T6 vs T10 vs T14 Forum

[09042014]

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality, and certainly not job prospects. It's also why Boalt isn't even assigned a place because it's got an unusual recruiting pattern and doesn't have a clear peer.

ALL of this shit was created by 21-23 year old aspies on princeton review web forums.

YHS isn't even a full thing. It's clearly better but not game-changing for most things. It's game changing for clerkships and academia, but outside of that, it's not all that different. Columbia and Harvard's ability to place into big law isn't substantially different.

CCN is less of a real distinction but there is a pattern here that makes it somewhat useful. NYC V20 take CCN students in large numbers year after year. If you want V5, V10 or even V20 in NYC, these schools are clearly better. These firms often have pretty stringent requirements for non T6, T14. There is also some self selection going on. A Chicago bro will take Jenner block over Debevoise, which might make NU and Michigan look worse in terms of vault rankings. But I think a real advantage at top firms exists for CCN.

But once you get outside these schools top third of the class, they aren't really better off than the rest of the T14. Do you think a Texas firm is going to say, fuck this Michigan grad with A- grades, I've got a U of C grad with A-/B+ grades? No.

So the CCN tier doesn't really make a huge difference in whether you get big law or not. It might increase your chances of V5 or V10 but when you are scarping the bottom of the NLJ350, it's not a benefit. How much value you'd wanna place on going to Debevoise over Jenner Block.

As for T10, it doesn't exist. Firms--outside of hometown favorites--don't really distinguish between lower T14 IN THE AGGREGATE. Some firms think NU is TTT, some firms don't recruit at Duke, and some firms love Michigan, but it all cancels out.

This is funny coming from me (since I pushed for t13 for the lulz for so long), but Georgetown is probably, at most, a half step behind other t14. A lot of their placement gap is due to weird DC jobs, DC market just being hard as fuck to get, and part time program. But, the size of the school definitely hurts their placement.

[jbagelboy]

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality, and certainly not job prospects. It's also why Boalt isn't even assigned a place because it's got an unusual recruiting pattern and doesn't have a clear peer.

ALL of this shit was created by 21-23 year old aspies on princeton review web forums.

YHS isn't even a full thing. It's clearly better but not game-changing for most things. It's game changing for clerkships and academia, but outside of that, it's not all that different. Columbia and Harvard's ability to place into big law isn't substantially different.

CCN is less of a real distinction but there is a pattern here that makes it somewhat useful. NYC V20 take CCN students in large numbers year after year. If you want V5, V10 or even V20 in NYC, these schools are clearly better. These firms often have pretty stringent requirements for non T6, T14. There is also some self selection going on. A Chicago bro will take Jenner block over Debevoise, which might make NU and Michigan look worse in terms of vault rankings. But I think a real advantage at top firms exists for CCN.

But once you get outside these schools top third of the class, they aren't really better off than the rest of the T14. Do you think a Texas firm is going to say, fuck this Michigan grad with A- grades, I've got a U of C grad with A-/B+ grades? No.

So the CCN tier doesn't really make a huge difference in whether you get big law or not. It might increase your chances of V5 or V10 but when you are scarping the bottom of the NLJ350, it's not a benefit. How much value you'd wanna place on going to Debevoise over Jenner Block.

As for T10, it doesn't exist. Firms--outside of hometown favorites--don't really distinguish between lower T14 IN THE AGGREGATE. Some firms think NU is TTT, some firms don't recruit at Duke, and some firms love Michigan, but it all cancels out.

This is funny coming from me (since I pushed for t13 for the lulz for so long), but Georgetown is probably, at most, a half step behind other t14. A lot of their placement gap is due to weird DC jobs, DC market just being hard as fuck to get, and part time program. But, the size of the school definitely hurts their placement.

TYFT

[09042014]

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality, and certainly not job prospects. It's also why Boalt isn't even assigned a place because it's got an unusual recruiting pattern and doesn't have a clear peer.

ALL of this shit was created by 21-23 year old aspies on princeton review web forums.

YHS isn't even a full thing. It's clearly better but not game-changing for most things. It's game changing for clerkships and academia, but outside of that, it's not all that different. Columbia and Harvard's ability to place into big law isn't substantially different.

CCN is less of a real distinction but there is a pattern here that makes it somewhat useful. NYC V20 take CCN students in large numbers year after year. If you want V5, V10 or even V20 in NYC, these schools are clearly better. These firms often have pretty stringent requirements for non T6, T14. There is also some self selection going on. A Chicago bro will take Jenner block over Debevoise, which might make NU and Michigan look worse in terms of vault rankings. But I think a real advantage at top firms exists for CCN.

But once you get outside these schools top third of the class, they aren't really better off than the rest of the T14. Do you think a Texas firm is going to say, fuck this Michigan grad with A- grades, I've got a U of C grad with A-/B+ grades? No.

So the CCN tier doesn't really make a huge difference in whether you get big law or not. It might increase your chances of V5 or V10 but when you are scarping the bottom of the NLJ350, it's not a benefit. How much value you'd wanna place on going to Debevoise over Jenner Block.

As for T10, it doesn't exist. Firms--outside of hometown favorites--don't really distinguish between lower T14 IN THE AGGREGATE. Some firms think NU is TTT, some firms don't recruit at Duke, and some firms love Michigan, but it all cancels out.

This is funny coming from me (since I pushed for t13 for the lulz for so long), but Georgetown is probably, at most, a half step behind other t14. A lot of their placement gap is due to weird DC jobs, DC market just being hard as fuck to get, and part time program. But, the size of the school definitely hurts their placement.

TYFT

The moral of the story is that I'll do anything to avoid doing a torts practice test for bar prep.

[JamesDean1955]

Nice post DF. Sick of all the bullshit hype about these tiers. I agree with everything you said, minus the GT stuff. It doesn't matter why; GT is clearly lagging multiple steps behind other T14s in placement. Not to say it's a bad school, but if we're talking numbers, it's not in the same league.

[totoro]

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality, and certainly not job prospects. It's also why Boalt isn't even assigned a place because it's got an unusual recruiting pattern and doesn't have a clear peer.

ALL of this shit was created by 21-23 year old aspies on princeton review web forums.

YHS isn't even a full thing. It's clearly better but not game-changing for most things. It's game changing for clerkships and academia, but outside of that, it's not all that different. Columbia and Harvard's ability to place into big law isn't substantially different.

CCN is less of a real distinction but there is a pattern here that makes it somewhat useful. NYC V20 take CCN students in large numbers year after year. If you want V5, V10 or even V20 in NYC, these schools are clearly better. These firms often have pretty stringent requirements for non T6, T14. There is also some self selection going on. A Chicago bro will take Jenner block over Debevoise, which might make NU and Michigan look worse in terms of vault rankings. But I think a real advantage at top firms exists for CCN.

But once you get outside these schools top third of the class, they aren't really better off than the rest of the T14. Do you think a Texas firm is going to say, fuck this Michigan grad with A- grades, I've got a U of C grad with A-/B+ grades? No.

So the CCN tier doesn't really make a huge difference in whether you get big law or not. It might increase your chances of V5 or V10 but when you are scarping the bottom of the NLJ350, it's not a benefit. How much value you'd wanna place on going to Debevoise over Jenner Block.

As for T10, it doesn't exist. Firms--outside of hometown favorites--don't really distinguish between lower T14 IN THE AGGREGATE. Some firms think NU is TTT, some firms don't recruit at Duke, and some firms love Michigan, but it all cancels out.

This is funny coming from me (since I pushed for t13 for the lulz for so long), but Georgetown is probably, at most, a half step behind other t14. A lot of their placement gap is due to weird DC jobs, DC market just being hard as fuck to get, and part time program. But, the size of the school definitely hurts their placement.

Not to be devils advocate or anything, but I've been genuinely wondering about this. I can see why most firms would view the T14 schools as the same (i.e. have very similar grade cutoffs for OCI) so there's not much of a difference if you're just aiming for the usual biglaw firm. But doesn't there have to be some -other- substantial difference among the T14's (more famous faculty, better LRAP's, better funding, better non-law placement, greater prestige reach, etc), in order for them to generate and retain different acceptance patterns in the first place? I'm thinking there must be some substance behind it if a) the acceptance patterns stay the same year after year, and b), Columbia's 172 LSAT average is a lot higher bar than Mich's 169 average (for instance). I am a little skeptical that Columbia's only advantage over Michigan is because it's physically located in New York and therefore has better access to V20 firms.

[jbagelboy]

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality, and certainly not job prospects. It's also why Boalt isn't even assigned a place because it's got an unusual recruiting pattern and doesn't have a clear peer.

ALL of this shit was created by 21-23 year old aspies on princeton review web forums.

YHS isn't even a full thing. It's clearly better but not game-changing for most things. It's game changing for clerkships and academia, but outside of that, it's not all that different. Columbia and Harvard's ability to place into big law isn't substantially different.

CCN is less of a real distinction but there is a pattern here that makes it somewhat useful. NYC V20 take CCN students in large numbers year after year. If you want V5, V10 or even V20 in NYC, these schools are clearly better. These firms often have pretty stringent requirements for non T6, T14. There is also some self selection going on. A Chicago bro will take Jenner block over Debevoise, which might make NU and Michigan look worse in terms of vault rankings. But I think a real advantage at top firms exists for CCN.

But once you get outside these schools top third of the class, they aren't really better off than the rest of the T14. Do you think a Texas firm is going to say, fuck this Michigan grad with A- grades, I've got a U of C grad with A-/B+ grades? No.

So the CCN tier doesn't really make a huge difference in whether you get big law or not. It might increase your chances of V5 or V10 but when you are scarping the bottom of the NLJ350, it's not a benefit. How much value you'd wanna place on going to Debevoise over Jenner Block.

As for T10, it doesn't exist. Firms--outside of hometown favorites--don't really distinguish between lower T14 IN THE AGGREGATE. Some firms think NU is TTT, some firms don't recruit at Duke, and some firms love Michigan, but it all cancels out.

This is funny coming from me (since I pushed for t13 for the lulz for so long), but Georgetown is probably, at most, a half step behind other t14. A lot of their placement gap is due to weird DC jobs, DC market just being hard as fuck to get, and part time program. But, the size of the school definitely hurts their placement.

Not to be devils advocate or anything, but I've been genuinely wondering about this. I can see why most firms would view the T14 schools as the same (i.e. have very similar grade cutoffs for OCI). But doesn't there have to be *some* substantial difference among the T14's (more famous faculty, better LRAP's, better funding, better non-law placement, greater prestige reach, etc), in order for them to generate and retain different acceptance patterns in the first place? I'm thinking there must be some substance behind it if a) the acceptance patterns stay the same year after year, and b), Columbia's 172 LSAT average is a lot higher bar than Mich's 169 average (for instance). I am a little skeptical that Columbia's only advantage over Michigan is because it's physically located in New York and therefore has better access to V20 firms.

that's not what DF is saying. As for the bolded, Columbia being in NYC as its "only" advantage was never stated or implied in DF's post (unless I'm misreading?). Moreover, this statement just reinforces the "tiers" as indicative of admission standards (comparing 172 and 169 LSAT, which is really only a 4-5 question difference on one test, btw). Since USNWR gives such a heavy weight to LSAT/GPA in their metric, the result is this "CCN" jargon.

[JamesDean1955]

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality, and certainly not job prospects. It's also why Boalt isn't even assigned a place because it's got an unusual recruiting pattern and doesn't have a clear peer.

ALL of this shit was created by 21-23 year old aspies on princeton review web forums.

YHS isn't even a full thing. It's clearly better but not game-changing for most things. It's game changing for clerkships and academia, but outside of that, it's not all that different. Columbia and Harvard's ability to place into big law isn't substantially different.

CCN is less of a real distinction but there is a pattern here that makes it somewhat useful. NYC V20 take CCN students in large numbers year after year. If you want V5, V10 or even V20 in NYC, these schools are clearly better. These firms often have pretty stringent requirements for non T6, T14. There is also some self selection going on. A Chicago bro will take Jenner block over Debevoise, which might make NU and Michigan look worse in terms of vault rankings. But I think a real advantage at top firms exists for CCN.

But once you get outside these schools top third of the class, they aren't really better off than the rest of the T14. Do you think a Texas firm is going to say, fuck this Michigan grad with A- grades, I've got a U of C grad with A-/B+ grades? No.

So the CCN tier doesn't really make a huge difference in whether you get big law or not. It might increase your chances of V5 or V10 but when you are scarping the bottom of the NLJ350, it's not a benefit. How much value you'd wanna place on going to Debevoise over Jenner Block.

As for T10, it doesn't exist. Firms--outside of hometown favorites--don't really distinguish between lower T14 IN THE AGGREGATE. Some firms think NU is TTT, some firms don't recruit at Duke, and some firms love Michigan, but it all cancels out.

This is funny coming from me (since I pushed for t13 for the lulz for so long), but Georgetown is probably, at most, a half step behind other t14. A lot of their placement gap is due to weird DC jobs, DC market just being hard as fuck to get, and part time program. But, the size of the school definitely hurts their placement.

Not to be devils advocate or anything, but I've been genuinely wondering about this. I can see why most firms would view the T14 schools as the same (i.e. have very similar grade cutoffs for OCI). But doesn't there have to be *some* substantial difference among the T14's (more famous faculty, better LRAP's, better funding, better non-law placement, greater prestige reach, etc), in order for them to generate and retain different acceptance patterns in the first place? I'm thinking there must be some substance behind it if a) the acceptance patterns stay the same year after year, and b), Columbia's 172 LSAT average is a lot higher bar than Mich's 169 average (for instance). I am a little skeptical that Columbia's only advantage over Michigan is because it's physically located in New York and therefore has better access to V20 firms.

I'm not you read his post correctly, because nothing he says contradicts what you're saying. Also regarding the bolded, why is that so hard to believe? It's the above, and the fact that 0Ls from the NE attribute a sort of magical prestige to CLS.

[09042014]

Nice post DF. Sick of all the bullshit hype about these tiers. I agree with everything you said, minus the GT stuff. It doesn't matter why; GT is clearly lagging multiple steps behind other T14s in placement. Not to say it's a bad school, but if we're talking numbers, it's not in the same league.

Numbers don't tell the whole story. If median Penn kids applied to DC by the dozens, they'd all strike out too.

[totoro]

that's not what DF is saying. As for the bolded, Columbia being in NYC as its "only" advantage was never stated or implied in DF's post (unless I'm misreading?). Moreover, this statement just reinforces the "tiers" as indicative of admission standards (comparing 172 and 169 LSAT, which is really only a 4-5 question difference on one test, btw). Since USNWR gives such a heavy weight to LSAT/GPA in their metric, the result is this "CCN" jargon.

Well DF is saying that Columbia is really different only for very prestigious biglaw firms in New York. (I'm assuming it's because of location since DF says there's no difference in quality).

And I'm saying doesn't there have to be some other advantage for Columbia to retain a much higher admission standard than say Cornell/GULC/Mich? I know it's only a 4-5 question difference, but still, if GULC just decided next year, "we want to have a 172 LSAT average this year," they probably couldn't do it.

[jbagelboy]

I'm not you read his post correctly, because nothing he says contradicts what you're saying. Also regarding the bolded, why is that so hard to believe? It's the above, and the fact that 0Ls from the NE attribute a sort of magical prestige to CLS.

Same logic as you, see my post above.

However, isn't this a little ironic considering your stated goal was CLS as well? haha. Columbia, Penn, and UChicago as universities are undeniably a little more prominent/prestigious (per http://www.topuniversities.com/universi ... kings/2012, for example). Also Columbia College for UG is incredibly competitive, I think it had the second lowest acceptance % after Harvard last year, which adds to the appeal.

edit: although obviously the above has zero relevance to law school.

[JamesDean1955]

Nice post DF. Sick of all the bullshit hype about these tiers. I agree with everything you said, minus the GT stuff. It doesn't matter why; GT is clearly lagging multiple steps behind other T14s in placement. Not to say it's a bad school, but if we're talking numbers, it's not in the same league.

Numbers don't tell the whole story. If median Penn kids applied to DC by the dozens, they'd all strike out too.

Yeah, I see your point. Michigan students claim the same thing w/r/t their poor placement. Now, this is an 0L question here, bc I don't know enough about OCI, but someone explain this to me:

Why aren't GT and Michigan students bidding on NYC as a fallback? AFAIK students have something like ~60 bids. From what I've seen on the OCI forums, tons of students don't even know what the hell to do with all these bids and end up using their last 20 or 30 just bidding the Vault rankings (many of which will be in NYC).

So, if a GT student strikes out in DC, and a Michigan grad strikes out in Chicago, why the hell can't they accept a gig with a NYC firm and avoid not having a job?

Someone please explain this.

[JamesDean1955]

I'm not you read his post correctly, because nothing he says contradicts what you're saying. Also regarding the bolded, why is that so hard to believe? It's the above, and the fact that 0Ls from the NE attribute a sort of magical prestige to CLS.

Same logic as you, see my post above.

However, isn't this a little ironic considering your stated goal was CLS as well? haha. Columbia, Penn, and UChicago as universities are undeniably a little more prominent/prestigious (per http://www.topuniversities.com/universi ... kings/2012, for example). Also Columbia College for UG is incredibly competitive, I think it had the second lowest acceptance % after Harvard last year, which adds to the appeal.

edit: although obviously the above has zero relevance to law school.

Yes, and I ED'd to CLS at the beginning of the cycle. I thank god I was not accepted, because knowing what I know now there is no way in hell I'd pay sticker at CLS. I was naive back then. TLS helped me with that. Nevertheless, I am amazed by the number of TLSers still willing to pay sticker...

ETA: Which is not to say that CLS is not still my first choice and I am not a little awed at the CLS prestige (still dumb I know). But I sure as hell will need a different aid package than before.

[totoro]

I'm not you read his post correctly, because nothing he says contradicts what you're saying. Also regarding the bolded, why is that so hard to believe? It's the above, and the fact that 0Ls from the NE attribute a sort of magical prestige to CLS.

Well I was really taking issue with this part here:

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality

Because in order to have statistically different acceptance standards, year after year, there must be some standard in quality that allows i.e. Columbia to attract students that lower T14 schools cannot. And I just find it hard to believe that the only difference is in the super prestigious biglaw firms.

[JamesDean1955]

I'm not you read his post correctly, because nothing he says contradicts what you're saying. Also regarding the bolded, why is that so hard to believe? It's the above, and the fact that 0Ls from the NE attribute a sort of magical prestige to CLS.

Well I was really taking issue with this part here:

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality

Because in order to have statistically different acceptance standards, year after year, there must be some standard in quality that allows i.e. Columbia to attract students that lower T14 schools cannot. And I just find it hard to believe that the only difference is in the super prestigious biglaw firms.

I think that's your faulty assumption. There are people who love NYC, are prestige whores, and despite being on TLS and reading ATL and LST will still place CLS in a class above the others. It's perception driven. Kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy. IMO, anyways.

[09042014]

Nice post DF. Sick of all the bullshit hype about these tiers. I agree with everything you said, minus the GT stuff. It doesn't matter why; GT is clearly lagging multiple steps behind other T14s in placement. Not to say it's a bad school, but if we're talking numbers, it's not in the same league.

Numbers don't tell the whole story. If median Penn kids applied to DC by the dozens, they'd all strike out too.

Yeah, I see your point. Michigan students claim the same thing w/r/t their poor placement. Now, this is an 0L question here, bc I don't know enough about OCI, but someone explain this to me:

Why aren't GT and Michigan students bidding on NYC as a fallback? AFAIK students have something like ~60 bids. From what I've seen on the OCI forums, tons of students don't even know what the hell to do with all these bids and end up using their last 20 or 30 just bidding the Vault rankings (many of which will be in NYC).

So, if a GT student strikes out in DC, and a Michigan grad strikes out in Chicago, why the hell can't they accept a gig with a NYC firm and avoid not having a job?

Someone please explain this.

1) Many are doing it, but NYC firms are somewhat catching on, and will grill lifelong Chicago residents about ties. A firm literally asked me if I've ever even been to NYC (but they were right, I hadn't). NYC is still pretty loose about ties, but they know they are backups now.

2) You might get 50 or 60 bids, but only the first 15 really count. You can't effectively bid two major markets. You gotta choose. You can't bid Chicago then just take NYC big law after, it doesn't work that way.

3) If career services told them all to big NYC, they'd all just swap that years OCI and nobody would get interviewers. Michigan tried with in 2011 with Chicago (which it thought was an easy market) and it was disastrous.

4) But most people aren't that up on OCI strategy or would rather risk it. Would you give up your hometown for a nebulous 20% better chance at big law. Especially since there aren't clear cut lines where you can no longer get DC or Chicago big law. Your chances just lower as your grades lower.

[jbagelboy]

Nice post DF. Sick of all the bullshit hype about these tiers. I agree with everything you said, minus the GT stuff. It doesn't matter why; GT is clearly lagging multiple steps behind other T14s in placement. Not to say it's a bad school, but if we're talking numbers, it's not in the same league.

Numbers don't tell the whole story. If median Penn kids applied to DC by the dozens, they'd all strike out too.

Yeah, I see your point. Michigan students claim the same thing w/r/t their poor placement. Now, this is an 0L question here, bc I don't know enough about OCI, but someone explain this to me:

Why aren't GT and Michigan students bidding on NYC as a fallback? AFAIK students have something like ~60 bids. From what I've seen on the OCI forums, tons of students don't even know what the hell to do with all these bids and end up using their last 20 or 30 just bidding the Vault rankings (many of which will be in NYC).

So, if a GT student strikes out in DC, and a Michigan grad strikes out in Chicago, why the hell can't they accept a gig with a NYC firm and avoid not having a job?

Someone please explain this.

1) Many are doing it, but NYC firms are somewhat catching on, and will grill lifelong Chicago residents about ties. A firm literally asked me if I've ever even been to NYC (but they were right, I hadn't). NYC is still pretty loose about ties, but they know they are backups now.

2) You might get 50 or 60 bids, but only the first 15 really count. You can't effectively bid two major markets. You gotta choose. You can't bid Chicago then just take NYC big law after, it doesn't work that way.

3) If career services told them all to big NYC, they'd all just swap that years OCI and nobody would get interviewers. Michigan tried with in 2011 with Chicago (which it thought was an easy market) and it was disastrous.

4) But most people aren't that up on OCI strategy or would rather risk it. Would you give up your hometown for a nebulous 20% better chance at big law. Especially since there aren't clear cut lines where you can no longer get DC or Chicago big law. Your chances just lower as your grades lower.

I know a lot of IP kids from CLS successfully bidding in SF, the valley & NYC regularly. I'm assuming this is some sort of caveat?

[09042014]

I'm not you read his post correctly, because nothing he says contradicts what you're saying. Also regarding the bolded, why is that so hard to believe? It's the above, and the fact that 0Ls from the NE attribute a sort of magical prestige to CLS.

Well I was really taking issue with this part here:

HYS CCN MVP DNCG are tiers were created to model the ACCEPTANCE patterns of the schools. Not the quality

Because in order to have statistically different acceptance standards, year after year, there must be some standard in quality that allows i.e. Columbia to attract students that lower T14 schools cannot. And I just find it hard to believe that the only difference is in the super prestigious biglaw firms.

You are wrongly presuming 0Ls have any idea what the fuck is going on with legal hiring. They don't. It's a big feedback loop with US News. US News says U of C is better than Northwestern, so cross admits go to U of C. Which creates better student quality, which keeps their US News ranking higher, which keeps students coming there, etc. etc.

Also in some ways the patterns have changed. Michigan is easier to get into than Duke or Northwestern.

[totoro]

I think that's your faulty assumption. There are people who love NYC, are prestige whores, and despite being on TLS and reading ATL and LST will still place CLS in a class above the others. It's perception driven. Kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy. IMO, anyways.

But you're still not addressing how the differences in acceptance patterns are created in the first place. Not just any T14 school can decide they're going to have a 172 LSAT average this year (and why not if they would rise in rankings?). While there is a lot of overlap in the applicant pool, some schools clearly have their pick of higher applicants. And this has been the case since even before US News began the rankings. So is this really all attributable to the better qualified applicants who believe (faultily) that CLS is better? I'm sure not every person that picks CLS over lower T14 with $$ is aiming for a prestigious V20 either.

[JamesDean1955]

Gotcha DF, very helpful, thanks. I'd like to think that career services would advise students better, but that's wishful thinking. I went to a pretty good undergrad and our CSO sucked terribly.

I'd also like to think that you could make those 15 first bids count by having a wealth of knowledge available to you and selecting a mix of 5 Chicago/5 NYC/ 5 DC firms, all with very big SA classes, are in your grade range, recruit heavily from your school, and have high offer rates. But I guess that's very wishful thinking.

[09042014]

I know a lot of IP kids from CLS successfully bidding in SF, the valley & NYC regularly. I'm assuming this is some sort of caveat?

Kinda

There is a big national IP career fair that lets you get 32 preselect bids. And IP botiques are also super easy to get by bidding. I did 53 screener interviews during 2L OCI because of that. So yea, I bid 3 markets pretty well, and 2 more kinda well.

But the average northwestern student gets maybe 14 interviews. If you try to split that between two cities, you have a hard time hitting a good cross section of firms. You can do it, but it probably hurts your chances overall, it doesn't help.

[jbagelboy]

Gotcha DF, very helpful, thanks. I'd like to think that career services would advise students better, but that's wishful thinking. I went to a pretty good undergrad and our CSO sucked terribly.

I'd also like to think that you could make those 15 first bids count by having a wealth of knowledge available to you and selecting a mix of 5 Chicago/5 NYC/ 5 DC firms, all with very big SA classes, are in your grade range, recruit heavily from your school, and have high offer rates. But I guess that's very wishful thinking.

Lol same. my prelaw adviser told me I should expect to get into Stanford given my UG, internships and WE. Wasn't till I got to TLS that I realized just how flawed that logic was.

[sinfiery]

Not to be devils advocate or anything, but I've been genuinely wondering about this. I can see why most firms would view the T14 schools as the same (i.e. have very similar grade cutoffs for OCI) so there's not much of a difference if you're just aiming for the usual biglaw firm. But doesn't there have to be some -other- substantial difference among the T14's (more famous faculty, better LRAP's, better funding, better non-law placement, greater prestige reach, etc), in order for them to generate and retain different acceptance patterns in the first place? I'm thinking there must be some substance behind it if a) the acceptance patterns stay the same year after year, and b), Columbia's 172 LSAT average is a lot higher bar than Mich's 169 average (for instance). I am a little skeptical that Columbia's only advantage over Michigan is because it's physically located in New York and therefore has better access to V20 firms.

There may be. Depends if having a v5 on your resume actually benefits your lateral options.

As for all the other stuff about quality of teachers and stuff, it isn't something one could differentiate without talking out of their ass. You'll have your experience at your school and can't really compare it to anything.

[09042014]

Gotcha DF, very helpful, thanks. I'd like to think that career services would advise students better, but that's wishful thinking. I went to a pretty good undergrad and our CSO sucked terribly.

I'd also like to think that you could make those 15 first bids count by having a wealth of knowledge available to you and selecting a mix of 5 Chicago/5 NYC/ 5 DC firms, all with very big SA classes, are in your grade range, recruit heavily from your school, and have high offer rates. But I guess that's very wishful thinking.

You could maybe do 10/5. But even then the problem is 1) There really isn't such a thing as a safety firm, especially if you don't have great grades. and 2) The less selective big firms go high in bidding because they are less selective. Cadwalader will fill up before DPW.

Part of the problem for career services, is that strategies that will work for individuals, fall apart if the CSO tells everyone to do it.

[jbagelboy]

Not to be devils advocate or anything, but I've been genuinely wondering about this. I can see why most firms would view the T14 schools as the same (i.e. have very similar grade cutoffs for OCI) so there's not much of a difference if you're just aiming for the usual biglaw firm. But doesn't there have to be some -other- substantial difference among the T14's (more famous faculty, better LRAP's, better funding, better non-law placement, greater prestige reach, etc), in order for them to generate and retain different acceptance patterns in the first place? I'm thinking there must be some substance behind it if a) the acceptance patterns stay the same year after year, and b), Columbia's 172 LSAT average is a lot higher bar than Mich's 169 average (for instance). I am a little skeptical that Columbia's only advantage over Michigan is because it's physically located in New York and therefore has better access to V20 firms.

There may be. Depends if having a v5 on your resume actually benefits your lateral options.

As for all the other stuff about quality of teachers and stuff, it isn't something one could differentiate without talking out of their ass. You'll have your experience at your school and can't really compare it to anything.

no way, bruh. Cooley's library is clearly superior. Much higher quality profs & student experience as a result, they come to that chair space in droves

[09042014]

Not to be devils advocate or anything, but I've been genuinely wondering about this. I can see why most firms would view the T14 schools as the same (i.e. have very similar grade cutoffs for OCI) so there's not much of a difference if you're just aiming for the usual biglaw firm. But doesn't there have to be some -other- substantial difference among the T14's (more famous faculty, better LRAP's, better funding, better non-law placement, greater prestige reach, etc), in order for them to generate and retain different acceptance patterns in the first place? I'm thinking there must be some substance behind it if a) the acceptance patterns stay the same year after year, and b), Columbia's 172 LSAT average is a lot higher bar than Mich's 169 average (for instance). I am a little skeptical that Columbia's only advantage over Michigan is because it's physically located in New York and therefore has better access to V20 firms.

There may be. Depends if having a v5 on your resume actually benefits your lateral options.

As for all the other stuff about quality of teachers and stuff, it isn't something one could differentiate without talking out of their ass. You'll have your experience at your school and can't really compare it to anything.

If you want NYC (and especially corporate work) there is real, significant value at CCN over T14. Better deals, better clients, etc etc. How much you want to value that is up to you.