NU Apps '11-'12 - Good Luck Hold Candidates!!!! <3 Forum

[bk1]

Lumping 11-20 along with BU/BC/Fordham, etc., makes sense. The "large firm score" on Law School Transparency for many of these schools is almost the same. And in the end, "large firm score" correlates pretty well to 160 + bonus starting salary (if it excluded 50-100 lawyer firms, it would correlate better, but proportionally few graduates at any school usually go to firms of such size). As you'll see from the schools that release their full NALP reports, almost every job in 200+ lawyer firms, and most jobs in 100-200 lawyer firms, are 160 + bonus (or 145 + bonus in "secondary markets").

You make the mistake I was warning against: you say that the 160 + bonus jobs are in NYC and you want a T10/14 to get to NYC. The mistake is made on both counts. The 160 + bonus jobs are not just in NYC, and you don't need a T10/14 to get to NYC. The V20 jobs are in NYC. You want a T10/14 to go to NYC and get a V20. Outside the V20, the 160 + bonus jobs can be found in NYC and other parts of the country by graduates of most of the 11-20. Some of these schools, like Boston College and Vandy, will send a large portion of their graduates to NYC to get these jobs while sending the rest to the top of other markets. Others won't send hardly any to NYC, including schools you regard as being among the first in the 11-20, USC and UCLA.

The base salary is pretty stable across about the top 80 to 100 firms. That "snowball's chance in hell" of making partner at a V20 is actually the principle reason to pay sticker at a T10/14. That's not uncommon. Check this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magaz ... lroom.html A lot of labor markets are "lotteries" offering a chance at fabulous riches but not much else. It's partially rational, but obviously risky (if you're paying a lot for the chance), and it causes large disparities between the winners and the losers (especially between the losers who paid a lot and the winners who had scholarships). The "market" for V20 is a lottery, offering no greater base salary, a slightly higher bonus (again, Wachtell is the exception, but they will work you nearly to death, perhaps twice as much as even Cravath) but a chance to pull 5 million a year as a partner, along with a million a year pension at 60.

Are you and I looking at the same data? There's generally a 15-20% difference between schools ranked 11-14 (e.g. Cornell/NU/Duke) and the best of those ranked 19 and below (e.g. BU/BC/Fordham). This is in no way "almost the same." It gets even more exacerbated when you account for the clerkship disparity between these schools, lower T14's having 8-12%-ish and those below 19 usually having less than 5%.

You're making the mistake of conflating possibility with probability. I don't dispute that there are market paying firms outside of NYC. I'm also not disputing that it's possible to get NYC without going to a T14. My point is that it's difficult on both counts. NYC has the vast majority of market paying jobs. So it is often far easier to get one in NYC than it is to get one in SF/Seattle/ATL/Indy/etc. On top of that, NYC firms generally recruit very heavily at the T14 schools making it much easier to get out of those schools than those ranked below them. Coupling these together means that people's best shot at getting corporate work generally comes with going to a T14.

What I'm not saying is that people have to go to NYC. Personally I would rather not work in NYC. But if you really want to do corporate work then you are going to dramatically increase your odds if you are willing to work there.

And whose principal reason are you referring to? I'm fairly sure that making partner is a very rare reason for coming to law school among my classmates, though I have not taken a poll or anything. I'm not saying that they don't want it, but I am saying that I doubt many of them came here because of it.

[manofjustice]

I've tried to reply to manofjustice's post like eight times but it keeps disappearing.

In response to ranking 11-20 the same as BU/BC/Fordham in terms of biglaw: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... slreturn=1

BU versus Vandy: 35 to 47. Nothing fantastic. Now adjust for likely class rank, which is what the studies trying to answer our questions would do. Vandy's LSAT is more competitive by about a half a standard deviation, and it has a higher GPA median.

Not to mention the NLJ 250 includes a lot of sub 160 + bonus jobs. Law School Transparency's 200+ lawyer firm percentages are a better measure.

I guess I could budge on Fordham (an NLJ 250 of 29 is a bit low). Like I said, NYC is too saturated. Sub Cornell, and you're pickin at the bone if you go to a NYC regional.

Those numbers are out of date. WUSTL's NLJ number went all the way down to 13%

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... slreturn=1

There is no way you can compare NU's NLJ250 number at 52% with schools like WUSTL, BU, and Fordham that are all sub 20%. Even if the NLJ includes firms that pay 120-145k, that is still far better than the alternative.

I think NU also has better placement into non-NLJ positions that pay well. I know of several boutiques in Chicago that consistently hire NU grads and pay market. My guess is that schools in the 15-20 range can't claim as many of those positions either.

I don't argue with WUSTL. Never been very impressed with that school either. Neither have I been with Fordham. BU and BC are different.

But recognize that NUs 52% is almost invariably for the top 52% of the class (exactly what I said it would be, based on LST numbers, above). Why don't you also recognize that someone in the top half at NU is substantially more likely be in the top quarter at Boston College, as the data suggests? Placement statistics indicate that with respect to base salary + bonus, the top quarter at BC is doing as well as the top half at NU.

Also: NU did particularly well in the last NLJ 250. The NLJ 250 go-to is far less stable than other rankings. It's musical chairs of a regular cast divided into about three tiers.

[bk1]

But recognize that NUs 52% is almost invariably for the top 52% of the class (exactly what I said it would be, based on LST numbers, above).

Wait what? That's not how it works.

Why don't you also recognize that someone in the top half at NU is substantially more likely be in the top quarter at Boston College, as the data suggests?

Because that's not true and data doesn't suggest that.

Placement statistics indicate that with respect to base salary + bonus, the top quarter at BC is doing as well as the top half at NU.

Okay.

[manofjustice]

Lumping 11-20 along with BU/BC/Fordham, etc., makes sense. The "large firm score" on Law School Transparency for many of these schools is almost the same. And in the end, "large firm score" correlates pretty well to 160 + bonus starting salary (if it excluded 50-100 lawyer firms, it would correlate better, but proportionally few graduates at any school usually go to firms of such size). As you'll see from the schools that release their full NALP reports, almost every job in 200+ lawyer firms, and most jobs in 100-200 lawyer firms, are 160 + bonus (or 145 + bonus in "secondary markets").

You make the mistake I was warning against: you say that the 160 + bonus jobs are in NYC and you want a T10/14 to get to NYC. The mistake is made on both counts. The 160 + bonus jobs are not just in NYC, and you don't need a T10/14 to get to NYC. The V20 jobs are in NYC. You want a T10/14 to go to NYC and get a V20. Outside the V20, the 160 + bonus jobs can be found in NYC and other parts of the country by graduates of most of the 11-20. Some of these schools, like Boston College and Vandy, will send a large portion of their graduates to NYC to get these jobs while sending the rest to the top of other markets. Others won't send hardly any to NYC, including schools you regard as being among the first in the 11-20, USC and UCLA.

The base salary is pretty stable across about the top 80 to 100 firms. That "snowball's chance in hell" of making partner at a V20 is actually the principle reason to pay sticker at a T10/14. That's not uncommon. Check this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magaz ... lroom.html A lot of labor markets are "lotteries" offering a chance at fabulous riches but not much else. It's partially rational, but obviously risky (if you're paying a lot for the chance), and it causes large disparities between the winners and the losers (especially between the losers who paid a lot and the winners who had scholarships). The "market" for V20 is a lottery, offering no greater base salary, a slightly higher bonus (again, Wachtell is the exception, but they will work you nearly to death, perhaps twice as much as even Cravath) but a chance to pull 5 million a year as a partner, along with a million a year pension at 60.

Are you and I looking at the same data? There's generally a 15-20% difference between schools ranked 11-14 (e.g. Cornell/NU/Duke) and the best of those ranked 19 and below (e.g. BU/BC/Fordham). This is in no way "almost the same." It gets even more exacerbated when you account for the clerkship disparity between these schools, lower T14's having 8-12%-ish and those below 19 usually having less than 5%.

You're making the mistake of conflating possibility with probability. I don't dispute that there are market paying firms outside of NYC. I'm also not disputing that it's possible to get NYC without going to a T14. My point is that it's difficult on both counts. NYC has the vast majority of market paying jobs. So it is often far easier to get one in NYC than it is to get one in SF/Seattle/ATL/Indy/etc. On top of that, NYC firms generally recruit very heavily at the T14 schools making it much easier to get out of those schools than those ranked below them. Coupling these together means that people's best shot at getting corporate work generally comes with going to a T14.

What I'm not saying is that people have to go to NYC. Personally I would rather not work in NYC. But if you really want to do corporate work then you are going to dramatically increase your odds if you are willing to work there.

And whose principal reason are you referring to? I'm fairly sure that making partner is a very rare reason for coming to law school among my classmates, though I have not taken a poll or anything. I'm not saying that they don't want it, but I am saying that I doubt many of them came here because of it.

I'm referring to my principle reason. I'm eliminating the reasons I don't find compelling.

To the data: Duke's "large firm score" = 47. Boston College's "large firm score" = 35. That's a 12 point difference. Adjust based on statistically-likely class rank. You don't need much of an adjustment to suggest that an equally-capable student at Boston College makes up for the 12 fewer points of "large firm score" in a higher class rank: the student just has to do about 25% better at Boston College than at Duke, assuming the top grades get the top jobs. Then, to the class profile, and the metric most correlated to a students 1L grades: Duke's 25th percentile LSAT is higher than Boston College's 75th. Wow.

Where do Boston College/BU graduates get their Big Law jobs? Many in NYC. Many in Boston. So, I don't see why you have to go to Duke (or NU, Georgetown, etc.) to a) get a Big Law job or b) get a Big Law job in NYC. You just look at the placement numbers and keep forgetting to adjust for class-rank.

And you haven't challenged my contention that starting salary is almost exclusively a function of firm size except to say that "there are a few boutiques" (many of which are quite large anyway, like Boies Schiller). So, if you can get a 160 + bonus job, is it less cool because it's not in NYC? (Yes, I say, if you care about making partner at a V20--or, I suppose, if you think it's cool to make the same, but be an new associate at a more prestigious firm. I, however, care mostly about the $$$).

[bdubs]

I don't argue with WUSTL. Never been very impressed with that school either. Neither have I been with Fordham. BU and BC are different.

But recognize that NUs 52% is almost invariably for the top 52% of the class (exactly what I said it would be, based on LST numbers, above). Why don't you also recognize that someone in the top half at NU is substantially more likely be in the top quarter at Boston College, as the data suggests? Placement statistics indicate that with respect to base salary + bonus, the top quarter at BC is doing as well as the top half at NU.

Also: NU did particularly well in the last NLJ 250. The NLJ 250 go-to is far less stable than other rankings. It's musical chairs of a regular cast divided into about three tiers.

Dude, you are a delusional 0L.

There is every reason to think that someone at the median GPA at NU wouldn't be top of their class at BC. The transfers on this site generally indicate that transfers also do well at their new school. The admissions indicators just don't screen out all of the "good" law students and send them to the T14. There will invariably be good students at schools like BC who couldn't get into the T14 because they had a bad GPA and "only" a 169 LSAT. There is too much heterogeneity among students at T14 schools to claim that they could all do well at a lower ranked school. Keep in mind that the student with the weakest credentials at NU could probably have gotten into BC as well. Someone will always be first in the class, just like someone will always be last.

Also, employers don't rank order students by GPA and shut the door to the person who is at the 47th percentile. That is just silly.

[manofjustice]

But recognize that NUs 52% is almost invariably for the top 52% of the class (exactly what I said it would be, based on LST numbers, above).

Wait what? That's not how it works.

Why don't you also recognize that someone in the top half at NU is substantially more likely be in the top quarter at Boston College, as the data suggests?

Because that's not true and data doesn't suggest that.

Placement statistics indicate that with respect to base salary + bonus, the top quarter at BC is doing as well as the top half at NU.

Okay.

I'm sorry. It doesn't? Check it: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/08/is-law-s ... overrated/

[manofjustice]

I don't argue with WUSTL. Never been very impressed with that school either. Neither have I been with Fordham. BU and BC are different.

But recognize that NUs 52% is almost invariably for the top 52% of the class (exactly what I said it would be, based on LST numbers, above). Why don't you also recognize that someone in the top half at NU is substantially more likely be in the top quarter at Boston College, as the data suggests? Placement statistics indicate that with respect to base salary + bonus, the top quarter at BC is doing as well as the top half at NU.

Also: NU did particularly well in the last NLJ 250. The NLJ 250 go-to is far less stable than other rankings. It's musical chairs of a regular cast divided into about three tiers.

Dude, you are a delusional 0L.

There is every reason to think that someone at the median GPA at NU wouldn't be top of their class at BC. The transfers on this site generally indicate that transfers also do well at their new school. The admissions indicators just don't screen out all of the "good" law students and send them to the T14. There will invariably be good students at schools like BC who couldn't get into the T14 because they had a bad GPA and "only" a 169 LSAT. There is too much heterogeneity among students at T14 schools to claim that they could all do well at a lower ranked school. Keep in mind that the student with the weakest credentials at NU could probably have gotten into BC as well. Someone will always be first in the class, just like someone will always be last.

Also, employers don't rank order students by GPA and shut the door to the person who is at the 47th percentile. That is just silly.

Actually there isn't much heterogeneity at law schools at all. Check the study linked-to above. There are exceptions, of course. But exceptions don't make the rule. Like I said, all the student has to do is about 25% better at Boston College. He doesn't have to be top of his class.

Point well taken that employers don't rank-order students by GPA. But you are a delusional 3L (?maybe?) if you think class rank isn't the most important factor among students at the same school.

[bdubs]

Actually there isn't much heterogeneity at law schools at all. Check the study linked-to above. There are exceptions, of course. But exceptions don't make the rule. Like I said, all the student has to do is about 25% better at Boston College. He doesn't have to be top of his class.

Point well taken that employers don't rank-order students by GPA. But you are a delusional 3L (?maybe?) if you think class rank isn't the most important factor among students at the same school.

The results of the study don't exactly support your point. It says that good law students make more successful lawyers. You can't make yourself a more successful law student by attending a lower ranked school. The author's causal connection between GPA/LSAT and law school grades is admittedly pretty weak.

GPA is important for legal hiring, but it's really the people whose GPAs are really bad (bottom 1/3) that get shut out for the most part. I don't think that someone in the bottom 1/3 of NU would have been one of the students in the top 25% at BC who got big law jobs.

[bk1]

I'm sorry. It doesn't? Check it: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/08/is-law-s ... overrated/

Can you read? That study says next to nothing about how people would fare at various schools. There is a single line that says:

students who “trade‐up” in school prestige generally take a hit to their school performance

But that wasn't the focus of the study and it's not clear that they are doing any more than inferring that conclusion. Even if they are correct, there is no quantification of the magnitude that someone would do better at a lower ranked school. Your top 1/4 BU = top 1/2 NU assertion is not supported at all.

[bk1]

Actually there isn't much heterogeneity at law schools at all. Check the study linked-to above. There are exceptions, of course. But exceptions don't make the rule.

What do you mean no heterogeneity? Most people fall within a narrow band of LSATs and GPAs.

Like I said, all the student has to do is about 25% better at Boston College. He doesn't have to be top of his class.

Yeah, because getting top 25% at BC is oh so easy.

But you are a delusional 3L (?maybe?) if you think class rank isn't the most important factor among students at the same school.

He never said that it wasn't.

[manofjustice]

Actually there isn't much heterogeneity at law schools at all. Check the study linked-to above. There are exceptions, of course. But exceptions don't make the rule. Like I said, all the student has to do is about 25% better at Boston College. He doesn't have to be top of his class.

Point well taken that employers don't rank-order students by GPA. But you are a delusional 3L (?maybe?) if you think class rank isn't the most important factor among students at the same school.

The results of the study don't exactly support your point. It says that good law students make more successful lawyers. You can't make yourself a more successful law student by attending a lower ranked school. The author's causal connection between GPA/LSAT and law school grades is admittedly pretty weak.

GPA is important for legal hiring, but it's really the people whose GPAs are really bad (bottom 1/3) that get shut out for the most part. I don't think that someone in the bottom 1/3 of NU would have been one of the students in the top 25% at BC who got big law jobs.

Maybe I should actually link to the referred-to study.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1640058

To quote: "Making a modest
extrapolation, we find that moving up one tier is associated with a drop of
about three-fifths of a standard deviation in grades. For BPS students in the
top two tiers (together, roughly the top thirty schools), moving from the
second tier to the top tier corresponds to a drop of more than a standard
deviation in GPA.
When we combine the results from Table 13 with the coefficients obtained
in Table 11, the implications are startling: the grade swings associated
simply with attending a school of greater or lesser eliteness are large
enough to essentially cancel out the short-term income benefits of a more or
less elite law degree."

So, yea... How bout that?

[bdubs]

Maybe I should actually link to the referred-to study.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1640058

To quote: "Making a modest
extrapolation, we find that moving up one tier is associated with a drop of
about three-fifths of a standard deviation in grades. For BPS students in the
top two tiers (together, roughly the top thirty schools), moving from the
second tier to the top tier corresponds to a drop of more than a standard
deviation in GPA.
When we combine the results from Table 13 with the coefficients obtained
in Table 11, the implications are startling: the grade swings associated
simply with attending a school of greater or lesser eliteness are large
enough to essentially cancel out the short-term income benefits of a more or
less elite law degree."

So, yea... How bout that?

Did you look at the table? The fit of those models is .21 (all schools) and .23 (top two tiers). It's not a very strong statement to say that you can explain 23% of variance in grades by looking at GPA, LSAT, and whether the school was the "first choice". There is 77% unexplained variation there. If you want to take a 200k gamble on those statistics, I'd be happy to bet against you.

This is also not measuring performance of identical students at various schools, it is comparing students with similar performance metrics. There may be a lot of idiosyncrasies to the student who could attend for example NYU but chooses instead to attend Vanderbilt (the opposite just doesn't happen either, the average Vandy student doesn't have a shot at getting in to NYU).

Figure 2 also shows a huge problem with this analysis. You will notice that the "Top 10" earnings are at their peak for GPAs between 3.25-3.50. This happens to be the median GPA for most T10 schools (3.33). However, many schools outside the top 10 still use a curve that has a significantly lower GPA. This is primarily driven by scholarship stipulations, bar passage rates, and history. I can almost guarantee that there is heteroskedasticity in the grade data that makes this analysis even less reliable than it appears.

[manofjustice]

Maybe I should actually link to the referred-to study.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1640058

To quote: "Making a modest
extrapolation, we find that moving up one tier is associated with a drop of
about three-fifths of a standard deviation in grades. For BPS students in the
top two tiers (together, roughly the top thirty schools), moving from the
second tier to the top tier corresponds to a drop of more than a standard
deviation in GPA.
When we combine the results from Table 13 with the coefficients obtained
in Table 11, the implications are startling: the grade swings associated
simply with attending a school of greater or lesser eliteness are large
enough to essentially cancel out the short-term income benefits of a more or
less elite law degree."

So, yea... How bout that?

Did you look at the table? The fit of those models is .21 (all schools) and .23 (top two tiers). It's not a very strong statement to say that you can explain 23% of variance in grades by looking at GPA, LSAT, and whether the school was the "first choice". There is 77% unexplained variation there. If you want to take a 200k gamble on those statistics, I'd be happy to bet against you.

This is also not measuring performance of identical students at various schools, it is comparing students with similar performance metrics. There may be a lot of idiosyncrasies to the student who could attend for example NYU but chooses instead to attend Vanderbilt (the opposite just doesn't happen either, the average Vandy student doesn't have a shot at getting in to NYU).

Figure 2 also shows a huge problem with this analysis. You will notice that the "Top 10" earnings are at their peak for GPAs between 3.25-3.50. This happens to be the median GPA for most T10 schools (3.33). However, many schools outside the top 10 still use a curve that has a significantly lower GPA. This is primarily driven by scholarship stipulations, bar passage rates, and history. I can almost guarantee that there is heteroskedasticity in the grade data that makes this analysis even less reliable than it appears.

Good morning. I think you're missing my point. I don't want to take a 200K (more like 250K) gamble. That's why I advocate taking a strong placing school with a substantial scholarship in the T20-50 range over over a T10-20 at sticker.

As far as schools' outside the T10 having lower median GPAs: maybe the T10s have higher medians? Either way, the authors adjust for "tier-grade interaction" in Model 5 (Table 11). They do report detecting a higher median GPA among the higher-ranked schools. They control for it, and in fact doing so does improve the premium of attending a higher-ranked school, but, as common sense might suggest, the improvement is not drastic. (Note, however, that while the overall tier premium of the higher-ranked schools improves slightly after adjusting for "tier-grade interaction," it falls quite dramatically for those at the higher tier schools with the lowest grades, suggesting the worst place to slack off is a higher-ranked school).

As far as the fit, an independent variable of "first choice/second choice" in Table 13 is a bit synthetic. Model 4 and 5 in Table 11 are more useful, in which the independent variable is simply school tier, and their fits are substantially higher. Perhaps some students first and second choices are in the same teir? Either way, a .23 is fantastic, given that it is even higher then the fit of the relationship between school tier alone and starting income (see the R-squared for Model 1, Table 11), which we all recognize to be quite strong. Any "idiosyncrasies", as you've put it, are not breaking the overall trend.

Law school success and subsequent starting salary is not "all unpredictable." And if it was, then that would be the strongest evidence yet that attending a higher cost school is a risky lottery, as I've put it. As it is, law school success and subsequent staring salary is somewhat predictable. It seems pretty clear they're better predicted by including LSAT, UGPA, Cost of Living, and LS GPA. It also seems pretty clear that predicting it thus significantly decreases the "value-added" of a higher-ranked school (albeit unevenly: the T10 still provide some advantage, and we might suppose the T3 an even greater advantage; of course, the study confirms that TTTs are still TTTs).

[splitsplat]

can you guys get the fuck out, you're ruining this thread

[JDizzle2015]

The fit of those models is .21 (all schools) and .23 (top two tiers). It's not a very strong statement to say that you can explain 23% of variance in grades by looking at GPA, LSAT, and whether the school was the "first choice". There is 77% unexplained variation there. If you want to take a 200k gamble on those statistics, I'd be happy to bet against you.

This is also not measuring performance of identical students at various schools, it is comparing students with similar performance metrics. There may be a lot of idiosyncrasies to the student who could attend for example NYU but chooses instead to attend Vanderbilt (the opposite just doesn't happen either, the average Vandy student doesn't have a shot at getting in to NYU).

Good morning. I think you're missing my point. I don't want to take a 200K (more like 250K) gamble. That's why I advocate taking a strong placing school with a substantial scholarship in the T20-50 range over over a T10-20 at sticker.

Equivocation of the word gamble.

I don't know why people are still attempting to bring valid arguments against captain strawman's (trolling?) absurdities. It should stop. manofjustice, please enjoy T20-50 with $$ over T14 at sticker.

[manofjustice]

The fit of those models is .21 (all schools) and .23 (top two tiers). It's not a very strong statement to say that you can explain 23% of variance in grades by looking at GPA, LSAT, and whether the school was the "first choice". There is 77% unexplained variation there. If you want to take a 200k gamble on those statistics, I'd be happy to bet against you.

This is also not measuring performance of identical students at various schools, it is comparing students with similar performance metrics. There may be a lot of idiosyncrasies to the student who could attend for example NYU but chooses instead to attend Vanderbilt (the opposite just doesn't happen either, the average Vandy student doesn't have a shot at getting in to NYU).

Good morning. I think you're missing my point. I don't want to take a 200K (more like 250K) gamble. That's why I advocate taking a strong placing school with a substantial scholarship in the T20-50 range over over a T10-20 at sticker.

Equivocation of the word gamble.

I don't know why people are still attempting to bring valid arguments against captain strawman's (trolling?) absurdities. It should stop. manofjustice, please enjoy T20-50 with $$ over T14 at sticker.

Not sure what that means. But what is the strawman? That you should take T10-14 at sticker over T20-50 w/ $$? Because that's the position that's being addressed.

[rinkrat19]

Manofjustice, SHUT UP.
At this point I don't care if you're arguing against killing puppies; you have long since passed the point at which this discussion was appropriate for a school-specific thread. Feel free to start a general thread to debate low T14 at sticker vs. T20 with $$. I'm sure you will get some takers.

[manofjustice]

Manofjustice, SHUT UP.
At this point I don't care if you're arguing against killing puppies; you have long since passed the point at which this discussion was appropriate for a school-specific thread. Feel free to start a general thread to debate low T14 at sticker vs. T20 with $$. I'm sure you will get some takers.

whatevs

[rinkrat19]

Manofjustice, SHUT UP.
At this point I don't care if you're arguing against killing puppies; you have long since passed the point at which this discussion was appropriate for a school-specific thread. Feel free to start a general thread to debate low T14 at sticker vs. T20 with $$. I'm sure you will get some takers.

whatevs

Bk (a mod) got sucked into your little Vortex of Annoying, so you may have gotten a pass, but it's pretty clearly against forum rules.
Goddammit, my tablet won't let me paste a URL here, but read the stickied rule post at the top of the list of topics in the admissions/acceptances forum.

[manofjustice]

Manofjustice, SHUT UP.
At this point I don't care if you're arguing against killing puppies; you have long since passed the point at which this discussion was appropriate for a school-specific thread. Feel free to start a general thread to debate low T14 at sticker vs. T20 with $$. I'm sure you will get some takers.

whatevs

Bk (a mod) got sucked into your little Vortex of Annoying, so you may have gotten a pass, but it's pretty clearly against forum rules.
Goddammit, my tablet won't let me paste a URL here, but read the stickied rule post at the top of the list of topics in the admissions/acceptances forum.

Bk is just cool like that.

[givemea170]

Too much animosity.

[JamMasterJ]

Manofjustice, SHUT UP.
At this point I don't care if you're arguing against killing puppies; you have long since passed the point at which this discussion was appropriate for a school-specific thread. Feel free to start a general thread to debate low T14 at sticker vs. T20 with $$. I'm sure you will get some takers.

whatevs

Bk (a mod) got sucked into your little Vortex of Annoying, so you may have gotten a pass, but it's pretty clearly against forum rules.
Goddammit, my tablet won't let me paste a URL here, but read the stickied rule post at the top of the list of topics in the admissions/acceptances forum.

Starting or perpetuating arguments here about whether a school is worth attending may be deemed trolling and get you banned.

[manofjustice]

Too much animosity.

I like you rinkrat. friendz???

[dasneak]

Right now my options are WUSTL and Northwestern. WUSTL is giving me $90k which is a really attractive option...but then again, it's freaking Northwestern. Any advice?

See my post above. I turned down 105k at WUSTL and 105k at GW for NU at sticker. It really depends on what kind of work you want to do and how much you're willing to risk for that kind of work.

I think it also depends on where you want to work. I turned down $84k at WUSTL and $90k at GW for NU. My goals are Chicago biglaw or bust, so it was a pretty easy choice for me because of NU's Chicago dominance. I strongly considered WUSTL because of an interest in PI route, but ultimately decided it was infeasible. Basically, we need to know your goals to help you decide.

I definitely have NYC/SF/Chicago biglaw as a goal, which is why I'm strongly considering NU at sticker. But $90k at WUSTL is really hard to pass up, and so is the $60k that Vanderbilt is giving me as of today. I'm still waitlisted at Duke, Cornell, UCLA and on reserve at Columbia (but all of those seem highly, highly unlikely) so I don't know what to do.

[crumpetsandtea]

Happened to reread the first few pages...everyone who posted in the first 2 pages ended up getting into NU ignore the fact that it was like the same 4 people whatever