Top Law Schools

Big law, NYC, maybe academia afterwards. Vote away!

Unless you have any particular reason for wanting to go to MI, Chicago at sticker is TCR.

probably Chicago for NYC
definitely Chicago for academia

Man, is it really this neck to neck? What considerations would put one over another?

I've no interest in football, heavy drinking, or anything to do with small towns. Does that help?

I personally think you´re crazy to consider paying an additional $45,000 for chicago. That´s like a new Lexus. Michigan is still an elite school and I believe that NYC is its number one market.

lawschooliseasy wrote:I personally think you´re crazy to consider paying an additional $45,000 for chicago. That´s like a new Lexus. Michigan is still an elite school and I believe that NYC is its number one market.

Tryingtodecide123 wrote: I've no interest in football, heavy drinking, or anything to do with small towns. Does that help?

Tryingtodecide123 wrote:maybe academia afterwards.

Chicago, obviously...

lawschooliseasy wrote:Michigan is still an elite school

That doesn't mean there's no difference in eliteness between Chicago and Michigan.

and I believe that NYC is its number one market.

So what? NYC is Cornell's and Fordham's number one market as well.

im_blue wrote:

lawschooliseasy wrote:Michigan is still an elite school

That doesn't mean there's no difference in eliteness between Chicago and Michigan.

and I believe that NYC is its number one market.

So what? NYC is Cornell's and Fordham's number one market as well.

Lawschooliseasy's post is a good example of why only 1+Ls should be allowed to give advice in the Choosing a Law School forum.

lawschooliseasy wrote:I personally think you´re crazy to consider paying an additional $45,000 for chicago. That´s like a new Lexus. Michigan is still an elite school and I believe that NYC is its number one market.

+1. A lot of the people in this thread are idiots.

If you're going BigLaw then you're going to have to repay every dollar you borrow yourself. Michigan and Chicago are going to be very close in terms of BigLaw options, and the student bodies aren't so different that you'd rank substantially differently at one over the other, so the only real differentiating factors are 1) location and 2) the $45K.

So unless Chicago is really where you want to be, take the cheaper option. I'd also recommend against choosing any school on the basis of "maybe academia afterwards". You're not even sure you wanna do it, and you sure don't want to do it right out of law school, so why let that affect your decision? Michigan grads do still end up teaching, after you've been out in the real world for a while that's going to depend more on your resume and accomplishments than your degree (at least between those two institutions, anyway).

vanwinkle wrote: If you're going BigLaw then you're going to have to repay every dollar you borrow yourself. Michigan and Chicago are going to be very close in terms of BigLaw options, and the student bodies aren't so different that you'd rank substantially differently at one over the other, so the only real differentiating factors are 1) location and 2) the $45K.

It all seems so easy when you understate the difference between Chicago and Michigan and overstate the significance of $45,000.

vanwinkle wrote:

lawschooliseasy wrote:I personally think you´re crazy to consider paying an additional $45,000 for chicago. That´s like a new Lexus. Michigan is still an elite school and I believe that NYC is its number one market.

+1. A lot of the people in this thread are idiots.

If you're going BigLaw then you're going to have to repay every dollar you borrow yourself. Michigan and Chicago are going to be very close in terms of BigLaw options, and the student bodies aren't so different that you'd rank substantially differently at one over the other, so the only real differentiating factors are 1) location and 2) the $45K.

So unless Chicago is really where you want to be, take the cheaper option. I'd also recommend against choosing any school on the basis of "maybe academia afterwards". You're not even sure you wanna do it, and you sure don't want to do it right out of law school, so why let that affect your decision? Michigan grads do still end up teaching, after you've been out in the real world for a while that's going to depend more on your resume and accomplishments than your degree (at least between those two institutions, anyway).

I agree that money is important, the question is how much is enough. at 45k, I think it is a close call for most people.

I do think, from person to person, it is wrong to assume that the WON'T reap the benefits that Chicago offers over other schools, specifically top clerkships, a couple extremely selective firms, and academia. Some people certainly choose Chicago over Michigan and end up being the ones who repeat those placements every year. Maybe not the majority of people, but a decent number. For the rest, it seems like the receive the same education as those over-acheivers, so there is some intrinsic benefit to choosing a school like chicago, and most people on this board cite the quality of Chicago's education as one of the reasons they made that decision even without having landed the most elite jobs.

I do think the "lexus" comment actually puts light on this question. If all you are going to do is buy a fancier car with the extra money, I, personally, would rather spend it on my last (hopefully) three years of college. That car won't mean nearly as much to me as spending the rest of my life knowing I didn't short myself in my most important educational experience.

ETA: More money might change that though. Its just a matter of how much is enough to outweigh that reservation.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... o+Michigan

Voila! 48 pages of Chicago v. Michigan discussion, with some similar considerations thrown in (nothing at Chicago versus 67.5 at Michigan, possible academic ambitions), with much higher quality information than the typical drivel you're likely to encounter. HTH

vanwinkle wrote:

lawschooliseasy wrote:I personally think you´re crazy to consider paying an additional $45,000 for chicago. That´s like a new Lexus. Michigan is still an elite school and I believe that NYC is its number one market.

+1. A lot of the people in this thread are idiots.

If you're going BigLaw then you're going to have to repay every dollar you borrow yourself. Michigan and Chicago are going to be very close in terms of BigLaw options, and the student bodies aren't so different that you'd rank substantially differently at one over the other, so the only real differentiating factors are 1) location and 2) the $45K.

So unless Chicago is really where you want to be, take the cheaper option. I'd also recommend against choosing any school on the basis of "maybe academia afterwards". You're not even sure you wanna do it, and you sure don't want to do it right out of law school, so why let that affect your decision? Michigan grads do still end up teaching, after you've been out in the real world for a while that's going to depend more on your resume and accomplishments than your degree (at least between those two institutions, anyway).

I agree that you shouldn't choose Chicago over Michigan w/$$ on the basis of academia if you're only "considering" that route, but I don't think Chicago and Michigan are essentially equals when it comes to BigLaw. Let's not forget that in '08, Chicago placed 68% in NLJ 250 to Michigan's 55%--that seems pretty significant to me. I know you'll probably cite 2009 statistics as a counter, but let's not let one year (especially one that is likely somewhat of an anomaly) stand in the face of years of placement data.

JSUVA2012 wrote:It all seems so easy when you understate the difference between Chicago and Michigan and overstate the significance of $45,000.

Michigan NLJ 250 placement: 51% of graduating class
Michigan NLJ 250 + Fed Clerkship placement: 64.9% of graduating class
Chicago NLJ 250 placement: 53.1% of graduating class
Chicago NLJ 250 + Fed Clerkship placement: 63.1% of graduating class

(Including clerkship placement to show that Chicago's numbers aren't being skewed by a difference in how many Chicago grads choose clerkships instead; in fact it appears that skews slightly in Michigan's direction!)

Sources:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20sc ... page12.pdf

Cost of attending Chicago ((tuition + COL) x 3) = $193,887
Cost of attending Michigan ((tuition + COL) x 3) = $183,600

$183,600 - $45,000 = $138,600
$193,887 - $138,600 = $55,287 in total savings
$55,287/$193,887 = 28% cheaper to go to Michigan

Sources:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/michigan-law-school.html
http://www.top-law-schools.com/chicago-law-school.html

I dunno, if I were aiming at BigLaw and had to face paying my loans back, I'd take a 28% cheaper degree for what looks to be overall equivalent BigLaw placement. The Chicago degree may (and probably is) worth a bit more if you're aiming for the very top firms, which is a more specific desire than just wanting "BigLaw". If OP has his heart set on Wachtell then yes, he should probably consider Chicago a lot more, but he didn't say that.

You're basing that on one year of data. A year of data heavily skewed by, above all else, no-offers.

Look at Vault 100 placement from the boom days:

Chicago with 71.4% in V100, Michigan with 41.3%

Chicago with 67.7% in V50, Michigan with 33.3%

Look at some other years, and you'll see similar.

I will admit that the gap isn't so big when you're looking at NLJ250, which includes a lot more secondary market firms. But we both know the placement gap between Chicago and Michigan is a lot larger than the very misleading numbers you're citing to.

vanwinkle wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:It all seems so easy when you understate the difference between Chicago and Michigan and overstate the significance of $45,000.

Michigan NLJ 250 placement: 51% of graduating class
Michigan NLJ 250 + Fed Clerkship placement: 64.9% of graduating class
Chicago NLJ 250 placement: 53.1% of graduating class
Chicago NLJ 250 + Fed Clerkship placement: 63.1% of graduating class

(Including clerkship placement to show that Chicago's numbers aren't being skewed by a difference in how many Chicago grads choose clerkships instead; in fact it appears that skews slightly in Michigan's direction!)

Sources:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20sc ... page12.pdf

Cost of attending Chicago ((tuition + COL) x 3) = $193,887
Cost of attending Michigan ((tuition + COL) x 3) = $183,600

$183,600 - $45,000 = $138,600
$193,887 - $138,600 = $55,287 in total savings
$55,287/$193,887 = 28% cheaper to go to Michigan

Sources:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/michigan-law-school.html
http://www.top-law-schools.com/chicago-law-school.html

I dunno, if I were aiming at BigLaw and had to face paying my loans back, I'd take a 28% cheaper degree for what looks to be overall equivalent BigLaw placement. The Chicago degree may (and probably is) worth a bit more if you're aiming for the very top firms, which is a more specific desire than just wanting "BigLaw". If OP has his heart set on Wachtell then yes, he should probably consider Chicago a lot more, but he didn't say that.

I'm not knocking the overall quality of your advice, but keep in mind that NLJ 250 encompasses more than BigLaw. Miller Canfield is a member of the NLJ 250 (and had three Michigan grads begin work there in 2009), but it's certainly not Biglaw.

JSUVA2012 wrote:You're basing that on one year of data. A year of data heavily skewed by, above all else, no-offers.

Look at Vault 100 placement from the boom days:

Chicago with 71.4% in V100, Michigan with 41.3%

Chicago with 67.7% in V50, Michigan with 33.3%

Look at some other years, and you'll see similar.

I will admit that the gap isn't so big when you're looking at NLJ250, which includes a lot more secondary market firms. But we both know the placement gap between Chicago and Michigan is a lot larger than the very misleading numbers you're citing to.

TITCR

JSUVA2012 wrote:You're basing that on one year of data. A year of data heavily skewed by, above all else, no-offers.

Look at Vault 100 placement from the boom days:

Chicago with 71.4% in V100, Michigan with 41.3%

Chicago with 67.7% in V50, Michigan with 33.3%

Look at some other years, and you'll see similar.

Those numbers are boggling. I didn't think the gap was that big at the top. Do you have sources for those numbers?

soullesswonder wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:It all seems so easy when you understate the difference between Chicago and Michigan and overstate the significance of $45,000.

Michigan NLJ 250 placement: 51% of graduating class
Michigan NLJ 250 + Fed Clerkship placement: 64.9% of graduating class
Chicago NLJ 250 placement: 53.1% of graduating class
Chicago NLJ 250 + Fed Clerkship placement: 63.1% of graduating class

(Including clerkship placement to show that Chicago's numbers aren't being skewed by a difference in how many Chicago grads choose clerkships instead; in fact it appears that skews slightly in Michigan's direction!)

Sources:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20sc ... page12.pdf

Cost of attending Chicago ((tuition + COL) x 3) = $193,887
Cost of attending Michigan ((tuition + COL) x 3) = $183,600

$183,600 - $45,000 = $138,600
$193,887 - $138,600 = $55,287 in total savings
$55,287/$193,887 = 28% cheaper to go to Michigan

Sources:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/michigan-law-school.html
http://www.top-law-schools.com/chicago-law-school.html

I dunno, if I were aiming at BigLaw and had to face paying my loans back, I'd take a 28% cheaper degree for what looks to be overall equivalent BigLaw placement. The Chicago degree may (and probably is) worth a bit more if you're aiming for the very top firms, which is a more specific desire than just wanting "BigLaw". If OP has his heart set on Wachtell then yes, he should probably consider Chicago a lot more, but he didn't say that.

I'm not knocking the overall quality of your advice, but keep in mind that NLJ 250 encompasses more than BigLaw. Miller Canfield is a member of the NLJ 250 (and had three Michigan grads begin work there in 2009), but it's certainly not Biglaw.

How exactly is Miller Canfield not BigLaw? Is it not the largest firm in Detroit? Do they not pay $100k+?

vanwinkle wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:You're basing that on one year of data. A year of data heavily skewed by, above all else, no-offers.

Look at Vault 100 placement from the boom days:

Chicago with 71.4% in V100, Michigan with 41.3%

Chicago with 67.7% in V50, Michigan with 33.3%

Look at some other years, and you'll see similar.

Those numbers are boggling. I didn't think the gap was that big at the top. Do you have sources for those numbers?

Sorry, forgot to link:

http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html

http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ement.html

I said Chicago, and I think it's a matter of (1) class size (2) firm placement and (3) placement into academia.

Chicago's small class size is always an advantage, but I think it's even more critical in this economy. Being at NYU now, I've thought about how Chicago may have technically been a better decision (as opposed to Columbia, which I don't think is the case). Firm placement is superior at Chicago, and placement into academia is an obvious one. It's HYC for academia in general, and it's generally harder to do it if you don't come from one of those. Maybe some exception for self-selection (Stanford, for instance) but overall those are the go-to schools.

JSUVA2012 wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:You're basing that on one year of data. A year of data heavily skewed by, above all else, no-offers.

Look at Vault 100 placement from the boom days:

Chicago with 71.4% in V100, Michigan with 41.3%

Chicago with 67.7% in V50, Michigan with 33.3%

Look at some other years, and you'll see similar.

Those numbers are boggling. I didn't think the gap was that big at the top. Do you have sources for those numbers?

Sorry, forgot to link:

http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html

http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ement.html

Jesus. At least on that point, I concede.

You have a (more than) decent shot at NYC big law coming out of either of these schools. OP, from what you said about college towns, I think you'd like Chicago better, plus it is great for academia. I don't think the education at Chi is worth $45k more than Mich's, but if you really don't want to be in a college town, you can justify passing up the scholly. Three years of being miserable would not be worth it. However, I've heard Ann Arbor is surprisingly cosmopolitan and one of the better college towns. I'd definitely suggest visiting if you can.

If I had to estimate raw BigLaw potential from either school for class of 2013, it'd be like 50% chance from Michigan vs. 75% chance from Chicago. Rough estimate. But I'd say that's worth a $45,000 outlay.

JSUVA2012 wrote:If I had to estimate raw BigLaw potential from either school for class of 2013, it'd be like 50% chance from Michigan vs. 75% chance from Chicago. Rough estimate. But I'd say that's worth a $45,000 outlay.

Out of curiosity, what would your conjecture look like for the T13?