Top 25% at MVP to ????? Forum

[MarkTwain]

My friend at Michigan (non-URM) got callbacks in New York with sub-median grades. Top 25% should be alright in NYC (one of the easier markets) unless you have a horrible personality.

I'm happy for your friend. This was not the norm. I know TONS of people at Virginia who were top 15-30% and got nothing in any market.

That said, I think for the time being most people really need to start looking outside the sphere of SA jobs (current 2Ls probably should have started looking a long time ago). Past stats are just not very useful. What makes matters worse is that everyone knows at least a few people who got great jobs with poor grades (such as the above). This leads to others' making poor decisions.

[avacado111]

My friend at Michigan (non-URM) got callbacks in New York with sub-median grades. Top 25% should be alright in NYC (one of the easier markets) unless you have a horrible personality.

I'm happy for your friend. This was not the norm. I know TONS of people at Virginia who were top 15-30% and got nothing in any market.

i highly doubt this.

[vanwinkle]

My friend at Michigan (non-URM) got callbacks in New York with sub-median grades. Top 25% should be alright in NYC (one of the easier markets) unless you have a horrible personality.

I'm happy for your friend. This was not the norm. I know TONS of people at Virginia who were top 15-30% and got nothing in any market.

i highly doubt this.

You shouldn't.

[avacado111]

My friend at Michigan (non-URM) got callbacks in New York with sub-median grades. Top 25% should be alright in NYC (one of the easier markets) unless you have a horrible personality.

I'm happy for your friend. This was not the norm. I know TONS of people at Virginia who were top 15-30% and got nothing in any market.

i highly doubt this.

You shouldn't.

seriously?

[vanwinkle]

seriously?

There are a few things that may explain this (they may have focused too hard too early on too many unrealistic firms/locations, a lot of secondary markets are looking for folks to have local ties to make sure they're going to stick around, etc.) but yeah, some people with good grades are struggling even in the T10.

[MarkTwain]

they may have focused too hard too early on too many unrealistic firms/locations, a lot of secondary markets are looking for folks to have local ties to make sure they're going to stick around, etc.) but yeah, some people with good grades are struggling even in the T10.

I largely agree with this. Students in C/O 2011 started law school in August 2008, before the market turned to shit. They had expectations that were fair, but their expectations BECAME unrealistic when they failed to adapt with the shifting market. NYC, for example, is an absolutely brutal market to break into right now. Secondary markets are definitely looking for people with local ties. Firms in these markets don't have the excess cash to take chances.

What I observed was people basing their OCI bids on advice from the career services office, which amounted to: These X firms hired students with Y GPA. The market is a bit tougher, so maybe pick firms that hired people with GPAs .1 below what you actually have. It turned out that somewhere between .3 and .4 lower would have been appropriate in many cases.

It's nobody's fault. Nobody could have really known what was going on.

People don't want to believe this because it's scary. But it's true, nonetheless. The facts are the facts: I know TONS of people in that grade range who got nothing at OCI. I also know a few people who had very poor grades and got jobs. It wasn't the norm. In MOST cases they looked to unique secondary markets and had ties to those markets. A few broke into DC/NYC.

What can you do? Next year, bid very conservatively, and don't wait to apply to PI/govt jobs until after you get a full round of rejections from firms. Anything is possible - and indeed for most people, striking out is PROBABLE.

[MarkTwain]

For the record, in case you haven't noticed, I have no incentive to deal in false information here. I transferred from Virginia last year, and many of the unfortunate people I'm speaking of are my close friends. I'd simply like to see students making the right choices next year, since there is more information available now than there was for the C/O 2011. It's important to not fall into the mentality of, X.YZ GPA will be sufficient for a certain market. You really don't know that.

[apper123]

seriously?

There are a few things that may explain this (they may have focused too hard too early on too many unrealistic firms/locations, a lot of secondary markets are looking for folks to have local ties to make sure they're going to stick around, etc.) but yeah, some people with good grades are struggling even in the T10.

I assume they ignored firms like Hunton Williams and Mcguire Woods in Richmond where they could have dominated the market, made great bank and set themselves up to lateral to another location if they wanted to.

[MarkTwain]

A lot of people still don't realize the degree to which SA class sizes have fallen. H&W and mcguirewoods probably had tons of competition for very few spots.

[RVP11]

seriously?

There are a few things that may explain this (they may have focused too hard too early on too many unrealistic firms/locations, a lot of secondary markets are looking for folks to have local ties to make sure they're going to stick around, etc.) but yeah, some people with good grades are struggling even in the T10.

Some combination of all this and not being able to interview well.

I'd like to think that a combination of top 20-25% + bidding on the right firms/markets + interviewing well = BigLaw offer.

[MarkTwain]

There's no reason not to think that's LIKELY going to work out. But a few considerations: (1) you don't know what's going on behind the scenes at firms, so bid conservatively in terms of firms' prestige level; (2) most people think they are good interviewers, but not many actually are.

[chadwick218]

I'd like to think that a combination of top 20-25% + bidding on the right firms/markets + interviewing well = BigLaw offer.

Defining biglaw as the NALP 250, I think that this pretty much holds up!

[chadwick218]

There's no reason not to think that's LIKELY going to work out. But a few considerations: (1) you don't know what's going on behind the scenes at firms, so bid conservatively in terms of firms' prestige level; (2) most people think they are good interviewers, but not many actually are.

This is my plan. I figure that although I have numbers that allow for consideration at a V25 and 5+ years of WE, I will likely bid much lower with the hopes of simply landing a job and coming out with something ... if only I had come to this realization a year ago ...

[MarkTwain]

WE counted for a lot in the most recent OCI.

[chadwick218]

WE counted for a lot in the most recent OCI.

This is good to hear (in light of the fact that despite strong grades, I am oddly convinced that it is working against me as I applied for 1L jobs). Interviewers seemed to have a hard time undrestanding why and left and seemed to believe that my previous career simply wasn't congruent with a career in law.

[chadwick218]

For the record, in case you haven't noticed, I have no incentive to deal in false information here. I transferred from Virginia last year, and many of the unfortunate people I'm speaking of are my close friends. I'd simply like to see students making the right choices next year, since there is more information available now than there was for the C/O 2011. It's important to not fall into the mentality of, X.YZ GPA will be sufficient for a certain market. You really don't know that.

MarkTwain, I haven't followed these boards very closely. Where did you transfer to?

[BeastCoastHype]

You aren't proud to tell people you go to Northwestern? For one, it has a lot more "prestige" in other academic fields than NYU does. Overall Northwestern is a better institution than NYU. CCN is far from Harvard in terms of the "prestige" factor too...I don't get it.

Although the only "primary" discipline where NU is not ranked higher than NYU is law, the lay prestige still seems to favor NYU.

Weird...not in my experience. Maybe it's a regional thing (I'm from the West).

As a lifelong NYC resident I know a lot about the school, and I think that I can help shed some light on this as it really is an interesting bit of history.

NYU started out as a completely local school, built mainly for working and middle class residents of NYC who were not able to go to Harvard, Yale etc. It became a pretty good regional school in the 1980s, but still nothing to write home about. Then about 15 years ago they suddenly started to see a huge increase in applications and began to build a national reputation in fields outside of law. In about the last 8 years or so the school has become really aggressive in recruiting faculty, and is now totally world class - Nouriel Roubini, Jeffrey Han, Harold Ford Jr., and a lot of other really amazing people teach there, and the student body really improved as well. The average SAT is now a little over 1400 on the old scale, and students who started at NYU after about the year 2000 are WAY smarter than those who were there before. Because of the way it has grown, there is a real disparity between NYU's current reality and its reputation with people from older generations outside of NYC. I went to a pretty well known high school in Manhattan, and a lot of my friends turned down Cornell, WUSTL etc. to go to NYU instead, which would have been unthinkable for people in our parents' generation. My guess is that within a decade NYU will be on equal footing with a place like Northwestern anywhere outside of Chicago.

It's kind of funny because this has happened (albeit to a lesser extent) with other, less famous schools in the city as well. Fordham, for example, has really grown over that same time period. New York has become a lot more liveable over my lifetime, and the schools here have benefited from it tremendously. I've enjoyed watching all this happen; it's exciting to watch the schools improve along with the city.

Basically I think that right now Northwestern probably has the edge in terms of reputation, but it's not going to last in the long term. Don't base your decision on this either way, however. I would imagine that in terms of the legal world, top 10% at Northwestern will be at least equal to a top 40% student at NYU. You could basically stick with what you're doing or transfer and be rock solid either way, so unless you want to live in NY I don't see any compelling reason to do it.

[chadwick218]

Very good post BeastCoastHype! Outside of any possible question of prestige, I genuinely do not like attending school at NU. I decided to attend NU for the wrong reasons. Rightly or wrongly, I just want to be proud to say where I graduated from law school.

[fortissimo]

You aren't proud to tell people you go to Northwestern? For one, it has a lot more "prestige" in other academic fields than NYU does. Overall Northwestern is a better institution than NYU. CCN is far from Harvard in terms of the "prestige" factor too...I don't get it.

Although the only "primary" discipline where NU is not ranked higher than NYU is law, the lay prestige still seems to favor NYU.

Weird...not in my experience. Maybe it's a regional thing (I'm from the West).

As a lifelong NYC resident I know a lot about the school, and I think that I can help shed some light on this as it really is an interesting bit of history.

NYU started out as a completely local school, built mainly for working and middle class residents of NYC who were not able to go to Harvard, Yale etc. It became a pretty good regional school in the 1980s, but still nothing to write home about. Then about 15 years ago they suddenly started to see a huge increase in applications and began to build a national reputation in fields outside of law. In about the last 8 years or so the school has become really aggressive in recruiting faculty, and is now totally world class - Nouriel Roubini, Jeffrey Han, Harold Ford Jr., and a lot of other really amazing people teach there, and the student body really improved as well. The average SAT is now a little over 1400 on the old scale, and students who started at NYU after about the year 2000 are WAY smarter than those who were there before. Because of the way it has grown, there is a real disparity between NYU's current reality and its reputation with people from older generations outside of NYC. I went to a pretty well known high school in Manhattan, and a lot of my friends turned down Cornell, WUSTL etc. to go to NYU instead, which would have been unthinkable for people in our parents' generation. My guess is that within a decade NYU will be on equal footing with a place like Northwestern anywhere outside of Chicago.

It's kind of funny because this has happened (albeit to a lesser extent) with other, less famous schools in the city as well. Fordham, for example, has really grown over that same time period. New York has become a lot more liveable over my lifetime, and the schools here have benefited from it tremendously. I've enjoyed watching all this happen; it's exciting to watch the schools improve along with the city.

Basically I think that right now Northwestern probably has the edge in terms of reputation, but it's not going to last in the long term. Don't base your decision on this either way, however. I would imagine that in terms of the legal world, top 10% at Northwestern will be at least equal to a top 40% student at NYU. You could basically stick with what you're doing or transfer and be rock solid either way, so unless you want to live in NY I don't see any compelling reason to do it.

Interesting explanation, but didn't the SAT get easier? (I.e. it's easier to score over 1400 on the new math/verbal sections combined than it was when we took the SAT?) I think many schools upped its combined math/verbal scores when they changed to the new SAT. NYU is still relatively unknown on the other side of the country though and none of my friends applied to undergrad there while many of us applied to Northwestern. Maybe the next generation will view the two schools differently but I can't see us non-New Yorkers changing our views in our lifetime.

Another thing is that while NYU has good art, law, and business programs, it is pretty mediocre in my major (a science), which is why I have a somewhat negative impression of the school. Scientists tend to value schools with strong science programs far more than others.

Top 10% at Northwestern is equivalent to probably much higher than top 40% at NYU. The student body isn't that different. It's all about test-taking skills, which is why top 10% at non T-14s still tend to do well even if they transfer to HYS.

If Chadwick isn't happy at NU though, that's a good reason to transfer. I just don't really understand the prestige argument.

[chadwick218]

If Chadwick isn't happy at NU though, that's a good reason to transfer. I just don't really understand the prestige argument.

The prestige argument wasn't so much a comparison b/w NU and NYU as it was a broad statement w/r/t NU and its "relationship" w/ other T-14 schools.

[fortissimo]

If Chadwick isn't happy at NU though, that's a good reason to transfer. I just don't really understand the prestige argument.

The prestige argument wasn't so much a comparison b/w NU and NYU as it was a broad statement w/r/t NU and its "relationship" w/ other T-14 schools.

I know. I was just picking on NYU because it's probably one of the least "prestigious" T-14 to people and you had mentioned transferring to CCN. Obviously I can't pick on Columbia, because it probably has the most name "prestige" outside of HYS, and while UChicago doesn't have much lay "prestige" it has academic "prestige," while NYU in my opinion has neither.

Pardon for the derailment. Carry on, OP.

[BeastCoastHype]

Interesting explanation, but didn't the SAT get easier? (I.e. it's easier to score over 1400 on the new math/verbal sections combined than it was when we took the SAT?) I think many schools upped its combined math/verbal scores when they changed to the new SAT. NYU is still relatively unknown on the other side of the country though and none of my friends applied to undergrad there while many of us applied to Northwestern. Maybe the next generation will view the two schools differently but I can't see us non-New Yorkers changing our views in our lifetime.

Another thing is that while NYU has good art, law, and business programs, it is pretty mediocre in my major (a science), which is why I have a somewhat negative impression of the school. Scientists tend to value schools with strong science programs far more than others.

Top 10% at Northwestern is equivalent to probably much higher than top 40% at NYU. The student body isn't that different. It's all about test-taking skills, which is why top 10% at non T-14s still tend to do well even if they transfer to HYS.

If Chadwick isn't happy at NU though, that's a good reason to transfer. I just don't really understand the prestige argument.

My city pride feels injured.

No, I think the way the verbal section is set up changed but the percentile breakdowns for scores in each section remain the same. NYU's average verbal is now 630-730, and math is 650-750. Northwestern is 670-750 and 690-780, which is higher but there's a good deal of overlap. I really don't think it's reasonable to crap on a school that accepts under 3 out of 10 of applicants and has students who average 95%+ on standardized tests. Those are better test scores than you'll find at any of the large universities in California except Stanford. UC Berkeley, UCLA, and USC are all lower, as are UVA, Michigan, Emory, Carnegie Mellon, and a lot of other schools that are ahead in the US News rankings. Even if the test did get easier, NYU still comes out ahead.

I also don't think it's fair to base your estimation of a school on an area of study that is clearly not a priority for the university. NYU kicks ass in the areas you mentioned, but it's also top notch in economics, English, political science, and mathematics. Do you really think that students are looking to attend NYU to study hard sciences? It's a niche research university, and it's very good within the areas on which it focuses. What you are saying is like faulting Juilliard for not having a good air conditioner maintenance curriculum.

As for the percentile comparison, I qualified it with "at least equal" because it's hard to know what a good, precise comparison would be.

[fortissimo]

Interesting explanation, but didn't the SAT get easier? (I.e. it's easier to score over 1400 on the new math/verbal sections combined than it was when we took the SAT?) I think many schools upped its combined math/verbal scores when they changed to the new SAT. NYU is still relatively unknown on the other side of the country though and none of my friends applied to undergrad there while many of us applied to Northwestern. Maybe the next generation will view the two schools differently but I can't see us non-New Yorkers changing our views in our lifetime.

Another thing is that while NYU has good art, law, and business programs, it is pretty mediocre in my major (a science), which is why I have a somewhat negative impression of the school. Scientists tend to value schools with strong science programs far more than others.

Top 10% at Northwestern is equivalent to probably much higher than top 40% at NYU. The student body isn't that different. It's all about test-taking skills, which is why top 10% at non T-14s still tend to do well even if they transfer to HYS.

If Chadwick isn't happy at NU though, that's a good reason to transfer. I just don't really understand the prestige argument.

My city pride feels injured.

No, I think the way the verbal section is set up changed but the percentile breakdowns for scores in each section remain the same. NYU's average verbal is now 630-730, and math is 650-750. Northwestern is 670-750 and 690-780, which is higher but there's a good deal of overlap. I really don't think it's reasonable to crap on a school that accepts under 3 out of 10 of applicants and has students who average 95%+ on standardized tests. Those are better test scores than you'll find at any of the large universities in California except Stanford. UC Berkeley, UCLA, and USC are all lower, as are UVA, Michigan, Emory, Carnegie Mellon, and a lot of other schools that are ahead in the US News rankings. Even if the test did get easier, NYU still comes out ahead.

I don't know what site you are pulling these numbers (I tried to find the medians for NYU but were only led to interquartiles btw...),but I don't really care either. Northwestern is still better apparently.

I also don't think it's fair to base your estimation of a school on an area of study that is clearly not a priority for the university. NYU kicks ass in the areas you mentioned, but it's also top notch in economics, English, political science, and mathematics. Do you really think that students are looking to attend NYU to study hard sciences? It's a niche research university, and it's very good within the areas on which it focuses. What you are saying is like faulting Juilliard for not having a good air conditioner maintenance curriculum.

That's a weird analogy, because Juilliard is a school that has a very narrow focus where you cannot even try to major in a science. On the other hand, NYU is a university that has all majors, which is why it should be gauged against other universities with an all-around focus as well. NYU as an institution is only strong in a few areas, while many other universities that similarly offer different fields are stronger in many more.

Every region has a different impression of what the best schools are and I don't think non-New Yorkers are going to change their opinion any time soon. http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard ... ublic.aspx.

[BeastCoastHype]

Interesting explanation, but didn't the SAT get easier? (I.e. it's easier to score over 1400 on the new math/verbal sections combined than it was when we took the SAT?) I think many schools upped its combined math/verbal scores when they changed to the new SAT. NYU is still relatively unknown on the other side of the country though and none of my friends applied to undergrad there while many of us applied to Northwestern. Maybe the next generation will view the two schools differently but I can't see us non-New Yorkers changing our views in our lifetime.

Another thing is that while NYU has good art, law, and business programs, it is pretty mediocre in my major (a science), which is why I have a somewhat negative impression of the school. Scientists tend to value schools with strong science programs far more than others.

Top 10% at Northwestern is equivalent to probably much higher than top 40% at NYU. The student body isn't that different. It's all about test-taking skills, which is why top 10% at non T-14s still tend to do well even if they transfer to HYS.

If Chadwick isn't happy at NU though, that's a good reason to transfer. I just don't really understand the prestige argument.

My city pride feels injured.

No, I think the way the verbal section is set up changed but the percentile breakdowns for scores in each section remain the same. NYU's average verbal is now 630-730, and math is 650-750. Northwestern is 670-750 and 690-780, which is higher but there's a good deal of overlap. I really don't think it's reasonable to crap on a school that accepts under 3 out of 10 of applicants and has students who average 95%+ on standardized tests. Those are better test scores than you'll find at any of the large universities in California except Stanford. UC Berkeley, UCLA, and USC are all lower, as are UVA, Michigan, Emory, Carnegie Mellon, and a lot of other schools that are ahead in the US News rankings. Even if the test did get easier, NYU still comes out ahead.

I don't know what site you are pulling these numbers (I tried to find the medians for NYU but were only led to interquartiles btw...),but I don't really care either. Northwestern is still better apparently.

I also don't think it's fair to base your estimation of a school on an area of study that is clearly not a priority for the university. NYU kicks ass in the areas you mentioned, but it's also top notch in economics, English, political science, and mathematics. Do you really think that students are looking to attend NYU to study hard sciences? It's a niche research university, and it's very good within the areas on which it focuses. What you are saying is like faulting Juilliard for not having a good air conditioner maintenance curriculum.

That's a weird analogy, because Juilliard is a school that has a very narrow focus where you cannot even try to major in a science. On the other hand, NYU is a university that has all majors, which is why it should be gauged against other universities with an all-around focus as well. NYU as an institution is only strong in a few areas, while many other universities that similarly offer different fields are stronger in many more.

Every region has a different impression of what the best schools are and I don't think non-New Yorkers are going to change their opinion any time soon. http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard ... ublic.aspx.

a) My claim was never that NYU was better than Northwestern, it was just that US News isn't the end all be all when it comes to school quality and that NYU is close and on the rise. U.S. News is an enormously distorted survey that undervalues student and faculty quality and overvalues things like alumni giving rates. Anyone who has actual interaction with the universities in New York and has seen their facilities knows that NYU is really underrated in those rankings.

b) Yes, my analogy was hyperbolic, but surely you see my point. I don't know the details of their curricular offerings, but if I had to guess I wouldn't think that NYU offers a full science curriculum seeing as they just acquired an engineering program last year. The point is that people who are interested in the sciences would probably be better off elsewhere, but those whose interests align with the school's strengths would probably get a very good education there.

c) Going back to this point about what the general public thinks, this might be a better indicator as yours only tests for one extremely difficult data point that will obviously favor Harvard: --LinkRemoved--. It seems like your view is skewed relative to that of society at large, as Northwestern doesn't even make the cut in this broader survey.

[rayiner]

For Fall '08 incoming:

Yale: 700-780 math, 700-800 verbal
Harvard: 700-780 math, 690-800 verbal
Princeton: 700-790 math, 690-790 verbal
--- (40 pts)
U of Chicago: 680-780 math, 690-780 verbal
Columbia: 680-780 math, 680-770 verbal
NU: 690-780 math, 670-750 verbal
Duke: 680-780 math, 660-760 verbal
Penn: 680-780 math, 650-740 verbal
--- (160 pts)
NYU: 630-720 math, 620-720 verbal
W&M: 620-710 math, 630-730 verbal
UCB: 630-760 math, 580-710 verbal
GT: 650-730 math, 600-690 verbal
UVA: 620-730 math, 600-710 verbal
UM: 640-740 math, 580-690, verbal

I would imagine that in terms of the legal world, top 10% at Northwestern will be at least equal to a top 40% student at NYU.

http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ement.html

I'd guess more like top 15-20% if we're taking about NYC biglaw firms.