Cornell kids as nice? More like they're too busy trying not to kill themselves to post on your blog.

NOBODY CARES.

Go Georgetown!!

first

first

NorTTThwesTTTern

1st harvard rox

I got into Cornell, but then went there to visit and all the busted-face girls kept me away.

I don't see Hopkins on this list.

8 here, i got into harvard, but all the busted face girls kept me away. i went to stetson college of law instead.

Cornell is great. Is there any other school where you can literally live in the library? It's like you're in a Harry Potter novel where law is the magic.

It's true Ithaca sucks. I lived there, which is exactly why I didn't go to Cornell.

It took TWO authors to write a post without any substance????

GULC will slip a spot one of these days, not that it matters

I did not apply to Chicago because of its miniscule offering of international law classes and programs.

When are we going to get to William's Chicken School of Law (a.k.a. GW)?

This exercise is terrible and deathly boring. Only 25% of your readers are in law school (and they are already in law school). The rest of us do not care.

"Chicago Law students consistently feel wronged by being left out of the top five. We invite them to argue their position -- or the need to increase their position -- in the comments. "

I wonder if Chicago Law students consisently alter their grades on the ol' transcript from C to B (and feel wronged by the grading system), pass someone else's work off as their own, get a summer Big Law job, work for a several years at other firms, then "admit" to it later after someone catches it while on the recruiting trail, and get a 3 year suspension on the ol law license while they do something else.

All still better than the fate of a laid off first year ... F'ing economy

Why isn't this list 6-10? No one wants to discuss chicago or penn in the same thread as GULC or UTTT

The most interesting thing here is GULC's by-the-fingernail grip on the 14th position, which it has held since US News started the rankings. If the dean at either Texas or UCLA can find a few $100K for student financial aid in the current admissions cycle, Georgetown could find itself 15 (based on strength of class differentials). The inclusion of the part time students has really weakened GULC's place within the rankings -- just not enough this year to bump GULC from 14.

Duke/UVA/Gtown.

Wanted to be in DC...no regrets.

22

You should regret wanting to be in DC.

who?

Why do people hate on Georgetown so much?

- not a G-town grad, just interested.

Washington and Lee should be top 15.

Duke/UVA/Gtown.

Wanted to be in DC...no regrets.

9 has a point, but seems to be unaware that busted-face girs abound all top law schools. As do nerdy, ugly guys. In fact, the legal profession may be the ugliest out there. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but just don't pick a top school based on the students' looks, it's a lose/lose situation.

I now feel "the need to increase [my ] position" on my transcript.

All A's it is, next up USSC clerkship, DOJ/USAO, Big Law Bit*ch, Professor, WHAT!

CHI-C-A-G-O YOOOOOOOOOOO!

25

Because, Georgetown students moreso than any other students in the t-14 (especially 9-14) are delusional about just how awesome thier school really is.

It's a TTT, and if it was not in DC it would be a TTTT.

I was admitted to 3 of the top 5 schools, but went to Texas instead because: 1) Texas gave me a full tuition scholarship; 2) I knew I wanted to live/ practice in Texas after graduation; and, 3) I hate cold weather.

I've heard Chicago is a great school if you intend on doctoring your transcript and working at Sidley and Skadden. Otherwise it's the pits.

Ithaca is snowy and yucky.

I decided not to go to georgetown when they told me I wasn't allowed to.

Wow, Penn State moved way up! I guess it was a good idea moving their campus to Harrisburg.

/getting that out of the way

28,

9 here.

I should have written my post more clearly, and for that, I apoligize.

What I meant was that the girls in upstate new york are busted-face moreso than, for example, southern california. I am painfully aware of the lawyer-hawt / real world-hawt distinction.

I went to UCLA, which lies outside of the magical T14. I finished somewhere in the middle of my class. I got a job at a V50 NYC firm, then got a great in-house job at a company that is doing fabulously well even in the midst of our economic meltdown.

I just thought you would all like to know that. Salud.

Ithaca kicks ass. I love snow-covered hippies. Who doesn't?

Ithaca kicks ass. I love snow-covered hippies. Who doesn't?

Got into Berkeley, NYU, and Columbia. Why would I go to Chicago?

Texas is fantastic if you want to end up in Dallas or Houston (which, as we all know, have ample supplies of Lexis and 3500 sqft wives). The value is unmatched if you can get in-state tuition, and the cost of living in the state makes a 160K salary completely ridiculous (in a good way). The school does its best to attract competent professors who enjoy teaching, and it does a superb job of placing students in state and federal clerkships (I'm currently clerking for a district judge). Austin is also an amazing city with a great night life and live music scene.

However, if you want to end up in New York, Chicago, California, or DC, then you better be prepared to finish in the top 25%. Although it isn't a "regional" school, students who wish to find jobs in other markets face an uphill challenge. If you are the type of person that could realistically finish in the top 25%, you probably have options at other schools (maybe UVA, GULC, Duke, or Michigan). I would think long and hard about opting for those schools if you have zero desire of staying in Texas.

Nothing like a law school thread to keep the kids busy. Yawn.

University of Chicago:

Now so clearly below Columbia and NYU that it is grouped together more accurately with Texas and UCLA. What the hell happened over there?

I'd never been to Texas before law school (and I left immediately thereafter for BigLaw), but they offered me in-state tuition and the (undergrad) girls were easy on eyes. All-in-all, a $60k experience worth every penny.

"We are clearly the most innovative of the top law schools . . . ."

Something I learned in law school is that people throw "clearly" in there when the argument really isn't that strong.

In blatant disregard of rankings, I chose Northwestern over Harvard, Stanford, NYU, Boalt (got rejected from Chicago). Why? Full ride, terrific admitted students day, and because I know what I want and it has nothing to do with prestige.

It was the right choice for me. I've been totally happy at NUSL. #10, woo hoo!

b-b-b-but the reputation scores! ONLY LOOK AT THE REPUTATION SCORES!

Fact: Berkeley's rise in the rankings was due to U.S. News' general fear of tenured Berkeley professor and torture enabling war criminal John Yoo.

Fact: This is the only positive effect torture has ever had, which makes Dick Cheney's endorsement of torture's glorious impact several days ago technically true.

44 here again, just saying 41 is spot on.

"We expect the UT and UVA kids to express their pride, Berkeley and UCLA to have a surf-off or something, and the relentless Penn trolls to annoy everybody else." Uh, Kash & Elie: It's the Penn Nittany Lions, not the Penn "Trolls."

16, you're retarded. This isn't college. You don't major or minor in a field of law. Do you even know what "international law" is, or why it would matter to you in your career?

46 is right. If you want BigLaw, they interview on-campus at just about all of these schools, so it's kind of irrelevant which one you pick in that regard. Just go to the one that's the best fit for you.

I went to law school 2002-2005, and I got into NYU, Chicago, Michigan and Virginia. I ended up going to Michigan because I liked Ann Arbor, and because the law students at Michigan were relatively down to Earth and nice. The students at Virginia had a reputation for being nice and down to Earth, too.

An "older" person's perspective: 20 years ago, I got into Duke and GULC but because none offered financial aid of any substance and I was in state at UNC, I turned them all down. For the past 17 years I have worked as a career prosecutor in Manhattan. The fact that the law school I chose is in the top 30 and not the top 14 has never hindered me. I have had offers from biglaw etc, based on my reputation and work, not where I went to law school.

If 75% of the readers don't go to Law School, maybe I can make a suggestion to those who are considering UT. UT Law hates UT Law Students. There are numerous, um let's call them, administrator glitches. Additionally, let me give you a preview of some of the most recent unaddressed student concerns:

UT Law has no physical place to study other than the library. Our exams start on May 6th. Currently, the library is only open until midnight, except on Friday and Saturday, when it closes at 6p.m. Law students are then excepted to study at noisy, dirty, undergrad library, or just not study at all. Austin is not the type of 24-hour town where lots of places are open and waiting for us to go study. Drink, yes. Study, no.

The library hours, while frustrating, have become a moot point. This is because law students have recently been limited to 500MB of bandwidth usage per week. Basically, if you want to use the internet, you have to pay for it. With only a little more than a week before finals, the library is deserted anyway. It's not that the extra fee is outrageous, it's only $5 a week. What's outrageous is that our financially roided out Dean was limited by how much he could raise tuition. Current in-state students pay about $20,000 a year; current out-of-state students pay about $35,000. And seriously, at that point, you want us to PAY TO USE THE INTERNET TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE OUR WORK. Embarrassing.

The summer course schedule has made it impossible for needy, jobless students, who our CSO has washed their hands of helping to procure jobs, to take enough courses to receive financial aid. The professors teaching those classes were more than willing to adjust their personal schedules to address this concern.

So.... anyone worried about Texas' place in the rankings, don't be. We've peaked. Anyone thinking about Texas over another school in that area... STRONGLY RECONSIDER.

Duke! In this list, only Chicago trumps.

Is this post anything more than an opportunity to make fun of these schools? ATL is beyond lame.

I haven't regretted going to UT for a second, though I second what the earlier commenter said about needing to finish high to easily move out of state. That doesn't always hold true (I know plenty of people who went to CA/NYC/DC etc and aren't in the top 25%) but it's tougher. For the record I went to a Vault 10 from UT Law.

The reason I really liked Texas though was that the people there are actually nice and social people. I've never seen anyone freak out and mass e-mail the school, and when someone got mugged with three weeks until finals not only did people give him notes, but a complete stranger in his class bought the textbook for him (it had been stolen along with his laptop). There's something to be said for not wanting your classmates to die a painful death.

Also, Austin is awesome and you can wear shorts in January.

SINCERE ADVICE FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN PUBLIC SERVICE OR GOV’T JOBS:
Consider financial aid in addition to prestige. I got into a T10 school and several T 15s, but chose instead to attend a tier 2 (ranked 50-70) school. Why? The less prestigious school offered me a full scholarship instead of six-figure debt, and I wanted to have the financial freedom to work in government or public interest straight out of school. And going to a lower-ranked school, at least one in a big market, will allow for Biglaw ambitions if you grade near the top of you class. Currently, I’m one of the top five students in my 2L class, which has been good enough to land me a summer position in a V10 firm (and not Latham!), while at the same time knowing that I have the freedom to take a lower paying job if I want to or if my firm lays me off. Most people who have the brains to get into a top law school will (assuming some work ethic) be able to place near the top of a lower ranked school. Of course, if you have your heart set on Biglaw or academia, you should go to the most prestigious school you can. But think about your true ambitions before blindly deciding to take on that big debt – unless you can score a highly competitive fellowship upon graduation, you might be stuck working in the private sector for some time.

16: The best school for you would be Columbia, then, obviously. They are undoubtedly top in international law.

Why is this list 6-15? This post should be for discussion of 6-10
Everyone knows anything outside the top 10 is a festering TTT shithole (especially GULLCCCCCC)

There once was a firm named Buchanan,
That threw out –
Like used cups of Dannon –
Its summer class clutter –
Left them laying in the gutter –
As Versace was left by Cunanan.

--Sir Frederick B. Limerick
(circa 2009)

54: congratulations on being the rare exception to the rule. perhaps if we all knew exactly where we would place after 1L in law school we could all follow in your footsteps. unfortunately, we cannot predict the future and prefer not to take the gamble that we'll finish in the top 5-10% at a T30.

From Chicago...

We're feeling fine. T6 is where we've been for a long time. And now we're stil T6, just tied with Berkeley, which is a fine school.

Still lots of jobs to go around. Still lots of clerkships. Still lots of placements in academia.

Sure, we'd like to be #4 or #5, but there are a lot of other rankings that put us there:

Leiter consistently ranks chicago 2 or 3.
AmLaw: #2
Vault: #5
Princeton Review: 4 or 5 (2 last year)
USNWR academic and professional assessment: 4.6 (tied with CLS, higher than NYU)

...etc.

So the chicago trolls should calm down, so that the rest of us don't look so damn insecure about the USNWR.

kay?

48,

Yeah, that and the fact that it thwarted the terrorist attack on LAX.

But, I know, terrorists shouldn't feel like they're going to drown because that makes our liberal hearts feel yucky.

Elie, you wrote the #'s "6," "10," and "15" for multiple schools. God, do the typos ever end?

I've heard a couple stories this year about Northwestern students getting no-offered by biglaw firms and being desparate for a job. Haven't really heard stories like that about students from other t14 schools.

Chose Berkeley over NYU, Columbia, and Chicago, because I wanted to live in California. Had many job offers in San Francisco, D.C., and New York. Happy with my choice.

I could never go to a law school that accepts 40 percent of its students from one state.

From Chicago...

We're feeling fine. T6 is where we've been for a long time. And now we're stil T6, just tied with Berkeley, which is a fine school.

Still lots of jobs to go around. Still lots of clerkships. Still lots of placements in academia.

Sure, we'd like to be #4 or #5, but there are a lot of other rankings that put us there:

Leiter consistently ranks chicago 2 or 3.
AmLaw: #2
Vault: #5
Princeton Review: 4 or 5 (2 last year)
USNWR academic and professional assessment: 4.6 (tied with CLS, higher than NYU)

...etc.

So the chicago trolls should calm down, so that the rest of us don't look so damn insecure about the USNWR.

kay?

I applied to NYU because they waived my application fee and I got in, but I went to Northwestern because I wanted to live in Chicago and I got a much better vibe from Northwestern than from UChicago. I have never regretted that decision for an instant.

Chose Duke over NYU for the weather, the atmosphere, class size, and BBQ.

Do you live in a box? Why can't you study at home? A lot of people don't like studying at school anyway.

And what are you doing on the internet at school that you require more bandwith than the amount given?

What a whiner.

If GULC dropped to 15, we would begin referring to the T15. For that reason, we here are at Georgetown > You.

Suck it, we define the top tier.

58 - Are people so poor at UT that they can't afford to buy one book that was stolen?

Really 64? Really? You are citing to Leiter ranking Chicago ahead of USNWR? That's like citing to the White House press secretary's evaluation of how well the President's policies are doing.

There once was a firm named Buchanan,
That threw out –
Like used cups of Dannon –
Its summer class clutter –
Left them laying in the gutter –
As Versace was left by Cunanan.

--Sir Frederick B. Limerick
(circa 2009)

when are people going to realize duke is a shithole biglaw factory? Last SCOTUS clerk?

BERKELEY would be at the top if ranked on female armpit hair length.

BERKELEY would be at the top if ranked on female armpit hair length.

BERKELEY would be at the top if ranked on female armpit hair length.

Top firms refer to these schools as second tier.

I decided to go to NYU over UC Berkeley (which is not necessarily harder to get into) even though I was planning on returning to CA to work. I did it mostly because I went to Berkeley undergrad and thought I would have a stronger resume with two good schools instead of one twice. I was able to somehow eek out a job in CA for my 2L summer but am pretty sure I would have had a better time at it had I gone to Berkeley, plus I would have saved about 100K being in state at Berkeley. Good decision? I'm guessing if I went to Berkeley I'd have ended up at Latham instead of a much healthier and more stable NY firm's CA office

63 - if you're not confident you can be top 5-10% at a T-30, you are not T-14 material. Sorry.

zOMG! [insert school name here] is a TTT. [my school] is so much better. It should so be, like, first. HYS, betta watch out!!!! And [competitor school] has students who stink and smell like my dirty socks. I think it's because they with they were my dirty socks, because then they could go to class at [my school].

RAWK!

If you're an admit, let me give it to you straight based on being in the field and having a sense from partners about various law schools.

Chicago: Probably should be ranked in the top five, the students there are generally really bright and ambitious. It certainly is a better law school than NYU, which carries very little clout outside of New York City. The problem is that Chicago students often are just weird. Socially awkward and don't seem like they will ever have the ability to generate clients.

Berkeley: It's ranking at #6 is a joke, no clout outside of the West Coast. Great school but not a sufficient network of alum if you want a job in other parts of the country.

Penn: It's ranking should be switched with Michigan, which has higher prestige rankings and a much higher regard among partners and judges. Penn is a good school but I get the impression that its filled with Columbia rejects. Penn carries the most clout on the East Coast. Otherwise, nothing. Like Berkeley, the network is too small to have much resonance outside of its immediate East Coast vicinity.

Michigan: Should be ranked higher based on practitioner prestige but has the unfortunate issue of location. It's distance from major cities is a disadvantage in these rankings. That being said, it's got one of the best alumni networks outside of the T-5. If it were not a public school it would be ranked higher than Penn for sure.

Duke: At 10?!

Northwestern: It doesn't resonate with anyone outside of Chicago. This is sad because it's a good law school. It should be ranked higher but is thought of as a Midwest law school.

UVA: Great law school, should be ranked higher but suffers the same issues as Michigan. Definitely should be ranked about Penn.

That's an honest, assessment from someone who isn't a CLUELESS law student.

I think part of the reason GULC students are so insufferable (GULC grad here) is that many of them are T1-T5 rejects who are incredibly bitter about being rejected from Harvard. It's rubbed in even more by the fact that top GULC students tend to transfer to Harvard/Yale after the first year. As a result of their insecurities GULC students tend to be incredibly dismissive toward lower rank law schools. Its sad.

On the plus side GULC has a huge class that is usually 70% women, many of them very attractive and insecure for the reasons stated above. A non socially inept male law student could have a very fun 3 years there.

74 - If GULC dropped to 15, we would have T13 schools instead of T14. Now that Chicago has to fight with Berkeley over the #6 spot for a couple of years, we now have the T5 instead of the T6.

Hey 55, don't rag on UT just because you are too dumb / lazy to get decent grades and get a job.

UT is a great law school, Austin is a fantastic city to live in, and anyone who disagrees can suck a fat one.

"You can all go to hell...I'm going to Texas"

UVA tied with Northwestern and Duke is a joke. I feel sorry for someone who chooses NW or Duke over UVA based on this ranking, believing that they are truly peer schools. Nothing against NW or Duke, but there is just no comparison.

Chose GULC over Columbia, NYU, Duke, UVA and Northwestern -- I liked the people and the city better. Had a great experience, got a clerkship and worked at a V5 firm, but am now seeing the slight disadvantage when breaking into academia. Still, all in all am very happy with my decision.

59 - You're dumb. Everyone graduating from this point on can get federal loan assistance if they really want to do public service/govt work, and some schools offer extra assistance on top of that. So really the loans are not that big of a deal, and you should have done your homework ahead of time.

I'm pretty sure I know who 83 is, a douche who likes to use the listserv at Cornell

Major factors in the 6-15 bracket are money and geography. No. 6-15 (or No. 6-20 for that matter) are all "great" schools, and presumably you could "learn" a lot about "being a lawyer" at any of them, assuming you buy into the notion that such things are possible at any law school (I don't, but lets put that aside).

Factor 1: Money. What is the tuition? How deep in debt are you willing to be in exchange for the "prestige" of a diploma from a particular school? If you can get in-state tuition (at say UCLA or Texas or Michigan or wherever), that is a huge plus in favor of those schools. Considering that any of the 6-15 schools can and will, if you do well, land you a coveted job in BigLaw, it is silly to throw money after a higher ranked but far more expensive school. Take me: I got into Georgetown and Northwestern, but picked another school because they would have been way more expensive for me. I picked my school, made my outlines, got my shiny good grades, suffered through Law Review, and landed the big fat prize, all with minimal debt. If you really, really care about rankings and relative prestige, then go for the highest ranked school you can get into - just don't forget to step back and consider that the job you eventually land will likley pay about the same no matter which 6-15 school you pick, and the ranking of your law school alma mater won't get you a credit on your student loans.

Geography: Blah. This is pretty obvious, right? Do you want to relocate for three years (and quite possibly for much longer) over a diploma when you can get nearly as "good" of one much closer to home, or in a city/state/region you just like more? Lawschool generally blows, doing it in weather or surroundings that you really aren't crazy about only makes it that much worse. Often, money and this factor go hand-in-hand (you are likley to enjoy going to law school somewhere that affords you in-state tuition over some place across the country you know nothing about). Or, maybe not.

Anyway, just two incredibly important factors that, amazingly, people tend not to think about enough.

E-M-O-R-Y must be present in all threads related to rankings.

EMORY!

UVA tied with Northwestern and Duke is a joke. I feel sorry for someone who chooses NW or Duke over UVA based on this ranking, believing that they are truly peer schools. Nothing against NW or Duke, but there is just no comparison.

Which school is the most likely to get me a job with a secretary that I can pound in the ass the fastest?

54 - judging by the lack of success with the myriad attempts of stirring condescension via facebook groups, i'd say you're in the minority.

I'm sure there are better options than UT if your priorities are internet capacity and extended library hours.

Sure its annoying, but nobody really cares that much

Chose Gtown over Penn, NYU, Michigan, to be in DC.

74 - you define the lower bound of the top-tier. Something to be proud of.

Everyone knows GULC is not as good as the schools right behind it on the list.

I went to John Marshall Law School. I wish there were a school that I could make fun of, like Norttthwestttern.

At least Loyola will eventually join us in the 4th tier.

84 is more or less right on.

HOOOOK EM

elie = fat and dumb

HOOOOK EM

I'll be the first to say it. I chose GULC for prestige, and it was a mistake. While the professors were amazing and my classmates among the best people I'd ever met, the administration could not care less what kind of educational experience we received. NONE of the classes I _wanted_ as a 2L were _feasible_ as a 2L. Basically, my 2L year was a big waste of money.

Kudos to Northwestern for its advances, particularly the two-year program. If I could do it over again, I would have applied to and gone to Northwestern.

88,

Myself and several of my classmates chose NU over UVa back when UVa had a 4 spot advantage. They can elaborate on their own reasons, but I preferred the community/atmosphere at NU.

Sorry, most people from UVA just woke up with a hangover from last night. How's the library, suckers?

104 - everyone's 2L (and 3L) year was a waste of money. After the sorting takes place 1L we are just pissing away money.

Sorry, most kids from UVA just woke up with a hangover from last night. How's the library, suckers?

has any school in the t14 sunk more the Michigan in the last 10 years? This is a TTT in decline, made even worse by the state's dismal economy. sorry, that school's hey day is done.

This series of posts is nothing more than a NY biased flame. The problem is not so much that you put Chicago, Berkeley, and Penn at the kiddie table with the likes of UT, but that you put schools like NYU and Columbia at the same table as Harvard, Yale and Stanford, very arbitrarily. By doing so, ATL has blatantly expressed its opinion and set the rules in New York's favor. You already provided a post on the entire rankings which spurred adequate debate. No need to fan the flame.

I'm a UVA grad. I absolutely loved it. Tons of fun, funny professors, great people, fantastic libel show, softball, etc. (I think the "tons of damn bright people who learned a ton" is kinda implicit.)

I applied to the whole top 10 except for NWern, Chicago, Berkeley and NYU. The former three because they were too far away (and didn't have the Stanford star power) , the latter because I hated my visit - it looked like a dingy ballroom - and I'm a bit of a country boy, so Greenwich Village was a bit overwhelming - I don't think I got to seeing Central Park, so I was just breaking my neck looking up.

I got into UVA, Penn, Duke, and Columbia. I was waitlisted at Harvard, Michigan and Chicago. I withdrew from the waitlist on all three - I thought about Harvard, but given that I didn't get on their waitlist until about the time I needed to rent an apartment in Charlottesville, I figured it wouldn't be worth the extra money and fighting a landlord and roommate. Michigan wrote me an incredulous letter amazed than I would decline their waitlist. Kinda funny.

While I thought seriously about Columbia, I figured I could get my big city experience at Penn cheaper without any substantial impact on my choices - both in cost of living and because I had a scholarship. New York would have been interesting, but it would have been a huge change for me. I definitely didn't want to live there long-term.

Among the other three, my preference, money aside, was Penn, then UVA and Duke tied. Penn - just wowed me. I loved the campus, I loved the feel, I loved the people I met during their three day program. Everyone was really helpful. I'm sure part of it was that it reminded me a lot of a program I did at Oxford - plus, the whole status symbol of being an Ivy Leaguer.

UVA and Duke were similar - Southern schools with very open, beautiful campuses, each with one really excellent sport (hey, UVA football will have three straight drafts with a top 3 pick). UVA is a bit of a moderate conservative school with a lot of emphasis on politics (we're second behind Harvard in Senators, I believe). Duke is more liberal with - well, I don't know what emphasis there was.

In the end, UVA offered me a scholarship that blew the others out of the water, so it was an easy choice even though I really loved Penn. (UVA offered me $60 or $75K, I don't recall which. Penn initially offered me no money and then offered me $30,000 when I told them about UVA. Duke offered me $25K initially and upped it, but I don't remember what to - I think it was like $35K.

110: your insecurity suits you well. say hi to your mother for me, alright?

Going to Northwestern next year! Got into higher ranked, slightly lower-ranked, and tied schools.

Why? Because Northwestern isn't just the most innovative of the top law schools, it's the only innovative top law school. And it's not just the 2 year JD.

And top-law-schools.com should think about NU's location and QofL before proclaiming NYU the winner. Especially given the cost of living disparity.

Boalttt is an overrated toilet. The fact that it is in the top 10 shows how ridiculous the US News rankings are.

I chose Berkeley over Harvard and Georgetown because the Harvard students seemed mostly pretentious and I hated the weather, and the Georgetown students reeked of desperation. It seemed like Georgetown had been their second choice and they weren't really happy to be there. The Berkeley students were actually happy and friendly, and the school is in a interesting, warm, liberal city. Didn't apply to any other T15 school except Yale, which turned me down.

I picked GULC over NYU because NYC is a festering disease-ridden pit of awfulness. When I made that decision, I had never read this blog.

Over the past couple of years, the constant trashing GULC gets from this site's readers has made me question my decision.

But as a 3L now, I think a lot more like 54. Does the worst kid out of NYU likely get a better job than the worst kid out of GULC? Sure. But if you do well enough, the school's imprimatur has to do less of the heavy lifting on your resume. Next year I'll be clerking at the US Court of Appeals in my hometown of Atlanta, so I'm less inclined to care what ATL readers think.

I have no dog in this fight--I don't care about the rankings much at all, and I am currently a student at a T5 school, so not on this list.

That said, I think UVa is a remarkable and underrated school. I never applied to UVa, but I've now had the opportunity to take classes taught by professors visiting from UVa and have met/worked with many UVa students and grads. The quality of education, the quality of instruction, and the composition of the student body there seems to be more agreeable than any of the other top schools. As far as career prospects, they seem to be doing more than fine, placing plenty of grads at the top firms and clerkships I was looking at.

Berkeley and Chicago are both harder to get into than NYU or Columbia.

I would have gone to Columbia if I thought I could stand New York for 3 years. H&Y both told me to FO.

Went to Berkeley instead. Great place to study law.
Great students, good attitude, relatively low stress I am guessing compared to the other three.

Even took John Yoo's Con Law course. Good teacher.

Got a 2L summer job. Planning to work hard.

In-state at UT. Cheap (no debt), located in Austin (amazing), great weather, people with tans and lives outside of law school, prolific sublime tex-mex, etc. Students are smart but not total lunatics, professors are world-class, etc. etc. If you want to live/work in Texas, it is without peer (spare me the "lexis" joke, I have heard it several thouand times). Firms in Texas look to UT first to fill out their summer classes, end of story. If you want to work in DC or LA or NYC, you need to post good grades and think about Law Review, but that is nothing new. All those firms and markets interview on-campus at UT, just like at the rest of the T20.

Plus, Darrel-K-Memorial Stadium is about two blocks from the law school. National Champs in 2010.

Hook Em.

SERIOUS QUESTION: Can I lie about having received a Summer Associate offer from a now-defunct law firm for this summer, e.g., TPW, Heller, Dreier, etc., in the fall if I'm not doing an SA gig?

I chose Northwestern over GULC, Mich, Cornell, NYU. Am very very happy here.

I choose UT cause it seemed like a good place for law school. Last night a number of law students, myself included, partied at the house of Adam Dell, the founder of Dell's bro. The party was rife with liquor and bitches. Working for a V40. If you aren't a dumbass you'll graduate with a good job while having a decent time in law school.

UVA wins because RFK went there.

#115 is totally right about Georgetown. Its admit weekend REEKS of desperation. The students seemed to be a collection of rejects from better law schools ...

Horrible, is this post a call for dog fights so as to put ATL into the same class with autoadmit? I'm fine with a writer who doesn't do spell-checks, as long as he maintains a site with quality content and character. This post is truly a disappointment.

of these schools, I applied to:

6. UC Berkeley
6. University of Chicago
9. Michigan
10. Northwestern
15. UCLA
15. UT-Austin

And didn't apply to:
8. Penn (Philly)
10. Duke (hate the south)
10. UVA (hate the south)
13. Cornell (Ithaca?)
14. Georgetown (class too big)

Ended up at NU and I love it here. DVZ is the shit.

Wow, 55. I fail to believe so much could change between when I graduated last year and the present, such that Austin could become this inhospitable city for anyone who desires not to sleep and the law school has started eatiing students for breakfast for administrative woes and wishes....

Seriously, you've been in Austin for how long and you've failed to discover a single 24 hour establishment in which you can study besides the law library? Hello, Epoch, Kerbey Lane, Magnolia, Bennu, Austin Java, Metro, are all 24 hours. Late night you have Flipnotics, Mozarts, Medici, Cafe Caffeine, Ruta Maya down south, Flightpath.. seriously, need I go on? And this doesn't even include the chains, such as Seattles (late night - till 11ish) and Starbucks (several of which are 24 hour as well).

As for staying on campus: There's also the Student Union (except on weekends), the UGL, the PCL, the Architecture Library, journal offices at the law school (perhaps you aren't on a journal so don't know this to be a perfectly quite study spot after-hours?), and oh, silly me, all the freaking coffee houses, cafes, and other establishments throughout the city of Austin that cater to the large student population and are open late, if not all night, that I haven't already included...

Yeash.

the amount of small gonad syndrome on this and the #1-5 school thread is enough to give the creators of South Park decades worth of writing material. I hope all you people realize that once your super prestigious degree gets you into a firm, you will get burned if you screw up. The sooner you people realize that you are not higher education's god given gift to humanity, the better for the profession. how about we stop hyping prestiege and demand that the legal education system do a better job of teaching students how to be good practitioners....just my 2 cents

Hi,

ATL is spot on with this comment/query: Cornell is "the little 'Big Red' law school that just seems to keep on providing an excellent legal education without pissing anybody off. Are Cornell students just nicer, or is it that they don't have internet access in Ithaca?"

I went to Cornell. I loved it. We're smaller than a lot of the other schools (save Yale and Stanford) and we're out in the middle of nowhere--resulting in a tight-knit class of grads each year. Plus, those freezing cold winters do a lot to up the friendship bonds and establish an instant connection with other alums.

And, by the way, Ithaca really is gorgeous. Or gorges, if you insist. Beautiful countryside, good eats, cheap cost of living.

We know we're not as fancy as prestigious as Harvard, but we don't have a complex about it (like some of the other schools in the T5, or T6, might). We got a really good education, in a beautiful setting, with some pretty great friends. I'll take it.

Thanks, ATL, for the shout out,
A little Big Red alum

THEY ARE ALL THE SAME YOU RETARDS. the individual matters, not the school.

the amount of small gonad syndrome on this and the #1-5 school thread is enough to give the creators of South Park decades worth of writing material. I hope all you people realize that once your super prestigious degree gets you into a firm, you will get burned if you screw up. The sooner you people realize that you are not higher education's god given gift to humanity, the better for the profession. how about we stop hyping prestiege and demand that the legal education system do a better job of teaching students how to be good practitioners....just my 2 cents

116 - your opinion about NYC does nothing to change the fact that it is among the safest big cities in the country. Further, it doesn't help that you chose DC as a city as one that is presumably less of a "festering disease-ridden pit of awfulness." Hope you enjoy being confined to 2 square miles. Don't go too far west, I guess.

Going to Boalt was the best decision I ever made.

I chose Cornell over Georgetown, Northwestern, and UCLA. I liked the people, and when I was there the student-teacher ratio was excellent. I'm not sure if it is still like that, as the class size has increased, but back then you could get a lot of personal attention from professors.

I hated Ithaca my 1L year. By my 3L year, I loved it. The campus is beautiful, and there are a lot of great parks and places to go outdoors (helped that my gf was an avid hiker). Now, I try to get away from the big city at least once a year to visit Ithaca (also because Maxie's has the best manhattans I've had anywhere).

84: Bitter and pathetic. Keep feeding yourself those lies.

I'm with 116 on this - go to any of these schools and do well, and you're fine. What's with the dick measuring contest? Just go where you want to go, have some fun, and crack open the books when it's time to study for finals. No big deal.

35 - you are a moron. Why can't anyone in these comments tell the difference between Penn and Penn State? Its not hard, one is an small ivy league school in the city of Philly and the other is a mammoth state university in the middle of a cow field. And besides, PSU's law school (Dickinson) is not even in nore ever was in Harrisburg, it's in Carlisle (40 minutes away) and State College.

I wanted to work in entertainment, so UCLA was my choice over other schools in this tier. And it was a good choice; I've had the great fortune of finding interesting and rewarding in-house entertainment work over the last decade.

A large number of my UCLAW classmates are also working in entertainment law - boutique firms, in-house with studios and companies, etc.

I'd say outside of the big 3 (Yale, Harvard, Stanford), if you are focused on breaking into entertainment law, UCLA is probably one of the best ways to increase your odds.

35 - you are a moron. Why can't anyone in these comments tell the difference between Penn and Penn State? Its not hard, one is an small ivy league school in the city of Philly and the other is a mammoth state university in the middle of a cow field. And besides, PSU's law school (Dickinson) is not even in nor ever was in Harrisburg, it's in Carlisle (40 minutes away) and State College.

UCLA is the Fried Frank of 6-15 law schools.

65 - Did the U.S. war criminals torture that information out of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed the 183rd time (in one month) that they tortured him, or did the U.S. war criminals get it out of him after torturing his 6 and 8 year old children in small boxes with insects in Pakistan?

I like Duke because it has great academics, a small class size, and a nice atmosphere. Most of the people here are great and we have a pretty decent amount of social activities. I've really enjoyed my experience here.

135: Berkeley student who can't accept that the school is overrated!

I could give a shit whether GULC is ranked 13, 14, or 15... it really doesn't matter. I go to GULC b/c I wanted to be in DC for law school. If you select your school solely based on rankings, you are an idiot and we don't need anymore idiots in this profession.

Way to go, ATL...you skipped the meat of VanZandt's email:

"While our objective numbers (admissions, employment, student-faculty ratio, etc.) place us 8th or better in all cases among top 14 law schools, we received a No. 10 ranking overall, a one-point drop from last year. We share this position with Duke University and the University of Virginia.

Looking at our performance in the U.S. News rankings over the years, our overall trend has been quite positive. We have held a top 10 spot for four of the last six years and we have moved up more slots than any other top law school since the rankings began in 1987. This year, we are in the top 5 in five of the seven categories measured, including student-faculty ratio (No. 3); raw bar passage rate (No. 4); median LSAT (tied for No. 4); nine-month graduation rate (tied for No. 4); and at-graduation employment (No. 5). We also once again hold the No. 1 spot in diversity among top law schools and jumped seven spots to No. 5 among all law schools."

@ 120. No. Lying is wrong.

Chicago law schools in general get screwed, from the top down. There is no way Loyola and Kent are only the 70th or so best schools in the country.

when i visited columbia it was filled with kids bitter they didn't get into Harvard. so you really can't win.

I could give a shit whether GULC is ranked 13, 14, or 15... it really doesn't matter. I go to GULC b/c I wanted to be in DC for law school. If you select your school solely based on rankings, you are an idiot and we don't need anymore idiots in this profession.

I chose Chicago over NYU and Columbia, and I feel like an idiot. We are in the ghetto, and my classmates are lame and bitter because they were rejected from Columbia.

132,
NYC can be safe all it wants. Obviously the language I used was only intended to convey my opinion on the place, 'cause it's not exactly something that can be proven. I applied without thinking I'd dislike it as much as I did when I visited. I should have just said that.

If you like NYC that's great. I don't. I like DC and would be happy to stay here. I don't see why, when there's a difference of opinion, somebody has to be wrong.
-116

I'm with 116 on this - go to any of these schools and do well, and you're fine. What's with the dick measuring contest? Just go where you want to go, have some fun, and crack open the books when it's time to study for finals. No big deal.

135: Berkeley student who can't accept that the school is overrated!

There are Chicago trolls who argue that Chicago is a peer of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. While this used to be the case, maybe as recently as 10 years ago, it no longer is.

However, Chicago is certainly at the same level as Columbia and NYU. Look at rep scores. Look at student LSAT and GPA. Look at clerkship data. Look at law firm data. Look at the faculties. Chicago is equal to (or in some cases slightly worse or slightly better) than Columbia and NYU in all these categories.

This is not a provocative claim. I don't think many doubt that HSY are the top 3 schools, followed by CCN, and that there are no clear distinctions in overall quality to made between the 3 schools in each group. It is also clear that by considering irrelevant factors, such as Illinois having a higher bar passage rate than NY, the USNWR overall ranking is useless.

The question is why ATL makes a separate post for the top 5 schools as if that distinction means anything.

The point of gong to UVA is that law school doesn't have to suck. My 1L year has been the best year of my life. And, no, my life hasn't been filled with tragedies up to this point.

Quality of life here is outstanding. Of the schools on this list the only other one I was admitted to was UCLA. (Waitlisted at Northwestern, Michigan, Duke, and Columbia- that's what I get for applying in mid January) UVA's scholarship offer was actually better than UCLA's and I was living in NC at the time, so it was an easy choice.

I call bullshit number 46. Northwestern doesnt give a FULL ride. I was a Wigmore scholar who got every chunk of change NU gives out in grants and financial aid, and I still finished with debt (and NOBODY I know got as much free aid as me). Sorry, but you are full of shit.

when i visited columbia it was filled with kids bitter they didn't get into Harvard. so you really can't win.

@ 116/152 -
I agree with you that there is no need for a "dick measuring contest." Different schools are right for different folks, and these are all great schools in some way.

I will say, however, that you seem to have the following dangerous line of reasoning:
"Well, sure X school has better career placement overall, but the people at the top of the class at Y get great jobs too. With me being as smart and talented as I am, surely I will be at the top of the class at Y and will get a great job."

There's something to be said for knowing you'll get a great job even if you're at the bottom of the class.

0Ls:

Do NOT, under any circumstance, trade a HUGE scholarship at one t14 school to pay full price at another, even if you get a few extra "prestige" points.

I should have gone to NU.

@ 157 - really? I can't imagine that people would volunteer their bitterness about rejection to someone just visiting for a day?

Cornell is the best law school and Ithaca is underrated -- great environment, gorges, food of all kinds, and interesting people. A hidden gem.

In comparison, GULC is in the middle of nowhere in D.C. and a lot of the part-timers are obvious in their sweatiness and urgency in getting "prestigious" jobs. I taught in the clinic there a while back. Sucks overall.

Cornell was a lot laid back and its alums meet with a lot of success compared to the sweaty GULC students.

Holla Big Red!

GULC has nowhere near 70-30 female:male ratio. My year was 44:56 and there wasn't much talent in that 44 percent either.
- GULC 08

84 is completely wrong regarding Northwestern's reach outside of Chicago. As a NU Law alumnus who has practiced in Chicago and two other jurisdictions, I can tell you that the prestige of the school should not be underestimated nationally. The NU Law name probably opens more doors outside of Chicago than inside. NU students come from all over the nation, but those student disproportionately tend to fall in love with Chicago (NU Law is in the very best part of the city) and stay there to practice rather than returning "home." That makes the NU Law alum a rare and valued commodity in other parts of the nation.

156 still thinks his girlfriend was a virgin before she met him.

I loved my time at Michigan, but it fit me as a person. (I'm the kind of person who can be competitive but would much rather just be friends while working hard. As far as I'm concerned, law school's hard enough without frenemies, or full-on enemies, for that matter...).

Personally, I feel that if you're looking Top 10, you should just pick the right place for you -- the kind of place where you can see yourself being happy with your classmates and your professors, keeping in mind that (a) you'll generally be miserable due to incredibly hard work loads and brain-busting thought processes and that (b) you'll likely never go outside a 2 mile radius of where you live/go to school no matter where you are (NYC or Siberia).

So just pick the place where you think you can be happiest while being otherwise miserable. (And given the economy, financial aid should probably come into play too.)

Also, I think many people tend to ignore Michigan based on the weather/suburban location. Really though, it's got all the quality bars and restaurants you could ever need (yes, there is high end food, but the prices are midwest reasonable), and it's a safe place to live in terms of crime, etc.

I mean, sure, I (a 20-something) wouldn't have wanted to live in AA after graduating, but it was a wonderful place to study law....

I liked my friends (yes, I have REAL FRIENDS from law school); I liked my professors (they often had us over for dinner); and I liked my living conditions (I didn't really have to worry when walking home from the library at 2am).

I chose Michigan over several top 5 schools (NYU, Columbia, and Stanford) because I loved everything about the atmosphere and the culture of the school, including the sports program. I also wanted to be in a school that gave me good leads in places other than DC , California, and Manhattan, and I felt Michigan was the perfect place for that. I've never regreted that decision. I got my first-choice job in my first-choice city and will be clerking on a federal appellate court next year.

I don't like the fact that ATL is making this arbitrary distinction between the top 5 and the rest of the top 10. I think all of the top 10 schools are pretty well clumped together, with perhaps the exception of Harvard and Yale, but even there, the lines are thin.

That was my thinking, and the decision ended up being a good one for me. Rather than worrying about rankings within the top ten, where the lines are thin between the schools, I worried about which of them was the right fit for me and my personality, and that served me well.

I chose Michigan over several top 5 schools (NYU, Columbia, and Stanford) because I loved everything about the atmosphere and the culture of the school, including the sports program. I also wanted to be in a school that gave me good leads in places other than DC , California, and Manhattan, and I felt Michigan was the perfect place for that. I've never regreted that decision. I got my first-choice job in my first-choice city and will be clerking on a federal appellate court next year.

I don't like the fact that ATL is making this arbitrary distinction between the top 5 and the rest of the top 10. I think all of the top 10 schools are pretty well clumped together, with perhaps the exception of Harvard and Yale, but even there, the lines are thin.

That was my thinking, and the decision ended up being a good one for me. Rather than worrying about rankings within the top ten, where the lines are thin between the schools, I worried about which of them was the right fit for me and my personality, and that served me well.

Hey Ellie and Kashmir:

Fuck You!

-Penn Trolls

134,

I'm with you on the Maxie's martinis. And you can't get much more beautiful than Ithaca in the fall (or, for that matter, those lakes in the summer).

Wish I could make it back more often.

129

156-

Right - I'm a Wigmore. Which is almost full tuition scholarship (40k). I still have debt for living expenses. Didn't mean to imply *everything* was covered.

The rest is true.

-46

@ 165 - I'm very glad you had a great experience at UMich, but please remember that at almost all of these top schools, there is not a competitive atmosphere and people have real friends (not frenemies). And professors are pretty similar at all the top schools--having students over for dinner is pretty normal.

I chose NULS over Indiana, Wake Forest, Minnesota, Georgia, Ohio State, and George Mason and I have not regretted my decision for a second!

Now that the sky has fallen - who cares. No one will get jobs anyway, so the rankings have lost all meaning.

For what it's worth, I went to Texas, graduated in the top quarter, and had no trouble getting offers from the top firms in NY, SF, LA, etc. Incidentally, I was rejected by most of the top 10 schools, and a friend of mine who was accepted to many of them and got a full ride to Texas did not do particularly well in law school, so undergraduate grades/LSATs don't always correspond to law school success, at least in my anecdotal experience (message: think twice before turning down your Columbia offer for a lower-ranked school if your decision is motivated at least in part by your assumption that you'll perform better at the lower-ranked school). Anyway, most of my friends at Texas with a similar standing had the same experience with job offers. Then again, this was about 6 years ago, when the market was great. I can't really speak to how people further down in the class fare in national recruiting, particularly in a tougher economy.

Looking for advice on deciding between NYU (paying sticker price) and Michigan (with $30k total scholarship). Anybody have any advice on prospective career impacts?

171 -- Never having gone to one of the other Top 10 schools, I can't say what they are like, and I agree that there is less need to be competitive at a top school because job prospects are generally good.

But I will say this: I met a guy at Michigan who described himself as a "competetive bastard" and who was so miserable at Michigan (because we were all so non-competetive) that he actually transferred to another (higher ranked) school.

I never followed up to see if he found what he was looking for, but for his sake, I hope he did.

Otherwise, he'd have found only more of the same.

To those complaining about the "arbitrary" distinction between the top 5 and the rest of the top 15 --

ATL is about making money. They make money by exposing advertising impressions. The more posts they divide this into, the more times people visit the site, the more impressions they get, the more money they make. It's really simple and easy to understand. Deal with it.

As for those who are complaining about the distinction because "___ is as good as Stanford, or at least as good as NYU" or whatever -- the rankings are arbitrary to begin with. There is no "clean" break you can make.

175--there are not career impacts. You will do no better with NYU on your resume than you will with Michigan. Pick the school that is right for you personally and run with it.

As a Northwestern alum, I really wish Van Zandt would stop validating the USNWR rankings with these annual e-mails. Who gives a fuck about moving from 13 to 11 or 9 to 10?? Nobody. Not only is it meaningless in light of the fallacies and shortcoming of the rankings, but such a small variation is meaningless even to those who choose to rely on the rankings. Please Van Zandt, have some self respect and stop pandering to the USNWR with these e-mails! Everyone at NULS get it, no need to come across as desperately justifying or taking credit for every slight adjustment.

Accepted at UPenn, NYU, Chicago, Columbia, UT and Northwestern. Chose NU because of money, but couldn't be happier.
UT offered a full ride as well, but they have less of a national reach.
Great professors, good job prospects as long as your grades are decent, and fewer students straight from undergrad.

175: Definitely do Michigan. Better nationwide network, comparable education (especially with the discount!). Look at the prestige numbers, I can't for the life of me understand why NYU is ranked higher than Michigan. It's a new law school and the only thing it's got going over Michigan is its location.

Trust me, you'll have a better quality of life at Michigan. I hear that NYU students also are pretty cool but in Ann Arbor you'll be able to afford doing the things you love (the city is built to entertain students).

I wish I'd had gotten into Texas. Austin is the best city in the world.

162 - Times change I guess, and maybe the ratio was never that good, it just seemed that way when I went.

Hook 'Em

178,

No one has heard of NYU. Michigan is a more prestigious school.

Didn't Van Zandt defend the rankings recently? (He has that open letter up on the NW website). Sounds like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. I am unimpressed by that kind of mishmash.

150 cleverly disguised his criticism of his lame Chicago classmates by refraining from using numbers and terms like "adverse selection" and "transaction costs."

175: Definitely do Michigan. Better nationwide network, comparable education (especially with the discount!). Look at the prestige numbers, I can't for the life of me understand why NYU is ranked higher than Michigan. It's a new law school and the only thing it's got going over Michigan is its location.

Trust me, you'll have a better quality of life at Michigan. I hear that NYU students also are pretty cool but in Ann Arbor you'll be able to afford doing the things you love (the city is built to entertain students).

I guess I was one of those few people who passed on Harvard. I was going back and forth between Columbia and Chicago and suddenly got off the wait list. Financial Aid was basically zip. So, I went to Chicago. I'd like to say I'm not the only person who made this sort of decision.

179 - totally right on. WIgmore Follies this year basically delivered this message: DVZ, stop obsessing , students here are happy and love their school, so just stop it.

Was accepted to Columbia (and didn't apply to any of the others in the top 5 since I figured I probably wouldn't really want to go to any of HYS) but went to Michigan because I get a better feeling on the campus and liked the (deserved) reputation of a more laid-back student body that isn't generally as competitive. Throw in that I wanted to work in Chicago when done and that I'd already done the urban campus with no real campus life in undergrad, and Michigan was a perfect fit for me, I definitely made the right choice. Go Blue.

104:
I think things have changed since you went to GULC. The administration here is amazing. The deans are extremely supportive. Because of the size of this place, anonymity is possible -- but it is certainly not encouraged. Also, come on! Class options are almost boundless for 2Ls.

If you didn't like law school at GULC, then I don't think you would like law school anywhere. No problem with that. Just don't hate on GULC.

--very content Georgetown student

Rankings obsession is taboo at the top law schools. Shame on DVZ for breaking this code, it's childish and humiliating.

Anybody wanna meet up in the lobby and have some sex?

Stay classy, Cornell! Yea Big Red!

Go to the cheapest top 50 school you get into. I did not seriously consider any private schools (I include Michigan in the private school category due to cost). I went to a state school, did well, and work in the same Biglaw firm as the Yale, Harvard, etc. "elite."

With in-state tuition + scholarship $, I had no debt as a second year associate.

It is entirely possible, and not that uncommon, to prosper with a T3 or T4 degree.

I had a decent undergraduate gpa (3.5) but didnt do great on the LSAT. I applied to schools way out of my league and got rejected by all of them. The next year, I applied to state schools in the midwest and accepted at a T3 that provided a partial scholarship. I graduated in the top 10%.

I was hired by biglaw as a 3L (ironically, by a firm that rejected me for their summer program). There were 32 associates in my class. Nine and a half years later, 3 of us were left, and only one made partner - me. The other two were Harvard and Cornell grads. I eventually left my old firm and now work at a boutique, where we are prospering from picking off clients from biglaw.

I lived in Ithaca for 15 years. I have many friends who went to law school there (although I did not myself). If all you want is a big city, yes it will suck for you. If you like a cosmopolitan atmosphere, if you enjoy trees, nature, an amazing ratio of physically beautiful people, an unbelievable ratio of great restaurants per capita, and if you actually enjoy four seasons, yes, there is no doubt, Ithaca is a truly great place to live.

C'mon, all of these schools are really top-notch. You can't go wrong with any of them.

In choosing among these schools it really should come down to personal preferences, like where you want to live (and practice, maybe) and where you feel you "fit in."

I chose Northwestern, for example, because I had worked for several years and I appreciated NU's perspective on work experience. In fact, it seemed like nearly 100% of my classmates worked before law school, which meant that the class was a bit older crown than at other schools. Also, since I'm married, I wanted to go to a city where my wife could find meaningful work in her field, and where we could potentially settle down for the long-term. NU was perfect. At Northwestern, I got a truly great education, made a lot of great friends while I was at it, and had more opportunities for employment than I could believe. I also had the chance to live in the middle of Chicago, a big city that is actually relatively affordable for law students.

175: This would be a close call if the offers were equal, but unless you are absolutely certain that you want to be in NYC forever, take the money from Michigan.

137 writes, re Penn's campuses, "one is an small ivy league school in the city of Philly and the other is a mammoth state university in the middle of a cow field." Penn has more than two campuses, idiot, they have campuses all over the state. They teach law at three of them--Carlisle, Philadelphia and State College--and I take it that the U.S. News ranking applies to all three.

I had a great law school experience at UT. Applied selectively in the t14, but a weak undergrad transcript kept me out of the very top schools. Fortunately, my stellar LSAT score got me in-state tuition (best deal going). I got two firm jobs 1L year, and I managed to graduate with very little debt.

I applied myself much more so than in undergrad, but still managed to have a great time in Austin. Come 2L OCI, I had no trouble getting lots of offers from top firms out of state. It is true that if you want to go to a V50 in NYC, DC, or CA you better be in the top 30%, but most of my colleagues on law review had multiple offers. If you were in the top 10% a few years ago, it was no problem getting a job at the very top firms. This may not be true in the current economy, but it really was great for me.

I'm currently finishing a COA clerkship with a great judge. After that I'm starting at a top firm that's yet to defer start dates.

If given the choice, I would go to Texas again over every school other than HYS. But that's just hindsight. If I had gotten into say, NYU, it would have been hard to turn down at the time. Sure, it would have been an extra 100K in debt and there's no guarantee I would have gotten the COA clerkship and the great firm job had I been closer to the middle of the pack there, but the added security of having that name on my resume no matter how I ended up doing in law school would have been too good to pass up. As good as UT is, if you're going to be in the bottom half of the class (or even the middle third in this economy), it might be tough to get a good firm job.

Bottom line for me, it's more of a risk to attend a lower-ranked school, especially in this economy. But at UT (and I imagine other peer schools), you can still reap all the rewards of a great legal education while also getting some nice extras (very little debt, great city in Austin, etc.).

Hope this helps anybody looking to make a choice.

the chicago trolls are mostly alums or people who don't go here.

no one here really cares that we aren't top five. its a great school, and people like me with terrible grades (and no doctored transcript) are still getting jobs.

leiter rankings are a joke. no excuses for that mess. i will say i got into both NYU and Columbia. i think around 60% of us did.

Don't listen to the no-job-having UT basher above. If they would spend more time actually studying and less time watching YouTube (or porn) on their internet account at school, the bandwidth would likely be a non-issue.

Scholarship (in-state + money) at UT was the best choice I've made in a long time. There are tons of things to do in Austin, the weather is amazing, and a majority of the law students are sociable and fun to be around. Couldn't have chosen a better place to go through the hell of law school.

Oh, and heading to a great job in NY and I'm not top 25%. Suck it.

179 and 190 -

That message has been a theme at Wigmore for more than a decade. DVZ nevers seems to understand, or, more precisely, doesn't seem to care, that students are happy with their academic and professional opportunities. He's been obsessed with rankings since he became dean back in 1995, and it is really quite unbecoming.

- Another NU Alum

91:

When it's me, you'll know. That was not anywhere near my standards.

SELF AFFIRMATION, SELF AFFIRMATION, SELF AFFIRMATION!!!!!!

While the merits of the supposed obsession NU's Dean may have with the USNWR rankings are legitimately debatable, he does deserve credit for over a decade ago beginning to implement a shrewd strategic plan for the law school that is yielding excellent results for the school in ways that are not directly measured by the rankings. The school is achieving a level of sophistication with its management techniques that should be (and is becoming) appreciated by national law firms and their sophisticated clients. I am not aware of any other law school that has been using a strategic planning and implementation process so successfully. Fans of organization development theory should be paying attention to NUSL.

Three of the best years of my life were spent at Boalt. I met some incredibly cool people (granted, I'm a left-winger and into non-mainstream culture), drank a ton, studied a moderate amount, and graduated top of the class. I got job offers (in CA) that I am pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten if I had gone elsewhere -- either because the schools were not as regarded in CA or because the competition would have been more intense. I simply loved it. Having said that, all of this suggests a certain lack of academic rigor, so perhaps it is overrated at #6.

UVA--because it's the Coolest Law School. Like, Duh.

For me, it was a big choice between NYU and UVA. I decided on UVa, mostly (although maybe I shouldn't publicly admit this) because among their promotional materials was a comic sheet comparing professors with similar-looking cartoon characters/ inanimate objects. It actually made me laugh, and I figured any school that made fun of its professors in its promotional material was probably not a miserable place to spend 3 years.

And it hasn't been. I have had 3 really wonderful years here, and even though I am graduating into a terrible economy, I feel like my alumni network is rock solid. Even a non-schmoozer like me could probably at least score an interview almost anywhere just based on alumni connections. I really loved being here, and I absolutely plan on making substantial alumni contributions (go UVA!), and I absolutely think that anyone else who hated their law school experience elsewhere (cough... Cornell!) should donate to UVa. We can stand up for a pleasurable learning experience across the board!

I got into 3/5 of the top five (albeit the lower 3)...and yet got rejected by UCLA, and waitlisted at Duke and Berkeley....f-you lower ranking schools!

UT is awesome. I chose it over Northwestern because it was a 100K cheaper and have not regretted my decision at all. I think UT is awesome because it provides the perfect blend of competent, socially capable, and non-pretentious students in the country. Most UT students were accepted into Top 10 schools but chose Texas because it was substantially cheaper. The student body is composed of intelligent individuals who do not feel the need to step on each others toes to succeed. It’s an extremely collegial environment that allows for a phenomenal law school experience. The Dean does an exceptional job of cultivating the familial tone. Just last semester, Dean Sager instituted an on-campus Thanksgiving celebration so students who choose to not go home would not be void of a family to spend the holiday with. Additionally, the Student Dean's office is extremely helpful whenever you have any needs as a student. During my first semester of law school I was hospitalized twice a month before finals, and the school was absolutely remarkable in ensuring that all my medical needs were taken care of. Furthermore, as a result of having hand surgery and having an inoperable hand, the school made sure that I had the assistance of a transcriber for my finals and allocated a particularized finals examination schedule that ensured that I was not at a disadvantage as a result of being hospitalized during the semester.

I do not think user #55 was fair in her assessment of UT. Firstly, #55 severely ignored the non-law school on-campus study alternatives that are available to students. Additionally, the reason the library does not have 24 hour service is because a large percentage of the student body resorts to off-campus study alternatives. The library is massive, and its rather nonsensical to have it remain open at all times when literally only a few students use it as a study haven. As alluded to above, Austin has an abundance of 24 hour coffee shops located in the vicinity of the law school, so many students utilize those to study. Secondly, the library faculty and Dean have constantly enabled students to express their dismay with, amongst other things, library hours through end of the semester holistic campus evaluations. Obviously, not enough students agree with user #55's sentiments, else the hours would have changed.

Regarding the internet usage, once again the school has been extremely forthright in reaching out to students and availing them of a platform to express their dismay. Just last week a student survey was conducted, and in each instance in which students have expressed dissatisfaction, the law school has been extremely proactive in resolving the inadequacies. As of today, the school is taking efforts to increase the wireless allocation for students. Furthermore, there is a plethora of computers on campus that provide students with viable internet alternatives.

I think its unrealistic to assume that any school will be without faults. UT has faults, all schools do. I think the only thing a school can do is to openly maintain a line of communication with students and allow them to express their voices on areas of dissatisfaction. UT does that exceptionally. As a student, it is refreshing to attend an academic institution that provides me with a microphone to vocalize my opinion on various matters that affect my law school experience.

If you desire a law school experience that is intellectually challenging, socially stimulating, and extremely collegial, I’d strongly recommend UT.

UVA rules

Can't really bash any of these schools . . . waitlisted at CLS, pretty much ended up with entry to 7 -14 (didn't look at Chi, which was 4 when I applied). CLS waitlist was fool's gold in my opinion and I received money from UVa, Duke, NU, UCLA, et al .

Chose UVa and it turned out to be a great experience. In hindsight, I would have applied to the troika (and would have been rejected) and UVa. Anyway, to all those looking for schools, see where you will fit in the best, because if you are an outsider, it can be a long 3 years.

Also, as mentioned, if its between say NYU (sticker) and MVPB (with cash), I think you have to seriously think about MVPB. Unlike my wahoo brother, I am from the city of dreams and I love it, but its an expensive place to live without any income.

That's a good point. In at Harvard Columbia Chicago and UVA. Out at Vandy, USC, & Wash U. Sometimes the full ride top school decision isn't an option. I had to decide between 80K of debt, 125K of debt and 140K of debt. Chose the 80K.

Went to Cornell Law. Got a solid legal education, in a great environment. I make just as much money as Harvard and Stanford grads. I don't know why there are so many haters.

what does it mean when your balls just won't stop itching?

what does it mean when your balls just won't stop itching?

After you move to NYC and live in a very expensive and very small box, and then wake up and spend 12 hours a day in another small box, you realize: Ithaca is sweet and Cornell rules.
GO BIG RED!

After you move to NYC and live in a very expensive and very small box, and then wake up and spend 12 hours a day in another small box, you realize: Ithaca is sweet and Cornell rules.
GO BIG RED!

i'm not here to troll for any particular school, but the one striking thing i note about this thread (5-15) which didn't occur in the 1-5 thread, is that a huge number of students here preface their comment with

"I got into NYU and Columbia, or I got into Chicago and Harvard" or something to that effect.

it demonstrates some level of insecurity and a lingering feeling that you should have gone to that better school. you go to a t10 school, it's a great accomplishment, just forget where else you "got in."

also, a word of advice to 0Ls choosing school, nobody would tell you that you should blindly pick the best ranked school you get admitted to, but if you think you're going to spend the rest of your life prefacing where you went to law school with "but i also go into x" then maybe you should just go to "x" school.

also, i have to believe that a lot of these people are lying. not everybody who goes to MVPBGNCD got into HYSCCN.

duke law is on da rise soNNNNN

I chose GULC over Boalt because none of the students at Boalt seemed like the wanted to be in law school, they all hated it. GULC students seemed to actually enjoy their school. I think I made a good choice. Also, I don't know why anyone would apply to Duke/UVA/Michigan/Cornell let alone actually go there. What person in their right mind wants to live in those places?

175.

It depends on what you want to do after graduation. If you want to do public interest, I'm not sure that the difference b/w NYU and Michigan matters much--this is pure speculation. On the other hand, If you want to work at a top law firm I think NYU helps you out more. Do a quick scan of the top ten law firms in the U.S. (vault does annual rankings), go to their websites and search how many lawyers from each of the two schools are working at that firm. The Michigan ppl will say, that it's not fair b/c most of the top ten law firms are based in NYC...but really, you can't operate in a vacuum. If you want a shot at the very top firms, you'll be better served by NYU than by Michigan. My guess is that once you get to the bottom of the top 100 firms, the difference will no longer be as pronounced though.

UVA was a great and easy choice for me
- Beautiful place to go to school,
- Friendly, brilliant, and supportive professors
- Lots of different types of social events and groups (sports, music, theater, academic, religious, political - whatever!)

Basically - -you have to go where it FEELS right for you. And for me - there was no competition.

Everyone considerably underrates the importance of going to school in the region you want to practice. This may sound extreme, but outside of HYS, I think an applicant needs to really consider the best schools in the region/state.

I'm in Texas (the state, not the school) and I was shocked when I found out how hard a Michigan 3L was looking to find a job down here as compared to UT 3Ls.

I chose Berkeley Law over Harvard mainly b/c I don't like Boston and Berkeley has an amazing reputation nationally. It all worked out - got a job at a big law firm, live in the Bay Area (which I love -- SF rocks), and, oh yeah, my debt is 1/4 of what it would have been at a private school (this was before the recent tuition increases).

225: you left open the possibility that what you're writing is "pure speculation" and you're right, and your speculation is wrong. it matters just as greatly where you went to school for prestigious public interest jobs. if you think about the kind of funding and office sizes that PI places have, you'll realize that it's much more difficult to land a good PI job than a good firm job.

I am a GULC grad. Was rejected by Stanford and Berkeley and accepted to Penn, UVA, Chicago, NW, and GULC (and offered a full ride to GW). I chose GULC because I wanted to stay in DC. I don't regret it. A lot of the students were pretty irritating but from my experience visiting other law schools a lot of law students in general are pretty irritating. I got a federal clerkship out of law school and now work for the government (gasp!) where I've gained incredible litigation experience in the three years I've been here.

C'mon, all of these schools are really top-notch. You can't go wrong with any of them.

In choosing among these schools it really should come down to personal preferences, like where you want to live (and practice, maybe) and where you feel you "fit in."

I chose Northwestern, for example, because I had worked for several years and I appreciated NU's perspective on work experience. In fact, it seemed like nearly 100% of my classmates worked before law school, which meant that the class was a bit older crown than at other schools. Also, since I'm married, I wanted to go to a city where my wife could find meaningful work in her field, and where we could potentially settle down for the long-term. NU was perfect. At Northwestern, I got a truly great education, made a lot of great friends while I was at it, and had more opportunities for employment than I could believe. I also had the chance to live in the middle of Chicago, a big city that is actually relatively affordable for law students.

I loved being in DC for law school. Georgetown offers amazing advantages not found elsewhere. THe professors are top notch. There's lots of culture, and if you take the time you learn a lot about government . And there were lots of very cute guys there, form very good schools. Princeton, Harvard, Yale undergrads everywhere. Loved it!

I was accepted at Columbia, NYU, and Penn. Waitlisted at Cornell. Rejected by Harvard. Went to Penn because:

1) I was over 30 and Penn's financial aid guidelines didn't require me to submit my parent's tax returns, as did Columbia and NYU;

2) I was an undergrad in NYC, so I had my NYC experience;

3) Philly has a much lower cost of living;

4) At both Columbia's and NYU's admitted student's receptions, most of the students wanted to talk about Harvard. Penn students seemed less gunnerly.

I loved being in DC for law school. Georgetown offers amazing advantages not found elsewhere. The professors are top notch. There's lots of culture, and if you take the time you learn a lot about government . And there were lots of very cute guys there, from very good schools. Princeton, Harvard, Yale undergrads everywhere. Loved it!

#222 - I think those of us who preface our comment with "I had higher ranked choice(s) that I decided against" aren't expressing regret. At least, I wasn't. People sometimes choose to attend the highest-ranked school they got into, and usually no one asks them to justify that choice. "UVa? But you could have gone to SUNY Buffalo!?" Or "Harvard? But you could have gone to Cornell?" ... I just don't hear too much of that. Showing that we made choices 'against' the rankings shows a real belief in the quality of the choice we made.

55 - I think you'll find that UT's law library has comparable hours to most of the other T-15 law libraries. 24-hour access seems to be more the exception than the rule.

#222 - I think those of us who preface our comment with "I had higher ranked choice(s) that I decided against" aren't expressing regret. At least, I wasn't. People sometimes choose to attend the highest-ranked school they got into, and usually no one asks them to justify that choice. "UVa? But you could have gone to SUNY Buffalo!?" Or "Harvard? But you could have gone to Cornell?" ... I just don't hear too much of that. Showing that we made choices 'against' the rankings shows a real belief in the quality of the choice we made.

You can't beat GULC for its access to everything DC has to offer. VP Biden was on campus on Wednesday, Scalia visited a Con. Law class on Tuesday, and there is a bunch of Secret Service on campus right now. Alito judged the Moot Court competition the other week and Obama spoke on Main Campus last week. No other law school can compete with that!

i got into blahblahblahblah but i went to [insert moderately prestigious school]

i loved it here! the people at blahblahblah were so stuffy! life is awesome here, we're so much more laid back/i hated NYC and i still got a job at [insert moderately prestigious job opportunity].

rinse. repeat.

222, it's because the post specifically asks "If you got into the top five, but chose a school from this bunch instead, tell us why in the comments."

Most of us wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise, because it really doesn't matter.

217, no one is actually hating on Cornell Law School here (at least not yet). People are hating on Ithaca, which is fair IMO, as it's not for everyone.

229 w/ re to 175

You may have misunderstood my point. My point wasn't that prestige doesn't matter as much for PI as is it does for BIGLaw. In fact, as you correctly point out, it sometimes is harder to get PI jobs. The part that I'm unsure about is whether in PI circles there is large prestige difference b/w NYU and Michigan. I was, however, suggesting that the prestige difference was fairly evident in BIGLaw.

I'm not sure that's there is an easy way to figure out whether there is a similar prestige difference in PI...which is why I said, I was speculating. I was just taking the more conservative approach to answer his/her question as candidly as possible. If you could provide 175 with a similar approach to the one I told her/him to take with BIGLaw--in terms of pointing them to a way to get more data on PI--I think that would be useful to him/her.

242: from what i've seen, i think the prestige whoring might be actually greater in PI than it is in biglaw.

Got into Columbia, Chicago, Duke, UT and Georgetown. Got waitlisted at Harvard. Wasn't rejected anywhere. Went to UVa because the people were nicer and the weather was better. Haven't ever regretted it.

55 - UT's law library has comparable hours to the rest of the T-15 libraries. 24-hours is more the exception than the rule. Also, there are plenty of benefits of NOT having a 24-hour library. Whine about something else.

Just to clarify...I meant the prestige difference b/w NYU and Michigan (not b/w PI and biglaw), since that's what 175's question was about. So when I said..."I'm not sure that there's an easy way to figure out whether there is a similar prestige difference in PI [insert: b/w NYU and Michigan]"...I meant as compared to the prestige difference b/w NYU and Michigan in biglaw.

-242

244: you forgot the part about how you still found a great job. otherwise, nice use of the template.

Didn't apply to top 5, because I believed it was too much of a stretch.

I applied to all of 6 - 15 with the exception of the California public schools.

I ended up having to chose between Duke, Cornell, GULC and UT.

I chose UT because I am a native Texan who wants to work in Texas and the differences in the other schools and UT did not justify paying twice as much as I'd pay at UT.

Unfortunately, I didn't know that the legal structure would crumble within the few short years I'd be in law school

Had I a crystal ball, I'd have enrolled at Duke.

I went to UT Law. It's a great school and deserving of the ranking.

Ended up at a V50 firm in NYC. Surprised that Fordham isn't in the top 25 or so. I know it's a comment for a later posting..but i hear Fordham is doing a lot of renovations at the school. might be on the way up up up up

244, you also forgot to include that you went to UVA because you knew you wouldn't be able to cut it at Columbia.

Re: 227

Going to a strong national school means what is says. You will do as well, if not better, than the strongest regional schools. Every Michigan 2L that I know who was interested in Texas got a Big Law summer gig. No offense, but I'm not sure I can say the same for Texas 2Ls.

246: fair enough. i have no idea what the "restigious" difference between NYU and Michigan is. But personally, if I were hiring somebody, which I might be in a position to do in about a year or two, I would consider no difference between an NYU student and a Michigan student.

Ditto 248 in every detail. Went to UT law over Duke and GULC because I'm from here, I plan to stay here and its a great deal. If you are from Texas and want to work in Texas or the southwest you'd be crazy to go anywhere but UT.

This story is blatantly trying to stir-up a debate. Above the Law is becoming what U.S. News already is- a second rate source of news.

I'll spare everyone from having to read all the comments by summarizing:

(1) Berkley hippy refrences
(2) Chicago is in decline v. Chicago is better than Berkley/NYU/Stanford
(3) Bad Penn = Penn State Joke
(4) Bad GULC pun
(5) Throw in a "TTT"
(6) UCLA/Texas will be next T14
(7) Cornell suck
(8) blah blah blah

222,

215 here. I concur and, if I didn't make it clear, I don't think I ever got off that waitlist, as I didn't hear back from them before the start of 1L year. I am sure that some people made it into 1-6, and went 7-12. I applied to only CLS and didn't get in. went to UVa and loved it. Knowing myself, if I had CLS at full price, I would have went, probably ended up in big law NYC instead of big law DC and probably would be out on the street.

All that is to say be happy with where you got in, not everyone can go to Harvard and not a school like Duke or GULC or UCLA is a huge accomplishment.

I have nothing to add to this thread except to say that I would easily pick any of these schools, including UCLA, Texas, and Georgetown over Cornell. I wonder what kind of person chooses to go there if they have any other reasonable options?

The only law school you won't want to leave after 3 years: UVA

Looks like it's time for some performance-related layoffs in the dean's office at Northwestern.

222,

215 here. I concur and, if I didn't make it clear, I don't think I ever got off that waitlist, as I didn't hear back from them before the start of 1L year. I am sure that some people made it into 1-6, and went 7-12. I applied to only CLS and didn't get in. went to UVa and loved it. Knowing myself, if I had CLS at full price, I would have went, probably ended up in big law NYC instead of big law DC and probably would be out on the street.

All that is to say be happy with where you got in, not everyone can go to Harvard and not a school like Duke or GULC or UCLA is a huge accomplishment.

237 makes a great point though, for the sake of this discussion, especially ITE, its probably fair to say that living in Durham or C'ville or Ann Arbor or even Chicago is, perhaps, the smarter play than NYC or Boston, especially if the lower school throws money at you.

Again to all those looking at schools: I think you have to rank schools by tiers and where you want to practice but once you have your list, please include money into your selection calculus.

Is there a difference between Harvard (sticker) and GULC (sticker), hell yes, even if its just reputation. However when you compare a CLS at full price with a Michigan at 60% off, with the intention of practicing in say DC, that calculation becomes a lot dicier.

"You can't beat GULC for its access to everything DC has to offer. VP Biden was on campus on Wednesday, Scalia visited a Con. Law class on Tuesday, and there is a bunch of Secret Service on campus right now. Alito judged the Moot Court competition the other week and Obama spoke on Main Campus last week. No other law school can compete with that!"

=========================
=========================
I got into Penn, UVA, Duke, Mich (all the places where I didn't want to live), but this is the reason I went to GULC.

That and everyone interns at gov't agencies.

-'07 Grad

Chose Michigan over Columbia and Cornell. No regrets - people are fantastic. Even with a middle of the pack GPA and no journal I got tons of call-backs at our OCI last year and am working for a V20. I seriously second all the comments about the strong Michigan alumni network. Go Blue!

Chose Michigan over Columbia and Cornell. No regrets - people are fantastic. Even with a middle of the pack GPA and no journal I got lots of call-backs at our OCI last year and am working for a V20. I seriously second all the comments about the strong Michigan alumni network. Go Blue!

If you want to work in TX then UT is the obvious choice. However, I think it would be a great choice for a lot of people even if they don't want to stay in Texas.

I am from NY and I have a job there this summer (I got a ton of NY interviews, and I know a lot of other UT students did too.) I also got in-state tuition so I'll be paying less than 60,000 for law school.

Furthermore, all the comments about UT kids being intelligent but easy-going are true and, though it pains me to say this as a NYer, Austin may be the greatest city in the country.

Everyone hates GULC b/c we don't live in hick-towns where there is nothing to do but hang out with other lame law students.

- GULC stud

@ 227 - I know Columbia places even better outside of NYC as it does in NYC, especially in the midwest, the west coast, DC, and internationally. My sense is that UChicago students can work anywhere on the east coast. UVa seems to do well in NYC, and some NYC firms like Duke.

So I think your statement isn't as broad as you make it out to be.

I'm surprised to see so much pro-Cornell buzz around here. I know many people who went to Cornell Law (graduated 2 years ago) who routinely describe it as the worst 3 years of their life... most tried to spend at least a semester off campus. Are all these Cornell fans much older?

262, by "strong Michigan alumni network" do you mean that you got a lot of callback by dropping your pants and bending over a desk?

I'm a UT alum. I got a great job at a stable and prestigious firm. But, I agree with the statement about the UT admin hating its students.

The student body itself is great. I really loved my classmates. I enjoyed my classes. I love Austin.

But, the administration sucks. I saw Dean Sager walking around the law school maybe once the entire time I was a student. The previous dean did a much better job of connecting. The current dean is not friendly or accessible, even if you have a valid concern. The Dean of Student Affairs is absolutely unprofessional. I've heard too many stories about him gossiping with students about other students. One of the students in the class beneath me actually threatened to sue him. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure who the other deans are. They're not very visible.

If you are a wealthy/upper middle class male student, you'll do great at UT. If you're not, tough shit. Enjoy working extra hard for your summer associate position. And I sincerely hope you want to do BigLaw, because you won't be taught how to get any other type of job, nor is there any real loan repayment program at UT should your interest be public interest. Oh, and if you're not white, forget about law review.

I'm just saying...

I chose Duke over Stanford. The place has a great feel, nice people, engaged faculty. I purchased a rising stock, and I'm happy with my decision! :)

I'll echo what a few others here have said about Cornell. It was a great place to study law. Honestly, I almost didn't apply for many of the reasons others use to reject it outright (in Ithaca; doesn't have the same name cache as some other Ivies and other big schools that everyone knows about ). I applied after a lawyer I knew and respected greatly (and who did not go to Cornell) pulled me aside while I was researching schools and told me: don't overlook Cornell; small class sizes, outstanding faculty, great reputation among practitioners; and the campus and Ithaca are better than you think.

He was right. Aside from the qualities he touted, here's what else I liked (and which set Cornell apart a bit from some other comparable schools, at least judging by many of the comments you read here):

-- The dean and the faculty never talk about the rankings, at least not publicly. I was pretty involved at the law school and knew the dean, and I even asked him about it once (after reading about a flare-up at another T14 law school where the dean was throwing a fit because the school had dropped in the rankings. If only ATL was around back then, it would have had a field day with the prospect of a top-tier law school dean having a US News meltdown). He basically said: of course we pay attention to the rankings, but we don't worry about them. We have good faculty, admit good students; we know we'll be fine.
-- Students rarely talk about where else they got in, could have gone, etc. Also very little by way of comparing the "prestige" of where you went to undergrad. It's just uncouth. (It's also notable that in these comments, almost any comment from a Cornell student or alum talks about its qualities and doesn't disparage other schools).

Something the deans and recruiting staff like to talk about at admitted students day is how you can walk into any building, any library, etc., and not have to go through metal detectors and security. At the time, I thought that was quaint and not that imortant. In retrospect, there's something to it. Not having all the stuff that comes with being in a big city takes a lot of the edge off law school. (And I say this as someone who went to undergrad at a big school in a big city).

Finally, a word or two about Ithaca. Not for everyone, not very big. But it is, in fact, a city (not a village) where you can find a good variety of things to do. Good arts offerings, excellent nature/hiking/etc., and much to my surprise, some great restaurants. (To give just a couple examples -- I have yet to find better Thai food in the US than I've had in Ithaca; and Maxie's is better than most cajun-ish places I've tried in NYC).

So that's why I went there, and that's why I'm happy I did. And my studies at Cornell have served me very well in my career.

I know a lot of you ATL readers are either in law school or already out. I read ATL to gain perspective as a prospective student. I need to decide in the next couple of days where to go. I got into a bunch of schools but have it narrowed down to UVa and UMich. UMich gave me $54k while UVa gave me zero, and won't adjust this position.

UVa was long my favorite based on quality of life and happiness but the money is difficult to ignore. I don't care about the difference in rankings. I want to end up on the east coast and am keeping things open in regard to what type of law I want to practice. I want to do something in the context of health, but not necessary health law.

One of my major concerns with UMich is that it's in Michigan, which will continue to be hit hard by the economy even if there's a significant turnaround. Will this diminish the Law School? Also, do they have as good of an east coast network as UVa? How much is the increased quality of life worth between UMich and UVa?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

http://blurblawg.typepad.com/files/helmholtz_rankings.pdf

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2009/04/judge-louis-pollak-speaks-out-on-us-news-rankings.html

http://blurblawg.typepad.com/files/helmholtz_rankings.pdf

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2009/04/judge-louis-pollak-speaks-out-on-us-news-rankings.html

Yeah, my understanding was the article asked why we decided to go where we matriculated. Most people don't simply go to the best school they get into because that school dicks them over on financial aid. (Stanford, I'm looking at you.) Absent having money (which many students in this pile probably do), financial considerations make going to a place like NYU much more difficult. Particularly when you get the same exact package at Columbia. I went uptown for that exact reason.

Also? Dinged at Berkeley, Chicago and UCLA (my alma mater).

Yeah, my understanding was the article asked why we decided to go where we matriculated. Most people don't simply go to the best school they get into because that school dicks them over on financial aid. (Stanford, I'm looking at you.) Absent having money (which many students in this pile probably do), financial considerations make going to a place like NYU much more difficult. Particularly when you get the same exact package at Columbia. I went uptown for that exact reason.

Also? Dinged at Yale, Berkeley, Chicago and UCLA (my alma mater).

Chose Chicago over Yale, Harvard, NYU, and Northwestern. I was influenced by the city, which I continue to love. I liked the smaller class size (e.g., than Harvard), and viewed Chicago as more intellectually diverse than Yale or Harvard--both in students and faculty. I got a good vibe from both NYU and Northwestern. Ultimately, it is was finding the place that felt right.

Yale vs. Chicago proved to be the toughest choice. When I visited Yale, the profs seemed to be talking about ideas coming out of Chicago. So I thought "why not go to the source?" (Little did I know that at Chicago, they would be talking about thought coming out of Yale). And, while it might seem superficial, I preferred Chicago's modern Saarinen building to the gothic revival of Yale--though I must be one of very few who do, and there's plenty of fake gothic on the main campus of UofC.

At Chicago, I was happy to find that the vast majority of my classmates were interesting, humble, and hard-working. The professors challenge each other, and students do too, which means noone can rest on laurels for long. I like that.

I would have been honored to attend any of these schools. But Chicago's now my home, and I'm glad it is.

271 Go to Michigan. Sheesh.

i can't help to think of a post from the first USNWR thread where an exasperated poster said something like you didn't attend any of the other schools, so would any of you know your school is better? how do you know the job prospects are better if you didn't go through their OCI? how do you know people talk about where else they got in at other schools?

i don't say this in a way to disparage any posters or schools, i just mean to say you should consider carefully if you really know what you're talking about when you talk negatively of the other schools. i'm fairly sure aside from city there are no discernible differences between the student bodies of these schools. you're going to find good and bad people everywhere, and you're going to get great job prospects from all of these schools.

I loved being in DC for law school. Georgetown offers amazing advantages not found elsewhere. The professors are top notch. There's lots of culture, and if you take the time you learn a lot about government . And there were lots of very cute guys there, from very good schools. Princeton, Harvard, Yale undergrads everywhere. Loved it!

Financial aid is really the wild card, here. Not the ranking. I got into Harvard with 10K a year and loans to make up the rest. And I ended up taking a full ride (with no GPA minimum) at Michigan. Graduated at the median. Work at with the same Harvard people now.

Full ride in the top ten or whatever tends to be the big trump card (unless you seriously want academia and even then the odds suck).

Penn finished the same in the BCS (8) as it did here. What a coincidence.

272/273:

What do you know? When you (almost) exclusively query intangibles like peer and practitioner prestige, you get an image of law schools as they were a decade or more ago!

I'm unsurprised and unconvinced.

Cornell Rocks!

271...

Why would you even hesitate. The opportunities between UVA and Mich are the exact same.

Go with the scholarship. For goodness sakes.

I too, very much liked GULS. I wasn't even in the top third of my class, but I got hired by a T Big Law firm in NYC. It seems they like GULS graduates as they come out ready to be lawyers. I got seven big offers from which to choose too. I'd say GULS does real well when it comes to getting their grads placed. Plus I got into Columbia,NYU, Penn and Michigan, but choose GULS because I knew I wanted to end up in NYC, so wanted to try something different, but that offered some of what NYC had. Penn and Michigan could not compete with DC. Some of the best meals I've ever had. Top Restaurants. Museums. Nightlife was great. Georgetown is siiick at night. Great town if you like to party after a day of reading 3,000-who cares--but-you-got-to-care--pages. Now with Obama there, I hear DC really rocks.

271-take the money. the schools place the same, and have basically the same opportunities.

Most people who go to Chicago got into NYU and Columbia. They just didn't want to spend three years in NYC.

NYC, DC > all the other trash places,

esp. Austin, Durham

NYC, DC > all the other trash places,

esp. Austin, Durham

NYC, DC > all the other trash places,

esp. Austin, Durham

NYC, DC > all the other trash places,

esp. Austin, Durham

NYC, DC > all the other trash places,

esp. Austin, Durham

266,

The most vocal supporters of anything are going to be the people who love it or the people who hate it. You're just getting different samplings, I'm sure there are Cornell grads who hated it but just aren't posting today.

That said, it's a good school, but if you are accustomed to an urban or metropolitan area, you're in for a shock. I loved my time at Cornell, but Ithaca really isn't for everyone.

NYC, DC > all the other trash places,

esp. Austin, Durham AND CHICAGO

NYC, DC > all the other trash places,

esp. Austin, Durham AND CHICAGO, tool.

271--Go to Michigan. I can't seriously believe you asked this question. The only reason to NOT go to Michigan in these circumstances is if you're deathly allergic to cold. And I use deathly literally here.

NYC, DC > all the other trash places,

esp. Austin, Durham AND CHICAGO, tool.

Cornell '02 Alum. Had almost as good a time there as I did in college. Small class size and being in the middle of nowhere led to many close friendships (and heavy drinking). I still spend a lot of time with many of these friends. From my experience, this seems to be the norm and not the exception for Cornell grads. None of my classmates jumped into a gorge.

266,

The most vocal supporters of anything are going to be the people who love it or the people who hate it. You're just getting different samplings, I'm sure there are Cornell grads who hated it but just aren't posting today.

That said, it's a good school, but if you are accustomed to an urban or metropolitan area, you're in for a shock. I loved my time at Cornell, but Ithaca really isn't for everyone.

268 is ridiculous. Yes, we don't have an LRAP at UT. Yes, there are a bunch of white upper middle class males here. What do you expect? But saying you can't do well unless you're that (really, blind grading...) or that law review is racist, wow.

Sorry that affirmative action didn't get you a job despite your bad grades.

chose NYU over Duke because I went to Duke for undergrad and lovely as Durham is, 4 years was enough. Though I miss the weather so much that there are days I wonder...

287,

'[Most people who go to Chicago got into NYU and Columbia. They just didn't want to spend three years in NYC."

1) Absolute BS
2) Why would anyone rather live in the Chicago ghetto than NYC?

Michigan was great. Ann Arbor is a fun town. And there's football, which will bounce back from last year. Given that nobody in the real world really truly cares about a few spots in the US News rankings, there are worse reasons to choose from among good schools than nice town and good football. Also, a spectacular law quad. Worked for me.

That said, there are lots of good schools and if you're making choices at this level, its hard to make a bad one regardless of what people post here.

Got into NYU, Penn, Berkeley, Michigan, Duke, Cornell, and Georgetown. NYU gave me $30k and Penn gave me $62k. I love NYC and figured I would take NYU over Penn regardless of the money. When I went to admitted student weekend at NYU, I fell in love with the area and was sure I was going to matriculate. Then I actually went inside the school. I could have had a strange experience (though I know others who chose not to attend for similar reasons), but the admissions and financial aid offices made me feel like I was burdening them by being there. The students seemed smart and not that gunnerish in class, but afterwards acting like total tools. I know people have made similar claims about Penn, but that hasn't been my experience. To each his own, I suppose. It just seemed to me that the NYU amounted to a law school version of Mean Girls. Later I found out some students actually maintain a blog where they make fun of people's outfits.

Between the admins, students I met, and cost of the school, I had no trouble deciding to attend Penn, and I'm glad I did.

276,

You chose Chicago over Yale? You are an idiot. You share a degree with people who got a 3.3 GPA and 169 LSAT. Moron.

FYI, don't tell people you chose Chicago over Yale. They'll think you are an idiot.

Chose Loyola Chicago over Yale, Harvard, NYU, and Northwestern. I was influenced by the city, which I continue to love. I liked the smaller class size (e.g., than Harvard), and viewed Loyola Chicago as more intellectually diverse than Yale or Harvard--both in students and faculty. I got a good vibe from both NYU and Northwestern. Ultimately, it is was finding the place that felt right.

Yale vs. Loyola Chicago proved to be the toughest choice. When I visited Yale, the profs seemed to be talking about ideas coming out of Loyola Chicago. So I thought "why not go to the source?" (Little did I know that at Loyola Chicago, they would be talking about thought coming out of Yale). And, while it might seem superficial, I preferred Loyola Chicago's modern Saarinen building to the gothic revival of Yale--though I must be one of very few who do, and there's plenty of fake gothic on the main campus of UofC.

At Loyola Chicago, I was happy to find that the vast majority of my classmates were interesting, humble, and hard-working. The professors challenge each other, and students do too, which means noone can rest on laurels for long. I like that.

I would have been honored to attend any of these schools. But Chicago's now my home, and I'm glad it is.

Penn student here. Turned down CLS/NYU/Chi (because they wouldn't throw $$ my way) and bigger $$ packages at UVA/Mich/Duke/GULC.

I love how people get up in arms about rankings, about whether USNews gets it right about UVA vis-a-vis Northwestern, etc...all that matters is whether or not you're having an enjoyable law school experience, whether or not you're getting a good education, and whether or not you're going to have a good job when you get out. You can do all of these things--depending on your individual taste for things (I don't think I would enjoy UVA or Duke that much, but to each his/her own)--so who cares what USNews is saying this year.

FWIW, I'm very content with my choice, and I think most people here are as well.

305 - You are dead on. I didn't go to either Chicago or Yale, but I can't imagine anyone choosing the former over the latter. Shocking decision. 276 should be embarrassed (though s/he is probably lying).

303 - Michigan football isn't as great as you think. One national championship in the last 60 years, and that wasn't an even outright title. A good team in a weak conference. Minnesota, Clemson, and BYU have won outright titles more recently. Think about that.

It is more than sad to see people who have so much invested in where they went (or go) to law school that they criticize others for their choices among schools that are much more the same than they are different.

If you're considering, visit the school and talk to students and alums. Look at placement and think about where you want to be. Then decide and don't look back.

go to Berkeley, had no trouble getting SA offers from every major NY / DC firm there was. Because there are less people competing in those cities, it is probably easier to stand out. I was only competing against 20 or so of my classmates in DC rather than the hundreds who probably are coming from all the East Coast schools.

Accepted at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, NYU. Decided not to go to law school because it seems boring and stupid. Happy with my decision.

I chose Duke over NYU and Boalt for the weather, basketball, and cheap cost of living. There's something to be said about graduating with less debt and three years of great memories.

Cornell is awful -- small school feel my ass. It's really worth it to pay $50k-$60k to end up with all your second semester classes (sans Lawyering / Legal Writing) be 90 students / 3 sections large. And, the same is true for the popular upper level electives too. There's a reason that so many students there go abroad / away for part of their 3L year -- simply can't stomach that much time in Ithaca.

313 -

Big classes are the best; when I was in law school I just wanted to stay off my professor's radar so I could skip half my classes my last 5 semesters. If you work hard for the first semester and get good grades, you can just take 2.5 years off, unless you're someone who tries to join all these "seminars" and other small class wastes of time.

314 -- Uh, employers are looking at your your first YEAR grades, not just your first SEMESTER grades, so I'm not sure how that would work exactly. Also, there are such things as less / non-Socratic professors. In fact, most profs seem to become much less Socratic in upper level courses -- simply no reason to continue the 1L hazing shtick at that point. And finally, good luck to you if you ever need a recommendation for a clerkship, etc. -- yes, flying under the radar is good sometimes, but you're not making much of your $150k investment if you're always hiding behind the scenes and never interacting with your profs.

Very few, if anyone, would choose Cornell over Yale, Harvard and Stanford. But Yale, Harvard and Stanford aside, you do get a big group of people who disregard rankings and choose Cornell for the same reason that it scares off many: location. Ithaca repels many, but attracts many who choose Cornell over schools ranked higher and equally. And it's a small class, so it doesn't take that many such people to assemble a class of students who are where they want to be. And by the way, if you took the Cornell faculty and Cornell students and put them on a campus in NYC, you'd have a school ranked at 4-6. Not the case for many of the top 20.

This whole article is fucknuts. Someone on ATL clearly has an issue with either/both Chicago or Boalt. No one outside of this website considers there to be a 'Top 5'--it has always been 'Top 6' and, historically, the top 6 have been: Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, NYU.

The entire article reads like a subtle flame designed to get Chicago students riled up / panties in a bunch. Look, love it or hate it, but the legal world recognizes a t6 and this article looks like it's coming from left field by not acknowledging that.

I am awesome.
I chose (insert school) because (insert rationale).
Accordingly, (insert school) is awesomely awesome and, because I chose to attend (insert school), I am even more awesomely awesome.
If that isn't enough to convince you here are a few more reasons why (insert school) is awesome and I am awesome because I chose (insert awesome school).
OMG! We fucking get it! But we don't fucking care!
My advice to all 0L's: when choosing a school (or making any choice in law), if you ask someone for advice, start by assuming that everything they have to say is complete bull shit and is designed with the sole purpose of justifying their own decision.
If, and only if, the person is willing to acknowledge that their choice was wrong, then you should listen attentively as the person should now have some credibility.
But, 99.9% of the time (as evidenced by the comments here), every aspect of every piece of advice you hear will be geared toward demonstrating how "awesome" the advice giver is.
And that, my friend, is douche-some, not awesome!

316: Wow, so now it's YHS, Cornell?!? And total flame on the hypothetical Cornell in NYC being T6. Remember, its latest 25-75 numbers are 3.24-3.84 and 166-168. I like to make fun of Georgetown as much as anyone, but even GULC beats Cornell with its sad part-time numbers computed in and all. For Cornell's 25th GPA number, you have to go as low as WUSTL at 19 and Minnesota at 20 to find another school with such a weak lower end. No other school in the top 18 has lower than a 3.4 -- that's pretty sad for Cornell to be such a far outlier.

I think the more proper hypo would be that if Cornell weren't Ivy, it would easily be in the 15-20 range with UCLA, UT, Vanderbilt, USC, and WUSTL.

Actually, UT does have an LRAP program. http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/publicinterest/lrap/

hth.

316, alleging that Cornell would be a 4-6 school if given a different locale is preposterous, especially saying that no other school would benefit from a move in location. I don't think I need to explain any further on this point.

Though I guess it fits, assuming you're a Cornell student/graduate, that you'd have a skewed perspective on everything...

227 - Texans don't like yankees (with the possible exception of the foriegners who reside in Austin). If the Michigan 3L was originally a Texan, he/she would not have such a hard time.

In any case, I choseThomas Jefferson Law School over Yale, Harvard, and Stanford because it was free and I like to surf.

While its true that UChicago is located in the ghetto, or more aptly a tiny affluent oasis in the middle of the ghetto, most students don't live there. Everyone lives up north in the City.

i think it's insane how a good number of people here claim they went to the ASW of a certain school and because he/she met a group of douchey (bashing other schools, talking about higher or lower ranking schools, talking about ivy, or whatever) students so he/she decided not to go there and instead picked a lower rank school.

Money and city are legitimate reasons, but I find it absolutely amazing that you people can make a huge life decision on your interactions with a few students at a weekend that is clearly not representative of what it's going to be like going to school there. Look, between MVP there's not much difference, but there is a significant difference between Duke and CCN. This is a difference that will help or hurt you for the next 50 years every time you apply for a job. There are 400-500+ kids at some of these schools, you're going to find people you like everywhere. Plus, you should understand that the gunners come out at ASW. The laid back admits and current students don't even attend.

I also find it amazing how everyone here can be so certain that the student body at the school they currently attend is either the most laidback or fun, or are the people with whom they would have fit in best. How can you possibly know this when you didn't end up attending the other schools? The most you know is that you're happy and have a good job, but you can't say you wouldn't be happier or have a better job at another school.

The worst example of this is the kid who went to GULC and works at a v20 and is thankful for his choice because he now works with H kids. Why are you assuming that if you went to H you would have finished in the same place as those kids? You seem to at least somewhat about vault ranking since you're touting the "v20", so maybe you would have been at a v5.

I'm not sure why I wrote so much, but poor reasoning gets to me.

MUST a GW student now have patiently to wait through the next presumed cycle (16-25) until we get to the 26-35 schools???

Oh, how far we have fallen, so so far...

*sobbing GW student*

Boalt-loving Boaltie here.

The original post asked us to explain why we chose our school over higher-ranked schools, but it looks like a lot of commenters find acceptance bragging obnoxious. Fair enough. But remembering how hard a time I had deciding where to go, for any 0Ls still reading:

If you got into either Yale or Stanford, not knowing anything about you, my guess is that you should go there. I don't know of any Boalties who had offers from either school; I suspect there are zero who had offers from YLS, and though there are probably a fair number who had offers from SLS, it's definitely rare.

It isn't rare to choose Boalt over any other school in America. If neither YLS nor SLS is an option for you, you should at least seriously consider whether Boalt would be the best fit for you, particularly if (i) you're interested in IP, (ii) you'd like to work on the West Coast, or (iii) you prioritize either good weather or nice, pleasant classmates.

I think Boalt was the right choice for me. However, one of my best friends went to UVA and is just as big a fan of it as I am of Boalt. And come to think of it I have friends here at school who are really big on Posner and don't mind cold weather: they like it here, but they might well have been happier at Chicago. I don't know. As many other commenters have said, it's really about the fit between you and the school more than anything else.

Hope this is helpful and best of luck with your decision.

This thread is overrun with UVA DOUCHEBAGS! Especially the douchebag who actually said that UVA had excellent football. How much of a clueless law school douchebag do you have to be to actually believe that?

I got into UVA law and told them to suck it!

lol @ UT's LRAP program.

P.S. People like #300 are why you couldn't have paid me to attend. And I mean that literally. Scholarship offer rejected.

Props for 326 not being obnoxious / trying to justify why his/her school is better than higher ranked ones, listing all the higher ranked schools that s/he could have gone to but passed up, etc. Short of individualized family stuff (spouse in NYC, the west coast, wherever), excuses don't really get you anywhere and nor does bragging.

USNews might not be perfect but it offers a decent enough idea of how the schools rank compared to each other. Nitpicking between two closely ranked schools (ex, Cornell/Georgetown, Michigan/UVA/Penn, Columbia/NYU) is fine, but really, don't go to a much lower ranked school just because, for example, you got a good feel about it at ASW (which are totally contrived anyway). For 95% of people, the higher-ranked school should be the slam dunk, no doubt about it answer.

Went to Berkeley (Boalt) 23 years ago. Turned down Ivies and GULC to go there. At the time the tuition was about $1500. Read for civ pro outside in 65 degree weather in February. Some friends spent their third year at Harvard at Berkeley tuition (Berkeley and Harvard had and still have an exchange program). Split summer between NY and SF firms and had many job offers (not in top 10% of class). Best thing about Berkeley was it provided the same employment opportunities as Harvard or Yale without the East Coast snobby attitude. Now some advice: if you have T14 options choose the school with the best financial package for you. When I interview a student from Harvard, Yale, Virginia, Chicago, Penn or Berkeley , etc-- it's all the same, they are all good schools -- there is a presumption you're bright so it's yours to blow in the interview or to nail it with a winning personality and great answers. Try and graduate with as little debt as you can if you have multiple T14 options.

Went to Berkeley (Boalt) 23 years ago. Turned down Ivies and GULC to go there. At the time the tuition was about $1500. Read for civ pro outside in 65 degree weather in February. Some friends spent their third year at Harvard at Berkeley tuition (Berkeley and Harvard had and still have an exchange program). Split summer between NY and SF firms and had many job offers (not in top 10% of class). Best thing about Berkeley was it provided the same employment opportunities as Harvard or Yale without the East Coast snobby attitude. Now some advice: if you have T14 options choose the school with the best financial package for you. When I interview a student from Harvard, Yale, Virginia, Chicago, Penn or Berkeley , etc-- it's all the same, they are all good schools -- there is a presumption you're bright so it's yours to blow in the interview or to nail it with a winning personality and great answers. Try and graduate with as little debt as you can if you have multiple T14 options.

Went to Berkeley (Boalt) 23 years ago. Turned down Ivies and GULC to go there. At the time the tuition was about $1500. Read for civ pro outside in 65 degree weather in February. Some friends spent their third year at Harvard at Berkeley tuition (Berkeley and Harvard had and still have an exchange program). Split summer between NY and SF firms and had many job offers (not in top 10% of class). Best thing about Berkeley was it provided the same employment opportunities as Harvard or Yale without the East Coast snobby attitude. Now some advice: if you have T14 options choose the school with the best financial package for you. When I interview a student from Harvard, Yale, Virginia, Chicago, Penn or Berkeley , etc-- it's all the same, they are all good schools -- there is a presumption you're bright so it's yours to blow in the interview or to nail it with a winning personality and great answers. Try and graduate with as little debt as you can if you have multiple T14 options.

These postings are racist

These postings are clearly racist

i want to kill myself. i have no job and will be in so much debt. i can't handle it.

Better idea-if you can get into one of these schools you are smart enough to get a real job.

UCLA and UT are regional schools.

seconded, this should have been t-14 only.

it's t-14 for a reason.

55 is basically drunk and cherrypicking a couple of minor annoyances, then expecting a chorus of nodding compatriots to show up and agree. It shouldn't be any surprise that this hasn't happened - the UT experience is pretty satisfying for the vast majority of students.

337 -- UCLA will probably pass or match GULC & Cornell w/i the next five yrs. (GULC for sure)

175 -

20 years ago, I would have told you to do Michigan, but there is a difference. Much of one? Not that *much*, but the idea that Michigan is even or actually ahead of NYU in this area is a few decades out of date.

A firm will go deeper into a class at NYU than they will at Michigan and if that's $30k over three years (as opposed to per year), I'm not sure that's enough to give up more of a safety net.

To be clear, if you're near the bottom at NYU, you're going to have problems just as you will at Michigan--you don't get a full safety net, but you get more of one and you need to ask, if you're tossing even a little bit of it away, what you get in return.

If you don't get a summer associate position (and at both schools there will be students who won't--anybody who says otherwise is BS'ing you) that has the potential to do a lot more to you than $30k will cover.

134 here. 316, I hate to side against another Cornell grad, but the others are right. It's crazy to think that Cornell's ranking would magically go up if it was relocated. I enjoyed my time at Cornell, but I fail to see how it would suddenly become more prestigious by relocating it.

Contrary to what you might think from reading these comments, being ranked 13 is actually pretty good. Heck, being on this list is pretty good, and you're in good shape (relatively speaking and disregarding the economy) if you're at any of these schools. There's no need to justify your school's rank to yourself by artificially inflating it.

Texas students have the highest fun/debt ratio of all schools. The professors are world-class. The opportunities are world-class. Whoever said that Sager is unapproachable and hidden away is dead wrong. I don't know a single student who has spent any interval of time not shorter than two days without seeing his Gabe Kaplan-lookin' ass at least once somewhere.

I don't know about UCLA, but I'm certain that GULC's spot is product of the rankings gods' pity. UCLA and Texas continue to surge in awesome while GULC flounders. However, they would not dare rank them lower for fear of instigating a shitstorm.

0Ls, know this. You're not only paying money for law school, you're also paying time. And the places you choose to live will make lasting impressions on your lifestyle and personal philosophy. Now, you could live in a place that fuels the motivational fires of what I'll call the "high-functioning, overcommitted" demographic (you know, the kind of people who push themselves really hard to get bigger, better highs of approval (generally of the sort that has motivated them their entire lives: teachers, professors, father figures, people they're told they should impress). A place like DC is rife with these types. People who live in DC because they want to live life like they're on The West Wing and fight one another for this internship or that fellowship in a quest to assemble the prettiest resume so that they can fight in the next round of "whose resume is the prettiest" and win more important-sounding jobs with more responsibilities and get more approval from more important-sounding people. And maybe, just maybe, they can do things that have to do with the committee that tries, but usually fails, at setting the agenda for some other committee that tries, and almost never succeeds, in affecting a fraction of the social change you desire in a fraction the sphere if influence you desire for a fraction of the time you'd want it to be affected. And even then, you really don't care about "social change," you are always in it for the approval -- the opportunity to be bragged about in banal phone conversations among family members and your fiancee's parents. That's what DC is.

Austin, on the other hand, is not without its personality flaws. It's a clusterfuck of creative self-promotion. There's always some indie band whose show you missed. There's always some Tex Mex joint whose migas are better. There's always some local political campaign whose party you're not at and some petition you needed to sign to prevent X from building Y within Z feet of Q and now R people will lose S dollars and close T businesses and Austin is now just V years away from becoming Dallas, and Keep Austin weird we must. But, there is also a serious dearth of unhappy, overworked people here. Considering that the legal profession is, almost by definition, composed of the unhappy and overworked, it may be worth your while to live in a place that puts all of that in its proper perspective.

It may be the difference between you having a nervous breakdown two years into practicing law and you having a well-thought-out career strategy that takes seriously the need for a proper work-life balance and does not so mechanically substitute approval or recognition for happiness and well-being.

Hook 'Em

305, 308 My good friend made this choice. Her husband was doing his residency in Chicago and they basically had to match the law school. It happens. Usually 10-20 people in the class chose Chicago or Northwestern because they had to be here in Chicago. Despite what most people think, it's not a barren tundra ruled by gangs. Sheesh. I left New York for that reason.

Signed Northwestern Alum whose wife worked at Leo Burnett.

305, 308 My good friend made this choice. Her husband was doing his residency in Chicago and they basically had to match the law school. She went to U of C and they lived in our building in Wicker Park. It happens. Usually 10-20 people in the class chose Chicago or Northwestern because they had to be here in Chicago. Despite what most people think, it's not a barren tundra ruled by gangs. Sheesh. I left New York for that reason.

Signed Northwestern Alum whose wife worked at Leo Burnett.

Nice weather, and very nice, friendly people at Boalt -- so I went there and had a memorable time.

I chose a T5 school, but was devastatingly close to going to Boalt. In fact, I even responded "yes" to the tentative questionnaire (it was a two part acceptance when I was applying), before backing out for New York City.

That being said, there are moments where I look back and wonder what may have been. This biggest turn offs for me were the facilities (shallow, I know), public nature of the system knowing I would not have to pay much more for a private degree, and over-liberal aura. Now that I have the benefit of hindsight, those things probably wouldn't make a difference for me at all anymore, and some of them apply where I am now. I love where I go to law school, but man was Boalt a close one.

As far as admission, know that it is exceedingly difficult to get into Boalt. I was truly surprised by how many people at my law school told me they were rejected by Boalt, though the school I attend appears to have higher admissions standards from a numbers standpoint. From the general reputation of it amongst students at my law school, it enjoys a very good peer reputation amongst law students (not sure if this matters to you or not).

Go visit, remember buildings/facilities don't matter, and check your gut.

Working at a big firm (V20) and having a close relationship with recruiting attorneys and personnel, I can say this about hiring and the relationship rankings have.

There is definitely truth to the assertion that firms will higher deeper into more highly ranked schools, but there are more "banding" of schools than exact cut differences between spots. For instance, for T6 (not including Boalt, since we don't get many), we'll target top 40-50% (3.3 or above approximately) as a minimum, with exceptions for other factors. YHS might have another extra 10% or so down in the class, but Columbia/Chicago/NYU are interchangeable from our perspective. Move to the next group (Penn/Michigan/UVA/Boalt as it seems), and informally it goes to top 30% (3.4 now, and going up). Northwestern/Duke/Cornell/Georgetown basically are lumped to require top 20% (3.5 and up). Keep in mind these are not set, but the general trend is very clear, and the correlation is very strong. Outside of this, and you have to be top 10% and likely on Law Review or a similar journal/moot.

Why does this matter? It just gives you a small insight into the built in advantage rankings confer. Since New York, the market I am familiar with, is pretty heterogeneous, regional factor is not huge in that if you are one of the T14 schools, we recruit at your school. Knowing the difference in groupings (generally) of schools can make a difference in your BigLaw search (though not definitively) can give you a key to knowing which decisions (between the bands of schools) will effect your chances, and which ones won't as much (schools within the bands).

Note GPA is not dispositive. I have seen Michigan kids with a 3.1 get offers and Harvard kids with 3.5's get shot down. Interviewing and attitude are important. But there is not denying grades play a strong factor, and it is easier to get over the hump at a higher ranked "band."

348: we might work at the same firm. I was always struck by the fact that we go top 1/2 of HYSCCN but top 10% for UCLA. and i was told that the cutoffs aren't a suggestion, they are strict.

that's a huge, huge disparity when the actual difference in student quality is probably noticeable but not nearly so high.

Texans should stay in Texas.

Going to UCLA means you didn't get into Berkeley.

Going to Berkeley means you didn't get into Stanford.

Going to the second- or third-best school is like dating the uglier older sister.

Brutal--and should be avoided at all costs.

Going to UCLA means you didn't get into Berkeley.

Going to Berkeley means you didn't get into Stanford.

Going to the second- or third-best school is like dating the uglier older sister.

Brutal--and should be avoided at all costs.

To Berkeley students/graduates,

How difficult is it to land a V20 job in SF or LA for your summer/post-grad job? Would you have to be top half, top quarter, etc.?

In that vein, how difficult is it to land any other V100 job in the same markets?

I got into both UCLA and USC law. Initially I thought it was a no brainer, but after I visited UCLA and met the tools that were there, I am deciding to go to USC. What a joke UCLA is -- they have their heads so far up their a**; do they really believe the crab they try to sell you re being the best law school in socal?

why is law firm recruiting so damn stupid? You still like law review? Do you idiots even know how useless and stupid law review is? You take a Harvard kid from top 50% and then look only at top 10% for a school ranked (arbitrarily) 25 (or 1% for a school in the 2nd tier, assuming you idiots even look at anyone from there)? Has no one ever told you morons that the higher ranked the school, the easier it is to get a good grade? No wonder your business model is going down the toilet, when given nothing but resumes you aren't even intelligent enough to figure out what the resume really means. You deserve the greedy douchebags you end up with.

Boooya Big Red!!!! Cornell rocks! Well for that matter, ALL these schools probably rock. Sure some people have hated it, but by in large our small class turns into one giant group of friends and colleagues. Very fun, and very social (for a top 10% law school of course)

Also, although we don't place great clerkships, we probably place in top NY law firms as well as any other top law firm. Tons of my friends with only decent grades are at top 10 firms, and nearly everyone i know is at a top 50 if not 25 firm. I think its because most everyone is down to earth and genuine, the type of people clients and senior lawyers want to work with.

BIG RED!!!!! 3L

FWIW, I'm a 2L at CCN and I turned down $50K at MVP for full price. My school has been great, and the opportunities have been as good as billed, but in light of the economy, I regret the extra debt I have taken on. I would do it differently if I was applying this year.

354 - If i knew UCLA was trying to sell its students crab i would have gone there in a heartbeat!!! I F'N LOOOOVE CRAB!!!!!!! King crab, blue crab, crab cakes, hell i love FAKE crab.

If they made crab jellybellys, i'd eat em morning noon and night, and then brush my teeth with crab toothpaste!

355: why would it possibly be easier to do better at higher ranked schools when every school is curved?

higher ranked schools have better students, so it's always going to be harder to finish in the top 10,20,50%.
and schools don't hire by "grade" since every school has a different curve or grading system, they hire by class rank.

geez.

One time in 6th grade science class, I tried to do a presentation where I tried to turn a almost negligent differences in statistical rankings appear to be a big deal.

I got an F.

(insert, but now I'm at Duke comment?)

313, Ithaca clearly isn't for everyone. If you're the type of person who wouldn't enjoy living adjacent to a bird sanctuary, or you're the type of person who feels chipmunks are dangerous disease-ridden rodents, then you certainly would not enjoy living there. I can't speak to your experiences, but all my friends who went there have had very successful careers.

359--"why would it possibly be easier to do better at higher ranked schools when every school is curved?
higher ranked schools have better students, so it's always going to be harder to finish in the top 10,20,50%."

First, you're deluded if you think that someone getting a higher LSAT score suddenly means better student. And same goes for undergrad GPA. Higher ranked schools have, on avg., people who do better on various tests prior to law school, but none of this takes into account other variables in the equation. For example, an organic chemistry undergrad major with a 3.5 GPA vs. a social science undergrad major with a 4.0 GPA. One is a better student than the other? Please do explain the logic. Second, higher ranked schools have curves which are top-heavy for A's. So a higher ranked school might give out 25 A's per 100 students while a low ranked school will give our 5 A's per 100 students--that's the way it actually works. So YES, it IS easier to get a higher GPA at a higher ranked school. This is simply a fact.

"and schools don't hire by "grade" since every school has a different curve or grading system, they hire by class rank."

I assume you mean "firms" don't hire by grade. First off, not all schools rank and GPA's DO matter--in fact schools have guidelines on how you can express GPA on a resume. Second, good job drawing that distinction, except you didn't. If you look just at class rank that doesn't make things any clearer because recruiters don't look at the same rank across the board. You can be in the top 20% at a school that a higher ranked school and in the same 20% at a lower ranked school (and before you start saying that you'd be higher in the class, I dispute that notion, contrary to the popular arrogant belief on this silly board, everyone going to a lower ranked school than T10 is NOT an idiot, that's just what the T10 people like to tell themselves), and because you're at the lower ranked school the recruiters don't look at the top 20%, they look at top 5% only, for example, while at the higher ranked school they WOULD look at you. You're the same student but in one instance they look and in another they don't. I guess that makes sense to you but it sure doesn't to me (and no, being at a lower ranked school doesn't actually provide information about you, such as, you're not good enough to begin with, it's a myth perpetuated by silly rankings like the ones discussed here).

362 here, and before someone makes some inevitable smarmy comment about "jealousy from someone who went to a lower ranked school": I didn't, went to a T10. Know people who didn't. Know how all of these schools work and now being in a big firm, also see how the recruiting often works. It's not jealousy, it's disgust at the utter lack of coherence and logic. Fact that idiot recruiters actually post this drivel in pure daylight on this board only makes their stupidity more obvious.

I think UCLA will climb in the ratings over the next few years. Isn't it the only law school in the top 15 that formed in the last 60 years?

I go to UT, was accepted by more "prestigious" schools, and couldn't be happier. I am in top 30 to 40% GPA and got a T-8 job offer with an NYC firm, even in this economy. My experience interviewing outside of Texas was that firms viewed UT as positive, geographic diversification.

Went to Duke over GULC, UCLA, and Cornell. Waitlisted at Umich, Boalt, and Penn. Chose Duke b/c it had the best reputation among the three for NYC jobs. Overall, I love the school, I hate the city. Also, UVA, no one cares. Stop posting.

I want to really re-emphasize something: Cornellians are almost impossibly nice. It's stupid how open, friendly and accepting people are up here. Everybody's stressed, don't get me wrong, but there's a sense that everybody's in it together.

I feel like I have a sort of strange perspective as a transfer. I got into GULC and Cornell. I picked Cornell mostly because I'd done the DC thing undergrad and was attracted to the smaller size and non-distracting atmosphere. That, and GULC is in a really crap neighborhood.

I know people from my first school who transferred to NYU and Columbia. They get (or got and are no longer getting) treated like trash. I've been nothing short of totally accepted here.

Ithaca does, on a whole, suck. "Pretty"? Whatever, it's boring, a lot of the houses in town are really old and moldy and there's hardly a bar anywhere that doesn't get overwhelmed by undergrads (or worse: IC undergrads). But the people here are amazingly unpretentious while still wielding a level of intelligence totally out of proportion with their amicability. I remain 100% satisfied with this place; graduates, peers, job placement.

... long post. Sorry. Big Red.

I want to really re-emphasize something: Cornellians are almost impossibly nice. It's stupid how open, friendly and accepting people are up here. Everybody's stressed, don't get me wrong, but there's a sense that everybody's in it together.

I feel like I have a sort of strange perspective as a transfer. I got into GULC and Cornell. I picked Cornell mostly because I'd done the DC thing undergrad and was attracted to the smaller size and non-distracting atmosphere. That, and GULC is in a really crap neighborhood.

I know people from my first school who transferred to NYU and Columbia. They get (or got and are no longer getting) treated like trash. I've been nothing short of totally accepted here.

Ithaca does, on a whole, suck. "Pretty"? Whatever, it's boring, a lot of the houses in town are really old and moldy and there's hardly a bar anywhere that doesn't get overwhelmed by undergrads (or worse: IC undergrads). But the people here are amazingly unpretentious while still wielding a level of intelligence totally out of proportion with their amicability. I remain 100% satisfied with this place; graduates, peers, job placement.

... long post. Sorry. Big Red. Woot.

Am I 420th?

--Mike P.

362, 363 -

1. hard science majors, in general, don't apply much to law school.

2. The distinction between a tough major and an easy major getting an easier GPA exists at lower ranked schools as well . . . it's just a case of 3.5 social science vs. 3.0 chemistry instead of 4.0 vs. 3.5. What could happen isn't as important as what on average will happen; lower ranked school has the same dynamic going and higher ranked schools are still going to get the better students.

3. The system described was using a higher class rank as a requirement, not a higher GPA. I won't dispute that some firms don't pay a close enough attention to the curve and can still be wowed by what is otherwise a pretty mediocre transcript at Harvard, and to that extent, they're being idiots.

4. There are thousands of law students applying to firms jobs. There is a finite amount of how many students firms can hire, how many they are capable of interviewing, and how many recruiting trips they can afford. So, say that there isn't that big of a difference? Okay . . . but why take the lessor one?

5. A dirty little secret is that they may not be showing their confidence in top law schools by doing this so much as their lack of confidence in law school grades in general. We were talking about distinctions being arbitrary, right? Law school admissions judged four years of your background, resume, transcript (100s of your tests during your time in college), and the LSAT. Your transcript when applying to firms will consist of 6-8 tests total where complaints along the lines of "I got my best grade in a class I blew off and my worst grade in a class I studied all the time for" have become a lot more common.

THE ONLY RANKINGS THAT MATTER:

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2009/04/a-ranking-using-us-news-data-but-without.html

370, again - #$^ typo: "lesser"

362: you made a stupid argument and got it handed to you. if you can't see it then you probably didn't do too well in law school.

no biglaw firm hires by GPA. why? because not only is every curve different the grading systems are completely incomparable as well. How can you compare a 3.7 from Cornell with a 3.4 from Columbia with a HPHPPH from Boalt with a 172.4 from Chicago? You can't, the only common denominator is class rank, which is why you see posters saying their firm only hires from the top 50% of a class. perhaps some small law firms without a recruiting department hire by gpa, but even then they would be stupid to not look at class rank since the curves and grading systems are so dramatically different.

if you still argue that it's harder to finish higher in the class at a lower ranked school than a higher ranked school, which it seems like you do, then you have serious logical reasoning problems. at worst it should be exactly the same to finish at a certain percentage at both schools, but this isn't true because the difference in student bodies is very real. perhaps not between peer schools like NYU and Columbia or UCLA and USC, but certainly between, let's say, NYU and Fordham.

now you say there's no discernible difference between students who go to higher ranked schools and lower ranked schools. this is an equally stupid argument. there are clear differences in average student quality between schools like H and Brooklyn Law. And if there are differences based on the admission criteria between those schools, then there are differences between closer ranked schools like H and NYU. It's not as pronounced, but it's there. Note that this doesn't mean that all students from H are better than all students from Brooklyn Law, but you can certainly make assumptions based on class rank at both. I do think that firms overvalue better schools, but this doesn't mean the distinction is meaningless.

Also, your hard science point is completely wrong. This might be true if Brooklyn were stocked with Cal Tech and MIT hard science majors, and H was stocked with a bunch of liberal arts majors, but this just isn't true. There are students who got grade inflated 3.8s and landed at H to inflate the median GPA but there are also students at any t2 school who got a 3.5 inflated liberal arts GPA to boost their GPA median as well. The mix is probably the same at both schools.

Finally, sure a difference in a few points in LSAT doesn't make too much of a difference between individual candidates, but 10 or so points makes a significant difference. If the lowest 25% at H gets a 170, and the lowest 25% at some other school gets a 160, then the bottom 25 percentile at H means a lot more than the bottom 25 percentile at the other school. Also, small distinctions in LSAT matter when you average them out over 100s and 1000s of students.

I work with a lot of UVA grads and have never been impressed. Several of them really can't cut it in biglaw. I would never rank that school above schools like Georgetown if I was doing the rankings.

Whether you are in a T5, T14 or even T50, you should not even consider inteviewing with Latham. No job is better than a job with Latham.

I have worked at two V20 biglaw firms and never met a Cornell grad. Are they any good?

The best V10 biglaw attorney I ever worked for went to GULC. I have also worked with talented biglaw attorneys from GW and other non-top 20 schools. Some of the stupidest biglaw attorneys I have worked with went to Columbia. Some of the laziest biglaw attorneys I have worked with went to Harvard. I have also worked with stupid or lazy attorneys from Yale, UVA and Duke. Rankings are meaningless.

@ 355 -- I think you're way off base. It is very shrewd of firms to privilege law review. If I were hiring, I'd give a huge plus to people on law review, because that one resume line tells me:
- The student is willing to spend long hours doing mind-numbing and seemingly pointless work for little apparent incentive. That's exactly what I'm looking for in a junior associate.
- The student knows and has worked closely with other members of the Law Review, and is thus part of a tight-knit network that includes future leaders of the profession.
- I can put "Law Review" on the attorney's bio as a proxy signal to clients that I hire the highest performing law students. I can't really put class rank up there to prove my associate's value to clients.
- In general, the Law Review student probably has better practical legal writing skills than the comparable non-law-review student.

I used to agree with you and think that Law Review doesn't have the value that it used to. But as I've matured a little bit, I've come to realize its value cannot be overstated.

370 - "There are thousands of law students applying to firms jobs. There is a finite amount of how many students firms can hire, how many they are capable of interviewing, and how many recruiting trips they can afford. So, say that there isn't that big of a difference? Okay . . . but why take the lessor one?"

I want to say first that it's pleasant to read posts from someone actually thinking, now I go on...

I think the point above is a good one and applies in all area of life. I mean it's one reason we have grades and scores, to provide us information more easily in a world where we need information and do not have an infinite amount of time to get it. And of course the truth is that none of those quantitative figures are perfect. The problem is that law school ranking has now become one of those quantitative factors, and my argument is essentially that it is the most imperfect one of all of them. Therefore to speak of "lesser" schools is really to have made a judgment about something based on a ranking that has so many assumptions behind it that it is virtually useless. I argue that a firm, which does have a finite amount of time to devote to hiring, but which is trying to get the individual who it believes will be the best attorney is not doing ITSELF (forget the students) any favors by using cut offs like the ones described above by the supposed recruiter. That individual wasn't even talking about tier 1 vs. tier 2, I mean this is actually used to distinguish between top 10 and 10 through 20. Perhaps where you and I disagree is that I truly do not believe that a school which is, say, #9 in the rankings is actually any better than a school that is, say, #31 in the rankings (and I haven't looked this up so I have no clue which schools I chose here). I truly do believe that an individual who is top 30% at one is as equally capable as a top 30% student in another. That's all, perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

373--"you made a stupid argument and got it handed to you. if you can't see it then you probably didn't do too well in law school"

You are like USNWR, making judgments on faulty assumptions and therefore coming up with worthless conclusions.

The only point I will address out of your otherwise silly post is the LSAT one: perhaps when you're all grown up and take a poll of how well successful attorneys did on their LSAT you will see how meaningless that test is at gouging legal ability in the real world (and this is coming from a person who did well on it and would do the logic games just for fun).

378-- "I'd give a huge plus to people on law review, because that one resume line tells me:
- The student is willing to spend long hours doing mind-numbing and seemingly pointless work for little apparent incentive. That's exactly what I'm looking for in a junior associate."

Appreciate the alternative view but I still disagree. As to your point above, yes, it's true, it certainly shows the student is capabale of min-numbing and pointless work so if THAT is what your associates all do and if THAT is what you then believe that you will get rid of such an associate, then yes, please hire someone on law review. Other than huge doc reviews, legal work just isn't like that and the ability to do mind numbing work is not an indicator of legal success.

"- The student knows and has worked closely with other members of the Law Review, and is thus part of a tight-knit network that includes future leaders of the profession."

There are so many assumptions there, I don't think I can address them. 1) the worked closely doesn't have to apply, 2) the assumption that the network exists doesn't have to apply and 3) future leaders of the profession doesn't have to apply. Overall, the issue deals with should a law firm value law review over some other activity, such as, say, pro bono work, or another activity....I would argue all of the assumptions above could apply to other activities equally well.

"- I can put "Law Review" on the attorney's bio as a proxy signal to clients that I hire the highest performing law students. "

At a large chunk os schools it is actually fairly easy to get on law review and most people get in. In some you just have to pass a test on how well you can bluebook. at others they olnly look at one semester of grades, etc. etc. Being on law review is just not an indicator of who is a better performing law student at the end of the three years.

"I can't really put class rank up there to prove my associate's value to clients."

Assuming this stuff is a good indicator of intelligence, etc., firms actually do put with honors, etc. that indicate rank.

"- In general, the Law Review student probably has better practical legal writing skills than the comparable non-law-review student."

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this. Law review members (let's not get into editors here) write a note and check pinpoint citations. That is not an indicator or a reason for better writing.

Overall, thanks for a thoughtful post.

365 = UT CSO troll

380--you're correct

The LSAT is a useless test which is supposed to predict a person's performance on useless law school exams. Professional practice has little to do with either.

Until we can figure out a way for law schools and firms to determine relative quality of applicants, we are stuck with flawed methods which rely on wholly unreliable scores that pass over some highly qualified people to take complete hacks with better "numbers."

Remember the LSAT "score band" that came back with your results? Basically, it means "although we gave you a score of 160, the error rate and variations on this test are so high that you may actually have scored a 164--or a 156"!

Lucky guesses on a couple of questions could mean the difference between attending a "Top 20" or a T4.

@353:

Re V20, not particularly difficult. I don't know the percentages -- you'd have to ask the firms -- but for most of those firms I'd say that what grades get your foot in the door varies between top third and top half.

Re V100, I mean, if your only goal were to get any California job with any V100 firm, again I don't know, but my guess is, like, top three-quarters, if not more. If you applied to every single one and didn't get anything it'd probably be because of personality or a 1L summer working for David Duke or something, not because of grades.

FYI: Berkeley students who want to do "BigLaw" in SF or LA generally don't go by Vault (not because they're too cool for it, but just because it seems inaccurate on the West Coast). To the best of my knowledge there's no list out there that represents the common wisdom among such students, but generally speaking, firms that are headquartered in California seem to be much nearer the top of a lot of students' lists.

Congrats on your offers and good luck with your decision.

Above the Law just shamelessly grouped all these school together to cause a stir.

In any event.

With things getting so tight, IMO it makes which law school to attend an easier decision.

Obviously, there is the 6-10. From here choose what best suits you.

From 11-14. (With bleeding into UCLA/UT) pick what best suits you. Soft factors included, like if you are Texan or a Cali guy. Like Austin, Love D.C. whatever.

UCLA and Texas both are deserving of their rank. Enough to overtake GULC? I don't know, nor does it matter.

@271 - take the money. Student loan debt is awful.

UVA 3L

To any prospective 1L:

Unless you are thinking about attending 1-20, rankings matter VERY LITTLE.

For example, there is VERY LITTLE difference between a "40" ranking and an "80" ranking. Use personal criteria for selecting a school! USNWR is a scam.

1. Where do you want to work? Apply to schools where the weather is nice. Don't end up in Cleveland just because you got in to a "40 something" if you got accepted at a "50 something" in Florida. You will probably work in the same state where you attended law school.
2. If you want a decent shot at getting a six-figure salary after law school, you better get in to a top 10.
3. If you don't get in to a top 10 and want a six-figure salary, you had better be in the top 10% of your 1L class in order to get said job upon graduation.
4. If you are thinking about working for the government, go to the school that offers you the most money, get onto "Podunk Law Review," graduate at the top of your class, have $0 debt, and enjoy your 40 hr/week job!

354 --- Interesting comment. USC Law (and USC generally) has made tremendous strides in the past year. However, the general consensus is that UCLA Law (and UCLA overall) is a better school with higher quality students.

This is true in LA and nationally. I'm confident UCLA Law will continue to rank above USC. Though it would not make a huge difference, your career prospects would likely be better if you went to UCLA.

USC is still viewed by many as being a private school that anyone can get into. The only reason anyone would take USC Law over UCLA Law is if USC offered them much more money --- even then, the long-term tradeoff might not be worth it. Very few people who get into both schools go to USC.

Partner perspective:

(1) Relevant US legal markets are:

NWC

LSS

Others

When picking a LS, consider the relevant markets.

(2) Once, U of C 1Ls had the following professors:

Kagan
Obama
Epstein
Sunstein
Lessig
Posner

At that time U of C was in the "T3" if you will.

The academics moved on, but the former 1Ls are now hiring partners, profs and GCs.

Has U of C gone the way of ND football? Probably not. For better or worse, perception and reality converge and the perception among decisionmakers is still good.

Admittedly, USNWR moves perceptions at the margins, particularly among students and jr. associates. But USNWR isn't hiring (unless you are a "TTT" journalist).

@ 381 - 378 here. Thanks for the response, but I heartily disagree with you. I realize neither of us really has objective data available to settle the different perceptions that underlie our opinions, but I wanted to respond to some of your points.

You said: "Other than huge doc reviews, legal work just isn't like [law review work] and the ability to do mind numbing work is not an indicator of legal success."
My response: All legal work at all levels requires a certain amount of drudgery and attention to details. Clearly, the ability to tolerate long hours and boring work isn't the ONLY skill a lawyer needs, but it is a very very important one. If someone is bright but not willing to work hard or put up with the unrewarding minutiae, they aren't going to be a good lawyer. Law review is a good signal of this one important characteristic that isn't necessarily represented in the ability to cram for an exam and get a good grade or ability to interview.

You said: "At a large chunk of schools it is actually fairly easy to get on law review and most people get in."
My response: At some schools, as many as 10-15% of the student body is on Law Review. That's perhaps a lot, but still a small minority. I have never heard of a school where most people are on Law Review, and I am skeptical that such a school exists. Most schools take grades, writing ability, and bluebook ability into account.

You said: "Being on law review is just not an indicator of who is a better performing law student at the end of the three years."
My response: I don't have statistical grades to back it up, but I am absolutely convinced that students on Law Review are by far disproportionately represented in the top 10% of the class at the end of three years. I know at my school, the academic honors (awarded independently of Law Review membership) almost all went to Law Review members.

You disagreed with my statement that Law Review members are a part of a strong network, stating it is based on assumptions.
My response: I didn't really make any assumptions. Having been on Law Review while I was in law school, I was really shocked and surprised at just how much time members spent together, how many friendships and bonds were formed, and how strong a network of mutual support was created. Law Review alums were single handedly responsible for getting Law Review students top clerkships, letters of recommendation from faculty members, and job offers from selective employers. My school's Law Review maintains an alumni database, so I can assure you that law review alums go on to positions almost exclusively in the top echelons of the legal world. Anecdotes from colleagues on other top law reviews suggest their experience is pretty similar, although I can't speak to that. You're right that other activities may foster strong networks, but I don't think there are many networks as strong as Law Review. Moreover, it's very hard for an employer to use random individual activities as a sifting mechanism. Maybe the XYZ Clinic at ABC is a really prestigious thing with a strong network, but how would I know? Law Review offers some consistency.

You mentioned that firms can and do put honors on bios that indicate class rank. This is true and perhaps offers another signal. But that doesn't mean law review isn't also a strong signal. Moreover, it is often unclear what exactly a ranking means. At some schools, cum laude means you graduated in the bottom half of the class. Law review pretty consistently means you were among the highest performing 20% of your law school class.

You said: "Law review members (let's not get into editors here) write a note and check pinpoint citations. That is not an indicator or a reason for better writing."
My reply: Well, Law Review members often do more than that. But even if you're right that law review members write a note and proofread writing, that is reason to think they might be better than the average law student, who does not write much of anything, doesn't bother to stay fresh on grammar and citation rules, and isn't forced to learn what publishable, quality legal writing is.

I think my problem with your overarching argument is that you say "Well, there are people who aren't on Law Review who would be good attorneys! And I bet there are people on Law Review who would be bad attorneys! So Law Review must be worthless for employment decisions!' But that is a non-sequitur. The same could be said about EVERY thing an employer looks at in its hiring process--grades, interviews, honors/awards, recommendations, etc. There is no "magic bullet" but only useful indicators. Law Review membership is among the best signals available to an employer that a candidate is MORE LIKELY to have some of the skills that make a good lawyer. In making rough cut decisions among thousands of applicants, indicators like that are very useful. I am not saying that employers should hire everyone from Law Review regardless of other indicators, or that employers shouldn't hire outside of Law Review. I'm just saying that it as valuable or more valuable than any other indicator available to them, especially when viewed in conjunction with the other parts of an application.

"373--"you made a stupid argument and got it handed to you. if you can't see it then you probably didn't do too well in law school"

You are like USNWR, making judgments on faulty assumptions and therefore coming up with worthless conclusions.

The only point I will address out of your otherwise silly post is the LSAT one: perhaps when you're all grown up and take a poll of how well successful attorneys did on their LSAT you will see how meaningless that test is at gouging legal ability in the real world (and this is coming from a person who did well on it and would do the logic games just for fun)."

You say this guy is using faulty assumptions and drawing worthless conclusions, but from what I saw he made an detailed critique of your arguments and rather than rebutting any of the points you just said that one sentence to attempt to discredit it all. If you are an actual lawyer, I bet you aren't a very good one.

Your argument that it's easier to finish in the top of a class at a higher ranked school is a terrible one and one that you still haven't backed up.

I think everybody in this thread agrees that the LSAT is an imperfect measuring tool, but GPA is even worse. For better or worse, the LSAT is the only common test that all law students share. Even grades and class rank are difficult to compare because of the different student bodies and schools.

When you get into the real world, high LSAT doesn't = good attorney, but there is some correlation there. Obviously there are other factors involved like the ones we have all been talking about, but look at the people at the top of the profession. Judges, partners, high profile public interest attorneys, U.S. Attorneys, whomever... a lot of them went to T14 schools and got high LSAT scores. Sure there are plenty of non-t14 grads up there as well, but percentage-wise it's not even close.
And of course there are a lot of external factors, but the fact of the matter is that many more of these high LSAT students become accomplished attorneys than the students with low LSAT scores.

I was admitted to Columbia, Chicago, Michigan, Penn, Northwestern, and GULC. I did not apply to HYS or NYU, the former because I had no reasonable chance of admission, and the latter because I hate the Village. I was not admitted to UVA, and did not apply to Duke, Cornell, or Berkeley.

I had to choose between Columbia, Chicago, and Michigan. Being at the time naive about school selection, I allowed considerations of prestige to weigh more heavily in my mind than they should have. I rationalized it in various ways: at the margin, should I perform poorly, my options will be better at CC than M; CC have arguably stronger alumni networks than M; clerkship chances are better at Chicago than anywhere else; etc.

Given that I did not foresee, but probably should have, my standard arc from blustery 0L to unengaged, top third 2L with a one-way ticket to an imploding V30 firm, I chose Chicago. As I would later realize, the choice shouldn't have been about any of the things I mentioned. It should have been about fit.

I really don't like NYC and it's expensive. As between Chicago and Columbia, the "hard" data were on parity, and the "softs" militated in favor of Chicago. Or so I thought. Hyde Park is okay and relatively safe, but the surrounding area is a fucking war zone. (Hyde Park is safe compared to its environs; it is not safe.) I have a hard time believing Morningside Heights would be worse than this. Yes, I can afford to live, but I'm on borrowed time and dimes anyway. I have to wonder whether saving a few thousand dollars is worth it.

Michigan is in beautiful, safe Ann Arbor. I would trade all of the prattle about bilateral monopolies and teh preftige--if Chicago has any of that left--for that.

That said, I've survived so far. Hopefully I'll make it past my third year. If so, the gamble will have paid off.

To those considering Chicago: it's a great school, and most affiliated with the university will say it's less dangerous than one might suspect at first blush. And, really, if you live north of 61st (I don't), things are okay. But they can still be dicey. I'm betting that it's worse than Morningside Heights, from what I've read. Not having lived in both places, I really can't say.

I doubt I'll cost Chicago any cross-admits, but even if I push just one at the margin somewhere else, I had to get it off my chest.

Hyde Park, Washington Park, Woodlawn, and Bronzeville all really suck.

I know 55. She's a miserable person who does nothing but complain. The number of facebook groups she has formed to complain about things is astounding. No one takes her seriously because she's always looking for the next thing to bitch about.

I'm a NYU student and I often wonder what it would have been like if I went to Boalt.

I really wish CA had a better selection of top law schools. Stanford is ridiculously hard to get into, Boalt has the weird GPA fetish, and UCLA doesn't perform as well as T10 schools in recruiting.

UChicago 1L. There's decent support for public interest due to the fact that so many of my classmates go into biglaw. I applied way too late, and only got into Gtown, UChicago, UNC (in-state). My peers are okay, but yes, there are a ton of awkward nerds--but the law students, med students, and business students are probably the most normal at this university. I like the quarter system and learning from some of the most important legal minds out there, but feel like a lot of my classmates are pretentious theory-obsessed libertarians. They are, though, incredibly brilliant, and I learn a lot from them, and the fact that they're pretentious might have more to do with the fact that they're law students, not necessarily UChicago law students.

390- I think we're just coming at this from different perspectives. I don't think you quite understood what my initial point was, or I didn't articulate it well enough. My point was not that there are good and bad lawyers doing all sorts of extracurriculars in law school and so we should ignore law review. My point was that membership in a law review is, and having been involved in hiring decisions I see this time and time again, considered to be a BETTER indicator of ability than other extracurriculars (i.e. pro bono, outside legal work, etc.). (Again, we're leaving aside editors, btw). My argument is that it is not a better indicator. Does it indicate certain points? Yes....it indicates, as you pointed out, the desire or ability to do mind numbing, detail oriented work, more practice bluebooking, the ability to write a note (quality of such note not being indicated unless you're published and even then, well let's not get into that...), and there is some connection to overall grades (assuming your school looks at that) from either your first semester or first year. Again, I see nothing in here which outweighs the ability of other activities to reflect those same skills. Writing ability--probably better indicated by moot court where you write and bluebook, with the added bonus that you actually write the type of brief that a litigator would (as opposed to a research piece, as in the case of a note). Outside work experience, depending on what you do, could also show writing ability. Grades are otherwise indicated by, well...grades. I mean if you have law review on your resume you also have a GPA and/or class rank so the law review doesn't add anything to that information. The ability to be detail oriented can be shown in moot court, mock trial, outside work, research for a professor. And all of this doesn't even touch what substantive pro bono activities can show. Ability to do mind numbing work is pretty much the only one that law review tends to reflect better than anything else, in my view. So in the end, I don't think that law review is a BETTER indicator than certain OTHER law school activities of legal ability or skills, yet it is treated as such, and that, I believe, is unfortunate.

As far as netoworking, yes, it can provide that, but many other activities can do the same. This, of course, is more a "what can law review do for me" argument than one that addresses why employers should care about it. I mean if I want to join Group X because it helps me network, that's great, it has little to do with whether employers should then consider Group X to be better than Group Y.

Lastly, the issue of whether law firms should favor law review because clients favor law review. Well, frankly I don't think clients care or even know about law review. A non-attorney client (and I realize lots of clients are in house counsel) has, overall, no clue. In house counsel possibly harbor the same prejudices about law review that law firm recruiters do, but the reality is that in house counsel generally do not hire firms for associates, they hire firms for the senior counsel on the particular transaction/case, at which point I am very skeptical that they care whether their 52 year old lawyer was on law review or not. At that point in time, even IF law review were a good indicator of skills, there are many years of actual legal practice to help in house counsel make decisions.

At any rate, your points are well taken. I think being an editor on law review is a good indicator of certain skills and is actual worthwhile work. I think simply being a member is just not worthwhile in the grand scheme of things (except to the extent firms value it), and the sooner law firms realize that, the soon students will feel free to do other activities without fear of being "penalized" in their careers. I think everyone will be better off then.

Note to those talking about law review:

1) It's meaningless in the real world.

2) If you only make a secondary journal, don't do it at all -- screams of rejection.

Rank
School
Total number of clerks
Recent Class Size (rounded to nearest 25)
Total Number of Clerks Divided by Recent Class Size (rounded to two places) (the higher the number, the better the success rate)
Rank Based on Total 1991-2005 Clerkships

1
Harvard University
83
550
.15
1

2
Yale University
65
200
.33
2

3
University of Chicago
31
200
.16
3

4
Stanford University
23
175
.13
4

5
Columbia University
18
375
.05
5

6
New York University
15
450
.03
8

7
University of Virginia
13
375
.04
7

8
University of California , Berkeley
11
275
.04
9

9
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
9
375
.02
6

10
Northwestern University
6
250
.02
11

11
Georgetown University
5
575
.01
12

Rank by Average of 75th/25th LSAT

Rank
School
Avg. of the 75th/25th
LSAT
Avg. of the 75th/25th GPA
Approx.
Class Size

1
Yale University
173.5
3.870
200

2
Harvard University
172.5
3.850
550

3
Columbia University
171.5
3.685
400

4
New York University
171.0
3.700
450

5 University of Chicago 171.0 3.625 200
6
Stanford University
169.5
3.845
200

7
Georgetown University
169.0
3.630
450

391 quotes another poster who I quoted--"you made a stupid argument and got it handed to you. if you can't see it then you probably didn't do too well in law school"

I said: "You are like USNWR, making judgments on faulty assumptions and therefore coming up with worthless conclusions."

391 says: "You say this guy is using faulty assumptions and drawing worthless conclusions, but from what I saw he made an detailed critique of your arguments and rather than rebutting any of the points you just said that one sentence to attempt to discredit it all. If you are an actual lawyer, I bet you aren't a very good one."

we can argue about what kind of a lawyer I am all day long but you aren't too bright of a bulb yourself. It's a bit odd that you managed to miss the fact that my statement about judgments, assumptions and conclusions dealt with the original poster's conclusion that I didn't do too well in law school (not about his other arguments)...it's particularly odd that you missed this because YOU ACTUALLY QUOTED THE ORIGINAL POSTER SAYING THAT. Duh.

391 says "Your argument that it's easier to finish in the top of a class at a higher ranked school is a terrible one and one that you still haven't backed up."

If you want me to give you studies, no I'm sorry, I don't have those, but it is a fact that lower ranked law schools have curves which make it more difficult to get higher grades than higher ranked law schools. You can simply talk to people about what curves their schools have or look it up online for schools which make this info public. If this fact is insufficient for you, that says little about my argument and much about your reasoning capacity.

And as far as LSATs are concerned, to say that more judges, partners, etc. etc. come from higher ranked schools than don't, then to tie that implicitly to better LSAT performance is stretching it. First off, there are many variables which come into play when talking about why more high profile individuals come from higher ranked schools than lower ranked schools, not the least of which is precisely the fact that these people have the advantage at the beginning of their careers to have come from well-regarded schools. Meaning that employers are biased about schools (b/c of rankings, for ex.), therefore they hire from those schools and then the people they hire can go on more easily to have illustrious careers...that doesn't mean that if someone from a lower ranked school were hired they would NOT have had such an illustrious career. Opportunity matters, Second, while the school one went to might imply the range of the score one received on the LSAT, it says nothing of what that score was or whether that score properly reflected legal ability. There are ranges of scores at all schools and the range is actually fairly large and we just have no clue what score a particular individual had in that range regardless of what school they went to.

Yay, Cornell!

The people hating on Ithaca: yes, it's not for everyone. Yes, it is cold. Yes, it is a small town. But there are those of us who went there and loved it, so don't rain (or snow) on our parade.

And there are lots of reasons to love it: as a small town in upstate New York, Ithaca is beautiful (gorgeous lush falls and lakes in the late spring & summer; beautiful New England falls; winter wonderland). It is also cheap (rent + entertainment probably 1/4 of what you would pay in a big city). And the food (and drinking!) is pretty great. Don't believe me? Believe the NY Times: http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/north-america/united-states/new-york/finger-lakes/ithaca/overview.html

And yes, the school graduates a small group of alums each year. After spending 3 years together in Ithaca, it is usually a pretty close group. And the shared Ithaca/cold experience creates an instant connection with other Cornell alums.

Another good thing: the placement prospects are really good. Take me. I wasn't near the top of my class, but still got great offers from V20 firms in multiple cities.

So, 313, hang in there. 1L year is tough. But I think in another 2.5 years, you'll look around and realize that you're going to miss tromping around Myron Taylor Hall with those other 90 people classmates you see today in G90. You're going to miss walking to Stellas or CTB or Gimme or the Carriage House for coffee and seeing people you know. You're going to miss the apple festival at the Commons, the farmers' market by the water, and running along the gorges. I know I do.

Go Big Red!

Vanderbilt students were pretty convinced that they were going to break into the T14 this year. Whoops...

Vanderbilt thought it could game the rankings by reducing its class size about 20% and handing out huge scholarships. That helped with a few of the USNews metrics (GPA, LSAT, student to faculty ratio, acceptance rate, etc.) but it hasn't improved the school's peer assessment enough to keep moving up the rankings.

The class size reduction might even backfire in the long run now that there will be even fewer Vanderbilt lawyers to spread the Vanderbilt name.

UCLA and Texas have higher name recognition and much bigger networks. In addition, they are in states that matter. If any school supplants GULC, Cornell, etc., it's going to one of those two.

I've always had a secret suspicion that law review is, at best, neutral and very possibly harmful to one's grades/academics/class performance, etc.

An interesting--though probably impossible to conduct--study would compare outcomes for the law review population with that small group that either got onto the law review and rejected the chance or else could have gotten on had they tried. There aren't many, but there are a few. My suspicion is that the relative academic standing of the former group vs. the latter group declines.

This isn't a knock on the kids on law review as much as the system. It takes some of the brightest (or at the very least, hardest working and most intuitively 'legal') kids at the university and more or less turns them into unpaid publisher's assistants.

It's a sick cycle though, because of the idea that law review is an important indicator of one's academic/legal 'pedigree.' Some very weird dynamics (like many other things in the world of law).

Picked Chicago over Columbia and Boalt because I wanted to stay in Chicago. In the Chicago market, I really don't think a Harvard, Stanford or Yale degree will get you more. And I happen to think Chicago is nicer, cheaper and more interesting than New York.

That said, I'm missing Sunstein already and hoping he'll get appointed to the 7th Circuit and come back....

Summary of recent pro-Cornell posts: We're in the middle of nowhere and suffering, but we're in the middle of nowhere and suffering together, so we bond through adversity! Even if this is true, it's good why? Wouldn't it make more sense to go to a law school where the awful location, weather don't inherently make you suffer?

And, I don't really see the point about missing the oversized 1L classes either. You're supposed to look back and reminisce about how even at a small school, you got nickeled and dimed by the administration who stuffed you into courses with half the 1L class? Again, why is this good? Also, on the issue of a strong alumni network, is this really true anywhere but NYC where it seems like 90-95% of Cornell grads end up?

Lastly, wasn't there a recent Princeton Review study where Cornell Law students led in the category of average hours studying per day? This doesn't exactly make the school sound like a place where people are taking it easy and having fun. Instead, the whole pressure cooker, stuck in the middle of nowhere, cutthroat competition with your classmates for the top NYC jobs image comes to mind.

406, you've clearly never eaten at hot truck. or had a martini at maxie's. or gimme coffee. or gone people watching on the commons. or running along cayuga lake. or leaf peeping. so leave those of us who have done all of the above--and liked it--be.

xo,
little big red

"Law review turns law students into unpaid publisher's assistants."

True.

As someone just finishing law review, I would have to say that I came to this realization too late.

Law review= Glorified secretary training school.

Psst--to some extent unless you're in litigation - all lawyers are glorified secretaries.

409 is right. The life of a junior associate, even in litigation, is pretty much that of a glorified secretary or research assistant. So Law Review is pretty good at preparing people for that.

@ 404 - You're probably right that the people on law review would have gotten even higher grades if they weren't on law review. But they still seem to be doing okay.

@ 397 - You're right that most secondary journals are not worth doing, especially from a career building perspective. And I agree that the practical skills of law review are mostly useless in the real world, but the relationships built and the work ethic inculcated are useful in the real world.

I was going to apply to Berkeley but I didn't want to get murdered on my way home from the library.

398- Where did you get your clerkship numbers? I think they are a bit off.

For example, your Michigan numbers say that 9 people from Michigan clerked, meaning that an average 0.02 percent of students go on to clerkships (9/375). Where did you get that 9?

In truth, around 15% of Michigan grads have gone on to clerk in the last 2 years (2006 - 2008). And even using your inflated average class size (375 vs. 360), that's still over 55 people (well, 56.25; 54 if you base it off of 360).

http://www.law.umich.edu/currentstudents/careerservices/factsandstats/grademployers/Pages/clerkships.aspx

And if your stats are supposed to reflect SCOTUS clerkships, that's not quite right either. Michigan has placed 25 people in SCOTUS spots since 1991; 75 total.

http://www.law.umich.edu/currentstudents/careerservices/Pages/supreme-court-clerkships.aspx

I recognize that I may be misreading your rather cryptic post, and don't know the stats for other schools, but I figured I'd point this out, just in case...

412 here -- I forgot to mention, I don't have a link for this, since the website has changed, but Michigan used to have even higher general percentages of people clerking (the 2005-2007) numbers had it pegged around 19%...

So the whole 0.02% (or even if you meant it to be 2%) is just wrong...

406, your "summary" wasn't a summary at all. It's based on your assumption and selective reading. The point seemed to be more that Ithaca is better than many people assume, and the downsides it does have tend to draw people together. (btw, if we're going to fixate on weather -- Chicago has far worse weather than Ithaca does). Another point seemed to be that those downsides are outweighed by some of the other benefits (low cost of living, tighknit classes, easy access to professors, etc.). Also, your figures are baseless. At best, 65% of Cornell grads go to NYC right out of law school (and it's really more like 50-60%).

i wonder if the high proporition of international students has something to do with Cornell's being pretty silent in these debates. I went to Cornell undergrad and very nearly stuck around for law school, and Cornellians seem to have at least as much pride as other NE schools.

I abandoned Cornell for UT-Austin, in large part due to a very very generous scholarship offer from Texas. I was looking at 200K in debt as a 24 year old at Cornell, or about 30K going to UT. I suspect UT is throwing money at Northeasternesr to raise their average GPA and LSAT score, and be more attractive to elite students.

I will say that the stress that law school inevitably produces is definitely lessened when you can do your 8 hours of studying outside in 78 degree weather at a natural spring in February. I celebrated my finals being over last December with a swim in the 85 degree weather.

It's true that the Texas network is definitely Texas-based, but I got invited to all sorts of receptions in NYC and Philadelphia when I went home, and got flown across the country for interviews on the East Coast. I don't know if the alumni network is that important, as long as you do well at an obviously good school.

Am I 420th?

--Michael Phelps (14 time Olympic gold medal winner)

Am I 420th?

--Michael Phelps (14 time Olympic gold medal winner)

Am I 420th?

--Michael Phelps (14 time Olympic gold medal winner)

Am I 420th?

--Michael Phelps (14 time Olympic gold medal winner)

Am I 420th?

--Michael Phelps (14 time Olympic gold medal winner)

Now finally my life's dreams are fulfilled. 420th!!

Eat it, suckaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzz!!

Could somebody tell me what year it is? My buddies and I bet a joint on whether it is 2008 or 2007. We can't remember right now.

--Michael Phelps (420th commenter in this thread on ATL!!)

...Um. Where am I?

What's goin on?

[Takes a puff]

What have I been doing here? Why am I sitting at my computer staring at ATL?

Wait a minute, maybe I'll post a comment on this thread.

[Takes a puff]

Am I 420th?

--Michael Phelps (14 time Olympic gold medal winner)