rpupkin wrote:PRinNYC wrote:rpupkin wrote:presidentspivey wrote:rpupkin wrote:Back2California wrote:Not OP, but do they differ at all in terms of where they place/ the caliber of firms that graduates end up at?
Huh. You wouldn't even say S places better in CA (or at least NorCal) than H?
That's a slightly different question than the one I was answering.
It's more convenient for SLS students to apply for jobs in NorCal, obviously. And if I had straight Ps and my goal was to get a job at any firm that would take me in the Bay Area, I'd rather be at SLS than HLS. But as far as "caliber of firms" goes from top to bottom, there's no real difference between HLS and SLS.
Someone from Standord told me that they thought it might actually be easier to get some of the top firms in New York from Stanford because they are a bit "rarer" or something along those lines. Do you think that's true?
Maybe, but I doubt it. This is one of those things that cuts both ways. There are probably some firms that value law-school diversity and would therefore be more inclined to make an offer to a SLS student just for the sake of rounding out the class. At the same time, there are firms that are very "alumni loyal"--a NYC firm with a bunch of HLS partners might be more likely to give a break to a HLS applicant instead of a SLS applicant of similar caliber. At the end of the day, it probably cancels out.
I know some top NY firms do. PM if you want more specificity. Only about 30-40 Stanford students target NY every year. They tend to spread out so that top firms get 0-3 each. Even with fierce alumni loyalty most firms will prefer the 1st Stanford student over the 30th Harvard one.
The biggest difference between the schools is at the bottom of the class. No LPs and fewer classmates to outperform turns landing NY big law with bottom quintile grades into a safer proposition.