Top Law Schools

The thing is, you're not going to find the data you're looking for because it doesn't exist. TLS' holy grail of statistics ultimately comes down to, "What percent of people that go into (/change their minds once at) law school wanting biglaw get biglaw?"

In one corner, there's the Knights Templar of UPenn, who insist that Penn's LST stats clearly put them in a CCNP bracket, if not a CCP > N bracket. Somewhere drifting on the high seas are the Taipeimortists, an unruly mob that claims UChicago belongs in a tier with HYS thanks to their clerkship placement and prestigious-PI accessibility. Then there's the NWers -- pardon, the NUers, who insist that their school, by nature of its biglaw number alone, deserves to be ranked around at least 9 on USNWR. And then over by that massive tree fort, there's the Berkeley kids: "I go to law school? I wouldn't know, since none of my classes are graded and most of the time I'm hung over."

...

Probably the closest metric you have, outside of, you know, LST, is personal anecdotes/opinions from folks at these law schools. From what I've seen, the people at Stanford seem to believe that getting biglaw is basically a sure thing. Equally, the people at UChicago, while perhaps not as much of a total guarantee as Stanford, seem like they have at least a 70-80% chance of biglaw, probably closer to 90%+ when you factor in state supreme court clerkships and prestigious PI that requires biglaw-esque grades.

The biggest thing you have going for you is the fact that you'll graduate with 30k of debt. Even if you decide you hate law once you're in law school (people do!), you're still in really great shape.

Ti Malice wrote:

Yukos wrote:

Greene wrote:

Ti Malice wrote:
That's a terribly oversimplified measurement of placement into "good jobs" to begin with, and it's wholly inadequate for YHS, where there's heavy self-selection into "prestigious PI" and top government jobs as well as the most lucrative J.D.-advantage jobs. These are all people who could have gotten BigLaw had they wanted it. There are a good number of people at YHS who would view BigLaw as a disappointing outcome.

If your goals are strictly BigLaw, however, I think it's perfectly reasonable to take Chicago here. The $90K difference at the start of repayment will be significantly greater as interest piles up on your SLS debt long after your Chicago debt would have been paid off. SLS would provide

You seem very passionate and your opinion is covered in my OP:

"When I press them as to why, they say Stanford will get you a better job, but when I refer to Law School Transparency, this doesn't seem to be the case using general categories. I've read the other Stanford v. Chicago threads and couldn't find anything other than speculation.

Stanford good jobs: 61.9% (33.7% at firms of 501+ and 28.2% at federal clerkships)
Chicago good jobs: 59.5% (45.1% at firms of 501+ and 14.4% at federal clerkships)

Can anyone point to reliable information that Stanford grads are getting better legal jobs in the private sector, esp. those at median?"

Because my interest is in high paying private legal work, none of the fields you mentioned are relevant to me, but I would be interested in any evidence that this does in fact happen? Do you believe that better high-paying private litigation jobs would be available to a Stanford grad than a Chicago grad? According to Leiter (I know, I know) more Chicago grads are in boutiques than Stanford grads. Which would seem to favor Chicago.

You seem very impassioned, but I am honestly hoping you could provide any data?

1) You keep acting like he's passionate about HYS if it's possible to be passionate about a mini-tier (he goes to Yale so he's not personally attached to SLS) but he recommended you go to Chicago.

2) He didn't say anything about better private sector jobs. He simply said looking ONLY at clerkships + huge firms (which aren't the most selective, btw) won't tell you anything about whether SLS can get you "better" jobs since a lot of people at HYS self-select into prestigious PI and gov.

3) It's common sense that elite firms (not 501+ firms; firms like W&C, WLRK, MTO, KVN that are very small and take on bet-the-company matters) have lower grade cutoffs at HYS than at Chicago, but the only way to have data to back that up would be to share internal CSO data, which is generally not allowed.

4) As Ti Malice helpfully pointed out, all of this worrying about "more prestigious jobs" is mental masturbation since Chicago will in all likelihood give you a great job from median for much less money. If for some bizarre reason you're KVN or bust, then you can start worrying about whether SLS gets you a better private-sector firm job at percentile X. As it stands, you want biglaw, you don't care about location, and UChi is significantly cheaper -- there's not much reason to take SLS, but no one would fault you if you did.

Thanks for making my post completely irrelevant, Yukos.

I gotcha back, bro

For me, the biggest difference between the two schools on visits was below-median student attitude. The randomness of the H/P's, according to current students at SLS, was generally accepted as life, and people were okay, if not necessarily comfortable, with straight P's - they still generally felt like they had job opportunities.

In contrast, Chicago students seemed to say "As long as you're about median, you'll be okay". When I asked about below median students, most people talked about how "their friends were all okay, but they didn't know anyone actually in the bottom third".

Take these anecdotes with a grain of salt - essentially, if I were in your position, I would be thinking about whether I'd pay more for security and peace of mind.

In my opinion, I would take SLS (in fact, I have a similar difference in cost and deferred SLS), but I also admit to being enamored with staying in sunny California.

Vincent wrote:For me, the biggest difference between the two schools on visits was below-median student attitude. The randomness of the H/P's, according to current students at SLS, was generally accepted as life, and people were okay, if not necessarily comfortable, with straight P's - they still generally felt like they had job opportunities.

In contrast, Chicago students seemed to say "As long as you're about median, you'll be okay". When I asked about below median students, most people talked about how "their friends were all okay, but they didn't know anyone actually in the bottom third".

Take these anecdotes with a grain of salt - essentially, if I were in your position, I would be thinking about whether I'd pay more for security and peace of mind.

In my opinion, I would take SLS (in fact, I have a similar difference in cost and deferred SLS), but I also admit to being enamored with staying in sunny California.

For 100K I'd visit as much as I want to.

You cant go wrong OP. They have similar class size and similarly prestigious opportunities. Stanford will be better for intellectual property, patents, tech law, and most public interest careers -- also dominant in CA. Some would add tenured academic positions to this list, but Chicago students place well enough into fellowships and clerkships (many occur after the 9-mo grad statistics on LST) that Im starting to doubt theres a very substantial gap. Two schools seem on par for most other practice areas and opportunities. The one major difference for me would be grading systems (and hence significance of bottom quartile class rank): chicago has a very competitive grading structure and ethos, whereas at SLS people at least feign a far less stressed approach. Some people prefer one to the other (I know Id prefer stanfords, but I also wouldnt pay $100K to avoid letter grades.)

Either way, please let us know what you decide tomorrow!!!!

If you say no to S, and end up around/below median at Chicago, you will literally never forgive yourself. Don't be dumb.

ArtistOfManliness wrote:If you say no to S, and end up around/below median at Chicago, you will literally never forgive yourself. Don't be dumb.

Not sure where this idea that "around median" at Chicago is fucked when all available data point to the contrary

jbagelboy wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:If you say no to S, and end up around/below median at Chicago, you will literally never forgive yourself. Don't be dumb.

Not sure where this idea that "around median" at Chicago is fucked when all available data point to the contrary

I ignore data points, guts are all that count

But you're right, getting big law at Chi at median is fine, but SLS lets one get better firms

ArtistOfManliness wrote:If you say no to S, and end up around/below median at Chicago, you will literally never forgive yourself. Don't be dumb.

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted on TLS. OP can't really make a bad choice, 2 great options

op just go to SLS for dat cali sticky-icky!

Thanks everyone, this has been incredibly helpful! In the sense that it confirms that my choice is a personal one without a clear winner, which is also unfortunate.

Sorry for being testy Malice and Yukos, I just find it very frustrating that the only evidence that there is a gap between S and Chi is anecdotal or non-quantifiable. I think it's a rather serious information issue, but I know you're both trying to be helpful.

Would it push Stanford into the lead if I were interested in the elite small firms?

To those who have asked: I did not receive a Ruby, but did receive 6 figures of scholarship. Additionally, my COA figures (which include absolutely everything) include my savings from working. I received horribly marginal aid from Stanford.

Sinfiery had posted this in a Harvard v. Chicago thread, which was a pretty surprising statistic given the TLS echo chamber:

http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/w ... law-school

Of course everyone is going to respond self-selection, yada yada... but I don't think that explains the almost double rate of partners Chicago has over Stanford. There can be tons of reasons for this, but, at the very least, it tends to undermine arguments that those who want to be lawyers should forego scholarships to schools like Chicago over HYS.

Edited to add: That thing about using your own money from savings to cover part of what sounds like close to full-boat at Stanford makes a difference. That should be added back into your cost of attendance, although you wouldn't have to add interest to it.

Greene wrote:Thanks everyone, this has been incredibly helpful! In the sense that it confirms that my choice is a personal one without a clear winner, which is also unfortunate.

Sorry for being testy Malice and Yukos, I just find it very frustrating that the only evidence that there is a gap between S and Chi is anecdotal or non-quantifiable. I think it's a rather serious information issue, but I know you're both trying to be helpful.

Would it push Stanford into the lead if I were interested in the elite small firms?

To those who have asked: I did not receive a Ruby, but did receive 6 figures of scholarship. Additionally, my COA figures (which include absolutely everything) include my savings from working. I received horribly marginal aid from Stanford.

No worries, mate! I understand the frustration at the lack of well-organized data on this stuff. It bugs me too, but I guess I've just gotten accustomed to this being the way it is.

I'll defer to the people with more knowledge on firms for your question about elite small firms. My guess is that this doesn't really make a difference in the calculus here. I recall someone recently posting some (good) data showing that Chicago does exceptionally well with placement in elite small firms.

Good luck on your decision. You can't really go very wrong here.

.

It was probably one of Leiter's studies, re boutiques.
There was also the Ciolli study on elite national firm hiring a long time ago, which was pretty favorable to Chicago.

Also, although I think the data shows that Stanford is better than even Harvard, I'm not sure any school can assure employment. Last year's LST shows that 6 students from Stanford graduated without any job whatsoever. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... show=chars . That's incredibly low, and super awesome, but several people have posted on here about people at Stanford feeling assured about jobs, but that really isn't the case. At all of these top schools you'll have a chance of screwing up at interview season or getting no-offered from a firm.

With regard to the National Jurist numbers being raw: I haven't done the math on all the schools, but just eyeballing it shows Chicago's partnership rate as way, way higher than Stanford and higher than Harvard's. Like I said, there is likely some reasonable explanation for it, but it certainly undermines any argument that the top 3 law schools do more for a career in a large firm than other schools, especially Chicago.

The Brainalist wrote:It was probably one of Leiter's studies, re boutiques.
There was also the Ciolli study on elite national firm hiring a long time ago, which was pretty favorable to Chicago.

Also, although I think the data shows that Stanford is better than even Harvard, I'm not sure any school can assure employment. Last year's LST shows that 6 students from Stanford graduated without any job whatsoever. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... show=chars . That's incredibly low, and super awesome, but several people have posted on here about people at Stanford feeling assured about jobs, but that really isn't the case. At all of these top schools you'll have a chance of screwing up at interview season or getting no-offered from a firm.

With regard to the National Jurist numbers being raw: I haven't done the math on all the schools, but just eyeballing it shows Chicago's partnership rate as way, way higher than Stanford and higher than Harvard's. Like I said, there is likely some reasonable explanation for it, but it certainly undermines any argument that the top 3 law schools do more for a career in a large firm than other schools, especially Chicago.

I just imagine the numbers differences for the T6 are basically all self-selection, both on the parts of students and the school. So Y's academia and PI and think tanks and whatnot, S is a lot of that plus tech stuff and CA fetishists, H is the "Big City," Chi is the private sector wonks, Columbia's the Wall St lawyers, and NYU's the hippies. Apart from Y, though, the identities of the schools come from the "margins," although they're significant margins.

Personally, OP, I think the Leiter boutique chart basically says take the money and run. And that's coming from someone (me) who would choose Stanford in your situation (for the clerking opportunities).

jbagelboy wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:If you say no to S, and end up around/below median at Chicago, you will literally never forgive yourself. Don't be dumb.

Not sure where this idea that "around median" at Chicago is fucked when all available data point to the contrary

I was just assuming people at Chicago lied about their grades, leading no one to know anyone in the bottom third. Also, OP, go to Stanford.

Those partner stats will be helpful to OP if he is choosing between SLS in 1980 and Chicago in 1980. Even then it is just a whole bunch of noise.

Between these two schools, I would attend whichever would be the cheapest to attend. They are both prestigious and will offer similar opportunities. Also, I would factor in whether I wanted to practice on the west coast or midwest.

Once again 100k is 100K. Give me the extra money you would be paying toward SLS every month and I'd have a million for you by the time to you retire. 100k is not some small sum of money. I just don't see how everybody on TLS just tosses these numbers around like nothing.

Is it hard to get back to CA from UCHI?

This is like asking if you should go skiing or to the beach. The employment outcomes and academic considerations are too close to justify a decision one way or the other. Decide where you want to live for 3 years and how much you are willing to pay to stay in California.

While it is easier for employers to determine class rank at UofC, do not confuse (1) the healthy fatalism of SLS students regarding the randomness and limited range of their grades with (2) employers' lack of interest in them or inability to create a rough ranking chart. That said, some very good firms look deep enough into both of these small classes (middling grades are good enough) that a bad "fit" or poor interviewing skill are materially more likely to hurt you than class rank.

One school is in a great world city (economically, culturally, etc.) with big city problems and back East winter weather (no worse than Boston, somewhat worse than NY). If shrinking population is a concern, stay away from Western Europe and San Francisco and focus on inland China and West Africa (I kid - the point is, the economy is top 5 in the world among cities and projected to hold through 2020; the slight population decline is not indicative of Detroit/St. Louis problems.)

The other school is on an ideal university campus with top NCAA sports, perfect weather, palm trees, and a short drive from innumerable cool things, though Palo Alto itself is a God awful boring place despite all the money, people and smarts.

Both universities are small, 100 years old or so, started with robber baron money as part of the same educational movement, not Ivy, not East Coast, brilliant, have reddish colors as "mascots," and are filled with quirky nerds in the best way. They also happen to have terrific university architecture and quads. What the kids call "lay prestige" is remarkably limited for both, in relation to their quality and importance, though I never understood why anyone would take that into account when making life decisions (I guess Notre Dame, USC and Alabama benefit). Go with the junior college over the public city school but understand that you could use that $100K to pay rent.

(Partner with connections to (not degrees from) both places.)

twentypercentmore wrote:In one corner, there's the Knights Templar of UPenn, who insist that Penn's LST stats clearly put them in a CCNP bracket, if not a CCP > N bracket. Somewhere drifting on the high seas are the Taipeimortists, an unruly mob that claims UChicago belongs in a tier with HYS thanks to their clerkship placement and prestigious-PI accessibility. Then there's the NWers -- pardon, the NUers, who insist that their school, by nature of its biglaw number alone, deserves to be ranked around at least 9 on USNWR. And then over by that massive tree fort, there's the Berkeley kids: "I go to law school? I wouldn't know, since none of my classes are graded and most of the time I'm hung over."

This is underrated.

My opinion: It sounds like you just want to get a firm job in a big city. Go to Chicago. If you wanted something more unicorn-y, then SLS would be worth it. If you have more of a preference to be in the Bay Area than you've let on, then SLS. If you actually really do want to clerk, then SLS. If you wanted to go into international space development policy animal law, then SLS would make sense, but for generic big city suit and tie law, just take Chicago and enjoy not owing $100,000.

I want to thank everyone for their advice. It was helpful in the sense that it justified my own conflicting intuition and continued my agony (I'm half kidding).

I also want to provide an update for anyone who might read this thread in the future.

After much difficulty I selected UChicago. UChi has absolutely blown me away. The professor's are brilliant, and my fellow classmates are intimidatingly intelligent and hardworking. They are also incredibly social and a lot of fun. I really don't think there was a wrong decision here, although obviously I'm still questioning myself a bit, but am feeling better after withdrawing my first installment of loans.

Greene wrote:I want to thank everyone for their advice. It was helpful in the sense that it justified my own conflicting intuition and continued my agony (I'm half kidding).

I also want to provide an update for anyone who might read this thread in the future.

After much difficulty I selected UChicago. UChi has absolutely blown me away. The professor's are brilliant, and my fellow classmates are intimidatingly intelligent and hardworking. They are also incredibly social and a lot of fun. I really don't think there was a wrong decision here, although obviously I'm still questioning myself a bit, but am feeling better after withdrawing my first installment of loans.

Good call the difference between the universities is not as great as the difference in cost