Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
BigZuck
Posts: 10854
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby BigZuck » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:38 am

Of course I wouldn't say UT is never the answer. I go to UT. I think it can be the answer depending on relative debt levels and risk aversion.

But, if all I cared about was big law I would without a doubt choose a T14. I finished my first semester toward the top of the class, have TX ties, and struck out at a 1L SA. Kids at places like Duke get 1L SAs before they even get grades back. I know that's anecdotal but from everything I have seen and heard, if there is one thing that TX firms love more than Texans it's the prestige of the T14. At UT, if you're a regular schmo Texan you have to finish high in the class to get big law. At a T14, all they care about is that you're oozing with prestige.

From everything I have seen or heard, TX big law is much easier for Texans to snag coming from a T14 than it is for Texans who go to UT.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby kalvano » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:50 am

You should go to whichever of the T14 is least expensive.

User avatar
Crowing
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby Crowing » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:12 am

thewaves wrote:2014, do you ever say anything bad about UChicago? :P


I think he admitted the weather sucks once

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:25 am

BigZuck wrote:Of course I wouldn't say UT is never the answer. I go to UT. I think it can be the answer depending on relative debt levels and risk aversion.

But, if all I cared about was big law I would without a doubt choose a T14. I finished my first semester toward the top of the class, have TX ties, and struck out at a 1L SA. Kids at places like Duke get 1L SAs before they even get grades back. I know that's anecdotal but from everything I have seen and heard, if there is one thing that TX firms love more than Texans it's the prestige of the T14. At UT, if you're a regular schmo Texan you have to finish high in the class to get big law. At a T14, all they care about is that you're oozing with prestige.

From everything I have seen or heard, TX big law is much easier for Texans to snag coming from a T14 than it is for Texans who go to UT.


I know 1L SA's are most prevalent in Texas, but still, everyone "strikes out" at 1L/spring OCI. Is 1L hiring really a decent measure of UT's placement power for you? I don't think Ive ever heard of someone tell me thats how they landed their summer job, even at very top schools (I know it does happen for a couple people, but idk). And everyone still finds summer jobs, and the vast, vast majority of students who do 2L OCI get jobs through it (at my school not necessarily UT). Seems like people at the top of the class at UT do fine. And you'll very likely get an SA if your grades stay high this semester

timmyd
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:50 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby timmyd » Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:53 am

Judging a school's placement power by a failure to obtain a 1l associate position is stupid. Those are rare from most schools. UT has pretty good big law stats. If you have decent grades and ties you will be fine for 2l summer associate which is what really counts.
Source: I'm a 2l at UT and know many people with biglaw and many of them were above median but not "towards the top of the class".

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby 2014 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:55 pm

If you take UTs percentage of people who get Texas SAs who want Texas SAs it is significantly lower than the same percentage at CCN. At UT it's probably like 40% or something at CCN it is 90+

That doesn't come at no cost of course - CCN is more expensive and thus riskier.

StillCutty
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby StillCutty » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:13 pm

So whats the actual cost differential if UT is free the rest are close to sticker? Like 200k+ ? I'm curious to know if people really think the median "saftey net" for biglaw chances at CCN is actually worth that much, and if so, why?

Seems like if you got into those schools, you're certainly gifted enough to get top 1/3 at UT as easily as median at those schools.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:18 pm

2014 wrote:If you take UTs percentage of people who get Texas SAs who want Texas SAs it is significantly lower than the same percentage at CCN. At UT it's probably like 40% or something at CCN it is 90+

That doesn't come at no cost of course - CCN is more expensive and thus riskier.


You must mean just for texans, because only 20%ish of CC get 1L SA's, and Im sure upwards of 80% want them if they could have them

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby 2014 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:13 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
2014 wrote:If you take UTs percentage of people who get Texas SAs who want Texas SAs it is significantly lower than the same percentage at CCN. At UT it's probably like 40% or something at CCN it is 90+

That doesn't come at no cost of course - CCN is more expensive and thus riskier.


You must mean just for texans, because only 20%ish of CC get 1L SA's, and Im sure upwards of 80% want them if they could have them

True that's a valid caveat. I meant people who validly want Texas SAs which would require ties :P

BigZuck
Posts: 10854
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby BigZuck » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:00 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Of course I wouldn't say UT is never the answer. I go to UT. I think it can be the answer depending on relative debt levels and risk aversion.

But, if all I cared about was big law I would without a doubt choose a T14. I finished my first semester toward the top of the class, have TX ties, and struck out at a 1L SA. Kids at places like Duke get 1L SAs before they even get grades back. I know that's anecdotal but from everything I have seen and heard, if there is one thing that TX firms love more than Texans it's the prestige of the T14. At UT, if you're a regular schmo Texan you have to finish high in the class to get big law. At a T14, all they care about is that you're oozing with prestige.

From everything I have seen or heard, TX big law is much easier for Texans to snag coming from a T14 than it is for Texans who go to UT.


I know 1L SA's are most prevalent in Texas, but still, everyone "strikes out" at 1L/spring OCI. Is 1L hiring really a decent measure of UT's placement power for you? I don't think Ive ever heard of someone tell me thats how they landed their summer job, even at very top schools (I know it does happen for a couple people, but idk). And everyone still finds summer jobs, and the vast, vast majority of students who do 2L OCI get jobs through it (at my school not necessarily UT). Seems like people at the top of the class at UT do fine. And you'll very likely get an SA if your grades stay high this semester


I really was only talking about a 1L summer phenomenon to make a point about how employers view UT kids versus T14 kids. And it was anecdotal as shit, and probably subject to all kinds of biases that might make it moot. It's just that when doing research on schools last year and then going through the 1L process this year I have heard of a number of kids at T14s gettings 1L SAs without grades, whereas at UT the only kids I know who have snagged 1L SAs all had high grades, plus were URM, or had some solid nepotism in their favor, or hot girls. I just think that employers favor the prestige of a T14 over UT and if all else were equal (which it never is) if I wanted TX big law I would choose the T14.

I don't think the success of 1L SA placement rates should really determine the placement ability of a school. Obviously 2L OCI is much more important. I fully expected to strike out this summer and I'm not particularly worried about the fall (unless my grades drop I guess). Still though, at UT you pretty much need to do well (I think top 3rd as a rough guideline) whereas at T14s it sounds like you don't need to do nearly as well, as long as you have TX ties.

I guess I'm just pushing back against the notion of "Just do UT and get big law bro." UT might be king of the mountain in TX all things considered and its a very good school, but just showing up doesn't automatically mean big law. Again, all else equal, they are going to pick the Harvard kid over the UT kid every day of the week. UT is prestigious in TX but lets not kid ourselves.

BigZuck
Posts: 10854
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby BigZuck » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:09 pm

timmyd wrote:Judging a school's placement power by a failure to obtain a 1l associate position is stupid. Those are rare from most schools. UT has pretty good big law stats. If you have decent grades and ties you will be fine for 2l summer associate which is what really counts.
Source: I'm a 2l at UT and know many people with biglaw and many of them were above median but not "towards the top of the class".


By towards the top of the class I mean top 25ish, top 3rd, something like that. Maybe I worded it too strongly but what I meant was a decent clip above median.

If I understand you correctly you're saying you know UT kids who got TX big law being fairly close to median? Are we talking normal schmos or did they have something else going for them like diversity or hotness?

Anyway, I'm pretty much of the opinion that someone will finish around the same percentile in their class at UT as they would at a school like Columbia. Columbia students are of a higher caliber when it comes to entering numbers but I really don't think there is a significant enough difference between someone who scores a 173 on the LSAT versus someone who scores a 169 to say the 173 is clearly smarter and will clearly do better in law school. I think regardless of what school you pick you should assume to be median and proceed from there. And if I were median at UT I would expect to be precluded from TX big law. Median at Columbia? I don't hate my chances, as long as I have TX ties.

When you include cost and personal factors- that's when the decision becomes much more complicated.

blackmooncreeping
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby blackmooncreeping » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:29 pm

BigZuck wrote:
timmyd wrote:Judging a school's placement power by a failure to obtain a 1l associate position is stupid. Those are rare from most schools. UT has pretty good big law stats. If you have decent grades and ties you will be fine for 2l summer associate which is what really counts.
Source: I'm a 2l at UT and know many people with biglaw and many of them were above median but not "towards the top of the class".


By towards the top of the class I mean top 25ish, top 3rd, something like that. Maybe I worded it too strongly but what I meant was a decent clip above median.

If I understand you correctly you're saying you know UT kids who got TX big law being fairly close to median? Are we talking normal schmos or did they have something else going for them like diversity or hotness?

Anyway, I'm pretty much of the opinion that someone will finish around the same percentile in their class at UT as they would at a school like Columbia. Columbia students are of a higher caliber when it comes to entering numbers but I really don't think there is a significant enough difference between someone who scores a 173 on the LSAT versus someone who scores a 169 to say the 173 is clearly smarter and will clearly do better in law school. I think regardless of what school you pick you should assume to be median and proceed from there. And if I were median at UT I would expect to be precluded from TX big law. Median at Columbia? I don't hate my chances, as long as I have TX ties.

When you include cost and personal factors- that's when the decision becomes much more complicated.


Im a normal schmo at median who got big law. I also know of others in roughly the same position. It's not easy or assured by any stretch but it is possible. No doubt that your chances of big law at median are greater from a T14 with Texas ties however.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby Stringer Bell » Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:35 pm

2014 wrote:If you take UTs percentage of people who get Texas SAs who want Texas SAs it is significantly lower than the same percentage at CCN. At UT it's probably like 40% or something at CCN it is 90+

That doesn't come at no cost of course - CCN is more expensive and thus riskier.


Do you personally know people at Chicago pulling Texas biglaw with bottom 10% type grades? I don't think that's really doable from the lower t14. If true, then CC might have an advantage over the lower t14.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby jbagelboy » Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:43 am

Stringer Bell wrote:
2014 wrote:If you take UTs percentage of people who get Texas SAs who want Texas SAs it is significantly lower than the same percentage at CCN. At UT it's probably like 40% or something at CCN it is 90+

That doesn't come at no cost of course - CCN is more expensive and thus riskier.


Do you personally know people at Chicago pulling Texas biglaw with bottom 10% type grades? I don't think that's really doable from the lower t14. If true, then CC might have an advantage over the lower t14.


Obviously CC has some advantage over lower T 14. But bottom 10% aint taking shit for either.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby 2014 » Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:56 am

Stringer Bell wrote:
2014 wrote:If you take UTs percentage of people who get Texas SAs who want Texas SAs it is significantly lower than the same percentage at CCN. At UT it's probably like 40% or something at CCN it is 90+

That doesn't come at no cost of course - CCN is more expensive and thus riskier.


Do you personally know people at Chicago pulling Texas biglaw with bottom 10% type grades? I don't think that's really doable from the lower t14. If true, then CC might have an advantage over the lower t14.

I don't know anyone in the bottom 10%, I don't even know where that number falls on our grading scale. People aren't really jumping to disclose that they are bad at law school (unfortunately?).

I don't know anyone who targeted Texas with ties who didn't get it. No clue where most fall on the grade spectrum though, but odds are there's a mixture in there and no one (including firms) actually knows where median falls so the middle ~50% or so is kind of a shit show.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby Stringer Bell » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:10 am

jbagelboy wrote:
Stringer Bell wrote:
2014 wrote:If you take UTs percentage of people who get Texas SAs who want Texas SAs it is significantly lower than the same percentage at CCN. At UT it's probably like 40% or something at CCN it is 90+

That doesn't come at no cost of course - CCN is more expensive and thus riskier.


Do you personally know people at Chicago pulling Texas biglaw with bottom 10% type grades? I don't think that's really doable from the lower t14. If true, then CC might have an advantage over the lower t14.


Obviously CC has some advantage over lower T 14. But bottom 10% aint taking shit for either.


I actually don't think it's obvious that Texas offices would dip much lower at CC than they would at UVA/NU/Duke/etc. I do know that even with Texas ties at those schools, your grades still have to be at least decent.

That's why I think the implication that going to CC almost guarantees biglaw for someone from TX is kind of dangerous for someone seeking advice without some pretty legit evidence to back it up.

User avatar
wiz
Posts: 28884
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:25 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby wiz » Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:06 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Stringer Bell wrote:
2014 wrote:If you take UTs percentage of people who get Texas SAs who want Texas SAs it is significantly lower than the same percentage at CCN. At UT it's probably like 40% or something at CCN it is 90+

That doesn't come at no cost of course - CCN is more expensive and thus riskier.


Do you personally know people at Chicago pulling Texas biglaw with bottom 10% type grades? I don't think that's really doable from the lower t14. If true, then CC might have an advantage over the lower t14.


Obviously CC has some advantage over lower T 14. But bottom 10% aint taking shit for either.


I actually don't think it's obvious that Texas offices would dip much lower at CC than they would at UVA/NU/Duke/etc. I do know that even with Texas ties at those schools, your grades still have to be at least decent.

That's why I think the implication that going to CC almost guarantees biglaw for someone from TX is kind of dangerous for someone seeking advice without some pretty legit evidence to back it up.


I think the main advantage CCN has over UVA/NU/Duke is NY placement, which is reflected in the strong OCI stats. I agree with you about it not being obvious that Texas firms dip much lower at CCN than they would at other T14 schools. Especially UVA and Duke, which I know for a fact are very well-regarded in the South.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby cotiger » Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:18 pm

wiz wrote:I think the main advantage CCN has over UVA/NU/Duke is NY placement, which is reflected in the strong OCI stats. I agree with you about it not being obvious that Texas firms dip much lower at CCN than they would at other T14 schools. Especially UVA and Duke, which I know for a fact are very well-regarded in the South.


Are they particularly well-regarded in Texas as well, though? Looking at the geographic reports, Chicago sends as many or more people to Texas than UVA or Duke.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby Stringer Bell » Sat Feb 15, 2014 3:52 pm

cotiger wrote:
wiz wrote:I think the main advantage CCN has over UVA/NU/Duke is NY placement, which is reflected in the strong OCI stats. I agree with you about it not being obvious that Texas firms dip much lower at CCN than they would at other T14 schools. Especially UVA and Duke, which I know for a fact are very well-regarded in the South.


Are they particularly well-regarded in Texas as well, though? Looking at the geographic reports, Chicago sends as many or more people to Texas than UVA or Duke.


For the last few years of available employment data, it looks like UVA sends more in total numbers, while Chicago sends a slightly higher percentage of its class. It's tough to draw too much from this, though. For one, I don't think the schools differentiate biglaw from other jobs in the geography breakdowns. So those numbers could conceivably include people working for places like the Travis County District Attorney's office. It's also impossible to determine with much certainty how many students were really gunning for TX. I did a quick search and the UVA law class of 2012 had 16 people from Texas out of 368 students, which comes to 4.3% of the class. I couldn't find a similar statistic for UChi's class or Duke's class. But I learned that someone in the UChi's class previously worked as a Texas roller derby referee.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby 2014 » Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:53 pm

I don't think Chicago carries a tangible advantage over UVA or Duke for Texas on average. We have a couple of firms that probably recruit more here than at those schools (Baker Botts, Susman, Ahmad Zavitzanos) but I wouldn't be surprise if there were others that recruited heavier from there so it likely averages out.

The Chicago advantage over those schools is in major markets.

froglee
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:14 am

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby froglee » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:57 am

Bahnking wrote:Title says it all. Texas is close to free, expect minimal scholly money at the rest. My sole goal is get biglaw in Texas (where I have very strong ties and solid work experience). It seems as though Columbia and NYU don't do well in the Texas market, but I'm not sure how much of that is due to self selection vs. actual recruiting. Also, I've heard that some Texas firms only recruit at Texas schools + Harvard - how hard would it be to break into one of these firms from CCN?


Lots of kids in Texas Law have "very strong" ties. Sons and daughters of prominent local judges, politicians(locally or nationally), Forget about those children of texas big law partners, they are more like wall flowers.

So you need to ask yourself how "strong" are you ties when it comes to comparing with your potential peers in Texas. Now if you are like George P. Bush(also an UoT Alumni), hey that will stood out 8) 8)

Bahnking
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby Bahnking » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:31 pm

How does Stanford compare to Chicago? I really like the school, but my final goal is to end up back home. Given its relative isolation and small class sizes, how hard is it to get into Texas from Stanford?

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby jbagelboy » Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:09 pm

Bahnking wrote:How does Stanford compare to Chicago? I really like the school, but my final goal is to end up back home. Given its relative isolation and small class sizes, how hard is it to get into Texas from Stanford?


Probably not hard at all, especially if you have ties to Texas (as home). Unless UChi is much cheaper, Stanford (or Yale) would be second only to Harvard for TX.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Chicago vs. Columbia vs. NYU vs. Texas for Texas Biglaw

Postby 2014 » Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:10 pm

Serious sample size issue there. They break their employment down by region and Texas is included in the "Southeast" which includes WV, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, KY, AR, AL, MS, LA, and OK as well. The average number of grads Stanford sends to those 13 states is 13 students a year over the last 4 years. We aren't talking huge markets there, but it does include Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, Raleigh, Miami, and others. Remove all of those and we are likely looking at like 5 going to Texas a year maybe.

That being said, I'm sure Stanford grads with Texas ties do fine in Texas. You might have to put in more legwork than you would elsewhere, but the intuition must be that the Stanford name carries weight and is rare.

Still comes down to cost though. Stanford at sticker over Chicago with even like 45k is a tough sell for generic Texas big law. If I were making the decision 45k or 60k would likely be my breaking point. Once you get over 60 I think you suck it up weather wise and enjoy the less debt.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests