2011 Top 50 Go-To Law Schools Forum

[UnitarySpace]

that's where a plurality of the firm jobs are dawg. and where getting a firm jerb is easier. i dunno why you would factor it out rather than see it as an advantage to nyu.

[Lawlcat]

I just put this together to attempt to factor in clerkship numbers (and put 2007-2010 data together on one graph):

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=150004

I used 2007-08 average clerkship numbers as a gap-filler for 2009-10; sounds like we'll have real 2009 clerkship data soon.

I need to get back to work, but later I'll try to expand this to include T25/T50. But since clerkship stats seem pretty weak (5% or less) below that T25-ish mark, the NLJ 250 numbers pretty much tell the whole story.

For the T14, it seems like most schools took about a 10-15% hit.

Anomalies:

Good: CORNELL WTF.

Bad: NYU and Northwestern got SMASHED. Columbia took a pretty serious hit, and so did Duke.

[vantwinkle]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly. So what you're saying is that, since NYU places more students into NYC firms, even though it's located in NYC and has a much bigger class size than any of MVPB, it is therefore on a higher tier in placement than MVPB? And you're saying that this is also true despite the fact that NYU has come out behind at least one of MVPB and even Northwestern in every year that the nlj has tracked placement? And even though nlj measures placement into nlj250 firms nationwide, as opposed to just one city---which happens to be the city where NYU is located-- like the measure that you used, NYU is on a higher tier? Is that all correct?

You don't sound very bright. The economy was bad. NYC received the bulk of the bail-out, which spread into the pockets of big NYC firms. NYC-area law schools received the windfall of this through better recruiting. This is absolutely reflected in (a) the fact that NYC firms continue to have enormous summer classes (with correspondingly near-perfect, if not perfect, offer rates) and (b) that they continue to enjoy stable financials. Very few firms outside of NYC can say the same.

So yes, it should be no surprise that a school like NYU would be one of the main recipients of this windfall. And no, that shouldn't discount their placement into top firms. If Chicago had received the bulk of the bail-out, we'd all be here saying that Chicago, NU, and Michigan are at a level above CN (assuming NYC firms had suffered as a result). As it stands, all Chicago firms, but one, are doing pitifully. Let's look at CA. No Bay Area firms are doing particularly well, and even if the economic crisis weren't here, summer class sizes were never mind blowingly huge. LA? GDC, Irell, and Latham take pretty big summer classes, but this doesn't compare to the 20 or so NYC firms that have summer classes just as large, if not larger.

And firms DO have geographical preferences. Davis Polk sends a huge team of interviewers to NYU and spends two days at EIW recruiting candidates. This translates into more interviewing slots, more callbacks, and more offers for students at NYU. The same with other firms interviewing here. Schools outside of NYC? Yeah, they'll send a bunch to Harvard. Maybe a partner or two to Yale (not that many students). But for other schools, there aren't nearlt as many interview slots. Chicago? UVA? Michigan? Dude, Cravath stopped going to UVA two years ago (though they might have returned last year). Didn't they also stop going to Boalt? The same with Chicago firms. K&E's Chicago office did not recruit at Columbia or NYU two years ago, and even last year they just went to Columbia.

None of this means that NYU is "better" than xyz school. It just means that some firms are doing better than others, some firms have geographical preferences based on the economics of sending partners to schools to interview people, some firms have more interview slots for certain schools based on those geographical preferences, and some firms tend to have enormous summer classes. Since those firms tend to be firms based on NYC, it's only natural that schools like Columbia and NYU would continue to operate at a tier above the schools ranked below them.

[vantwinkle]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly. So what you're saying is that, since NYU places more students into NYC firms, even though it's located in NYC and has a much bigger class size than any of MVPB, it is therefore on a higher tier in placement than MVPB? And you're saying that this is also true despite the fact that NYU has come out behind at least one of MVPB and even Northwestern in every year that the nlj has tracked placement? And even though nlj measures placement into nlj250 firms nationwide, as opposed to just one city---which happens to be the city where NYU is located-- like the measure that you used, NYU is on a higher tier? Is that all correct?

You don't sound very bright. The economy was bad. NYC received the bulk of the bail-out, which spread into the pockets of big NYC firms. NYC-area law schools received the windfall of this through better recruiting. This is absolutely reflected in (a) the fact that NYC firms continue to have enormous summer classes (with correspondingly near-perfect, if not perfect, offer rates) and (b) that they continue to enjoy stable financials. Very few firms outside of NYC can say the same.

So yes, it should be no surprise that a school like NYU would be one of the main recipients of this windfall. And no, that shouldn't discount their placement into top firms. If Chicago had received the bulk of the bail-out, we'd all be here saying that Chicago, NU, and Michigan are at a level above CN (assuming NYC firms had suffered as a result). As it stands, all Chicago firms, but one, are doing pitifully. Let's look at CA. No Bay Area firms are doing particularly well, and even if the economic crisis weren't here, summer class sizes were never mind blowingly huge. LA? GDC, Irell, and Latham take pretty big summer classes, but this doesn't compare to the 20 or so NYC firms that have summer classes just as large, if not larger.

And firms DO have geographical preferences. Davis Polk sends a huge team of interviewers to NYU and spends two days at EIW recruiting candidates. This translates into more interviewing slots, more callbacks, and more offers for students at NYU. The same with other firms interviewing here. Schools outside of NYC? Yeah, they'll send a bunch to Harvard. Maybe a partner or two to Yale (not that many students). But for other schools, there aren't nearlt as many interview slots. Chicago? UVA? Michigan? Dude, Cravath stopped going to UVA two years ago (though they might have returned last year). Didn't they also stop going to Boalt? The same with Chicago firms. K&E's Chicago office did not recruit at Columbia or NYU two years ago, and even last year they just went to Columbia.

None of this means that NYU is "better" than xyz school. It just means that some firms are doing better than others, some firms have geographical preferences based on the economics of sending partners to schools to interview people, some firms have more interview slots for certain schools based on those geographical preferences, and some firms tend to have enormous summer classes. Since those firms tend to be firms based on NYC, it's only natural that schools like Columbia and NYU would continue to operate at a tier above the schools ranked below them.

Just as well, when bidding on the aforementioned firms, would you rather be sitting at median at one of CCN or one of MVP-whatever the hell the next tier is?

[BruceWayne]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly. So what you're saying is that, since NYU places more students into NYC firms, even though it's located in NYC and has a much bigger class size than any of MVPB, it is therefore on a higher tier in placement than MVPB? And you're saying that this is also true despite the fact that NYU has come out behind at least one of MVPB and even Northwestern in every year that the nlj has tracked placement? And even though nlj measures placement into nlj250 firms nationwide, as opposed to just one city---which happens to be the city where NYU is located-- like the measure that you used, NYU is on a higher tier? Is that all correct?

You don't sound very bright. The economy was bad. NYC received the bulk of the bail-out, which spread into the pockets of big NYC firms. NYC-area law schools received the windfall of this through better recruiting. This is absolutely reflected in (a) the fact that NYC firms continue to have enormous summer classes (with correspondingly near-perfect, if not perfect, offer rates) and (b) that they continue to enjoy stable financials. Very few firms outside of NYC can say the same.

So yes, it should be no surprise that a school like NYU would be one of the main recipients of this windfall. And no, that shouldn't discount their placement into top firms. If Chicago had received the bulk of the bail-out, we'd all be here saying that Chicago, NU, and Michigan are at a level above CN (assuming NYC firms had suffered as a result). As it stands, all Chicago firms, but one, are doing pitifully. Let's look at CA. No Bay Area firms are doing particularly well, and even if the economic crisis weren't here, summer class sizes were never mind blowingly huge. LA? GDC, Irell, and Latham take pretty big summer classes, but this doesn't compare to the 20 or so NYC firms that have summer classes just as large, if not larger.

And firms DO have geographical preferences. Davis Polk sends a huge team of interviewers to NYU and spends two days at EIW recruiting candidates. This translates into more interviewing slots, more callbacks, and more offers for students at NYU. The same with other firms interviewing here. Schools outside of NYC? Yeah, they'll send a bunch to Harvard. Maybe a partner or two to Yale (not that many students). But for other schools, there aren't nearlt as many interview slots. Chicago? UVA? Michigan? Dude, Cravath stopped going to UVA two years ago (though they might have returned last year). Didn't they also stop going to Boalt? The same with Chicago firms. K&E's Chicago office did not recruit at Columbia or NYU two years ago, and even last year they just went to Columbia.

None of this means that NYU is "better" than xyz school. It just means that some firms are doing better than others, some firms have geographical preferences based on the economics of sending partners to schools to interview people, some firms have more interview slots for certain schools based on those geographical preferences, and some firms tend to have enormous summer classes. Since those firms tend to be firms based on NYC, it's only natural that schools like Columbia and NYU would continue to operate at a tier above the schools ranked below them.

You sound like you have a very hard time deconstructing arguments. It seems that my entire point went (far) over your head. None of what you said (which was rather pointless) contradicts my comments that NYU does not out place several of the schools that TLS has determined it is "stronger than" based on the objective placement data released for the past 4 years. In addition, you seem to think that only out placing those schools in NYU's home market (and frankly in the case of Penn not by much) is enough to elevate NYU over the schools which TLS has deemed inferior.

Strangely you then go on to contradict this very statement in your final paragraph by saying that "none of this means that NYU is better than xyz school". Which, apparently due to some reading comprehension mistakes, you fail to realize was my actual point/argument--that NYU (unlike Chicago and Columbia) is not a stronger school placement wise than at least any of MVPB or Northwestern.

Also note that most of your argument boils down to conjecture and you never cite any objective statistics. For all intents and purposes it's stuff that you've heard anonymous posters with a really high post count repeat (like your focus on large class sizes, which really doesn't address my point in any meaningful way. I'm not arguing whether or not it's easier to get a job in NYC or whether NYU's strength in NYC should be discounted. You're repeatedly missing my point (which is that NYU is a NYC focused variant of MVPB, not a school that has overall stronger placement like Chicago or Columbia. ) and therefore you think what your saying is particularly sound and makes a good basis for arguing against what I'm saying.

[vantwinkle]

Just as well, when bidding on the aforementioned firms, would you rather be sitting at median at one of CCN or one of MVP-whatever the hell the next tier is?

I don't really want to get into this. Whatever it is, I know a lot more people at CCN at median who were hired by V10s and V5s than I do at MVP. But that's all anecdotal.

Just going to ignore BruceWayne for now. It's fun to see him froth at the mouth whenever he has a chance to bash NYU.

[BruceWayne]

Just as well, when bidding on the aforementioned firms, would you rather be sitting at median at one of CCN or one of MVP-whatever the hell the next tier is?

I don't really want to get into this. Whatever it is, I know a lot more people at CCN at median who were hired by V10s and V5s than I do at MVP. But that's all anecdotal.

Just going to ignore BruceWayne for now. It's fun to see him froth at the mouth whenever he has a chance to bash NYU.

I'm just making a wild guess, but could that have something to do with 7 of the 10 firms in the V10 being in NYC? I could be wrong though. In addition, determining the worth of a firm by its Vault ranking is a horrible idea. On another note, I'm kind of curious as to why you're posting anonymously. I'm surprised they haven't said something to you about that.

[Anonymous User]

How good is Paul Weiss?

[Anonymous User]

Just as well, when bidding on the aforementioned firms, would you rather be sitting at median at one of CCN or one of MVP-whatever the hell the next tier is?

I don't really want to get into this. Whatever it is, I know a lot more people at CCN at median who were hired by V10s and V5s than I do at MVP. But that's all anecdotal.

Just going to ignore BruceWayne for now. It's fun to see him froth at the mouth whenever he has a chance to bash NYU.

I'm a 1L at NYU and I must say this data is a bit troubling. I wouldn't say he's bashing NYU since the data seems to be on his side. I think that maybe its time we just faced reality which is that TLS conventional wisdom may not be reflective of the real world.

[09042014]

Just as well, when bidding on the aforementioned firms, would you rather be sitting at median at one of CCN or one of MVP-whatever the hell the next tier is?

I don't really want to get into this. Whatever it is, I know a lot more people at CCN at median who were hired by V10s and V5s than I do at MVP. But that's all anecdotal.

Just going to ignore BruceWayne for now. It's fun to see him froth at the mouth whenever he has a chance to bash NYU.

I'm a 1L at NYU and I must say this data is a bit troubling. I wouldn't say he's bashing NYU since the data seems to be on his side. I think that maybe its time we just faced reality which is that TLS conventional wisdom may not be reflective of the real world.

Go talk to your career advisor and ask how many people get 2L OCI Summer Associate jobs. They'll tell you 70% in 2009.

[jay115]

[vantwinkle]

I'm a 1L at NYU and I must say this data is a bit troubling. I wouldn't say he's bashing NYU since the data seems to be on his side. I think that maybe its time we just faced reality which is that TLS conventional wisdom may not be reflective of the real world.

If you are a 1L at NYU, you should be smarter than this. A lot of the Class of 2010 was no offered, and many others are still deferred. The NLJ250 does not reflect on how the class of 2011 fared, which was extremely well (relative to other schools).

After Spring Break, attend the Strike-A-Match session by OCS. There, you will receive all the statistics you need. The 70% number wasn't pulled out of thin air last year, and all signs show it'll be even higher this year.

Regarding NU's "placement," see:
http://thebellyofthebeast.wordpress.com ... n-part-ii/

[09042014]

I'm a 1L at NYU and I must say this data is a bit troubling. I wouldn't say he's bashing NYU since the data seems to be on his side. I think that maybe its time we just faced reality which is that TLS conventional wisdom may not be reflective of the real world.

If you are a 1L at NYU, you should be smarter than this. A lot of the Class of 2010 was no offered, and many others are still deferred. The NLJ250 does not reflect on how the class of 2011 fared, which was extremely well (relative to other schools).

After Spring Break, attend the Strike-A-Match session by OCS. There, you will receive all the statistics you need. The 70% number wasn't pulled out of thin air last year, and all signs show it'll be even higher this year.

Regarding NU's "placement," see:
http://thebellyofthebeast.wordpress.com ... n-part-ii/

LOL at that blog post claims that overall market conditions can't explain NU dropping in placement. CHECK YO OFFER RATES

[BruceWayne]

Just as well, when bidding on the aforementioned firms, would you rather be sitting at median at one of CCN or one of MVP-whatever the hell the next tier is?

I don't really want to get into this. Whatever it is, I know a lot more people at CCN at median who were hired by V10s and V5s than I do at MVP. But that's all anecdotal.

Just going to ignore BruceWayne for now. It's fun to see him froth at the mouth whenever he has a chance to bash NYU.

I'm a 1L at NYU and I must say this data is a bit troubling. I wouldn't say he's bashing NYU since the data seems to be on his side. I think that maybe its time we just faced reality which is that TLS conventional wisdom may not be reflective of the real world.

And in the grand scheme of things, that DEFINITELY isn't a bad thing. That first anon poster really missed my point. I'm not "bashing" NYU or saying that it's some crap school--people need to get some perspective--that would obviously be an absolutely ludicrous statement. My point is that a lot of this conventional TLS wisdom is just hot air, pulled from autoadmit, hearsay, and estimations based off of yearly US News ranking.

[keg411]

I am pretty sure most of the deferrals have been cleared by now so those aren't really relevant anymore.

[09042014]

I am pretty sure most of the deferrals have been cleared by now so those aren't really relevant anymore.

I'm 90% sure those NLJ counted deferred people as being employed anyway .

[vantwinkle]

I am pretty sure most of the deferrals have been cleared by now so those aren't really relevant anymore.

Skadden? Shearman? Cravath? Weil? Four firms that took plenty of NYU 2Ls in 2008 and some of whom just started in January (though many others are still deferred, even at some of the above firms). The above firms doesn't even exhaust the list of firms that have yet to start or just started their class of 2010.

[vantwinkle]

I am pretty sure most of the deferrals have been cleared by now so those aren't really relevant anymore.

I'm 90% sure those NLJ counted deferred people as being employed anyway .

What's the basis for this confidence? Let me tell you my basis. First, let me say that I haven't read the NLJ250 methodology, but I will do so in a second. But for now, I *suspect* that they're counting the number of graduates employed at the largest 250 firms by a certain date. The problem is that, at least if my firm operates like other firms do, you're not "employed" until you're sitting at your desk. You can say, "Oh, deferreds are receiving stipends, so they must be employed." That's not true, at least in my situation. I'm receiving my stipend pretty soon, but I'm pretty sure my firm will not count me as employed until I'm sitting at that desk.

And the problem is that there are firms that haven't even "deferred," but some of whose associates started in January. One V10 (can't remember which one), offered staggered start dates, with one of the options being... January 2011. Simpson, for example, offered an "optional" public interest leave. In addition, for the class of 2010, they offered staggered start dates, one of which was mid-December, 2010 (see: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... dates.html).

There are so many, many firms whose class of 2010 has just started or still has yet to start (though there are a handful, like Cahill, who accelerated start dates and undeferred all of their incoming associates). People who think that the deferral pipeline has "cleared itself out" fail to realize that the shit hit the fan in October 2008 (2.5 years ago), and that many firms, in addition to deferring the class of 2009, deferred the class of 2010.

[rayiner]

I'm a 1L at NYU and I must say this data is a bit troubling. I wouldn't say he's bashing NYU since the data seems to be on his side. I think that maybe its time we just faced reality which is that TLS conventional wisdom may not be reflective of the real world.

If you are a 1L at NYU, you should be smarter than this. A lot of the Class of 2010 was no offered, and many others are still deferred. The NLJ250 does not reflect on how the class of 2011 fared, which was extremely well (relative to other schools).

After Spring Break, attend the Strike-A-Match session by OCS. There, you will receive all the statistics you need. The 70% number wasn't pulled out of thin air last year, and all signs show it'll be even higher this year.

Regarding NU's "placement," see:
http://thebellyofthebeast.wordpress.com ... n-part-ii/

LOL at that blog post claims that overall market conditions can't explain NU dropping in placement. CHECK YO OFFER RATES

LOL. Seriously.

NU's class sizes versus placement ranking:
2007 2008 2009 2010
234 245 254 284
#2 #5 #1 #8

I think it mostly has to do with the health of the Chicago market.

[keg411]

I am pretty sure most of the deferrals have been cleared by now so those aren't really relevant anymore.

Skadden? Shearman? Cravath? Weil? Four firms that took plenty of NYU 2Ls in 2008 and some of whom just started in January (though many others are still deferred, even at some of the above firms). The above firms doesn't even exhaust the list of firms that have yet to start or just started their class of 2010.

I knew Weil was still deferred, but it seemed like a bunch of other firms that were supposed to start later started in October, at least in NYC (I know three off the top of my head, and I'm pretty sure there were more). Maybe I was just imputing those three firms to the rest of the list and they were outliers? Any chance you could PM me the list of firms still deferred if you don't want to post it on here?

ETA: My information is based on Cahill, GT (where the class was originally deferred until March '11 and was pushed all the way up to October) and the staggered STB start dates (and one of the later ones had at least one later starter was someone no-offered from another firm after 2L summer); I also know Cleary started on time, but don't know if they were ever deferred. I also may delete this post as there is some information that very much "outs" me and the people I know are based on stuff I've posted in the past.

[FiveSermon]

If Cornell goes up immay go there

[turbotong]

Does anybody have any idea what the % breakdown for practice fields these NLJ 250 firms are hiring for is? (tax, corporate, patent, labor... etc.)

[Grizz]

If Cornell goes up immay go there

About 40% for class of 2011. See ATL.

[09042014]

If Cornell goes up immay go there

About 40% for class of 2011. See ATL.

Pretty low. NU did better than that and they should fairly equal.

[motiontodismiss]

and can someone explain Cornell?

Hiring in New York is back with a vengeance?