Are you serious? I guess it's also equally fine to say that it's significant that GULC didn't place the same amount of students in large firms as there are students in Vandy's entire class...and then some. In reality, it's silly to talk in terms of raw numbers because they tell the wrong story. It presupposes a quota system, for one, which is very very likely a false assumption. But even ignoring that, firms choose their associates from schools based on a GPA created by a curve. Curves are percentage based and limit prospects relative to the opinion of the hiring firm.
You've missed three separate posts (apparently) of mine in this thread where I agree fully with your sentiments about the NLJ 250 not giving the total picture of opportunities. So of course (for the third time) I am not suggesting that Vandy has better biglaw prospects than Yale. The graphic (which I have referred to three times or more) I posted underscores this and shows that Yale has superior placement to everybody. The data needs to be altered (aggregate clerkships + biglaw paints a clearer picture).
Moreover, you're moving the discussion beyond GULC v. Vanderbilt (or UCLA), which is where I am arguing. As I explained, the argument I am making is that the T14 cutoff that you're dying to upkeep is misinformed. This is not to say that schools in your T14 do not place tremendously better than Vandy. Clearly HYS, for instance, do. However, when you talk in terms of T14 opportunities, you obfuscate the issue. The issue is whether or not there is this strict cutoff that warrants prospectives and others talking in such a manner. The questions are whether GULC deserves to be included in this elite list, if more schools should be included, or if fewer schools should be included.
So far you've spent your time showing that GULC has better placement than Vandy. As I said much earlier in this thread to you, I am not arguing that the prospects are better for the GULC grad. I am arguing that the difference is not so large that the T14-talk is warranted. You keep missing this.
Edit: On academia, again, placement needs to be looked at in terms of %s and GULC is almost 3 times larger. GULC places better in academia, but this is not the discussion.
It's not silly to talk in terms of raw numbers when we are dealing with a limited pool of firms. It is far easier to spread 89 students over 250 firms than it is to spread 315 students over 250 firms.
It's not simply that Georgetown has better career opportunities than Vandy, it is that the difference is significant. 10% more at NLJ 250, 5x the number of new academia from 2003-2007, 4x the number of Supreme Court clerks from 2000-2007, and double the percentage of students placing at V100 firms in 2006. These numbers do not even take into account the alternative and non-traditional career choices made by Georgetown students which would be unavailable to most students at Vanderbilt.
Your unofficial spreadsheet purportedly indicates that Vandy might have improved employment prospects from previous years. That might turn out to be impressive news once it is more widely disseminated. But until that information can be compared with the corresponding information from the T14, it is not relevant in disproving the differences or similarities between Vandy and the T14.