The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc) Forum

[Princetonlaw68]

USC's class of 2016 is going to place about 40% into biglaw plus Fedclerk. If twenty is right and they get the class size down to 150-160 entering 1L's this fall class of 2017 will do even better. It seems obvious that they just got too big during the spike in applicants and the class of 2013 paid the price. Fordham has cut class size too, although not as much, and hopefully both schools continue to do so.

Even if you're right, that's still only about 3.5% more than Fordham had for big law + fed clerk in the most recent year. Like I said, numbers that small are mitigated by the fact that the quality of the students at USC is higher.

These schools are perfect examples of peers. Excluding the factor of location, you're talking roughly the same outcome from either school.

[zman]

Fordham is better for New York big law than any non t-14 school. All of those schools are regional and will not place much outside their region.

[Princetonlaw68]

Fordham is better for New York big law than any non t-14 school. All of those schools are regional and will not place much outside their region.

Agreed

[Crowing]

Well I guess at least this thread isn't as bad as your "are white people at a disadvantage at Cornell" thread

[ymmv]

Fordham is better for New York big law than any non t-14 school. All of those schools are regional and will not place much outside their region.

Do the stats bear this out? On a purely personal anecdotal level, I've met a lot more GWU and BC attorneys from NY firms than I have Fordham grads.

[Princetonlaw68]

Fordham is better for New York big law than any non t-14 school. All of those schools are regional and will not place much outside their region.

Do the stats bear this out? On a purely personal anecdotal level, I've met a lot more GWU and BC attorneys from NY firms than I have Fordham grads.

Yes. They do.

[UnicornHunter]

Really confused by this thread. 0Ls considering Fordham (and USC, GW, BU, BC, ND etc...) are all given the same advice by the TLS hive-mind: only go if you can keep costs (way) down and you'd rather work in NYC/LA/DC/NE/Chi.... than do BigLaw elsewhere. Just keep in mind that you're targeting a desirable market and will be competing with T14 kids.

Sometimes people consider USC and Fordham because of US News rankings, but they almost never should.

[Princetonlaw68]

Really confused by this thread. 0Ls considering Fordham (and USC, GW, BU, BC, ND etc...) are all given the same advice by the TLS hive-mind: only go if you can keep costs (way) down and you'd rather work in NYC/LA/DC/NE/Chi.... than do BigLaw elsewhere. Just keep in mind that you're targeting a desirable market and will be competing with T14 kids.

Sometimes people consider USC and Fordham because of US News rankings, but they almost never should.

I'm glad that you're aware of this, but many people on this site aren't. Someone will ask about Fordham and the term trap school will begin to be thrown around, along with other various insults toward Fordham. This doesn't happen when someone mentions USC, a school that's basically the exact same thing only for a different location. BU, BC, GW etc will get insulted to some degree, but not the way Fordham is. USC will get little to no insults. This is misleading for 0Ls.


In this thread alone there's been multiple people who clearly believe USC is just a better school than Fordham. "You don't get USC". "Take off your east coast blinders". "Fordham only gets people big law, if you strike out, there's no small law to go to."

All of this supports the idea that USC is not just different for a different location, but also just better overall. This is wrong.

[cotiger]

Well I guess at least this thread isn't as bad as your "are white people at a disadvantage at Cornell" thread

This is that same guy?

Explains so much.

[Big Dog]

All of this supports the idea that USC is not just different for a different location, but also just better overall. This is wrong.

IMO, what is "wrong" is your conclusion. There is no "better". All of the non-T14 are regional schools. Period. 'SC is better for SoCal than is Fordham or GWU. Fordham is better for NYC than is 'SC or GWU.....

[Princetonlaw68]

All of this supports the idea that USC is not just different for a different location, but also just better overall. This is wrong.

IMO, what is "wrong" is your conclusion. There is no "better". All of the non-T14 are regional schools. Period. 'SC is better for SoCal than is Fordham or GWU. Fordham is better for NYC than is 'SC or GWU.....

Some schools are better than others. Fordham is better than saint Thomas. Period. This is not the case for the schools I mentioned.

Or someone could say "UT is better for Texas than Fordham is for NY." This is also true.

Someone who says (or implies through false statements involving small law in Cali vs small law in NY) "USC is better for Cali than Fordham is for NY" (people like Cotiger) are wrong. These people are misinformed.

[cotiger]

All of this supports the idea that USC is not just different for a different location, but also just better overall. This is wrong.

IMO, what is "wrong" is your conclusion. There is no "better". All of the non-T14 are regional schools. Period. 'SC is better for SoCal than is Fordham or GWU. Fordham is better for NYC than is 'SC or GWU.....

Some schools are better than others. Fordham is better than saint Thomas. Period. This is not the case for the schools I mentioned.

Or someone could say "UT is better for Texas than Fordham is for NY." This is also true.

Someone who says "USC is better for Cali than Fordham is for NY" (people like Cotiger) are wrong. These people are misinformed.

Hopefully your IRL charisma is really high because you're going to majorly struggle with issue spotting if you still think that's what I've been saying.

[UnicornHunter]

All of this supports the idea that USC is not just different for a different location, but also just better overall. This is wrong.

IMO, what is "wrong" is your conclusion. There is no "better". All of the non-T14 are regional schools. Period. 'SC is better for SoCal than is Fordham or GWU. Fordham is better for NYC than is 'SC or GWU.....

Agree. However, what I will say is that USC makes sense for more people than Fordham. If you have the numbers for lower T14 or $$ from USC, USC makes sense if you prioritize LA to BigLaw. In the same situation except the person wants NYC and the school is Fordham, lower T14 makes more sense.

[Princetonlaw68]

All of this supports the idea that USC is not just different for a different location, but also just better overall. This is wrong.

IMO, what is "wrong" is your conclusion. There is no "better". All of the non-T14 are regional schools. Period. 'SC is better for SoCal than is Fordham or GWU. Fordham is better for NYC than is 'SC or GWU.....

Some schools are better than others. Fordham is better than saint Thomas. Period. This is not the case for the schools I mentioned.

Or someone could say "UT is better for Texas than Fordham is for NY." This is also true.

Someone who says "USC is better for Cali than Fordham is for NY" (people like Cotiger) are wrong. These people are misinformed.

Hopefully your IRL charisma is really high because you're going to majorly struggle with issue spotting if you still think that's what I've been saying.

I know that's not what you've been saying. It's quite obvious. What you fail to realize is statements like "if you go to Fordham and don't get big law you're in a tough spot because there's not much small law in ny." (While not saying the same thing for cali) implies certain things that are simply not true, whether you mean them or not. If you don't get what I'm saying, you're going to have plenty of trouble just understanding what you read, let alone being able to spot issues within a reading.

[Princetonlaw68]

All of this supports the idea that USC is not just different for a different location, but also just better overall. This is wrong.

IMO, what is "wrong" is your conclusion. There is no "better". All of the non-T14 are regional schools. Period. 'SC is better for SoCal than is Fordham or GWU. Fordham is better for NYC than is 'SC or GWU.....

Agree. However, what I will say is that USC makes sense for more people than Fordham. If you have the numbers for lower T14 or $$ from USC, USC makes sense if you prioritize LA to BigLaw. In the same situation except the person wants NYC and the school is Fordham, lower T14 makes more sense.

To everyone who hasn't realized it yet: I agree with this statement. What I don't agree with is the Fordham bashing and statements implying that USC is better. USC is no less of a trap than Fordham. If you want to call Fordham a trap, by all means go ahead, but make sure you extend that same courtesy to schools like USC.

[Nelson]

The real reason why Fordham gets bashed is they're stingy. USC and UCLA both give large numbers of significant scholarships and full rides. Fordham gives barely any merit money.

[cotiger]

All of this supports the idea that USC is not just different for a different location, but also just better overall. This is wrong.

IMO, what is "wrong" is your conclusion. There is no "better". All of the non-T14 are regional schools. Period. 'SC is better for SoCal than is Fordham or GWU. Fordham is better for NYC than is 'SC or GWU.....

Agree. However, what I will say is that USC makes sense for more people than Fordham. If you have the numbers for lower T14 or $$ from USC, USC makes sense if you prioritize LA to BigLaw. In the same situation except the person wants NYC and the school is Fordham, lower T14 makes more sense.

To everyone who hasn't realized it yet: I agree with this statement. What I don't agree with is the Fordham bashing and statements implying that USC is better. USC is no less of a trap than Fordham. If you want to call Fordham a trap, by all means go ahead, but make sure you extend that same courtesy to schools like USC.

If you agree with this statement, then I don't know why you're arguing with me.

And I clearly said that the no NYC small law statement was bc it's my understanding that it's mostly in LI (which is not the same thing for someone who wants to live in NYC).

You were less aggravating when you were afraid that an Asian conspiracy was going to be your downfall.

[bk1]

You're on this weird crusade against an imagined force. You seem to be the only one who sees this constant deification of USC yet vilification of Fordham. Was there a time where USC boasted nonmarginally better stats than Fordham? Yes, in the late 2010s USC consistently placed upwards of 5-10% more of its class into biglaw than Fordham (see the NLJ rankings for that time but to be fair, Fordham had a nonmarginal advantage over USC in 2005). Based on that, people did tend to see USC/UCLA/UT/Vandy as appreciably better than BU/BC/Fordham/GW, but people weren't saying that the former justified significantly more debt than the latter (the rule, as always, was location location location). Since that time, USC's stats have been on the downslide as they had increased their class size to a point where the parity between USC and Fordham is much closer than it was in the late 2010s. Going forward it seems that both USC and Fordham have cut their class sizes so its hard to predict what their stats differential will be in the future.

Is Fordham lambasted for tending to give out smaller and fewer scholarships than other schools? Yes. Not sure why the school needs to be defended when this is objectively true. This might be the only reason why hate on Fordham could be seen as higher since when comparing scholarship offers, people will tend not to have enough $ to justify Fordham whereas they will more often have enough $ to justify USC. And even if we assume that USC is objectively 10% better for CA than Fordham is NY... who cares? Considering they feed into entirely separate markets and are not national schools, that comparison is a relatively meaningless one.

But lets go back to the source: over 2 years ago in his article defining "trap school," Campos specifically mentioned both USC and Fordham.

[BigZuck]

Fordham is significantly more of a trap school than USC because its relatively easy to get at least 120K at USC but you're lucky to get 75K at Fordham (unless things have changed appreciably this cycle).

[zman]

USC is historically a better school overall.. better median salary and employment stats and it made sense to go there for most people for most of its existance.. However recently especially with 2013 they got hit hard with the heavily crowded california market and the bad economy that his t-20 schools but t-14s.. A lot of the grads stuck out at OCI and were forced to take non JD jobs that the MBA's take.. Fordham is better for New York and New York has one third of all the big law jobs and that counts for a lot. Fordham should app their aid though, that should be easy given their huge class size.

[Princetonlaw68]

The real reason why Fordham gets bashed is they're stingy. USC and UCLA both give large numbers of significant scholarships and full rides. Fordham gives barely any merit money.

This makes sense, but I don't believe this is the case anymore. I don't have any hard stats to prove it, but it seems that Fordham is giving lots of merit aid this cycle (or at least way more than they used to). Maybe the bashing will stop once the stats come out that prove this to be the case.

[Princetonlaw68]

You're on this weird crusade against an imagined force. You seem to be the only one who sees this constant deification of USC yet vilification of Fordham. Was there a time where USC boasted nonmarginally better stats than Fordham? Yes, in the late 2010s USC consistently placed upwards of 5-10% more of its class into biglaw than Fordham (see the NLJ rankings for that time but to be fair, Fordham had a nonmarginal advantage over USC in 2005). Based on that, people did tend to see USC/UCLA/UT/Vandy as appreciably better than BU/BC/Fordham/GW, but people weren't saying that the former justified significantly more debt than the latter (the rule, as always, was location location location). Since that time, USC's stats have been on the downslide as they had increased their class size to a point where the parity between USC and Fordham is much closer than it was in the late 2010s. Going forward it seems that both USC and Fordham have cut their class sizes so its hard to predict what their stats differential will be in the future.

Is Fordham lambasted for tending to give out smaller and fewer scholarships than other schools? Yes. Not sure why the school needs to be defended when this is objectively true. This might be the only reason why hate on Fordham could be seen as higher since when comparing scholarship offers, people will tend not to have enough $ to justify Fordham whereas they will more often have enough $ to justify USC. And even if we assume that USC is objectively 10% better for CA than Fordham is NY... who cares? Considering they feed into entirely separate markets and are not national schools, that comparison is a relatively meaningless one.

But lets go back to the source: over 2 years ago in his article defining "trap school," Campos specifically mentioned both USC and Fordham.

I like this article. Thank you for sharing.

[Princetonlaw68]

Fordham is significantly more of a trap school than USC because its relatively easy to get at least 120K at USC but you're lucky to get 75K at Fordham (unless things have changed appreciably this cycle).

Okay, fair. I believe that Fordham has upped its game as far as giving out merit schollys, so I think maybe this trap school idea needs to go once its proven. (Or, people should refer to all of Fordham's peers as trap schools as well. It would accomplish the same thing).


I feel that based on what you're saying though, we are in agreement that if a person is offered more scholly from Fordham than he/she is offered from USC (I believe this is common this cycle), then in that person's case, USC is more of the trap than Fordham.

[nothingtosee]

The real reason why Fordham gets bashed is they're stingy. USC and UCLA both give large numbers of significant scholarships and full rides. Fordham gives barely any merit money.

This makes sense, but I don't believe this is the case anymore. I don't have any hard stats to prove it, but it seems that Fordham is giving lots of merit aid this cycle (or at least way more than they used to). Maybe the bashing will stop once the stats come out that prove this to be the case.

USC gives grants to 63%
Fordham gives grants to 40%

15/20/25 are percentile splits for USC
7.5/10/19 are percentile splits for Fordham


So a quarter of students with grants at Fordham get at least 19 a year. So 10% o Fordham students get 19 a year.
Half of students with grants at USC get 20 a year. So 30% of USC students get at least 20 a year.

But yeah. We should wait for new data to come out before trying to make any judgments.

http://law.fordham.edu/assets/Admission ... m-2013.pdf
http://weblaw.usc.edu/assets/docs/why/c ... std509.pdf

[zman]

The real reason why Fordham gets bashed is they're stingy. USC and UCLA both give large numbers of significant scholarships and full rides. Fordham gives barely any merit money.

This makes sense, but I don't believe this is the case anymore. I don't have any hard stats to prove it, but it seems that Fordham is giving lots of merit aid this cycle (or at least way more than they used to). Maybe the bashing will stop once the stats come out that prove this to be the case.

USC gives grants to 63%
Fordham gives grants to 40%

15/20/25 are percentile splits for USC
7.5/10/19 are percentile splits for Fordham


So a quarter of students with grants at Fordham get at least 19 a year. So 10% o Fordham students get 19 a year.
Half of students with grants at USC get 20 a year. So 30% of USC students get at least 20 a year.

But yeah. We should wait for new data to come out before trying to make any judgments.

http://law.fordham.edu/assets/Admission ... m-2013.pdf
http://weblaw.usc.edu/assets/docs/why/c ... std509.pdf

it would be better to look at this year because in the past they didn't have to give much because of higher apps.