Cornell v. Michigan - NYC Biglaw Forum

[Tanicius]

And, god forbid he strikes out at Biglaw, I would put Michigan's clinical and public interest programs ahead of Cornell's. Michigan is a very good "middle of the road" school. It has very respectable biglaw chances, connections to two major markets rather than one, and a more practical-focused curriculum than most of the T-14, should a student choose to use it.

why on earth would you say that?

Based on the clinical stuff I explored last year, conversations I've had with judges, and the slightly higher PI placement UM has over its peer schools. It's been awhile since I checked out Cornell, but last I did check, they had the usual handful of boring clinics most of the T-14 has - asylum and death penalty. I recognize that this exact area of legal education is changing faster than virtually anything else in most law school curricula right now (see Chicago's amazing LRAP and explosion of clinical options in the last two years), but until I see something indicating otherwise, Cornell is little more than a NYC Biglaw feeder.

[elmagic]

If you are interested in NYC Biglaw, I'd go choose Cornell. Cornell placed second only to UChicago in the NLJ250 which was for 2010, and the most recent data point. However, ATL ran that leak on Cornell's class of 2011 numbers and although down still close to 50% SA.

I think the choice is close, but the reason why I would pick Cornell is because it seems like Michigan and schools like Virginia and Vanderbilt are able to pad their numbers by including people who got jobs in secondary markets which some people call "regional biglaw". While a lot of people would love to work in these areas and don't mind the pay cut, an interesting comparison for someone like the OP would be how many of Michigan's students place in NYC market paying biglaw, compared to Cornell which appears to place almost exclusively in NYC market paying biglaw.

Also as an anecdote, a buddy of mine from ug is a 1L and apparently Cornell's class of 2013 placed 80% in SA this past oci, but take that, along with all info, with a grain of salt.

That's a very odd way to look at it. I don't think I've ever met someone who considers biglaw placement numbers out side of NYC to be "padded". Particularly when you consider that many of those jobs are harder to get than NYC biglaw. In addition, that's also a big positive for someone who hasn't started law school. The truth is that any top 14 will place well into NYC. The only major difference would be once you start talking about NYU and Columbia (and obviously HYS). But since those schools aren't in play that's not an issue.

With that said, since it really won't matter between Michigan and Cornell when it comes to NYC jobs, he should heavily consider going to the school that gives him the most options in other areas should he change his mind. Michigan is going to be a lot stronger for jobs outside of NYC. It even gives him an outside shot at Chicago should he decide that he is interested in working there. He can essentially forget that from Cornell.

If you notice, I said NYC market paying biglaw. I mean padded because a lot of these jobs in secondary markets, while they may be harder to get, although I am not completely convinced on that point, the vast majority don't pay NYC market, yet still require biglaw hours. Similarly these regional "biglaw" firms don't usually go up in lockstep and the exit opportunities are very different from major market firms. So to clarify my point, a school like Michigan may be able to pad its biglaw placement by including people who got 120k jobs in Grand Rapids, Des Moines etc while a school like Cornell can't really do the same, since the vast majority of biglaw placement is in NYC and likely market paying. So for someone like OP who wants NYC biglaw and not regional biglaw in Grand Rapids, the decision is a bit easier, as opposed to someone who just wanted a firm job with a decent starting pay, anywhere in the country.

[keg411]

If you are interested in NYC Biglaw, I'd go choose Cornell. Cornell placed second only to UChicago in the NLJ250 which was for 2010, and the most recent data point. However, ATL ran that leak on Cornell's class of 2011 numbers and although down still close to 50% SA.

I think the choice is close, but the reason why I would pick Cornell is because it seems like Michigan and schools like Virginia and Vanderbilt are able to pad their numbers by including people who got jobs in secondary markets which some people call "regional biglaw". While a lot of people would love to work in these areas and don't mind the pay cut, an interesting comparison for someone like the OP would be how many of Michigan's students place in NYC market paying biglaw, compared to Cornell which appears to place almost exclusively in NYC market paying biglaw.

Also as an anecdote, a buddy of mine from ug is a 1L and apparently Cornell's class of 2013 placed 80% in SA this past oci, but take that, along with all info, with a grain of salt.

That's a very odd way to look at it. I don't think I've ever met someone who considers biglaw placement numbers out side of NYC to be "padded". Particularly when you consider that many of those jobs are harder to get than NYC biglaw. In addition, that's also a big positive for someone who hasn't started law school. The truth is that any top 14 will place well into NYC. The only major difference would be once you start talking about NYU and Columbia (and obviously HYS). But since those schools aren't in play that's not an issue.

With that said, since it really won't matter between Michigan and Cornell when it comes to NYC jobs, he should heavily consider going to the school that gives him the most options in other areas should he change his mind. Michigan is going to be a lot stronger for jobs outside of NYC. It even gives him an outside shot at Chicago should he decide that he is interested in working there. He can essentially forget that from Cornell.

If you notice, I said NYC market paying biglaw. I mean padded because a lot of these jobs in secondary markets, while they may be harder to get, although I am not completely convinced on that point, the vast majority don't pay NYC market, yet still require biglaw hours. Similarly these regional "biglaw" firms don't usually go up in lockstep and the exit opportunities are very different from major market firms. So to clarify my point, a school like Michigan may be able to pad its biglaw placement by including people who got 120k jobs in Grand Rapids, Des Moines etc while a school like Cornell can't really do the same, since the vast majority of biglaw placement is in NYC and likely market paying. So for someone like OP who wants NYC biglaw and not regional biglaw in Grand Rapids, the decision is a bit easier, as opposed to someone who just wanted a firm job with a decent starting pay, anywhere in the country.

This post totally misunderstands how BigLaw hiring/OCI works.

[BruceWayne]

If you notice, I said NYC market paying biglaw. I mean padded because a lot of these jobs in secondary markets, while they may be harder to get, although I am not completely convinced on that point, the vast majority don't pay NYC market, yet still require biglaw hours. Similarly these regional "biglaw" firms don't usually go up in lockstep and the exit opportunities are very different from major market firms. So to clarify my point, a school like Michigan may be able to pad its biglaw placement by including people who got 120k jobs in Grand Rapids, Des Moines etc while a school like Cornell can't really do the same, since the vast majority of biglaw placement is in NYC and likely market paying. So for someone like OP who wants NYC biglaw and not regional biglaw in Grand Rapids, the decision is a bit easier, as opposed to someone who just wanted a firm job with a decent starting pay, anywhere in the country.

A lot of this is simply not true. Most biglaw firms in non NYC markets (borderline all) follow lockstep and every city has different amounts for what constitutes "market pay". 120-150 in Atlanta, 160 in Chicago/Texas/California, 120 in Miami, 110 in Birmingham, 110K in the midwest cities etc. And not to point out the obvious but all of those salaries are exponentially higher than 160K in NYC in terms of what the "real salary" amounts to. Not to mention your chances of making partner/lasting beyond 4 years are far higher in secondary markets than in NYC. Not bashing NYC but if you're going to try to explain the advantages of NYC over secondary markets you want to be accurate about it. There are advantages but pay really isn't one of them (practice area is a good one--if you want to do transactional work no market comes close to NYC).

As far as "exit opportunities" there isn't a difference unless you want your exit to be to NYC. "Exit opportunities' being "worse" for secondary market biglaw is something that you hear on this site a lot that is based on circular reasoning. Yes "exit opportunities" for someone who worked in secondary biglaw will be less in NYC, but that's sort of the point of going to the secondary market in the first place...and to be entirely honest one thing I've learned over the past few years is that even that notion is something peddled more by anxious law students. The truth is that if you are good at what you do people will desire your services regardless. I've seen many profiles of people very high up in DOJ (working in DC) who started out at secondary market firms in entirely different markets.

[elmagic]

If you notice, I said NYC market paying biglaw. I mean padded because a lot of these jobs in secondary markets, while they may be harder to get, although I am not completely convinced on that point, the vast majority don't pay NYC market, yet still require biglaw hours. Similarly these regional "biglaw" firms don't usually go up in lockstep and the exit opportunities are very different from major market firms. So to clarify my point, a school like Michigan may be able to pad its biglaw placement by including people who got 120k jobs in Grand Rapids, Des Moines etc while a school like Cornell can't really do the same, since the vast majority of biglaw placement is in NYC and likely market paying. So for someone like OP who wants NYC biglaw and not regional biglaw in Grand Rapids, the decision is a bit easier, as opposed to someone who just wanted a firm job with a decent starting pay, anywhere in the country.

A lot of this is simply not true. Most biglaw firms in non NYC markets (borderline all) follow lockstep and every city has different amounts for what constitutes "market pay". 120-150 in Atlanta, 160 in Chicago/Texas/California, 120 in Miami, 110 in Birmingham, 110K in the midwest cities etc. And not to point out the obvious but all of those salaries are exponentially higher than 160K in NYC in terms of what the "real salary" amounts to. Not to mention your chances of making partner/lasting beyond 4 years are far higher in secondary markets than in NYC. Not bashing NYC but if you're going to try to explain the advantages of NYC over secondary markets you want to be accurate about it. There are advantages but pay really isn't one of them (practice area is a good one--if you want to do transactional work no market comes close to NYC).

As far as "exit opportunities" there isn't a difference unless you want your exit to be to NYC. "Exit opportunities' being "worse" for secondary market biglaw is something that you hear on this site a lot that is based on circular reasoning. Yes "exit opportunities" for someone who worked in secondary biglaw will be less in NYC, but that's sort of the point of going to the secondary market in the first place...and to be entirely honest one thing I've learned over the past few years is that even that notion is something peddled more by anxious law students. The truth is that if you are good at what you do people will desire your services regardless. I've seen many profiles of people very high up in DOJ (working in DC) who started out at secondary market firms in entirely different markets.

Again, I said NYC market paying, which like you said is mostly NYC, Chicago, Texas, California and DC. I think what you are misunderstanding is that I am not trying to make a general statement about legal market etc, what I am getting at is that for someone interested in working NYC biglaw (like the OP), roughly described as 160k with lockstep, then it doesn't matter for that person if Michigan can place 80% into "biglaw" if only 30% is in NYC. While at a school like Cornell that places almost exclusively into NYC, if 80% are placed into biglaw, then it is more likely that the vast majority are being placed in NYC biglaw.

Like I said earlier, people may want to work in Atlanta, Birmingham, or the midwest for a less money, but for someone interested in NYC biglaw, that stuff is irrelevant. Now the more interesting question is self-selection, but that would just get into hypotheticals.

[GMVarun]

it doesn't matter for that person if Michigan can place 80% into "biglaw" if only 30% is in NYC. While at a school like Cornell that places almost exclusively into NYC, if 80% are placed into biglaw, then it is more likely that the vast majority are being placed in NYC biglaw.

Like I said earlier, people may want to work in Atlanta, Birmingham, or the midwest for a less money, but for someone interested in NYC biglaw, that stuff is irrelevant. Now the more interesting question is self-selection, but that would just get into hypotheticals.

You both acknowledge that there is self-selection, yet act as if there is no there self-selection. I know for a fact that there are several Michigan 2Ls who had NYC Biglaw offers that turned them down for other market Biglaw offers. It does not matter that "30%" or "80%" of the class actually goes to NYC biglaw.

The only thing that matters is what percentage of Michigan (or Cornell) students could have gotten NYC biglaw. To determine this, you should look at the NYC firms interviewing at both schools, their grade cutoffs, and the relative ease of getting those interviews. As I discussed (a) and (b) are going to be very similar for both schools. (c) Cornell has less people which is an advantage and Michigan has people who do not only want to end up in NYC which is an advantage. These two effects likely cancel each other out. It therefore does not matter if you go to Michigan or Cornell if you want to end up in some NYC biglaw firm.

This entire discussion also overplays the importance of school/grades in getting biglaw. Yes, school/grades matter, but as a threshold requirement. If person X is roughly median from Cornell and person y is median at Michigan, and that is the only difference between X and Y, they both will have the same chance of getting NYC biglaw. The probability of person X and Y actually getting NYC biglaw will, however, depend on a whole host of non-school criteria: Did they bid well? Do they interview well? Did they mass-mail? Are they on law review/ a journal? What work experience do they have? Where did they go to undergrad? etc. These non-school factors will be significantly more determinative than any difference in school.

Also, this itself is not a great way to choose a school. While a 0L may greatly prefer NYC Biglaw > all other market Biglaw, they also should prefer getting a job > not getting a job (in any market). To wit, as you yourself have stated, these two schools have very similar employment outcomes. As such, other factors should determine which school they go to.

[bogart]

Also, and most importantly, do not forget:

ithaca > ann arbor
nyc > detroit
upstate > michigan

If its a tossup, and you are going to spend three years somewhere, do yourself a favor and pick the better location.

[elmagic]

it doesn't matter for that person if Michigan can place 80% into "biglaw" if only 30% is in NYC. While at a school like Cornell that places almost exclusively into NYC, if 80% are placed into biglaw, then it is more likely that the vast majority are being placed in NYC biglaw.

Like I said earlier, people may want to work in Atlanta, Birmingham, or the midwest for a less money, but for someone interested in NYC biglaw, that stuff is irrelevant. Now the more interesting question is self-selection, but that would just get into hypotheticals.

You both acknowledge that there is self-selection, yet act as if there is no there self-selection. I know for a fact that there are several Michigan 2Ls who had NYC Biglaw offers that turned them down for other market Biglaw offers. It does not matter that "30%" or "80%" of the class actually goes to NYC biglaw.

The only thing that matters is what percentage of Michigan (or Cornell) students could have gotten NYC biglaw. To determine this, you should look at the NYC firms interviewing at both schools, their grade cutoffs, and the relative ease of getting those interviews. As I discussed (a) and (b) are going to be very similar for both schools. (c) Cornell has less people which is an advantage and Michigan has people who do not only want to end up in NYC which is an advantage. These two effects likely cancel each other out. It therefore does not matter if you go to Michigan or Cornell if you want to end up in some NYC biglaw firm.

This entire discussion also overplays the importance of school/grades in getting biglaw. Yes, school/grades matter, but as a threshold requirement. If person X is roughly median from Cornell and person y is median at Michigan, and that is the only difference between X and Y, they both will have the same chance of getting NYC biglaw. The probability of person X and Y actually getting NYC biglaw will, however, depend on a whole host of non-school criteria: Did they bid well? Do they interview well? Did they mass-mail? Are they on law review/ a journal? What work experience do they have? Where did they go to undergrad? etc. These non-school factors will be significantly more determinative than any difference in school.

Also, this itself is not a great way to choose a school. While a 0L may greatly prefer NYC Biglaw > all other market Biglaw, they also should prefer getting a job > not getting a job (in any market). To wit, as you yourself have stated, these two schools have very similar employment outcomes. As such, other factors should determine which school they go to.

To wit, you are correct.

[sanguar]

Also, and most importantly, do not forget:

ithaca > ann arbor
nyc > detroit
upstate > michigan

If its a tossup, and you are going to spend three years somewhere, do yourself a favor and pick the better location.

You're one for three.

[bogart]

Also, and most importantly, do not forget:

ithaca > ann arbor
nyc > detroit
upstate > michigan

If its a tossup, and you are going to spend three years somewhere, do yourself a favor and pick the better location.

You're one for three.

Nope, 3 for 3....the truth.

[Nobody]

I'd say Cornell wins on the other two, but it's still basically the prettiest girl at fat camp.

[bogart]

I'd say Cornell wins on the other two, but it's still basically the prettiest girl at fat camp.

Also, no.

New York is the best state in the union....truth.

[sanguar]

You guys are dumb.

[sanguar]

And, if you're calling a four hour drive as being "close" to NYC, Ann Arbor is then close to Chicago.

[bogart]

And, if you're calling a four hour drive as being "close" to NYC, Ann Arbor is then close to Chicago.

four hour drive is nothing...Also, are you comparing chicago to nyc? there is no comparison, you can fit 3 chicagos in nyc. They are not equals, no matter how many oprahs you throw at me.

But it all comes down to preference, I am a life long east coaster so the mid west really doesn't appeal to me.

Anyways, sorry to the OP for this thread getting lame... I'm out.

[Nobody]

I'd say Cornell wins on the other two, but it's still basically the prettiest girl at fat camp.

Also, no.

New York is the best state in the union....truth.

The city is great, upstate is gross.

[bogart]

I'd say Cornell wins on the other two, but it's still basically the prettiest girl at fat camp.

Also, no.

New York is the best state in the union....truth.

The city is great, upstate is gross.

Gross? I admit it may not be for everyone but to say it is "gross" is fucking childish...are you a child? Have you ever been there? Upstate is a great place, and so is the city, in fact, that what makes it the best state. A perfect blend of everything.... "gross," well, your silly, just plain silly. Let me guess, your probably from some shit small town in ohio or idaho or someplace like that. Still, I kinda liked the fat camp comment so the last word is yours....

[Nobody]

I'm mostly just teasing. Upstate is naturally beautiful, but the people scare me.

Also, I'm more than likely going to end up at Cornell, so I'm clearly just self hating.

[inthebeginning]

52 minute flight from LGA to DTW, then 30 minute drive to AA. Guess that doesn't cover check-in time but it's really easy from nyc.

I always thought Cornell was really isolated and that there wasn't much going on? Is that not true?

[bogart]

I'm mostly just teasing. Upstate is naturally beautiful, but the people scare me.

Also, I'm more than likely going to end up at Cornell, so I'm clearly just self hating.

Congrats on your acceptance and no need to self hate. I am sure you will like the people. Ithaca is a unique place with a lot of unique people. Of course, the Ithaca scene tends to favor the more hipster/oddball sort, so it depends what your in to. Personally, I'm big into music (and other things...) so I've always enjoyed my stops there. Either way, I think it is a great part of the country with a lot to offer.