Wash U in St. Louis VERSUS University of Illinois Urbana/Cha Forum

[TheSteelKid]

Your profile shows that you are waitlisted at Northwestern, Virginia, Vanderbilt & Michigan. All of these are better options since you seem interested in biglaw, Chicago & the Northeast. With a 170 LSAT. why not wait, work for a year & reapply early ?

I am seriously considering doing this, as well as retaking the LSAT in june in order to try and improve. The only thing is that I am a bit skeptical about doing this, applying ED to Uva/Mich/NW and then being stuck with with so much in student loans. I've also been out of undergraduate for two years and would like to get the ball rolling. However, by working for a year (possibly abroad) I would definitely keep myself busy.

[TheSteelKid]

I have asked career services at Wash U about their placement into Chicago, and was told that about 20% of incoming students list Chicago as their preferred market and about 19% of 2009 graduates have accepted work in Chicago. This indicates that the school does very well in Chicago. Statistics can always be misleading but these ones do point to WUSTL having strong placement in Chicago. I was also told that they have job fairs in Chicago and that the school sends representatives to speak with employers and alumni who work in Chicago. Given this information is seems that there is some truth to the idea of self selection and WUSTL's presence in Chicago being better than the 19% placement number from 2009.

[Slevin Kelevra 2011]

I have asked career services at Wash U about their placement into Chicago, and was told that about 20% of incoming students list Chicago as their preferred market and about 19% of 2009 graduates have accepted work in Chicago. This indicates that the school does very well in Chicago. Statistics can always be misleading but these ones do point to WUSTL having strong placement in Chicago. I was also told that they have job fairs in Chicago and that the school sends representatives to speak with employers and alumni who work in Chicago. Given this information is seems that there is some truth to the idea of self selection and WUSTL's presence in Chicago being better than the 19% placement number from 2009.

I am going to let you treat the logic in this paragraph like an LSAT question. What is horrendously wrong with this statement?

[TheSteelKid]

I have asked career services at Wash U about their placement into Chicago, and was told that about 20% of incoming students list Chicago as their preferred market and about 19% of 2009 graduates have accepted work in Chicago. This indicates that the school does very well in Chicago. Statistics can always be misleading but these ones do point to WUSTL having strong placement in Chicago. I was also told that they have job fairs in Chicago and that the school sends representatives to speak with employers and alumni who work in Chicago. Given this information is seems that there is some truth to the idea of self selection and WUSTL's presence in Chicago being better than the 19% placement number from 2009.

I am going to let you treat the logic in this paragraph like an LSAT question. What is horrendously wrong with this statement?

Nothing that I can see. If 20% of students want Chicago and 19% get it, that sounds pretty good. That's why I'm saying that WUSTL having mediocre aggregate numbers for Chicago doesn't seem to point to lack of opportunities, but more to their students not wanting Chicago as much.

[sambeber]

I have asked career services at Wash U about their placement into Chicago, and was told that about 20% of incoming students list Chicago as their preferred market and about 19% of 2009 graduates have accepted work in Chicago. This indicates that the school does very well in Chicago. Statistics can always be misleading but these ones do point to WUSTL having strong placement in Chicago. I was also told that they have job fairs in Chicago and that the school sends representatives to speak with employers and alumni who work in Chicago. Given this information is seems that there is some truth to the idea of self selection and WUSTL's presence in Chicago being better than the 19% placement number from 2009.

I am going to let you treat the logic in this paragraph like an LSAT question. What is horrendously wrong with this statement?

Nothing that I can see. If 20% of students want Chicago and 19% get it, that sounds pretty good. That's why I'm saying that WUSTL having mediocre aggregate numbers for Chicago doesn't seem to point to lack of opportunities, but more to their students not wanting Chicago as much.

Oh lord. Just to start us off, the 20% who put Chicago as their first choice and 19% who end up there aren't necessarily the same students.

[TheSteelKid]

I have asked career services at Wash U about their placement into Chicago, and was told that about 20% of incoming students list Chicago as their preferred market and about 19% of 2009 graduates have accepted work in Chicago. This indicates that the school does very well in Chicago. Statistics can always be misleading but these ones do point to WUSTL having strong placement in Chicago. I was also told that they have job fairs in Chicago and that the school sends representatives to speak with employers and alumni who work in Chicago. Given this information is seems that there is some truth to the idea of self selection and WUSTL's presence in Chicago being better than the 19% placement number from 2009.

I am going to let you treat the logic in this paragraph like an LSAT question. What is horrendously wrong with this statement?

Nothing that I can see. If 20% of students want Chicago and 19% get it, that sounds pretty good. That's why I'm saying that WUSTL having mediocre aggregate numbers for Chicago doesn't seem to point to lack of opportunities, but more to their students not wanting Chicago as much.

Oh lord. Just to start us off, the 20% who put Chicago as their first choice and 19% who end up there aren't necessarily the same students.

Ah this is true especially considering the 19% could very well consist of students who didn't initially prefer Chicago but who receive offers that are too good to pass up. Good call. Damn my logical reasoning

[sambeber]

Or, receive their only offer in Chicago (no matter how crappy), and are forced to take that job by circumstances. I wouldn't be so optimistic about it, if I were you.

[TheSteelKid]

Or, receive their only offer in Chicago (no matter how crappy), and are forced to take that job by circumstances. I wouldn't be so optimistic about it, if I were you.

Yes I guess I was assuming that I wasn't being mislead and that a good amount of the students who wanted Chicago were able to work there. Bad assumption.

[sambeber]

I'm not saying you were misled. In all likelihood, those two percentages are true (to the extent any employment data put out by law schools can be counted on to be accurate.) What I am saying is that those two statistics you were given don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

[TheSteelKid]

I'm not saying you were misled. In all likelihood, those two percentages are true (to the extent any employment data put out by law schools can be counted on to be accurate.) What I am saying is that those two statistics you were given don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

I understand this point that the people that wanted and the people that got chicago don't necessarily overlap, even at all. What I am saying is that in the context which the information was presented to me, it seemed to be a good faith assertion that in fact some of the two groups do overlap and that a good amount of people who wanted chicago actually got it. However making this assumption isn't logical and hence I am wrong. I do hope, however, that people are getting good jobs in locations they prefer to some extent.

[JCougar]

Earning potential from either school are going to be much less than similarly ranked schools on the east and west coast, as neither school really places well in biglaw. There are only one or two St. Louis firms that would be qualified as biglaw, and those don't pay what the coastal firms pay. Chicago has a number of V100 firms, but you'll have to be on law review to get a position at one from either WUSTL or Illinois.

This simply isn't true. There's plenty of people not on WUSTL law review that get Chicago biglaw. I just talked to a WUSTL graduate that is an associate at Kirkland & Ellis....he was on a secondary journal. The typical Biglaw interview cutoff here for the Chicago market is top 33%. And of course, not all those people are on law review.

We don't place as many people into Chicago as UIUC does, because many in the top 33% here opt to go to NY, DC, SF, or LA. There's even a decent amount of people from Texas at this school.

Overall, I think earning potential is the same at either school, but WUSTL has a more geographically diverse student body, and therefore has more placement contacts around the entire country.

Over 60% of UIUC's student body is from Illinois originally, and most of them are only looking to go to Chicago. That's basically the main difference in placement prospects.

Also, if you're talking about 6-figure starting salaries, St. Louis has about a half-dozen biglaw firms (not just 2). They don't pay as much as Chicago, but it's a lot cheaper to live here.

The only other differences are that St. Louis is a far more exciting place to live than Urbana-Champaign, and our campus is gorgeous.

[stratocophic]

Earning potential from either school are going to be much less than similarly ranked schools on the east and west coast, as neither school really places well in biglaw. There are only one or two St. Louis firms that would be qualified as biglaw, and those don't pay what the coastal firms pay. Chicago has a number of V100 firms, but you'll have to be on law review to get a position at one from either WUSTL or Illinois.

This simply isn't true. There's plenty of people not on WUSTL law review that get Chicago biglaw. I just talked to a WUSTL graduate that is an associate at Kirkland & Ellis....he was on a secondary journal. The typical Biglaw interview cutoff here for the Chicago market is top 33%. And of course, not all those people are on law review.

We don't place as many people into Chicago as UIUC does, because many in the top 33% here opt to go to NY, DC, SF, or LA. There's even a decent amount of people from Texas at this school.

Overall, I think earning potential is the same at either school, but WUSTL has a more geographically diverse student body, and therefore has more placement contacts around the entire country.

Over 60% of UIUC's student body is from Illinois originally, and most of them are only looking to go to Chicago. That's basically the main difference in placement prospects.

Also, if you're talking about 6-figure starting salaries, St. Louis has about a half-dozen biglaw firms (not just 2). They don't pay as much as Chicago, but it's a lot cheaper to live here.

The only other differences are that St. Louis is a far more exciting place to live than Urbana-Champaign, and our campus is gorgeous.

Off the top of my head there are 8 firms that start at 6 figures, and I'm pretty sure there are at least a few others I can't recall that are a bit smaller.
Husch
Armstrong
Bryan Cave
Polsinelli
Greensfelder
Lewis Rice
Sonnenschein
Thompson Coburn

[JCougar]

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofli ... iving.html

Also, I dispute the notion that the "earning potential" is less at either of these schools then their peers on the east coast. Take a look at this Cost of Living calculator.

St. Louis biglaw firms start out at $110K (except for Bryan Cave, which starts out at $125K). Let's say you get a job in St. Louis biglaw for $110K. According to this cost of living calculator, that equals $263K in Manhattan. You're not going to make that much in NYC biglaw until the year before you become partner.

Even if you change your neighborhood to Brooklyn, a $110K salary in St. Louis is equivalent to $220K in Brooklyn.

The best earning potential is not on the East Coast, because you have to throw most of your salary down the drain on housing. The best deals are in medium-sized cities in Biglaw, or in places like Dallas, Houston, Austin, or Atlanta that still pay $160K but cost far less to live. That's where you really make money and become filthy rich. A $160K salary in Dallas is equivalent to $377K in Manhattan. Take your pick as to what is a better deal.

[bk1]

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofli ... iving.html

Also, I dispute the notion that the "earning potential" is less at either of these schools then their peers on the east coast. Take a look at this Cost of Living calculator.

St. Louis biglaw firms start out at $110K (except for Bryan Cave, which starts out at $125K). Let's say you get a job in St. Louis biglaw for $110K. According to this cost of living calculator, that equals $263K in Manhattan. You're not going to make that much in NYC biglaw until the year before you become partner.

Even if you change your neighborhood to Brooklyn, a $110K salary in St. Louis is equivalent to $220K in Brooklyn.

The best earning potential is not on the East Coast, because you have to throw most of your salary down the drain on housing. The best deals are in medium-sized cities in Biglaw, or in places like Dallas, Houston, Austin, or Atlanta that still pay $160K but cost far less to live. That's where you really make money and become filthy rich. A $160K salary in Dallas is equivalent to $377K in Manhattan. Take your pick as to what is a better deal.

Let's at least be real about 2 things:

1. Chicago is expensive (though not as expensive as NYC) and a lot of people from these schools target biglaw there.

2. You can't just use something like a CoL indicator or the Avery Index to make blanket presumptions across the board because one of the biggest expenses that law school grads have (loan repayments) is the same whether you are in NYC or St. Louis. Yes it is cheaper outside of NYC, but not taking into account the static factor of loan repayments when making salary comparisons leads to an exaggerated version of reality.

[Hannibal]

I think it's kind of funny that people are moving past "will I get a job" to "if I am the greatest ever, can I be ULTRA RICH or just super rich?"

[bk1]

I think it's kind of funny that people are moving past "will I get a job" to "if I am the greatest ever, can I be ULTRA RICH or just super rich?"

25% of the time I get biglaw every time.

[JCougar]

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofli ... iving.html

Also, I dispute the notion that the "earning potential" is less at either of these schools then their peers on the east coast. Take a look at this Cost of Living calculator.

St. Louis biglaw firms start out at $110K (except for Bryan Cave, which starts out at $125K). Let's say you get a job in St. Louis biglaw for $110K. According to this cost of living calculator, that equals $263K in Manhattan. You're not going to make that much in NYC biglaw until the year before you become partner.

Even if you change your neighborhood to Brooklyn, a $110K salary in St. Louis is equivalent to $220K in Brooklyn.

The best earning potential is not on the East Coast, because you have to throw most of your salary down the drain on housing. The best deals are in medium-sized cities in Biglaw, or in places like Dallas, Houston, Austin, or Atlanta that still pay $160K but cost far less to live. That's where you really make money and become filthy rich. A $160K salary in Dallas is equivalent to $377K in Manhattan. Take your pick as to what is a better deal.

Let's at least be real about 2 things:

1. Chicago is expensive (though not as expensive as NYC) and a lot of people from these schools target biglaw there.

2. You can't just use something like a CoL indicator or the Avery Index to make blanket presumptions across the board because one of the biggest expenses that law school grads have (loan repayments) is the same whether you are in NYC or St. Louis. Yes it is cheaper outside of NYC, but not taking into account the static factor of loan repayments when making salary comparisons leads to an exaggerated version of reality.

That's true, but I think it's also too much to conclude that east coast schools that attract mostly east coast students that place mostly on the east coast automatically give you more earning potential. It's all relative to the cost of living, minus your loan repayments.

[romothesavior]

I think it's kind of funny that people are moving past "will I get a job" to "if I am the greatest ever, can I be ULTRA RICH or just super rich?"

25% of the time I get biglaw every time.

[TheSteelKid]

Despite people voting for WUSTL I am more attracted to illinois bc of its pull w chicago. Hope it all works out for the best.

[MyManKanye]

I had a similar feeling. It wasn't so much that Illinois seemed to do better than Chicago, but more the fact that it had a "true" major home market. The top students at both schools have similar opportunities I'd think, but my impression was more that to leave the Midwest at either school you needed to be exemplary or have contacts. I wasn't convinced that I could leave and I wasn't convinced that I could do as well in the Midwest as at Illinois. I also vastly preferred C-U to St. Louis, but the campus at Wash U was head and shoulders better.

As far as COL goes for secondary market vs primary market. Keep in mind that most people won't live in or near NYC and make an hour commute into work. That brings COL down severely. Also, those who do live in the cities often don't have cars, which at the rate we're going will surpass housing in expense soon.

[Hannibal]

As far as COL goes for secondary market vs primary market. Keep in mind that most people won't live in or near NYC and make an hour commute into work. That brings COL down severely. Also, those who do live in the cities often don't have cars, which at the rate we're going will surpass housing in expense soon.

I know this isn't the topic for it, but this increase in gas prices seems unsustainable without some kind of market tampering. It's not demand related or cost related, it's refineries shutting down because they aren't making the profits they once were, which drives it up again. Wouldn't a single major oil company deciding to keep its refineries open and sell low cost gas make huge headway? Makes no damn sense.

[MyManKanye]

As far as COL goes for secondary market vs primary market. Keep in mind that most people won't live in or near NYC and make an hour commute into work. That brings COL down severely. Also, those who do live in the cities often don't have cars, which at the rate we're going will surpass housing in expense soon.

I know this isn't the topic for it, but this increase in gas prices seems unsustainable without some kind of market tampering. It's not demand related or cost related, it's refineries shutting down because they aren't making the profits they once were, which drives it up again. Wouldn't a single major oil company deciding to keep its refineries open and sell low cost gas make huge headway? Makes no damn sense.

From what I understand, its all driven by speculation. Oil is a traded commodity so its all bought by wholesalers from futures traders who speculate on it. I suppose if a refinery or drilling company just went hog wild and opened the taps they could drop prices, but it would have to be Exxon or BP or a huge player to do that. OPEC and all the other companies don't want to because this makes them lots of money. The fact is that companies/speculators have found out that they can raise prices and demand falls only a small amount. People need gas so they can't just stop buying it.

I've been hearing that gas prices will be between 4 and 5 dollars a gallon through September with spikes hitting 6 dollars if theres any kind of supply scare. Just kind of our new reality.

On topic though, I forgot to mention that the smaller class size at Illinois really appealed to me because (ironically) I went to Illinois for UG and did horrible my first two years because my classes were hundreds of kids and I never knew the professor or the TAs and thus never felt motivated to try or go to class. I've been a nearly 4.0 student since my 400 level classes started that were all 30 students or less. I was also always getting locked out of the classes I wanted since registration dates are GPA and honors based. Some people like having a bigger peer group though. I'd imagine the physical classes themselves are probably similar sizes due to section splitting.

[romothesavior]

On topic though, I forgot to mention that the smaller class size at Illinois really appealed to me because (ironically) I went to Illinois for UG and did horrible my first two years because my classes were hundreds of kids and I never knew the professor or the TAs and thus never felt motivated to try or go to class. I've been a nearly 4.0 student since my 400 level classes started that were all 30 students or less. I was also always getting locked out of the classes I wanted since registration dates are GPA and honors based. Some people like having a bigger peer group though. I'd imagine the physical classes themselves are probably similar sizes due to section splitting.

The difference between class size between WUSTL and UIUC is negligible, at least for the purposes of socialization, individual classes, and "feel." And the class difference will be even smaller next year, as our class will be down around 250 again. I don't think the difference of 50-70 students is really all that noticeable.

[Hannibal]

On topic though, I forgot to mention that the smaller class size at Illinois really appealed to me because (ironically) I went to Illinois for UG and did horrible my first two years because my classes were hundreds of kids and I never knew the professor or the TAs and thus never felt motivated to try or go to class. I've been a nearly 4.0 student since my 400 level classes started that were all 30 students or less. I was also always getting locked out of the classes I wanted since registration dates are GPA and honors based. Some people like having a bigger peer group though. I'd imagine the physical classes themselves are probably similar sizes due to section splitting.

The difference between class size between WUSTL and UIUC is negligible, at least for the purposes of socialization, individual classes, and "feel." And the class difference will be even smaller next year, as our class will be down around 250 again. I don't think the difference of 50-70 students is really all that noticeable.

Someone at Wash U told me their class size would be about 220, and UIUC said 180. Might have been a conservative guess though.

[Slevin Kelevra 2011]

It would be interesting if WashU could provide where those 19% went to work in Chicago. Just because people are working in Chicago, doesn't mean they are at big firms in Chicago. See WUSTL's employment stats according to the NLJ article. Over 80% of students at WUSTL don't get biglaw. Not a very good bet if that is what you want to do.