jbagelboy wrote:I'm not sure I'd go that far, I'd just say that for the CA firms I've interviewed with and worked at, your grades can be a little lower at CLS than at UVA, Penn, Duke, ect. Berkeley and Chicago are probably comparable. I'd re-frame it a little: at many less selective firms, your grades don't even really matter from Columbia if you have ties and a little hustle; at the highly selective firms, your grades will matter from every school (except yale, I suppose).
That being said, it's tougher to advise someone with 'relatively few ties to CA'. I think poor ties and bad grades would be the kiss of death for California; you need one or the other. If you do perform well, you'll create California options, although you have to be strategic since class sizes are a lot smaller (especially in SF) than at New York firms.
I wouldn't go to Columbia over another school in the T14 strictly on the basis of more powerful placement in California. The school's greatest asset is still its placement into the most elite firms in the new york market.
Absolutely, that makes sense. Was just curious if the mobility spiel is more fiction than fact. Thanks for the insight