BU! woot. Forum
- burtonrideclub
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:10 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Just accepted by phone call. 166, 3.5. Non-URM
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Congrats! Yay they are calling today!!!burtonrideclub wrote:Just accepted by phone call. 166, 3.5. Non-URM
-
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am
Re: BU! woot.
did ANY splitters get a call?????
- NancyBotwin
- Posts: 1084
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:43 pm
Re: BU! woot.
No, they haven't touched us yet - except a couple people above 3.3:finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????
http://bu.lawschoolnumbers.com/applican ... =gpa_lsdas
- UFMatt
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:59 pm
Re: BU! woot.
I got the call last week, and I'm a splitter (i.e. LSAT > 75, GPA <25). I don't have a public LSN profile, but my GPA seems to be right at the cutoff of people in so far.finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????
Last edited by UFMatt on Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm
Re: BU! woot.
CONGRATS! complete date?burtonrideclub wrote:Just accepted by phone call. 166, 3.5. Non-URM
- Kiersten1985
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:36 pm
Re: BU! woot.
/\ /\ /\UFMatt wrote:I got the call last week, and I'm a splitter (i.e. LSAT > 75, GPA <25). I don't have a public LSN profile, but my GPA seems to be right at the cutoff of people in so far.finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????
Reason why LSN cannot be used definitively.
-
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am
Re: BU! woot.
guessing you have at least a 3.3 gpa?UFMatt wrote:I got the call last week, and I'm a splitter (i.e. LSAT > 75, GPA <25). I don't have a public LSN profile, but my GPA seems to be right at the cutoff of people in so far.finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????
- UFMatt
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:59 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Yeah, 3.3X.finalaspects wrote:guessing you have at least a 3.3 gpa?UFMatt wrote:I got the call last week, and I'm a splitter (i.e. LSAT > 75, GPA <25). I don't have a public LSN profile, but my GPA seems to be right at the cutoff of people in so far.finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????
-
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:15 am
Re: BU! woot.
Do they mention scholly info when they call? Good luck guys and congratz to those who got in!
- DrGuano
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:13 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).tram988 wrote:I absolutely disagree. If there are two students, one from BU and another from BC, with equivalent class rank, I dont think BU automatically takes precedence. These schools are roughly equal. Additionally, their LSAT median is both 166. BU's GPA median is .2 more than BC..not very significant. BU is a tad bit more national, with ties to NYC and California. BC is primarily Boston. If in the above example you were talking about the NYC or Cali market then that would be different.DrGuano wrote:Partners do not control hiring at firms. The Chief Legal Recruiting Officer is responsible for these decisions and they are all up to date with the rankings/reputations of the schools they draw from. Partners get a chance to interview those going for associate positions and their input is critical, but the decision ultimately falls on the head of recruiting. The head of recruiting is also responsible for offering interviews. So in this instance unless BC is a feeder for a specific firm BU's better rank/numbers/rep would win out.dms87 wrote:Via a practicing lawyer from Boston, he would take BC over BU; however, he is 40+, and what most here seem to be finding out is that the younger lawyers realize BU's quickly improving reputation. The guys in their 40s, though, are probably the ones becoming partner and controlling a lot of the higher now, no? I'm not intending to stir anything up, just sharing what I was told and trying to get opinions.
This reminds me of the washington and lee v. william and mary debate. The schools are roughly equal but then comes lay prestige. Unfortunately, BC wins lay prestige hands down.
I dont want you to think im advocating BC here. I am trying to make an unbiased choice myself between these schools. It is just very difficult because they are so equivalent. For me its going to come down to "feel".
- burtonrideclub
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:10 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Complete date 12/3MissLucky wrote:CONGRATS! complete date?burtonrideclub wrote:Just accepted by phone call. 166, 3.5. Non-URM
-
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm
Re: BU! woot.
All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.DrGuano wrote: Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- DrGuano
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:13 pm
Re: BU! woot.
There are also two Pace associates and 0 Pace partners. Not to knock Pace, but Pace is not more impressive than either of those schools.Burger in a can wrote:All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.DrGuano wrote: Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).
Usually a low associate/non-existent partner tally at a top firm means not a high ranked school, but the associates did exceptionally well. I volunteered to help escort the summer associate interviewees from interview to interview around the office and legal recruiting would give us their resumes to make conversation. People coming from Pace/NY and other tier 2/3 schools were always in the top 5 of their class. So the low BC associate # is due to those two having exceptional GPAs/backgrounds.
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Not a problem. I agree with BU being the better choice for the NYC market. We are on the same pageDrGuano wrote:Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).tram988 wrote:I absolutely disagree. If there are two students, one from BU and another from BC, with equivalent class rank, I dont think BU automatically takes precedence. These schools are roughly equal. Additionally, their LSAT median is both 166. BU's GPA median is .2 more than BC..not very significant. BU is a tad bit more national, with ties to NYC and California. BC is primarily Boston. If in the above example you were talking about the NYC or Cali market then that would be different.DrGuano wrote:Partners do not control hiring at firms. The Chief Legal Recruiting Officer is responsible for these decisions and they are all up to date with the rankings/reputations of the schools they draw from. Partners get a chance to interview those going for associate positions and their input is critical, but the decision ultimately falls on the head of recruiting. The head of recruiting is also responsible for offering interviews. So in this instance unless BC is a feeder for a specific firm BU's better rank/numbers/rep would win out.dms87 wrote:Via a practicing lawyer from Boston, he would take BC over BU; however, he is 40+, and what most here seem to be finding out is that the younger lawyers realize BU's quickly improving reputation. The guys in their 40s, though, are probably the ones becoming partner and controlling a lot of the higher now, no? I'm not intending to stir anything up, just sharing what I was told and trying to get opinions.
This reminds me of the washington and lee v. william and mary debate. The schools are roughly equal but then comes lay prestige. Unfortunately, BC wins lay prestige hands down.
I dont want you to think im advocating BC here. I am trying to make an unbiased choice myself between these schools. It is just very difficult because they are so equivalent. For me its going to come down to "feel".
-
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm
Re: BU! woot.
I stand corrected! I still wonder what the situation would be like if there weren't any partners who went to BU though.DrGuano wrote:There are also two Pace associates and 0 Pace partners. Not to knock Pace, but Pace is not more impressive than either of those schools.Burger in a can wrote:All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.DrGuano wrote: Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).
Usually a low associate/non-existent partner tally at a top firm means not a high ranked school, but the associates did exceptionally well. I volunteered to help escort the summer associate interviewees from interview to interview around the office and legal recruiting would give us their resumes to make conversation. People coming from Pace/NY and other tier 2/3 schools were always in the top 5 of their class. So the low BC associate # is due to those two having exceptional GPAs/backgrounds.
- OneKnight
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:00 pm
Re: BU! woot.
They didn't mention it because it comes in the admit package in the mail. That said, if I had been more steady of mind, I probably would have asked and they might have given me the info over the phone because they were super nice.jocelyne wrote:Do they mention scholly info when they call? Good luck guys and congratz to those who got in!
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- DrGuano
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:13 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Top 25 is a big deal at this firm despite the menial difference. I don't get it...but anyway, unless BC crosses that threshold I don't think it would make a difference.Burger in a can wrote:I stand corrected! I still wonder what the situation would be like if there weren't any partners who went to BU though.DrGuano wrote:There are also two Pace associates and 0 Pace partners. Not to knock Pace, but Pace is not more impressive than either of those schools.Burger in a can wrote:All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.DrGuano wrote: Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).
Usually a low associate/non-existent partner tally at a top firm means not a high ranked school, but the associates did exceptionally well. I volunteered to help escort the summer associate interviewees from interview to interview around the office and legal recruiting would give us their resumes to make conversation. People coming from Pace/NY and other tier 2/3 schools were always in the top 5 of their class. So the low BC associate # is due to those two having exceptional GPAs/backgrounds.
- Kiersten1985
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:36 pm
Re: BU! woot.
But I think the bigger point is that there are any BU partners there to begin with. Not just the fact that they have a hand in the hiring process.DrGuano wrote:I stand corrected! I still wonder what the situation would be like if there weren't any partners who went to BU though.Burger in a can wrote:All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.DrGuano wrote: Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).
-
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Haha ok so if BC can manage to cross that giant threshold between T26 and T25, then your firm might give them a glance? What about the fact that BU didn't break T25, and was outranked by BC, until 2004? Those partners at your firm have only been there for about 5 years?DrGuano wrote: Top 25 is a big deal at this firm despite the menial difference. I don't get it...but anyway, unless BC crosses that threshold I don't think it would make a difference.
Last edited by Burger in a can on Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am
Re: BU! woot.
TLSers vastly overestimate the knowledge that hiring partners and committtes have about schools regarding ranking.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- H. E. Pennypacker
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:26 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Something tells me you'll be going out for your schools moot court team Burger....Burger in a can wrote:Haha ok so if BC can manage to cross that giant threshold between T26 and T25, then your firm might give them a glace? What about the fact that BU didn't break T25, and was outranked by BC, until 2004? Those partners at your firm have only been there for about 5 years?DrGuano wrote: Top 25 is a big deal at this firm despite the menial difference. I don't get it...but anyway, unless BC crosses that threshold I don't think it would make a difference.
-
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Haha I actually don't even have a pony in this race- I don't really have a reason to prefer one Boston school over the other, and at this point, I don't- I just find it hard to believe that firms really look at the two of them as being drastically different. That being said, I have no evidence/experience to back that up, and I could be totally wrong. But like Pearalegal just suggested, I sort of doubt that law firms have a framed copy of USNWR on their desks... I mean I'm sure ranking matters, but a 6-point difference outside of T14, especially between 2 schools that have switched places in the rankings in the past more than a couple of times, just seems like it would be negligible in real life.H. E. Pennypacker wrote:Something tells me you'll be going out for your schools moot court team Burger....Burger in a can wrote:Haha ok so if BC can manage to cross that giant threshold between T26 and T25, then your firm might give them a glace? What about the fact that BU didn't break T25, and was outranked by BC, until 2004? Those partners at your firm have only been there for about 5 years?DrGuano wrote: Top 25 is a big deal at this firm despite the menial difference. I don't get it...but anyway, unless BC crosses that threshold I don't think it would make a difference.
- SanBun
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Hey everyone! Went complete 12/15, LSAT > 75th, GPA at median. When do you guys think I'll likely hear back???
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:05 pm
Re: BU! woot.
Complete 11/24. GPA above median, LSAT > 75th. Wondering why I haven't heard from them yet?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login