Top Law Schools

OP, come back when you Stanford gives you an aid package and you can estimate the total amount of loans you would have at the end of 3 years at each place. This is really the only good way you can make a decision. The "duke for free vs stanford at sticker" thing is fun to debate but is really just a hypothetical at this point. Chances are you'll get some money from Stanford and chances are Duke won't actually be "free" since you have to pay for cost of living. Also consider that living in Palo Alto is far more expensive than Durham.

badaboom61 wrote:OP, come back when you Stanford gives you an aid package and you can estimate the total amount of loans you would have at the end of 3 years at each place. This is really the only good way you can make a decision. The "duke for free vs stanford at sticker" thing is fun to debate but is really just a hypothetical at this point. Chances are you'll get some money from Stanford and chances are Duke won't actually be "free" since you have to pay for cost of living. Also consider that living in Palo Alto is far more expensive than Durham.

This advice is credited. Also, if questions about Palo Alto or Durham, feel free to PM me questions btw. I'm a local Bay Area dude who went to Duke, so I feel like I know things that may be relevant to your interests, OP.

grapefruits wrote:Can someone disprove what I said? Obviously there are outliers, but the LSAT has proved time and again to be an almost perfect test.

Wow, FLAME.

PRgradBYU wrote:

grapefruits wrote:Can someone disprove what I said? Obviously there are outliers, but the LSAT has proved time and again to be an almost perfect test.

Wow, FLAME.

No. Admittedly, I overstated my argument. What I ought to have said was, the test does a near perfect job at serving both students and law schools. There is a theory called, I think, educational mismatch theory, which states roughly: LS performance corresponds with LSAT, bar passage corresponds with LS performance, therefore students, and also law schools, will do best to select around their medians. I.e. if you've got a 165, you shoul thank NYU for rejecting you. I did not mean, and I hope no one was silly enough to distort what I said as such, that no one with a 170 will ever out perform a 171 or even a 180 for that matter, but rather, we would be reasonable to expect those students to rank 3, 2, and 1, respectively, given no other information.

grapefruits wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:

grapefruits wrote:Can someone disprove what I said? Obviously there are outliers, but the LSAT has proved time and again to be an almost perfect test.

Wow, FLAME.

No. Admittedly, I overstated my argument. What I ought to have said was, the test does a near perfect job at serving both students and law schools. There is a theory called, I think, educational mismatch theory,[1] which states roughly: LS performance corresponds with LSAT, bar passage corresponds with LS performance, therefore students, and also law schools, will do best to select around their medians.[2] I.e. if you've got a 165, you shoul thank NYU for rejecting you.[3] I did not mean, and I hope no one was silly enough to distort what I said as such, that no one with a 170 will ever out perform a 171 or even a 180 for that matter, but rather, we would be reasonable to expect those students to rank 3, 2, and 1, respectively, given no other information.[4][5]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatching#Mismatching
[2] http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/lsat-score- ... rmance.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
[4] http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=193579
[5] Don't post stuff like this anymore.

cahwc12 wrote: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatching#Mismatching
[2] http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/lsat-score- ... rmance.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
[4] http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=193579
[5] Don't post stuff like this anymore.

Grapefruits = pwned. /thread

PRgradBYU wrote:

cahwc12 wrote: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatching#Mismatching
[2] http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/lsat-score- ... rmance.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
[4] http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=193579
[5] Don't post stuff like this anymore.

Grapefruits = pwned. /thread

None of this adressed what I said, except the first, which mentioned that it was contested, like every single theory in the world; so not exactly a knock out hit. That was def. a solid try, but your presentation came off as way too haughty considering it's complete lack of substance[1]. Addressed [2]. Not relevant, merely stated schools had an interest to admit URMs, nothing to do with performance [3]. TLS topic, wtf, that was actually a joke I think [4]. Reminiscent of a first year philosophy student [5].

grapefruits wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:

cahwc12 wrote: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatching#Mismatching
[2] http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/lsat-score- ... rmance.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
[4] http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=193579
[5] Don't post stuff like this anymore.

Grapefruits = pwned. /thread

None of this adressed what I said, except the first, which mentioned that it was contested, like every single theory in the world; so not exactly a knock out hit. That was def. a solid try, but your presentation came off as way too haughty considering it's complete lack of substance[1]. Addressed [2]. Not relevant, merely stated schools had an interest to admit URMs, nothing to do with performance [3]. TLS topic, wtf, that was actually a joke I think [4]. Reminiscent of a first year philosophy student [5].

your response is unreadable

kwais wrote:

grapefruits wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:

cahwc12 wrote: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatching#Mismatching
[2] http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/lsat-score- ... rmance.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
[4] http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=193579
[5] Don't post stuff like this anymore.

Grapefruits = pwned. /thread

None of this adressed what I said, except the first, which mentioned that it was contested, like every single theory in the world; so not exactly a knock out hit. That was def. a solid try, but your presentation came off as way too haughty considering it's complete lack of substance[1]. Addressed [2]. Not relevant, merely stated schools had an interest to admit URMs, nothing to do with performance [3]. TLS topic, wtf, that was actually a joke I think [4]. Reminiscent of a first year philosophy student [5].

your response is unreadable

Not sure if it's actually unreadable or if you're just complaining about the writing, either way I'm blaming it on being on my phone at work/not really caring. I'd be pissy too if I got a 164 or whatever.

I love how these forums can go off into the craziest tangents :] I want to thank everyone who took the time to offer advice though; I really appreciate it! Wanted to let you all know that after weighing the pros and cons, I have decided to take the Mordecai and go to Duke. Many of you suggested I wait until I find out what $ I can get from Stanford, but I'll just tell you straight up: my family makes too much for me to get any need-based assistance. I have a younger brother at MIT who had to pay sticker. I definitely understand what many of you have said; going to a school like Stanford genuinely creates a degree of security as you enter the job market, but as hard as I worked to get where I am now, I am confident that at Duke I will be able to work hard enough, and have the resources available, to create opportunities that will make my three years spent there worth while. Maybe it's not going to be at such a high powered firm as a degree from Stanford would place me, but realistically, I'm not aiming to enter a firm and make egregious amounts of money forever as I work my way up towards partnership. I want to get into a solid firm and gain the experience necessary to eventually work in-house in an aspect of the entertainment industry, and Duke is a great institution that I'm pretty sure can get me there. Oh lol, also to chime in on the LSAT vs. LS performance discussion; I'll just say my LSAT score alone didn't define my admission to these institutions, and it's not going to define what I bring to my class once I make it to law school; that's on me, the holistic me (well, maybe it also helps that Duke doesn't publish rank) :] Thanks again though everyone!!! I'm really excited for what's coming next.

bnmillie13 wrote:I love how these forums can go off into the craziest tangents :] I want to thank everyone who took the time to offer advice though; I really appreciate it! Wanted to let you all know that after weighing the pros and cons, I have decided to take the Mordecai and go to Duke. Many of you suggested I wait until I find out what $ I can get from Stanford, but I'll just tell you straight up: my family makes too much for me to get any need-based assistance. I have a younger brother at MIT who had to pay sticker. I definitely understand what many of you have said; going to a school like Stanford genuinely creates a degree of security as you enter the job market, but as hard as I worked to get where I am now, I am confident that at Duke I will be able to work hard enough, and have the resources available, to create opportunities that will make my three years spent there worth while. Maybe it's not going to be at such a high powered firm as a degree from Stanford would place me, but realistically, I'm not aiming to enter a firm and make egregious amounts of money forever as I work my way up towards partnership. I want to get into a solid firm and gain the experience necessary to eventually work in-house in an aspect of the entertainment industry, and Duke is a great institution that I'm pretty sure can get me there. Oh lol, also to chime in on the LSAT vs. LS performance discussion; I'll just say my LSAT score alone didn't define my admission to these institutions, and it's not going to define what I bring to my class once I make it to law school; that's on me, the holistic me (well, maybe it also helps that Duke doesn't publish rank) :] Thanks again though everyone!!! I'm really excited for what's coming next.

Honestly, if your family makes that kind of money maybe you should just get their financial assistance and go to Stanford. The thing about going to Duke is if you end up below median you're going to have an incredibly hard time getting a firm job (your desired outcome). However, the likelihood of you pulling above median grades is higher than the average admit since you got the Mordecai. Either way good luck.

bnmillie13 wrote:I love how these forums can go off into the craziest tangents :] I want to thank everyone who took the time to offer advice though; I really appreciate it! Wanted to let you all know that after weighing the pros and cons, I have decided to take the Mordecai and go to Duke. Many of you suggested I wait until I find out what $ I can get from Stanford, but I'll just tell you straight up: my family makes too much for me to get any need-based assistance. I have a younger brother at MIT who had to pay sticker. I definitely understand what many of you have said; going to a school like Stanford genuinely creates a degree of security as you enter the job market, but as hard as I worked to get where I am now, I am confident that at Duke I will be able to work hard enough, and have the resources available, to create opportunities that will make my three years spent there worth while. Maybe it's not going to be at such a high powered firm as a degree from Stanford would place me, but realistically, I'm not aiming to enter a firm and make egregious amounts of money forever as I work my way up towards partnership. I want to get into a solid firm and gain the experience necessary to eventually work in-house in an aspect of the entertainment industry, and Duke is a great institution that I'm pretty sure can get me there. Oh lol, also to chime in on the LSAT vs. LS performance discussion; I'll just say my LSAT score alone didn't define my admission to these institutions, and it's not going to define what I bring to my class once I make it to law school; that's on me, the holistic me (well, maybe it also helps that Duke doesn't publish rank) :] Thanks again though everyone!!! I'm really excited for what's coming next.

You were definitely admitted in spite of your LSAT, that being said, you must have put forth quite the impressive application. I'm guessing you'll be successful wherever you go. Good luck.

cahwc12 wrote:

grapefruits wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:

grapefruits wrote:Can someone disprove what I said? Obviously there are outliers, but the LSAT has proved time and again to be an almost perfect test.

Wow, FLAME.

No. Admittedly, I overstated my argument. What I ought to have said was, the test does a near perfect job at serving both students and law schools. There is a theory called, I think, educational mismatch theory,[1] which states roughly: LS performance corresponds with LSAT, bar passage corresponds with LS performance, therefore students, and also law schools, will do best to select around their medians.[2] I.e. if you've got a 165, you shoul thank NYU for rejecting you.[3] I did not mean, and I hope no one was silly enough to distort what I said as such, that no one with a 170 will ever out perform a 171 or even a 180 for that matter, but rather, we would be reasonable to expect those students to rank 3, 2, and 1, respectively, given no other information.[4][5]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatching#Mismatching
[2] http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/lsat-score- ... rmance.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
[4] http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=193579
[5] Don't post stuff like this anymore.

Also:

One of the leading critiques of the mismatch theory, published by Katherine Barnes in the Northwestern Law Review, turned out to be filled with erroneous numbers. See Williams, Sander, Luppino, & Bolus, "Professor Barnes and Law School Mismatch" 105 Nw. U. L. Rev. (2011). When done correctly, her analysis is entirely consistent with the mismatch hypothesis. The other major critiques of the mismatch effect all turn out to have methodolgocial problems, which, when corrected, produce results showing generally large mismatch effects.

Richard Sander, "Class In Amercan Legal Education," Denver Law Review 88:4 2011

Obviously though, with your stellar LSAT, I can see why you're hoping it isn't true. Your whole life mommy told you you were the prettiest pony, and you know that despite your weak numbers that you'll really rush the halls at Yale.

grapefruits wrote:

cahwc12 wrote:

grapefruits wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote: Wow, FLAME.

No. Admittedly, I overstated my argument. What I ought to have said was, the test does a near perfect job at serving both students and law schools. There is a theory called, I think, educational mismatch theory,[1] which states roughly: LS performance corresponds with LSAT, bar passage corresponds with LS performance, therefore students, and also law schools, will do best to select around their medians.[2] I.e. if you've got a 165, you shoul thank NYU for rejecting you.[3] I did not mean, and I hope no one was silly enough to distort what I said as such, that no one with a 170 will ever out perform a 171 or even a 180 for that matter, but rather, we would be reasonable to expect those students to rank 3, 2, and 1, respectively, given no other information.[4][5]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatching#Mismatching
[2] http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/lsat-score- ... rmance.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
[4] http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=193579
[5] Don't post stuff like this anymore.

Also:

One of the leading critiques of the mismatch theory, published by Katherine Barnes in the Northwestern Law Review, turned out to be filled with erroneous numbers. See Williams, Sander, Luppino, & Bolus, "Professor Barnes and Law School Mismatch" 105 Nw. U. L. Rev. (2011). When done correctly, her analysis is entirely consistent with the mismatch hypothesis. The other major critiques of the mismatch effect all turn out to have methodolgocial problems, which, when corrected, produce results showing generally large mismatch effects.

Richard Sander, "Class In Amercan Legal Education," Denver Law Review 88:4 2011

Obviously though, with your stellar LSAT, I can see why you're hoping it isn't true. Your whole life mommy told you you were the prettiest pony, and you know that despite your weak numbers that you'll really rush the halls at Yale.

lolwut

ETA: Posted right after quoted portion was edited. There was a lulz-inducing reference to a 164 LSAT and a micro-penis though...

grapefruits wrote:

cahwc12 wrote:

grapefruits wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:
Wow, FLAME.

No. Admittedly, I overstated my argument. What I ought to have said was, the test does a near perfect job at serving both students and law schools. There is a theory called, I think, educational mismatch theory,[1] which states roughly: LS performance corresponds with LSAT, bar passage corresponds with LS performance, therefore students, and also law schools, will do best to select around their medians.[2] I.e. if you've got a 165, you shoul thank NYU for rejecting you.[3] I did not mean, and I hope no one was silly enough to distort what I said as such, that no one with a 170 will ever out perform a 171 or even a 180 for that matter, but rather, we would be reasonable to expect those students to rank 3, 2, and 1, respectively, given no other information.[4][5]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatching#Mismatching
[2] http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/lsat-score- ... rmance.pdf
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
[4] http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=193579
[5] Don't post stuff like this anymore.

Also:

One of the leading critiques of the mismatch theory, published by Katherine Barnes in the Northwestern Law Review, turned out to be filled with erroneous numbers. See Williams, Sander, Luppino, & Bolus, "Professor Barnes and Law School Mismatch" 105 Nw. U. L. Rev. (2011). When done correctly, her analysis is entirely consistent with the mismatch hypothesis. The other major critiques of the mismatch effect all turn out to have methodolgocial problems, which, when corrected, produce results showing generally large mismatch effects.

Richard Sander, "Class In Amercan Legal Education," Denver Law Review 88:4 2011

Get off your own micro-penis, 164-scoring loser.

Precious.

Thought the micro penis and 164 reference sounded too
mad but I ain't even mad doe

grapefruits wrote:Thought the micro penis and 164 reference sounded too
mad but I ain't even mad doe

You sound pretty mad doe

grapefruits wrote:Thought the micro penis and 164 reference sounded too
mad but I ain't even mad doe

Clearly.

Suralin wrote:

grapefruits wrote:Thought the micro penis and 164 reference sounded too
mad but I ain't even mad doe

You sound pretty mad doe

I know. I'm ashamed. TLS identity forever unclean.

Everyone play nice.

.....

ETA: This thread is super on topic.

ndirish2010 wrote:Assuming Stanford is sticker, and considering you just want NYC biglaw essentially, I would go with Duke. It would change obviously if Stanford came through with some $$, and I don't think you can really make a wrong decision here. If you were looking for clerkship/academia placement then Stanford would win out.

Congrats!

This is totally correct.

Why is this thread 3 pages?

Yukos wrote:I'm risk averse so I'm taking Stanford (I'm in a similar situation). Sure, NYC isn't that hard to get from Duke (if you wanted LA than this would be an open-shut case for Stanford), but having very little pressure during law school is nice -- plus it might open more doors in the long-term (more prestigious firms, going in-house at a network more easily, whatever). Just my two cents though, you can't go wrong with these options

Agreed. Even at sticker, I would take Stanford in this situation. The full ride would need to be from CCN before I would start giving it heavy consideration. There's still a quite significant chance of a bad outcome at Duke. Your chances of good results both in the short- and long-term are much higher with Stanford.

Odds are you won't be looking at sticker from Stanford, however.

Ti Malice wrote:

Yukos wrote:I'm risk averse so I'm taking Stanford (I'm in a similar situation). Sure, NYC isn't that hard to get from Duke (if you wanted LA than this would be an open-shut case for Stanford), but having very little pressure during law school is nice -- plus it might open more doors in the long-term (more prestigious firms, going in-house at a network more easily, whatever). Just my two cents though, you can't go wrong with these options

Agreed. Even at sticker, I would take Stanford in this situation. The full ride would need to be from CCN before I would start giving it heavy consideration. There's still a quite significant chance of a bad outcome at Duke. Your chances of good results both in the short- and long-term are much higher with Stanford.

Odds are you won't be looking at sticker from Stanford, however.

There really isn't high odds of a bad outcome from Dook. If he misses $160,000 biglaw and gets another legal job then it is a good outcome. Missing biglaw is only a bad outcome if you have so much debt you need biglaw to pay your loans. Removing the debt removes much of the possibility of a bad outcome.