Big Law Silicon Valley: UT v UCLA v Cornell v UCD Forum

[jwahba]

I managed to negotiate another 48k out of UT, making it a half-ride. (Thanks for the advice on leveraging WUSTL's scholarship).

If my priorities are firstly Biglaw and secondly SV Biglaw, would it make sense to go to UT half ride over Cornell with whatever I can wrangle out of them by leveraging UT's scholly?

Thanks Again.

[JasonR]

Well, let's see what you get out of Cornell first.

[jwahba]

What would you say is the break-even point, price-wise, where I should have no preference between UT and Cornell.

[gotmilk?]

What would you say is the break-even point, price-wise, where I should have no preference between UT and Cornell.

Congrats on getting more money from UT. I think the answer to your question depends on how much of a biglaw or bust mentality you have. You've probably got much better chances at biglaw generally at Cornell than UT, since Cornell does a great job of churning out NYC biglaw associates. On the other hand, if you're mostly interested in SV biglaw and maybe not so much in NYC biglaw, I think you'd be smarter to take money at UT- your chances of getting to the Bay Area from UT are probably at least as good as Cornell, and you'd have a much lower debt load to deal with in case you didn't get biglaw.

Something else to consider: what's your preference between NYC and Texas? What happens if it turns out you're in the bottom half or 25% of your class and you find it tough to have much regional mobility? I'd defer to someone who's more familiar with UT and Cornell on this question, but I'd bet that people in the bottom third or lower might not have many options outside of New York and Texas. If you hate Texas or hate NYC, it might be best to stay away from the school located there. Another consideration: you'll get a ton more purchasing power if you need to work for a few years in Texas than in NYC- your debt load would be much lower if you choose UT, and you'd be able to pay it off much quicker b/c it's way cheaper to live in TX than NY, giving you more long-term flexibility.

If I remember correctly, you're interested in IP. There's definitely some of that in Texas (although it may decrease with the new patent suit joinder rules potentially decreasing the amount of lit in EDTX), so it might also be possible to do IP work in TX for a few years and then try to lateral to SV biglaw if you don't get it originally (although I'd guess there are some IP opportunities in NYC... I'm just not as personally familiar with them).

[jwahba]

That's a very extensive response. Thanks. Barring Columbia picking me off their "quasi-waitlist" or Stanford pulling a real shocker, it looks like I am leaning UT. Part of it is the cost of living, and then there's the red state credentials of no state income tax. Also, I'm leaning more M&A and less patent litigation, but that could very well change in three years.

Thanks for the great advice.

[jwahba]

Should I take this data into account when considering where to go, or is it unreliable? http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... rev-2.html

If I have the patience to study 4-5 hours a day, that would put me well above the UT average and well below the Cornell average. Then again, I am not sure how much studying correlates with ranking.

Thoughts?

[chasgoose]

I read it twice, and I still don't get what you are disagreeing with.

1. if you have SV ties, then you are in good shape unless you have bad grades (then you are pwned anyway from UCLA)

2. if you have IP background, then you are in good shape regardless of ties.

So maybe you are trying to say: if you have good grades, then you can go with 1 or 2. If you have bad grades, then 1 is not enough. That's not the same as "if you have both".

Yeah I agree here, the reason you need ties is so they think you will stay in their area for the longhaul (hopefully with them). If you have an IP background, you don't really need ties to demonstrate why you would want to be in SV...