BC v. GULC

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

Which school should I choose?

Boston College: (COA $105,000)
61
67%
GULC: (COA $210,000)
30
33%
 
Total votes: 91

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby Blindmelon » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:55 am

concurrent fork wrote:BC and gun for boston biglaw. Market comp and cheaper COL.


+ less insane hours (depending on the firm).

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby alumniguy » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:57 am

As someone in biglaw (3rd year associate NYC biglaw).

GULC, while a T-14, is probably the least "prestigious" of the T-14s. It is a massive school and this leads to some employment problems for its students. All things being equal (i.e., you do the same as a 1L at both schools), GULC will offer some additional employment options. On the flip side, if you do poorly at both schools, you are likely to have real employment problems at both schools, at least initially.

OP needs to figure out what s/he is interested in. In my opinion, GULC at 100k extra, would be beneficial if s/he was looking at PRESTIGIOUS/COMPETITIVE government or PI work. If OP's goal is to practice law in a bigfirm for the beginning of her/his career, then the benefits of GULC are less.

Getting to the real question, of long term employment prospects, the answer is for 95% of the time, NO. Becoming a partner is about your skills as being a lawyer (and NOT simply about billable hours as one poster mentioned). You could bill 2000 hours a year for 8 years, be a stellar lawyer and make partner from either BC or GULC. Likewise, you could bill 2400 hours a year for 8 years, be a competent lawyer (but not stellar), and be asked to leave from either BC or GULC. Your future career prospects will be dependent on what you do as a lawyer more so than your law school pedigree - and this is certainly true of schools that are separated by about 10 places in the USNews ranking. We aren't talking about GULC and an unranked school or even a T50 for that matter.

Now, 5% of the time it MAY affect long term career prospects. Some firms do place a premium on prestige and it may affect your partnership possibilities. However, this may be 5 or 10 firms total. The likelihood of making partner is slim to none, and I would argue that it will be even more difficult at the 5 or 10 firms that place importance on prestige. Moreover, these firms probably wouldn't see GULC as all that prestigious. GULC is not YHS, nor even CCN. And many would argue it is decidedly beneath MVP. My point here, is that GULC, while a T-14, is not uber prestigious.

Is that 5% worth 100k, it depends on the person. For me (and I would venture to guess 99% of the rest of the law student population), the answer is no. I didn't (and still don't) have any grand goals of becoming a partner. I would like to be successful and comfortable, yet have time to pursue my other interests in life. To make partner, you'll need to give up most of your other pursuits. For that matter, to rise to any prestigious/competitive career position will require great demands on your personal life. If OP is thinking that s/he is up to that challenge, and views her/his career as paramount to a personal life, then GULC may in fact be a better option.

OP have you done the calculations on servicing debt on 200k in loans? In all likelihood it will be massive. It WILL impact your career decisions. I certainly hope that OP has taken the true cost of 200k into consideration.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby alumniguy » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:00 am

marmot8 wrote:Any of those who voted for GULC care to chime in? It would be helpful. How about if this was Cornell instead?


No difference. Cornell MAY place its grads better (as a function of its small class size), but I think the most recent NLJ250 was a bit of an anomaly. Do a search on here for class of 2010 Cornell preliminary numbers and you'll see that Cornell failed to place such a high number of its grads in biglaw as the class of 2009.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby Blindmelon » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:03 am

alumniguy wrote:
marmot8 wrote:Any of those who voted for GULC care to chime in? It would be helpful. How about if this was Cornell instead?


No difference. Cornell MAY place its grads better (as a function of its small class size), but I think the most recent NLJ250 was a bit of an anomaly. Do a search on here for class of 2010 Cornell preliminary numbers and you'll see that Cornell failed to place such a high number of its grads in biglaw as the class of 2009.


TBF, most T14s beat the crap out of BC in clerkships. Theres a lot of self-selection of people into fed./state supreme clerkships instead of immediately going to bigfirms.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby alumniguy » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:07 am

Also, in my experience, it is MUCH easier to get NYC biglaw coming from BC than Boston biglaw. All of the top students are gunning for Boston biglaw. They are going to take all of the on-campus interview slots, day in and day out. You'll need to be top 25% to even be competitive (outliers will occur, but they are called outliers for a reason).

BC students don't have the same fervor for NYC biglaw (probably because it requires traveling to an off-campus NYC job fair). Also, NYC firms hire many more summer associates than Boston biglaw. Certainly BU/BC have the upper hand in Boston compared to other schools, which isn't true in NYC. Nevertheless, I would imagine that NYC firms on the whole dip lower into the class than Boston firms.

Others that have gone through the process find this to be true?

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby alumniguy » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:10 am

Blindmelon wrote:
alumniguy wrote:
marmot8 wrote:Any of those who voted for GULC care to chime in? It would be helpful. How about if this was Cornell instead?


No difference. Cornell MAY place its grads better (as a function of its small class size), but I think the most recent NLJ250 was a bit of an anomaly. Do a search on here for class of 2010 Cornell preliminary numbers and you'll see that Cornell failed to place such a high number of its grads in biglaw as the class of 2009.


TBF, most T14s beat the crap out of BC in clerkships. Theres a lot of self-selection of people into fed./state supreme clerkships instead of immediately going to bigfirms.


Yes, I would agree here as well. For 2008 class, GULC was 7.2% and BC was 3.0% into Art. III clerkships. GULC has a much larger class as well, so total number of clerks is much higher at GULC than BC.

There is a ton of self selection though as in my experience, some of those that were most qualified for clerkships when I graduated didn't want them and so they didn't apply. However, this will be true at any law school.

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:24 am

alumniguy wrote:
marmot8 wrote:Any of those who voted for GULC care to chime in? It would be helpful. How about if this was Cornell instead?


No difference. Cornell MAY place its grads better (as a function of its small class size), but I think the most recent NLJ250 was a bit of an anomaly. Do a search on here for class of 2010 Cornell preliminary numbers and you'll see that Cornell failed to place such a high number of its grads in biglaw as the class of 2009.


2010 was the anomaly. Cornell traditionally does very well in big law. It had one bad year (2009, I think). It traditionally does better than it "should" given it's relative rank.

marmot8
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby marmot8 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:33 am

Well thanks all for the helpful contributions! to clarify my goals, if given the oppportunity to clerk I really would love to, then I hope to go into BigLaw for a few years at least (preferably in NYC though Im ok with Boston if I go to BC). I want to end up inhouse or doing something else eventually, though as Ive always said a part of my decision rests on keeping options open. Maybe Ill get caught up in the BigLaw game and want to make partner and dont want to be in a position to not make it bc of my school (if that even happens, though Ive heard that such does happen at times hence my concern)

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby northwood » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:36 am

$105,000 plus interest is a lot of money. Too much money in my opinion. I go with BC- unless of course you absolutely hate BC and boston, and love DC.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby alumniguy » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:42 am

marmot8 wrote:Well thanks all for the helpful contributions! to clarify my goals, if given the oppportunity to clerk I really would love to, then I hope to go into BigLaw for a few years at least (preferably in NYC though Im ok with Boston if I go to BC). I want to end up inhouse or doing something else eventually, though as Ive always said a part of my decision rests on keeping options open. Maybe Ill get caught up in the BigLaw game and want to make partner and dont want to be in a position to not make it bc of my school (if that even happens, though Ive heard that such does happen at times hence my concern)


Please take no offense, but "keeping options open" for the sake of keeping options open shows signs of relative immaturity. You say you want to end up inhouse or doing something else eventually. I can guarantee you that clerking will be of little to no benefit to you. Clerking is important only if you are dead set on remaining in law for your entire life - e.g., you want to enter academia or you want become a judge. But a corporation looking for a assistant GC is NOT going to care whether you did an Art. III clerkship. Moreover, one doesn't get "caught up in the BigLaw game". If you don't have the dedication make the firm your life, then you simply aren't going to make partner. Getting caught up in biglaw game may have been true back when the law wasn't a 24/7 profession, but today you REALLY have to dedicate your life to the firm in order to succeed at the partner game.

Given your stated goals, I think BC is sufficient for your purposes, especially at only 100k in debt. Prestige for prestige-sake may be important if you are talking $15k or $25k difference or no difference, but at 100k, there are serious financial ramifications.

dakatz
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby dakatz » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:55 am

alumniguy wrote:
marmot8 wrote:Well thanks all for the helpful contributions! to clarify my goals, if given the oppportunity to clerk I really would love to, then I hope to go into BigLaw for a few years at least (preferably in NYC though Im ok with Boston if I go to BC). I want to end up inhouse or doing something else eventually, though as Ive always said a part of my decision rests on keeping options open. Maybe Ill get caught up in the BigLaw game and want to make partner and dont want to be in a position to not make it bc of my school (if that even happens, though Ive heard that such does happen at times hence my concern)


Please take no offense, but "keeping options open" for the sake of keeping options open shows signs of relative immaturity. You say you want to end up inhouse or doing something else eventually. I can guarantee you that clerking will be of little to no benefit to you. Clerking is important only if you are dead set on remaining in law for your entire life - e.g., you want to enter academia or you want become a judge. But a corporation looking for a assistant GC is NOT going to care whether you did an Art. III clerkship. Moreover, one doesn't get "caught up in the BigLaw game". If you don't have the dedication make the firm your life, then you simply aren't going to make partner. Getting caught up in biglaw game may have been true back when the law wasn't a 24/7 profession, but today you REALLY have to dedicate your life to the firm in order to succeed at the partner game.

Given your stated goals, I think BC is sufficient for your purposes, especially at only 100k in debt. Prestige for prestige-sake may be important if you are talking $15k or $25k difference or no difference, but at 100k, there are serious financial ramifications.


This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along, but it carries a bit more weight coming out of your mouth. OP, I think this sums it up exactly right. You don't pay 100K extra just to keep your options open. You spend 100K extra because you have a concrete goal, and spending that 100K is the ONLY way to reach that goal. I wish more people on this site understood this point. Think with your head and not with the stars in your eyes. BC is the easy choice here.

marmot8
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby marmot8 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:12 am

I suppose I take my admitting that I don't fully know if I have what it takes/am willing to sacrifice enough to make partner as more a sign of maturity rather than immaturity. Maybe some people "know" that is what they want, but I'm coming from the perspective that, though I have worked as a paralegal in BigLaw for a summer, I still don't really have a grasp of the commitment it takes to make partner, nor do I think I truly can have such insights until I am in that situation. It's all speculative for me at this point, and I don't want to be shut out of it because of a decision on schools while in my 20s.

My previously stated goals remain the same. I want to clerk because I think that if I somehow do that well wherever I go and I have the chance to clerk, doing so will be an incredible learning opportunity that I would not pass up, even if I think I want to go inhouse down the road. I can't fathom how you can map out your entire career- things happen, preferences change etc. It's good to have a plan, but I want to be able to alter that plan things change (ex. wife gets a great job opportunity elsewhere- who knows?)

I really appreciate all of the advice and support I have received. To northwood's point, I actually prefer Boston to DC for many reasons, but would go to GULC if it had a significant advantage down the line. These two schools were my favorites so I believe I'd be happy at either. Especially with 100k less in debt, I could see myself at BC, see myself enjoying it, and hopefully doing well. Thank you for the responses.
Last edited by marmot8 on Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby alumniguy » Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:25 am

marmot8 wrote:I suppose I take my admitting that I don't fully know if I have what it takes/am willing to sacrifice enough to make partner as more a sign of maturity rather than immaturity. Maybe some people "know" that is what they want, but I'm coming from the perspective that, though I have worked as a paralegal in BigLaw for a summer, I still don't really have a grasp of the commitment it takes to make partner, nor do I think I truly can have such insights until I am in that situation. It's all speculative for me at this point, and I don't want to be shut out of it because of a decision on schools while in my 20s.

My previously stated goals remain the same. I want to clerk because I think that if I somehow do that well wherever I go it that I have the chance to clerk, doing so will be an incredible learning opportunity that I would not pass up, even if I think I want to go inhouse down the road. I can't fathom how you can map out your entire career- things happen, preferences change etc. It's good to have a plan, but I want to be able to alter that plan things change (ex. wife gets a great job opportunity elsewhere- who knows?)

I really appreciate all of the advice and support I have received. To northwood's point, I actually prefer Boston to DC for many reasons, but would go to GULC if it had a significant advantage down the line. These two schools were my favorites so I believe I'd be happy at either. Especially with 100k less in debt, I could see myself at BC, see myself enjoying it, and hopefully doing well. Thank you for the responses.


Fair enough. From these two schools, the biggest determinant of opportunities is going to be how well you do in law school and your drive/dedication as a practicing attorney. BC is not going to be a deal breaker for any job you theoretically may want in the future. You may need to work harder at finding the opportunities, but I would be shocked if any practicing attorney told you that BC would limit your future career because you had a BC degree over a GULC degree.

User avatar
bender18
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby bender18 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Haha by the way... I never said it was simply all about billable hours! I just said that other things like billable matters are what become important.

marmot8
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby marmot8 » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:00 am

shameless bump, looking for more votes and opinions. thanks all

Slevin Kelevra 2011
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby Slevin Kelevra 2011 » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Boston College. GULC isn't worth the extra money. They consistently post comparable placement stats. 100k for at most 10% better chance at biglaw isn't worth it.

marmot8
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby marmot8 » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:34 pm

last time I ask for it, but can anyone who voted GULC please explain their perspective? thanks!

User avatar
Perch
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:36 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby Perch » Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:35 pm

How would Cornell at sticker affect this vote?

Edit: shameless bump of someone else's thread instead of starting a new thread.

aliarrow
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby aliarrow » Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:42 pm

So wait, why is Cornell not an option here? Assuming you'd get in if you got into GULC....

hashashin
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby hashashin » Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:02 am

alumniguy wrote:As someone in biglaw (3rd year associate NYC biglaw).

GULC, while a T-14, is probably the least "prestigious" of the T-14s. It is a massive school and this leads to some employment problems for its students.


Are you attempting to demonstrate that it is less prestigious than other lower T-14s (MVP and below) or that is LARGER than them? What is the evidence for believing that GULC (or any lower T14) is considered less "prestigious" than MVP, and why is it, moreover, that only graduates of shiTTTholes such as BC (such as alumniguy) who made it into Biglaw consider their schools to be relative peers of GULC/Duke/NU?

There is NO biglaw firm that appears to consider MVPB to be any more "preftigious" than DCNG (NLJ data does not hew to prestige at all, as evidenced by Cornell and NU being about equivalent to CCN). ANY T14 (lower AND upper, GULC AND Harvard) is incomparably more prestigious than BC or BU, whose relatively comparable NLJ stats are ENTIRELY belied by the fact that, outside of that 20-something % or so that gets BIGLAW, almost ALL OTHER outcomes are terrible.

After accounting for self-selection (i.e. 25% of GULC goes into PI/Gov positions, nearly 15% of which is BigGOV), GULC becomes at least 1.5-2x better than BU/BC for obtaining a good outcome (The salary data for the class of 2012 makes this rather apparent; 50.1% of GULC graduates are making >100K, which is only about 6% less than NU's graduates and is equivalent to 92% of graduates working in the private sector. Please point me to BU/BC's salary data from the class of 2012 to make a similar comparison). There is more than enough data to suggest that GULC's relatively poor showing in the NLJ250 is substantially affected by self-selection into government, PI and JD Advantage work (most of the JDA jobs GULC grads took in 2012 were six figures) and, with those factors taken into account, there is JUST AS LARGE a gap between GULC and UT/UCLA/Vandy/USC as there is between any other T14 and those schools (Let alone BU!).

It is disingenuous to compare GULC to HYS and claim that the prestige differential between those schools in any sense mitigates that between GULC and an obscene TTT like BC or BU.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby WokeUpInACar » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:15 am

Nice bump of a 4 month old thread. You mad bro?

User avatar
justonemoregame
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby justonemoregame » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:44 am

2-year bump heheh

It's interesting reading advice from back then, though. We need to have more Where Are They Now?s around here.

Hash, where did you find the 15% Biglaw number for Georgetown?

Humbert Humbert
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: BC v. GULC

Postby Humbert Humbert » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:34 pm

So much pent up anger.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], echonov, Veil of Ignorance and 5 guests