Michigan Law School C/O 2019 Forum

[skaw123]

Improvement with employment numbers, ~60% Biglaw/Fedclerk, but that is still a good bit lower than peers...

I think this is their last "big" class (they had 350+ grads). I assume the smaller classes should perform more in line with their peers..but won't know until next year

They said they expected 300+ again this year, so it can't be that different. I don't know. This doesn't scare me away from Michigan but I wish the numbers were up a little more...

This worries me. I've been trying to rationalize Michigan to myself by saying that their new, small class size indicates less competition, better access to resources, and a focus on quality over quantity in general.

I mean this is still a pretty decent sized class compared to the 270 they has last year. I would count on the numbers getting higher each year, but I think this class will be more than 270, around 300 I think, based on talks I have had. Still that will be better than the upper 300s they have had in recent employment numbers.

If they really want to increase class size simply because their ranking went back up like 1 step I will have lost all respect for the school. Especially since their employment numbers are still far behind its peers.

In the employment thread someone posted the raw #s of Michigan's BL+FC numbers and it was remarkably consistent throughout the years (210~220). If that # stays the same and we drop to ~320, we'd still only be looking at about 66% Bl+FC, still below its peers which are all hovering around 70~75%. If Michigan stays with the 270~ number though, we'd be looking at 75+%, which would make it fall much more in line with its peers. Of course, this is assuming firms actually have a target # of recruits from each school and they won't simply start taking less Mich grads.

I hope Michigan saw some strong numbers from OCI last year to justify increasing class size again, otherwise I'm not sure what Michigan is thinking...

My take on what was said is that Michigan thinks there's a chance more people will attend because the ranking went up. So that would be more on the people willing to change their choice based on the USNWR rankings. It doesn't sound like Michigan is actively trying to increase class size.

[spauldingno]

Improvement with employment numbers, ~60% Biglaw/Fedclerk, but that is still a good bit lower than peers...

I think this is their last "big" class (they had 350+ grads). I assume the smaller classes should perform more in line with their peers..but won't know until next year

They said they expected 300+ again this year, so it can't be that different. I don't know. This doesn't scare me away from Michigan but I wish the numbers were up a little more...

This worries me. I've been trying to rationalize Michigan to myself by saying that their new, small class size indicates less competition, better access to resources, and a focus on quality over quantity in general.

I mean this is still a pretty decent sized class compared to the 270 they has last year. I would count on the numbers getting higher each year, but I think this class will be more than 270, around 300 I think, based on talks I have had. Still that will be better than the upper 300s they have had in recent employment numbers.

If they really want to increase class size simply because their ranking went back up like 1 step I will have lost all respect for the school. Especially since their employment numbers are still far behind its peers.

In the employment thread someone posted the raw #s of Michigan's BL+FC numbers and it was remarkably consistent throughout the years (210~220). If that # stays the same and we drop to ~320, we'd still only be looking at about 66% Bl+FC, still below its peers which are all hovering around 70~75%. If Michigan stays with the 270~ number though, we'd be looking at 75+%, which would make it fall much more in line with its peers. Of course, this is assuming firms actually have a target # of recruits from each school and they won't simply start taking less Mich grads.

I hope Michigan saw some strong numbers from OCI last year to justify increasing class size again, otherwise I'm not sure what Michigan is thinking...

My take on what was said is that Michigan thinks there's a chance more people will attend because the ranking went up. So that would be more on the people willing to change their choice based on the USNWR rankings. It doesn't sound like Michigan is actively trying to increase class size.

From what I understand: last year Michigan's class size was a fluke due to the drop in applications and drop from high end LSAT scores, so it will increase from the appx 270. That being said, Dean West does not want the 360 people classes. A rough figure that I've hears is to stabilize around 315-320 people.

[miku015]

From what I understand: last year Michigan's class size was a fluke due to the drop in applications and drop from high end LSAT scores, so it will increase from the appx 270. That being said, Dean West does not want the 360 people classes. A rough figure that I've hears is to stabilize around 315-320 people.

That makes sense, there was always some speculation as to whether the class size last year was intentional or not. From what it sounds like, that drop from T10 really hurt its ability to recruit. With that being said, I still think a class size of 320~ is too high considering Michigan's ability to place graduates, but hopefully the legal market will continue to rebound and make it a non-issue.

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[GFox345]

I think that the concern about Michigan's BL+FC figures is a little bit unwarranted, and here's why:

First, let's look at the numbers from the Class of 2015 employment thread that started last week:

School: (biglaw* + fed clerk)/total class size
SLS: 78%
Penn: 77%
Duke: 76%
HLS: 71%
UVA: 70%
UMich: 61%
UCLA: 45%

This places Michigan 16% below Penn, 15% below Duke, 10% below Harvard, and 9% below UVA. Why is it the Michigan tends to get outperformed in this way? An answer practicing attorneys, Michigan students that I spoke with at the ASW, and 0Ls alike often throw out is PI/Gov't self-selection. So let's run these numbers as well. These are also taken from the very same Class of 2015 Employment Numbers thread from last week:

Michigan: 19.7% PI/Gov
NYU: 16.9% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Virginia: 12.4% PI/Gov
Columbia: 12% PI/Gov (2014 data)
NW: 9.3% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Penn: 8.7% PI/Gov
Duke: 5.4% PI/Gov

What I want to draw your attention to here, primarily, is Penn and Duke. In the PI/Gov category, Michigan is 11% ahead of Penn and 14.3% ahead of Duke. These numbers alone say a lot at PI/Gov trends at Michigan as opposed to its peers.

I am not going to take these numbers to be QED with regard to the PI/Gov self-selection hypothesis at Michigan, but I do want people to think about it for a moment. It is all too often that I see TLSers consult the BL+FC numbers of Top Schools alone and make quick and largely unfounded conclusions about those same schools. If we insist on the primacy of the BL+FC numbers, then both Penn and Duke are solidly above Harvard Law School, and I, for one, have never seen anyone maintain that position on TLS. I believe we are in need of a little bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to considering employment statistics. In particular, I object to the idea that Michigan's lower BF+FC are something that needs to be justified. It does legitimately appear that PI/Gov self-selection is a much more prevalent trend than it is at peer schools such as Penn, and Duke. I guess now we can queue the people who say that people only choose PI/Gov after they strike out at OCI.

I would enjoy hearing some more perspectives on this, but I am really hoping that people are going to shut the fuck up about Michigan being a TTT in decline. Biglaw, as we can plainly see here, is not the only career trajectory and not the only goal of incoming students, especially at Michigan.

EDIT: This also goes to say that I, too, am not overly concerned with the size of Michigan's graduating classes. I think they are fine right around 300. Michigan does not lack sufficient ability to place graduates as some have suggested in this thread and on this forum.

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[lingo]

Agree, but what metric can we use that would be better?

[ycai]

Agree, but what metric can we use that would be better?

Probably something like what percentage of students went on OCI, what percentage got jobs through it, and what percentage took em.

[WaitersIsland]

I was told by a current 2L (take it FWIW, of course) that if you finish in the top 60% and you want a Big Law position, you will very likely get one (barring someone who is an awful interview/has social anxiety, aspergers, etc). That seems to jive with the recent employment stats, and I would assume that holds moving forward. If you finish outside the top 60% and want a Big Law position, you are going to have to hustle/mass mail/have connections. However, I would imagine that is by and large the case for Michigan's peers (although the cut offs at peers might be slightly lower, which makes sense as NU, Cornell, UVA all feed into "home" markets that Michigan doesn't have the advantage of).

[gsy987]

I think that the concern about Michigan's BL+FC figures is a little bit unwarranted, and here's why:

First, let's look at the numbers from the Class of 2015 employment thread that started last week:

School: (biglaw* + fed clerk)/total class size
SLS: 78%
Penn: 77%
Duke: 76%
HLS: 71%
UVA: 70%
UMich: 61%
UCLA: 45%

This places Michigan 16% below Penn, 15% below Duke, 10% below Harvard, and 9% below UVA. Why is it the Michigan tends to get outperformed in this way? An answer practicing attorneys, Michigan students that I spoke with at the ASW, and 0Ls alike often throw out is PI/Gov't self-selection. So let's run these numbers as well. These are also taken from the very same Class of 2015 Employment Numbers thread from last week:

Michigan: 19.7% PI/Gov
NYU: 16.9% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Virginia: 12.4% PI/Gov
Columbia: 12% PI/Gov (2014 data)
NW: 9.3% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Penn: 8.7% PI/Gov
Duke: 5.4% PI/Gov

What I want to draw your attention to here, primarily, is Penn and Duke. In the PI/Gov category, Michigan is 11% ahead of Penn and 14.3% ahead of Duke. These numbers alone say a lot at PI/Gov trends at Michigan as opposed to its peers.

I am not going to take these numbers to be QED with regard to the PI/Gov self-selection hypothesis at Michigan, but I do want people to think about it for a moment. It is all too often that I see TLSers consult the BL+FC numbers of Top Schools alone and make quick and largely unfounded conclusions about those same schools. If we insist on the primacy of the BL+FC numbers, then both Penn and Duke are solidly above Harvard Law School, and I, for one, have never seen anyone maintain that position on TLS. I believe we are in need of a little bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to considering employment statistics. In particular, I object to the idea that Michigan's lower BF+FC are something that needs to be justified. It does legitimately appear that PI/Gov self-selection is a much more prevalent trend than it is at peer schools such as Penn, and Duke. I guess now we can queue the people who say that people only choose PI/Gov after they strike out at OCI.

I would enjoy hearing some more perspectives on this, but I am really hoping that people are going to shut the fuck up about Michigan being a TTT in decline. Biglaw, as we can plainly see here, is not the only career trajectory and not the only goal of incoming students, especially at Michigan.

EDIT: This also goes to say that I, too, am not overly concerned with the size of Michigan's graduating classes. I think they are fine right around 300. Michigan does not lack sufficient ability to place graduates as some have suggested in this thread and on this forum.

I'm actually one of the students going to Michigan to do PI/Gov't, so hopefully I'm not destroying Michigan too much in the eyes of TLS'ers!

(Before I face the seemingly inevitable onslaught of "OMG WHY WOULD YOU DO PI/GOVT... YOU SHOULD MAKE $$ OR GO DO ANOTHER CAREER" crowd, I'm getting a good amount of money to come here and I have some pretty clear gov't jobs in mind.)

[jnwa]

I think that the concern about Michigan's BL+FC figures is a little bit unwarranted, and here's why:

First, let's look at the numbers from the Class of 2015 employment thread that started last week:

School: (biglaw* + fed clerk)/total class size
SLS: 78%
Penn: 77%
Duke: 76%
HLS: 71%
UVA: 70%
UMich: 61%
UCLA: 45%

This places Michigan 16% below Penn, 15% below Duke, 10% below Harvard, and 9% below UVA. Why is it the Michigan tends to get outperformed in this way? An answer practicing attorneys, Michigan students that I spoke with at the ASW, and 0Ls alike often throw out is PI/Gov't self-selection. So let's run these numbers as well. These are also taken from the very same Class of 2015 Employment Numbers thread from last week:

Michigan: 19.7% PI/Gov
NYU: 16.9% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Virginia: 12.4% PI/Gov
Columbia: 12% PI/Gov (2014 data)
NW: 9.3% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Penn: 8.7% PI/Gov
Duke: 5.4% PI/Gov

What I want to draw your attention to here, primarily, is Penn and Duke. In the PI/Gov category, Michigan is 11% ahead of Penn and 14.3% ahead of Duke. These numbers alone say a lot at PI/Gov trends at Michigan as opposed to its peers.

I am not going to take these numbers to be QED with regard to the PI/Gov self-selection hypothesis at Michigan, but I do want people to think about it for a moment. It is all too often that I see TLSers consult the BL+FC numbers of Top Schools alone and make quick and largely unfounded conclusions about those same schools. If we insist on the primacy of the BL+FC numbers, then both Penn and Duke are solidly above Harvard Law School, and I, for one, have never seen anyone maintain that position on TLS. I believe we are in need of a little bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to considering employment statistics. In particular, I object to the idea that Michigan's lower BF+FC are something that needs to be justified. It does legitimately appear that PI/Gov self-selection is a much more prevalent trend than it is at peer schools such as Penn, and Duke. I guess now we can queue the people who say that people only choose PI/Gov after they strike out at OCI.

I would enjoy hearing some more perspectives on this, but I am really hoping that people are going to shut the fuck up about Michigan being a TTT in decline. Biglaw, as we can plainly see here, is not the only career trajectory and not the only goal of incoming students, especially at Michigan.

EDIT: This also goes to say that I, too, am not overly concerned with the size of Michigan's graduating classes. I think they are fine right around 300. Michigan does not lack sufficient ability to place graduates as some have suggested in this thread and on this forum.

I'm actually one of the students going to Michigan to do PI/Gov't, so hopefully I'm not destroying Michigan too much in the eyes of TLS'ers!

(Before I face the seemingly inevitable onslaught of "OMG WHY WOULD YOU DO PI/GOVT... YOU SHOULD MAKE $$ OR GO DO ANOTHER CAREER" crowd, I'm getting a good amount of money to come here and I have some pretty clear gov't jobs in mind.)

HOW DARE YOU RUIN THE BL+FC NUMBERS.

[GFox345]

I was told by a current 2L (take it FWIW, of course) that if you finish in the top 60% and you want a Big Law position, you will very likely get one (barring someone who is an awful interview/has social anxiety, aspergers, etc). That seems to jive with the recent employment stats, and I would assume that holds moving forward. If you finish outside the top 60% and want a Big Law position, you are going to have to hustle/mass mail/have connections. However, I would imagine that is by and large the case for Michigan's peers (although the cut offs at peers might be slightly lower, which makes sense as NU, Cornell, UVA all feed into "home" markets that Michigan doesn't have the advantage of).

This is just suspicious to me given that it seems to assume that almost all of the Top 60% are going for BigLaw. I absolutely refuse to believe that all 20% of Michigan's class that goes into PI/Gov jobs are in the bottom 40% of the class without extensive evidence. At the ASW, I also spoke with 2 different 2Ls who had turned down BigLaw offers in order to work at small "boutique" firms of less than 100 attorneys for even more money than 160k. And I work regularly with an associate that finished below the median at Michigan and said that it was actually relatively easy for him to find a job. I am not questioning the idea that grades are very important. They certainly are, but I think it is foolish to look at the fact that Penn and Duke send more people into BigLaw and to infer from that that Penn and Duke have more placement power with large firms.

As I said in my earlier post, Harvard is only 9% above Michigan in terms of BL+FC numbers, which means it is 6% below Duke. Are we to infer from this that Duke has better placement power than Harvard with large firms? Surely not. You'd be an absolute fool to think that. I, for one, think that the difference in numbers is due in much greater measure to culture and career choices of the graduates than to the reputation or placement power of the schools in question.

I also partially base this on the many conversations that I have had with a long-time family friend who is a hiring partner at a V10 firm. She said that schools in the T14 that are not HYS are largely held in equal esteem and she laughed at the notion that a hiring partner would be persuaded by the fact that an identical applicant went to Penn or Duke vs. Michigan. This sort of minor difference will DEFINITELY not be the make or break factor in your application. Once you have broken into the T-14, your interviewing skills, grades, and work experience are astronomically more important than going to Penn or Duke vs. Michigan.

That being said, I definitely think there could be some legitimacy to the idea that the lack of a local market may affect Michigan's numbers, but from what I have seen the lack of a local market is precisely what sets Michigan grads free. It removes expectations and this is why Michigan's class is more spread out than any of its peer schools. I see it as a strength rather than a weakness.

[stig2014]

After recent scholarship negotiation I'm almost certain I'll end up at Michigan this fall.

Also, can anyone explain how the grading works for the LRW class and how, if at all, it factors into GPA? Thanks.

[Li'l Sebastian]

Did anybody else get the law preview email?

[herecomesthesun]

Did anybody else get the law preview email?

Yep!

[gsy987]

Did anybody else get the law preview email?

Yep!

Ditto. There is still a 0% chance I'll do it... I plan on spending a relaxing summer thinking about everything BUT law school!

[usernotfound]

After recent scholarship negotiation I'm almost certain I'll end up at Michigan this fall.

Also, can anyone explain how the grading works for the LRW class and how, if at all, it factors into GPA? Thanks.

The class is graded Pass/Fail, and the professor has discretion to give about 10% (maybe a bit more, I don't know if the exact number or range is published) of the class an Honors designation. These marks do not affect your GPA.

[miku015]

I think that the concern about Michigan's BL+FC figures is a little bit unwarranted, and here's why:

First, let's look at the numbers from the Class of 2015 employment thread that started last week:

School: (biglaw* + fed clerk)/total class size
SLS: 78%
Penn: 77%
Duke: 76%
HLS: 71%
UVA: 70%
UMich: 61%
UCLA: 45%

This places Michigan 16% below Penn, 15% below Duke, 10% below Harvard, and 9% below UVA. Why is it the Michigan tends to get outperformed in this way? An answer practicing attorneys, Michigan students that I spoke with at the ASW, and 0Ls alike often throw out is PI/Gov't self-selection. So let's run these numbers as well. These are also taken from the very same Class of 2015 Employment Numbers thread from last week:

Michigan: 19.7% PI/Gov
NYU: 16.9% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Virginia: 12.4% PI/Gov
Columbia: 12% PI/Gov (2014 data)
NW: 9.3% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Penn: 8.7% PI/Gov
Duke: 5.4% PI/Gov

What I want to draw your attention to here, primarily, is Penn and Duke. In the PI/Gov category, Michigan is 11% ahead of Penn and 14.3% ahead of Duke. These numbers alone say a lot at PI/Gov trends at Michigan as opposed to its peers.

I am not going to take these numbers to be QED with regard to the PI/Gov self-selection hypothesis at Michigan, but I do want people to think about it for a moment. It is all too often that I see TLSers consult the BL+FC numbers of Top Schools alone and make quick and largely unfounded conclusions about those same schools. If we insist on the primacy of the BL+FC numbers, then both Penn and Duke are solidly above Harvard Law School, and I, for one, have never seen anyone maintain that position on TLS. I believe we are in need of a little bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to considering employment statistics. In particular, I object to the idea that Michigan's lower BF+FC are something that needs to be justified. It does legitimately appear that PI/Gov self-selection is a much more prevalent trend than it is at peer schools such as Penn, and Duke. I guess now we can queue the people who say that people only choose PI/Gov after they strike out at OCI.

I would enjoy hearing some more perspectives on this, but I am really hoping that people are going to shut the fuck up about Michigan being a TTT in decline. Biglaw, as we can plainly see here, is not the only career trajectory and not the only goal of incoming students, especially at Michigan.

EDIT: This also goes to say that I, too, am not overly concerned with the size of Michigan's graduating classes. I think they are fine right around 300. Michigan does not lack sufficient ability to place graduates as some have suggested in this thread and on this forum.

I think you make a solid argument, and on face value it does seem to suggest that Michigan's "prowess" lies in securing those hard to snatch PI/Gov positions, whereas Duke/Penn are either settling or aiming for big law. However, one important point to keep in mind is the quality of those PI/Gov positions..and whether those positions are real. If we look at the # of law-school funded jobs, Michigan raises a huge red flag with 23/354 (6%) LSF jobs opposed to Duke (6/208, 3%) and Penn (9/246 4%). If we were to look at PI/Gov numbers excluding school funded jobs (I don't believe LSF firm jobs/clerkships exist), the comparison would look like so:

Michigan: 44/354 (12%)
Duke: 5/208 (2%) lol
Penn: 12/246 (5%)

So on the whole, if we assume that these Gov/PI jobs are "good" outcomes then, the net "good" outcomes are:
Michigan: 12 + 61 = 73%
Duke: 2+ 76 = 78%
Penn: 5 +77 = 82%

So yes, Michigan is most definitely not a TTT in decline. However, from a pure #s viewpoint it is still lagging behinds its peers. I would think there are many like me who love Michigan for all its subjective factors (collegiality, sports, town, culture etc.), but are trying to balance it with the hard numbers, especially for non-PI gunners. As for Michigan being on par with its peers because it's the "PI" school, I think the more interesting comparison will be to Berkeley. Berkeley also has very strong PI numbers (consistently on par with or beating Michigan), but have had stronger BL + FC numbers than Michigan for years. Would we have to admit that Berkeley is simply an objectively better school than Michigan since we can't rely on the "BUT PI" defense?

And about class sizes, I'm of the opinion that the school school has very different considerations to the student. The student is mainly concerned about employment upon graduation, and in my opinion less competition is almost certainly better (I'm sure some may disagree). The school, on the other hand, has to consider the long term finances and alumni base, etc. in addition to employment outcomes, meaning that they're most certainly not going to calculate class sizes based on strictly maximizing employment (case in point, GULC). As for "sufficient" placement, I'm not even sure what that means. I'm of the opinion that unless the school has 100% BL/FC+PI/Gov+Unicorn Job there's still work that can be done. How can we look at a school with 10% unemployed/LSF and say yep, that's sufficiently good placement of its graduates?

[Iwanttolawschool]

I think that the concern about Michigan's BL+FC figures is a little bit unwarranted, and here's why:

First, let's look at the numbers from the Class of 2015 employment thread that started last week:

School: (biglaw* + fed clerk)/total class size
SLS: 78%
Penn: 77%
Duke: 76%
HLS: 71%
UVA: 70%
UMich: 61%
UCLA: 45%

This places Michigan 16% below Penn, 15% below Duke, 10% below Harvard, and 9% below UVA. Why is it the Michigan tends to get outperformed in this way? An answer practicing attorneys, Michigan students that I spoke with at the ASW, and 0Ls alike often throw out is PI/Gov't self-selection. So let's run these numbers as well. These are also taken from the very same Class of 2015 Employment Numbers thread from last week:

Michigan: 19.7% PI/Gov
NYU: 16.9% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Virginia: 12.4% PI/Gov
Columbia: 12% PI/Gov (2014 data)
NW: 9.3% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Penn: 8.7% PI/Gov
Duke: 5.4% PI/Gov

What I want to draw your attention to here, primarily, is Penn and Duke. In the PI/Gov category, Michigan is 11% ahead of Penn and 14.3% ahead of Duke. These numbers alone say a lot at PI/Gov trends at Michigan as opposed to its peers.

I am not going to take these numbers to be QED with regard to the PI/Gov self-selection hypothesis at Michigan, but I do want people to think about it for a moment. It is all too often that I see TLSers consult the BL+FC numbers of Top Schools alone and make quick and largely unfounded conclusions about those same schools. If we insist on the primacy of the BL+FC numbers, then both Penn and Duke are solidly above Harvard Law School, and I, for one, have never seen anyone maintain that position on TLS. I believe we are in need of a little bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to considering employment statistics. In particular, I object to the idea that Michigan's lower BF+FC are something that needs to be justified. It does legitimately appear that PI/Gov self-selection is a much more prevalent trend than it is at peer schools such as Penn, and Duke. I guess now we can queue the people who say that people only choose PI/Gov after they strike out at OCI.

I would enjoy hearing some more perspectives on this, but I am really hoping that people are going to shut the fuck up about Michigan being a TTT in decline. Biglaw, as we can plainly see here, is not the only career trajectory and not the only goal of incoming students, especially at Michigan.

EDIT: This also goes to say that I, too, am not overly concerned with the size of Michigan's graduating classes. I think they are fine right around 300. Michigan does not lack sufficient ability to place graduates as some have suggested in this thread and on this forum.

I think you make a solid argument, and on face value it does seem to suggest that Michigan's "prowess" lies in securing those hard to snatch PI/Gov positions, whereas Duke/Penn are either settling or aiming for big law. However, one important point to keep in mind is the quality of those PI/Gov positions..and whether those positions are real. If we look at the # of law-school funded jobs, Michigan raises a huge red flag with 23/354 (6%) LSF jobs opposed to Duke (6/208, 3%) and Penn (9/246 4%). If we were to look at PI/Gov numbers excluding school funded jobs (I don't believe LSF firm jobs/clerkships exist), the comparison would look like so:

Michigan: 44/354 (12%)
Duke: 5/208 (2%) lol
Penn: 12/246 (5%)

So on the whole, if we assume that these Gov/PI jobs are "good" outcomes then, the net "good" outcomes are:
Michigan: 12 + 61 = 73%
Duke: 2+ 76 = 78%
Penn: 5 +77 = 82%

So yes, Michigan is most definitely not a TTT in decline. However, from a pure #s viewpoint it is still lagging behinds its peers. I would think there are many like me who love Michigan for all its subjective factors (collegiality, sports, town, culture etc.), but are trying to balance it with the hard numbers, especially for non-PI gunners. As for Michigan being on par with its peers because it's the "PI" school, I think the more interesting comparison will be to Berkeley. Berkeley also has very strong PI numbers (consistently on par with or beating Michigan), but have had stronger BL + FC numbers than Michigan for years. Would we have to admit that Berkeley is simply an objectively better school than Michigan since we can't rely on the "BUT PI" defense?

And about class sizes, I'm of the opinion that the school school has very different considerations to the student. The student is mainly concerned about employment upon graduation, and in my opinion less competition is almost certainly better (I'm sure some may disagree). The school, on the other hand, has to consider the long term finances and alumni base, etc. in addition to employment outcomes, meaning that they're most certainly not going to calculate class sizes based on strictly maximizing employment (case in point, GULC). As for "sufficient" placement, I'm not even sure what that means. I'm of the opinion that unless the school has 100% BL/FC+PI/Gov+Unicorn Job there's still work that can be done. How can we look at a school with 10% unemployed/LSF and say yep, that's sufficiently good placement of its graduates?

I'm assuming you're a 0L, so not your fault. But some of the Law School Funded jobs from schools are some of the best outcomes you can get. These will be very selective fellowships... Not saying every single one is - but you just don't seem to realize that people want some of the LSF jobs.

[pittsburghpirates]

Thanks for putting the above data together all. Definitely very helpful and informative!

[GFox345]

I think that the concern about Michigan's BL+FC figures is a little bit unwarranted, and here's why:

First, let's look at the numbers from the Class of 2015 employment thread that started last week:

School: (biglaw* + fed clerk)/total class size
SLS: 78%
Penn: 77%
Duke: 76%
HLS: 71%
UVA: 70%
UMich: 61%
UCLA: 45%

This places Michigan 16% below Penn, 15% below Duke, 10% below Harvard, and 9% below UVA. Why is it the Michigan tends to get outperformed in this way? An answer practicing attorneys, Michigan students that I spoke with at the ASW, and 0Ls alike often throw out is PI/Gov't self-selection. So let's run these numbers as well. These are also taken from the very same Class of 2015 Employment Numbers thread from last week:

Michigan: 19.7% PI/Gov
NYU: 16.9% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Virginia: 12.4% PI/Gov
Columbia: 12% PI/Gov (2014 data)
NW: 9.3% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Penn: 8.7% PI/Gov
Duke: 5.4% PI/Gov

What I want to draw your attention to here, primarily, is Penn and Duke. In the PI/Gov category, Michigan is 11% ahead of Penn and 14.3% ahead of Duke. These numbers alone say a lot at PI/Gov trends at Michigan as opposed to its peers.

I am not going to take these numbers to be QED with regard to the PI/Gov self-selection hypothesis at Michigan, but I do want people to think about it for a moment. It is all too often that I see TLSers consult the BL+FC numbers of Top Schools alone and make quick and largely unfounded conclusions about those same schools. If we insist on the primacy of the BL+FC numbers, then both Penn and Duke are solidly above Harvard Law School, and I, for one, have never seen anyone maintain that position on TLS. I believe we are in need of a little bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to considering employment statistics. In particular, I object to the idea that Michigan's lower BF+FC are something that needs to be justified. It does legitimately appear that PI/Gov self-selection is a much more prevalent trend than it is at peer schools such as Penn, and Duke. I guess now we can queue the people who say that people only choose PI/Gov after they strike out at OCI.

I would enjoy hearing some more perspectives on this, but I am really hoping that people are going to shut the fuck up about Michigan being a TTT in decline. Biglaw, as we can plainly see here, is not the only career trajectory and not the only goal of incoming students, especially at Michigan.

EDIT: This also goes to say that I, too, am not overly concerned with the size of Michigan's graduating classes. I think they are fine right around 300. Michigan does not lack sufficient ability to place graduates as some have suggested in this thread and on this forum.

I think you make a solid argument, and on face value it does seem to suggest that Michigan's "prowess" lies in securing those hard to snatch PI/Gov positions, whereas Duke/Penn are either settling or aiming for big law. However, one important point to keep in mind is the quality of those PI/Gov positions..and whether those positions are real. If we look at the # of law-school funded jobs, Michigan raises a huge red flag with 23/354 (6%) LSF jobs opposed to Duke (6/208, 3%) and Penn (9/246 4%). If we were to look at PI/Gov numbers excluding school funded jobs (I don't believe LSF firm jobs/clerkships exist), the comparison would look like so:

Michigan: 44/354 (12%)
Duke: 5/208 (2%) lol
Penn: 12/246 (5%)

So on the whole, if we assume that these Gov/PI jobs are "good" outcomes then, the net "good" outcomes are:
Michigan: 12 + 61 = 73%
Duke: 2+ 76 = 78%
Penn: 5 +77 = 82%

So yes, Michigan is most definitely not a TTT in decline. However, from a pure #s viewpoint it is still lagging behinds its peers. I would think there are many like me who love Michigan for all its subjective factors (collegiality, sports, town, culture etc.), but are trying to balance it with the hard numbers, especially for non-PI gunners. As for Michigan being on par with its peers because it's the "PI" school, I think the more interesting comparison will be to Berkeley. Berkeley also has very strong PI numbers (consistently on par with or beating Michigan), but have had stronger BL + FC numbers than Michigan for years. Would we have to admit that Berkeley is simply an objectively better school than Michigan since we can't rely on the "BUT PI" defense?

And about class sizes, I'm of the opinion that the school school has very different considerations to the student. The student is mainly concerned about employment upon graduation, and in my opinion less competition is almost certainly better (I'm sure some may disagree). The school, on the other hand, has to consider the long term finances and alumni base, etc. in addition to employment outcomes, meaning that they're most certainly not going to calculate class sizes based on strictly maximizing employment (case in point, GULC). As for "sufficient" placement, I'm not even sure what that means. I'm of the opinion that unless the school has 100% BL/FC+PI/Gov+Unicorn Job there's still work that can be done. How can we look at a school with 10% unemployed/LSF and say yep, that's sufficiently good placement of its graduates?

I'm assuming you're a 0L, so not your fault. But some of the Law School Funded jobs from schools are some of the best outcomes you can get. These will be very selective fellowships... Not saying every single one is - but you just don't seem to realize that people want some of the LSF jobs.

Is it true that LSF jobs are included in the PI/Gov numbers though? I realize that some are very selective fellowships, but does a fellowship with the Law School really count as PI/Gov work? You'd think that would be more akin to academia. I don't have any idea since I am a 0L.

[ChervonaKatya]

I'm assuming you're a 0L, so not your fault. But some of the Law School Funded jobs from schools are some of the best outcomes you can get. These will be very selective fellowships... Not saying every single one is - but you just don't seem to realize that people want some of the LSF jobs.

Seconding this (though as a 0L). Not all school funded jobs are the same and Michigan supports some that are quite great. For people who are interested in international PI or international clerkships (which can be very low pay), for instance, the Bates Fellowship is a fantastic opportunity through the school that probably counts for more than one or two people in those numbers. Looking at the numbers is great and responsible, but it's important to keep in mind other factors that may not be reflected in 509 reports.

[tsujimoto74]

I think that the concern about Michigan's BL+FC figures is a little bit unwarranted, and here's why:

First, let's look at the numbers from the Class of 2015 employment thread that started last week:

School: (biglaw* + fed clerk)/total class size
SLS: 78%
Penn: 77%
Duke: 76%
HLS: 71%
UVA: 70%
UMich: 61%
UCLA: 45%

This places Michigan 16% below Penn, 15% below Duke, 10% below Harvard, and 9% below UVA. Why is it the Michigan tends to get outperformed in this way? An answer practicing attorneys, Michigan students that I spoke with at the ASW, and 0Ls alike often throw out is PI/Gov't self-selection. So let's run these numbers as well. These are also taken from the very same Class of 2015 Employment Numbers thread from last week:

Michigan: 19.7% PI/Gov
NYU: 16.9% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Virginia: 12.4% PI/Gov
Columbia: 12% PI/Gov (2014 data)
NW: 9.3% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Penn: 8.7% PI/Gov
Duke: 5.4% PI/Gov

What I want to draw your attention to here, primarily, is Penn and Duke. In the PI/Gov category, Michigan is 11% ahead of Penn and 14.3% ahead of Duke. These numbers alone say a lot at PI/Gov trends at Michigan as opposed to its peers.

I am not going to take these numbers to be QED with regard to the PI/Gov self-selection hypothesis at Michigan, but I do want people to think about it for a moment. It is all too often that I see TLSers consult the BL+FC numbers of Top Schools alone and make quick and largely unfounded conclusions about those same schools. If we insist on the primacy of the BL+FC numbers, then both Penn and Duke are solidly above Harvard Law School, and I, for one, have never seen anyone maintain that position on TLS. I believe we are in need of a little bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to considering employment statistics. In particular, I object to the idea that Michigan's lower BF+FC are something that needs to be justified. It does legitimately appear that PI/Gov self-selection is a much more prevalent trend than it is at peer schools such as Penn, and Duke. I guess now we can queue the people who say that people only choose PI/Gov after they strike out at OCI.

I would enjoy hearing some more perspectives on this, but I am really hoping that people are going to shut the fuck up about Michigan being a TTT in decline. Biglaw, as we can plainly see here, is not the only career trajectory and not the only goal of incoming students, especially at Michigan.

EDIT: This also goes to say that I, too, am not overly concerned with the size of Michigan's graduating classes. I think they are fine right around 300. Michigan does not lack sufficient ability to place graduates as some have suggested in this thread and on this forum.

I think you make a solid argument, and on face value it does seem to suggest that Michigan's "prowess" lies in securing those hard to snatch PI/Gov positions, whereas Duke/Penn are either settling or aiming for big law. However, one important point to keep in mind is the quality of those PI/Gov positions..and whether those positions are real. If we look at the # of law-school funded jobs, Michigan raises a huge red flag with 23/354 (6%) LSF jobs opposed to Duke (6/208, 3%) and Penn (9/246 4%). If we were to look at PI/Gov numbers excluding school funded jobs (I don't believe LSF firm jobs/clerkships exist), the comparison would look like so:

Michigan: 44/354 (12%)
Duke: 5/208 (2%) lol
Penn: 12/246 (5%)

So on the whole, if we assume that these Gov/PI jobs are "good" outcomes then, the net "good" outcomes are:
Michigan: 12 + 61 = 73%
Duke: 2+ 76 = 78%
Penn: 5 +77 = 82%

So yes, Michigan is most definitely not a TTT in decline. However, from a pure #s viewpoint it is still lagging behinds its peers. I would think there are many like me who love Michigan for all its subjective factors (collegiality, sports, town, culture etc.), but are trying to balance it with the hard numbers, especially for non-PI gunners. As for Michigan being on par with its peers because it's the "PI" school, I think the more interesting comparison will be to Berkeley. Berkeley also has very strong PI numbers (consistently on par with or beating Michigan), but have had stronger BL + FC numbers than Michigan for years. Would we have to admit that Berkeley is simply an objectively better school than Michigan since we can't rely on the "BUT PI" defense?

And about class sizes, I'm of the opinion that the school school has very different considerations to the student. The student is mainly concerned about employment upon graduation, and in my opinion less competition is almost certainly better (I'm sure some may disagree). The school, on the other hand, has to consider the long term finances and alumni base, etc. in addition to employment outcomes, meaning that they're most certainly not going to calculate class sizes based on strictly maximizing employment (case in point, GULC). As for "sufficient" placement, I'm not even sure what that means. I'm of the opinion that unless the school has 100% BL/FC+PI/Gov+Unicorn Job there's still work that can be done. How can we look at a school with 10% unemployed/LSF and say yep, that's sufficiently good placement of its graduates?

I'm assuming you're a 0L, so not your fault. But some of the Law School Funded jobs from schools are some of the best outcomes you can get. These will be very selective fellowships... Not saying every single one is - but you just don't seem to realize that people want some of the LSF jobs.

Is it true that LSF jobs are included in the PI/Gov numbers though? I realize that some are very selective fellowships, but does a fellowship with the Law School really count as PI/Gov work? You'd think that would be more akin to academia. I don't have any idea since I am a 0L.

Funded by the school =/= employed by the school. Also a 0L, but my understanding is that many school-funded jobs are essentially bridge to work programs, where the student simultaneously secures funding from the school and a position at an organization that wouldn't otherwise have the budget to hire them, and a good number of these lead to either a full-time position being created by the organization for that grad or allow the grad to find similar employment elsewhere beyond that year.

[miku015]

I think that the concern about Michigan's BL+FC figures is a little bit unwarranted, and here's why:

First, let's look at the numbers from the Class of 2015 employment thread that started last week:

School: (biglaw* + fed clerk)/total class size
SLS: 78%
Penn: 77%
Duke: 76%
HLS: 71%
UVA: 70%
UMich: 61%
UCLA: 45%

This places Michigan 16% below Penn, 15% below Duke, 10% below Harvard, and 9% below UVA. Why is it the Michigan tends to get outperformed in this way? An answer practicing attorneys, Michigan students that I spoke with at the ASW, and 0Ls alike often throw out is PI/Gov't self-selection. So let's run these numbers as well. These are also taken from the very same Class of 2015 Employment Numbers thread from last week:

Michigan: 19.7% PI/Gov
NYU: 16.9% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Virginia: 12.4% PI/Gov
Columbia: 12% PI/Gov (2014 data)
NW: 9.3% PI/Gov (2014 data)
Penn: 8.7% PI/Gov
Duke: 5.4% PI/Gov

What I want to draw your attention to here, primarily, is Penn and Duke. In the PI/Gov category, Michigan is 11% ahead of Penn and 14.3% ahead of Duke. These numbers alone say a lot at PI/Gov trends at Michigan as opposed to its peers.

I am not going to take these numbers to be QED with regard to the PI/Gov self-selection hypothesis at Michigan, but I do want people to think about it for a moment. It is all too often that I see TLSers consult the BL+FC numbers of Top Schools alone and make quick and largely unfounded conclusions about those same schools. If we insist on the primacy of the BL+FC numbers, then both Penn and Duke are solidly above Harvard Law School, and I, for one, have never seen anyone maintain that position on TLS. I believe we are in need of a little bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to considering employment statistics. In particular, I object to the idea that Michigan's lower BF+FC are something that needs to be justified. It does legitimately appear that PI/Gov self-selection is a much more prevalent trend than it is at peer schools such as Penn, and Duke. I guess now we can queue the people who say that people only choose PI/Gov after they strike out at OCI.

I would enjoy hearing some more perspectives on this, but I am really hoping that people are going to shut the fuck up about Michigan being a TTT in decline. Biglaw, as we can plainly see here, is not the only career trajectory and not the only goal of incoming students, especially at Michigan.

EDIT: This also goes to say that I, too, am not overly concerned with the size of Michigan's graduating classes. I think they are fine right around 300. Michigan does not lack sufficient ability to place graduates as some have suggested in this thread and on this forum.

I think you make a solid argument, and on face value it does seem to suggest that Michigan's "prowess" lies in securing those hard to snatch PI/Gov positions, whereas Duke/Penn are either settling or aiming for big law. However, one important point to keep in mind is the quality of those PI/Gov positions..and whether those positions are real. If we look at the # of law-school funded jobs, Michigan raises a huge red flag with 23/354 (6%) LSF jobs opposed to Duke (6/208, 3%) and Penn (9/246 4%). If we were to look at PI/Gov numbers excluding school funded jobs (I don't believe LSF firm jobs/clerkships exist), the comparison would look like so:

Michigan: 44/354 (12%)
Duke: 5/208 (2%) lol
Penn: 12/246 (5%)

So on the whole, if we assume that these Gov/PI jobs are "good" outcomes then, the net "good" outcomes are:
Michigan: 12 + 61 = 73%
Duke: 2+ 76 = 78%
Penn: 5 +77 = 82%

So yes, Michigan is most definitely not a TTT in decline. However, from a pure #s viewpoint it is still lagging behinds its peers. I would think there are many like me who love Michigan for all its subjective factors (collegiality, sports, town, culture etc.), but are trying to balance it with the hard numbers, especially for non-PI gunners. As for Michigan being on par with its peers because it's the "PI" school, I think the more interesting comparison will be to Berkeley. Berkeley also has very strong PI numbers (consistently on par with or beating Michigan), but have had stronger BL + FC numbers than Michigan for years. Would we have to admit that Berkeley is simply an objectively better school than Michigan since we can't rely on the "BUT PI" defense?

And about class sizes, I'm of the opinion that the school school has very different considerations to the student. The student is mainly concerned about employment upon graduation, and in my opinion less competition is almost certainly better (I'm sure some may disagree). The school, on the other hand, has to consider the long term finances and alumni base, etc. in addition to employment outcomes, meaning that they're most certainly not going to calculate class sizes based on strictly maximizing employment (case in point, GULC). As for "sufficient" placement, I'm not even sure what that means. I'm of the opinion that unless the school has 100% BL/FC+PI/Gov+Unicorn Job there's still work that can be done. How can we look at a school with 10% unemployed/LSF and say yep, that's sufficiently good placement of its graduates?

I'm assuming you're a 0L, so not your fault. But some of the Law School Funded jobs from schools are some of the best outcomes you can get. These will be very selective fellowships... Not saying every single one is - but you just don't seem to realize that people want some of the LSF jobs.

Is it true that LSF jobs are included in the PI/Gov numbers though? I realize that some are very selective fellowships, but does a fellowship with the Law School really count as PI/Gov work? You'd think that would be more akin to academia. I don't have any idea since I am a 0L.

Funded by the school =/= employed by the school. Also a 0L, but my understanding is that many school-funded jobs are essentially bridge to work programs, where the student simultaneously secures funding from the school and a position at an organization that wouldn't otherwise have the budget to hire them, and a good number of these lead to either a full-time position being created by the organization for that grad or allow the grad to find similar employment elsewhere beyond that year.

Yes, I am a 0L, but even from talking to Michigan's OCP and 3Ls they don't view the Bridges Fellowship to be an "ideal" outcome (the majority of the LSF positions) and consider it to be a stop-gap measure for those that were unable to secure employment upon graduation. Of course it's better than working for free and I'm sure it's of great help for those struggling, but it's still worse than already being gainfully employed (yes, I understand normally PI doesn't hire fresh out, so maybe we should blame the PI gunners again). The issue is the lack of transparency, the Bridges Fellowship page shows that most of them were employed afterwards, but we don't even know if those are Bar-passage required jobs or shitlaw jobs etc. Regarding the prestigious fellowships (Bates, etc.), Michigan is not the only school that has them, so unless we have some reason to believe Michigan has MORE prestigious PI fellowships than other schools (is this info available anywhere?), it shouldn't change that Michigan's numbers are still behind its peers.

I'm a risk-averse person in general, and as such am probably overly pessimistic/conservative in my interpretation of the data, but if we're being charitable towards Michigan's LSF positions, there's no reason why we shouldn't be charitable towards other school's LSF positions as well. In which case, is Emory secretly the best T20 PI school since it has 22% PI/Gov and 21% LSF? Surely nobody would think that's the case right?

[woc]

Removed.