« on: January 09, 2009, 11:48:18 AM »
I think you are having a problem following what I am saying. Cornell places a larger % of its class in NY, but Michigan could if it wanted to. Very few Cornell students are working outside NY, relatively speaking (give me some firms and I'll show you). At the same time, Cornell is no where near Michigan in total % of students in Biglaw + academia.
Okay, no, I get what you're saying. I think what I have trouble swallowing is the argument that a particular school could place somewhere if it wanted to. I'm not saying it's invalid, I just don't know how we go about proving it. For an example, I agree that Michigan has better options than Cornell with Academia (... I'm still going to argue with you on biglaw though, hah). But even given this, ... is it not possible that Cornell doesn't place as well in academia by choice? People go to schools because of reputation. If Cornell is known to open doors to east coast biglaw, ... maybe that's self selective in and of itself. Right? I'm not saying that this is the case, ... I'm saying it's just as plausible as your proposition. Ya know?
I think there are many things we can argue... we can argue what schools are harder to get into, what schools have more diverse students, what school's graduates end up doing, etc. But when we start saying, "well x school could do y, but chose not to"... it gets messy.
I agree completely that Michigan is a fabulous school. No doubt. Only xoxo HYS prestige whores would argue the contrary. And I'm not saying that someone should always choose Cornell over Michigan ... or Michigan over Cornell. I was talking about biglaw in NYC. Given the data, Cornell has more of a presence. Why that is is debatable and speculative.
Am I following ... or am I still missing something? (And if I am, ... I'm sorry for being so "dense" ... cut me some slack, I'm at Cornell, not Penn! )