at 72 and located in Jersey.

There are some pretty big NJ law firms that like NJ residents. Seton Hall (at the top parts of the class) are eminently employable

[Anonymous User]

Not all NLJ250 firms pay market, and a good number don't even pay six-figure salaries.

Also, some students pass up NLJ250 jobs for non-NLJ250 firm jobs. It's impossible to tell what percentage of students at what school. We can infer that schools are doing somewhat better than these stats--if we consider "good" to be NLJ250 or some other desirable firm job--but we can't infer anything about relative performance between schools.

[Blindmelon]

How on earth is Seton Hall higher up on that list than Cardozo? Cardozo is ranked 52 and located in Manhatten while Seton Hall is ranked at 72 and located in Jersey.

I don't get this. They're peer schools by anyone's count. US News rank doesn't mean crap.

[Big Shrimpin]

::thanks lucky stars for biglaw SA gig/chance to be counted among these numbers::

::enjoys discussion in this thread, but has nothing to add except non-surprise at percentages/reminder that next year's numbers will probably be just as shtty::

::eats popcorn::