Columbia v Chicago v Duke For A Transfer Forum

[p950]

I'm a transfer student leaving a T40. Top decile with LR. Not a K-JD; I have prior work experience. Would prefer litigation over transactional work. As far as markets go, I think I'd like to be in CA (no ties) or maybe TX (ditto). I'm also fine with going to NYC if that's where the jobs are. Personality-wise, I'd say I'm affable and laid-back by default, although I work hard when I need to.

I have a choice to make between Duke, Chicago, and Columbia. Transfers don't get merit aid, so I'd be looking at sticker at all of these. Coming in as a transfer, I'm not as prestige-oriented as I used to be (or as some 0Ls may be), so take that into account. Having already done a year I'm convinced that any of these schools would provide an excellent education.

Duke would be really easy to attend since I have family in the Raleigh / Durham area. My "move" would be very simple since I'd likely stay with them - that means I don't have to take chances playing roommate roulette. Cost of living would be low for the same reason, and the weather is generally nice (although I hear NC had a bad winter this year). Attending Duke would probably result in the lowest initial stress and lowest overall stress. Downside is that Duke's numbers aren't as good as either Columbia or Chicago.

Chicago has the smallest class size of all three, a later start due to the quarter system, and an awesome city. I'm not sure how good my clerkship prospects are as a transfer, but if there's anywhere I'd have a shot for that, it would likely be UChi. I'd likely have the best chance to get to know my professors and classmates on a personal level. Speaking of, the faculty at UChi are great. That being said, I'm a little scared that Chicago might be a little too intense for me. After 1L, I'm not sure I want to push myself quite as hard. I'm also a law-and-econ hater (economics suffers from physics envy) who leans left. And I also can't quite shake the stereotype that UChi attracts a lot of aspies - I want to be able to have normal human interactions with my classmates.

Columbia is located in NY, which means there's always something to do. I loved NY as a visitor but have never lived there. My classmates would likely be really sharp people that I could learn a lot from. Columbia places the highest number of students in biglaw. And since it's an Ivy, it has lay prestige, which doesn't really matter in the legal world but is kind of cool for a kid who grew up in the middle of nowhere. Downsides are the high cost of living (although if I land a SA in NY I could stay put) and larger class size.

Could I get some insight on these schools? I'm largely aware of the numbers from LST, so I'd like more information about their respective cultures if possible. Also, since I'm a transfer, I obviously don't need info on a lot of the first-year stuff. Thanks in advance for the help!

[jbagelboy]

where do you want to work?

you're leaving LR, and probably most of your clerkship opportunities with it, so the transfer really just provides you with a more comprehensive OCI. Look at the firms coming to each school. If you want to work in the south, I'd go to Duke - although TX might lean Chicago. If you want to work in NY or CA, I'd go to CLS. If you want to work in Chicago or the midwest, obviously Chi.

If you can live at home and save $40K on CoL by going to Duke, then I'd do that.

[p950]

I'd probably put CA near the top right now but I'm not dead-set on being out there at all costs. I really can live anywhere.

[Ohiobumpkin]

I'd probably put CA near the top right now but I'm not dead-set on being out there at all costs. I really can live anywhere.

In that case, I'd say Duke. If you don't care where you practice, and you save 40K+ by attending Duke over the other two by living with your parents/relatives, go to Duke. Between Columbia and Chicago given what little you have said (CA and Texas w/o ties to either), I'd go Chicago since fewer to people to compete with, and I hear Chicago has a more pull in Texas and CA than Columbia (whose alumni mostly concentrate in NYC/N.J.).

[Power_of_Facing]

I'd probably put CA near the top right now but I'm not dead-set on being out there at all costs. I really can live anywhere.

In that case, I'd say Duke. If you don't care where you practice, and you save 40K+ by attending Duke over the other two by living with your parents/relatives, go to Duke. Between Columbia and Chicago given what little you have said (CA and Texas w/o ties to either), I'd go Chicago since fewer to people to compete with, and I hear Chicago has a more pull in Texas and CA than Columbia (whose alumni mostly concentrate in NYC/N.J.).

+1.

Duke makes the most fiscal sense, and you'll have good prospects assuming you do well.
Chicago might well give you the most flexibility (e.g., 16% of Chicago grads end up in CA vs 9% of Columbia grads), and maybe you'll benefit from a smaller class size.
You're probably fine from Columbia, too, and maybe it's a better fit.

But yeah, I'd say Duke 1, Chicago 2, Columbia 3...

Keep that debt low.

[jbagelboy]

I'd probably put CA near the top right now but I'm not dead-set on being out there at all costs. I really can live anywhere.

In that case, I'd say Duke. If you don't care where you practice, and you save 40K+ by attending Duke over the other two by living with your parents/relatives, go to Duke. Between Columbia and Chicago given what little you have said (CA and Texas w/o ties to either), I'd go Chicago since fewer to people to compete with, and I hear Chicago has a more pull in Texas and CA than Columbia (whose alumni mostly concentrate in NYC/N.J.).

Who did you hear this from?

(It's definitely not my & any of my peers' experience - Chicago is better for TX, but not CA).

[p950]

Thanks for the discussion. I know that breaking into CA with minimal ties will be tough but I'd like to give it a shot.

I should add a couple of things: I'm originally from the Midwest so I'd probably have ties here regardless of where I go to school. I'll practice here if I need to but would like to be in a more exciting area.

The other thing is that I think I've missed the write-ons for Chi and CLS, but I could still do Duke's. Frankly I'm not too interested in journal and only did my school's competition in order to have an OCI credential on my resume, but it still could be a factor.

Interested in doing international work since I have language skills. I also think I might like bankruptcy and trusts. But probably heavily leaning towards litigation since I have not liked transactional work at my summer job.

Can anyone chime in on the cultural differences between these schools? Which one might be the best fit for me?

[Nelson]

Interested in doing international work since I have language skills. I also think I might like bankruptcy and trusts. But probably heavily leaning towards litigation since I have not liked transactional work at my summer job.

I hope this isn't your line for OCI because it's incoherent. I think I want to be a litigator because I don't like transactional work, but I think I like these three transactional practice areas.

[Nomo]

You've got one shot at biglaw and that's through OCI. Realistically you're probably not getting to California. If you want to give it a shot that's fine, but you need to big heavily on a market you've got a better chance in. For that reason I would recommend going to Columbia. Placing 2/3 of your bids on NYC and another third on CA. I don't have data for this, but I would bet that transfers to Duke do about as well as median students; meaning they don't have much better than a 50% shot at biglaw, even though most Duke students are going for NY, the easiest market. So to me Duke is the easiest school to rule out.

[p950]

Interested in doing international work since I have language skills. I also think I might like bankruptcy and trusts. But probably heavily leaning towards litigation since I have not liked transactional work at my summer job.

I hope this isn't your line for OCI because it's incoherent. I think I want to be a litigator because I don't like transactional work, but I think I like these three transactional practice areas.

In what universe is bankruptcy considered "transactional" work? At the very least, it's a hybrid. And international work = international arbitration. Trusts may be more towards the transactional side but there's plenty of litigation in that area.

[Sls17]

You seem to be interested in many areas of law, you lack a single defined career goal, and you're geographically flexible. To best maintain that flexibility, I would choose Columbia, with all costs being sticker and roughly equal.

[p950]

You've got one shot at biglaw and that's through OCI. Realistically you're probably not getting to California. If you want to give it a shot that's fine, but you need to big heavily on a market you've got a better chance in. For that reason I would recommend going to Columbia. Placing 2/3 of your bids on NYC and another third on CA. I don't have data for this, but I would bet that transfers to Duke do about as well as median students; meaning they don't have much better than a 50% shot at biglaw, even though most Duke students are going for NY, the easiest market. So to me Duke is the easiest school to rule out.

Thanks - so you think I'd be OK at CLS with 1/3 of bids on CA? Should I split that third into a majority LA with the rest in the Bay Area?

It looks like Chicago places a higher percentage out in CA, but how much of that can be explained by the Columbia students mostly wanting jerbs in the NY area?

[Power_of_Facing]

You seem to be interested in many areas of law, you lack a single defined career goal, and you're geographically flexible. To best maintain that flexibility, I would choose Columbia, with all costs being sticker and roughly equal.

All costs are not equal -- OP can live with family at Duke, and Chicago is a moderately cheaper place to live than NYC.

And what differentiates Columbia from Chicago in terms of flexibility? Columbia is a biglaw powerhouse (no doubt about it), but Chicago places its students fantastically well into firms, too, and yet it opens more doors to academia than Columbia. As for PI, the schools are essentially equal, no (12% vs 11% c/o 2013)?

I don't see where the perception that Columbia outperforms Chicago from a "flexible placement" standpoint comes from.

[Sls17]

You seem to be interested in many areas of law, you lack a single defined career goal, and you're geographically flexible. To best maintain that flexibility, I would choose Columbia, with all costs being sticker and roughly equal.

All costs are not equal -- OP can live with family at Duke, and Chicago is a moderately cheaper place to live than NYC.

And what differentiates Columbia from Chicago in terms of flexibility? Columbia is a biglaw powerhouse (no doubt about it), but Chicago places its students fantastically well into firms, too, and yet it opens more doors to academia than Columbia. As for PI, the schools are essentially equal, no (12% vs 11% c/o 2013)?

I don't see where the perception that Columbia outperforms Chicago from a "flexible placement" standpoint comes from.

I agree with you, on second thought -- it's probably a toss up between Columbia and Chicago. Either grants significantly greater flexibility than Duke.

[Crowing]

Can anyone chime in on the cultural differences between these schools? Which one might be the best fit for me?

This is hard for anybody to really discuss with conviction because obviously very few people have attended more than one of these schools.

I'm definitely in the camp that says there is very little difference in overall "culture" among top law schools. I know Chicago has this reputation for being a cesspool of raging aspergers but as far as I can tell that is based on its undergrad reputation and does not extend in reality to the law school. I've asked some of my professors (who attended and taught at other top schools in the past) about their take on culture and their view is maybe Chicago is very slightly nerdier but the schools are largely fungible.

I definitely don't disagree with the reputation of Chicago's UG; I attended NU for UG and had a friend at Chicago at the time. I would visit her sometimes and was always struck by the differences in culture. But you will have no interaction with undergrads. I think it is inaccurate to apply a school's undergrad reputation to its law school; I have a friend at Duke Law and from what I hear from her the law school there is completely unlike the fratty/WASPy undergrad.

I like the vast majority of my classmates and have great friends from 1L. Sure there are a couple of really unpleasant people but this is unavoidable at other schools as well. This summer I work with students from all sorts of other T14s and their stories of their widely disliked classmates are not dissimilar from my own.

Also you should not worry about political affiliations with the T14. I'm sure Chicago is less liberal than Berkeley but the majority of students and professors here also lean left. Even those who don't are mostly libertarians who are socially liberal.

[florida1949]

That being said, I'm a little scared that Chicago might be a little too intense for me. After 1L, I'm not sure I want to push myself quite as hard. I'm also a law-and-econ hater (economics suffers from physics envy) who leans left. And I also can't quite shake the stereotype that UChi attracts a lot of aspies - I want to be able to have normal human interactions with my classmates.

lol.

2L @ UChi here, the law school certainly has students who aren't well-adjusted/social, but from what I can tell from my friends at other highly ranked law schools, it's nothing out of the ordinary. The undergrads, however, are a different beast and likely have earned any reputation they have as aspies.

And as far as intensity, the student body is definitely hard working and is probably more competitive than an average law school student body. I think our grading system is partially to blame for that. But I think the general feeling amongst the class is that 2L/3L can be as hard/easy as you want it to be. I know some people will definitely be checking out after OCI.

[MrSebastian]

In your case I'd say Duke. The cost difference between living in Durham for free and paying NYC or Chi rent is enormous. CLS and Chicago def place a higher % of grads in large firms but since you've already completed 1L, you should already know if you're in the running for Biglaw or not from either of these schools. I'm not really sure how transfer students are viewed at OCI compared to other students, but unless you feel you're at a pretty significant disadvantage I'd take the cost savings. I also know that Duke places pretty well into DC (15%) and Texas (10%) so I think you'd have options. Cali would be tough tho.

[bowser]

If you're planning to do OCI you need to get an idea of how well transfers do at each institution. They KILL it at Columbia, for whatever reason. [edit: actually for some structural reasons which maybe you're not that interested in; regardless, if the regular success rate at OCI is like 85% for transfers I think it's like 95%. And you have to be willing to bid heavily NY].

[p950]

Just assuming I take Duke out of the running, which school would be the better choice between Chicago and Columbia?

I know some of you have mentioned class size - how much of a factor is that, really?

[rpupkin]

It's extremely difficult for a transfer without ties to get California big law—unless the transfer got into SLS or Boalt.

As for whether you should choose CLS or Chicago, don't you have a city preference? I'd make my choice based on where I wanted to live for two years (and possibly longer than that, given that your OCI opportunities are going to be affected least a bit by the city you're in, even at the CCN level).

[2014]

Chicago as an upperclassmen is not an intense experience. At least the last couple of years it has seemed to me like the transfers are not well plugged into the social scene of existing students. Not sure if that's transfers choosing to stay amongst themselves or current students being insular, but transfers tend to hang out with transfers. I imagine this is similar elsewhere too, so you shouldn't base your decision off of anything social since it's the toughest to predict.

You should then really do it based on COA, jobs, and city. The move that gives you the best shot at CA/TX is Chicago, the marginally safer overall move is probably Columbia (pretty much only because you will only bid NY there while here you would likely have a riskier bid list). Chi and Columbia are very different cities with Chi being marginally cheaper.

[rpupkin]

You should then really do it based on COA, jobs, and city. The move that gives you the best shot at CA/TX is Chicago, the marginally safer overall move is probably Columbia (pretty much only because you will only bid NY there while here you would likely have a riskier bid list). Chi and Columbia are very different cities with Chi being marginally cheaper.

lol

[Crowing]

You should then really do it based on COA, jobs, and city. The move that gives you the best shot at CA/TX is Chicago, the marginally safer overall move is probably Columbia (pretty much only because you will only bid NY there while here you would likely have a riskier bid list). Chi and Columbia are very different cities with Chi being marginally cheaper.

lol

Unbelievable 2014 blew a prime opportunity to UChicago shill

[2014]

Surprised neither of you called me out for omitting "in" and thus calling Columbia a city.

And Transfers don't help our USNWR ranking so I'm less interested in shamelessly herding them to Hyde Park.

[p950]

It's extremely difficult for a transfer without ties to get California big law—unless the transfer got into SLS or Boalt.

As for whether you should choose CLS or Chicago, don't you have a city preference? I'd make my choice based on where I wanted to live for two years (and possibly longer than that, given that your OCI opportunities are going to be affected least a bit by the city you're in, even at the CCN level).

I really like both Chicago and NY, so I really have no preference. I am a NY sports fan, though. When it comes to the places I'd like to end up, I'm really CA dreaming like I said before - but I understand it's a long shot. TX is in the mix due to low COL.

It seems like at CLS I would bid heavily NYC and have a fairly good shot. But let's say I go to UChi - do I bid Chicago or NY? I have no ties to Chicago itself but I do come from a small Midwestern secondary market and I went to a Big 10 school for undergrad. I understand the Chicago market is tough.

Basically, since I've been able to self-finance my first year and will probably be able to pick up some of the cost of 2L without loans, I'll be coming out of LS with minimal debt. If I can't break in to international work, I'd like to work in CA. If I can't work in CA, I just want to work for a few years, bank as much money as I can, and then GTFO and do whatever I want.

So basically the rough hierarchy for me is probably international work > CA > early retirement potential > everything else