Why is Michigan considered peers with V/P? Forum

[Aldo_Raine]

Just based off biglaw + clerkship employment statistics it seems like these schools have a pretty big advantage over Mich. Northwestern also places better in Chi. I know NU is in Chi but its also Michigan's nearest major market.

[runinthefront]

Just based off biglaw + clerkship employment statistics it seems like these schools have a pretty big advantage over Mich. Northwestern also places better in Chi. I know NU is in Chi but its also Michigan's nearest major market.

MIchigan is considered peers with V/P because the legal field (e.g., law school deans, professors, practitioners) has historically considered them peers (or even superior to V/P). The methodology behind US News takes into account more than just bare employment numbers into the equation.

Whether they are true peers is another question that's been debated ad nauseum on TLS, but there's the answer to your question. Whether employment numbers, standing alone, should be the primary/exclusive emphasis on rankings is another debate altogether.

The post below is a better answer to your question.

[UVA2B]

They are peers, but NU is also a peer. MVP is sort of a historical grouping, but in terms of placement power nationally, they all have roughly equal placement power. As in, a median student at Michigan and a median student at Virginia or Penn are viewed similarly by those making hiring decisions.

Don't worry about how schools are grouped or how they're considered by USNWR. That doesn't matter. Michigan's placement numbers likely suffer the most BECAUSE they don't have a major market they place exclusively into, whereas Penn and Virginia both have major markets that they funnel students to pretty heavily (although Virginia is more closely analogous because they have a huge chunk that go to NYC and DC, but also have a pretty strong presence in the South's bigger markets). But no one making hiring decisions is going to look at otherwise equal applicants and say, "well this one went to Northwestern, and this one went to Virginia. I'd be a fool not to take the UVA one!"

So I just wouldn't worry about any of this.

[Desert Fox]

This grouping was literally created my mentally ill people on the princeton review website that was a precursor to xoxohth.com. It's just stupid.

[Aldo_Raine]

This grouping was literally created my mentally ill people on the princeton review website that was a precursor to xoxohth.com. It's just stupid.

Does this mean the comparison is meaningless or it has merit?

[UVA2B]

This grouping was literally created my mentally ill people on the princeton review website that was a precursor to xoxohth.com. It's just stupid.

Does this mean the comparison is meaningless or it has merit?

DF is making a joke that proves the point. No one who remotely cares about the distinction thinks there actually is one.

Why are you worried about the difference between Michigan and Virginia/Penn?

[Aldo_Raine]

This grouping was literally created my mentally ill people on the princeton review website that was a precursor to xoxohth.com. It's just stupid.

Does this mean the comparison is meaningless or it has merit?

DF is making a joke that proves the point. No one who remotely cares about the distinction thinks there actually is one.

Why are you worried about the difference between Michigan and Virginia/Penn?

I guess I'm not really concerned about V/P specifically, I just always see "MVP" get thrown around. I agree that Michigan not having a major market to funnel into may skew their statistics. Do you think it helps or hurts to have both midwest/east coast options rather than being forced into a single city?

[UVA2B]

This grouping was literally created my mentally ill people on the princeton review website that was a precursor to xoxohth.com. It's just stupid.

Does this mean the comparison is meaningless or it has merit?

DF is making a joke that proves the point. No one who remotely cares about the distinction thinks there actually is one.

Why are you worried about the difference between Michigan and Virginia/Penn?

I guess I'm not really concerned about V/P specifically, I just always see "MVP" get thrown around. I agree that Michigan not having a major market to funnel into may skew their statistics. Do you think it helps or hurts to have both midwest/east coast options rather than being forced into a single city?

No, there isn't an advantage or a disadvantage to it.

Where are you hoping to practice upon graduation? Do you have ties to a particular market? Do you have specific interests in a legal career?

These questions can help inform your decision, but just realize you're talking about schools that can all put you where you want to be, regardless of where it is if you have the right personal ties to that market. If you want to get hired at a firm in Detroit, Michigan might give a slight bump. If you want Richmond, Virginia probably has a bit better coverage. And if you really wanted to be in Pittsburgh, Penn might help in that. But there are regularly students from "MVP" who cross-pollinate those markets because people go to Virginia wanting to end up in Detroit, or go to Michigan wanting to be in Pittsburgh.

If you want to hear about my background feeding a non-UVA market, feel free to PM me. It might help you understand these differences.

[BigZuck]

The MVP thing was mostly about admissions. Generally easier to get into than DCNG but harder to get into than CCN.

This matters exactly zero percent.

[UVA2B]

The MVP thing was mostly about admissions. Generally easier to get into than DCNG but harder to get into than CCN.

This matters exactly zero percent.

Probably backwards, but the point is somewhat valid.

[xRON MEXiCOx]

cuz VP doesnt have the same ring as MVP

[sodomojo]

The MVP thing was mostly about admissions. Generally easier to get into than DCNG but harder to get into than CCN.

This matters exactly zero percent.

So outside of admissions, there is no meaningful difference between #4 and #13?

[UVA2B]

The MVP thing was mostly about admissions. Generally easier to get into than DCNG but harder to get into than CCN.

This matters exactly zero percent.

So outside of admissions, there is no meaningful difference between #4 and #13?

This is a bit reductionist, but also not devoid of truth. "CCN" will place more of their class in desirable employment than "DCNG," but that's not the whole picture exactly. These are all gradations, and they're more slight than admissions distinctions would suggest. So yes, there is more room for error (i.e. ending up below median) at CCN than there is at DCNG, but that doesn't mean there are drastic differences in outcomes for the median Cornell grad and the median Columbia grad.

I think there is a drastic gap between people trying to understand these rankings for admissions and people understanding these rankings for hiring. For admissions, CCN will mostly get the higher scoring applicants. But when it comes to hiring, the median Duke grad and the median Columbia grad will be ending up in substantially similar firms.

[sodomojo]

The MVP thing was mostly about admissions. Generally easier to get into than DCNG but harder to get into than CCN.

This matters exactly zero percent.

So outside of admissions, there is no meaningful difference between #4 and #13?

This is a bit reductionist, but also not devoid of truth. "CCN" will place more of their class in desirable employment than "DCNG," but that's not the whole picture exactly. These are all gradations, and they're more slight than admissions distinctions would suggest. So yes, there is more room for error (i.e. ending up below median) at CCN than there is at DCNG, but that doesn't mean there are drastic differences in outcomes for the median Cornell grad and the median Columbia grad.

I think there is a drastic gap between people trying to understand these rankings for admissions and people understanding these rankings for hiring. For admissions, CCN will mostly get the higher scoring applicants. But when it comes to hiring, the median Duke grad and the median Columbia grad will be ending up in substantially similar firms.

Good stuff, thanks. Out of curiosity, would you say the gap between HYS and #4 is greater than the gap between #4 and #13?

[UVA2B]

The MVP thing was mostly about admissions. Generally easier to get into than DCNG but harder to get into than CCN.

This matters exactly zero percent.

So outside of admissions, there is no meaningful difference between #4 and #13?

This is a bit reductionist, but also not devoid of truth. "CCN" will place more of their class in desirable employment than "DCNG," but that's not the whole picture exactly. These are all gradations, and they're more slight than admissions distinctions would suggest. So yes, there is more room for error (i.e. ending up below median) at CCN than there is at DCNG, but that doesn't mean there are drastic differences in outcomes for the median Cornell grad and the median Columbia grad.

I think there is a drastic gap between people trying to understand these rankings for admissions and people understanding these rankings for hiring. For admissions, CCN will mostly get the higher scoring applicants. But when it comes to hiring, the median Duke grad and the median Columbia grad will be ending up in substantially similar firms.

Good stuff, thanks. Out of curiosity, would you say the gap between HYS and #4 is greater than the gap between #4 and #13?

Without going into the nuance of my answer too extensively, I'll just say no.

If you're talking about the outcomes at Harvard vs. an outcome at Columbia (for instance), they largely overlap and the median student ends up in a similar outcome. And if you're comparing Columbia vs. Cornell, the median outcome is more or less the same (both are likely market paying in a given market).

I think most people considering law schools need to stop considering "gaps" between schools, and mostly need to focus on what their goal is, what their options are, and how much their options will cost. That should inform the decision decisively more than some perception of ranking.

[BigZuck]

The MVP thing was mostly about admissions. Generally easier to get into than DCNG but harder to get into than CCN.

This matters exactly zero percent.

Probably backwards, but the point is somewhat valid.

100% backwards and 100% valid

Seriously this doesn't matter and is now a Ron Mexico thread mods please

[haus]

I suspect that this is mostly due to Michigan's strong showing in TLS threads on most picturesque law campus.

[nyu2019maybeplease]

Before we were 11, now we're 8, next year maybe we'll be 7 or maybe we'll be 12. What you get (and what you don't) by going to Michigan isn't any different year-to-year.

At the top of the class at Columbia, maybe some opportunities exist in NYC that don't from Michigan. At the bottom maybe there's a bit more breathing room. But that's the wrong way to look at these things if you have any sense of the sort of environment you do well in. I took Michigan over higher ranked schools because I suspected I'd do better in a removed, campus-centric environment. I was right. If, on the other hand, you need the energy of a big city to keep you going, I wouldn't say pick Michigan over Northwestern or even Georgetown, because it doesn't have that.

[cavalier1138]

If, on the other hand, you need the energy of a big city to keep you going, I wouldn't say pick Michigan over Northwestern or even Georgetown, because it doesn't have that.

Given Georgetown's employment outcomes in the private sector, I definitely wouldn't endorse this line of thinking for anyone who wants to end up at a big firm.

OP: this is why ratings bands aren't your best source of information. Look at employment numbers, debt at graduation, and what you want to do with your degree.

[nyu2019maybeplease]

You and I disagree about this consistently.

Once you're in the band of schools that feed kids to Biglaw, personal performance is by a mile the most important factor in hiring. A typical kid in the top 20% at Georgetown is going to do better than a kid in the bottom half of Michigan, or even Columbia. If you know how you work, act on that information.

I say this not for purposes of making myself seem awesome: I had a pretty successful recruiting season. I feel confident it would not have gone as well had i been at NYU or Columbia, because i don't think I would have had the same grades.

If, on the other hand, you need the energy of a big city to keep you going, I wouldn't say pick Michigan over Northwestern or even Georgetown, because it doesn't have that.

Given Georgetown's employment outcomes in the private sector, I definitely wouldn't endorse this line of thinking for anyone who wants to end up at a big firm.

OP: this is why ratings bands aren't your best source of information. Look at employment numbers, debt at graduation, and what you want to do with your degree.

[cavalier1138]

You and I disagree about this consistently.

Once you're in the band of schools that feed kids to Biglaw, personal performance is by a mile the most important factor in hiring. A typical kid in the top 20% at Georgetown is going to do better than a kid in the bottom half of Michigan, or even Columbia. If you know how you work, act on that information.

I say this not for purposes of making myself seem awesome: I had a pretty successful recruiting season. I feel confident it would not have gone as well had i been at NYU or Columbia, because i don't think I would have had the same grades.

If, on the other hand, you need the energy of a big city to keep you going, I wouldn't say pick Michigan over Northwestern or even Georgetown, because it doesn't have that.

Given Georgetown's employment outcomes in the private sector, I definitely wouldn't endorse this line of thinking for anyone who wants to end up at a big firm.

OP: this is why ratings bands aren't your best source of information. Look at employment numbers, debt at graduation, and what you want to do with your degree.

And if personal performance relative to your classmates could be accurately predicted by environment, you'd be rich from selling your book with the secret to success in school. You cannot predict being in the top 20% at any school, and it's dumb to make plans based on that assumption.

[nyu2019maybeplease]

I'm not suggesting you can predict being in the top 20% or the top 50%. I am suggesting the average person who is competitive for these schools should, after more than a decade of schooling, know the environments in which they succeed and which they don't. Cornell might make much more sense for some folks than NYU, even with the prices balanced. If you're from Boston can't stand the thought of being away from your family, BC/BU might make more sense than Berkeley.

You can make all the snarky comments you want (though I wouldn't), but if the suggestion is that folks should throw everything they know about how they work out the window for a marginally higher Biglaw placement rate, I'd urge folks to take it with a grain of salt.

You and I disagree about this consistently.

Once you're in the band of schools that feed kids to Biglaw, personal performance is by a mile the most important factor in hiring. A typical kid in the top 20% at Georgetown is going to do better than a kid in the bottom half of Michigan, or even Columbia. If you know how you work, act on that information.

I say this not for purposes of making myself seem awesome: I had a pretty successful recruiting season. I feel confident it would not have gone as well had i been at NYU or Columbia, because i don't think I would have had the same grades.

If, on the other hand, you need the energy of a big city to keep you going, I wouldn't say pick Michigan over Northwestern or even Georgetown, because it doesn't have that.

Given Georgetown's employment outcomes in the private sector, I definitely wouldn't endorse this line of thinking for anyone who wants to end up at a big firm.

OP: this is why ratings bands aren't your best source of information. Look at employment numbers, debt at graduation, and what you want to do with your degree.

And if personal performance relative to your classmates could be accurately predicted by environment, you'd be rich from selling your book with the secret to success in school. You cannot predict being in the top 20% at any school, and it's dumb to make plans based on that assumption.

[cavalier1138]

I'm not suggesting you can predict being in the top 20% or the top 50%. I am suggesting the average person who is competitive for these schools should, after more than a decade of schooling, know the environments in which they succeed and which they don't. Cornell might make much more sense for some folks than NYU, even with the prices balanced. If you're from Boston can't stand the thought of being away from your family, BC/BU might make more sense than Berkeley.

You can make all the snarky comments you want (though I wouldn't), but if the suggestion is that folks should throw everything they know about how they work out the window for a marginally higher Biglaw placement rate, I'd urge folks to take it with a grain of salt.

You literally compared outcomes for the top 20% at Georgetown and the bottom half of the class at Michigan. That's a pointless comparison to make if you aren't implying that someone can somehow predict being at the top of their class.

And no, after a decade of schooling (it's weird that your arbitrary line in the sand is middle school, but ok...), you don't necessarily know what effect a school's environment will have on you. In your entire academic career, how much time was spent in an institution that you had complete control over choosing? Many people have never gone to school outside their home state. Does that mean that someone with biglaw ambitions should go to South Carolina over Harvard? Or BU over Berkeley? If your answer to either of those questions is to go to the school with worse job placement numbers because it makes you feel more "at home", then it's an unambiguously dumb take on the question.

[UVAIce]

You and I disagree about this consistently.

Once you're in the band of schools that feed kids to Biglaw, personal performance is by a mile the most important factor in hiring. A typical kid in the top 20% at Georgetown is going to do better than a kid in the bottom half of Michigan, or even Columbia. If you know how you work, act on that information.

I say this not for purposes of making myself seem awesome: I had a pretty successful recruiting season. I feel confident it would not have gone as well had i been at NYU or Columbia, because i don't think I would have had the same grades.

If, on the other hand, you need the energy of a big city to keep you going, I wouldn't say pick Michigan over Northwestern or even Georgetown, because it doesn't have that.

Given Georgetown's employment outcomes in the private sector, I definitely wouldn't endorse this line of thinking for anyone who wants to end up at a big firm.

OP: this is why ratings bands aren't your best source of information. Look at employment numbers, debt at graduation, and what you want to do with your degree.

So I hear people make this kind of comment fairly often, but it's been my experience that students who are at the top of the class at one law school tend to do fine, if not just as well, a at higher rated law schools. As much as branding tries to state otherwise, the difference in quality of students between a Georgetown and a Columbia is pretty small. Do not pick UVA or Michigan over a Harvard because you think that you'll get better grades at a lower T-14 school. You could be in for a rude awakening - I personally know many people who picked lower-T-14 schools over a HYS or CCN and they did not blow it out of the water grade wise (they did, however, all have good outcomes).

[nyu2019maybeplease]

I assure you I am saying the following sincerely:

As to your first point, you're free to draw your conclusion and yell (well, type) about it on TLS all you'd like. Respectfully, I think people consider the environments in which they succeed in making decisions about where to go.

As to your second, I truly don't follow. Are you saying some people won't have a good sense of what environmental factors help them or hinder them? If so...of course. I agree. If you don't have a sense of what helps you perform, you probably shouldn't consider what helps you perform in making any choice.

As to "kids who've never gone to school outside South Carolina", I'm not sure why you think that's relevant. There's a difference between "I've never gone to school outside my home state" and "I deeply dislike being far away from my family".

Have a pleasant night. And try to refer to things other people have said as "dumb" less. It will rarely cost you to pick something more neutral, and might occasionally make a difference in how you're perceived.

I'm not suggesting you can predict being in the top 20% or the top 50%. I am suggesting the average person who is competitive for these schools should, after more than a decade of schooling, know the environments in which they succeed and which they don't. Cornell might make much more sense for some folks than NYU, even with the prices balanced. If you're from Boston can't stand the thought of being away from your family, BC/BU might make more sense than Berkeley.

You can make all the snarky comments you want (though I wouldn't), but if the suggestion is that folks should throw everything they know about how they work out the window for a marginally higher Biglaw placement rate, I'd urge folks to take it with a grain of salt.

You literally compared outcomes for the top 20% at Georgetown and the bottom half of the class at Michigan. That's a pointless comparison to make if you aren't implying that someone can somehow predict being at the top of their class.

And no, after a decade of schooling (it's weird that your arbitrary line in the sand is middle school, but ok...), you don't necessarily know what effect a school's environment will have on you. In your entire academic career, how much time was spent in an institution that you had complete control over choosing? Many people have never gone to school outside their home state. Does that mean that someone with biglaw ambitions should go to South Carolina over Harvard? Or BU over Berkeley? If your answer to either of those questions is to go to the school with worse job placement numbers because it makes you feel more "at home", then it's an unambiguously dumb take on the question.