Not so blind item #2

Another NYC meet-up... another odd make-out pairing. Go figure. But everyone enjoys girl-on-girl, right?

hmm

wait, does this work?

Not so blind item

Sure, we've all flirted with multiple guys at a bar in the same night. It's the attention, or the free drinks, or some other alcohol-fueled insecurity. Hell, some people even string them along. But we don't hook up with (any) them, especially not in front of the others! Oh, the shame from a group of relative strangers. C'mon TLS, keep it classy.

With love,
Lexy

The Magic Circle hates the internetz... Allen & Overy

While the Vault rankings are nice and everything, my anglophilia still manages to get the best of me at times. You’d think that spending the past year in Mayfair surrounded by men who walked like there were sticks shoved up their rectums would have quelled this sentiment, but apparently not. So I thought I’d poke around the Magic Circle firms a bit. I was going to start with Slaughter and May, but they don’t list associates on the website. And Freshfields doesn’t list associates in the US or UK. Clifford Chance doesn’t list class years or alma maters. Instead, I give you the New York office of Allen & Overy, Class of 2007. The most astonishing thing I noticed clicking through the associate profiles was that there were 3-5 Brooklyn Law School grads at Allen & Overy. Shame on you. I’ll poke around Linklaters soon.

Michigan: 2

NYU: 2

UChicago: 1

Fordham: 3

Columbia: 1

Cornell: 1


I tried to find the information for the London offices, but most of the associate profiles were empty.

What do these rankings mean?

I'm tired and bored enough from studying that I thought I'd do a small write-up of what you can take away from these rankings.

1) I discourage the line of thought that concludes that, say, Harvard is worse than Columbia because they placed nearly half as many graduates at a Vault 10 firm. What I expound here is where graduates ended up. These rankings do not purport to indicate how many students in a given class-year received offers from Vault 10 firms. Lower numbers by one school can be explained by a variety of possibilities. Here are two:

• Students who received V10 offers likely also received V20 or above offers. Not everyone acts in strict obedience with "firm prestige rankings". There are many considerations that go into choosing firms, such as cultural fit, practice strengths, geographical location, the particular strengths of the training program, and so forth. Rational and intelligent students would be wise to pick firms based on these factors, rather than the elusive characteristic of "prestige".
• Even if one took a summer-associateship at a firm, there is no guarantee that the student ended up working there. Many students opt to do 3L OCI and work elsewhere, to avoid Biglaw altogether, or simply did not receive offers from their summer firm (this possibility is a bit more unlikely, considering the economy of summer 2006).

2) Certain schools have stronger foci that are not in BigLaw placement. For instance, schools like Chicago, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are renowned for affording their top graduates prestigious clerkship and, thus, academic positions. Similarly, schools like NYU, Michigan, and Boalt encourage students to pursue public interest, not foisting one particular career path on their studentry. There is an NLJ-250 chart that shows what percentage of a given law school's class decided to do what, and this should temper your expectations as to how well that law school places in biglaw.

3) I think the percentages in these rankings can tell you one thing (and there may be other things it can tell you, but I only had one purpose in mind): They give you the floor. That is to say, they tell you–at a minimum–what percentage of the class ended up at the Vault 10 (or Vault 5 or whatever). The number of students who received offers could be much, much higher.

4) In the same vein, I'd hesitate to say that Vault 10 firms take the top 30% of, say, Columbia's class. Expect this number to be padded somewhat: Students ranked highest will usually opt to take other routes upon graduation. Aside from the academic incentive, for instance, firms allocate hefty bonuses for associates who took up prestigious clerkships after graduating.

I hope this helps. I know it sounds a little paradoxical that I don't want to encourage a ranking's obsession, even though I'm creating... a ranking. Nevertheless, I think rankings are useful as a very rough tool: They help to show, roughly, which school is stronger at what. The lines will blur as schools get closer in percentages, and the wild variations year-to-year in placement should show you, really, that pretty much the entire top 14 do very well at placing their students at the most prestigious firms (think about it: We've only gone through the 10 most prestigious firms in the nation and we're already swatting away large portions of these schools' classes).

5) Oh, and regarding this economy and how people will fare during 2009 OCI: All bets are off. I expect hiring to be down, but how far down... I don't know. It won't be down simply because of the economy. 2007 and 2006 OCI were genuine peak years in legal hiring, with a lot of chanting on legal tabloids about moving market pay to 190,000$. I don't expect any OCI to match those years' numbers in the near future.

Hope this helps!

BLS

Vault 10 Rankings

Raw:
1) Columbia Law School (110)
2) Harvard Law School (91)
3) New York University Law School (68)
4) Georgetown University Law Center (41)
5) University of Chicago Law School (38)
6) University of Pennsylvania Law School (35)
7) University of Michigan Law School (34)
8) Northwestern University Law School (33)
9) Berkeley Law (30)
9) Cornell Law School (30)
11) University of Virginia Law School (27)
12) Duke Law School (27)
13) Yale Law School (22)
13) Stanford Law School (22)

Percentages:
1) Columbia Law School (29%)
2) University of Chicago Law School (19%)
3) Harvard Law School (17%)
4) New York University Law School (15%)
4) Cornell Law School (15)
6) University of Pennsylvania Law School (14%)
7) Duke University Law School (14%)
8) Northwestern University Law School (13%)
9) Berkeley Law (12%)
10) Yale Law School (11%)
10) Stanford Law School (11%)
12) University of Michigan Law School (9.1%)
13) University of Virginia Law School (7.5%)
14) Georgetown University Law School (7.1%)

Phew. Now compare that with the USNews Rankings!

Covington & Burling

Vault 10: Covington & Burling LLP

Raw:
1) Harvard Law School (8)
2) Columbia Law School (5)
3) Georgetown University Law Center (3)
4) Yale Law School (2)
4) Stanford Law School (2)
4) University of Chicago (2)
4) University of Virginia (2)
4) University of Pennsylvania (2)
4) Cornell Law School (2)
10) University of Michigan Law School (1)
11) New York University Law School (1)
12) Berkeley Law (0)
12) Northwestern University Law School (0)
12) Duke Law School (0)

Percentages:
1) Harvard Law School (1.5%)
2) Columbia Law School (1.3%)
3) Yale Law School (1%)
3) Stanford Law School (1%)
3) University of Chicago Law School (1%)
3) Cornell Law School (1%)
7) University of Pennsylvania Law School (0.8%)
8) University of Virginia Law School (.53%)
9) Georgetown University Law Center (.52%)
10) University of Michigan Law School (.27%)
11) New York University Law School (.22%)
12) Berkeley Law (0%)
12) Northwestern University Law School (0%)
12) Duke Law School (0%)

Weil, Gotshal, and Manges

Vault 10: Weil, Gotshal, and Manges LLP

Raw:
1) Columbia Law School (11)
2) Harvard Law School (7)
3) Stanford Law School (4)
3) Berkeley Law (4)
5) University of Michigan Law School (3)
5) Cornell Law School (3)
5) Georgetown University Law Center (3)
8) New York University Law School (2)
8) University of Virginia Law School (2)
8) Northwestern University Law School (2)
8) Duke Law School (2)
12) University of Chicago Law School (1)
13) University of Pennsylvania (1)
14) Yale Law School (0)

Percentages:
1) Columbia Law School (3.0%)
2) Stanford Law School (2.0%)
3) Berkeley Law (1.6%)
4) Cornell Law School (1.5%)
5) Harvard Law School (1.3%)
6) Duke Law School (1%)
7) University of Michigan Law School (.8%)
7) Northwestern University Law School (.8%)
9) University of Virginia Law School (.53%)
10) Georgetown University Law Center (.52%)
11) University of Chicago Law School (.50%)
12) New York University Law School (.44%)
13) University of Pennsylvania Law School (.4%)
14) Yale Law School (0%)

These don't seem right. Unfortunately, Weil's search mechanism wasn't that helpful.

Latham & Watkins

Vault 10: Latham & Watkins LLP

Raw:
1) Northwestern University Law School (18)
2) Columbia Law School (16)
3) Harvard Law School (14)
4) University of Chicago Law School (13)
5) Georgetown University Law Center (11)
6) New York University Law School (10)
7) Berkeley Law (9)
8) Cornell Law School (8)
9) Stanford Law School (7)
9) Duke Law School (7)
11) University of Michigan Law School (6)
12) University of Pennsylvania Law School (5)
13) University of Virginia Law School (4)
14) Yale Law School (1)

Percentages:
1) Northwestern University Law School (7.2%)
2) University of Chicago Law School (6.2%)
3) Columbia Law School (4.3%)
4) Cornell Law School (4%)
5) Berkeley Law (3.6%)
6) Stanford Law School (3.5%)
6) Duke Law School (3.5%)
8) Harvard Law School (2.5%)
9) New York University Law School (2.2%)
10) University of Pennsylvania Law School (2%)
11) Georgetown University Law Center (1.9%)
12) University of Michigan Law School (1.6%)
13) University of Virginia Law School (1.1%)
14) Yale Law School (0.5%)

Strong showing from the California schools, but it makes sense because Latham is based in Los Angeles. What I can't figure out his the amazing performance by Northwestern. Any students care to explain? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge?

Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett

V10: Simspon, Thatcher & Bartlett LLP

Raw:
1) Columbia Law School (14)
1) New York University Law School (14)
3) Harvard Law School (10)
3) Duke Law School (10)
5) University of Virginia Law School (9)
6) University of Pennsylvania Law School (8)
7) Cornell Law School (7)
8) Berkeley Law (6)
9) University of Michigan Law School (4)
9) Yale Law School (4)
11) Stanford Law School (3)
11) Georgetown University Law Center (3)
11) Northwestern University Law School (3)
14) The University of Chicago Law School (1)

Percentages
1) Duke Law School (5%)
2) Columbia Law School (3.8%)
3) Cornell Law School (3.5%)
4) University of Pennsylvania Law School (3.2%)
5) New York University Law School (3.1%)
6) University of Virginia Law School (2.4%)
6) Berkeley Law (2.4%)
8) Yale Law School (2%)
9) Harvard Law School (1.9%)
10) Stanford Law School (1.5%)
11) Northwestern University Law School (1.2%)
12) University of Michigan Law School (1.1%)
13) Georgetown University Law Center (.52%)
14) University of Chicago Law School (.5%)

Very interesting results.

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

Vault 10: Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP

Raw:
1) New York University Law School (21)
2) Columbia Law School (17)
3) Harvard Law School (7)
4) Georgetown University Law Center (6)
5) University of Michigan Law School (4)
6)University of Pennsylvania Law School (3)
6) Northwestern University Law School (3)
6) Cornell Law School (3)
9) University of Chicago Law School (2)
10) Yale Law School (1)
10) Stanford Law School (1)
12) University of Virginia Law School (0)
12) Berkeley Law (0)
12) Duke Law School (0)

Percentages:
1) New York University Law School (4.7%)
2) Columbia Law School (4.5%)
3) Cornell Law School (1.5%)
4) Harvard Law School (1.3%)
5) University of Pennsylvania Law School (1.2%)
5) Northwestern University Law School (1.2%)
7) University of Michigan Law School (1.1%)
8) Georgetown University Law Center (1.0%)
8) University of Chicago Law School (1.0%)
9) Yale Law School (.5%)
9) Stanford Law School (.5%)
11) University of Virginia Law School (0%)
11) Berkeley Law (0%)
11) Duke Law School (0%)

Williams and Connolly

People have requested some stats on the more selective firms. Here's one:
V20: Williams and Connolly LLP

Raw:
1) Georgetown University Law Center (2)
2) Harvard Law School (1)
2) Stanford Law School (1)
2) Columbia Law School (1)
2) New York University Law School (1)
2) Berkeley Law (1)
2) Duke Law School (1)

Percentages:
1) Stanford Law School (.50%)
1) Duke Law School (.50%)
3) Berkeley Law School (.40%)
4) Georgetown University Law Center (.35 %)
5) Columbia Law School (.27%)
6) New York University Law School (.22%)
7) Harvard Law School (.18%)

T-14 Rankings for Vault 5 Placement (Class of 2007)

Well, here is how the T-14 placed in the Vault 5:

Raw:
1) Columbia Law School (47)
2) Harvard Law School (45)
3) New York University Law School (20)
4) University of Chicago Law School (19)
5) University of Michigan Law School (16)
5) University of Pennsylvania Law School (16)
7) Georgetown University Law Center (15)
8) Yale Law School (14)
9) University of Virginia Law School (11)
10) Berkeley Law (11)
11) Duke Law School (8)
12) Northwestern University Law School (7)
12) Cornell Law School (7)
14) Stanford Law School (5)

Percentages:
1) Columbia Law School (12.5%)
2) University of Chicago Law School (9.5%)
3) Harvard Law School (8.2%)
4) Yale Law School (7%)
5) University of Pennsylvania Law School (6.4%)
6) New York University Law School (4.4%)
6) Berkeley Law (4.4%)
8) University of Michigan Law School (4.3%)
9) Duke Law School (4%)
10) Cornell Law School (3.5%)
11) University of Virginia Law School (2.9%)
12) Northwestern University Law School (2.8%)
13) Georgetown University Law Center (2.6%)
14) Stanford Law School (2.5%)

Really interesting how closely this resembles the USNews Rankings, with the obvious outlier being Stanford.

I only wish I could include Cravath. I'll get to work on that!

Davis, Polk, and Wardwell

Vault 5: Davis, Polk, and Wardwell LLP (Overall)

Raw:
1) Columbia Law School (17)
2) Harvard Law School (16)
3) New York University Law School (8)
4) Yale Law School (6)
4) Georgetown University Law Center (6)
6) Cornell Law School (5)
7) University of Michigan Law School (3)
7) Stanford Law School (3)
9) University of Chicago Law School (2)
9) Berkeley Law School (2)
9) University of Pennsylvania Law School (2)
9) University of Virginia Law School (2)
9) Duke Law School (2)
14) Northwestern University Law School (1)

Percentages:
1) Columbia Law School (4.5%)
2) Yale Law School (3%)
3) Harvard Law School (2.9%)
4) Cornell Law School (2.5%)
5) New York University Law School (1.8%)
6) Stanford Law School (1.5%)
7) Georgetown University Law Center (1%)
7) University of Chicago Law School (1%)
7) Duke Law School (1%)
10) University of Michigan Law School (0.8%)
10) University of Pennsylvania Law School (0.8%)
10) Berkeley Law School (0.8%)
13) University of Virginia Law School (.53%)
14) Northwestern University Law School (0.4%)

Sullivan and Cromwell

Vault 5: Sullivan and Cromwell LLP (Overall)

Raw:
1) Columbia Law School (13)
2) New York University Law School (4)
3) University of Pennsylvania Law School (4)
4) University of Michigan Law School (3)
4) Harvard Law School (3)
4) University of Virginia Law School (3)
4) University of Chicago Law School (3)
8) Yale Law School (2)
8) Cornell Law School (2)
10) Berkeley Law (1)
11) Northwestern University Law School (0)
12) Georgetown University Law Center (0)
13) Stanford Law School (0)
14) Georgetown University Law Center (0)

Percentages:
1) Columbia Law School (3.5%)
2) University of Pennsylvania Law School (1.6%)
3) University of Chicago Law School (1.5%)
4) Yale Law School (1%)
4) Cornell Law School (1%)
6) New York University Law School (0.9%)
7) University of Michigan Law School (0.8%)
7) University of Virginia Law School (0.8%)
9) Harvard Law School (0.5%)
10) Berkeley Law (0.4%)
11) Northwestern University Law School (0%)
12) Georgetown University Law Center (0%)
13) Stanford Law School (0%)
14) Duke Law School (0%)

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom

Vault 5: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom LLP (Overall)

Raw Numbers:

1) Harvard Law School (21)

2) Columbia Law School (14)

3) University of Chicago Law School (13)

4) University of Michigan Law School (10)

5) Berkeley Law School (8)

5) University of Pennsylvania Law School (8)

5) Georgetown University Law Center (8)

8) New York University Law School (7)

9) University of Virginia Law School (6)

10) Northwestern University Law School (5)

11) Duke Law School (4)

12) Yale Law School (3)

13) Stanford Law School (1)

14) Cornell Law School (0)

Percentages:

1) University of Chicago Law School (6.5%)

2) Harvard Law School (3.8%)

3) Columbia Law School (3.7%)

4) University of Pennsylvania Law School (3.2%)

4) Berkeley Law (3.2%)

6) University of Michigan Law School (2.7%)

7) Northwestern University Kaw School (2%)

7) Duke Law School (2%)

9) University of Virginia Law School (1.6%)

9) NYU Law School (1.6%)

11) Yale Law School (1.5%)

12) Georgetown University Law Center (1.4%)

13) Stanford Law School (0.5%)

14) Cornell Law School (0%)

Conclusions:

1) I only suggest using this chart for rough approximations. This doesn't show the number of offers given (though who would want to turn down Skadden?). However, the more offers a school is given, the higher the chances that more students will be at that firm.

2) Given (1), Chicago appears to be the indisputable king at Skadden placement. Cornell did dreadfully for the class of 2007. This is not to say that Chicago is "better" for law school if you eventually want to work at Skadden. Everything comes down to the individual student. However, the big picture here is pretty interesting. Academic powerhouses such as Stanford and Yale ended up toward the bottom, which is unsurprising. Aside from them, it's interesting how the ranking approximates USNews pretty well. Berkeley is a pleasant surprise from the west; the school is typically underrated for BigLaw. However, I wouldn't be so quick to conclude anything just yet. Berkeley's biggest showings came from the west coast offices; I'm not sure how many other V5 firms have so many west coast offices, but things could change drastically when that ranking is released. I think one can be pretty certain that Chicago, Columbia, and Harvard will remain on top, though.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom

Vault 5: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom LLP (Chicago, IL)

NOTE: This is the last of the particular offices I will be doing. From here on out, except for New York, I'll just be doing combined entries. If you are interested in a particular office, leave a comment and I'll work up some data.

Raw Numbers:

1) University of Chicago (6)

2) University of Michigan (4)

2) Northwestern University (4)

4) Columbia Law School (2)

5) Harvard Law School (1)

5) Georgetown University Law Center (1)

5) Duke Law School (1)

8) Cornell Law School (0)

8) Yale Law School (0)

8) University of Pennsylvania Law School (0)

8) Stanford Law School (0)

8) Berkeley Law School (0)

8) University of Virginia Law School (0)

8) New York University Law School (0)

Percentages:

1) University of Chicago Law School (3%)

2) Northwestern University Law School (1.6%)

3) University of Michigan Law School (1.1%)

4) Columbia Law School (.53%)

5) Duke Law School (0.5%)

6) Harvard Law School (.18%)

7) Georgetown University Law Center (.17%)

8) Cornell Law School (0%)

8) Yale Law School (0%)

8) University of Pennsylvania Law School (0%)

8) Stanford Law School (0%)

8) Berkeley Law School (0%)

8) University of Virginia Law School (0%)

8) New York University Law School (0%)

Where's Cravath?

In a most vexing turn of events, Cravath's website does not provide the class year of their attorneys. This means that they will not be included in the final V5-V100 rankings. I'm sorry to disappoint.

Sullivan and Cromwell

Vault 5: Sullivan and Cromwell LLP

Raw Numbers:
1) Columbia Law School (10)
2) New York University Law School (4)
2) University of Pennsylvania Law School (4)
4) University of Michigan Law School (3)
4) Harvard Law School (3)
4) University of Virginia Law School (3)
4) University of Chicago Law School (3)
8) Yale Law School (2)
9) Cornell Law School (1)
10) Berkeley Law (0)
10) Duke Law School (0)
10) Northwestern University Law School (0)
10) Georgetown University Law Center (0)
10) Stanford Law School (0)

Percentages:
1) Columbia Law School (2.7%)
2) University of Pennsylvania (1.6%)
3) University of Chicago (1.5%)
4) Yale Law School (1%)
5) New York University Law School (.89%)
6) University of Michigan Law School (.80%)
6) University of Virginia Law School (.80%)
8) Harvard Law School (.55%)
9) Cornell Law School (.5%)
10) Stanford Law School (0%)
10) Duke Law School (0%)
10) Georgetown University Law Center (0%)
10) Northwestern University Law School (0%)
10) Berkeley Law (0%)

Poster of the Weak: Jungleshark

Apparently jungleshark has been around since June of last year, but never left an impression until this past week. Here at BLS, we don't tolerate homophobia. And that's what jungleshark is- a homophobe. He managed to get the "Top Conservative Law Schools" thread locked; he was always up for debating the ideals of libertarianism, but never once responded to the multiple accusations of hating gay people, which led me to believe he does. All he managed was "I don't believe I said that," as opposed to something akin to "that's untrue." People don't tend to play coy when accused of being hateful bastards. My favorite of the jungleshark posts is as follows:

I think one indicator of a law school being liberal is whether the application asks if you are homosexual. Applications to Penn and Cornell ask you if you're homosexual or if you're transgendered. I applied to Penn because it's well-regarded, but I'm hoping I get into a well-regarded school that's not quite as liberal. Also browse through the viewbook and see what the students & faculty look like (how they're dressed, etc...). I looked at UCLA's viewbook and I also looked at Vanderbilt's viewbook and there is a big difference. Vanderbilt looks more conservative. UCLA has an institute on sexual orientation; that is a sign of it being liberal. Also, notice that Texas's non-discrimination policy does not include "sexual orientation;" that may be a good sign if you're conservative. Penn's non-discrimination policy, on the other hand, not only includes sexual orientation, but even "gender identity." Penn is apparently way ahead of the game in terms of being liberal. I think Penn also tried to get military recruiters banned from campus because the army doesn't permit open professions of homosexuality.

Vom. (And yes, I do look down on those who claim to follow "traditional Christian values" and then use said values as justification to hate.)

FWIW, jungleshark might not be that enlightened in other areas, as well. While we here at BLS greatly support the LSAT retake, when you do so three times and two of the scores are fairly close while one is not, I tend to see the outlier as just that: an aberrational outlier. Jungleshark sports a 3.629/156/160/175. Now which of those three LSAT scores do you think is most representative? I'm going with the middle. Jungleshark also "resigned" his job as teacher because he was "not getting admistrative support." A homophobe and a quitter? Enough to make jungleshark your Poster of the Weak.

Oh, and I almost forgot: feel free to email any comments you might have concerning jungleshark to bloodhound18@yahoo.com. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.

Davis, Polk, and Wardwell

Vault 5: Davis, Polk, and Wardwell (New York, NY)

Raw Numbers:
1) Harvard Law School (13)
1) Columbia Law School (13)
3) New York University Law School (7)
4) Yale Law School (5)
4) Georgetown University Law Center (5)
6) Cornell Law School (4)
7) University of Michigan Law School (3)
8) Stanford Law School (2)
9) Duke Law School (2)
10) University of Virginia Law School (1)
11) Berkeley Law (1)
12) University of Pennsylvania Law School (1)
13) University of Chicago Law School (1)
14) Northwestern University Law School (1)

Percentages:
1) Columbia Law School (3.5%)
2) Yale Law School (2.5%)
3) Harvard Law School (2.4%)
4) Cornell Law School (2.0%)
5) New York University Law School (1.6%)
6) Stanford Law School (1.1%)
7) Duke Law School (1.0%)
8) Georgetown University Law Center (.87%)
9) University of Michigan Law School (.80%)
10) University of Chicago Law School (.50%)
11) University of Pennsylvania Law School (.40%)
12) Berkeley Law (.37%)
13) University of Virginia Law School (.27%)
14) Northwestern University Law School (.1%)

Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, and Katz

Vault 5: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, and Katz LLP (All Offices)
Raw Numbers:
1) Harvard Law School (5)
2) Yale Law School (3)
2) Columbia Law School (3)
4) University of Pennsylvania Law School (2)
5) Stanford Law School (1)
5) University of Chicago Law School (1)
5) New York University Law School (1)
5) Georgetown University Law Center (1)
5) Northwestern University Law School (1)
5) Duke Law School (1)
11) University of Michigan Law School (0)
11) University of Virginia Law School (0)
11) Berkeley Law (0)
11) Cornell Law School (0)

Percentages:
1) Yale Law School (1.5%)
2) Harvard Law School (.90%)
3) Columbia Law School (.80%)
3) University of Pennsylvania Law School (.80%)
5) Stanford Law School (.60%)
6) University of Chicago Law School (.50%)
6) Northwestern University Law School (.50%)
8) Duke Law School (.40%)
9) New York University Law School (.20%)
10) Georgetown University Law Center (.17%)
11) University of Michigan Law School (0)
11) University of Virginia Law School (0)
11) Berkeley Law (0)
11) Cornell Law School (0)

See Skadden for Points to Take into Account

Bottom Law Schools Addict 2008: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom

The following is a new feature here at Bottom Law Schools: A ranking of T-14 schools in terms of recent biglaw firm placement. This is not a ranking of where students were summer associates; rather, it's a ranking of where students finally ended up after graduating. Data is based off of the Class of 2007, given that the Class of 2008 is still working on the bar exam and that a lot of firms don't really list the 2008 members joining. I'll be working on each firm, piecemeal, and once all the offices of all the firms have been done, regular Vault Placement rankings will be made. I'll be doing the rankings in terms of V5, V10, V20, V50, and V100 placement. Caveats to the rankings are listed after the data.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom LLP (New York, NY)
Raw Numbers
1) Harvard Law School (12)
2) Columbia Law School (9)
3) University of Chicago Law School (7)
4) University of Pennsylvania Law School (6)
5) New York University Law School (5)
5) University of Virginia Law School (5)
7) University of Michigan Law School (4)
7) Georgetown University Law Center (4)
9) Duke University Law School (3)
10) Berkeley Law (2)
11) Stanford Law School (1)
11) Northwestern University Law School (1)
13) Yale Law School (0)*
14) Cornell Law School (0)

*Data does not include students pursuing a clerkship. Thus, there might be a few YLS students joining the firm after the clerkship has concluded.

Percentages based on Average Class Size (If anyone can get me the actual class size, I'd be grateful):
1) University of Chicago Law School (3.5%)
2) Columbia Law School (2.4%)
2) University of Pennsylvania Law School (2.4%)
4) Harvard Law School (2.2%)
5) Duke Law School (1.5%)
6) University of Virginia Law School (1.3%)
7) University of Michigan Law School (1.1%)
7) New York University Law School (1.1%)
9) Berkeley Law (.72%)
10) Georgetown University Law Center (.70%)
11) Stanford Law School (.58%)
12) Northwestern University Law School (.40%
13) Yale Law School (0.0%)
14) Cornell Law School (0.0%)

Points to take into account:
1) L.L.M's are not included.
2) The size of the class of 2007 is not precise; further data would be appreciated.
3) In order to determine how well a school places summer associates, there could be minor discprenancies in the numbers to account for: students might be taking clerkships, so some schools might have had more summer associates at a given firm; some students might have done split-summers, thus having more offers; students might have done 3L OCI, thus working at a firm at which they didn't summer; the statistics assume that offers were given to 100% of the summer class. If you know of any way to correct for these, please include suggestions in the comments. Other criticisms are, of course, welcome.

Criticism of other Admins

Here at BLS, we appreciate and encourage criticism of other admins.

However, keep it tasteful, please. We want humor-inducing, not vomit-inducing, material. Through Google Analytics, I've learned that several top firms visit this site, and I'd rather not maintain the unsavory for such organizations.

Poster of the Weak: Jay Obee

This week's Poster of the Weak is Jay Obee. Jay Obee is a rather new poster to Top-Law-Schools.com, and we here at BLS can think of no better way to introduce him than by giving him a good roast. So let us begin!

Jay Obee is a 0L. In law school terminology, he's a young child, yet to begin the perils of law school and job hunting. However, unlike our previous Poster of the Weak, he's smart. Smart prospective law school students tend to have the worst qualities you can find in a human being: They talk a lot, think they know a lot, are argumentative, presumptuous, and usually get in way over their heads. I'd know, I'm one of them, and I'm sure every other admin here can relate.

The problem with Top-Law-Schools.com (or rather, the virtue), as that the site is also frequented by people in all stages of the law school process: 1Ls, 2Ls, 3Ls, and even BigLaw Associates come by to share their wisdom. In fact, an amazing facet of Top-Law-Schools.com is that you can literally trace the intellectual growth of posters, as most begin posting on TLS in their senior year of college. This maturational process is astounding, IF the TLS poster goes through it. There are some law students who are on the forum who still need to grow up.

Jay Obee, I sincerely hope you grow up. Because beneath my cold, acerbic exterior lies a warm, loving Emmy waiting to see a beautiful scholar blossom forth.

Thread: Berkeley vs. NYU vs. Stanford
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49125
The topic is obvious. A poster is deciding between the three schools and needs some help. Jay Obee is quick to the rescue:
Do you seriously think the OP is dumb, Jay? Of course he/she knows the schools' RANKINGS. He was admitted at NYU and Boalt! We have a smart one on our hands. His question, obviously, is whether he should disregard the rankings and go for a school at which he feels comfortable.

How do you know Boalt's placement in the top 6 was a fluke? Have you reverse engineered the USNews rankings? I don't understand how you can say such a thing and give absolutely no support for it. Sure, it was ranked 13 a few years ago, but NYU wasn't even close to the top of the T14 and you aren't complaining about them!

Then you talk about their firm placement, of which you really have no idea. What does it mean that you've seen so many Berkeley grads at "shitty mills?" Are you kidding? Do you work at the Berkeley Law student failure office?

Now let's look at his next post:Your research!?! Pray tell, where is your research? Where is your mound of publications on job placement from Boalt? Oh, that's right, you don't really have anything to show for it.
No! Wait... here we go...I've belabored the problems with these statistics many times before. Quite simply, the problem is that any statistical analysis that provides information about where law students END UP is going to be flawed. The simple reasoning is that it fails to show the preferences of students and the preferences of law firms. For students, there are regional preferences, professional preferences, speciality preferences. Boalt tends to attract students who want to pursue IP, public interest, or judicial positions. On top of that, students who end up attending Boalt like sticking on the West Coast (I can't blame them; the weather is nice, and SFO is beautiful). Why can't this account for the disparity? Jay offers no reason.
But the thing is... how do you know this? Have you sat in on hiring decisions, where partners have actually rejected Boalt students because they attend Boalt? No, you haven't. You are simply looking numbers, and myriad sets of facts could explain them.

Finally, the thread is hailed upon by the voice of reason, a Boalt student:
But Jay doesn't back down:
Dear Jay, aren't you begging the question? How do you know the statistics are reliable? You say the statistics are reliable because they prove the conclusion that Boalt simply doesn't place well in Biglaw when it is compared to the T6, but the problem is that you haven't proved it yet. And, by a marvelous sleight of hand, you presume the truth of your argument in claiming that the statistics are more reliable. The argument is circular on its face.

I can't be bothered to dissect the rest of the thread. Needless to say, this pattern of behavior is to be found everywhere on TLS: Jay Obee is providing advice about a process using statistics that can't prove the conclusion he wants to prove. What's worse is that he's using them as gospel. And what's terrible is that he's ignoring the testimony of law students.

Why is it so foolhardy to accept such testimony, Jay Obee? Is it because we're self-interested, and we really want to sell our respective schools? Can you accept our anecdotes?

I suspect my explanation for this is will apply to Boalt students as it applies to students at my law school. When you start at a law school (or at some point before OCI actually begins), your OCS will provide you with statistics. These statistics show you the 25th percentile, 75th percentile, mean, and median GPAs of students who attained offers at the firms that interviewed at the school during OCI. Very much like the USNews rankings, these statistics provide the same "admissions information". We need them. Why? We need them because we have a limited number of "bids": We can't interview at every firm. There isn't enough time, and firms only have so many interviews with so much patience. So we have to "spend" our bids carefully. But how do we know where to spend our bids? How do we know where we stack up with respect to a given firm? That's what the GPA chart tells us. It tells us what are "reaches", "targets", and "safeties" should be.

Now the reason I suspect no one is going to come and tell you outright what class rank it takes to get into these firms is that these charts are classified. The following paragraph precedes our GPA grids:

"On behalf of your classmates, we ask that you please keep this information confidential. The data is specific to MLS students, and is made available exclusively for the use of MLS students. While it may be tempting to share it with others outside the MLS community, distributing it will only work to disadvantage you and your classmates. If an employer is giving the edge to MLS students -- digging deeper into the class than it does at other law schools -- that will end if word gets out. Moreover, employers may not submit the forms which enable us to compile this data if they know this information will be publicized. Please help yourself and your colleagues by maintaining confidentiality!"

So, really, Jay, our hands are tied. But I can assure you that students at non-T6 schools have a perfectly fine time getting jobs at top firms. Really, it's not hard. Everyone who wants one gets one. During 1L at these schools, people are usually fighting for the clerkships and other prestigious things, not necessarily for one of the many spots available to us in the Vault 10 (and even Vault 5!). You claim that our calling you a "0L" is an ad hominem attack; but it isn't. We are simply in a better position to know our employment prospects than you are, and that'll be the case until you actually begin your own job-hunt.

That, my dear friend, is why you shouldn't post so conclusively about firms and job prospects from law schools, and that is why you are Poster of the Weak.

Congratulations.

Kiwi's Art Nouveau

This is the first installment of the BLS Art Gallery, I hope you enjoy

Title: "I'm afraid my intelligence level is somewhere between
fruit fly and dung beetle."

Title: "If you got it, flaunt it... if you don't, put some giant ass sunglasses on it pronto"

I found this model quite intriguing... her look says "I obviously have something to hide".

Title: "Turn Around Holmes"

This painting has one simple simple message:
"PM me for a good time"

Untitled Oil on Canvas

BLS Policy

It's come to my attention that people are uncertain what our outing policy is. Our purpose here at BLS is to outline the epic fails of TLS and to memorialize certain people, threads, and ideas. The necessity of this was recently demonstrated by a mod's locking the "I Got Into Boalt with a 159!" thread. The thread was epic, as several other posters seemed to indicate. Yet it was locked upon being bumped.

So while our purpose here is to do what was said above, we do follow some constraints here. The following is our policy:
1) At BLS, we do not out people. This involves not using names or other means of identification used in real life.
2) To designate a poster, we may use TLS handles, GPA/LSAT scores, and AIM screen-name.
3) The AIM screen-name can be used to designate a TLS poster provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. The AIM name was not derived directly from top-law-schools.com
2. The AIM name is not sufficiently revealing of one's real name (or real life nickname)

4) Pictures may be used so long as they are publically posted top-law-schools.com. Thus, pictures obtained via PM are not permissible unless the owner permits it to be posted. However, pictures posted on, say, a "self-tar" thread are permissible, for by posting it, we assume that the owner desired its dissemination.
5) An exception to the above rule is that if a picture was posted with the explicit intent of removing it later, it cannot be posted here.

Other admins here are free to add to the above policy. It's not our intention to harm anyone in real life. Such a consequence is never deserved by anyone, no matter how stupid, malicious, or downright oblivious they may be.

If a TLS moderator feels that something was done here in violation of our policy, or believes that we should expand or contract one of our rules, please comment and we will take it under immediate advisement.

Fire Alarm - What do You Grab?

Pyke just started a new thread on TLS. It's an epic fail, for it reveals just how self-absorbed he is. He is posting a question, the answers to which he really doesn't care. All he really cares about his telling people his answer, since no one in real life cares to hear it.

Anyway, I can tell you his answer right now:

Poster(s) of the Weak: redcement, Archon D: terrorface

And now the first of our weekly series, Poster of the Weak, where we acknowledge the people who bring their very own brand of doltishness to TLS.

There are so, so many to choose from, although most aren't quite up to par with our dear Pyke. It was a tough decision, and even though I would've liked to make my first PoW someone I just generally despise, I'm instead going to pick two people who irked my particular brand of correctness this week. Why? Because I can, and I'm ostensibly making up for weeks and weeks of past idiocy. So here they are: the little-known, ill-received redcement, as well as the gamer extraordinaire, Archon D: terrorface.

Redcement managed to come from obscurity only to get her ass handed to her by multiple well-respected TLSers in my very own "Do you judge posters by their LSAT score?" thread. She started off with a gem: I think high LSAT score is predictive of the wealth of the applicant..the test favors white, upper class, male applicants. I tend to assume this profile of posters who say they score high, until their posts show otherwise.

She then went on to comment on the lack of stereotypes for Asians, state that one can't understand the seating arrangement of an airplane without having been in an airplane, and tell someone that if you're a rich 22 year old girl, you automatically understand the inner workings of credit cards, insurance, computers, and stocks. But then came the pièce de résistance:



"I guess I'd like to see more references to/tests for multi-tasking, alert ability to change gears, grace in the face of snide commentary, mindfulness, creativity, craftsmanship, compassion. I'd like to see hypotheticals about jack-of-all-trades who have to do the math on a new roof, church members in pews, food stamp documentation lists."

You read correctly; redcement would like to see LSAT questions about compassion and doing math on a roof. Because these are, "you know, skills that will be useful for attorneys." She goes on to misuse the word "empathy" and equate it with compassion, but by this point, her stupidity surprised no one. Now take a guess as to her numbers. C'mon. You know you want to.

154/3.0. No wonder she rails against the cultural insensitivity of the LSAT. Quite enough to make her my Poster of the Weak 1.

Archon D: terrorface is sporting a 163, 3.0, trashy facial hair, and a ridiculous handle. And even though he's one of the lucky few (URM), he still managed to get dinged by Baylor. How do I know this? Because Archon D: terrorface was apparently not humbled enough by his rejection; he still had enough hubris to start his own thread, lamenting what must so obviously be Baylor's loss. Someone pointed this out, and was immediately called rude and racist. Someone tried to defend this person, and was also immediately called snarky and a thug. When that person made a count-by-count rebuttal of the OP's reponse, he magically disappeared. People on TLS hate to be pwnt, but what they hate even more is to pwnt when their heart tells them they're right. I think it's due to a lack of ability to create coherent arguments, more than anything else.

As if this self-pity wasn't enough, Archon D: terrorface then had the gall to cite the Genesis as a reason an omniscient God and free-will can exist. He managed to remove all rationality from the discussion and turn it into an assumption about the Christian God. He showed no ability to produce his own argument based on logic, but instead cited the Catholic Church and introduced a whole new array of bullshit with nothing to back it up. A narcissistic, self-pitying, ugly, illogical believer with a 163? Poster of the Weak 1(a). Terrorface, indeed.

Pyke

Who else to begin this amazing blog other than by posting about our favorite poster: Pyke. Now I can't hope to include in a single post every single imbecilic and intellectually starved example of this person, so I am starting a column. The column will simply be titled, 'Pyke". I hope you enjoy.

I shall also take this moment to elaborate on our policy here at Bottom Law Schools: We do not post names. We either use TLS-handles, AIM handles (assuming they aren't too revealing of the poster's name), and occasionally LSAT/GPA to identify people. Actual names are strictly forbidden. Other than that, everything is fair game.

If you want to join this blog, simply comment on this post with your TLS Handle, why you want to join, and serial number (we leave you to figure what that is, but surprise us). Finally, we ask that you include a brief answer to one of the following two questions:
1) If you could be a kitchen appliance, which one would you be, and why?
2) Do you agree with the analytic/synthetic distinction as espoused by Immanuel Kant in "The Critique of Pure Reason"? If so, why?

Applications for admission will be reviewed by Lex Talionis and Me.

To close this post, we shall focus on a beautiful post by Mr. Pyke (AIM: Count Pyke; LSAT/GPA: 166/3.38; Law school: The University of Toronto School of Law).


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=55267&hilit=gender

Dear, dear Pyke. Is it too difficult for you to understand that sexual orientation and gender are two separate things?

You know, the University of Michigan (the school you desperately wanted to get into, but ended up rejected you), states the following regarding sexual orientation and gender:

sexual orientation:

Describes an individual's enduring physical, romantic, emotional and/or spiritual attraction to another person. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same. Transgender people may be heterosexual, lesbian, gay, or bisexual. For example, a man who becomes a woman and is attracted to other women would be identified as a lesbian.

http://spectrumcenter.umich.edu/gender.html

People can be attracted to other people of different genders, regardless of their own gender. This is why we allow for the concepts of homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, and so forth. They allow us to express the multitude of sexual preferences that human beings can possess.

Moreover, I find the use of 'natural' in your post to be rather oxymoronic; how is it at all "natural" to subscribe to a set of categories that do not account for the range of human emotions, feelings, and bonds? Do you mean to say that since a certain class of behavior cannot be adequately described within your rigid categories, it is simply unnatural? This is patently ridiculous. Clearly, the more natural system is one that allows for shades of gray and degrees. Sexuality isn't a binary system, and neither is gender.

That's it for today. If the above imaged thread is deleted, it has already been archived in our systems.