UVA 90k or Chi Sticker- Want Boies Forum

[CanadianWolf]

Defer a year & work as a paralegal at Boies.

On a more serious note, pretend that Boies is not an option & then select your law school.

[BeastCoastHype]

UVA, without a doubt. Turning down $90k at any top 10 school for a non-YHS is generally a bad idea, IMO. For what you're looking for, I don't think Chicago provides you with much of an advantage. You shouldn't set your sights on one particular firm though, especially at this stage.

I disagree. Chicago will get you into more national legal doors than UVA. Because you don't know how you will do in grades, Chicago is the safe choice. 90k will mean less after several years at your dream job.

Because of Chicago's small class size and placement everywhere, you will be unique on both coasts and employable at top firms in every market.

In my discussions with legal professionals, Chicago is continually perceived as being essentially equal to everyone but Yale and (sometimes) Harvard (Chicago has old school prestige in the legal community that is not understood by USNWR zealots on TLS).

Also, Chicago opens significant other options that UVA doesn't such as a ton of angel investment capital if you want to start a company, access to the Chicago network that is uniformally strong in almost every field and includes 50-plus living nobel winners, tons of C-level execs, and many political and legal stars. Also, if you don't like law you can go into Ibanking and Management consulting maybe more easily that median top-6 MBA kids.

This post is so ridiculous it has to be a flame. However, I took the bait and for the collective benefit of the people reading this thread, I have bolded every crazy claim this guy made. You have to be utterly delusional to think these things.

Let's start with the notion that Chicago is going to lead to a "dream job" if the poster makes the decision to go there. In case you aren't aware, there are unemployed students coming out of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, and the University of Chicago. This number is not low, either. MANY students at these schools can't find jobs. Dispense with the idea that the school you pick will lead to the job you really want, because employment is a crapshoot and will be until the end of time because the biglaw model has fundamentally changed. The days of waltzing into Skadden just because they need warm bodies are over, so get this idea out of your head.

Now let's move onto this claim that you will be competitive with MBA students from top schools for management consulting or banking jobs. This is also crazy. Yeah, if you walk into law school from BCG you can walk out and head to Bain pretty easily. However, if you are like most law students and haven't done consulting or banking, law school isn't going to get you a business job very easily. You will be competing with students with 5-10 years of work experience and a relevant business education. Sorry, your year as a paralegal at Paul Weiss ain't gonna help when you're fighting these people for a job.

The "angel investment" comment is truly hilarious. Yes, Chicago has many wealthy graduates, but no more than NYU, Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or UVA. Also, these people aren't organized into some kind of angel investing network that focuses on Chicago grads. Even if they were, it's not like they would give you money on better terms just because you went to Chicago. These people are investors like anyone else, and unless they happen to be your grandma or grandpa they are going to try to fuck you just as hard as any other investor would. Also, I doubt someone who is looking at hardcore litigation firms cares about this at all.

Now let's move onto the most hilarious and desperate claim in the whole post - that Chicago is considered a peer to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. Chicago students realize that their lack of ivy status, midwestern location, generally mediocre GPA and LSAT medians, and tiny alumni base deliver an enormous prestige hit, so from time to time they make this dumb fucking claim that somehow Chicago is magically on the same plane as the top three. Squinting doesn't make a transvestite become a woman. Chicago is not of the same quality, and Columbia is ahead of it by a good margin as well. For more on this subject, please review this:

"How did it happen that making the tired claim that this ghetto shithole is UNDERrated became the signature conversation piece for people who desperately want to be thought smart; really, really smart. smart people love “rigor” and Chicago is full of it; it must be, what with its hair-splitting number grades, punishingly low enforced mean, and oppressive course load. Chicago boosterism usually comes in the form of a comparison with the appallingly UNrigorous Stanford or Yale — gradeless, abundantly pass-fail, unserious; students who do nothing and know nothing. Chicago: graded, competitive, serious… That it’s really just a ruptured ego rehab clinic for Harvard rejects is a fact not emphasized...."

Read on at http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... 2#10140761.

[profizzle]

.

[thegor1987]

Trying to choose a firm before you have even started law school is usually a fools errand.

+1.

fwiw, I really like Chicago, but I'd probably go to Virginia in this situation.

Ya. One of my best bros from HS just got a 150,000 dollar bonus from Boies as a 2nd yr associate, but he billed close to 3k hrs. The dude literally made over 340 grand as a 26 yr old. No flame. He went to HYS tho. I Got Dinged. Which is y I'm comparing my VA vs UCHI options. Ty for ur perspectives bros. Obv I'll work that tie and try and network like a G6. Jus tryig to gauge how much of a prestige gap there is bet chi and VA. Namely, a 90k one?

340000 that's what I'm talk im talkin' about damn

[Ragged]

I would go to T6 over T10 regardless of $$$.

So you'd go to NYU paying sticker over UVA or Penn paying nothing?

I would have to pause and think about it, and it would be a tough call if we are talking NYU. If the choice was Columbia vs. full ride at T10, I'm pretty sure I'd go to Columbia. And that's in a freakish case of me getting a full ride at Penn and not a penny at T6.

It might be dumb, but at least I would be going to to LS knowing that I did as much as I could to help me get a job later. The thought of having to beat out 20% of my class at a school like Penn scares me.

It is probably not in good sense but CCN do place better in the top firms. I know a partner at S&C that winced when I told him I applied ED to Michigan because that was my top choice rather than taking a ~60% shot at NYU. If you would be happy working at any big firm the t6 distinction matters much less (and I wouldn't bank on being top of my class at CCN for it to matter anyway). For 90K though the choice would be clear for me but I certainly understand shooting for the moon.

Do median people at T10 have similar chances at biglaw to median people at T6?

[Sentry]

Now let's move onto the most hilarious and desperate claim in the whole post - that Chicago is considered a peer to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. Chicago students realize that their lack of ivy status, midwestern location, generally mediocre GPA and LSAT medians, and tiny alumni base

Almost everything you said about Chicago could apply to Stanford.

[Patriot1208]

Now let's move onto the most hilarious and desperate claim in the whole post - that Chicago is considered a peer to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. Chicago students realize that their lack of ivy status, midwestern location, generally mediocre GPA and LSAT medians, and tiny alumni base

Almost everything you said about Chicago could apply to Stanford.

I'd go to stanford over that TTT deploma mill that is Harvard.

[Sentry]

Now let's move onto the most hilarious and desperate claim in the whole post - that Chicago is considered a peer to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. Chicago students realize that their lack of ivy status, midwestern location, generally mediocre GPA and LSAT medians, and tiny alumni base

Almost everything you said about Chicago could apply to Stanford.

I'd go to stanford over that TTT deploma mill that is Harvard.

Me too. That doesn't change that S is a non ivy, with low medians, and a small alumni base.

[BeastCoastHype]

Now let's move onto the most hilarious and desperate claim in the whole post - that Chicago is considered a peer to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. Chicago students realize that their lack of ivy status, midwestern location, generally mediocre GPA and LSAT medians, and tiny alumni base

Almost everything you said about Chicago could apply to Stanford.

I'd go to stanford over that TTT deploma mill that is Harvard.

Me too. That doesn't change that S is a non ivy, with low medians, and a small alumni base.

Yes, Stanford has those characteristics but they obviously don't have the same effect as they do on Chicago as it is a far more famous university with a law school that is substantially more selective.

[005618502]

340000 that's what I'm talk im talkin' about damn

After taxes he is far from rich. I love people who see 6 figures and go crazy. CA and NYC are crazy expensive and unless you are making that 340,000 after taxes are already taken out, your not rich.

[bk1]

The alleged prestige advantage that Chicago has over UVA will mean nothing to OP if he strikes out at OCI, which is a possibility that he should not ignore. $50-60k of debt is quite manageable on an ordinary income; $160k of debt is not. Furthermore, graduating with little debt arguably opens more doors than graduating with a degree from a school of only slightly more prestige.

Also, UVA is more fun.

50k-60k, meaning 140k-150k total CoA? I know that you go to UVa so maybe their estimated CoA really is that off but they have it listed as 67.7k/year for nonresidents. At that rate it is still over 100k worth of debt. I don't see 100k as being much more manageable on a normal income. 200k is a lot, of course, but so is 100k. In this case I'd take UChi considering 100k is still a rough amount.

I'm with Ragged on this, I think I'd take sticker at CCN over any school below unless I had a full tuition scholarship, considering even 30k/year scholarships still leave you with 6 figures worth of debt after the full CoA is figured in.

[bk1]

340000 that's what I'm talk im talkin' about damn

After taxes he is far from rich. I love people who see 6 figures and go crazy. CA and NYC are crazy expensive and unless you are making that 340,000 after taxes are already taken out, your not rich.

Now I remember why I had you foe'd.... Back to the ignore list you go.

[Patriot1208]

340000 that's what I'm talk im talkin' about damn

After taxes he is far from rich. I love people who see 6 figures and go crazy. CA and NYC are crazy expensive and unless you are making that 340,000 after taxes are already taken out, your not rich.

lol, we already have tons of threads where people get pwn'd acting poor on 160k. And then you take over double that and say they aren't poor. TOP 1% of Americans, in the highest QOL country in the world, YOU ARE POOR.

[005618502]

340000 that's what I'm talk im talkin' about damn

After taxes he is far from rich. I love people who see 6 figures and go crazy. CA and NYC are crazy expensive and unless you are making that 340,000 after taxes are already taken out, your not rich.

Now I remember why I had you foe'd.... Back to the ignore list you go.

Well, you may not see this, but your an idiot. 160,000 in NYC after taxes is 90,000 and 340,000 will get taxed even harder were you would bring in less then 200,000. That is not RICH, yes you will be doing well. But you wont be living in the pent's and driving Lambos like people think.

But you probably know better then me because you have done male modeling, haha what a joke.

[Patriot1208]

340000 that's what I'm talk im talkin' about damn

After taxes he is far from rich. I love people who see 6 figures and go crazy. CA and NYC are crazy expensive and unless you are making that 340,000 after taxes are already taken out, your not rich.

Now I remember why I had you foe'd.... Back to the ignore list you go.

Well, you may not see this, but your an idiot. 160,000 in NYC after taxes is 90,000 and 340,000 will get taxed even harder were you would bring in less then 200,000. That is not RICH, yes you will be doing well. But you wont be living in the pent's and driving Lambos like people think.

But you probably know better then me because you have done male modeling, haha what a joke.

In both cases, your math is wrong. Either way, 100k in NYC or 220K are both rich in any objective measure. Now, if you want to be retarded and decide that rich actually only means being able to afford a lambo and a 100k watch then sure, you can't do that. But that is, as I said, retarded.

[A&O]

Want to work at Boies in NYC or Oakland. What % do I need for a solid shot from each of these schools? Not that risk adverse. Leaning toward Chi . Ty bros

At least top 5%. I hope you find other interesting career goals.

LOL Boies is not even close to that selective.

I don't know how things are at your school. I know for a fact that, at another T10, they're looking for between top 10% and top 5% grades.

And just because you know someone outside of that range that they took, doesn't mean they're suddenly "not even close to that selective."

[A&O]

(1) Choosing a law school based on which one will give you a better chance at BSF is as stupid as choosing a law school based on which one will give you a better chance at WLRK. Both firms are very selective, and at the end of the day your performance as a 1L and your personality will make more of a difference (unless, of course, you go to a school at which BSF doesn't interview) than whether you go to UVA or Chicago. Judging by your posts, I think you have bigger worries than school choice.

(2) Closely related to (1): There are too many variables in getting a job that targeting one specific firm makes absolutely no sense. At best, if you have job aspirations, it should be maybe as specific as, "I want to work at a top M&A shop," or "I want to work at a great trial boutique." Imagine wanting a firm so badly, like Cleary or something, kicking butt during 1L year, and then upsetting your Cleary interviewer because you accidentally said something stupid. Or imagine you did everything right, even in the interview, but the partner who interviewed you woke up on the wrong side of the bed and just didn't feel a connection to you. Or imagine that there's a sudden rush in popularity for Cleary, such that a ton of people bid it first, and you don't end up even getting a screening interview.

(3) If you're goal is just to make money, you're choosing law school for the wrong reason. And if you happen to be fortunate enough to earn a job at Boies, consider whether you're actually fortunate. Do you know what's at stake in billing 3,000 hours a year? Do you know the satisfaction level of attorneys who choose law for the money? For many attorneys who don't like law, the money they get–even at Boies or WLRK–isn't enough to tide them over.

I hope this helps. I realize you're probably flaming/trolling, but in case you're not: I was in your shoes a short while ago, and my dream firm was Latham & Watkins (no joke).

[A&O]

...and just to provide some other pointers, Boies might not be the best person to work for or learn from. I've been reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/v-Goliath-Trials- ... 839&sr=8-1

It's an interesting book, but you definitely get the "Beautiful Mind" sort of perspective here. Boies is some sort of super-eccentric genius. It's almost like taking economics with Nash.

[dresden doll]

UVA, without a doubt. Turning down $90k at any top 10 school for a non-YHS is generally a bad idea, IMO. For what you're looking for, I don't think Chicago provides you with much of an advantage. You shouldn't set your sights on one particular firm though, especially at this stage.

I disagree. Chicago will get you into more national legal doors than UVA. Because you don't know how you will do in grades, Chicago is the safe choice. 90k will mean less after several years at your dream job.

Because of Chicago's small class size and placement everywhere, you will be unique on both coasts and employable at top firms in every market.

In my discussions with legal professionals, Chicago is continually perceived as being essentially equal to everyone but Yale and (sometimes) Harvard (Chicago has old school prestige in the legal community that is not understood by USNWR zealots on TLS).

Also, Chicago opens significant other options that UVA doesn't such as a ton of angel investment capital if you want to start a company, access to the Chicago network that is uniformally strong in almost every field and includes 50-plus living nobel winners, tons of C-level execs, and many political and legal stars. Also, if you don't like law you can go into Ibanking and Management consulting maybe more easily that median top-6 MBA kids.

I'm a Chicago 2L that would recommend taking 90k at UVA. It's not even a hard decision.

Yes, Chicago would give OP more of a chance at getting Boies; no, the slightly increased likelihood isn't worth the extra debt.

[JollyGreenGiant]

I thought no RD decisions from Chicago have been released? And certainly, no scholarship decisions would be out.

[Ragged]

Do median people at T10 have similar chances at biglaw to median people at T6?

Can a non-0L answer this?

[RVP11]

...

[Whatsawahooanyway]

Reading this entire thread made me physically ill. Something horribly repulsive about the way this was discussed.

[TaipeiMort]

I'll bite and reply. To give some context to my comments, I've started and ran a successful international consulting firm and have some pretty good other international work experience. I have friends who are at managing partner/ VP levels at Mckinsey and Goldman and was mentored by a former president of Verizon.

My responses are in bold.

Let's start with the notion that Chicago is going to lead to a "dream job" if the poster makes the decision to go there. In case you aren't aware, there are unemployed students coming out of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, and the University of Chicago. This number is not low, either. MANY students at these schools can't find jobs. Dispense with the idea that the school you pick will lead to the job you really want, because employment is a crapshoot and will be until the end of time because the biglaw model has fundamentally changed. The days of waltzing into Skadden just because they need warm bodies are over, so get this idea out of your head.

These firms are in desperate need of people who can bring in business. Having work experience and unique, marketable skills that will translate into increased client inflow and retention are more valuable now than ever. Firms have plenty of great lawyers, but they do not have enough moneymakers. Those with the aforementioned qualities have the pick of employers. Those without meaningful points of differentiation from the crowd will have more difficulty than the past in fidnign jobs.

Now let's move onto this claim that you will be competitive with MBA students from top schools for management consulting or banking jobs. This is also crazy. Yeah, if you walk into law school from BCG you can walk out and head to Bain pretty easily. However, if you are like most law students and haven't done consulting or banking, law school isn't going to get you a business job very easily. You will be competing with students with 5-10 years of work experience and a relevant business education. Sorry, your year as a paralegal at Paul Weiss ain't gonna help when you're fighting these people for a job.

This isn't true. T6 law students are activley recruited by top ibanking and consulting firms. You do not need significant work experience to get these positions and you are not competing directly with MBA students (law students are recruited differently and are not held to the same work-experience criteria). Top firms have MBA-esque training programs for these students. They have found that many times their best, most analytically skilled employees are found in top law schools.

The "angel investment" comment is truly hilarious. Yes, Chicago has many wealthy graduates, but no more than NYU, Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or UVA. Also, these people aren't organized into some kind of angel investing network that focuses on Chicago grads. Even if they were, it's not like they would give you money on better terms just because you went to Chicago. These people are investors like anyone else, and unless they happen to be your grandma or grandpa they are going to try to fuck you just as hard as any other investor would. Also, I doubt someone who is looking at hardcore litigation firms cares about this at all.

Angel-investing alumni and friends organizations do give cheaper and more available capital to students. These organizations are set up for the purpose of giving money to student-run ventures. They aren't chairty organizations, but they do give many times debt instead of equity funding and give pretty fair equity terms. The biggest difference is that they loosen the owner-investment and work experience criteria because the owners of the ventures are students. They want to see organizations from their alma-mater suceed while still making cash on the side, but they are not as shark-like as a lot of VCs out there.

Now let's move onto the most hilarious and desperate claim in the whole post - that Chicago is considered a peer to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. Chicago students realize that their lack of ivy status, midwestern location, generally mediocre GPA and LSAT medians, and tiny alumni base deliver an enormous prestige hit, so from time to time they make this dumb fucking claim that somehow Chicago is magically on the same plane as the top three. Squinting doesn't make a transvestite become a woman. Chicago is not of the same quality, and Columbia is ahead of it by a good margin as well. For more on this subject, please review this:

"How did it happen that making the tired claim that this ghetto shithole is UNDERrated became the signature conversation piece for people who desperately want to be thought smart; really, really smart. smart people love “rigor” and Chicago is full of it; it must be, what with its hair-splitting number grades, punishingly low enforced mean, and oppressive course load. Chicago boosterism usually comes in the form of a comparison with the appallingly UNrigorous Stanford or Yale — gradeless, abundantly pass-fail, unserious; students who do nothing and know nothing. Chicago: graded, competitive, serious… That it’s really just a ruptured ego rehab clinic for Harvard rejects is a fact not emphasized...."

Read on at http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... 2#10140761.

Your comment is drenched with insecurity and immaturity. The world is much different than your narrow TLS-centered world-view has led you to believe. Most business and law contacts I know find Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, Harvard, and Yale to be peers. The minimal distinctions between them are not important enough to tarnish or change their view of your pedigree. YHS do have lay prestige advantage of course. However, professionals care much more about your demonstrated abilities at a T6 level than if you graduated from NYU instead of Harvard.

I chose to attend Chicago because I wanted the best legal education possible and felt the professor-set at the school was pretty awesome. The focus on ideological diversity and economics also meant a better education to me. I feared if I attended Harvard that the diluted faculty meant a strong possibility of a lessor educational quality, which would not be worth the boost in lay prestige I would get. I will get a good job with my background, and I am married so I don't need to impress girls at bars with a name brand.

I really believe that Chicago provides the best legal education possbile (with the exception of maybe Yale)

I do not understand all of the hate for Chicago on TLS and other 0L sites, but it is stark contrast from what you get in both the professional and academic world-- which is really all that matters. I can't stand the collective insecurity and upsmanship on this site. It is an honor to attend any top school, and insulting the education of others does little except for some momentary and pathetic self-gratification.

[Kilpatrick]

Reading this entire thread made me physically ill. Something horribly repulsive about the way this was discussed.

It was started by a troll from xoxo so your feeling is pretty warranted.