Wustl (full ride) vs Northwestern (TBD) Forum

[Samara]

I don't know what's more strange: the fact that a bro who has been on here for 8 years has supposedly never seen someone write about liking big law or the fact that a bro with almost 7K posts has supposedly rarely seen someone lamenting the fact that they paid sticker and saying that they should have taken a cheaper option to limit debt even though they would have been sacrificing big law options.

I have seen plenty of both "big law is cool" and "even though I went to a great school and got big law in retrospect I probably should have taken less debt at the lower ranked school" posts. In fact pretty much the only "took sticker and loving it!!!" bros I can think of off the top of my head are the NU contingent on this site who haven't even started working yet.

As for the OP: agreed that this is way too little information for us to advise you on. While I personally wouldn't pay sticker at NU because I am a debt averse weeny I think it can be justified. I also would never go to a school like WUSTL if my end goal was big law or bust and I wasn't content working small law in the Midwest.

I think you are reading my statement too broadly, but if you can link me to threads I will stand corrected. I have seen plenty of threads where people regretted taking sticker at all kinds of different schools, but it seems rare that someone looks back and wishes they would have taken a school like WUSTL over NU.

But I agree that us NUers are a lot more optimistic about taking sticker, but it's not just us 1Ls. Rayiner, who is now graduated, has some excellent posts on why sticker is not crazy, as do IAFG, Desert Fox, bk187, and lots of others in classes earlier than mine. Maybe it's a function of who we are as NU students, splitters coming from different careers.

[Samara]

If you aren't reading success stories on here, you haven't read the legal employment forum lately.

TBF they bite the heads off of 0Ls who try to post in there. This forum is not at all conducive to 0Ls trying to actually find out information about what Biglaw is like.

True. I get why that rule is there; the helpful threads would otherwise get flooded with the same 0L questions over and over again. Hmmm...

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about biglaw is that it is a monolithic entity, when in reality, different practice areas and different firms can mean very different experiences.

The legal world has a lot of nooks and crannies that (understandably) don't get discussed on here. Hopefully, over time the information will continue to expand.

[BigZuck]

I also would never go to a school like WUSTL if my end goal was big law or bust and I wasn't content working small law in the Midwest.

Where does this "WUSTL=small law in MidWest" come from? Only 25% of our grads stayed in Missouri. Whereas 41% went non-Midwest. Per LST around 25% of both schools are listed as Unknown State. Yeah all of WUSTL's unknowns could be slumming it in some small shop in the Midwest and all of NU's unknowns could be swimming in models and bottles in NYC, but we don't know for sure. So I discounted that figure when gauging the "Midwestern-ness" of WUSTL.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... b=location
25% Missouri
8% D.C.
8% Illinois
7% NYC
5% California
5% Texas
8% Foreign

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... b=location
39% Illinois
15% NYC
10% California
1.5% Foreign

I'm expecting people to say that "That's just a function of WUSTL's grads going home." Well if that's the case then i guess that means that WUSTL doesn't equal midwestern small law, but that WUSTL equals going home.

I would imagine that a good chunk of DC, CA, IL, and NY are the big law jobs (with some smattering of going home/non biglaw). Maybe the Texas is mostly big law too? I have no idea, it's too bad they don't parse it out more.

But we know that roughly 30% is getting big law/clerkships so those are unlikely, and then the rest of the class is working PI, small law (maybe mid if it exists), or un/underemployed. I said that I would only go there if I were ok with working small law in the Midwest simply because big law is unlikely and from what I understand small firm hiring is largely regional in nature and can be unpredictable and so I would rather go to a strong instate regional in the region I wanted to work in (say, the University of Arizona if I were from AZ or the University of Florida if I were from FL) rather than a school like WUSTL thousands of miles away.

I know a lot of WUSTLers this year are attending from places like the Northeast or CA with the idea of "well, maybe I'll be in the top third and get big law and if not I'll just take the degree back home and work at a small firm and not have to worry so much about debt because I have a big scholarship." I get that and maybe it's defensible but I personally would not do that. Why? Because a full third of the class is not becoming a lawyer and I think ending up with middling grades and not being able to network in the region you want to practice in could steer you closer to being that unfortunate 33%. I would just hate to spend 3 years and 60K and have nothing to show for it.

Basically if I were from OK or KS or whatever I would be much more willing to do WUSTL than if I was from WA or NC.

*of course if someone had strong connections at small firms back home that could get them a job if they missed big law then I think taking a school like WUSTL for free makes a lot more sense. I was just talking about someone like me who doesn't really have any strong legal connections and will have to hustle and network like crazy to try and get a job

[DoveBodyWash]

I know a lot of WUSTLers this year are attending from places like the Northeast or CA with the idea of "well, maybe I'll be in the top third and get big law and if not I'll just take the degree back home and work at a small firm and not have to worry so much about debt because I have a big scholarship." I get that and maybe it's defensible but I personally would not do that.

Well, shit. LOL

[BigZuck]

I know a lot of WUSTLers this year are attending from places like the Northeast or CA with the idea of "well, maybe I'll be in the top third and get big law and if not I'll just take the degree back home and work at a small firm and not have to worry so much about debt because I have a big scholarship." I get that and maybe it's defensible but I personally would not do that.

Well, shit. LOL

Wasn't trying to single or call you out, I don't know your personal situation enough to know what the back up would be if you don't get big law. It was more just a general comment. I also admit that I'm super debt/risk averse (not to mention a know-nothing 0L) so as always everything I say should be ignored or taken with the appropriate helping of salt.

[romothesavior]

The more I think about WUSTL for close to free (or any T20 for that matter) vs. lower-T14 at sticker, the more of a slam dunk I think the free option is. Maybe that's bias, maybe I'm just too optimistic about someone's chances from a T20, I dunno. I still see the arguments for NW (their placement is just so much better than a T20), but 250k of debt is just too much money for a law degree, IMO, even if you have really good biglaw odds.

You strike out at NW, you're screwed. You land biglaw at NW, you better be ready to stick with it for the long-haul and have the good fortune to not be Weiled/Lathamed/etc. You will be paying back 300k-400k in debt to the government, which to me sounds straight up awful. You go to WUSTL, you've got around a 25-30% chance at large firm + clerkship, and have a heck of a lot more flexibility, and the downside is at least minimized by the lower debt.

[Cobretti]

The more I think about WUSTL for close to free (or any T20 for that matter) vs. lower-T14 at sticker, the more of a slam dunk I think the free option is. Maybe that's bias, maybe I'm just too optimistic about someone's chances from a T20, I dunno. I still see the arguments for NW (their placement is just so much better than a T20), but 250k of debt is just too much money for a law degree, IMO, even if you have really good biglaw odds.

You strike out at NW, you're screwed. You land biglaw at NW, you better be ready to stick with it for the long-haul and have the good fortune to not be Weiled/Lathamed/etc. You will be paying back 300k-400k in debt to the government, which to me sounds straight up awful. You go to WUSTL, you've got around a 25-30% chance at large firm + clerkship, and have a heck of a lot more flexibility, and the downside is at least minimized by the lower debt.

I think it boils down to how scary the following things are to OP (and the other 20 people making this decision):

Crippling Debt
Striking out at biglaw
Unable to return to desired market

Depending on the weights to each of these, and which desired market we're talking about, some ppl will reasonably pick NU and some will reasonably pick WUSTL.

[Samara]

The more I think about WUSTL for close to free (or any T20 for that matter) vs. lower-T14 at sticker, the more of a slam dunk I think the free option is. Maybe that's bias, maybe I'm just too optimistic about someone's chances from a T20, I dunno. I still see the arguments for NW (their placement is just so much better than a T20), but 250k of debt is just too much money for a law degree, IMO, even if you have really good biglaw odds.

You strike out at NW, you're screwed. You land biglaw at NW, you better be ready to stick with it for the long-haul and have the good fortune to not be Weiled/Lathamed/etc. You will be paying back 300k-400k in debt to the government, which to me sounds straight up awful. You go to WUSTL, you've got around a 25-30% chance at large firm + clerkship, and have a heck of a lot more flexibility, and the downside is at least minimized by the lower debt.

That's fair and for a lot of people, I think you're right. If you pick NU, you better have a good reason. What really sucks is that big splitters don't have a middle option.

[Nelson]

The more I think about WUSTL for close to free (or any T20 for that matter) vs. lower-T14 at sticker, the more of a slam dunk I think the free option is. Maybe that's bias, maybe I'm just too optimistic about someone's chances from a T20, I dunno. I still see the arguments for NW (their placement is just so much better than a T20), but 250k of debt is just too much money for a law degree, IMO, even if you have really good biglaw odds.

You strike out at NW, you're screwed. You land biglaw at NW, you better be ready to stick with it for the long-haul and have the good fortune to not be Weiled/Lathamed/etc. You will be paying back 300k-400k in debt to the government, which to me sounds straight up awful. You go to WUSTL, you've got around a 25-30% chance at large firm + clerkship, and have a heck of a lot more flexibility, and the downside is at least minimized by the lower debt.

I think you're right that big scholarship at T20 is almost always the answer over sticker at T14. I just don't think that's a very big group of people. Most people who can get full rides at WUSTL can get money in the T14. Those who can't are usually high GPA/mid 160s LSATs who would be better served with a retake. Unless true splitters are getting full rides at WUSTL now?

[BigZuck]

The more I think about WUSTL for close to free (or any T20 for that matter) vs. lower-T14 at sticker, the more of a slam dunk I think the free option is. Maybe that's bias, maybe I'm just too optimistic about someone's chances from a T20, I dunno. I still see the arguments for NW (their placement is just so much better than a T20), but 250k of debt is just too much money for a law degree, IMO, even if you have really good biglaw odds.

You strike out at NW, you're screwed. You land biglaw at NW, you better be ready to stick with it for the long-haul and have the good fortune to not be Weiled/Lathamed/etc. You will be paying back 300k-400k in debt to the government, which to me sounds straight up awful. You go to WUSTL, you've got around a 25-30% chance at large firm + clerkship, and have a heck of a lot more flexibility, and the downside is at least minimized by the lower debt.

I think you're right that big scholarship at T20 is almost always the answer over sticker at T14. I just don't think that's a very big group of people. Most people who can get full rides at WUSTL can get money in the T14. Those who can't are usually high GPA/mid 160s LSATs who would be better served with a retake. Unless true splitters are getting full rides at WUSTL now?

166/0.0+ equals fully at WUSTL these nights

Eta: kind of an exaggeration but a 3.2/166 got it and maybe lower numbers got it too

[DoveBodyWash]

Unless true splitters are getting full rides at WUSTL now?

Raises hand...

[BigZuck]

Unless true splitters are getting full rides at WUSTL now?

Raises hand...

dm;fr

[Cobretti]

Unless true splitters are getting full rides at WUSTL now?

Raises hand...

dm;fr

this has been driving me crazy for weeks now, what is dm;fr?

[Magnalum]

.

[californiauser]

.

[Nelson]

The more I think about WUSTL for close to free (or any T20 for that matter) vs. lower-T14 at sticker, the more of a slam dunk I think the free option is. Maybe that's bias, maybe I'm just too optimistic about someone's chances from a T20, I dunno. I still see the arguments for NW (their placement is just so much better than a T20), but 250k of debt is just too much money for a law degree, IMO, even if you have really good biglaw odds.

You strike out at NW, you're screwed. You land biglaw at NW, you better be ready to stick with it for the long-haul and have the good fortune to not be Weiled/Lathamed/etc. You will be paying back 300k-400k in debt to the government, which to me sounds straight up awful. You go to WUSTL, you've got around a 25-30% chance at large firm + clerkship, and have a heck of a lot more flexibility, and the downside is at least minimized by the lower debt.

I think you're right that big scholarship at T20 is almost always the answer over sticker at T14. I just don't think that's a very big group of people. Most people who can get full rides at WUSTL can get money in the T14. Those who can't are usually high GPA/mid 160s LSATs who would be better served with a retake. Unless true splitters are getting full rides at WUSTL now?

166/0.0+ equals fully at WUSTL these nights

Eta: kind of an exaggeration but a 3.2/166 got it and maybe lower numbers got it too

Damn, that's crazy.

[Cellar-door]

The more I think about WUSTL for close to free (or any T20 for that matter) vs. lower-T14 at sticker, the more of a slam dunk I think the free option is. Maybe that's bias, maybe I'm just too optimistic about someone's chances from a T20, I dunno. I still see the arguments for NW (their placement is just so much better than a T20), but 250k of debt is just too much money for a law degree, IMO, even if you have really good biglaw odds.

You strike out at NW, you're screwed. You land biglaw at NW, you better be ready to stick with it for the long-haul and have the good fortune to not be Weiled/Lathamed/etc. You will be paying back 300k-400k in debt to the government, which to me sounds straight up awful. You go to WUSTL, you've got around a 25-30% chance at large firm + clerkship, and have a heck of a lot more flexibility, and the downside is at least minimized by the lower debt.

I think you're right that big scholarship at T20 is almost always the answer over sticker at T14. I just don't think that's a very big group of people. Most people who can get full rides at WUSTL can get money in the T14. Those who can't are usually high GPA/mid 160s LSATs who would be better served with a retake. Unless true splitters are getting full rides at WUSTL now?

I'm a splitter, sub 3 GPA, 170+ LSAT

[sublime]

..

[rickgrimes69]

Late to this party, which is a shame, because I've seen a lot of good discussion and some awful logical fallacies thrown around. All I'll say is this: WUSTL is a great school for someone who isn't biglaw or bust, and you can't beat the price of free. NU is undoubtedly the better school, but it ain't worth sticker - IMO, nothing outside of HYS is. This choice should be easy.

[Informative]

Northwestern is worth sticker over WUSTL over the long run if you want BigLaw.

[BigZuck]

Northwestern is worth sticker over WUSTL over the long run if you want BigLaw.

Is Informative just a troll that has been three years in the making or does he/she actually believe what he/she says on this site?

Yes, NU is a better school than WUSTL if you want big law. But it's not nearly as simplistic as you make it sound.

[DoveBodyWash]

Northwestern is worth sticker over WUSTL over the long run if you want BigLaw and manage to keep/tolerate BigLaw (or comparably paying position) for long enough.

FTFY

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Northwestern is worth sticker over WUSTL over the long run if you want BigLaw.

I'd go with BC. NU at sticker is a lot of debt with still only a 40-50% chance at biglaw.

I can't possibly think of a set of beliefs that does not render these statements mutually exclusive.

[jbagelboy]

Northwestern is worth sticker over WUSTL over the long run if you want BigLaw.

I'd go with BC. NU at sticker is a lot of debt with still only a 40-50% chance at biglaw.

I can't possibly think of a set of beliefs that does not render these statements mutually exclusive.

Good find dude. I was thinking of this Informative comment earlier

[Cellar-door]

.