NYU v UVA for Biglaw Forum

[sinfiery]

Retake for a few more points. Sorry but that is the best option. If not, UVA.

lol why? the only schools that would provide arguably better chance at OP's goals are CLS and Harvard anyway, and NYU has solid numbers with the firms OP is interested in. Usually I'd say retake because its not worth the $$, but OP will have no debt

Debt isn't the only way to look at it. If OP is dipping into his trust fund that he'd be able to use later in life, it still costs him money. If his rich boomer parents are just going to pay for it no matter, what, maybe the cost isn't a big deal though.

But this retake advice is shit, pure shit. He retook once and raised his score 4 points. Retaking isn't some magic in which your scores magically rise because you want them too.

Magic, no, science yes. It's a learnable test to a very high extent. The retake advice is not pure shit. People are generally capable of scoring in certain ranges. I would be as bold to say that anyone (assuming no mental illnesses or other conditions) who can hit mid 160s first try can break 170s. It's all in the preparation. And taking a break from the damn thing.

This is silly. It depends on how much work one put in and how they were PTing. The actual score you get on your first official LSAT tells you very little about said persons potential

[jbagelboy]

No. SLS and YLS are possibilities here, and both are better options. OP clearly has no idea what he wants to do, things change in LS. He knows absolutely nothing about M&A work AFA I can tell. I have worked in various biglaw practice areas as a non-attorney and I advise against going to law school with these preconceived notions that aren't based on any real substance, like actually working in the field. 9/10 it's not what most 0Ls think it is like.

And rationalizing paying ridiculous sticker fees and NYC COL because the bank of mom and dad will fund it is the worst logic people on these boards use to justify these decisions. The money can be put to better uses and it is absolutely not necessary he go to NYU at sticker.

The black and white Bill Murray is growing on me, I have to say. Hiding behind a tree is funnier though.

Yea, you'll notice I kinda changed my tune a little after... that post was back when I had interpreted OP's family as far wealthier than he later specified they were. Clearly, Stanford and Yale would both open up opportunities for OP, but no LSAT score can guarantee them, whereas Harvard and CLS would be locks at 173+. Also, I was going easy because OP did already retake once, unlike some of the more stubborn posters that have cropped up in the past few days, and made a substantive improvement that opened up a T6 school.

Attending NYU with no debt is a far better outcome all things considered than what I am doing (granted, circumstances are different since I'm paying my way), so I don't feel quite as comfortable judging the option as insufficient.

Yeah but it's not really no debt, is it? That's real money being spent. Approx. $270,000.00 after interest, give or take a few thousand. That's a lot of damn money. That money AFAIK does not have a special stipulation placed on it by his grandmother's Will that says it must be used for educational purposes. Assuming this is the case, that is bad financial rationalization.

Also, I think 171 is a lock for CLS, and 172 for HLS, next cycle given that GPA. Just my opinion though.

You know what I mean. we are debating trivialities, my point was that H and CLS could be locked by a certain higher score, and you agree with me.

I also agree its a lot of money but that doesn't make it debt. FWIW since its not debt, its cash, there's no interest, so its more like $230K. And I say its not debt because he could still graduate, get a job at a V20, and have six figure take-home pay as a 26 year old. The expense of going to law school will never be a financial burden on OP, even if its an emotional one. He will never risk default, or have to make a career choice based on income. He is not tied to the federal government, to IBR, to PAYE, to LRAP, to any program. He's not threatening the financial stability of his family (there was "plenty to go around"), and he will probably still get down-payment on a house anyway via inherited property. In relative terms, sure, some of that allowance could be saved for another purpose, but its very different IMO from a student taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans vs attending on scholarship.

if I was OP I would retake to save the money for my family. Please understand that I agree in principle. However, given the circumstances, his choices are legitimate and not threatening anyone with financial or physical disaster.

[sublime]

..

[JamesDean1955]

You know what I mean. we are debating trivialities, my point was that H and CLS could be locked by a certain higher score, and you agree with me.

I also agree its a lot of money but that doesn't make it debt. FWIW since its not debt, its cash, there's no interest, so its more like $230K. And I say its not debt because he could still graduate, get a job at a V20, and have six figure take-home pay as a 26 year old. The expense of going to law school will never be a financial burden on OP, even if its an emotional one. He will never risk default, or have to make a career choice based on income. He is not tied to the federal government, to IBR, to PAYE, to LRAP, to any program. He's not threatening the financial stability of his family (there was "plenty to go around"), and he will probably still get down-payment on a house anyway via inherited property. In relative terms, sure, some of that allowance could be saved for another purpose, but its very different IMO from a student taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans vs attending on scholarship.

if I was OP I would retake to save the money for my family. Please understand that I agree in principle. However, given the circumstances, his choices are legitimate and not threatening anyone with financial or physical disaster.

Yes, this is a fair assessment. Still doesn't make it a good financial decision though. Retake is TCR. Assuming no retake , NYU obviously.

[JamesDean1955]

I would go NYU myself, but if you really hate it, go to NYU.

Nice NYU trolling

[sublime]

..

[09042014]

Retake for a few more points. Sorry but that is the best option. If not, UVA.

lol why? the only schools that would provide arguably better chance at OP's goals are CLS and Harvard anyway, and NYU has solid numbers with the firms OP is interested in. Usually I'd say retake because its not worth the $$, but OP will have no debt

Debt isn't the only way to look at it. If OP is dipping into his trust fund that he'd be able to use later in life, it still costs him money. If his rich boomer parents are just going to pay for it no matter, what, maybe the cost isn't a big deal though.

But this retake advice is shit, pure shit. He retook once and raised his score 4 points. Retaking isn't some magic in which your scores magically rise because you want them too.

Magic, no, science yes. It's a learnable test to a very high extent. The retake advice is not pure shit. People are generally capable of scoring in certain ranges. I would be as bold to say that anyone (assuming no mental illnesses or other conditions) who can hit mid 160s first try can break 170s. It's all in the preparation. And taking a break from the damn thing.

I shouldn't have pure shit, because under many circumstances restudying and retaking is great advice. And in this case, I didn't have enough info to assume that it would be bad advice here .

But, you are also being pretty presumptuous here. Restudy-Retake has diminishing returns if you've already put in a full effort, with fully informed studying techniques.

You are assuming first time = not fully prepared. That's not true for a lot of people. And then you are assuming he still wasn't fully prepared by the second time. Maybe he wasn't, but before shouting re-take you should probably qualify that with "if you didn't fully prepare." It's more than possibly to max out on your first or second outting.

So this:

I would be as bold to say that anyone (assuming no mental illnesses or other conditions) who can hit mid 160s first try can break 170s.

is bullshit.

I also disagree with how learnable the test is. It's definitely got a learning curve, but after you get the quick boost it's pretty hard. A lot of the increase in score is you actually improving your skills, not just learning the test. LG is highly game, but RC isn't. And LR is only to some degree. But I'm just bickering about "Very learnable" we probably don't really disagree much on it.

[JamesDean1955]

Definitely not assuming a lack of preparedness. I genuinely believe people can get better at the test simply by taking a long period of time away from it, and then going back to it, re-energized, newly focused, and with a fresh perspective. I think it's amazing how much this can do, and there is a neurological science to it. I think there is an upper limit to what one can achieve, but that people have pretty wide score bands.

There's no way to prove it one way or the other, that's just my opinion.

ETA: I also disagree that the LR and RC cannot be learned to a great extent. I'm probably using a different definition of learnable here. Maybe at some point I'll elaborate, right now too tired to bother TBH.

[suralin]

Annoying TLS Parrot here, but retake. Don't waste that GPA and settle for anything less than HYS. You are capable of hitting 170-173 I have no doubt in my mind.

Anyone who got those scores the first two times can break 170. It doesn't matter what you are PTing at now, take a significant break from the LSAT, recharge your neurons, and hit the books again. Watch your scores rise a bit when you come back to it. Profit.

NYU at sticker is not worth it. I turned down $62.5k at NYU for a higher (but not crazy higher) scholarship elsewhere with a better COL, and barely blinked. And, I love NYC and work here. I do not have your GPA, nor do I have a significant opportunity cost that I would be giving up for LS, unless I wanted to be a career paralegal, which I don't. So I am in a worse situation than you and I still wouldn't take these options.

And UVA at $12k/year, you really shouldn't even need to ask.

Good advice, but re the bolded, wtf? What does that even mean?

Edit:

Definitely not assuming a lack of preparedness. I genuinely believe people can get better at the test simply by taking a long period of time away from it, and then going back to it, re-energized, newly focused, and with a fresh perspective. I think it's amazing how much this can do, and there is a neurological science to it. I think there is an upper limit to what one can achieve, but that people have pretty wide score bands.

There's no way to prove it one way or the other, that's just my opinion.

ETA: I also disagree that the LR and RC cannot be learned to a great extent. I'm probably using a different definition of learnable here. Maybe at some point I'll elaborate, right now too tired to bother TBH.

Taking some time away may help, but lolno at the bolded. Now I'm genuinely curious to see the science behind this apparent biochemical recharging mechanism.

[jbagelboy]

Annoying TLS Parrot here, but retake. Don't waste that GPA and settle for anything less than HYS. You are capable of hitting 170-173 I have no doubt in my mind.

Anyone who got those scores the first two times can break 170. It doesn't matter what you are PTing at now, take a significant break from the LSAT, recharge your neurons, and hit the books again. Watch your scores rise a bit when you come back to it. Profit.

NYU at sticker is not worth it. I turned down $62.5k at NYU for a higher (but not crazy higher) scholarship elsewhere with a better COL, and barely blinked. And, I love NYC and work here. I do not have your GPA, nor do I have a significant opportunity cost that I would be giving up for LS, unless I wanted to be a career paralegal, which I don't. So I am in a worse situation than you and I still wouldn't take these options.

And UVA at $12k/year, you really shouldn't even need to ask.

Good advice, but re the bolded, wtf? What does that even mean?

My guess is, orgasm or cocaine.

come on we cant all be mol bio and neuroscience majors.

[JamesDean1955]

Annoying TLS Parrot here, but retake. Don't waste that GPA and settle for anything less than HYS. You are capable of hitting 170-173 I have no doubt in my mind.

Anyone who got those scores the first two times can break 170. It doesn't matter what you are PTing at now, take a significant break from the LSAT, recharge your neurons, and hit the books again. Watch your scores rise a bit when you come back to it. Profit.

NYU at sticker is not worth it. I turned down $62.5k at NYU for a higher (but not crazy higher) scholarship elsewhere with a better COL, and barely blinked. And, I love NYC and work here. I do not have your GPA, nor do I have a significant opportunity cost that I would be giving up for LS, unless I wanted to be a career paralegal, which I don't. So I am in a worse situation than you and I still wouldn't take these options.

And UVA at $12k/year, you really shouldn't even need to ask.

Good advice, but re the bolded, wtf? What does that even mean?

My guess is, orgasm or cocaine.

come on we cant all be mol bio and neuroscience majors.

. Yeah, I'm not a science guy. Logically I thought it made sense from the perspective of refueling your brain and avoiding/repairing symptoms of burnout. I wasn't attached to that claim at all though, so I concede if you say so.

[jbagelboy]

Annoying TLS Parrot here, but retake. Don't waste that GPA and settle for anything less than HYS. You are capable of hitting 170-173 I have no doubt in my mind.

Anyone who got those scores the first two times can break 170. It doesn't matter what you are PTing at now, take a significant break from the LSAT, recharge your neurons, and hit the books again. Watch your scores rise a bit when you come back to it. Profit.

NYU at sticker is not worth it. I turned down $62.5k at NYU for a higher (but not crazy higher) scholarship elsewhere with a better COL, and barely blinked. And, I love NYC and work here. I do not have your GPA, nor do I have a significant opportunity cost that I would be giving up for LS, unless I wanted to be a career paralegal, which I don't. So I am in a worse situation than you and I still wouldn't take these options.

And UVA at $12k/year, you really shouldn't even need to ask.

Good advice, but re the bolded, wtf? What does that even mean?

My guess is, orgasm or cocaine.

come on we cant all be mol bio and neuroscience majors.

. Yeah, I'm not a science guy. Logically I thought it made sense from the perspective of refueling your brain and avoiding/repairing symptoms of burnout. I wasn't attached to that claim at all though, so I concede if you say so.

Lol i feel you I only took one neuro class and stayed far away from bio, but one of my best bros in UG was a neuroscience major who literally wrote his thesis re the impact of methanthetamines on the brain. We used to snort vivance to stay up all night writing papers so he could approach it via both metabolic/existential & metaphysical. Pretty retarded in retrospect. Really helps you crank out fourier series too. Then you take 4 shots of honey JD at dawn and ptfo.

For your lsat R&R, just go GTL to keep it abbreviated.

[suralin]

Annoying TLS Parrot here, but retake. Don't waste that GPA and settle for anything less than HYS. You are capable of hitting 170-173 I have no doubt in my mind.

Anyone who got those scores the first two times can break 170. It doesn't matter what you are PTing at now, take a significant break from the LSAT, recharge your neurons, and hit the books again. Watch your scores rise a bit when you come back to it. Profit.

NYU at sticker is not worth it. I turned down $62.5k at NYU for a higher (but not crazy higher) scholarship elsewhere with a better COL, and barely blinked. And, I love NYC and work here. I do not have your GPA, nor do I have a significant opportunity cost that I would be giving up for LS, unless I wanted to be a career paralegal, which I don't. So I am in a worse situation than you and I still wouldn't take these options.

And UVA at $12k/year, you really shouldn't even need to ask.

Good advice, but re the bolded, wtf? What does that even mean?

My guess is, orgasm or cocaine.

come on we cant all be mol bio and neuroscience majors.

. Yeah, I'm not a science guy. Logically I thought it made sense from the perspective of refueling your brain and avoiding/repairing symptoms of burnout. I wasn't attached to that claim at all though, so I concede if you say so.

Lol no worries, I'm not really either (CS/Phil) but I'm pretty sure neurons recharging isn't a thing, although it probably does help to get enough rest, etc. Anyway, just a case of me being needlessly pedantic, sorry.

[RodneyRuxin]

New York UniversiTTTy

[jbagelboy]

New York UniversiTTTy

Lame

[Dr. Dre]

New York UniversiTTTy

Lame

[BruceWayne]

Let me just say that a lot of people are overstating how conservative UVA is (unless by conservative they mean Caucasian, but I'm pretty sure that applies to NYU as well). ALL top law school student bodies are liberal if you're talking about in comparison to the average person. UVA is probably more in the middle, but in the context of a top law school that means conservative.

[TaipeiMort]

You'd enjoy Chicago. We have a big group of people in our student body that are like you.

Don't go to UVA. This is a really, really dumb idea.

If you want M&A/corporate work go to NYU. New York is really the only market that has recovered from the recession, and therefore, the most opportunities are going to be in New York. NYU is better than all but Yale and maybe Harvard in NYC, and equal to Columbia and possibly uChicago. UVA is not the same quality level in New York. NYU has median kids getting great Vault firms. UVA has top-third kids. If you are at median (where you should assume you'll be) the question you should ask yourself it "where is my alumni network." You'll find NYU's alumni network is strong in the only great deals-heavy market in the U.S.. UVA's alumni are all over, and many are in DC, which you might not have the grades or interest for if you attend.

It would be dumb to choose a school off of perceived political leanings. Law school student bodies at the top are generally similar across the board. There is some self-selection, but it is really not ideological, it is academic. The reason Chicago has so many "conservatives" is that there are a lot of law&econ libertarians who want clerkships with Easterbrook, Posner, Scalia, etc. However, for the vast majority of students are the same.

Also, political leanings do help a bit for certain things like networking and clerkships. However, these are less about how many conservatives went to your school, and more about the intensity of the conservatives at your school. For example, Chicago has a conservative alumni near-cult that finds jobs for its below median FedSoc grads. NYU may have a similar cult of conservatives, it makes sense with the school being a little more liberal that the conservatives would band closer together.

[Dr. Dre]

Let me just say that a lot of people are overstating how conservative UVA is (unless by conservative they mean Caucasian, but I'm pretty sure that applies to NYU as well). ALL top law school student bodies are liberal if you're talking about in comparison to the average person. UVA is probably more in the middle, but in the context of a top law school that means conservative.

Hey Bruce, I got some questions:

1. Do you go to UVA?

2. Do you like it there?

[rickgrimes69]

UVA because OP will be miserable in NYC around all the leftist commie Obama lovers. Also NYU isn't worth sticker and nobody in STL will think NYU is any better.

[jbagelboy]

You'd enjoy Chicago. We have a big group of people in our student body that are like you.

Don't go to UVA. This is a really, really dumb idea.

If you want M&A/corporate work go to NYU. New York is really the only market that has recovered from the recession, and therefore, the most opportunities are going to be in New York. NYU is better than all but Yale and maybe Harvard in NYC, and equal to Columbia and possibly uChicago. UVA is not the same quality level in New York. NYU has median kids getting great Vault firms. UVA has top-third kids. If you are at median (where you should assume you'll be) the question you should ask yourself it "where is my alumni network." You'll find NYU's alumni network is strong in the only great deals-heavy market in the U.S.. UVA's alumni are all over, and many are in DC, which you might not have the grades or interest for if you attend.

It would be dumb to choose a school off of perceived political leanings. Law school student bodies at the top are generally similar across the board. There is some self-selection, but it is really not ideological, it is academic. The reason Chicago has so many "conservatives" is that there are a lot of law&econ libertarians who want clerkships with Easterbrook, Posner, Scalia, etc. However, for the vast majority of students are the same.

Also, political leanings do help a bit for certain things like networking and clerkships. However, these are less about how many conservatives went to your school, and more about the intensity of the conservatives at your school. For example, Chicago has a conservative alumni near-cult that finds jobs for its below median FedSoc grads. NYU may have a similar cult of conservatives, it makes sense with the school being a little more liberal that the conservatives would band closer together.

Meh. You make Chicago sound gross.

Im impressed by your perception of NYU as a Chicago student. You really think its on par for M&A transactional law with CLS and Harvard? I mean I know statistically they are not Im curious how you reached that conclusion

[suralin]

New York UniversiTTTy

Lame

[Clearly]

Retake for a few more points. Sorry but that is the best option. If not, UVA.

lol why? the only schools that would provide arguably better chance at OP's goals are CLS and Harvard anyway, and NYU has solid numbers with the firms OP is interested in. Usually I'd say retake because its not worth the $$, but OP will have no debt

Debt isn't the only way to look at it. If OP is dipping into his trust fund that he'd be able to use later in life, it still costs him money. If his rich boomer parents are just going to pay for it no matter, what, maybe the cost isn't a big deal though.

But this retake advice is shit, pure shit. He retook once and raised his score 4 points. Retaking isn't some magic in which your scores magically rise because you want them too.

I'm shocked by this! Just because someone retook doesn't mean they couldn't do better, and he's so close to having absurdly good options if he does. Who's to say he doesn't improve another 4 points? I retook and scored ONE point higher, then retook again, and scored 11 points higher than that. I just didn't expect you of all people to be anti-retake lol. Granted, in this case his options aren't objectively terrible.

[TaipeiMort]

You'd enjoy Chicago. We have a big group of people in our student body that are like you.

Don't go to UVA. This is a really, really dumb idea.

If you want M&A/corporate work go to NYU. New York is really the only market that has recovered from the recession, and therefore, the most opportunities are going to be in New York. NYU is better than all but Yale and maybe Harvard in NYC, and equal to Columbia and possibly uChicago. UVA is not the same quality level in New York. NYU has median kids getting great Vault firms. UVA has top-third kids. If you are at median (where you should assume you'll be) the question you should ask yourself it "where is my alumni network." You'll find NYU's alumni network is strong in the only great deals-heavy market in the U.S.. UVA's alumni are all over, and many are in DC, which you might not have the grades or interest for if you attend.

It would be dumb to choose a school off of perceived political leanings. Law school student bodies at the top are generally similar across the board. There is some self-selection, but it is really not ideological, it is academic. The reason Chicago has so many "conservatives" is that there are a lot of law&econ libertarians who want clerkships with Easterbrook, Posner, Scalia, etc. However, for the vast majority of students are the same.

Also, political leanings do help a bit for certain things like networking and clerkships. However, these are less about how many conservatives went to your school, and more about the intensity of the conservatives at your school. For example, Chicago has a conservative alumni near-cult that finds jobs for its below median FedSoc grads. NYU may have a similar cult of conservatives, it makes sense with the school being a little more liberal that the conservatives would band closer together.

Meh. You make Chicago sound gross.

Im impressed by your perception of NYU as a Chicago student. You really think its on par for M&A transactional law with CLS and Harvard? I mean I know statistically they are not Im curious how you reached that conclusion

I think you mean pimp. One day at lunch you get to hear Martha Nussbaum talk about why incestuous marriage should be legal, the next day you hear Eric Posner talk about why there should be a market for babies, and the next day you get to hear Saul Levmore present some economic/social choice observation that makes both conservative and liberal policymakers look vacuous. Its the whole ideological diversity thing that makes it fun, where anyone can talk about anything because half of the faculty is libertarian, and won't allow the liberal faculty to shut down legitimate discourse for PC reasons. We had some lady from focus on the family coming to talk about some bigoted anti-gay thing, the undergrads wanted to protest, and the Deans basically told them they would be arrested if they wanted to come over and shut down open discourse like Nazis. By the end of the whole experience, most are more open-minded, or politically agnostic. I may be embellishing a bit, but I think it is pretty entertaining.

As for the NYU thing, I am looking from the perspective of median bro looking to get a basic transactional job in NYC. NYU has partners at every New York firm. More New York firms come to NYU's OCI than almost any other. Each NYC firm wants at least one or a couple NYU people. NYU also has a lot of people that self-select into public interest jobs. This means that you have a smaller percentage of the population competing for these jobs than CLS or HLS. Therefore, if you are pushing networking and have informed yourself, it is as great a school as any to get a basic biglaw transactional job. I think the percentages of employment are different between NYU and CLS, Harvard generally because NYU doesn't place as well as them outside of New York, and has a lot more PI people who aren't looking for government jobs. I would think CLS and HLS will give you a marginally better shot at the more selective firms down the curve a bit though.

[jbagelboy]

You'd enjoy Chicago. We have a big group of people in our student body that are like you.

Don't go to UVA. This is a really, really dumb idea.

If you want M&A/corporate work go to NYU. New York is really the only market that has recovered from the recession, and therefore, the most opportunities are going to be in New York. NYU is better than all but Yale and maybe Harvard in NYC, and equal to Columbia and possibly uChicago. UVA is not the same quality level in New York. NYU has median kids getting great Vault firms. UVA has top-third kids. If you are at median (where you should assume you'll be) the question you should ask yourself it "where is my alumni network." You'll find NYU's alumni network is strong in the only great deals-heavy market in the U.S.. UVA's alumni are all over, and many are in DC, which you might not have the grades or interest for if you attend.

It would be dumb to choose a school off of perceived political leanings. Law school student bodies at the top are generally similar across the board. There is some self-selection, but it is really not ideological, it is academic. The reason Chicago has so many "conservatives" is that there are a lot of law&econ libertarians who want clerkships with Easterbrook, Posner, Scalia, etc. However, for the vast majority of students are the same.

Also, political leanings do help a bit for certain things like networking and clerkships. However, these are less about how many conservatives went to your school, and more about the intensity of the conservatives at your school. For example, Chicago has a conservative alumni near-cult that finds jobs for its below median FedSoc grads. NYU may have a similar cult of conservatives, it makes sense with the school being a little more liberal that the conservatives would band closer together.

Meh. You make Chicago sound gross.

Im impressed by your perception of NYU as a Chicago student. You really think its on par for M&A transactional law with CLS and Harvard? I mean I know statistically they are not Im curious how you reached that conclusion

I think you mean pimp. One day at lunch you get to hear Martha Nussbaum talk about why incestuous marriage should be legal, the next day you hear Eric Posner talk about why there should be a market for babies, and the next day you get to hear Saul Levmore present some economic/social choice observation that makes both conservative and liberal policymakers look vacuous. Its the whole ideological diversity thing that makes it fun, where anyone can talk about anything because half of the faculty is libertarian, and won't allow the liberal faculty to shut down legitimate discourse for PC reasons. We had some lady from focus on the family coming to talk about some bigoted anti-gay thing, the undergrads wanted to protest, and the Deans basically told them they would be arrested if they wanted to come over and shut down open discourse like Nazis. By the end of the whole experience, most are more open-minded, or politically agnostic. I may be embellishing a bit, but I think it is pretty entertaining.

Promoting bigotry a good thing? progressivism silenced as the reactionaries call on Limbaughyte fallacious historical comparisons? All ethic or conviction subsumed entirely by a pedantic "rationalist" discourse? None of this sounds at all positive, it's hard to tell if you were being facetious or trolling. I agree elected policymakers are total bullshit, but placating the Austrian school is not my idea of productive conversation or a good time. I visited UChicago at ASW and my impression was better than what you are presenting here, I found people intellectually stimulating and quite liberally engaged, if somewhat pretentiously cloistered. No offense intended, though.

As for the NYU thing, I am looking from the perspective of median bro looking to get a basic transactional job in NYC. NYU has partners at every New York firm. More New York firms come to NYU's OCI than almost any other. Each NYC firm wants at least one or a couple NYU people. NYU also has a lot of people that self-select into public interest jobs. This means that you have a smaller percentage of the population competing for these jobs than CLS or HLS. Therefore, if you are pushing networking and have informed yourself, it is as great a school as any to get a basic biglaw transactional job. I think the percentages of employment are different between NYU and CLS, Harvard generally because NYU doesn't place as well as them outside of New York, and has a lot more PI people who aren't looking for government jobs. I would think CLS and HLS will give you a marginally better shot at the more selective firms down the curve a bit though.

Okay, this lines up with my reasoning on the matter too. TLS has a tough time coming to terms with self selective PI, but I believe it has an impact too.