Strenght of Undergrad in OCI Forum

[MrKappus]

Is Mr. Kappus intentionally dense?

Totally. Are you intentionally vague?

P.S. Thanks for everything you added to our discussion.

[rando]

I

No worries. You could be right. Which part of my logic isn't airtight though?
(1) Top UG grads are more likely, on avg, to be high academic performers
(2) Ppl who've performed at high levels in the past are more likely, on avg, to perform well in LS
(3) Law firms are more likely to hire ppl who did well during 1L
(Ergo) Grads of top UG's are more likely to end up in biglaw.

Haha I'm only asking b/c you're not addressing my argument! You're just kind of saying "well that hasn't been my experience so it's probably wrong."

*Edited for unintentional douchiness. I'm really interested in this causation/correlation issue.

Omitted variable bias. The omitted variable is LSAT performance.

OVB really should only affect the regression in terms of how much UG affects biglaw, not whether or not the above syllogism is correct in absolute terms. Since both affect biglaw placement in the same direction the ug-->biglaw placement syllogism can still be correct without accounting for the LSAT. Strictly speaking, EDCrane is right that leaving out LSAT would screw up a regression because LSAT & UG are correlated and both affect the dependent variable.

The omission of LSAT gets to the heart of what's wrong with the syllogism. It fails to consider that UG stature and GPA as well as LSAT are factored in during law school admissions. There's no reason to assume that any of these things matter much at all once people have enrolled in a particular law school, where they are surrounded by peers with largely the same intellectual capacity and drive. A more satisfactory explanation of why there are so many people from top UGs at big firms is that top law schools are disproportionately populated by such people.

I was only responding to the omitted variable bias of the lsat. The syllogism may, in fact, be wrong but it can nonetheless be correct despite omission of the lsat because they work in the same direction.

This is purely speaking from a statistics point of view regarding the ovb. And it doesnt rule out the fact that lsat/topUg overpopulation of top ls may make the above syllogism statistically insignificant.

[edcrane]

I wouldn't read too much into the varying distributions of UGs at big law firms. First, given the composition of top law schools, one would expect that top UGs would be overrepresented at top firms. Second, even if UG were never weighed in the decision to extend offers to particular law students, one would expect to see "clumping" of different UGs at different firms rather than a similar distribution of UGs across most firms--this is just elementary combinatorics at work.

This is not to say the UG doesn't matter at all, but I think there are good reasons to be skeptical about conclusions drawn from law firm UG demographics. The earlier suggestion to not bid on DPW if you're not from a top UG, for example, was misguided in my view.

So in the "composition of top law schools," top UG's are "overrepresented," meaning that top law schools are willing to go deeper into a top UG's class for admits than they are willing to go in TTT UG classes. For example, HLS might believe that the top 25% of an Ivy's class is qualified for admission, while only the top 5% of a TTT is acceptable.

This means, using your argument, that HLS believes the 75th percentile of a top UG can compete with the 95th percentile of a TTT UG (since you say top law school's admit students of roughly equal abilities). So unless a 75th percentile Ivy grad and a 95th percentile Ivy grade are equal in ability (which their UG performance clearly rules out), then the 95th percentile Ivy student is more likely to be more capable than the 95th percentile TTT grad.

I think this is basically right, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Large type, as a response to:

I don't think there's any reason to believe that students from top UG's are more likely to do well in a particular law school than their counterparts from less well regarded UGs.

Err...what?

My position is entirely consistent. The 95th percentile ivy UG grad has a 4.0 and a 178 on the LSAT. The 95th percentile TTT grad has a 3.65 and a 165 on the LSAT. These two people do not go to the same law school. The law school admissions process evens out the field (for the most part), so that almost everyone comes in with the same level of ability, and no one group is favored when it comes to grades. This is certainly the case at NYU: members of law review are approximately representative of the class as a whole.

[spondee]

Is Mr. Kappus intentionally dense?

Totally. Are you intentionally vague?

P.S. Thanks for everything you added to our discussion.

edcrane has already answered your question.

We've all been reshuffled by the LS admissions process. So, under your assumptions, the 95th-percentile Ivy student will be at YLS competing with the 99th-percentile TTT student.

Anyhow, I don't think you can draw up some equation correlating performance across undergrads. As others have pointed out, you're ignoring the LSAT's role in re-ranking us during admissions, and at least attempting to do so objectively. So students at any one school, especially the top schools, are roughly equal in intelligence, dedication, and ambition, regardless of UG prestige.

I'd think the reason top UGs are widely represented at top firms is the same reason they're widely represented at top law schools: because the pool of 17-year-olds intelligent, dedicated, ambitious, and savvy enough to one day gain admission to HLS or receive an offer from a V5 are going to disproportionately self-select into top undergrads.

[ruski]

i was speaking to a former hiring partner at a biglaw firm and i asked him this very question. he said it does matter, although it isnt the end all be all factor. he went to an ivey league undergrad though so i can see why pple like that would care about your undergrad, as they are the type of pple to more look down on city colleges. it all just depends on the preferences of the hiring partner. some pple might care, and others wont.

[RVP11]

Shoot. Some of you might be taking RVP seriously, so I should probably say this:

If you have the grades for Davis Polk, bid on them. Davis Polk is an excellent firm. They're one of the best at what they do. They're safe. The summer program is a nice and 13 weeks long. The people there, for the most part, are great. It's just a great firm. And yes, I think the culture is different from the rest of the V5. People say it's the "nice" firm, and this is definitely true. From the beginning of the recruiting process to the end, Davis Polk values the personality. While good grades are almost a necessary condition (I say almost because there are some rare situations where personality will win the day here), they are most certainly not a sufficient condition.

There are many reasons not to work there, too. While the firm is nice, I also think it's passive aggressive. The firm is huge, and the DPW-growth machine shows barely any signs of slowing down. While I know this is petty, I'm slightly annoyed that one wouldn't get their own office until maybe their second or third year as an associate, maybe even as a 4th. I think the firm can be cheap, since it's a total market-follower. Because of hierarchical it is, you might find it difficult to get the kind of work you want early on.

Undergraduate school quality is not a factor at all in the decision-process, aside from the freak chance you have an interviewer like the one I mentioned above. But that's out of your control. It's a matter of chance. I had an interviewer at Thacher Profitt back in the day who griped over a B I had on my transcript. There are so many other ways to explain the higher quantity of top UGs at Davis Polk and peer firms that it really doesn't make sense to think that UG matters. Aside from that, I know many students who received offers from there, summer associates there, and associates there. Most of them did not go to a top undergraduate school.

Bottom line: If you have the grades, bid on them.

Thanks for that. I've actually come around partly because of this post - I am bidding on them.

[Anonymous User]

I think it depends on the firm. I've heard that certain firms, won't name names, look for top undergrads + top law schools.

[MrKappus]

I think it depends on the firm. I've heard that certain firms, won't name names, look for top undergrads + top law schools.

[Anonymous User]

I think it depends on the firm. I've heard that certain firms, won't name names, look for top undergrads + top law schools.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few. Since you know so much, and since it's apparently obvious, maybe you want to list them?

[MrKappus]

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few. Since you know so much, and since it's apparently obvious, maybe you want to list them?

Go on their websites. Look up attorney profiles. If 3/4 of the attys you see went to an Ivy, maybe they care about UG. Or not. Do your own effin' research. I was just pointing out that "It depends on the firm" is pretty freakin' obvious.

[Person]

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few. Since you know so much, and since it's apparently obvious, maybe you want to list them?

Go on their websites. Look up attorney profiles. If 3/4 of the attys you see went to an Ivy, maybe they care about UG. Or not. Do your own effin' research. I was just pointing out that "It depends on the firm" is pretty freakin' obvious.

Dude, you got called out. Admit it and move on with your life.

[RVP11]

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few.

Can you name them for us?