ajax wrote:ph5354a wrote:ajax wrote:
Cornell's prospects in NYC are much better than Fordham's.
You're probably right. I should've said that I was focusing only on big law when I researched this --40% of Cornell's class ended up in big law compared to 20-25% of Fordham's I believe. It was probably much easier for those Cornell grads to ge those jobs, but I think that if living in Ithaca is abhorrent to you, Fordham can still get you where you want to go. ETA: if you're willing to work much much harder. I would still pick Cornell over Fordham any day.
Fordham:
Percent of 2011 class at firms over 100: 24.7
Percent of 2011 class at Fed clerkships: 2.3
Cornell:
Percent of 2011 class at firms over 100: 38.8
Percent of 2011 class at Fed clerkships: 7.9
NYC cost of living compared to Albany (I couldn't find stats for Ithaca, so I would assume even cheaper than Albany):
Groceries 29% cheaper in Albany
Housing 72% less in Albany
Utilities 27% less in Albany
Transportation 16% less in Albany
http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=cornell&show=ABA
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=fordham&show=ABA
However, this should all go in "choosing a law school" forum.
I'm uncertain if this applies here, but take from this what you will:
"The NALP/ABA data for individual schools should be taken with a huge grain of salt, because of the leeway CSOs are given by the guidelines when reporting data. A tipoff in regard to the reliability of this data is how unrealistically complete it purports to be. Anybody who had done any sort of empirical survey knows that it's extremely difficult to get anything close to complete data. But the ABA data has no holes in it at all. For example, when you look at the 192 SHU 2011 grads with bar admission required jobs, 184 are purportedly in full-time long-term positions, while the other eight are either short-term or part-time or both. In other words, SHU is claiming to know the precise employment status of all 192 of its grads who have (or who SHU claims have) bar admission required jobs. That is extremely improbable to say the least. What happens is that the reporting guidelines allow CSOs to simply use default assumptions for missing data. The default assumption here is that a grad is employed full-time and long-term, unless the CSO has information to the contrary.
This, of course, ends up seriously overstating the number of people who actually have full-time long-term employment. Etc."
-Campos
