Top Law Schools

I am fortunate enough and humbled to be accepted to both, but I am having a hard time deciding between the two schools. My goal for right now is to do some kind of corporate law, perhaps delving into litigation more specifically. Though I plan on visiting each school as well as waiting for the financial aid letters to help me narrow which law school I'd like to go, I was hoping for some feedback on which school would be a better choice for Corporate Law.

Thank you for all your help.

PS. I don't care where I practice so long as I can get a job that I enjoy. NYC or South Florida would be my ideal, but again, I'll move where I need to so long as I can get the job I like

You should set up a poll. Also where do you think you want to practice?

I don't care where I practice so long as I can get a job that I enjoy. NYC or South Florida would be my ideal, but again, I'll move where I need to so long as I can get the job I like.

Duke FTW (W here is interchangeable with "weather")

Seriously though, Duke I think is at least on par with Cornell in NYC, and although I don't really consider south florida the "South," I would certainly bet the Duke degree plays a little better there as well. If money is the same, Duke is the obvious choice.

After the university and it's professors sold out it's students during the lax scandal a few years ago, I don't think I could go to law school at any university with such a disregard for due process. I didn't even apply to Duke, in large part, for this reason.

Also, IMHO albeit a biased one as a Cornell undergrad, Ithaca > Durham.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:After the university and it's professors sold out it's students during the lax scandal a few years ago, I don't think I could go to law school at any university with such a disregard for due process. I didn't even apply to Duke, in large part, for this reason.

Also, IMHO albeit a biased one as a Cornell undergrad, Ithaca > Durham.

I believe that if you're charged with a felony (especially violent such as rape), most if not all schools will kick you out until it's settled. Think about it: If they actually had done it, would you have felt better knowing your school allowed rapists to stay in class with you until finally proven guilty months later? Stupid reasoning, especially when considering where to go to law school.

DukeHopeful wrote:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:After the university and it's professors sold out it's students during the lax scandal a few years ago, I don't think I could go to law school at any university with such a disregard for due process. I didn't even apply to Duke, in large part, for this reason.

Also, IMHO albeit a biased one as a Cornell undergrad, Ithaca > Durham.

I believe that if you're charged with a felony (especially violent such as rape), most if not all schools will kick you out until it's settled. Think about it: If they actually had done it, would you have felt better knowing your school allowed rapists to stay in class with you until finally proven guilty months later? Stupid reasoning, especially when considering where to go to law school.

I expect some modicum of due process to be followed. Especially when the accusations are as serious as rape.

Edit: PS It comes down to that whole presumption of innocence thing that founds much of our legal system and our free society. Imagine if all you had to do to get someone you don't like kicked out of school was to accuse them of a crime!

blah blah blah employers are rapists themselves, go with duke

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

DukeHopeful wrote:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:After the university and it's professors sold out it's students during the lax scandal a few years ago, I don't think I could go to law school at any university with such a disregard for due process. I didn't even apply to Duke, in large part, for this reason.

Also, IMHO albeit a biased one as a Cornell undergrad, Ithaca > Durham.

I believe that if you're charged with a felony (especially violent such as rape), most if not all schools will kick you out until it's settled. Think about it: If they actually had done it, would you have felt better knowing your school allowed rapists to stay in class with you until finally proven guilty months later? Stupid reasoning, especially when considering where to go to law school.

I expect some modicum of due process to be followed. Especially when the accusations are as serious as rape.

Are you talking about personal reactions by professors, or the university's decision to kick them out? I don't think the school had a choice in kicking them out, it's probably stipulated somewhere in the school's policies.

The DA is the one who really screwed up the whole situation. Everyone else (the players, the coach, the team itself, the university) suffered as a result of an overzealous DA with political ambitions. It was his statements that painted a picture of a sure conviction and a horrible crime, and many of the reactions were based on his information which proved to be wrong. I don't think blaming the school for the fiasco is that reasonable.

Edit to give credit for a good laugh in the above post.

DukeHopeful wrote: Are you talking about personal reactions by professors, or the university's decision to kick them out?

I'm talking about both the university's presumption of guilt and the professors who supported it.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

DukeHopeful wrote: Are you talking about personal reactions by professors, or the university's decision to kick them out?

I'm talking about both the university's presumption of guilt and the professors who supported it.

Again, I think that the blame for that lies primarily on the DA's office, where information came from. Also, the fact that the accuser was all over the media didn't help. But really, I don't think the reaction would have been much different no matter where it happened. People generally are not very supportive of (accused) rapists.

DukeHopeful wrote:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

DukeHopeful wrote: Are you talking about personal reactions by professors, or the university's decision to kick them out?

I'm talking about both the university's presumption of guilt and the professors who supported it.

Again, I think that the blame for that lies primarily on the DA's office, where information came from. Also, the fact that the accuser was all over the media didn't help. But really, I don't think the reaction would have been much different no matter where it happened. People generally are not very supportive of (accused) rapists.

I don't deny that the DA royally screwed up and that much of this would have been avoided had he not. But the university shouldn't have just taken his word for things when imposing its own sanctions. The fact that 88 professors signed a statement condemning the accused before any sort of due process took place, and that not a single member of the faculty spoke out against such premature judgement, reflects, IMHO, a deplorable culture/mentality within the faculty of the university.

Edit: Apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread.

Actually the professors at Duke shamed themselves by coming out against those kids far beyond what was required by the school. It was basically a chance for academics to show how progressive they are by kicking privileged white kids to the curb (funny thing is most of those professors were once privileged white kids themselves!) It was a horrific example of reverse racism all around, and I agree that it stained the entire school.

Cornell ranks second only to Columbia in NYC placement. Duke did disgrace itself in the way it handled the LAX players. I will quote from the book " Until Proven Innocent".

"Until Proven Innocent excoriates those who led the stampede - the prosecutor,the cops, the media - but it also exposes the cowardice of Duke's administration and faculty. Until Proven Innocent smothers any lingering doubts that in this country the presumption of innocence is dead,dead,dead."
- John Grisham

Duke never expected these LAX players to have the resources to fight back.
Thank god they did. And I bet not one apology from the group of 88 so called professors.

NY88 wrote:Cornell ranks second only to Columbia in NYC placement.

Really? Cornell places better in NYC than NYU does?

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

DukeHopeful wrote: Are you talking about personal reactions by professors, or the university's decision to kick them out?

I'm talking about both the university's presumption of guilt and the professors who supported it.

+1.

It was saddening and embarrassing that those boys were thrown to the wolves like that. Their lax careers were irreparably damaged as well as many of their professional prospects by a University that participated in the slandering. Read Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case or It's Not about the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Case and the Lives It Shattered or at least read about them.

I appreciate the input from those who actually responded to my post, though I think it would be more helpful if we stayed on topic.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:After the university and it's professors sold out it's students during the lax scandal a few years ago, I don't think I could go to law school at any university with such a disregard for due process. I didn't even apply to Duke, in large part, for this reason.

My grandfather told me not to go there when I told him I really liked Duke. I completely agree that those on Duke's faculty who smeared those kids' names and have yet to even apologize are the worst kind of liberal hypocrites.

On the other hand, Duke is a private institution not bound by due process. If they wish to kick a student out, they have the right to do so, whether they should or not.

In addition, 80%+ of all academics at all levels of higher education are liberals. I don't know what it is about academia that makes it a hotbed for liberalism, but that seems to be the nature of the game. No matter where I go to law school, I'm going to be confronted with liberal/progressive professors. Just because Duke's (primarily) undergraduate faculty has publicly proven their own personal bigotry doesn't mean that faculties at other schools aren't just as liberal and wouldn't do the same thing if that "scandal" had occurred at their schools.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

NY88 wrote:Cornell ranks second only to Columbia in NYC placement.

Really? Cornell places better in NYC than NYU does?

No, not even close. Not only does NYU rank ahead of it but people seem to forget that this is the primary legal market in America. Most all of the school ahead of it in the rankings also come in ahead of it in any NYC preference discussion. This is especially true of a school like Penn. Cornell is certainly not second.

Duke is pretty strong in NYC. Cornell may send more grads, but that does not signal preference (see: YLS). Any sort of leaning toward the South should make Duke the better choice for the OP. Both are good schools, but all things equal D>C.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 23&t=93259

Yes...Cornell places better than NYU in NYC and blows Duke awayin NYC.

NY88 wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 23&t=93259

Yes...Cornell places better than NYU in NYC and blows Duke awayin NYC.

I suppose it all depends on what you define as placing better. By your metric St. Johns "places" on the same level as Stanford, which means the metric is not all that worthwhile.

Why...because you don't like the numbers? St.Johns is respected in NYC.

As an undergraduate who has been avidly researching law schools, I'd say Duke is the obvious choice given your geographical preference. Duke works in NY, DC, and I would imagine works exceptionally well in the South. Cornell is also great in NY and DC, but I doubt Southern employers see many Cornell grads. If familiarity with law schools works for anything in the hiring process, going to Duke would cover your bases in the South.

As far as aesthetics go, I think Duke for the win. Not only is the architecture fantastic, but the climate is better for longer periods, there are some great restaurants around the campus, and I know first hand that the basketball obsessed culture is an absolute blast during this time of year.

In terms of the most mundane differences, I suppose it comes down to whether you prefer blue, or red. I tend to lean towards blue.

DukeHopeful wrote:Duke FTW (W here is interchangeable with "weather")

Seriously though, Duke I think is at least on par with Cornell in NYC, and although I don't really consider south florida the "South," I would certainly bet the Duke degree plays a little better there as well. If money is the same, Duke is the obvious choice.

I would have said the inverse. Slight nod to Cornell. But yeah, I guess this goes to show that they're pretty comparable. I think Cornell historically turns out more corporate lawyers (or rather sends more people into elite corporate firms), but I don't know how much of that is due to self selection. As far as reputation is concerned, though, Cornell has a more corporate reputation than Duke does. Visit both. The two have very different feels I'm told.

Steven Perry wrote:As an undergraduate who has been avidly researching law schools, I'd say Duke is the obvious choice given your geographical preference. Duke works in NY, DC, and I would imagine works exceptionally well in the South. Cornell is also great in NY and DC, but I doubt Southern employers see many Cornell grads. If familiarity with law schools works for anything in the hiring process, going to Duke would cover your bases in the South.

Not to be a dick at all, but have you been to south florida? I have family down there and a number of friends in the legal profession. I'm not sure that Cornell is better than Duke there, but it's absolutely at least as good. I was surprised too. I think Duke's pull over Cornell is more of a Georgia/NC thing. Perhaps even Texas. It doesn't seem to extend down to Florida though. Just thought that tidbit would be interesting.

Steven Perry wrote:
As far as aesthetics go, I think Duke for the win. Not only is the architecture fantastic, but the climate is better for longer periods, there are some great restaurants around the campus, and I know first hand that the basketball obsessed culture is an absolute blast during this time of year.

Again, you're entitled to your own personal opinion, but Duke FTL. IMHO Cornell's scenic beauty really cannot be beaten. I'll give you the weather point. Cornell has good restaurants, though I couldn't compare them to Duke's (... I've never eaten in Durham). As for basketball, Cornell's pretty into it lately too, though it is still an Ivy team (and thus sports aren't the cultural norm that they are at schools like Duke).