Be frank with me; 23-year-old white male, 172/3.62, no softs, moderate work experience, good LOR.

While I don't feel I could make an informed decision between Columbia and NYU without visiting, I would have to say I am leaning slightly toward NYU. NYU has the additional benefit of being more likely to admit me.

I have been toying with the idea of ED to NYU, and really the ONLY reason not to do it is it effectively takes Columbia off the table; logically speaking, there is almost no way I could get rejected ED at NYU and admitted RD at Columbia, and if I'm accepted ED at NYU I must withdraw from Columbia.

The moral of the story is this. If I'm overestimating my chances at Columbia, then it seems imprudent to settle for RD at NYU on the off-chance they both admit me RD. LSN for last year with 172 and 3.5-3.7 looks like five or six acceptances, five or six waitlists, and two or three rejections.

So, would it be stupid to hold out for a double acceptance and miss out on the "boost" of ED at NYU?

Or, would it be stupid to ED at NYU and RD at Columbia? Doesn't make much sense numbers-wise. Should I feel secure about my chances at NYU if I ED? Should I feel secure just with RD?

Why not ED at Columbia rather than NYU? I think LSN suggests that you'd have a decent shot of getting in that way, although I think this cycle is probably going to be absurdly more difficult than last year's.

Part of my thinking is that if this cycle is going to be absurdly more difficult, last year's LSN data has given me too rosy an impression of my chances at Columbia. This would point in favor of the ED-NYU option.

The reason for not ED Columbia is that I'm actually leaning toward NYU and I like my chances of getting in there better.

While double rejection seems unlikely, ED-ing Columbia seems the second way to make it happen other than RD-ing both. I only want to use ED if it can basically lock me in to the top 5, and I think NYU is the only one that accomplishes that.

yeah i think columbia will be a bit of a reach with your numbers, i'd lock yourself in NYU with ED if that's where you want to go

Reach

Do you think ED locks me in at NYU?

I would think so, yes.

I think your reasoning is pretty sound.

Ultimately this is going to depend on your preferences (and if they change significantly over the next ten days). Outside of the fact that you're more likely to get in there, if you find for some reason that you like NYU more than Columbia, I can see no reason why you wouldn't ED there and lock it up. You're absolutely right to be wary of going regular decision at both schools given this cycle's competitiveness. While your numbers are obviously impressive, I think very few people can really consider themselves auto admits at either school ITE.

Your chances RD at NYU are pretty good, so I'm not sure the best strategy would be to use your ED there. By EDing you are also taking the chance of going to another T14 with scholarship money off the table. If you are 100% sure NYU is your top choice and money is not a factor then ED there.

Money could potentially be a factor, but in researching my chances at CCN I have also been looking into my chances on $$$ at t14 based on LSN numbers from last year. It looks like the schools I could expect a boost from would be Michigan and Duke to the tune of $15k a year or so. I wouldn't expect any aid from Penn or Northwestern or Cornell, and I wouldn't expect anything close to a full ride from anywhere.

I'm about as positive as I could be that I wouldn't turn down NYU for a $45K grant from a lower t10.

I'm also kind of freaked out about this cycle being more competitive. My numbers were auto-admit at NYU last year (something like 18 for 18 on LSN plus a couple waitlisted), but if I bank my cycle on that fact, I could come to regret it a few months from now.

For what it's worth, NYU has a clear edge over Columbia in my head for a few reasons: the trial advocacy and lawyering emphasis, the increased clinical offerings, and the increased emphasis on clerkships. Also, I'm not a set-in-stone biglaw type guy, which would be something that would likely point me to CLS. Add in a slightly more prestigious faculty and a philosophy bend (my UG degree and a passion of mine intellectually), and this is why I like NYU.

I'm ambivalent regarding location. I think the more "happening" NYU area would have its advantages and drawbacks, just like the quieter surroundings of CLS. I'm drawn to CLS's campus setting and slightly more affordable housing as well.

I don't know why people think this year will be substantially more difficult than last year. The economy started tanking in early fall last year, giving laid off financial analysts plenty of time to take the LSAT and apply. The numbers for Columbia seem to have moved dramatically from the previous year based on LSN. Do you really think that's going to happen again? If anything I think things will be at the same level or perhaps slightly more reasonable this year.

i can confirm that not EVERY analyst has already made preparations. I worked at a top 5 investment bank, and just recently decided to enter the law school fray.

Remember that Lehman Brothers collapsed in September of last year, and unemployment didn't begin to really accelerate until Dec/Jan of 2008. This cycle will bear the brunt of the recession's effects. At the top end will be ultra-talented kids that would have otherwise been doing finance/consulting, and on the low end will be people with no other options.

As a happy anecdote, consider my good friend: he graduated summa from Yale, got offers from Goldman Sachs and Lazard, but ended up making 200k+ his first year out at D.E. Shaw. He recently got laid off, and after about a month of fooling around with Powerscore books, got a 178 on the September LSAT. It'll be fun competing against the likes of him this fall, no?

This is overblown. This year will not be the apocalypse. At MOST, LSAT medians will go up 1 point - and they probably won't go up that far.

Your "friend" wouldn't be one of the most impressive people in my law school class. Good grades and high scores are the norm at the good schools, and it's not like most people in finance are that bright or have better softs than anyone else. I would guess that most people in finance wouldn't have great applications and your friend is probably the exception rather than the rule. The only reason I used the example is because it's another white collar industry that is likely to dump applicants into law school when they are fired, not because the finance folks pose any intrinsic threat to solid applicants.

I seriously doubt that this year will be much different from last, but only time will tell.

Sorry, unrepresentative sample.

"I know someone who decided this year to end their stint as a staff assistance on Capitol Hill. They got a 145 on the LSAT, so we have an easy cycle ahead, folks!"

Outside of the t10 or so, I agree. But given how few spots there are at the elite law schools, please explain to me how a sudden influx of auto admit-type candidates won't have a significant effect on the cycle's overall competitiveness for folks applying to HYSCCN?

Because they aren't actually autoadmit types. Lots of people working in finance etc. are actually dumb as hell. Even the ones with good quant backgrounds often don't do well on the LSAT.

There are plenty of idiots doing back office type work in non-prestigious finance, I absolutely concur. However, there is a reason people have been complaining during the past few years about the brain drain created by investment banking. Almost every Harvard, Yale or Princeton kid with a 3.7+ in any major was moving to NY after graduation to do finance or consulting. On my desk alone, there was a former Rhodes Scholar, a guy who turned down the Marshall and LOTS of people with 3.8+ gpas from Ivy League schools.

Now consider the fact that the most prestigious banks have fired perhaps +/- 500 analysts between them. With the finance hiring market shot, I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Liberal Arts and Humanities majors among them that at some point just reverted back to plan B and subsequently dominated the LSAT this past year.

A lot of the front office people are idiots too. Many of the banking jobs aren't actually about merit and lots of stupid people with connections get them. The fact is that the people who would truly be competitive at Columbia last year will be competitive again this year. I know that financial services breeds this delusion that those who work in it are somehow "special"/"masters of the universe" but it's just not true. Surely some of the liberal arts majors and flat out smart people will do well, but The LSAT requires a completely different skill set than many of the finance crowd possess. Those who weren't planning on it to begin with aren't going to pose any statistically significant threat to those who would have gotten in last year.

How many of those 500 are applying to law school? How many of those applying have the LSAT to compete for T14? And finally, how many people with finance backgrounds will law schools admit?

Please re-read your old thread on the same topic.
In case you lost it, it is here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=91039
The same speculation/advice applies.

You are WAY overthinking it. And YES, there are ways that you can get rejected ED NYU and accepted RD CLS. This is NOT 100% a Math/URM game. i.e. you write a personal statement about your cat. NYU ad-com guy hates cats and thinks you're weird, CLS ad-com guy loves cats and thinks you're a sweet guy. Rejected at NYU, Accepted at CLS. It's THAT easy/random.

People like you should not ED to either. But either way you move, it's not the end of the world. You are a PERSON, not a %chance statistic. And in the abstract perspective that you become a %chance statistic, you still cannot predict that %chance at the fringes (which is where you're at), because fundamentally, you are still a PERSON, and that's what will determine that %chance statistic in the first place.

Stop making new threads on this.

Also talibkweli, stop predicting doom and gloom this cycle due solely to finance and consulting nerds who suddenly decide they want to be lawyers. I have plenty of friends who went to HYPS who worked at Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros, BCG, McKinsey, Bain, etc. who are fucking dumb as rocks and would never get 170+ on the LSAT. For whatever reason you think kids at those firms are total rockstar geniuses. Many of them aren't. Period.

Well, a couple things. First, I don't really like bumping dead threads, and I don't think people like reading through bumped threads when the relevant post is on the last page. Second, it's hard to argue with the results; this thread has created all sorts of conversation that I haven't been part of before.

Sorry to have bothered you.

1. Predicting "doom and gloom" =/= predicting that the market dislocation will make the cycle more competitive.

2. I concede that, having worked at one of the first three banks that you mentioned, my opinion is probably a little biased. However, I know plenty of kids with high lsats and lots of rockstar type kids outside of law, and it seems to me that they've all got in common a set of impressive analytical skills. It seems reasonable to assume that many analysts/consultants, particularly at the elite shops, could do quite well on the lsats.

Oh, and if you could find me a McKinsey kid that could objectively be called "dumb as rocks," I would actually give you my life savings.

Ultimately, my point is that the problems outside of law in sectors that have traditionally attracted talented kids will have a material, tangible effect on the cycle. I don't understand why you guys seem to think that that is such an extreme assertion.