2014 wrote:Chicago gives you waaaaayyyyy better odds at Cali than Cornell. If you are ok with any big law in New York then Cornell will give you a fine chance. Chicago has a pretty large lead both in gross numbers and per capita in elite NY firms as defined by Chambers or Vault, and those firms coincidentally have the biggest class sizes so coming here will very likely give you more choices at "better" firms whereas at Cornell if you end up at medianish (which you should assume you will) you are more likely to be left with one or two offers and who knows if the firm will match your interests, personality, or whatever.
Where firm might matter is for your second job since you want to transition to business (in house?) or banking (good luck!) and corporations seem to hire more from firms that do work for them. I have to imagine that working at one of the more prestigious NYC firms gives you a leg up for your second job both generally and in terms of quality of employer.
So Chicago gives you way better odds at Cali, is likely to place you in a "better" NYC firms and you will probably have more offers to choose between. This will allow you to improve your odds of getting a second job and getting one that you like.
Is that all worth 98k? I have no idea, but either is a defensible choice, it's just about whether the potential sacrifice is worth the money to you.
Thanks for this man really appreciate it. I definitely see what you mean as far as the Cali market. My question would be do you believe ending up median or below at U Chicago puts you in a better position then the same at Cornell? We're talking about a difference of 100k here almost. idk if my aid situation is also similar for most U Chi students where your taking a considerably lesser offer and leaving 100k on the table elsewhere. Still very much confused
I think part of the real allure of a place like Chicago compared to Cornell is that employers are almost certainly going to go deeper in the class. All else equal, I'd feel a whole lot better off under median at Chicago than I would at Cornell. At the bottom of the class, you're probably in a very tight spot either way. The question ends up being the same one 2014 posed, which is basically where do you want to take the risk: paying $100k for a smaller chance of striking out (though if you strike out, you're $100k deeper in the hole), or NOT paying $100k for a bigger chance at striking out (though if you strike out, you're NOT $100k deeper in the hole).
FWIW, I talked with a professor who has some experience at both schools, and he said there was a noticeable difference in "quality" between the top students at Chicago and the top students at Cornell, but around median there's not much difference at all. What *I* would extrapolate from that is that you're equally likely to find yourself at median at either school. Which just puts you back in the same position you were in already: do I pay $100k for the better options median at Chicago gives me?
It's not an easy question to answer at all, and like 2014 said, either choice is defensible. It's all about your particular preference for risk (including what type
of risk you're more comfortable with). Good luck with it, though, man.