Top Law Schools

I'd be paying about half COA at GULC and a little bit more at NU unless my negotiation efforts are successful. I do love DC which is what has me leaning toward GULC. Career goals are fed clerk, ACLU/impact lit and some "unicorn" jobs. Slowly realizing based on my choices these things may be less realistic, but which of the 2 will help me get closer to these goals?

Neither

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

What are your actual total costs of attendance?
In reality, do you absolutely never want to do Biglaw and are 100% PI or bust? If just leaning that way but there's a possibility you'd get swept up in the herd and do OCI and bigLaw, I'd go Northwestern.

Study up on the each school's LRAP. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Rigo wrote:What are your actual total costs of attendance?
In reality, do you absolutely never want to do Biglaw and are 100% PI or bust? If just leaning that way but there's a possibility you'd get swept up in the herd and do OCI and bigLaw, I'd go Northwestern.

Study up on the each school's LRAP. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

COA at Georgetown would be ~130k. COA at NU is unknown because I'm waiting for reconsideration, but as of now its ~180k (I don't think I would go at this price).

I would say I'm PI or bust. I really have no interest in BigLaw at this time.

Cogburn1984 wrote:

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Sure, that's understandable. I don't plan to retake or reapply.

And half meaning I've received scholarships and grants which cuts COA in half.

lula43 wrote:

Cogburn1984 wrote:

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Sure, that's understandable. I don't plan to retake or reapply.

And half meaning I've received scholarships and grants which cuts COA in half.

Well if you don't plan to retake or reapply, you need to reassess your career goals. Because it will be HIGHLY unlike, near impossible, for you to land your ideal career from either of these schools. If one was free, then sure roll the dice. But at these price points, you are gambling 150k+ on a 1% chance. So you need to change your career goals if you are going to ignore the advice of people who have actually been through this at these schools.

grades?? wrote:

lula43 wrote:

Cogburn1984 wrote:

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Sure, that's understandable. I don't plan to retake or reapply.

And half meaning I've received scholarships and grants which cuts COA in half.

Well if you don't plan to retake or reapply, you need to reassess your career goals. Because it will be HIGHLY unlike, near impossible, for you to land your ideal career from either of these schools. If one was free, then sure roll the dice. But at these price points, you are gambling 150k+ on a 1% chance. So you need to change your career goals if you are going to ignore the advice of people who have actually been through this at these schools.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, bud. I said that is understandable.

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:

lula43 wrote:

Cogburn1984 wrote:

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Sure, that's understandable. I don't plan to retake or reapply.

And half meaning I've received scholarships and grants which cuts COA in half.

Well if you don't plan to retake or reapply, you need to reassess your career goals. Because it will be HIGHLY unlike, near impossible, for you to land your ideal career from either of these schools. If one was free, then sure roll the dice. But at these price points, you are gambling 150k+ on a 1% chance. So you need to change your career goals if you are going to ignore the advice of people who have actually been through this at these schools.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, bud. I said that is understandable.

Well then understand your hardheadedness without retaking or reapplying will not get you your desired outcome. If you are cool with that, then you do you. But don't think you will magically be the person to get that unicorn job from NU or GT because you want it. This gamble is too risky.

grades?? wrote:

lula43 wrote:

Cogburn1984 wrote:

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Sure, that's understandable. I don't plan to retake or reapply.

And half meaning I've received scholarships and grants which cuts COA in half.

Well if you don't plan to retake or reapply, you need to reassess your career goals. Because it will be HIGHLY unlike, near impossible, for you to land your ideal career from either of these schools. If one was free, then sure roll the dice. But at these price points, you are gambling 150k+ on a 1% chance. So you need to change your career goals if you are going to ignore the advice of people who have actually been through this at these schools.

The same is true of any law school. Should OP just not go to law school?

There are plenty of ACLU lawyers who went to state flagships and non-preftigious but decent private law schools. It's really a crap shoot wherever you go. I think OP would be fine at either of these schools. How she does in her class is going to dictate her future in regards to PI Unicorn jobs a lot more than where she goes (given she doesn't end up at Cooley). I don't know where this idea comes from that you need to go to HYS or bust to have a shot at Unicorn PI. It's dumb, and it should die. I just pulled up Skadden Fellows for fun, because that's considered one of the Unicorn PI opportunities right out of law school. What did I find?

Stanford (2), UCLA (3), Yale (5), Harvard (5), Seattle (1), Chicago-Kent (1), NYU (2), Penn (2), Michigan (1), Georgetown (1), CUNY (2), Duke (1), George Washington (1), Northwestern (1), Michigan State (1), Berkeley (1)

UCLA is more represented than Stanford and only slightly less than Yale and Harvard. CUNY is as represented as Stanford. Michigan State is as represented as Michigan. What's the moral of the story? Go wherever you want/is more affordable and do really well; you'll have a chance at a Skadden or other Unicorn PI. Both schools are fine for OPs goals simply because no school is particularly good for them. If anything, a lot of the HYS bump for Unicorn PI is simply due to self-selection. A lot of the statistical differences we find in law schools are due to self-selection, but it seems like TLS instead ignores that and turns it into some sort of canon that X school is better than Y school for hyper-specific outcome.

RedPurpleBlue wrote:

grades?? wrote:

lula43 wrote:

Cogburn1984 wrote:

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Sure, that's understandable. I don't plan to retake or reapply.

And half meaning I've received scholarships and grants which cuts COA in half.

Well if you don't plan to retake or reapply, you need to reassess your career goals. Because it will be HIGHLY unlike, near impossible, for you to land your ideal career from either of these schools. If one was free, then sure roll the dice. But at these price points, you are gambling 150k+ on a 1% chance. So you need to change your career goals if you are going to ignore the advice of people who have actually been through this at these schools.

The same is true of any law school. Should OP just not go to law school?

There are plenty of ACLU lawyers who went to state flagships and non-preftigious but decent private law schools. It's really a crap shoot wherever you go. I think OP would be fine at either of these schools. How she does in her class is going to dictate her future in regards to PI Unicorn jobs a lot more than where she goes (given she doesn't end up at Cooley). I don't know where this idea comes from that you need to go to HYS or bust to have a shot at Unicorn PI. It's dumb, and it should die. I just pulled up Skadden Fellows for fun, because that's considered one of the Unicorn PI opportunities right out of law school. What did I find?

Stanford (2), UCLA (3), Yale (5), Harvard (5), Seattle (1), Chicago-Kent (1), NYU (2), Penn (2), Michigan (1), Georgetown (1), CUNY (2), Duke (1), George Washington (1), Northwestern (1), Michigan State (1), Berkeley (1)

UCLA is more represented than Stanford and only slightly less than Yale and Harvard. CUNY is as represented as Stanford. Michigan State is as represented as Michigan. What's the moral of the story? Go wherever you want/is more affordable and do really well; you'll have a chance at a Skadden or other Unicorn PI. Both schools are fine for OPs goals simply because no school is particularly good for them. If anything, a lot of the HYS bump for Unicorn PI is simply due to self-selection. A lot of the statistical differences we find in law schools are due to self-selection, but it seems like TLS instead ignores that and turns it into some sort of canon that X school is better than Y school for hyper-specific outcome.

You proved my point for me, so thank you. The point is that it isn't impossible from any school as you have shown with the Skadden fellowship. I would bet my house that the kids from Michigan State, GW, etc were all top 1-2% of their class. Yet Yale and Harvard have more. The point being that you have much better odds of doing this unicorn PL work at a HYS because you don't necessarily have to be top 1% at NU for instance. I don't go to YHS, but if someone wants that unicorn type job or academia, the odds are MUCH MUCH higher at those schools than others. Thats my point.


Sure OP can gamble 150k+ on GT or NU for one of these outcomes, but OP is betting the house for a 1% chance. At GT for instance, OP would have a .0018% chance at getting a Skadden fellowship given your numbers. Is that worth the cost OP has now? The objective answer is no. If OP had GT for free, then sure the gamble calculus changes.

RedPurpleBlue wrote:

grades?? wrote:

lula43 wrote:

Cogburn1984 wrote:

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Sure, that's understandable. I don't plan to retake or reapply.

And half meaning I've received scholarships and grants which cuts COA in half.

Well if you don't plan to retake or reapply, you need to reassess your career goals. Because it will be HIGHLY unlike, near impossible, for you to land your ideal career from either of these schools. If one was free, then sure roll the dice. But at these price points, you are gambling 150k+ on a 1% chance. So you need to change your career goals if you are going to ignore the advice of people who have actually been through this at these schools.

The same is true of any law school. Should OP just not go to law school?

There are plenty of ACLU lawyers who went to state flagships and non-preftigious but decent private law schools. It's really a crap shoot wherever you go. I think OP would be fine at either of these schools. How she does in her class is going to dictate her future in regards to PI Unicorn jobs a lot more than where she goes (given she doesn't end up at Cooley). I don't know where this idea comes from that you need to go to HYS or bust to have a shot at Unicorn PI. It's dumb, and it should die. I just pulled up Skadden Fellows for fun, because that's considered one of the Unicorn PI opportunities right out of law school. What did I find?

Stanford (2), UCLA (3), Yale (5), Harvard (5), Seattle (1), Chicago-Kent (1), NYU (2), Penn (2), Michigan (1), Georgetown (1), CUNY (2), Duke (1), George Washington (1), Northwestern (1), Michigan State (1), Berkeley (1)

UCLA is more represented than Stanford and only slightly less than Yale and Harvard. CUNY is as represented as Stanford. Michigan State is as represented as Michigan. What's the moral of the story? Go wherever you want/is more affordable and do really well; you'll have a chance at a Skadden or other Unicorn PI. Both schools are fine for OPs goals simply because no school is particularly good for them. If anything, a lot of the HYS bump for Unicorn PI is simply due to self-selection. A lot of the statistical differences we find in law schools are due to self-selection, but it seems like TLS instead ignores that and turns it into some sort of canon that X school is better than Y school for hyper-specific outcome.

Your lecturing people about statistics based on the difference of one to two people per school? Ok then.

grades?? wrote:

RedPurpleBlue wrote:

grades?? wrote:
Well if you don't plan to retake or reapply, you need to reassess your career goals. Because it will be HIGHLY unlike, near impossible, for you to land your ideal career from either of these schools. If one was free, then sure roll the dice. But at these price points, you are gambling 150k+ on a 1% chance. So you need to change your career goals if you are going to ignore the advice of people who have actually been through this at these schools.

The same is true of any law school. Should OP just not go to law school?

There are plenty of ACLU lawyers who went to state flagships and non-preftigious but decent private law schools. It's really a crap shoot wherever you go. I think OP would be fine at either of these schools. How she does in her class is going to dictate her future in regards to PI Unicorn jobs a lot more than where she goes (given she doesn't end up at Cooley). I don't know where this idea comes from that you need to go to HYS or bust to have a shot at Unicorn PI. It's dumb, and it should die. I just pulled up Skadden Fellows for fun, because that's considered one of the Unicorn PI opportunities right out of law school. What did I find?

Stanford (2), UCLA (3), Yale (5), Harvard (5), Seattle (1), Chicago-Kent (1), NYU (2), Penn (2), Michigan (1), Georgetown (1), CUNY (2), Duke (1), George Washington (1), Northwestern (1), Michigan State (1), Berkeley (1)

UCLA is more represented than Stanford and only slightly less than Yale and Harvard. CUNY is as represented as Stanford. Michigan State is as represented as Michigan. What's the moral of the story? Go wherever you want/is more affordable and do really well; you'll have a chance at a Skadden or other Unicorn PI. Both schools are fine for OPs goals simply because no school is particularly good for them. If anything, a lot of the HYS bump for Unicorn PI is simply due to self-selection. A lot of the statistical differences we find in law schools are due to self-selection, but it seems like TLS instead ignores that and turns it into some sort of canon that X school is better than Y school for hyper-specific outcome.

You proved my point for me, so thank you. The point is that it isn't impossible from any school as you have shown with the Skadden fellowship. I would bet my house that the kids from Michigan State, GW, etc were all top 1-2% of their class. Yet Yale and Harvard have more. The point being that you have much better odds of doing this unicorn PL work at a HYS because you don't necessarily have to be top 1% at NU for instance. I don't go to YHS, but if someone wants that unicorn type job or academia, the odds are MUCH MUCH higher at those schools than others. Thats my point.


Sure OP can gamble 150k+ on GT or NU for one of these outcomes, but OP is betting the house for a 1% chance. At GT for instance, OP would have a .0018% chance at getting a Skadden fellowship given your numbers. Is that worth the cost OP has now? The objective answer is no. If OP had GT for free, then sure the gamble calculus changes.

See, the part I take issue with is the "much better odds." If your odds at one school are 1-2% and your odds at another are 4-5% (Chicago-Kent vs Harvard), then I don't register that as much better, because you still need to be a law school superstar. Your odds are marginally better for Unicorn. Now, with academia, I 100% agree that HYS + Chicago are the best schools to go to if you have those aspirations. I can't remember where, but there was some analysis done that shows HYS grads specifically having a bump in regards to getting interviews/job talks for academic positions (when accounting for all other factors). There is a very real boost there, but I'm still just not seeing it for Unicorn PI. I'm just seeing what's likely 90% self-selection and maybe marginally (but not much better) odds.

I think you forgot to times by 100. Your chance at GULC would be 0.18%, which is 0.0018.

Regardless, I think this statistic helps articulate what I'm trying to show. Harvard is roughly the size of GULC (1767 at H vs 1725 at GULC from the 2016 ABA 509) and consequentially has roughly the same class sizes. So, you'd have 0.18% shot at GULC and 0.9% shot at H. I wouldn't be betting the house on either of those outcomes for any sort of money, but those are the sort of percentages at every school. Chicago-Kent's rate is 0.47%, but it's a significantly worse school than GULC. These single year snapshots don't really tell us much other than 1) that you can go to a lot of schools and get a Skadden 2) you need to be top of your class no matter what and 3) your chances are abysmal at any school. If you really just look at the numbers and figure in that some self-selection is going on, you see that it's just one huge ass crapshoot for Unicorn PI jobs.

Npret wrote:
Your lecturing people about statistics based on the difference of one to two people per school? Ok then.

I don't think disagreeing with someone and trying to engage in discussion counts as lecturing, but OK. Second, my point is that no school really dominates. It's basically a handful of different schools sending people at the top of their class + likely more from the T13 because of self-selection. I think that's a relatively reasonable assumption off that data.

grades?? wrote:

RedPurpleBlue wrote:

grades?? wrote:

lula43 wrote:

Cogburn1984 wrote:

lula43 wrote:

grades?? wrote:Neither

What informs that?

Conventional TLS wisdom is you should attend a school that gives you a better than a 50% chance at your stated goals, and only if the debt load won't be too dramatic. In your case, your goals are pretty difficult "gets" from either of the schools you listed. So people are gonna ask for your stats and probably tell you to retake the LSAT. Perhaps re-evaluate your goals in general and come up with a more achievable backup plan.

When you say you'll pay "half" COA at GULC, do you mean you're paying sticker and someone else is footing half the bill, or you've received a scholarship which cuts COA in half? Those situations will elicit different advice.

Sure, that's understandable. I don't plan to retake or reapply.

And half meaning I've received scholarships and grants which cuts COA in half.

Well if you don't plan to retake or reapply, you need to reassess your career goals. Because it will be HIGHLY unlike, near impossible, for you to land your ideal career from either of these schools. If one was free, then sure roll the dice. But at these price points, you are gambling 150k+ on a 1% chance. So you need to change your career goals if you are going to ignore the advice of people who have actually been through this at these schools.

The same is true of any law school. Should OP just not go to law school?

There are plenty of ACLU lawyers who went to state flagships and non-preftigious but decent private law schools. It's really a crap shoot wherever you go. I think OP would be fine at either of these schools. How she does in her class is going to dictate her future in regards to PI Unicorn jobs a lot more than where she goes (given she doesn't end up at Cooley). I don't know where this idea comes from that you need to go to HYS or bust to have a shot at Unicorn PI. It's dumb, and it should die. I just pulled up Skadden Fellows for fun, because that's considered one of the Unicorn PI opportunities right out of law school. What did I find?

Stanford (2), UCLA (3), Yale (5), Harvard (5), Seattle (1), Chicago-Kent (1), NYU (2), Penn (2), Michigan (1), Georgetown (1), CUNY (2), Duke (1), George Washington (1), Northwestern (1), Michigan State (1), Berkeley (1)

UCLA is more represented than Stanford and only slightly less than Yale and Harvard. CUNY is as represented as Stanford. Michigan State is as represented as Michigan. What's the moral of the story? Go wherever you want/is more affordable and do really well; you'll have a chance at a Skadden or other Unicorn PI. Both schools are fine for OPs goals simply because no school is particularly good for them. If anything, a lot of the HYS bump for Unicorn PI is simply due to self-selection. A lot of the statistical differences we find in law schools are due to self-selection, but it seems like TLS instead ignores that and turns it into some sort of canon that X school is better than Y school for hyper-specific outcome.

You proved my point for me, so thank you. The point is that it isn't impossible from any school as you have shown with the Skadden fellowship. I would bet my house that the kids from Michigan State, GW, etc were all top 1-2% of their class. Yet Yale and Harvard have more. The point being that you have much better odds of doing this unicorn PL work at a HYS because you don't necessarily have to be top 1% at NU for instance. I don't go to YHS, but if someone wants that unicorn type job or academia, the odds are MUCH MUCH higher at those schools than others. Thats my point.


Sure OP can gamble 150k+ on GT or NU for one of these outcomes, but OP is betting the house for a 1% chance. At GT for instance, OP would have a .0018% chance at getting a Skadden fellowship given your numbers. Is that worth the cost OP has now? The objective answer is no. If OP had GT for free, then sure the gamble calculus changes.

Gamble is definitely a strong word. I think GULC or NU at <200k is "worth it" for a lot of people. A lower t13 with a decent scholarship is a great outcome, especially if you don't want to retake and sit out. I would do GULC, for the off chance you don't spend the 10 years in PI, and have loans to pay off.

Anecdotal - one of my friends is there now and told me he is around median, and has consistently had great PI internships for his two summers so far, and has an internship related to NYC city government this summer.

It's not like any of the T13 other than HYS "guarantee" or give a great shot at unicorn jobs, right? Even if OP retakes, Yale is Yale and H & S are never a sure thing.

At these prices, these schools are borderline defensible, but you should do everything in your power to get your COA down.

That means retaking (although knowing your GPA/LSAT/ number of takes might change that).

Thank you all for your input. I negotiated Georgetown to a total of $158,000 in aid and enrolled.