Yeah. Chicago is not a feasible option for PI people like me.

Chicago better than Columbia?

Columbia has substantially better numbers and is substantially more selective. Columbia places better into biglaw, even considering Chicago's size advantage.

Chicago is better in academia/clerkships, but that's because professors doing hiring went to LS decades ago when Chicago was hot-shit.

If by substantially better numbers you mean a substantially better LSAT range then yes. If you mean substantially better placement into firms and clerkships then no. Columbia and Chicago are about as equivalent as two schools can get---with the exception of Chicago being a stronger in clerkships and CLS being marginally stronger in big law. Even in that regard both situations can easily be explained by self selection. CLS grads tend to prefer to skip clerkships and head to biglaw---the opposite is true of Chicago. Like Voidsix said the only schools stronger than Chicago are HYS---Columbia is equivalent.

As usual, thanks for all the input, everyone. When I get into conversations like this, I almost always start to second-guess my preferences with regard to the schools I am considering. Put my mind at ease; whether I end up at Columbia, NYU, Chicago, Penn, or Northwestern, if I work my butt off, I'll have a realistic opportunity to pursue biglaw or clerkships or public interest.... right?

When I hear things like "Chicago is better for clerkships than anyone but HYS" I start thinking "wow I should reconsider my goal of going into a clerkship from NYU." Ultimately, I just don't want to close any doors simply by virtue of the school I select.

CLS has better student numbers, and manages while fielding a class nearly twice as large. It also has a significant edge in V10 placement, again while graduating a class nearly twice as large.

The vault 10 is entirely composed of NYC firms---making it a horrible way of comparing the two schools placement. On top of that CLS having a class size that much larger hurts the argument that it places better, it doesn't help. Also look at the two schools placement into very prestigious non NYC firms---they're the same. Also to be honest a lot of the most selective and elite firms are not in the vault 10: Munger, Williams and Connolly, Irell, Keker van Nest, Susman Godfrey, Robbins Russell, Covington DC, Gibson Dunn LA. You will notice that the two schools place equivalently into these extremely selective firms. Also when you take into account the massive difference in class size they even place nearly the same at the top NYC firms like Wachtell and Cravath. And even when you look at pretty NYC centric placement stats like the nlj250 Columbia is still only barely ahead of Chicago in the latest chart, and in the older one's Chicago is ahead. The leiter data takes into account class size and shows that Chicago is only slightly behind CLS. Finally the LSAT and GPA ranges of the two schools are simply irrelevant when you are talking about actually getting a job or a clerkship. A lot of people on here are obsessed with that kind of thing because it makes them feel more "special" but employers really don't care. They know the repuations of certain schools and they simply consider CLS and Chicago to be equivalent---the exception might be judges who seem to view Chicago as being a little better.


http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

there are not enough >'s before Keynesian. fuck the Fed

Ummm... you might want to take a look at the V10 for the past two years... specifically the firm ranked #10.

Okay, let's use the Vault selectivity ranking instead: http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ement.html

CLS places a higher percentage, even though Chicago has the advantage of having to place only half as many people.

Also, the LSAT stats don't matter for placement, but we're talking about overall school quality. It does speak to the quality of a school that it attracts stronger students overall.

I think we can agree that clerkships are easier to come by than Columbia (and NYU, for that matter). It should also be noted that Chicago places better into academia. What if all the clerks / academics at Chicago wanted to go to BigLaw instead? I am willing to bet they'd be able. Just something to think about. I think Columbia and Chicago are seen as equivalent (with slightly difference foci), and Chicago has historically been boss. In fact, I was discussing which law school I was going to attend with a few lawyers the other day and I mentioned that if I didn't get into HYS, Columbia was my next option, and they all replied along the lines of "Columbia? Go to Chicago." Which makes sense, as when they were in school, Chicago really was boss, but all the same--those are the people that are going to be doing hiring currently.

Hurray! Another CLS vs. Chicago vs. NYU thread.

Kurama will post a conclusion, which doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence. Others will post opposing conclusions that also don't follow from the evidence. No one will agree with each other, and then we'll eventually have people wondering why this thread ever existed.

Silly me I forgot one firm----the firm that also no offered and started crumbling before pretty much every other firm in the country and by far the least desirable one in the vault 10.

Hmmm. I can name other firms in the V10 that no-offered.

And "started crumbling" before pretty much every other firm in the country? Now you're just being stupid, lest we forget:
Cadwalader
Clifford Chance
Thelen
Heller Ehrman
Thacher Profitt
White & Case
Latham and Watkins

And what has the firm done? The worst so far is stealth layoffs. Compared to the rest of the V10, that ain't so bad:
Skadden: Stealths, deferrals.
Cravath: Stealths, deferals, deferred class of 2010
Weil: Closed Austin office, deferals, deferred class of 2010

You really need some help, kurama

Excellent idea to use that chart instead---and I thought the same thing as you did until I checked the firms on that chart and realized that even on that one most of the firms are in NYC. Then when I looked at the firms on that chart that aren't in NYC I quickly saw how Chicago either placed the same as Columbia or better. If you only count the firms not from NYC on that list you will quickly see how the two schools are the same. What Void Six said is very true---you will find a lot of firm people who share the sentiments that the lawyers he talked to voiced.

kurama:

Don't get into another argument with me, or I'll burn you alive like I did last time.

Calm down. It is an online anonymous message board.

Yes, and it seems that you take advantage of this fact by posting unadulterated bullshit.

Again, how's about you get into some schools before you start trolling for them? Even more hilariously, how's about you get into some schools before you start trolling for/against firms?

Let's stay on topic here. The OP (once again Blazers) was asking about Chicago schools. We all agreed that Chicago is far superior to NU in just about every regard. Then I mentioned that Chicago actually is better than just about every school except for HYS for clerkships, and that Chicago was essentially a peer school of Columbia with both being better in respective categories than NYU. He said he doesn't want to have to worry about not getting a clerkship with NYU.

So here is what I would tell him:

Chicago is slightly behind HYS and tied with Columbia in peer and bar assessments. Both Columbia and Chicago are above NYU. Columbia might actually have the "worst" faculty of the three (though all three have stellar faculties), and Chicago definitely has the best.

Here is a link to Leiter rankings of faculty quality: http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2 ... ship.shtml and http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2 ... pact.shtml.

Here is placement into SCOTUS clerkships: http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2000 ... erks.shtml (keep in mind how much smaller UChi's class size is here)

Here is placement into academia: http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008 ... hing.shtml

Here is the interview with Leiter where he addresses his ranking system and UChicago: http://www.top-law-schools.com/brian-le ... rview.html


The world is your oyster, OP.

Most of the firms on that list are in NYC because NYC is the biggest legal market... It makes no more sense to just compare the non-NYC firms than to compare only NYC firms.

It does make sense when self selection can be seen so obviously---otherwise you'd have to start saying that Columbia out places Harvard and Stanford in very selective firms as well---it doesn't.

Thanks much. I think after spending so much time on these boards over the past three weeks, I have become a bit obsessed with the rankings. I should just calm down and realize that if I get into one or more of the top six schools, more probably depends on me than on where I end up.

Yes Your life isn't going to be changed because you chose NYU over Chicago or Chicago over Columbia.

The most important thing that has come from this is a refutation of my assumption that getting into NYU or Columbia would preclude the need to even consider Chicago. Sounds like I should plan visits if I get into more than one of the three. Of course, I may ultimately come to the same conclusion based primarily on NYC vs. Chicago as cities.

I've come to the same conclusion. I was getting obsessed over the rankings, too, but the more people argue about the data the more I see the problems with relying on it too much. The fact that all the top firms are in New York and that the top NY schools place more people in it just isn't that helpful to me, especially since I am not sure I want to live there long-term. On the other hand, the fact that Chicago places fewer people, even per capita, in the top NY firms doesn't necessarily mean anything. It looks like about 60% of Columbia and NYU grads decide to stay in NY, and obviously much fewer Chicago grads are even trying to work in new york (I'd be surprised if it was even 30%). You'd expect Chicago to have half as many people in top NY firms per capita simply because they send half as many people to NY per capita. I don't know how we can realistically sort through all the factors that go into placement and come to any conclusion.

For the record, I posted several times and never meant to suggest this in any way. I only judged Chicago superior in the areas of non-lay prestige, job opportunities and clerkships/academia.

In other areas, including location, student reputation, school focus and perhaps lay prestige, Northwestern may be superior. What weight to give these considerations is another matter, but there are certainly points to be made in NU's favor in this matchup.