Cornell v. Michigan HELP! Forum

[swc65]

Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.


Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B team the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference bewtween the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.

So bottom line Cornell students do study more than everybody else?

yeah I think the report said something like 6 hours a day compared to 3 for Columbia and 4 for UT- that's all I remember. I will try to find the report though.

[swc65]

Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.


Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B team the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference bewtween the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.

I just really don't buy this. I refuse to believe that a difference in 3 or 4 LSAT points truly shows some grand divide in intelligence that makes students who score 167 or 168 incapable of quickly understanding things in the way that 171 and 172 students can.

Why not? if LSAT is supposed to measure students' ability to succeed in law school and one school has a median at the 99%tile and the other school has a median at 95%tile then what's so hard to believe that the 95%tile students, on average, may have to study harder. If you do not believe in the predictability of the LSAT and UGPA, then I suppose it doesn't make sense.

[awesomepossum]

This is why I personally don't believe it.

Law school is really not about difficulty...it's about volume. You just get thrown so much material, but any individual piece isn't really that difficult per se.

The other reason is that everything is on a curve. Everything is relative to the students around you. Certainly ITE, people are studying more... that's been happening at Michigan as well. But I don't know that people would be studying more because they just don't get it.

The other thing is that 1Ls only make up 1/3rd of the school. 1Ls everywhere study hard...well I think anyway. But as you go on, you quite frankly can't be bothered to work as hard as you did as a 1L...you would burn out. If there are 2Ls and 3Ls out there that are studying an average of 6 hours a day, 7 hours a week....those people are crazy.

[Ghost Writer]

So the way this is winding down we seem to be in agreement that for NYC, DC, or NJ if a Michigan and a Cornell applicant both have the same GPA and no connections that the Michigan student will have the better education and probably the better shot at landing the job? Also, neither school is very competitive.

Now, I know that the Michigan class is a lot larger than the Cornell class but does this means that your classes in your 2L and 3L year will also be very big, or will this just affect 1L?

[gochrisgo]

.

[galahad85]

Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.


Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B team the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference bewtween the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.

I just really don't buy this. I refuse to believe that a difference in 3 or 4 LSAT points truly shows some grand divide in intelligence that makes students who score 167 or 168 incapable of quickly understanding things in the way that 171 and 172 students can.

Why not? if LSAT is supposed to measure students' ability to succeed in law school and one school has a median at the 99%tile and the other school has a median at 95%tile then what's so hard to believe that the 95%tile students, on average, may have to study harder. If you do not believe in the predictability of the LSAT and UGPA, then I suppose it doesn't make sense.

I'm sure that there is some predictability when you're comparing, say, a 170 to a 160 - but a 170 to a 167 or 168? That's a little ridiculous. It's the difference of, what, two or three questions on the LSAT (depending on the curve)? I can't imagine that that really says anything meaningful about a difference in inherent ability.

Out of curiosity though, who was this interviewer? Someone in the administration? An alum? It's distressing to think that someone actually involved in the school looks down on their own students in this way.

[Son of Cicero]

Now, I know that the Michigan class is a lot larger than the Cornell class but does this means that your classes in your 2L and 3L year will also be very big, or will this just affect 1L?

It depends on the course. Some of the more popular upper divs have ~90 students (e.g., Federal Income Tax, Corporations), whereas others are capped at 40 students. During 2L year I've had <20 students in two of my classes, ~90 in two, and ~35-45 in the other four.

I don't really see how it matters, though. You rarely get feedback on more than one assignment/test per semester no matter how big the class is, and you will always have more than enough opportunities to speak in class or to the professor during office hours.

[Ghost Writer]

Now, I know that the Michigan class is a lot larger than the Cornell class but does this means that your classes in your 2L and 3L year will also be very big, or will this just affect 1L?

It depends on the course. Some of the more popular upper divs have ~90 students (e.g., Federal Income Tax, Corporations), whereas others are capped at 40 students. During 2L year I've had <20 students in two of my classes, ~90 in two, and ~35-45 in the other four.

I don't really see how it matters, though. You rarely get feedback on more than one assignment/test per semester no matter how big the class is, and you will always have more than enough opportunities to speak in class or to the professor during office hours.

This is helpful especially the fact that you dont get much feedback on graded material. I guess if thats true it really makes no difference if its a big or small class size.

[Ghost Writer]

Any Takers on this tonight?

[cardnal124]

Any Takers on this tonight?

Fuck Ohio State. Fuck Appalachian State.

Go UM

Edit: I mean Cornell is the Cornell of the T14

[Ghost Writer]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

[Veyron]

-

[awesomepossum]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

[Ghost Writer]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

Thank you. I know very little about how to look at this data. Do they dominate by a lot?

[cardnal124]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

Thank you. I know very little about how to look at this data. Do they dominate by a lot?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

UM: 51%
Cornell: 41%

[galahad85]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

Yes, NY has more firms in the NLJ250 than any other single city, but it doesn't make up the majority of the list by any means.

There are 40 NYC firms. For comparison, there are 20 Chicago firms (which is a market that Michigan places pretty heavily into). So I'm not sure that the 10% difference in NLJ placement necessarily shows that Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250/ for a list of NLJ firms by city.

[Ghost Writer]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

Yes, NY has more firms in the NLJ250 than any other single city, but it doesn't make up the majority of the list by any means.

There are 40 NYC firms. For comparison, there are 20 Chicago firms (which is a market that Michigan places pretty heavily into). So I'm not sure that the 10% difference in NLJ placement necessarily shows that Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250/ for a list of NLJ firms by city.

Thanks, but now my original question still stands. That is why this is such a tough choice! =/

[Ghost Writer]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

Yes, NY has more firms in the NLJ250 than any other single city, but it doesn't make up the majority of the list by any means.

There are 40 NYC firms. For comparison, there are 20 Chicago firms (which is a market that Michigan places pretty heavily into). So I'm not sure that the 10% difference in NLJ placement necessarily shows that Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250/ for a list of NLJ firms by city.

Thanks, but now my original question still stands. That is why this is such a tough choice! =/

[Ghost Writer]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

Yes, NY has more firms in the NLJ250 than any other single city, but it doesn't make up the majority of the list by any means.

There are 40 NYC firms. For comparison, there are 20 Chicago firms (which is a market that Michigan places pretty heavily into). So I'm not sure that the 10% difference in NLJ placement necessarily shows that Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250/ for a list of NLJ firms by city.

Thanks, but now my original question still stands. That is why this is such a tough choice! =/

[galahad85]

My big concern is if they both place equally as well in NYC for biglaw.

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

Yes, NY has more firms in the NLJ250 than any other single city, but it doesn't make up the majority of the list by any means.

There are 40 NYC firms. For comparison, there are 20 Chicago firms (which is a market that Michigan places pretty heavily into). So I'm not sure that the 10% difference in NLJ placement necessarily shows that Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250/ for a list of NLJ firms by city.

Thanks, but now my original question still stands. That is why this is such a tough choice! =/

Well, Michigan is probably the stronger school on most counts. I just think that for NYC biglaw it may be a wash.

[Ghost Writer]

If you believe that the NLJ 250 is made up heavily of NY firms which it probably is, then lately Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.[/quote]

Yes, NY has more firms in the NLJ250 than any other single city, but it doesn't make up the majority of the list by any means.

There are 40 NYC firms. For comparison, there are 20 Chicago firms (which is a market that Michigan places pretty heavily into). So I'm not sure that the 10% difference in NLJ placement necessarily shows that Michigan dominates Cornell in NYC.

http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250/ for a list of NLJ firms by city.[/quote]


Thanks, but now my original question still stands. That is why this is such a tough choice! =/[/quote]

Well, Michigan is probably the stronger school on most counts. I just think that for NYC biglaw it may be a wash.[/quote]

So your advice would be to go with Cornell?

[cardnal124]

If you are really set on NYC, it's probably pretty equal job placement, with UM having an edge. If you might want to practice in DC like your original post said, UM is better. You're not shutting down DC with Cornell, it just would probably be easier with UM.

Basically UM gives you more national options than Cornell, but may be the same as Cornell in NYC.

[Ghost Writer]

If you are really set on NYC, it's probably pretty equal job placement, with UM having an edge. If you might want to practice in DC like your original post said, UM is better. You're not shutting down DC with Cornell, it just would probably be easier with UM.

Basically UM gives you more national options than Cornell, but may be the same as Cornell in NYC.

Yeah, I think you have a good point about the national options especially for DC.. umm

[galahad85]

So your advice would be to go with Cornell?

Only if you're really set on NYC biglaw (which, from your OP, it doesn't sound like you are). Michigan will probably have an edge in most other markets, and people here have mentioned that they have a better LRAP if you end up going with public interest (though I haven't looked into this myself, so I can't speak on it).

[Bronte]

Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.


Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B teach the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference between the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.

Just know that this argument is patently false. Here's the killer: all law schools teach largely the same curriculum. Class content is not more difficult at Harvard than it is at UVA. This is well-known and widely accepted and completely falsifies your argument.