T14 students shut out of OCI and clerkships Forum

[chadwick218]

I really think all 3 are equal and Penn has a much smaller class to get employed, which i think is an advantage. (only 250ish)

Credited. FWIW, this also is the reason why NU places so high on NALP placement (smaller class size and self-selection). Public interest is certainly secondary at NU and thought of as a career track only for those who failed at OCI.

[XxSpyKEx]

I really think all 3 are equal and Penn has a much smaller class to get employed, which i think is an advantage. (only 250ish)

Credited. FWIW, this also is the reason why NU places so high on NALP placement (smaller class size and self-selection). Public interest is certainly secondary at NU and thought of as a career track only for those who failed at OCI.

I think a small class size is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. E.g. it's not so clear to me that it would be any easier to fall in the top 110/207 students at UChi then it would be top 214/405 students at Virginia. It might actually be easier to fall into the that 214/405 pool than the 110/207 pool because of the larger sample size.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

[miamiman]

I really think all 3 are equal and Penn has a much smaller class to get employed, which i think is an advantage. (only 250ish)

Credited. FWIW, this also is the reason why NU places so high on NALP placement (smaller class size and self-selection). Public interest is certainly secondary at NU and thought of as a career track only for those who failed at OCI.

I think a small class size is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. E.g. it's not so clear to me that it would be any easier to fall in the top 110/207 students at UChi then it would be top 214/405 students at Virginia. It might actually be easier to fall into the that 214/405 pool than the 110/207 pool because of the larger sample size.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

i'm curious to hear a response to this

[Posner]

....

[270910]

I really think all 3 are equal and Penn has a much smaller class to get employed, which i think is an advantage. (only 250ish)

Credited. FWIW, this also is the reason why NU places so high on NALP placement (smaller class size and self-selection). Public interest is certainly secondary at NU and thought of as a career track only for those who failed at OCI.

I think a small class size is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. E.g. it's not so clear to me that it would be any easier to fall in the top 110/207 students at UChi then it would be top 214/405 students at Virginia. It might actually be easier to fall into the that 214/405 pool than the 110/207 pool because of the larger sample size.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

i'm curious to hear a response to this

Class size winds up being a wash.

Big class size: More employers come to OCI because they have better odds of snagging a student, employers may be willing to take more students, the alumni base is larger amongst judges, firms, PI shops, and government positions. BUT there are more students that have to be placed to make the statistics work out.

Small class size: The opposite of the above. Fewer students to place, but less placement ability.

The top 14 plays this out:

1) Small
2) Huge
3) Small
4) Medium
5) Small
6) Medium
7s) Small and Small
9) Medium
10) Medium
11s) Small and small
12) Small
14) Huge

There are more small law schools, but there's actually a shockingly even distribution amongst the top schools in terms of class sizes. There's some efficiency to packing people in (more profs, more classes, more clinics) and some inefficiency (more faceless, bigger class sizes, more students to place). All in all though, it's a wash.

Oh, and re: the go to law schools - schools wind up being ranked on something for which they aren't directly competing. Schools aren't trying to cram as many students into NLJ jobs as possible. Boutique firms, PI shops, government gigs, and clerkships all detract from NLJ numbers. Northwestern 'wins' in large part, as others have noted, because of self selection.

If you add up the # of grads in 'highly personally desirable legal jobs' you get (prepare to be shocked):

HYS
CCN
MVPB
DCNG

HTH

[sundevil77]

I just couldn't bring myself to spend around $200k for a T10. That being said, we'll have to see if going to a T20 with $$ will turn out to be a good idea. Of course, my goal isn't necessarily to land biglaw in NYC, etc. I understand that that IS the goal for a lot of people on here, but when I honestly evaluated what I wanted to do with my law degree before I found TLS and got a little swept away in the "prestige" whoring, I found that the lower ranked school was probably a better fit.

+1,000,000

I think one of the main reasons I wanted to go to a T10 was TLS. I firmly believe it is the right decision for many people, but not right for others. You shouldn't go to a T10 just to go to a T10. I think sometimes we get caught up in a groupthink state of mind on TLS. You need to match your personality and career goals with the right law school.

[miamiman]

i'm curious to hear a response to this

Class size winds up being a wash.

Big class size: More employers come to OCI because they have better odds of snagging a student, employers may be willing to take more students, the alumni base is larger amongst judges, firms, PI shops, and government positions. BUT there are more students that have to be placed to make the statistics work out.

Small class size: The opposite of the above. Fewer students to place, but less placement ability.

The top 14 plays this out:

1) Small
2) Huge
3) Small
4) Medium
5) Small
6) Medium
7s) Small and Small
9) Medium
10) Medium
11s) Small and small
12) Small
14) Huge

There are more small law schools, but there's actually a shockingly even distribution amongst the top schools in terms of class sizes. There's some efficiency to packing people in (more profs, more classes, more clinics) and some inefficiency (more faceless, bigger class sizes, more students to place). All in all though, it's a wash.

Oh, and re: the go to law schools - schools wind up being ranked on something for which they aren't directly competing. Schools aren't trying to cram as many students into NLJ jobs as possible. Boutique firms, PI shops, government gigs, and clerkships all detract from NLJ numbers. Northwestern 'wins' in large part, as others have noted, because of self selection.

If you add up the # of grads in 'highly personally desirable legal jobs' you get (prepare to be shocked):

HYS
CCN
MVPB
DCNG

HTH

Isn't it easier to get placed, and isn't "median" less relevant, when at Chicago than NYU?

[chadwick218]

Isn't it easier to get placed, and isn't "median" less relevant, when at Chicago than NYU?

I tend to agree with this. Firms will often take a similar # of students from truly elite schools thereby minimizing the "median" effect to some extent.

I also think that the grading schemes at some schools (see NU, IMO) have created a system whereby you have a considerable % of the class bunched up at the median (beyond what a normal distribution would ordinarily suggest).

[miamiman]

Isn't it easier to get placed, and isn't "median" less relevant, when at Chicago than NYU?

I tend to agree with this. Firms will often take a similar # of students from truly elite schools thereby minimizing the "median" effect to some extent.

I also think that the grading schemes at some schools (see NU, IMO) have created a system whereby you have a considerable % of the class bunched up at the median (beyond what a normal distribution would ordinarily suggest).

Seems like there is no dispositive information to answer this one way or another.

[RVP11]

It might actually be easier to fall into the that 214/405 pool than the 110/207 pool because of the larger sample size.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

It could also be harder. Smaller class size = more volatility and randomness, i.e. it's more likely that your class will be either significantly better or significantly worse than other classes at the same school. The bigger sample just means it's less likely that you'll have the extreme fortune or misfortune of being in an outlier class.

[lawschoollll]

It might actually be easier to fall into the that 214/405 pool than the 110/207 pool because of the larger sample size.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

It could also be harder. Smaller class size = more volatility and randomness, i.e. it's more likely that your class will be either significantly better or significantly worse than other classes at the same school. The bigger sample just means it's less likely that you'll have the extreme fortune or misfortune of being in an outlier class.

Yea. This would seem right.

[270910]

Isn't it easier to get placed, and isn't "median" less relevant, when at Chicago than NYU?

No.

HTH.

[miamiman]

Isn't it easier to get placed, and isn't "median" less relevant, when at Chicago than NYU?

No.

HTH.

you want to support this with anything besides one word answers and snarky sign-offs?

[soullesswonder]

This is a tangent, but am I the only one who immediately thinks "Penn" when someone talks about bad employment outcomes at a T10 (or particularly when they say MVP)?

Why?

It just generally seems to be the weakest T10 school. Roughly comparable to M+V in private firm placement, but not even close in things like clerkships and alumni judges. Also lacks a regional outlet for its students. (Mich = Midwest, Virginia = South)

Let me guess...0L?

Why don't you find some stats to refute what I said? That would actually, you know...be helpful.

[rayiner]

I really think all 3 are equal and Penn has a much smaller class to get employed, which i think is an advantage. (only 250ish)

Credited. FWIW, this also is the reason why NU places so high on NALP placement (smaller class size and self-selection). Public interest is certainly secondary at NU and thought of as a career track only for those who failed at OCI.

I think a small class size is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. E.g. it's not so clear to me that it would be any easier to fall in the top 110/207 students at UChi then it would be top 214/405 students at Virginia. It might actually be easier to fall into the that 214/405 pool than the 110/207 pool because of the larger sample size.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

I don't think the point is that it's any easier or harder to attain a particular class rank at either school, but rather that a smaller class size gives you some more flexibility with class rank. If firms set median-ish as the cut-off it's easier for a school to place 20 students in that range than 40 students in that range, especially in local markets.

[Anonymous User]

Just found this:
Cornell Class of 2010, first summer (2008) placement:
Private Practice: 20%
Judges' Chambers: 15%
Government/Public Interest: 32%

Michigan, Summer of 2009, 1L placement
Law firms: 16%
Judicial: 21%
Public Sector: 52%

Which summer, 2008 or 2009, was hit worse?
Are 1L judicial jobs harder to get than firms jobs?
Are Michigan and Cornell considered peer schools in the private sector in the Northeast?
Any other thoughts?

[romothesavior]

I am so sick of this crap about grades being a "coin flip." Your odds of finishing in the top 50% is not 50%. Ugh. I can't stand this horrific cliche that has infected this site.

I suppose TTT-LS, for example, could have just as easily finished in the bottom 2% of his class.

Could you speak a little more to this? I definitely agree with you, since it is obvious that certain people will be lazy and self-select themselves into the lower half, legacies and URMs with low scores are more likely to finish below median, certain people will just have a better grasp of the material, etc. Are there other factors here that make your odds of finishing above median greater than 50% that I haven't considered?

[bigben]

Just found this:
Cornell Class of 2010, first summer (2008) placement:
Private Practice: 20%
Judges' Chambers: 15%
Government/Public Interest: 32%

Michigan, Summer of 2009, 1L placement
Law firms: 16%
Judicial: 21%
Public Sector: 52%

Which summer, 2008 or 2009, was hit worse?
Are 1L judicial jobs harder to get than firms jobs?
Are Michigan and Cornell considered peer schools in the private sector in the Northeast?
Any other thoughts?

1L summer stats do not remotely depict ultimate employment outcomes. 2L summer is the key.

And of course a "private practice" category is too broad to be very useful.

[XxSpyKEx]

It might actually be easier to fall into the that 214/405 pool than the 110/207 pool because of the larger sample size.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

It could also be harder. Smaller class size = more volatility and randomness, i.e. it's more likely that your class will be either significantly better or significantly worse than other classes at the same school. The bigger sample just means it's less likely that you'll have the extreme fortune or misfortune of being in an outlier class.

This was kind of my point (notice the "might"). A bigger sample size means that you'll have a better sample, and are less likely to end up with an outlier class, and things are fairer. It's kinda like how they don't curve seminars under 40 students because it avoids the possibility to ending up with a class of 35 of the top students all competing for a limited number of high grades.

I really think all 3 are equal and Penn has a much smaller class to get employed, which i think is an advantage. (only 250ish)

Credited. FWIW, this also is the reason why NU places so high on NALP placement (smaller class size and self-selection). Public interest is certainly secondary at NU and thought of as a career track only for those who failed at OCI.

I think a small class size is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. E.g. it's not so clear to me that it would be any easier to fall in the top 110/207 students at UChi then it would be top 214/405 students at Virginia. It might actually be easier to fall into the that 214/405 pool than the 110/207 pool because of the larger sample size.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

I don't think the point is that it's any easier or harder to attain a particular class rank at either school, but rather that a smaller class size gives you some more flexibility with class rank. If firms set median-ish as the cut-off it's easier for a school to place 20 students in that range than 40 students in that range, especially in local markets.

Right, but if you could attend a school where a larger pool of students are making the cutoff, it seems like it would be the better school to attend (because there is a larger pool of students, see above). E.g. 214 students are making the cutoff at Virginia, where only 110 are making it at UChi. Were firms to only take 110 at both schools then UChi would be the better pick (because a larger % of the class would be making the cut off), but that's not what firms are doing.

[Kohinoor]

ITT: People who are quite bad at statistics.

[wesleybs]

Are 1L judicial jobs harder to get than firms jobs?

1L firm jobs are more difficult to get than the typical judicial jobs that 1Ls get.

[Renzo]

ITT: People who are quite bad at statistics.

And misunderstand firm hiring.

[JCougar]

Oh, and re: the go to law schools - schools wind up being ranked on something for which they aren't directly competing. Schools aren't trying to cram as many students into NLJ jobs as possible. Boutique firms, PI shops, government gigs, and clerkships all detract from NLJ numbers. Northwestern 'wins' in large part, as others have noted, because of self selection.

If you add up the # of grads in 'highly personally desirable legal jobs' you get (prepare to be shocked):

HYS
CCN
MVPB
DCNG

HTH

+1

Although I'm admittedly an 0L on here, it's painfully evident that people take these "percentage of class employed at a NLJ 250 firm" way too literally. Not everyone that enters law school is a salary gunner like 99% of TLS. Academia, a good number of clerkships, certain government jobs, a smattering of "business" jobs, prestigious PI, or even graduate school (such as an LLM) are all options the top of the class may likely choose (in some cases very likely). Academia and federal clerkships ONLY go to the top of the class. This should be obvious to people, especially since Yale and Harvard place many into academia and clerkships, and Berkeley places many self-selected PI lawyers, which lowers their NLJ placement percentage. Do people really think Yale students have trouble because they rank 14th as far as getting NLJ 250 jobs?

People take the percentage of the class that doesn't get NLJ 250 jobs and assume that if your grades are worse than this percentage, you're doomed. But even some of the people with better grades simply come off as complete douches during interviews and strike out at OCI. There's one extreme of people thinking "oh I'm going to lawl skool, I'm going to be rich and have a life like Ally McBeal." Then there's the other extreme where drama queens on TLS scream about "only the top 25% at the T10 are going to make it in life, the rest will be wallowing in debt as slaves forever." Just because you know a few people at T14s with decent grades that struck out doesn't mean everyone with those grades or below is fucked. Any smart hiring partner knows that grades only mean so much when it comes to how valuable to a firm someone is going to be. You can come off as a completely entitled douche at your interviews, or only OCI at firms in cities where you have zero connections. Or maybe you have zero work experience and a irrelevant undergrad major. Who knows? Any law firm that simply hands out positions to associates who got a 3.3 instead of a 3.1 is a pretty dumb law firm.

[Renzo]

Any law firm that simply hands out positions to associates who got a 3.3 instead of a 3.1 is a pretty dumb law firm.

I was with you until this. The bare fact of the matter is that many firms do have GPA cutoffs. It's not that they are going to take a 3.41 over a 3.32 every single time, instead it's that both of those candidates will be considered, while someone with a below-the-line GPA won't.

[270910]

Oh, and re: the go to law schools - schools wind up being ranked on something for which they aren't directly competing. Schools aren't trying to cram as many students into NLJ jobs as possible. Boutique firms, PI shops, government gigs, and clerkships all detract from NLJ numbers. Northwestern 'wins' in large part, as others have noted, because of self selection.

If you add up the # of grads in 'highly personally desirable legal jobs' you get (prepare to be shocked):

HYS
CCN
MVPB
DCNG

HTH

+1

Although I'm admittedly an 0L on here, it's painfully evident that people take these "percentage of class employed at a NLJ 250 firm" way too literally. Not everyone that enters law school is a salary gunner like 99% of TLS. Academia, a good number of clerkships, certain government jobs, a smattering of "business" jobs, prestigious PI, or even graduate school (such as an LLM) are all options the top of the class may likely choose (in some cases very likely). Academia and federal clerkships ONLY go to the top of the class. This should be obvious to people, especially since Yale and Harvard place many into academia and clerkships, and Berkeley places many self-selected PI lawyers, which lowers their NLJ placement percentage. Do people really think Yale students have trouble because they rank 14th as far as getting NLJ 250 jobs?

People take the percentage of the class that doesn't get NLJ 250 jobs and assume that if your grades are worse than this percentage, you're doomed. But even some of the people with better grades simply come off as complete douches during interviews and strike out at OCI. There's one extreme of people thinking "oh I'm going to lawl skool, I'm going to be rich and have a life like Ally McBeal." Then there's the other extreme where drama queens on TLS scream about "only the top 25% at the T10 are going to make it in life, the rest will be wallowing in debt as slaves forever." Just because you know a few people at T14s with decent grades that struck out doesn't mean everyone with those grades or below is fucked. Any smart hiring partner knows that grades only mean so much when it comes to how valuable to a firm someone is going to be. You can come off as a completely entitled douche at your interviews, or only OCI at firms in cities where you have zero connections. Or maybe you have zero work experience and a irrelevant undergrad major. Who knows? Any law firm that simply hands out positions to associates who got a 3.3 instead of a 3.1 is a pretty dumb law firm.

Shockingly accurate coming from a 0L . One point: While a law firm that hands out associate position to people with a 3.3 instead of a 3.1 is probably a dumb law firm, crap like that is none the less extraordinarily common.

Case in point: The guerrilla guide to getting the legal job of your dreams, which is longer than one of my casebooks and full of information about getting jobs despite poor grades, selling yourself via interviews/cover letter/resume/connections, and proving your worth in means other than academic performance has a section on large law firms. It's like a paragraph long and says "large law firms care about three things: grades, grades, and grades." The book is a wonderful look at the cool things you can do if you miss the big law boat, but even its rosy optimism with respect to legal hiring admits flatly that for certain legal positions (CoA clerkships and big firm jobs spring to mind) your GPA is the #1 factor by a mile.