Indiana: Bloomington & The New Rank Forum

[Borhas]

IU's sustained rise to #23 has not lead to any benefit for their employment outcomes

they're below 10% NLJ 250 unemployment (not sure what % because they're not in top 50 that NLJ chart shows), below schools like Georgia State, Loyola, Villanova, Pittsburgh... etc (for past 3 years)

Unless you get some hard on for USNWR rankings, I'd look elsewhere w/ better employment prospects

Notre Dame w/ a significant scholarships is probably a much better choice... but getting out of the Mid West is probably the best idea overall. ND and Emory put in 20%+ even ITE

[09042014]

There is a lot of competition in the Midwest, but Indiana isn't the worst choice if you want to stick around and don't mind not getting biglaw.

IUB at least it's not Michigan State.

[kings84_wr]

IU's ranking change means nothing, however the scholarship makes it a better choice then the other two.

[alexb]

There is a lot of competition in the Midwest, but Indiana isn't the worst choice if you want to stick around and don't mind not getting biglaw.

IUB at least it's not Michigan State.

Lol FACT, but the same could be said for osu, wisconisn, and iowa.

[nelaw2010]

Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing. And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock.

If you only want less competitive law jobs, then obviously go for free. And 120 at IUB vs 60 at Emory and ND isn't much of a choice IUB all the way. But it still has horrid job prospects.

IUB only gave me 30K, so it wasn't an option. I'm not sure what I would have done with a full ride. Since I want patent law, which is less competitive than big law, I might have taken it. But that doesn't mean IUB isn't a festering TTT.

You make some good points, but I don't think you're correct when you say: "Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing." Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't care so much about it. Increasing US News means increasing caliber of students, increased national/regional rep, increased job prospects.

"And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock." - It depends for how long they can keep it going. If they can do it long enough to significantly improve the alumni network, I don't think they will drop.

You said yourself you might have attended with a full ride. So you would have gone to a festering TTT with a full ride? Then why didn't you? With your numbers, I'm sure you could have gotten into a "Festering TTT" with a full ride. Why didn't you do that?

Desert Fox - talk to PRACTICING ATTORNEYS that have 180k in debt. Whether they are 5, 10, 15 years out of law school, most will tell you the same thing. Having that much debt blows!!!! And most of them, if they had to do it over again, would have chosen a lower ranked school with money.

I just got an email from a buddy of mine who went USC and paid sticker. He tells me he wishes he had gone to Loyola (LA) for free. Does he have a job? Yes. Does he do well? Yes. But again, $1,173/month is a lot of money to have to pay monthly for 30 years. Add a mortgage, car payment, insurance, child support (assuming the marriage doesn't work out since you're working 70 hours per week), food, dining out, misc, and all of the sudden you NEED that high BIG LAW salary to get by.

This is not really directed at Desert Fox, this is more of a general warning. Think twice before taking on massive debt. If you don't believe me, ask attorneys that have 100k+ debt. See what they tell you.

[alexb]

Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing. And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock.

If you only want less competitive law jobs, then obviously go for free. And 120 at IUB vs 60 at Emory and ND isn't much of a choice IUB all the way. But it still has horrid job prospects.

IUB only gave me 30K, so it wasn't an option. I'm not sure what I would have done with a full ride. Since I want patent law, which is less competitive than big law, I might have taken it. But that doesn't mean IUB isn't a festering TTT.

You make some good points, but I don't think you're correct when you say: "Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing." Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't care so much about it. Increasing US News means increasing caliber of students, increased national/regional rep, increased job prospects.

"And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock." - It depends for how long they can keep it going. If they can do it long enough to significantly improve the alumni network, I don't think they will drop.

You said yourself you might have attended with a full ride. So you would have gone to a festering TTT with a full ride? Then why didn't you? With your numbers, I'm sure you could have gotten into a "Festering TTT" with a full ride. Why didn't you do that?

Desert Fox - talk to PRACTICING ATTORNEYS that have 180k in debt. Whether they are 5, 10, 15 years out of law school, most will tell you the same thing. Having that much debt blows!!!! And most of them, if they had to do it over again, would have chosen a lower ranked school with money.

I just got an email from a buddy of mine who went USC and paid sticker. He tells me he wishes he had gone to Loyola (LA) for free. Does he have a job? Yes. Does he do well? Yes. But again, $1,173/month is a lot of money to have to pay monthly for 30 years. Add a mortgage, car payment, insurance, child support (assuming the marriage doesn't work out since you're working 70 hours per week), food, dining out, misc, and all of the sudden you NEED that high BIG LAW salary to get by.

This is not really directed at Desert Fox, this is more of a general warning. Think twice before taking on massive debt. If you don't believe me, ask attorneys that have 100k+ debt. See what they tell you.

Just sayin', it's easy to say you would have rather gone to a worse school for free when you have a job.

That said, you're partially correct, everyone should know what they're getting into before they take on that kind of debt and it will probably be a huge burden. However, I still think lots of debt is better than being unemployed with zero debt.

[09042014]

Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing. And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock.

If you only want less competitive law jobs, then obviously go for free. And 120 at IUB vs 60 at Emory and ND isn't much of a choice IUB all the way. But it still has horrid job prospects.

IUB only gave me 30K, so it wasn't an option. I'm not sure what I would have done with a full ride. Since I want patent law, which is less competitive than big law, I might have taken it. But that doesn't mean IUB isn't a festering TTT.

You make some good points, but I don't think you're correct when you say: "Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing." Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't care so much about it. Increasing US News means increasing caliber of students, increased national/regional rep, increased job prospects.

"And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock." - It depends for how long they can keep it going. If they can do it long enough to significantly improve the alumni network, I don't think they will drop.

You said yourself you might have attended with a full ride. So you would have gone to a festering TTT with a full ride? Then why didn't you? With your numbers, I'm sure you could have gotten into a "Festering TTT" with a full ride. Why didn't you do that?

Desert Fox - talk to PRACTICING ATTORNEYS that have 180k in debt. Whether they are 5, 10, 15 years out of law school, most will tell you the same thing. Having that much debt blows!!!! And most of them, if they had to do it over again, would have chosen a lower ranked school with money.

I just got an email from a buddy of mine who went USC and paid sticker. He tells me he wishes he had gone to Loyola (LA) for free. Does he have a job? Yes. Does he do well? Yes. But again, $1,173/month is a lot of money to have to pay monthly for 30 years. Add a mortgage, car payment, insurance, child support (assuming the marriage doesn't work out since you're working 70 hours per week), food, dining out, misc, and all of the sudden you NEED that high BIG LAW salary to get by.

This is not really directed at Desert Fox, this is more of a general warning. Think twice before taking on massive debt. If you don't believe me, ask attorneys that have 100k+ debt. See what they tell you.

1) You care about USNews because you are an irrational 0L. Nobody does in the real world. It's why IUB places more like Loyola than like Notre Dame.

2) The risk of a lower ranked school vs the risk of debt is something that should be considered. However if I went to a school like IUB, my grades would make big law impossible. And even with a full ride I'd be stuck with ~70K in debt for living expenses. Tution + books + fees is 135 and they only give you 120. I'd have 200K with 160K+ salary than 70K with 45K.

You can't just go by people who got a good job and then claim they wish they took the money at a lower school. Why? Because they are assuming they'd get that job or a similar one even with the lower degree. That's not true.

I also have some special considerations, since I could make more as an engineering than a shit lawyer does. Taking out 70K to end up litigating flat rate divorces is a huge fail for me.

My GPA made it so I'd have to go to some really awful schools to get a full ride. And even then it would have some insane stipulation.

[alexb]

Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing. And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock.

If you only want less competitive law jobs, then obviously go for free. And 120 at IUB vs 60 at Emory and ND isn't much of a choice IUB all the way. But it still has horrid job prospects.

IUB only gave me 30K, so it wasn't an option. I'm not sure what I would have done with a full ride. Since I want patent law, which is less competitive than big law, I might have taken it. But that doesn't mean IUB isn't a festering TTT.

You make some good points, but I don't think you're correct when you say: "Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing." Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't care so much about it. Increasing US News means increasing caliber of students, increased national/regional rep, increased job prospects.

"And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock." - It depends for how long they can keep it going. If they can do it long enough to significantly improve the alumni network, I don't think they will drop.

You said yourself you might have attended with a full ride. So you would have gone to a festering TTT with a full ride? Then why didn't you? With your numbers, I'm sure you could have gotten into a "Festering TTT" with a full ride. Why didn't you do that?

Desert Fox - talk to PRACTICING ATTORNEYS that have 180k in debt. Whether they are 5, 10, 15 years out of law school, most will tell you the same thing. Having that much debt blows!!!! And most of them, if they had to do it over again, would have chosen a lower ranked school with money.

I just got an email from a buddy of mine who went USC and paid sticker. He tells me he wishes he had gone to Loyola (LA) for free. Does he have a job? Yes. Does he do well? Yes. But again, $1,173/month is a lot of money to have to pay monthly for 30 years. Add a mortgage, car payment, insurance, child support (assuming the marriage doesn't work out since you're working 70 hours per week), food, dining out, misc, and all of the sudden you NEED that high BIG LAW salary to get by.

This is not really directed at Desert Fox, this is more of a general warning. Think twice before taking on massive debt. If you don't believe me, ask attorneys that have 100k+ debt. See what they tell you.

1) You care about USNews because you are an irrational 0L. Nobody does in the real world. It's why IUB places more like Loyola than like Notre Dame.

2) The risk of a lower ranked school vs the risk of debt is something that should be considered. However if I went to a school like IUB, my grades would make big law impossible. And even with a full ride I'd be stuck with ~70K in debt for living expenses. Tution + books + fees is 135 and they only give you 120. I'd have 200K with 160K+ salary than 70K with 45K.

You can't just go by people who got a good job and then claim they wish they took the money at a lower school. Why? Because they are assuming they'd get that job or a similar one even with the lower degree. That's not true.

I also have some special considerations, since I could make more as an engineering than a shit lawyer does. Taking out 70K to end up litigating flat rate divorces is a huge fail for me.

My GPA made it so I'd have to go to some really awful schools to get a full ride. And even then it would have some insane stipulation.

You're right, but I think you're giving ND (and definitely Loyola) too much credit.

[flcath]

Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing. And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock.

If you only want less competitive law jobs, then obviously go for free. And 120 at IUB vs 60 at Emory and ND isn't much of a choice IUB all the way. But it still has horrid job prospects.

IUB only gave me 30K, so it wasn't an option. I'm not sure what I would have done with a full ride. Since I want patent law, which is less competitive than big law, I might have taken it. But that doesn't mean IUB isn't a festering TTT.

You make some good points, but I don't think you're correct when you say: "Since US News means dick in terms of actual hiring their rise means nothing." Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't care so much about it. Increasing US News means increasing caliber of students, increased national/regional rep, increased job prospects.

"And as soon as their spending blitz ends, they will drop like a rock." - It depends for how long they can keep it going. If they can do it long enough to significantly improve the alumni network, I don't think they will drop.

You said yourself you might have attended with a full ride. So you would have gone to a festering TTT with a full ride? Then why didn't you? With your numbers, I'm sure you could have gotten into a "Festering TTT" with a full ride. Why didn't you do that?

Desert Fox - talk to PRACTICING ATTORNEYS that have 180k in debt. Whether they are 5, 10, 15 years out of law school, most will tell you the same thing. Having that much debt blows!!!! And most of them, if they had to do it over again, would have chosen a lower ranked school with money.

I just got an email from a buddy of mine who went USC and paid sticker. He tells me he wishes he had gone to Loyola (LA) for free. Does he have a job? Yes. Does he do well? Yes. But again, $1,173/month is a lot of money to have to pay monthly for 30 years. Add a mortgage, car payment, insurance, child support (assuming the marriage doesn't work out since you're working 70 hours per week), food, dining out, misc, and all of the sudden you NEED that high BIG LAW salary to get by.

This is not really directed at Desert Fox, this is more of a general warning. Think twice before taking on massive debt. If you don't believe me, ask attorneys that have 100k+ debt. See what they tell you.

1) You care about USNews because you are an irrational 0L. Nobody does in the real world. It's why IUB places more like Loyola than like Notre Dame.

2) The risk of a lower ranked school vs the risk of debt is something that should be considered. However if I went to a school like IUB, my grades would make big law impossible. And even with a full ride I'd be stuck with ~70K in debt for living expenses. Tution + books + fees is 135 and they only give you 120. I'd have 200K with 160K+ salary than 70K with 45K.

You can't just go by people who got a good job and then claim they wish they took the money at a lower school. Why? Because they are assuming they'd get that job or a similar one even with the lower degree. That's not true.

I also have some special considerations, since I could make more as an engineering than a shit lawyer does. Taking out 70K to end up litigating flat rate divorces is a huge fail for me.

My GPA made it so I'd have to go to some really awful schools to get a full ride. And even then it would have some insane stipulation.

You're right, but I think you're giving ND (and definitely Loyola) too much credit.

I go to ND, and I would not recommend going w/ only $60K (assuming you're footing the rest of the bill).

Regional uncertainty is very inefficient: you're going to have to pick one (and only one) place to live anyway, and you can save yourself a lot of trouble by making that decision pre-LS.

ND has a nicely distributed alumni network, and every year sends an impressively distributed array of students across the nation... so what? It's mostly valuable as a marketing tool to 0Ls.

[JamMasterJ]

BTW, I think it's going to take them a little while to burn up $40 million that has been donated strictly for scholarships.

About this, does anyone have any information about this endowment? I have been trying to research the specifics of what it can be used for, for negotiation purposes, but can't find any articles or anything on the interwebz. Any ideas?

They recently got $25 million from Eli Lilly, which is a huge corporation in Indianapolis to spend on professors and that type of thing and then they got $35 mil from Michael Maurer (who they renamed the school after) to spend on scholarships alone. Even if they give half or more of the class close to full ride schollies, the money will not dry up for a really long time. It was designed to be used "in perpetuity," and could be around till we all retire. There's a link to the story on the Maurer donation on the IU Bloomington class of 2014 thread, but I didn't feel like scrolling through 40 pages

[Borhas]

I find this thread interesting because it gets to the heart of why the USNWR lists don't mean shit. So 0L's should take this to heart...

Loyola (Chicago) v. IUB in rankings

2005: 70 v. 40
2006: 69 v. 36
2007: 75 v. 37
2008: 85 v. 36
2009: ? v. 23
2010: 87 v. 27
2011: ? v. 23

Loyola (Chicago) v. IUB in NLJ %

2005: 11% v. 12%
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf
2006: ??
(couldn't find the NLJ info for this year)
2007: 11% v. 12%
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/composite.pdf
2008: ??
couldn't find this class' #'s
2009: 15.1% v. <13% (below t50 reported by NLJ 250)
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20sc ... page12.pdf
2010: 11% v. < 10%(unranked again)
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2483173162




Indiana did better before its rank went up

[nelaw2010]

This kind of cash infusion will make a difference for a long time. That's the beauty of it, it's not a "one year" thing. Part of the reason the top schools stay in the top is b/c of their endowments. Money buys just about anything, including prestige. Perception becomes reality.

Does money mean that you're a good law school? But if the money is used wisely, it can definitely be used to improve in rankings. Who would deny that?????

Also, why does anyone have a problem with this? I think it's awesome that IUB is using its money strategically to improve their rankings, b/c that benefits EVERYONE who is part of the IUB law school system.

All schools use their money in one way or another in an attempt to improve their rankings. Some get better faculty, better facilities, offer more scholarships.

If you were in charge of a law school, and maybe some of us might be, what would you do? I think what IUB is doing is brilliant.

People ALWAYS find a way to complain. I could set-up a booth just handing out money and some of you would find a reason to complain. Unbelievable.

[Borhas]

This kind of cash infusion will make a difference for a long time. That's the beauty of it, it's not a "one year" thing. Part of the reason the top schools stay in the top is b/c of their endowments. Money buys just about anything, including prestige. Perception becomes reality.

Does money mean that you're a good law school? But if the money is used wisely, it can definitely be used to improve in rankings. Who would deny that?????

Also, why does anyone have a problem with this? I think it's awesome that IUB is using its money strategically to improve their rankings, b/c that benefits EVERYONE who is part of the IUB law school system.

All schools use their money in one way or another in an attempt to improve their rankings. Some get better faculty, better facilities, offer more scholarships.

If you were in charge of a law school, and maybe some of us might be, what would you do? I think what IUB is doing is brilliant.

People ALWAYS find a way to complain. I could set-up a booth just handing out money and some of you would find a reason to complain. Unbelievable.

I'm totes in favor of $$$

but nothing else in your post is based on any data

UCI had over $30m just for scholarships... that money's dried up. It bought them a class on par w/ UCLA...I'm sure they'll do really well in the rankings, but we'll see if that strategy works out for them in substance.

[nelaw2010]

I find this thread interesting because it gets to the heart of why the USNWR lists don't mean shit. So 0L's should take this to heart...

Loyola (Chicago) v. IUB in rankings

2005: 70 v. 40
2006: 69 v. 36
2007: 75 v. 37
2008: 85 v. 36
2009: ? v. 23
2010: 87 v. 27
2011: ? v. 23

Loyola (Chicago) v. IUB in NLJ %

2005: 11% v. 12%
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf
2006: ??
(couldn't find the NLJ info for this year)
2007: 11% v. 12%
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/composite.pdf
2008: ??
couldn't find this class' #'s
2009: 15.1% v. <13% (below t50 reported by NLJ 250)
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20sc ... page12.pdf
2010: 11% v. ? (unranked again)
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2483173162




Indiana did better before its rank went up

Good data. However, I would ask ALL 0L who are willing to incur A LOT of debt b/c they want BIG LAW to actually go work in a BIG LAW firm before taking on the debt. That makes sense, right? Why incur all this debt for something you THINK you want? Go work as a paralegal like I did. See people working 80+ hours per day. Watch as new associates spend all day doing document reproduction (photocopying), and complaining out loud about why they even bothered to go to law school if they're doing the same work as the paralegals.

Don't forget, it's not just about hard work. I have had partners at major law firms tell me that most associates go wrong b/c they only focus on working hard, and forget about the office politics. Are you good at office politics? Are you good at fake laughing at unfunny jokes? Have you ever had a job where you had to play politics all day? Are you making decisions from experience or based on what other people told you?

There is a reason you get a paid a lot of money. The work sucks, you'll have no life, and you have NO guarantee that you'll keep your 160k+ job even if you get it.

With that said, some of you will LOVE BIG LAW, and that's awesome. I saw the people that excelled in that environment. They were few and far between. Most of them suffered under a mountain of debt.

But don't take my word for it. Get a job as a paralegal at a BIG LAW firm. See how you like it. Then decide if the debt is worth it. Doesn't that make more sense then DEFINITELY taking on A LOT of debt for a job that you might not get, and if you get, you might not like?

[nelaw2010]

I'm totes in favor of $$$

but nothing else in your post is based on any data

UCI had over $30m just for scholarships... that money's dried up. It bought them a class on par w/ UCLA...I'm sure they'll do really well in the rankings, but we'll see if that strategy works out for them in substance.

UCI used the money much differently. I believe IUB received $40m, and they are not using it as aggressive as UCI. It's an unfair comparison. A brand new law school compared to the 10th oldest law school in America.

Nothing on my post is based on data? What sort of data would you like to prove that money buys prestige? I understand that I'm not presenting "hard" facts to back up my claim, but I didn't think I needed to.

Does anyone else not believe my claim that money buys prestige b/c I didn't offer "hard" data?

[Fark-o-vision]

People in the real world do talk about USNWR, although they don't place near as much importance on it as we do. For full disclosure, I should say that I am considering IU-B and also several connections to the legal world 1that should make landing a job, even way out in California, even easier. That said, many of my family members have pushed me towards IU-B for the very reason that there seems to be a "buzz" surrounding it. This buzz, if sustained, could help improve employment. Especially in this economy, when solid ND/Vandy students are considering IU-B at full ride rather than incurring the extra debt.

Thinking goes that instructional level is more or less the same across all schools, but especially the top fifty or so. What really makes the difference is (1) alumni base and willingness of the alumni to work hard for the up-and-comers (undoubtedly the largest part, right? Only reason USC exists as a force of nature in SoCal is because the "Trojan network" really operates like a brotherhood). (2) The perception that the school attracts better candidates and produces better competition. It's why Yale doesn't even need to grade their students--the perception is that those students are so excellent, and so used to excelling, that they are driven to excel even when there is no reward for doing so. I didn't say that was the fact of the matter, just that it was the perception.

Of course, I don't know the social science behind it well enough to tell you how long a process it would be and how sustained over time it would have to become. All I know is that IU-B is making noise, turning heads, and that if it continues to attract excellent candidates it should turn out employment in the end. as I mentioned before, it's a little easier to make that gamble in my position.

For clarity, I'm not suggesting that a year or two jump in the rankings means anything. If they only manage to slip and slide around the top thirty or so, it probably becomes a non issue. Isn't this very strategy, used years ago, what made WUSTL what it is?

[alexb]

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9420.html


"The gift qualifies for matching funds set aside by IU, through its "Matching the Promise" campaign, for the purpose of supporting endowed scholarships, fellowships and faculty positions. This will effectively double the annual distribution of income earned on the gift."

AKA they have 70mil for scholarships.

[Borhas]

I'm totes in favor of $$$

but nothing else in your post is based on any data

UCI had over $30m just for scholarships... that money's dried up. It bought them a class on par w/ UCLA...I'm sure they'll do really well in the rankings, but we'll see if that strategy works out for them in substance.

UCI used the money much differently. I believe IUB received $40m, and they are not using it as aggressive as UCI. It's an unfair comparison. A brand new law school compared to the 10th oldest law school in America.

Nothing on my post is based on data? What sort of data would you like to prove that money buys prestige? I understand that I'm not presenting "hard" facts to back up my claim, but I didn't think I needed to.

Does anyone else not believe my claim that money buys prestige b/c I didn't offer "hard" data?

your claim makes sense, but lots of worthy hypotheses make sense but are later disproven

let's look at another school "on the rise"
WUSTL
Rank
'98: 31
'99: 33
'00: 30
'01: 29
'02: 27
'03: 25
'04: 21
'05: 24
'06: 20
'07: 19
'08: 19
'09: 19
'10: 19
'11: 18

NLJ 250
'05: 27% (#21 relative to others)
'06: ?
'07: 26% (#23-24)
'08: ? (outside of top 20)
'09: 28% (#24)
'10: 19% (#25)

from 2002, (0L's of class of 2005) to 2011 the school rose steadily from 27 to 18
one would think that classes of '06 and onward would place better...

Note that WUSTL has very respectable placement (even ITE relative to others), but it started out at #30 and it's pretty much been in that range the whole time as far as employment placement... except for the class of 2005, but then again the class of 2005 entered the school when it was ranked #27... the higher ranked classes did not achieve that.

Though TBF the missing data is really annoying, but still, there is either a weak inverse trend between rank and employment since the 02 rank spike, or there is no trend at all.

If money bought employment success then WUSTL should have started doing better after '05 (relative to others... ignoring "ITE" monster)

[Jeffro]

This seems as good a thread as any to insert this, since the topics of Biglaw, scholarships, debt, and so on are going around. Justice Clarence Thomas, a Yale Law graduate who primarily held government legal jobs and entered the legal job market during a recession, only paid off his law school debts approx. 20 years after graduation...while in his third term on the Court. http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/clarence ... arent-ttt/ For those who do not intend to go into Biglaw, like myself, that's definitely something to ponder if it wasn't in real enough terms for you yet.

Also, I can concur with nelaw2010 that a career like that would blow. I have not worked directly in Biglaw myself, but based on everything I have heard from practicing attorneys I have extensive experience in something very similar...the Army. Ridiculous hours (compounded by shit pay, in the Army at least), unrealistic expectations of what your job will actually entail prior to starting, basically a pyramid structure where very few advance to any meaningful level, high attrition rates otherwise, limited opportunities for time off/sickness, etc., etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't regret having been in the Army but the reality of why so many people get the hell out is all of that and then the ridiculous, menial bullshit day in and day out. If I wanted to go through that I could just forgo the years of education and money and reenlist FTW.

Systems like this thrive on people being wholly unaware of what is really in store for them. They want you to come and be their drone. If you're not a rainmaker for the partners, you're nothing. With that said, I'm sure I have not dissuaded anyone anyway so best of luck to you all.

[Jeffro]

BTW, I think it's going to take them a little while to burn up $40 million that has been donated strictly for scholarships.

About this, does anyone have any information about this endowment? I have been trying to research the specifics of what it can be used for, for negotiation purposes, but can't find any articles or anything on the interwebz. Any ideas?

They recently got $25 million from Eli Lilly, which is a huge corporation in Indianapolis to spend on professors and that type of thing and then they got $35 mil from Michael Maurer (who they renamed the school after) to spend on scholarships alone. Even if they give half or more of the class close to full ride schollies, the money will not dry up for a really long time. It was designed to be used "in perpetuity," and could be around till we all retire. There's a link to the story on the Maurer donation on the IU Bloomington class of 2014 thread, but I didn't feel like scrolling through 40 pages

Thanks for the info.

[SortOfObsessed]

I'm totes in favor of $$$

but nothing else in your post is based on any data

UCI had over $30m just for scholarships... that money's dried up. It bought them a class on par w/ UCLA...I'm sure they'll do really well in the rankings, but we'll see if that strategy works out for them in substance.

UCI used the money much differently. I believe IUB received $40m, and they are not using it as aggressive as UCI. It's an unfair comparison. A brand new law school compared to the 10th oldest law school in America.

Nothing on my post is based on data? What sort of data would you like to prove that money buys prestige? I understand that I'm not presenting "hard" facts to back up my claim, but I didn't think I needed to.

Does anyone else not believe my claim that money buys prestige b/c I didn't offer "hard" data?

your claim makes sense, but lots of worthy hypotheses make sense but are later disproven

let's look at another school "on the rise"
WUSTL
Rank
'98: 31
'99: 33
'00: 30
'01: 29
'02: 27
'03: 25
'04: 21
'05: 24
'06: 20
'07: 19
'08: 19
'09: 19
'10: 19
'11: 18

NLJ 250
'05: 27% (#21 relative to others)
'06: ?
'07: 26%
'08: ? (outside of top 20)
'09: 28% (#24)
'10: 19% (#25)

from 2002, (0L's of class of 2005) to 2011 the school rose steadily from 27 to 18
one would think that classes of '06 and onward would place better...

Note that WUSTL has very respectable placement (even ITE relative to others), but it started out at #30 and it's pretty much been in that range the whole time as far as employment placement... except for the class of 2005, but then again the class of 2005 entered the school when it was ranked #27... the higher ranked classes did not achieve that.

Though TBF the missing data is really annoying, but still, there is either a weak inverse trend between rank and employment since the 02 rank spike, or there is no trend at all.

If money bought employment success then WUSTL should have started doing better after '05 (relative to others... ignoring "ITE" monster)

Did you factor in the fact that legal employment as a whole suffered in the later years? I feel like comparing big law placement percentages now to the past is discounting very important variables.

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

Did you factor in the fact that legal employment as a whole suffered in the later years? I feel like comparing big law placement percentages now to the past is discounting very important variables.

The point was that it's placement did not improve relative to its peers. The actualy dip in % for the economy is fairly irrelevant.

[Borhas]

Did you factor in the fact that legal employment as a whole suffered in the later years? I feel like comparing big law placement percentages now to the past is discounting very important variables.

where I could I did.... the # next to % indicates their ranking in terms of NLJ 250 placement relative to peers

[mez06]

I have a 105k scholarship at IUB. I would JUMP, I repeat JUMP at a 60k scholly at ND. IUB doesn't compare. 60 firms at OCI and all of them are slimy located in the midwest. ND has national appeal. And as a proof of such a point, they at least have firms in states outside of the MidWest showing up at OCI. Don't be a fool and fall for the gaming of IUB. Good school, good quality, but far from being comparable to ND. And that's coming from someone booking a flight for the scholar weekend lol.

Personally, I'd rather have a job versus a cool ranking. But hey, that's just me.

[nelaw2010]

your claim makes sense, but lots of worthy hypotheses make sense but are later disproven

let's look at another school "on the rise"
WUSTL
Rank
'98: 31
'99: 33
'00: 30
'01: 29
'02: 27
'03: 25
'04: 21
'05: 24
'06: 20
'07: 19
'08: 19
'09: 19
'10: 19
'11: 18

NLJ 250
'05: 27% (#21 relative to others)
'06: ?
'07: 26%
'08: ? (outside of top 20)
'09: 28% (#24)
'10: 19% (#25)

from 2002, (0L's of class of 2005) to 2011 the school rose steadily from 27 to 18
one would think that classes of '06 and onward would place better...

Note that WUSTL has very respectable placement (even ITE relative to others), but it started out at #30 and it's pretty much been in that range the whole time as far as employment placement... except for the class of 2005, but then again the class of 2005 entered the school when it was ranked #27... the higher ranked classes did not achieve that.

Though TBF the missing data is really annoying, but still, there is either a weak inverse trend between rank and employment since the 02 rank spike, or there is no trend at all.

If money bought employment success then WUSTL should have started doing better after '05 (relative to others... ignoring "ITE" monster)

Which claim are you referring to? That money can buy prestige? That is a proven fact. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I don't feel like I have to defend that claim.

On to your data. I'm not clear, you're saying WUSTL used money to improve their rankings? If so, and you're saying that their hiring data didn't improve in sync with their USNWR rankings, then I can't argue with the data you present. However, you might be looking at a snapshot that doesn't accurately capture the way an increase in ranking improves BIG LAW placement. I suspect that any type of ranking increase will take time to show in the BIG LAW Ranking. There are more assumptions built into your comparison, such as the desire of kids in these schools to want to go to BIG LAW. I don't mean to derail the argument with this point, but you're assuming that the same percentage of people who went to WUSTL actually want BIG LAW as they do in another similar ranked school that places better. I know we can't know this, so I'll let it be. What I do suspect is that a sustained increase in rankings will help a school improve its perception amongst other lawyers. That will eventually lead to better BIG LAW placement. Once that network becomes better established, those working in BIG LAW will look to hire fellow alums.

You're argument basically says: "it hasn't happened in this short time period (10 years is short for this kind of stuff), so I don't think it will happen." You may be right, but I think it will take longer for an increase in ranking prestige to pay dividends from a job perspective (especially if you're only talking about BIG LAW).