UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

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

Where you you go?

NU @ Sticker (290k)
12
38%
UT with $$ (110k)
20
63%
 
Total votes: 32

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:53 pm

So I didn't read the whole thread but I read much of it and I think IAFG, as often is the case, has the right of it.

Generally threads like these are filled with 0Ls blowing up stats from years back and harping on miniscule percentage differentials and thinking some money from a school with markedly worse career prospects justifies turning down a T14.

I'd say, if I were OP, I'd take on the debt for NU and never look back. I did something similar. With stats like OPs NU at sticker isn't the worst place to be. When the first exam comes up you'll be happy to know BigLaw firms dip down to median and you're not branded as being from a semi-regional (IMO) school.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby Samara » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:57 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:No, it's about 55%, like I said. I don't know how you came up with 65%, or why you're ignoring LST, but since you insist on making me do the math...

All of the figures are taken directly from Northwestern's ABA Employment questionnaire from the link you provided.

127 (501+) + 11 (251 - 500) + 7 (101-250) = 145 students in Biglaw. 145 / 290 graduates = 49.8%

19 in Federal Clerkships / 290 graduates = 6.5%

49.8% + 6.5% = 56.3%. Like I said, about 55% (I rounded a little before).

Dude, you have to be trolling if you think this is an accurate representation of an NU student's odds at biglaw.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby bk1 » Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:12 am

rickgrimes69 wrote:145 / 290 graduates = 49.8%

wat

User avatar
bananasplit19
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:53 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby bananasplit19 » Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:20 am

bk1 wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:145 / 290 graduates = 49.8%

wat

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby jselson » Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:24 am

Samara wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:No, it's about 55%, like I said. I don't know how you came up with 65%, or why you're ignoring LST, but since you insist on making me do the math...

All of the figures are taken directly from Northwestern's ABA Employment questionnaire from the link you provided.

127 (501+) + 11 (251 - 500) + 7 (101-250) = 145 students in Biglaw. 145 / 290 graduates = 49.8%

19 in Federal Clerkships / 290 graduates = 6.5%

49.8% + 6.5% = 56.3%. Like I said, about 55% (I rounded a little before).

Dude, you have to be trolling if you think this is an accurate representation of an NU student's odds at biglaw.


Fer real. Let's say half of the students who get non-biglaw/fed clerkship jobs self select into those (apart from 2-10 person firms), and the rate increases to 67%. That sounds a lot more plausible in terms of possibility.

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby shifty_eyed » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:45 am

I turned down 45k from NU for a similar scholarship to UT.

I have since had a significant increase in scholarship, but I think people are really overestimating how much "value" or whatever a NU JD gives over UT.

It certainly has much better employment stats, but if you miss the biglaw boat, I doubt you are that much better off with 270k or whatever from NU than 112 from UT.

I am clearly biased since I am from TX and committed to UT, though.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:51 am

bk1 wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:145 / 290 graduates = 49.8%

wat


Meant 295. My b

Dude, you have to be trolling if you think this is an accurate representation of an NU student's odds at biglaw.


Why? There's undoubtedly a few people who self-select out. And I recognize that last year was a poor showing for NU compared to Biglaw placement in years past. But this entire discussion has focused on people taking out sticker debt, and I wouldn't rely on speculation that "next year will be better" with $290k on the line. Doubly so with $400k.

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:So I didn't read the whole thread ...
Generally threads like these are filled with 0Ls blowing up stats from years back and harping on miniscule percentage differentials and thinking some money from a school with markedly worse career prospects justifies turning down a T14.


Clearly you didn't read the thread if that's what you took away from it. Neither myself nor IAFG are 0Ls and 2012 employment data hardly counts as "stats from years back." I also never recommended OP go to UT, so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:55 am

rickgrimes69 wrote:
No, it's about 55%, like I said. I don't know how you came up with 65%, or why you're ignoring LST, but since you insist on making me do the math...

All of the figures are taken directly from Northwestern's ABA Employment questionnaire from the link you provided.

127 (501+) + 11 (251 - 500) + 7 (101-250) = 145 students in Biglaw. 145 / 290 295 graduates = 49.8%

19 in Federal Clerkships / 290 295 graduates = 6.5%

49.8% + 6.5% = 56.3%. Like I said, about 55% (I rounded a little before).

The survey is of 90.8% of grads, or 268 people. You're assuming anyone who didn't fill out OCS's survey didn't get biglaw or a clerkship, and I am not. I know OCS doesn't cherry-pick who they nag to fill it out, so I have no reason to believe it's not a representative 90.8%.

You looked only at firm size, I went down to the financial breakdown of who reported a salary and what they were making.

152 people, or 56.7%, worked at firms btw 501+-51 attys. All of these categories had 6 figure salaries at the 25h percentile.

For the category 11-25 attys, the 25th percentile was $80k, the median was $87,500 and the 75th was 100k. That's 2 more people making 6 figures.

For the category "business/industry," the 25th is $58,750, the median is $100k and the 75th is $125k. Those reported without any sort of anticipated bonus, I assume those MBAs are betting on a different pay structure, but regardless, of those 19 people, 10 more are making 6 figures.

Now we have our 22 clerks.

that's 195 people making 6 figures or else clerking, or 72.76 percent.

Now, it may happen that everyone below the 25th made under 6 figures for the ranges I assumed were all 6 figures. It may be that all 9% of people who didn't report didn't get a clerkship or biglaw (although it's been pointed out before that a 90.8% response rate is damn reliable data, but we truly are splitting hairs here). But, it also assumes all 4 people at firms btw 26-50 attorneys aren't getting paid 6 figures, even though half of the people at the firm size tier under them are. So I will concede, it may not be exactly 72.76%.

Also, this 2012 data, IMO, is a good representation of post-recession hiring, so I don't think anyone should bet on things being better. Though I think most would agree that this is pretty damn good.

BigZuck
Posts: 10880
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby BigZuck » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:19 am

I think people are way overvaluing UT here. The OP doesn't have ties to Texas. I wouldn't bet 127K (I'm guessing it will be more when all is said and done) on the 1/3 chance they will snag big law. And then couple that with the fact that they want to snag CA?

UT is a non-starter. I would not go there unless it was cheap-ish, I had Texas ties, I wanted to work in Texas long term, and I was totally fine with the likely scenario of missing big law.

Sticker at NU is the lesser of two evils, IMO. But honestly I wouldn't do either if I were the OP.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby Big Dog » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:26 am

I turned down 45k from NU for a similar scholarship to UT.
......
I am clearly biased since I am from TX


Doh! If you want Texas anything, UT is the way to go, particularly for cheap.

But without ties, getting any job is gonna be difficult. Even if the OP wants to stay in Texas, the lack of ties will be a huge detriment.

NU without a doubt if the OP really wants to be an attorney. But I'd really vote for none-of-the-above. Retake/reapply and hope for money from UCLA/USC or UCI. If no local money, don't go to LS.

CourCour
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:59 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby CourCour » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:44 am

OP a much larger percentage of students at NU end up where you want to be: in big law and in CA.

Do you want to end up working for an oil company in Houston?

With your interests (DC, potentiall IP) I actually think GW at 110 would have been best choice.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby utlaw2007 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:53 pm

Assuming 60-70k out of school is a little high, isn't it? I wouldn't want to pay off that same 120k on a 40k salary or if I didn't become a lawyer at all.

300k is big law or bust, no doubt, but with a low GPA maximizing your big law potential takes priority over location and debt minimization. Of course you could always just don't go, but UT isn't middle ground here because the OP doesn't want and isn't from Texas and it's still over 100k.

I didn't harp too much on the UCLA/USC because that just doesn't happen with a 2.7. Sitting out and reapplying there wouldn't hurt, and trying to live outside CA for a bit is well, absurd as far as reasoning goes.


This is not high at all. This is what the starting salary is at most really small firms in Texas. The problem for OP is that without Texas ties, there is basically no chance he/she will get any of these jobs in Texas.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aside, neptunian and 4 guests