Top Law Schools

Keeping in mind that I am interested in pursuing biglaw,

Is a t14 (not a top ten, i would say top 10-15) worth paying sticker price if you are offered a considerably large amount of money at a t20?

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

I mean, I think it could be worth it...but I would take the $$$. You just have so many less worries and freedom after law school. Lower T14 and T20 prospects aren't really all that different.

I turned down a full ride at WUSTL (20th) to come to UVA (10th) with practically no $ ($10k/yr, doesn't even cover COL).

I've already had opportunities here I wouldn't have had at the T20, and it was the right choice for me. Of course, I have specific ambitions and goals, so YMMV.

Your debt follows you for years, but your degree lasts for the rest of your life.

tough to say without elaborating what the schools are and where you want to practice. any more info would be useful

vanwinkle wrote:
I've already had opportunities here I wouldn't have had at the T20, and it was the right choice for me. Of course, I have specific ambitions and goals, so YMMV.

Your debt follows you for years, but your degree lasts for the rest of your life.

Haha, I think the bolded part is key. You need to know what those ambitions are and weigh the costs accordingly.

I agree with the second statement as well, though for me, its saying something very different than what it means for van.

When you're around that level, you just really need to know what you want, what you might want and what you're willing to give quite well.

itsfine wrote:tough to say without elaborating what the schools are and where you want to practice. any more info would be useful

Exactly.


If it's GULC vs. USC and you want to practice in CA, I don't see how anyone could possible argue for GULC. If it's NU vs. WUSTL and you want a market-paying job in Chicago, then I'd probably go with NU 9 times out of 10. If it's Duke vs Vandy then it would depend on a lot of things.

itsfine wrote:tough to say without elaborating what the schools are and where you want to practice. any more info would be useful

I'm not sure where I want to practice, which is the main problem. The BU is the t20 school I am referring to who gave me a significant amount of money. I'm not crazy about the school. I'm waitlisted at Penn currently and DR at Georgetown (I don't know if I'm in yet but its a possibility). I'm just toying with the idea of the decision. I would go to Penn in a heartbeat, so that's not really an issue. I just don't know if Gtown at sticker (although a great school) would be better than BU with $$$ (even though I'm not so crazy about BU, there are things I like about it more than Gtown). I feel like Georgetown would give me more versatility in employment prospects, but is a t14 that much better than a t20? I feel like it is, but since the rankings are so close, I also feel like it would be a bit irresponsible to pay sticker.

Georgetown got its ASS handed to it in OCI this year. I think the problem is Georgetown is so DC heavy, and isn't regarded with the largest amount of respect in the DC community.

If I have a choice btwn BU with a ton of money and Georgetown with no real preference as to where I want to practice...it would be BU without a doubt.

How about GW with $105,000, vs Georgetown at sticker? Is this an obvious choice?

doopwooper wrote:How about GW with $105,000, vs Georgetown at sticker? Is this an obvious choice?

If Gtown is hurting, imagine what GW must be like right now.

doopwooper wrote:How about GW with $105,000, vs Georgetown at sticker? Is this an obvious choice?

I would vote for GW in this case. Fwiw.

If Gtown is hurting, imagine what GW must be like right now.

all the better reason to take the money. If both schools are hurting, it would be worse to graduate w/ no job+ large amount of debt vs. no job but no debt.

This seems to be the eternal question. In the end, I think it depends if said t20 is in the region you plan to live/work in for much of your life.

Also T20 is a terrible line in the sand. WUSTL, BU, Emory, and Minnesota are not better than UIUC, UNC, Fordham, BC etc etc.

But UT, UCLA and Vandy are considerably better. A T17 in the region you want to practice at full price may be a better move than anything but HYSCCN. And even then CCN and full ride at T17 isn't a clear choice.

Desert Fox wrote:Also T20 is a terrible line in the sand. WUSTL, BU, Emory, and Minnesota are not better than UIUC, UNC, Fordham, BC etc etc.

But UT, UCLA and Vandy are considerably better. A T17 in the region you want to practice at full price may be a better move than anything but HYSCCN. And even then CCN and full ride at T17 isn't a clear choice.

Not really. WUSTL, BU, Minnesota don't really compete with UT/UCLA/Vandy... so how you can say "considerably better" doesn't make any sense. UT/UCLA v. BU/BC in Boston? Thats a no brainer. Vanderbilt v. ND/UIUC for Chicago? Doesn't seem considerably better to me. I never understood this. Regional schools don't compete that often, so how can they be considerably better?

If it is strictly about money and career prospects, I would take BU; I think the opportunities Georgetown would offer do not offset the massive debt you will be carrying along. If you love law but do not think you are going to be happy at BU, then Georgetown is where you should go. Not enjoying your law school experience likely will dampen your love for practicing law.

Meanwhile, pray that Penn works out.

Blindmelon wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Also T20 is a terrible line in the sand. WUSTL, BU, Emory, and Minnesota are not better than UIUC, UNC, Fordham, BC etc etc.

But UT, UCLA and Vandy are considerably better. A T17 in the region you want to practice at full price may be a better move than anything but HYSCCN. And even then CCN and full ride at T17 isn't a clear choice.

Not really. WUSTL, BU, Minnesota don't really compete with UT/UCLA/Vandy... so how you can say "considerably better" doesn't make any sense. UT/UCLA v. BU/BC in Boston? Thats a no brainer. Vanderbilt v. ND/UIUC for Chicago? Doesn't seem considerably better to me. I never understood this. Regional schools don't compete that often, so how can they be considerably better?

I was talking without regard to location. Of course if you want Chicago, UIUC is better than any nont14. If you want Minneapolis, UMN,etc etc.

But in terms of percentage of their class getting good jobs, irrespective of location; UT, Vandy and UCLA are considerably better. And its really only because they don't have a T14 to compete with in their markets.

Desert Fox wrote:Also T20 is a terrible line in the sand. WUSTL, BU, Emory, and Minnesota are not better than UIUC, UNC, Fordham, BC etc etc.

But UT, UCLA and Vandy are considerably better. A T17 in the region you want to practice at full price may be a better move than anything but HYSCCN. And even then CCN and full ride at T17 isn't a clear choice.

I did not draw the line at t20 arbitrarily. I don't want to go to Fordham or BC for reasons other than their rankings. I just asked because right now my biggest considerations are BU or GW with a lot of money from both, but I may have a chance at t14s probably without any money, and I think it is a little difficult to judge if spending close 100,000 more for a school that is only a few spots better ranked (5-10) would be worth it in the end.

The fact that I don't know where I want to be in a few years to practice is making the decision more difficult and making me lean on the higher ranked, which might have better employment prospects out of their region.

Desert Fox wrote:

Blindmelon wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Also T20 is a terrible line in the sand. WUSTL, BU, Emory, and Minnesota are not better than UIUC, UNC, Fordham, BC etc etc.

But UT, UCLA and Vandy are considerably better. A T17 in the region you want to practice at full price may be a better move than anything but HYSCCN. And even then CCN and full ride at T17 isn't a clear choice.

Not really. WUSTL, BU, Minnesota don't really compete with UT/UCLA/Vandy... so how you can say "considerably better" doesn't make any sense. UT/UCLA v. BU/BC in Boston? Thats a no brainer. Vanderbilt v. ND/UIUC for Chicago? Doesn't seem considerably better to me. I never understood this. Regional schools don't compete that often, so how can they be considerably better?

I was talking without regard to location. Of course if you want Chicago, UIUC is better than any nont14. If you want Minneapolis, UMN,etc etc.

But in terms of percentage of their class getting good jobs, irrespective of location; UT, Vandy and UCLA are considerably better. And its really only because they don't have a T14 to compete with in their markets.

What market are you considering Vandy as? Nashville only? I think a lot of people would argue their market is the entire southeastern region.

TheBigMediocre wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Blindmelon wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Also T20 is a terrible line in the sand. WUSTL, BU, Emory, and Minnesota are not better than UIUC, UNC, Fordham, BC etc etc.

But UT, UCLA and Vandy are considerably better. A T17 in the region you want to practice at full price may be a better move than anything but HYSCCN. And even then CCN and full ride at T17 isn't a clear choice.

Not really. WUSTL, BU, Minnesota don't really compete with UT/UCLA/Vandy... so how you can say "considerably better" doesn't make any sense. UT/UCLA v. BU/BC in Boston? Thats a no brainer. Vanderbilt v. ND/UIUC for Chicago? Doesn't seem considerably better to me. I never understood this. Regional schools don't compete that often, so how can they be considerably better?

I was talking without regard to location. Of course if you want Chicago, UIUC is better than any nont14. If you want Minneapolis, UMN,etc etc.

But in terms of percentage of their class getting good jobs, irrespective of location; UT, Vandy and UCLA are considerably better. And its really only because they don't have a T14 to compete with in their markets.

What market are you considering Vandy as? Nashville only? I think a lot of people would argue their market is the entire southeastern region.

+1 If Vandy is a regional school, that region includes about 25% of the United States.

holydonkey wrote:

TheBigMediocre wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Blindmelon wrote:
But UT, UCLA and Vandy are considerably better. A T17 in the region you want to practice at full price may be a better move than anything but HYSCCN. And even then CCN and full ride at T17 isn't a clear choice.

Not really. WUSTL, BU, Minnesota don't really compete with UT/UCLA/Vandy... so how you can say "considerably better" doesn't make any sense. UT/UCLA v. BU/BC in Boston? Thats a no brainer. Vanderbilt v. ND/UIUC for Chicago? Doesn't seem considerably better to me. I never understood this. Regional schools don't compete that often, so how can they be considerably better?

I was talking without regard to location. Of course if you want Chicago, UIUC is better than any nont14. If you want Minneapolis, UMN,etc etc.

But in terms of percentage of their class getting good jobs, irrespective of location; UT, Vandy and UCLA are considerably better. And its really only because they don't have a T14 to compete with in their markets.

What market are you considering Vandy as? Nashville only? I think a lot of people would argue their market is the entire southeastern region.

+1 If Vandy is a regional school, that region includes about 25% of the United States.[/quote]

25% of the US that has no large legal markets.

TheBigMediocre wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Blindmelon wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Also T20 is a terrible line in the sand. WUSTL, BU, Emory, and Minnesota are not better than UIUC, UNC, Fordham, BC etc etc.

But UT, UCLA and Vandy are considerably better. A T17 in the region you want to practice at full price may be a better move than anything but HYSCCN. And even then CCN and full ride at T17 isn't a clear choice.

Not really. WUSTL, BU, Minnesota don't really compete with UT/UCLA/Vandy... so how you can say "considerably better" doesn't make any sense. UT/UCLA v. BU/BC in Boston? Thats a no brainer. Vanderbilt v. ND/UIUC for Chicago? Doesn't seem considerably better to me. I never understood this. Regional schools don't compete that often, so how can they be considerably better?

I was talking without regard to location. Of course if you want Chicago, UIUC is better than any nont14. If you want Minneapolis, UMN,etc etc.

But in terms of percentage of their class getting good jobs, irrespective of location; UT, Vandy and UCLA are considerably better. And its really only because they don't have a T14 to compete with in their markets.

What market are you considering Vandy as? Nashville only? I think a lot of people would argue their market is the entire southeastern region.

I would too, but the entire southeastern region is probably comparable to Texas and LA in terms of legal hiring.

Does UT really place that well outside of its region?

camstant wrote:Does UT really place that well outside of its region?

No. But very top of the class is nationally mobile. But Texas is a large market.

Desert Fox wrote:

holydonkey wrote:
+1 If Vandy is a regional school, that region includes about 25% of the United States.

25% of the US that has no large legal markets.

Class of 2009 Employment at Graduation by Geography
Northeast 26.6%
West/Southwest 14.4%
South 43.0%
International 2.7%
Midwest 13.3%

It sucks that the 40% of Vandy's class that work in the Northeast and West have no access to large legal markets.