Cornell v. Michigan

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
mt2165
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby mt2165 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:22 am

desespere wrote:OP, with a 3.9, if you retake and score a 170+, you're looking at T6 with huge money, maybe HYS. Also, you are wildly overestimating your COL. It is literally impossible to spend 30k/year in COL in Ithaca. I probably spent less than half that this year. It's possible to pay <$700/month rent if you have roommates. Though it would probably be a life-altering mistake to not retake, Cornell w/ a $45k/year scholarship is a great option. Don't go to UMich.


shut up

User avatar
Stannis the Mannis
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:19 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby Stannis the Mannis » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:47 am

My vote would be for Cornell, although Michigan for the midwest seems like a good option too. One option to consider is to deposit and then take the June LSAT. Then you can can decide to sit out or matriculate (and even if you don't sit out, you can always ask for more money with a higher LSAT). This mitigates the risk of sitting out and not improving your score. However, the month of studying is not very long at all, especially if it's been a while since you took the LSAT.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby rpupkin » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:28 am

Lavitz wrote:But statements like this are just perplexing:
rpupkin wrote:Cornell is basically a regional school. Like UT, Cornell places some grads out in California, but otherwise it's a single-market school.

Sorry you're perplexed. Yes, similar percentages of CLS and Cornell students are employed in New York. But the difference between Cornell and CLS is that a student at median at the latter is competitive for Chicago, DC, and California big law. A median student at Cornell, by contrast, is going to struggle in those markets.

Because Cornell being regional doesn't explain all the people I know people working in Texas, Wisconsin, Philly, Seattle, LA, SF, DC, Boston, Chicago, and Atlanta.

That's dumb. Law students at UCLA and UT could make similar statements about all the individuals they know working in various states. It doesn't make their schools any less regional.

Look, I think Cornell does have a little more national cache than the UCLA/UT/Vanderbilt regional tier. Cornell is a damn good school. But it doesn't have the national reach of a CLS or Chicago, and its BL+FC numbers that everyone is drooling over are largely due to a combination of self-selection into NYC and a collective disinterest in PI.

User avatar
Pragmatic Gun
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:25 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby Pragmatic Gun » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:23 am

You can make the same argument for CLS. I don't think it's a regional. Fordham falls under the same criteria yet their numbers are whack

michlaw
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby michlaw » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:01 am

Every poster should have an identifier that displays their position on the following:

(1) I would only go to HYS

(2) I would go to the T6

(3) I would go to the T14

(4) I would go to the best school I can get in.

Add a plus or minus for with money or sticker.

To imply that someone is stupid and is consciously ruining their life because they have a 166 and 3.9, and would go to Michigan or Cornell, is astonishingly condescending and not very helpful.

User avatar
OhBoyOhBortles
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:01 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby OhBoyOhBortles » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:05 am

michlaw wrote:Every poster should have an identifier that displays their position on the following:

(1) I would only go to HYS

(2) I would go to the T6

(3) I would go to the T14

(4) I would go to the best school I can get in.

Add a plus or minus for with money or sticker.

To imply that someone is stupid and is consciously ruining their life because they have a 166 and 3.9, and would go to Michigan or Cornell, is astonishingly condescending and not very helpful.


I don't think anyone implied that they're ruining their life/stupid, I think they were asserting that OP could have incredible options with a few more points on the LSAT.

DCESQ
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby DCESQ » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:08 am

I did my UG at UM and I think you're way overestimating COL. Many apartments you don't pay utilities, if you get a room in a house it'll be about 600/month. I would say at the absolute highest it's 18-20K.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby Lavitz » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:34 am

rpupkin wrote:Look, I think Cornell does have a little more national cache than the UCLA/UT/Vanderbilt regional tier. Cornell is a damn good school. But it doesn't have the national reach of a CLS or Chicago, and its BL+FC numbers that everyone is drooling over are largely due to a combination of self-selection into NYC and a collective disinterest in PI.

But you still haven't provided proof of Columbia's superior national reach besides saying it has more national reach because it's Columbia. Sure, maybe we can assume it has a little more reach because of its reputation, but how much? Enough to justify calling Cornell regional and Columbia national? Because the geographical placement numbers look identical for Columbia and Cornell.

User avatar
downbeat14
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby downbeat14 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:12 am

OP, ignore all the U.S. News circle-jerking going on in here. If you want better odds at getting a job that will service your debt, then go to Cornell.

If you get median or just below at Cornell, there is a really good chance you will still make 160k at a NYC biglaw firm and be able to pay your debt. Odds are lower at Michigan. If you are above median, you'll prob get the same outcome at either place, so no need to take on more debt. The only reason to take Michigan here is if you only wanted to work in the Midwest. Seems like that is less important to you than employment. Good for you.

Anyone telling you to pick Mich here is either a student there or out of touch with reality. Calling Cornell a regional school is really laughable.

User avatar
sneezus
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby sneezus » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:18 am

lol @ those making this look like Cornell is the obvious choice. important psa: BL+FC percentages don't tell the whole story about placement power.

cornell's class of 2014 = 191 grads, 142 into BLFC

michigan's class of 2014 = 390 grads, 210 into BLFC

Raw numbers refute the idea that Michigan's reputation/placement power itself is sliding. Clearly, employers are still hiring a fuckton of Michigan grads. in terms of raw numbers, michigan places easily more graduates into BL/FC than Cornell, and that's after accounting for michigan's PI self-selectors and Cornell's lack thereof. michigan's large class size obviously adversely affects raw percentages. but the idea that Michigan's placement power is weaker than Cornell's is stupid, especially on a national scale. Cornell outplaces Michigan in New York, but Michigan outplaces Cornell in literally every other major market.

OP, go where you'd rather practice: Cornell for NYC, Michigan for anywhere else. Michigan's problem is more related to an inflated and inappropriately sized class, not of placement power or reputation in the legal community.

User avatar
cron1834
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby cron1834 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:21 am

downbeat14 wrote:OP, ignore all the U.S. News circle-jerking going on in here. If you want better odds at getting a job that will service your debt, then go to Cornell.

If you get median or just below at Cornell, there is a really good chance you will still make 160k at a NYC biglaw firm and be able to pay your debt. Odds are lower at Michigan. If you are above median, you'll prob get the same outcome at either place, so no need to take on more debt. The only reason to take Michigan here is if you only wanted to work in the Midwest. Seems like that is less important to you than employment. Good for you.

Anyone telling you to pick Mich here is either a student there or out of touch with reality. Calling Cornell a regional school is really laughable.

LOL bro literally no one in this thread is hung up on USNWR, so I don't know why the white-knighting.

I also don't know why self-selection is legit for explaining why Cornell has zip for midwest placement and not much outside of NYC generally, but doesn't help mitigate Mich's numbers when the majority of the class targets someplace other than NYC.

Anyway, the answer isn't Cornell ... and it isn't Michigan. It's retake. 166 is below both schools medians', and OP has a beautiful GPA. 168s/169s with good GPA have been getting near fullys at Cornell this cycle, and two or three more questions would make a 6-figure lifetime difference at either school.

krads153
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby krads153 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:22 am

sneezus wrote:lol @ those making this look like Cornell is the obvious choice. important psa: BL+FC percentages don't tell the whole story about placement power.

cornell's class of 2014 = 191 grads, 142 into BLFC

michigan's class of 2014 = 390 grads, 210 into BLFC

Raw numbers refute the idea that Michigan's reputation/placement power itself is sliding. Clearly, employers are still hiring a fuckton of Michigan grads. in terms of raw numbers, michigan places easily more graduates into BL/FC than Cornell, and that's after accounting for michigan's PI self-selectors and Cornell's lack thereof. michigan's large class size obviously adversely affects raw percentages. but the idea that Michigan's placement power is weaker than Cornell's is stupid, especially on a national scale. Cornell outplaces Michigan in New York, but Michigan outplaces Cornell in literally every other major market.

OP, go where you'd rather practice: Cornell for NYC, Michigan for anywhere else. Michigan's problem is more related to an inflated and inappropriately sized class, not of placement power or reputation in the legal community.


Also, Michigan has cut its class size recently by 40 to 50 people (Michigan still had not cut its class size for the recent class of 2014 stats that recently came out). The percentages should be higher for classes graduating in 2016 (?) onward. I think Michigan can still afford to cut even more students (since it has one of the largest endowments out of all of the law schools), but whatever.

User avatar
OhBoyOhBortles
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:01 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby OhBoyOhBortles » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:24 am

cron1834 wrote:
downbeat14 wrote:OP, ignore all the U.S. News circle-jerking going on in here. If you want better odds at getting a job that will service your debt, then go to Cornell.

If you get median or just below at Cornell, there is a really good chance you will still make 160k at a NYC biglaw firm and be able to pay your debt. Odds are lower at Michigan. If you are above median, you'll prob get the same outcome at either place, so no need to take on more debt. The only reason to take Michigan here is if you only wanted to work in the Midwest. Seems like that is less important to you than employment. Good for you.

Anyone telling you to pick Mich here is either a student there or out of touch with reality. Calling Cornell a regional school is really laughable.

LOL bro literally no one in this thread is hung up on USNWR, so I don't know why the white-knighting.

I also don't know why self-selection is legit for explaining why Cornell has zip for midwest placement and not much outside of NYC generally, but doesn't help mitigate Mich's numbers when the majority of the class targets someplace other than NYC.

Anyway, the answer isn't Cornell ... and it isn't Michigan. It's retake. 166 is below both schools medians', and OP has a beautiful GPA. 168s/169s with good GPA have been getting near fullys at Cornell this cycle, and two or three more questions would make a 6-figure lifetime difference at either school.

krads153
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby krads153 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:24 am

cron1834 wrote:
downbeat14 wrote:OP, ignore all the U.S. News circle-jerking going on in here. If you want better odds at getting a job that will service your debt, then go to Cornell.

If you get median or just below at Cornell, there is a really good chance you will still make 160k at a NYC biglaw firm and be able to pay your debt. Odds are lower at Michigan. If you are above median, you'll prob get the same outcome at either place, so no need to take on more debt. The only reason to take Michigan here is if you only wanted to work in the Midwest. Seems like that is less important to you than employment. Good for you.

Anyone telling you to pick Mich here is either a student there or out of touch with reality. Calling Cornell a regional school is really laughable.

LOL bro literally no one in this thread is hung up on USNWR, so I don't know why the white-knighting.

I also don't know why self-selection is legit for explaining why Cornell has zip for midwest placement and not much outside of NYC generally, but doesn't help mitigate Mich's numbers when the majority of the class targets someplace other than NYC.

Anyway, the answer isn't Cornell ... and it isn't Michigan. It's retake. 166 is below both schools medians', and OP has a beautiful GPA. 168s/169s with good GPA have been getting near fullys at Cornell this cycle, and two or three more questions would make a 6-figure lifetime difference at either school.


Wow, law school admissions has gone to shit since I applied...I'd be concerned about Cornell Law going broke at this rate...

User avatar
sneezus
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby sneezus » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:41 am

krads153 wrote:
sneezus wrote:lol @ those making this look like Cornell is the obvious choice. important psa: BL+FC percentages don't tell the whole story about placement power.

cornell's class of 2014 = 191 grads, 142 into BLFC

michigan's class of 2014 = 390 grads, 210 into BLFC

Raw numbers refute the idea that Michigan's reputation/placement power itself is sliding. Clearly, employers are still hiring a fuckton of Michigan grads. in terms of raw numbers, michigan places easily more graduates into BL/FC than Cornell, and that's after accounting for michigan's PI self-selectors and Cornell's lack thereof. michigan's large class size obviously adversely affects raw percentages. but the idea that Michigan's placement power is weaker than Cornell's is stupid, especially on a national scale. Cornell outplaces Michigan in New York, but Michigan outplaces Cornell in literally every other major market.

OP, go where you'd rather practice: Cornell for NYC, Michigan for anywhere else. Michigan's problem is more related to an inflated and inappropriately sized class, not of placement power or reputation in the legal community.


Also, Michigan has cut its class size recently by 40 to 50 people (Michigan still had not cut its class size for the recent class of 2014 stats that recently came out). The percentages should be higher for classes graduating in 2016 (?) onward. I think Michigan can still afford to cut even more students (since it has one of the largest endowments out of all of the law schools), but whatever.



yeah, they need to keep cutting. the point is that it is stupid to say Michigan's reputation/placement power is on the decline based on BLFC percentages. raw numbers clearly show Michigan places a shit ton of people, way more than other lower T14s. what the percentages do indicate is that their placement power can't quite support their oversized classes (who can outside of Harvard and Columbia). they should shrink that gap.

User avatar
downbeat14
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby downbeat14 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:38 pm

The percentage versus amount fallacies going on in here are startling.

The only thing ppl that are interested in paying off their loans in a timely manner should care about are their chances of getting a biglaw job. The only way to objectively measure said odds is comparing BL+FC percentages. Amount is meaningless for someone trying to decide what school to go to based on their personal likelihood of getting a market paying form job. Fact is, you can rank lower in your class at Cornell and get biglaw than you could at Michigan. Sure, Michigan places a higher number into biglaw, but your odds are objectively lower of getting one of those spots due to their large class size as it stands now. Maybe this will correct as class sizes shrink, or maybe Michigan is falling stock. I would feel more comfortable with better biglaw odds as it stands now rather than speculating that Michigans BL+FC percentages will get better as the class size shrinks. Esp since the objective measure we can actually consider in the present is also the favoring the cheaper option.

The only reasons someone would legitimately think that going to Michigan is better here (considering that Cornell is significantly cheaper for OP and better fits Ops stated primary objective of employment) is someone going there falling into confirmation bias, still hung up on meaningless rankings from back when M was a top ten program, midwest prestige whoring, or some other irrational or fallacious thought process (percentage =/= amount, cmon guys/gals, the LSAT literally tests this as a fallacy).

User avatar
cron1834
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby cron1834 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:42 pm

downbeat14 wrote:The percentage versus amount fallacies going on in here are startling.

The only thing ppl that are interested in paying off their loans in a timely manner should care about are their chances of getting a biglaw job. The only way to objectively measure said odds is comparing BL+FC percentages. Amount is meaningless for someone trying to decide what school to go to based on their personal likelihood of getting a market paying form job. Fact is, you can rank lower in your class at Cornell and get biglaw than you could at Michigan. Sure, Michigan places a higher number into biglaw, but your odds are objectively lower of getting one of those spots due to their large class size as it stands now. Maybe this will correct as class sizes shrink, or maybe Michigan is falling stock. I would feel more comfortable with better biglaw odds as it stands now rather than speculating that Michigans BL+FC percentages will get better as the class size shrinks. Esp since the objective measure we can actually consider in the present is also the favoring the cheaper option.

The only reasons someone would legitimately think that going to Michigan is better here (considering that Cornell is significantly cheaper for OP and better fits Ops stated primary objective of employment) is someone going there falling into confirmation bias, still hung up on meaningless rankings from back when M was a top ten program, midwest prestige whoring, or some other irrational or fallacious thought process (percentage =/= amount, cmon guys/gals, the LSAT literally tests this as a fallacy).

*blathers on about fallacies
*commits ecological fallacy, ie assuming base-rate of Cornell BL% applies to someone not targeting NYC.

Just stop. The answer is retake.

User avatar
WeeBey
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:23 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby WeeBey » Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:57 pm

sneezus wrote:
krads153 wrote:
sneezus wrote:lol @ those making this look like Cornell is the obvious choice. important psa: BL+FC percentages don't tell the whole story about placement power.

cornell's class of 2014 = 191 grads, 142 into BLFC

michigan's class of 2014 = 390 grads, 210 into BLFC

Raw numbers refute the idea that Michigan's reputation/placement power itself is sliding. Clearly, employers are still hiring a fuckton of Michigan grads. in terms of raw numbers, michigan places easily more graduates into BL/FC than Cornell, and that's after accounting for michigan's PI self-selectors and Cornell's lack thereof. michigan's large class size obviously adversely affects raw percentages. but the idea that Michigan's placement power is weaker than Cornell's is stupid, especially on a national scale. Cornell outplaces Michigan in New York, but Michigan outplaces Cornell in literally every other major market.

OP, go where you'd rather practice: Cornell for NYC, Michigan for anywhere else. Michigan's problem is more related to an inflated and inappropriately sized class, not of placement power or reputation in the legal community.


Also, Michigan has cut its class size recently by 40 to 50 people (Michigan still had not cut its class size for the recent class of 2014 stats that recently came out). The percentages should be higher for classes graduating in 2016 (?) onward. I think Michigan can still afford to cut even more students (since it has one of the largest endowments out of all of the law schools), but whatever.



yeah, they need to keep cutting. the point is that it is stupid to say Michigan's reputation/placement power is on the decline based on BLFC percentages. raw numbers clearly show Michigan places a shit ton of people, way more than other lower T14s. what the percentages do indicate is that their placement power can't quite support their oversized classes (who can outside of Harvard and Columbia). they should shrink that gap.


Why the fuck should raw numbers matter? If they do, like you say, then Georgetown is even better than Michigan.

Although firms probably look at Michigan and Cornell equally, arent there OCI logistically differences that differentiate them?

Isn't Michigan's problem that they have less NY firms that come to OCI? Yea, everyone hopes to be at the top of the class and be competitive in non-NYC markets, but in reality, you're gonna be around median. At median and below, you better bid NYC, and if Cornell has greater access to NYC firms (since they actually travel to NYC for OCI) - isn't that a significant advantage?

Are firms more willing to callback Cornell students since its signifigantly cheaper than Michigan?

krads153
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby krads153 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:00 pm

cron1834 wrote:
downbeat14 wrote:The percentage versus amount fallacies going on in here are startling.

The only thing ppl that are interested in paying off their loans in a timely manner should care about are their chances of getting a biglaw job. The only way to objectively measure said odds is comparing BL+FC percentages. Amount is meaningless for someone trying to decide what school to go to based on their personal likelihood of getting a market paying form job. Fact is, you can rank lower in your class at Cornell and get biglaw than you could at Michigan. Sure, Michigan places a higher number into biglaw, but your odds are objectively lower of getting one of those spots due to their large class size as it stands now. Maybe this will correct as class sizes shrink, or maybe Michigan is falling stock. I would feel more comfortable with better biglaw odds as it stands now rather than speculating that Michigans BL+FC percentages will get better as the class size shrinks. Esp since the objective measure we can actually consider in the present is also the favoring the cheaper option.

The only reasons someone would legitimately think that going to Michigan is better here (considering that Cornell is significantly cheaper for OP and better fits Ops stated primary objective of employment) is someone going there falling into confirmation bias, still hung up on meaningless rankings from back when M was a top ten program, midwest prestige whoring, or some other irrational or fallacious thought process (percentage =/= amount, cmon guys/gals, the LSAT literally tests this as a fallacy).

*blathers on about fallacies
*commits ecological fallacy, ie assuming base-rate of Cornell BL% applies to someone not targeting NYC.

Just stop. The answer is retake.


I'm in NYC biglaw and I agree answer is retake.

Have to say getting NYC biglaw is a lot easier than getting biglaw elsewhere. If more Mich people bid on NYC, then Mich's BL numbers would probably be higher. And if more Cornell students bid outside of NYC, its biglaw numbers would be lower.

That said, I think this debt level is too high since OP doesn't even want NYC biglaw/biglaw generally. I also don't think people should accrue six figure debt without a clear idea of what they want. If they don't want NYC in particular, then Cornell is a terrible choice IMO.
Last edited by krads153 on Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

krads153
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby krads153 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:02 pm

WeeBey wrote:
sneezus wrote:
krads153 wrote:
sneezus wrote:lol @ those making this look like Cornell is the obvious choice. important psa: BL+FC percentages don't tell the whole story about placement power.

cornell's class of 2014 = 191 grads, 142 into BLFC

michigan's class of 2014 = 390 grads, 210 into BLFC

Raw numbers refute the idea that Michigan's reputation/placement power itself is sliding. Clearly, employers are still hiring a fuckton of Michigan grads. in terms of raw numbers, michigan places easily more graduates into BL/FC than Cornell, and that's after accounting for michigan's PI self-selectors and Cornell's lack thereof. michigan's large class size obviously adversely affects raw percentages. but the idea that Michigan's placement power is weaker than Cornell's is stupid, especially on a national scale. Cornell outplaces Michigan in New York, but Michigan outplaces Cornell in literally every other major market.

OP, go where you'd rather practice: Cornell for NYC, Michigan for anywhere else. Michigan's problem is more related to an inflated and inappropriately sized class, not of placement power or reputation in the legal community.


Also, Michigan has cut its class size recently by 40 to 50 people (Michigan still had not cut its class size for the recent class of 2014 stats that recently came out). The percentages should be higher for classes graduating in 2016 (?) onward. I think Michigan can still afford to cut even more students (since it has one of the largest endowments out of all of the law schools), but whatever.



yeah, they need to keep cutting. the point is that it is stupid to say Michigan's reputation/placement power is on the decline based on BLFC percentages. raw numbers clearly show Michigan places a shit ton of people, way more than other lower T14s. what the percentages do indicate is that their placement power can't quite support their oversized classes (who can outside of Harvard and Columbia). they should shrink that gap.


Why the fuck should raw numbers matter? If they do, like you say, then Georgetown is even better than Michigan.

Although firms probably look at Michigan and Cornell equally, arent there OCI logistically differences that differentiate them?

Isn't Michigan's problem that they have less NY firms that come to OCI? Yea, everyone hopes to be at the top of the class and be competitive in non-NYC markets, but in reality, you're gonna be around median. At median and below, you better bid NYC, and if Cornell has greater access to NYC firms (since they actually travel to NYC for OCI) - isn't that a significant advantage?

Are firms more willing to callback Cornell students since its signifigantly cheaper than Michigan?


No, my firm calls back more Mich students and we have a lot more Mich summers. Tbh, I don't think we had any Cornell summers recently....callback costs are miniscule compared to everything else at a firm. First years could pay for each callback with one hour of work. NYC offices of firms tend to recruit at every single T-14 except maybe the West Coast schools.

I think the main thing is that most Mich students do NOT want to go to NYC. I mean pretty much all Mich students got into Cornell. If we wanted NYC, and only NYC, we would have just gone to Cornell with maybe more scholly. COrnell is easier to get into and always has been.
Last edited by krads153 on Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sneezus
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby sneezus » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:04 pm

downbeat14 wrote:The percentage versus amount fallacies going on in here are startling.

The only thing ppl that are interested in paying off their loans in a timely manner should care about are their chances of getting a biglaw job. The only way to objectively measure said odds is comparing BL+FC percentages. Amount is meaningless for someone trying to decide what school to go to based on their personal likelihood of getting a market paying form job. Fact is, you can rank lower in your class at Cornell and get biglaw than you could at Michigan. Sure, Michigan places a higher number into biglaw, but your odds are objectively lower of getting one of those spots due to their large class size as it stands now. Maybe this will correct as class sizes shrink, or maybe Michigan is falling stock. I would feel more comfortable with better biglaw odds as it stands now rather than speculating that Michigans BL+FC percentages will get better as the class size shrinks. Esp since the objective measure we can actually consider in the present is also the favoring the cheaper option.

The only reasons someone would legitimately think that going to Michigan is better here (considering that Cornell is significantly cheaper for OP and better fits Ops stated primary objective of employment) is someone going there falling into confirmation bias, still hung up on meaningless rankings from back when M was a top ten program, midwest prestige whoring, or some other irrational or fallacious thought process (percentage =/= amount, cmon guys/gals, the LSAT literally tests this as a fallacy).



lololol bruh

the "fallacy" here is the one you are committing and that TLS often commits: that a school's BLFC percentage = placement power/reputation. if you had actually read closely, you would see that this is what is being dismantled here.

BLFC numbers do tell us something about a school's placement power relative to its class size. clearly michigan has enough of the former (the raw numbers are actually helpful here), but not enough to justify the latter. watch what would happen to Cornell's BLFC if they literally doubled their class size. you're an idiot to interpret these percentages the way that you do.

and speaking "objectively": Michigan destroys Cornell on Midwest/West coast placement. That isn't prestige whoring.

and someone mentioned GULC: they have the same class size problem but to a greater extent. BLFC percentages just show that GULC's placement power isn't strong enough to justify its fucking gigantic class sizes.
Last edited by sneezus on Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

krads153
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby krads153 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:05 pm

Also, tbh, I don't think just looking at 100+ firms and federal clerkship is accurate. I know a bunch of people who went to federal gov jobs straight out, and these are often more competitive to get than big law....

I also knew a bunch of people who didn't have any debt and therefore went into PI. Something like 30% of Mich law grads graduate with no debt. These people don't need biglaw and therefore don't even do OCI. I mean, why would you if you have no loans and your parents have a lot of money?

Summary - the answer is retake for more $$$. I would only go to Cornell if you were set on NYC.

User avatar
downbeat14
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby downbeat14 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:37 pm

@ above posters:

No one is disagreeing about Mich placement power outside of NYC being likely better than Cornell (so charge of Eco fallacy are baseless). My assessment of OPs situation is specifically focused on this particular part of the OP, where despite wanting non-NYC, OP realizes that getting a job period that will service debt is more important than regional concerns:

"At some point, getting a job (period) has to be the priority and all the geographic preference in the world shouldn't change that."

This is the critical part of OPs sentiment. Deep down, OP understands that what's most important to him or her is getting a biglaw position somewhere.

OP is being realistic here. Assuming median, BL that will allow OP to service their debt is a better bet from Cornell than from Michigan. If OP does well at either place, they will do just fine targeting other markets. But assuming median, to be safe, Cornell is the better choice here. Stop worrying about prestige and placement power when OPs fundamental concern is getting a high paying job that will service debt. I know you are excited about Michigan sneezus, but I think you are the one that isn't reading carefully here.

User avatar
sneezus
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby sneezus » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:13 pm

downbeat14 wrote:@ above posters:

No one is disagreeing about Mich placement power outside of NYC being likely better than Cornell (so charge of Eco fallacy are baseless). My assessment of OPs situation is specifically focused on this particular part of the OP, where despite wanting non-NYC, OP realizes that getting a job period that will service debt is more important than regional concerns:

"At some point, getting a job (period) has to be the priority and all the geographic preference in the world shouldn't change that."

This is the critical part of OPs sentiment. Deep down, OP understands that what's most important to him or her is getting a biglaw position somewhere.

OP is being realistic here. Assuming median, BL that will allow OP to service their debt is a better bet from Cornell than from Michigan. If OP does well at either place, they will do just fine targeting other markets. But assuming median, to be safe, Cornell is the better choice here. Stop worrying about prestige and placement power when OPs fundamental concern is getting a high paying job that will service debt. I know you are excited about Michigan sneezus, but I think you are the one that isn't reading carefully here.


that's fair, we may be talking past each other here. we've been zeroing in on different points. my overall thing is that TLS generally does a shitty job handling/interpreting these BLFC percentages, and that theres a ton going on underneath those numbers.

krads153
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby krads153 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:15 pm

downbeat14 wrote:@ above posters:

No one is disagreeing about Mich placement power outside of NYC being likely better than Cornell (so charge of Eco fallacy are baseless). My assessment of OPs situation is specifically focused on this particular part of the OP, where despite wanting non-NYC, OP realizes that getting a job period that will service debt is more important than regional concerns:

"At some point, getting a job (period) has to be the priority and all the geographic preference in the world shouldn't change that."

This is the critical part of OPs sentiment. Deep down, OP understands that what's most important to him or her is getting a biglaw position somewhere.

OP is being realistic here. Assuming median, BL that will allow OP to service their debt is a better bet from Cornell than from Michigan. If OP does well at either place, they will do just fine targeting other markets. But assuming median, to be safe, Cornell is the better choice here. Stop worrying about prestige and placement power when OPs fundamental concern is getting a high paying job that will service debt. I know you are excited about Michigan sneezus, but I think you are the one that isn't reading carefully here.


Fair, but if OP's goal is not NYC and probably not even biglaw, I don't see how retake is not the best option here. Retake to get more $$$ at Michigan for OP's goal of a secondary Midwest market/Chicago. I wouldn't look at Cornell if my goal were a Midwest market and secondary Midwest market in particular.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests