Why is Michigan considered peers with V/P? Forum

[nyu2019maybeplease]

This is a good point, and I should clarify what I mean:

People probably shouldn't go to a lower-ranked school with the hopes of finding some "big fish/small pond" situation. They should go to a lower-ranked school if they believe the environment/community/location offers something they need that the higher-ranked school doesn't.

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).

[UVA2B]

This is a good point, and I should clarify what I mean:

People probably shouldn't go to a lower-ranked school with the hopes of finding some "big fish/small pond" situation. They should go to a lower-ranked school if they believe the environment/community/location offers something they need that the higher-ranked school doesn't.

I'm not trying to be directly argumentative, but even this deserves qualification that you should clarify on. Obviously you feel pretty strongly that Michigan straight employment statistics belie their presence in the rankings (which I totally agree with), but all of this is very school-specific. Should someone go to Cornell on a scholarship instead of going to Columbia because their environment is more conducive to performing? There's a really good case for that (especially considering Cornell is probably offering a scholarship in that situation). And It's perfectly reasonable for someone to pick Michigan over NYU because they feel it's a better fit and that they'll do better in that environment. But it's incomplete to make this categorical statement without quantifying, within bounds of available employment statistics, that lower-ranked schools can be the better fit. Someone who thinks their best fit is at a place like BC should realize that their options are qualitatively different than the options at Michigan. Extrapolate that across these degrees of employment placement, and I think you can create a relatively nuanced version of what you're suggesting, which seems to be that fit drives success in some cases, which is incomplete.

ETA: Seriously, why the weird quoting idiosyncrasy?

[Wild Card]

T-14 Peer Assessment Ranking, 10-year Average (2009-2018):

4.81 Yale

4.81 Harvard

4.76 Stanford

4.64 Columbia

4.62 Chicago

4.49 NYU

4.46 Berkeley

4.45 Michigan

4.36 Virginia

4.34 Pennsylvania

4.21 Duke

4.19 Cornell

4.14 Georgetown

4.10 Northwestern

4.07 Texas

--

Michigan is in fact a peer of NYU and Berkeley, a clear step above V/P.

To answer your question, public schools in the U.S. were good 50+ years ago. That blind reverence never died out even though they're now underfunded and suffering from brain drain.

[UVA2B]

T-14 Peer Assessment Ranking, 10-year Average (2009-2018):

4.81 Yale

4.81 Harvard

4.76 Stanford

4.64 Columbia

4.62 Chicago

4.49 NYU

4.46 Berkeley

4.45 Michigan

4.36 Virginia

4.34 Pennsylvania

4.21 Duke

4.19 Cornell

4.14 Georgetown

4.10 Northwestern

4.07 Texas

--

Michigan is in fact a peer of NYU and Berkeley, a clear step above V/P.

To answer your question, public schools in the U.S. were good 50+ years ago. That blind reverence never died out even though they're now underfunded and suffering from brain drain.

Your opinion is either:

1) in jest

2) wrong

Both deserve to be discounted.

ETA: read this again, retract my joke about it being wrong. It decently makes the point I've been trying to make.

[cavalier1138]

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 never said people don't consider environment, although frankly, it's given far too much weight when it comes to school selection (as you have demonstrated by ranking BU/BC as equivalent with the T13 for decision-making purposes). But yes, I did say that someone who has only been exposed to one educational environment their whole life (not at all uncommon) has no basis for assuming that they can only perform well in that environment. Maybe you deeply dislike being far away from your family because you've literally never been away from them before. Maybe you think you do better in rural environments because you've never lived in a city. Even if you went to school out-of-state, you're making massive assumptions about your own abilities based on a single experience if you don't explore the possibility that you don't actually know whether going to school in Ithaca vs. Boston is going to change your class rank.

And you flat-out said that someone should attend BU/BC over a top school if they feel like the environment is better for them. That is an objectively dumb statement. Sorry if that hurts your feelings; next time, don't make ridiculous claims.

[nyu2019maybeplease]

Friend, if my feelings were hurt by someone online calling something I said stupid, I'd be in the wrong field. Just trying to help, feel free to do absolutely nothing with it.

Best of luck in your career.

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 never said people don't consider environment, although frankly, it's given far too much weight when it comes to school selection (as you have demonstrated by ranking BU/BC as equivalent with the T13 for decision-making purposes). But yes, I did say that someone who has only been exposed to one educational environment their whole life (not at all uncommon) has no basis for assuming that they can only perform well in that environment. Maybe you deeply dislike being far away from your family because you've literally never been away from them before. Maybe you think you do better in rural environments because you've never lived in a city. Even if you went to school out-of-state, you're making massive assumptions about your own abilities based on a single experience if you don't explore the possibility that you don't actually know whether going to school in Ithaca vs. Boston is going to change your class rank.

And you flat-out said that someone should attend BU/BC over a top school if they feel like the environment is better for them. That is an objectively dumb statement. Sorry if that hurts your feelings; next time, don't make ridiculous claims.