Biglaw lateral associates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I should go back to being an associate. I have 20 years of in house experience and make less than a first year associate (and do excellent work).

But surely starting salaries in Biglaw is not news to you, and more importantly you know full well why they make more than you do.

Yeah, I want to know what rock PP has been living under. There is not a single profession with more pay transparency than big law associates.

I have often thought that at least 1/2 the people posting on DCUM threads about the legal profession are not lawyers. People who, for whatever weird reason, feel the need to play one on DCUM.

Totally agree, i think there are probably 6 partners (me included) who post pretty consistently over the years - a couple men and several women. A bunch of associates who show up when they are in crisis mode over the years (being pushed out, thinking about leaving, want to make partner, etc). And then a bunch of non-big law people.

Mostly sah wives who have biglaw husbands, or women who were in biglaw for 3 years, 10+ years ago. In the second bucket, i get that people have extremely good reasons for leaving biglaw, but leaving at year 3 typically means you didn't exactly crack the code for success in big law. So none of these opinions are very relevant, even though i know the second bucket in particular get sensitive if you suggest they don't have much to add.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

Huh? no of course I'm in big law. For more than 20 years. Of course NYC and GW and Vandy are all in the same bucket of performance. They are very hard to get into schools, but not 'ivy hard'. The difference between getting into one versus the other could just be getting a couple quesions wrong on the lsat or taking a harder major in undergrad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I should go back to being an associate. I have 20 years of in house experience and make less than a first year associate (and do excellent work).

But surely starting salaries in Biglaw is not news to you, and more importantly you know full well why they make more than you do.

Yeah, I want to know what rock PP has been living under. There is not a single profession with more pay transparency than big law associates.

I have often thought that at least 1/2 the people posting on DCUM threads about the legal profession are not lawyers. People who, for whatever weird reason, feel the need to play one on DCUM.

Totally agree, i think there are probably 6 partners (me included) who post pretty consistently over the years - a couple men and several women. A bunch of associates who show up when they are in crisis mode over the years (being pushed out, thinking about leaving, want to make partner, etc). And then a bunch of non-big law people.

Mostly sah wives who have biglaw husbands, or women who were in biglaw for 3 years, 10+ years ago. In the second bucket, i get that people have extremely good reasons for leaving biglaw, but leaving at year 3 typically means you didn't exactly crack the code for success in big law. So none of these opinions are very relevant, even though i know the second bucket in particular get sensitive if you suggest they don't have much to add.

Well, they do have a lot more to add than the sahm wives. Who, I believe, post on these threads quite a bit, pretending to be lawyers themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

Fed, not Biglaw, but a HYP grad in my office would be my first trade out. They are terrible. Like oh-look-here's-an-order-threatening -sanctions-because-of-your-lazy-sloppy-work terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

Huh? no of course I'm in big law. For more than 20 years. Of course NYC and GW and Vandy are all in the same bucket of performance. They are very hard to get into schools, but not 'ivy hard'. The difference between getting into one versus the other could just be getting a couple quesions wrong on the lsat or taking a harder major in undergrad.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

Huh? no of course I'm in big law. For more than 20 years. Of course NYC and GW and Vandy are all in the same bucket of performance. They are very hard to get into schools, but not 'ivy hard'. The difference between getting into one versus the other could just be getting a couple quesions wrong on the lsat or taking a harder major in undergrad.

This is idiotic. NYU and GW are nothing alike. If you’ve been in big law for 20 years, you wouldn’t draw a distinctions like ‘Ivy Hard’. Historically, Cornell and UPenn were easier to get into than NYU, which is typically tiered with Columbia and Chicago. GW and Vanderbilt aren’t T14 and shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

Huh? no of course I'm in big law. For more than 20 years. Of course NYC and GW and Vandy are all in the same bucket of performance. They are very hard to get into schools, but not 'ivy hard'. The difference between getting into one versus the other could just be getting a couple quesions wrong on the lsat or taking a harder major in undergrad.

This is idiotic. NYU and GW are nothing alike. If you’ve been in big law for 20 years, you wouldn’t draw a distinctions like ‘Ivy Hard’. Historically, Cornell and UPenn were easier to get into than NYU, which is typically tiered with Columbia and Chicago. GW and Vanderbilt aren’t T14 and shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.

But we're not talking about how hard admissions are to a school. We're talking about which of those schools correlate to good associates.

My experience over 20 years in big law is that with someone top 1/3 of their class at Vandy vs Georgetown, it could be a toss of the coin as to which one ends up being a better performer. They're both in the bucket of "likely to be a decent associate".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

Huh? no of course I'm in big law. For more than 20 years. Of course NYC and GW and Vandy are all in the same bucket of performance. They are very hard to get into schools, but not 'ivy hard'. The difference between getting into one versus the other could just be getting a couple quesions wrong on the lsat or taking a harder major in undergrad.

This is idiotic. NYU and GW are nothing alike. If you’ve been in big law for 20 years, you wouldn’t draw a distinctions like ‘Ivy Hard’. Historically, Cornell and UPenn were easier to get into than NYU, which is typically tiered with Columbia and Chicago. GW and Vanderbilt aren’t T14 and shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.

But we're not talking about how hard admissions are to a school. We're talking about which of those schools correlate to good associates.

My experience over 20 years in big law is that with someone top 1/3 of their class at Vandy vs Georgetown, it could be a toss of the coin as to which one ends up being a better performer. They're both in the bucket of "likely to be a decent associate".

More on this.... also worth noting: I see GW is currently ranked 41 on the US news list, while NYU is 9 and GU is 14. Seems like a big spread but when I was in law school, GW was something like 18. It was, and remains, hard to get into. That it could drop from 18 to 41 on the list is probably related to something dumb like their library collections, or diversity job placement or some other arbitrary feature that has little to do with its quality of education or the quality of kids graduating from there. Point being: schools ranked at #10 versus #50 are all in the same pack.

[Anonymous]

Reading the thread, it sounds like OP doesn't have time to do hand-holding/training. Maybe forget associates for now and look for proven of-counsel who can do the work but maybe aren't into the business development side. Or get some lateral partners instead if you just need more people to spread the work around and have clients willing to pay partner rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

Huh? no of course I'm in big law. For more than 20 years. Of course NYC and GW and Vandy are all in the same bucket of performance. They are very hard to get into schools, but not 'ivy hard'. The difference between getting into one versus the other could just be getting a couple quesions wrong on the lsat or taking a harder major in undergrad.

This is idiotic. NYU and GW are nothing alike. If you’ve been in big law for 20 years, you wouldn’t draw a distinctions like ‘Ivy Hard’. Historically, Cornell and UPenn were easier to get into than NYU, which is typically tiered with Columbia and Chicago. GW and Vanderbilt aren’t T14 and shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.

But we're not talking about how hard admissions are to a school. We're talking about which of those schools correlate to good associates.

My experience over 20 years in big law is that with someone top 1/3 of their class at Vandy vs Georgetown, it could be a toss of the coin as to which one ends up being a better performer. They're both in the bucket of "likely to be a decent associate".

More on this.... also worth noting: I see GW is currently ranked 41 on the US news list, while NYU is 9 and GU is 14. Seems like a big spread but when I was in law school, GW was something like 18. It was, and remains, hard to get into. That it could drop from 18 to 41 on the list is probably related to something dumb like their library collections, or diversity job placement or some other arbitrary feature that has little to do with its quality of education or the quality of kids graduating from there. Point being: schools ranked at #10 versus #50 are all in the same pack.

The employment outcomes of T14 schools vs T50 do not support your theory.

[Anonymous]

I knew a partner who used to joke that the usefulness of a new associate was inversely related to the prestige of their law school.

Obviously there is a point at which it’s not true but I totally agree that the least prepared new lawyers I’ve met came from Ivy League schools.

I will also say that leaving after three years of biglaw isn’t a sign that I hadn’t “cracked the code” of success but a sign that I stayed long enough to pay off some debts/save some money and see if I wanted to do it long term.

Believe it or not there are people who don’t think biglaw is the optimal life for lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

Huh? no of course I'm in big law. For more than 20 years. Of course NYC and GW and Vandy are all in the same bucket of performance. They are very hard to get into schools, but not 'ivy hard'. The difference between getting into one versus the other could just be getting a couple quesions wrong on the lsat or taking a harder major in undergrad.

This is idiotic. NYU and GW are nothing alike. If you’ve been in big law for 20 years, you wouldn’t draw a distinctions like ‘Ivy Hard’. Historically, Cornell and UPenn were easier to get into than NYU, which is typically tiered with Columbia and Chicago. GW and Vanderbilt aren’t T14 and shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.

But we're not talking about how hard admissions are to a school. We're talking about which of those schools correlate to good associates.

My experience over 20 years in big law is that with someone top 1/3 of their class at Vandy vs Georgetown, it could be a toss of the coin as to which one ends up being a better performer. They're both in the bucket of "likely to be a decent associate".

More on this.... also worth noting: I see GW is currently ranked 41 on the US news list, while NYU is 9 and GU is 14. Seems like a big spread but when I was in law school, GW was something like 18. It was, and remains, hard to get into. That it could drop from 18 to 41 on the list is probably related to something dumb like their library collections, or diversity job placement or some other arbitrary feature that has little to do with its quality of education or the quality of kids graduating from there. Point being: schools ranked at #10 versus #50 are all in the same pack.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am going to focus on this part of your statement:

"Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done."

Do you know what high schools these laterals went to? Because I have seen modern public suburban high schools because my kids went thru them - supposedly good ones - and they are a) not teaching kids how to write and b) teaching kids it's fine to miss deadlines.

Frankly, I would try to hire people who went to schools like Sidwell and NCS and then to top thirty SLACs or maybe HYP and majored in something writing intensive like English or History.

Public schools kids are not learning how to write and they are not learning how to meet deadlines and work hard. We sent our third kid to private after the mistake of sending the first two to MCPS.

It's a well known feature of biglaw that HYP are the WORST attorneys. The best are top of their class in big state schools, and top 1/3 of their class in the "rest of the best" law schools (GW, Georgetown, NYU, Vandy, etc). The HYP kids are so used to theoretical work rather than "real" work, no grading in law school, and are often such hyper nerds or on the spectrum that they lack the common sense that's a necessary component of a client facing service profession.

No, this is not true. I’m guessing you’re not in big law or even a lawyer since you have a bizarre grouping of ‘rest of the best law schools’. No one in the know would ever lump NYU in with GW or Vanderbilt.

Huh? no of course I'm in big law. For more than 20 years. Of course NYC and GW and Vandy are all in the same bucket of performance. They are very hard to get into schools, but not 'ivy hard'. The difference between getting into one versus the other could just be getting a couple quesions wrong on the lsat or taking a harder major in undergrad.

This is idiotic. NYU and GW are nothing alike. If you’ve been in big law for 20 years, you wouldn’t draw a distinctions like ‘Ivy Hard’. Historically, Cornell and UPenn were easier to get into than NYU, which is typically tiered with Columbia and Chicago. GW and Vanderbilt aren’t T14 and shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.

But we're not talking about how hard admissions are to a school. We're talking about which of those schools correlate to good associates.

My experience over 20 years in big law is that with someone top 1/3 of their class at Vandy vs Georgetown, it could be a toss of the coin as to which one ends up being a better performer. They're both in the bucket of "likely to be a decent associate".

More on this.... also worth noting: I see GW is currently ranked 41 on the US news list, while NYU is 9 and GU is 14. Seems like a big spread but when I was in law school, GW was something like 18. It was, and remains, hard to get into. That it could drop from 18 to 41 on the list is probably related to something dumb like their library collections, or diversity job placement or some other arbitrary feature that has little to do with its quality of education or the quality of kids graduating from there. Point being: schools ranked at #10 versus #50 are all in the same pack.

The employment outcomes of T14 schools vs T50 do not support your theory.

What do you mean "employment outcomes"? Who gets hired into the top firms? Who ends up being any good? Who makes partner?