CLS v NYU Forum

[ahduth]

It's EIW. My only reference point is Willkie Farr. They're indiscriminate between the two schools.

[Curious1]

Can anyone ACTUALLY talk about exactly how many people were unemployed last year at each school (as of OCI). General arguments are all fine and both schools are great, yes yes, but can we get some numbers?

If no such numbers are available...then that's telling too.

The thing is, as of OCI isn't really all that helpful (assuming you mean through OCI, because when OCI starts nobody has jobs). OCI numbers really only show job prospects at certain firms. Granted, those are, for the most part, the firms that most students want to work at. That doesn't, however, include PI or Gov't jobs, which NYU has a larger self-selecting group for, and it also doesn't include many secondary markets that people might be targeting. Basically what I'm saying is those numbers are probably not as telling as one might think.

Also, the OCI numbers exist, but students at each school aren't supposed to share them.

I honestly can't see more than 10% "self-selecting" into PI, but I'm a very biglaw or suicide kind of guy, and maybe people who actually want PI are just actually nice or independently wealthy. I would also think some either are hedging their bets because they know they get into biglaw or already struck out and are looking to option B.

I guess what I'm more interested in is the EIW/CB/Offer ratio or something to that effect since most kids will get screeners at both schools. Since those numbers surely aren't available, it would be nice to see just how many struck out completely at both schools, adjusted for self-selected PI/Gov't.

[HeavenWood]

I honestly can't see more than 10% "self-selecting" into PI, but I'm a very biglaw or suicide kind of guy, and maybe people who actually want PI are just actually nice or independently wealthy.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Curious, the only people who completely strike out at these schools are either getting lots of discretional C's or just can't interview for shit. Of course, not everyone will get their first choice job (especially in this economy) but you're quite the alarmist, even by TLS standards.

[Curious1]

I honestly can't see more than 10% "self-selecting" into PI, but I'm a very biglaw or suicide kind of guy, and maybe people who actually want PI are just actually nice or independently wealthy.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Curious, the only people who completely strike out at these schools are either getting lots of discretional C's or just can't interview for shit. Of course, not everyone will get their first choice job (especially in this economy) but you're quite the alarmist, even by TLS standards.

It's the fault of other alarmists on here. But anyway--what percentage actually self select into PI/Gov't at NYU versus CLS?

Also how is it ridiculous to think that at least some people who WANT to do PI are independently wealthy or nice selfless people...

[lakerfan]

I'd just like to clarify that the only people who consider NYU and CLS peer schools are those that go to NYU. US News is irrelevant. Bring on the onslaught.

Also, I'm bored and this one always seems to get people going.

This is why I chose NYU over CLS. My friends have better things to do when they are bored and don't feel the constant need to have random people validate their life choices on an Internet forum.

[Curious1]

I'd just like to clarify that the only people who consider NYU and CLS peer schools are those that go to NYU. US News is irrelevant. Bring on the onslaught.

Also, I'm bored and this one always seems to get people going.

This is why I chose NYU over CLS. My friends have better things to do when they are bored and don't feel the constant need to have random people validate their life choices on an Internet forum.

This, imo, is a retarded reason for choosing one school over another.

[HeavenWood]

I honestly can't see more than 10% "self-selecting" into PI, but I'm a very biglaw or suicide kind of guy, and maybe people who actually want PI are just actually nice or independently wealthy.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Curious, the only people who completely strike out at these schools are either getting lots of discretional C's or just can't interview for shit. Of course, not everyone will get their first choice job (especially in this economy) but you're quite the alarmist, even by TLS standards.

It's the fault of other alarmists on here. But anyway--what percentage actually self select into PI/Gov't at NYU versus CLS?

Also how is it ridiculous to think that at least some people who WANT to do PI are independently wealthy or nice selfless people...

I was saying it was ridiculous to assume MOST people who do PI are only doing it because the struck out on biglaw.

And self-selection is a tough animal to quantify, especially when comparing two very similar-placing schools in the same legal market. You can really only get anecdotal estimates (which will invariably end up all over the place depending on the bias of the estimator).

[lakerfan]

I'd just like to clarify that the only people who consider NYU and CLS peer schools are those that go to NYU. US News is irrelevant. Bring on the onslaught.

Also, I'm bored and this one always seems to get people going.

This is why I chose NYU over CLS. My friends have better things to do when they are bored and don't feel the constant need to have random people validate their life choices on an Internet forum.

This, imo, is a retarded reason for choosing one school over another.

I think they are essentially the same in every other meaningful respect. I agree that, if that were my sole consideration, it would be foolish. However, this was a tiebreaker.

[Curious1]

I was saying it was ridiculous to assume MOST people who do PI are only doing it because the struck out on biglaw.

And self-selection is a tough animal to quantify, especially when comparing two very similar-placing schools in the same legal market. You can really only get anecdotal estimates (which will invariably end up all over the place depending on the bias of the estimator).

I meant 10% of the class, not 10% of those who want to do PI.

I guess this is why transparency is so important...it would be nice if the school provided numbers as to exactly how many students ended up in what kind of employment--or even better, provide numbers who ended up at individual employers a la: WLRK: 2, S&C: 4, Peace Corps (is that considered PI?): 4, and so on.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from going to law school or anything. It's just that once upon I time I thought CLS GUARANTEES biglaw if you want it, but turns out it doesn't at all. This has me pretty panicked.

[redsoxfan2495]

This thread is a bit ridiculous. Any differences in the two student bodies are being vastly overplayed. Also, I would caution against judging a school's culture based on the people you meet at ASW, given that they might not end up going there. In the end these are peer schools located in the same city. There are a lot more similarities than differences, and choosing either over the other is completely reasonable.

[HeavenWood]

I was saying it was ridiculous to assume MOST people who do PI are only doing it because the struck out on biglaw.

And self-selection is a tough animal to quantify, especially when comparing two very similar-placing schools in the same legal market. You can really only get anecdotal estimates (which will invariably end up all over the place depending on the bias of the estimator).

I meant 10% of the class, not 10% of those who want to do PI.

I guess this is why transparency is so important...it would be nice if the school provided numbers as to exactly how many students ended up in what kind of employment--or even better, provide numbers who ended up at individual employers a la: WLRK: 2, S&C: 4, Peace Corps (is that considered PI?): 4, and so on.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from going to law school or anything. It's just that once upon I time I thought CLS GUARANTEES biglaw if you want it, but turns out it doesn't at all. This has me pretty panicked.

That was never true. Anywhere. No matter where you go to school, you have to put forth some sort of affirmative effort and be at least quasi-likeable. (PS there are plenty of fine firms outside the V100/AMLaw 100. I hear some people who take jobs at... gasp... lower NLJ 250s lead fruitful lives!)

And honestly, you're less likely to end up a "cog in a wheel" at a larger midlaw/smaller biglaw. That should give you something to think about.

[Curious1]

And honestly, you're less likely to end up a "cog in a wheel" at a larger midlaw/smaller biglaw. That should give you something to think about.

I have no problem whatsoever with giving up my life completely for 5-10 years to a firm if it means I can make partner/lateral into a good in-house gig/lateral into midlaw as a partner.

And the apparently consensus on TLS is that midlaw "doesn't exist". Not sure I can agree with that, but either way I'm not OK with making 80K.

[HeavenWood]

And honestly, you're less likely to end up a "cog in a wheel" at a larger midlaw/smaller biglaw. That should give you something to think about.

I have no problem whatsoever with giving up my life completely for 5-10 years to a firm if it means I can make partner/lateral into a good in-house gig/lateral into midlaw as a partner.

And the apparently consensus on TLS is that midlaw "doesn't exist". Not sure I can agree with that, but either way I'm not OK with making 80K.

Midlaw definitely exists, but more so in secondary markets than places like NYC. And a lot of these midlaws pay marginally less than market. Also lol at the thought of immediately lateraling from a biglaw associate to a midlaw partner.

[Curious1]

Midlaw definitely exists, but more so in secondary markets than places like NYC. And a lot of these midlaws pay marginally less than market. Also lol at the thought of immediately lateraling into midlaw as a partner.

After 5-10 years that's not possible? Guess that option is out then lol. Partner/in-house it is.

[HeavenWood]

Midlaw definitely exists, but more so in secondary markets than places like NYC. And a lot of these midlaws pay marginally less than market. Also lol at the thought of immediately lateraling into midlaw as a partner.

After 5-10 years that's not possible? Guess that option is out then lol. Partner/in-house it is.

You can move to a midlaw, but you won't just make partner overnight. The associate --> partner process will be expedited, but you still have to prove your worth. Keep in mind, it's very easy to get swallowed up in a big firm and not end up having much practical experience.

In-house pay tends to be lower, but depending on what industry/market you end up in, it can be a good way of making up to the mid sixes doing next to nothing.

[piccolittle]

I'm at CLS and pretty much everyone I meet wants to do public interest. I've only met a few people (literally 3) who are unabashedly biglaw focused (myself included), and all the specialized moots and extracurricular programs seem to be geared toward public interest law. We have plenty of kids here who went to NYU undergrad, and no one has complained about the "culture." People are extremely friendly, hard partying, and smart.

Everyone here is also super liberal. I only know two confessed libertarians and no Republicans (there is no Republican club at CLS).

I think the whispers and assumptions about Columbia's culture are actually highly unfair, and I certainly don't think they're worth basing your attendance decision on.

JMHO.

[lawschoolgrapedme]

I'm at CLS and pretty much everyone I meet wants to do public interest. I've only met a few people (literally 3) who are unabashedly biglaw focused (myself included), and all the specialized moots and extracurricular programs seem to be geared toward public interest law. We have plenty of kids here who went to NYU undergrad, and no one has complained about the "culture." People are extremely friendly, hard partying, and smart.

Everyone here is also super liberal. I only know two confessed libertarians and no Republicans (there is no Republican club at CLS).

I think the whispers and assumptions about Columbia's culture are actually highly unfair, and I certainly don't think they're worth basing your attendance decision on.

JMHO.

I'm at CLS. Everyone I know is going to biglaw. And I'm a Republican.

I'm also not joking about any of the above either.

[freestallion]

I'm at CLS and pretty much everyone I meet wants to do public interest. I've only met a few people (literally 3) who are unabashedly biglaw focused (myself included), and all the specialized moots and extracurricular programs seem to be geared toward public interest law. We have plenty of kids here who went to NYU undergrad, and no one has complained about the "culture." People are extremely friendly, hard partying, and smart.

Everyone here is also super liberal. I only know two confessed libertarians and no Republicans (there is no Republican club at CLS).

I think the whispers and assumptions about Columbia's culture are actually highly unfair, and I certainly don't think they're worth basing your attendance decision on.

JMHO.

I'm at CLS. Everyone I know is going to biglaw. And I'm a Republican.

I'm also not joking about any of the above either.

Wow, if there are such divergent views of life/culture at CLS, my question is as a 0L how would we know what the culture at any school is like before choosing a school? I mean, can you accurately gauge the "fit" of a school just by visiting...?

[Curious1]

You can move to a midlaw, but you won't just make partner overnight. The associate --> partner process will be expedited, but you still have to prove your worth. Keep in mind, it's very easy to get swallowed up in a big firm and not end up having much practical experience.

In-house pay tends to be lower, but depending on what industry/market you end up in, it can be a good way of making up to the mid sixes doing next to nothing.

mm. That sounds good. I'm more of a prestige whore than a money whore anyway...and I think I'd gladly work in-house somewhere reputable even with a pay reduction.

[HeavenWood]

You can move to a midlaw, but you won't just make partner overnight. The associate --> partner process will be expedited, but you still have to prove your worth. Keep in mind, it's very easy to get swallowed up in a big firm and not end up having much practical experience.

In-house pay tends to be lower, but depending on what industry/market you end up in, it can be a good way of making up to the mid sixes doing next to nothing.

mm. That sounds good. I'm more of a prestige whore than a money whore anyway...and I think I'd gladly work in-house somewhere reputable even with a pay reduction.

In that case, you, my friend, are entering the wrong profession.

[Curious1]

In that case, you, my friend, are entering the wrong profession.

Well the scenario I outlined in my PM is prestigious enough for me.

[lawschoolgrapedme]

I'm at CLS and pretty much everyone I meet wants to do public interest. I've only met a few people (literally 3) who are unabashedly biglaw focused (myself included), and all the specialized moots and extracurricular programs seem to be geared toward public interest law. We have plenty of kids here who went to NYU undergrad, and no one has complained about the "culture." People are extremely friendly, hard partying, and smart.

Everyone here is also super liberal. I only know two confessed libertarians and no Republicans (there is no Republican club at CLS).

I think the whispers and assumptions about Columbia's culture are actually highly unfair, and I certainly don't think they're worth basing your attendance decision on.

JMHO.

I'm at CLS. Everyone I know is going to biglaw. And I'm a Republican.

I'm also not joking about any of the above either.

Wow, if there are such divergent views of life/culture at CLS, my question is as a 0L how would we know what the culture at any school is like before choosing a school? I mean, can you accurately gauge the "fit" of a school just by visiting...?

You can't. That is why I don't buy all this culture of Firm X is better than Firm Y crap either.

[HeavenWood]

In that case, you, my friend, are entering the wrong profession.

Well the scenario I outlined in my PM is prestigious enough for me.

I was more referring to the fact that lawyers are near-universally stereotyped as scumbags, regardless of the work they do.

[Curious1]

In that case, you, my friend, are entering the wrong profession.

Well the scenario I outlined in my PM is prestigious enough for me.

I was more referring to the fact that lawyers are near-universally stereotyped as scumbags, regardless of the work they do.

So are bankers, and I tried very very hard to get into that, but I hated econ and microsoft excel.

[keg411]

Curious, before you think BigLaw is the be-all-end-all of prestige... then why at YHS is ordinary BigLaw what the "median" people do and not even close to what the very top of the class ends up self-selecting into?

BigLaw is great to get for a number of reasons (I have a SA lined up myself and it's something I wanted), but if you're really a prestige-whore, there are things you probably should want more than BigLaw.