Top Law Schools

1) Want to work in BigLaw in NYC or D.C.

2) Just want to have the best chance of getting good grades, assuming that I will perform the same no matter where I go.

3) Don't like debt.

Comparing to Michigan:
Cornell has higher tuition.
GULC has lower tuition but higher COL.

Don't mind weather, big-city/small-town ...
Don't mind studying in a competitive environment
Visited all 3 but have no clear preference (I do lean towards one school, for relatively irrelevant reasons)

Michigan and it's not even close.

If your going to do BigLaw I think 30K matters less. I think Michigan outplaces both in NYC BigLaw, but I'd imagine GULC owns DC. Do you really have no living preferences? You are equally happy anywhere, any region, any type of city, any cost of living, and so on? There was no school where you felt like you fit in even marginally better than the others? If you honestly have no preference go to Michigan. It's the highest ranked, offers the best employment options and after COL will be on par to GULC COA. Cornell only makes sense if you loved something particular about the school.

jks289 wrote:If your going to do BigLaw I think 30K matters less. I think Michigan outplaces both in NYC BigLaw, but I'd imagine GULC owns DC. Do you really have no living preferences? You are equally happy anywhere, any region, any type of city, any cost of living, and so on? There was no school where you felt like you fit in even marginally better than the others? If you honestly have no preference go to Michigan. It's the highest ranked, offers the best employment options and after COL will be on par to GULC COA. Cornell only makes sense if you loved something particular about the school.

I do have my personal feelings/preferences regarding location, vibe, campus, etc, but I consider them insignificant in front of my professional career opportunities. I will fit in fine no matter where I go and am sure that I will get use to, or even fall in love with, the environment.

I did meet a 1L GULC student who got a paid SA this year. The advice was that, for 1L job searches, location is very important (not many D.C. firms would want to fly you from Michigan to D.C.). But for 2L SAs, location is not important because of the OCIs. From my calculation, going to GULC will save me around $15000 in 3 years over attending Michigan.

violinst wrote:

jks289 wrote:If your going to do BigLaw I think 30K matters less. I think Michigan outplaces both in NYC BigLaw, but I'd imagine GULC owns DC. Do you really have no living preferences? You are equally happy anywhere, any region, any type of city, any cost of living, and so on? There was no school where you felt like you fit in even marginally better than the others? If you honestly have no preference go to Michigan. It's the highest ranked, offers the best employment options and after COL will be on par to GULC COA. Cornell only makes sense if you loved something particular about the school.

I do have my personal feelings/preferences regarding location, vibe, campus, etc, but I consider them insignificant in front of my professional career opportunities. I will fit in fine no matter where I go and am sure that I will get use to, or even fall in love with, the environment.

I did meet a 1L GULC student who got a paid SA this year. The advice was that, for 1L job searches, location is very important (not many D.C. firms would want to fly you from Michigan to D.C.). But for 2L SAs, location is not important because of the OCIs. From my calculation, going to GULC will save me around $15000 in 3 years over attending Michigan.

The costs difference are negligable and honestly for the most part so is the career stuff. Assuming you perform the same everywhere (which is a relatively fair assumption, I think) you'll most likely place into big law being top 30-40% from any of them. Michigan gives you a slight advantage. At this point I think your feelings and personal preference matter more than you might think. Being happy at your school will help suceed in classes, find valuable mentors, make like minded networking connections with classmates, all things that matter at the end of the day in the employment game.

Count on DC costing you at least $6000 more per year in living expenses.

jks289 wrote:

violinst wrote:

jks289 wrote:If your going to do BigLaw I think 30K matters less. I think Michigan outplaces both in NYC BigLaw, but I'd imagine GULC owns DC. Do you really have no living preferences? You are equally happy anywhere, any region, any type of city, any cost of living, and so on? There was no school where you felt like you fit in even marginally better than the others? If you honestly have no preference go to Michigan. It's the highest ranked, offers the best employment options and after COL will be on par to GULC COA. Cornell only makes sense if you loved something particular about the school.

I do have my personal feelings/preferences regarding location, vibe, campus, etc, but I consider them insignificant in front of my professional career opportunities. I will fit in fine no matter where I go and am sure that I will get use to, or even fall in love with, the environment.

I did meet a 1L GULC student who got a paid SA this year. The advice was that, for 1L job searches, location is very important (not many D.C. firms would want to fly you from Michigan to D.C.). But for 2L SAs, location is not important because of the OCIs. From my calculation, going to GULC will save me around $15000 in 3 years over attending Michigan.

The costs difference are negligable and honestly for the most part so is the career stuff. Assuming you perform the same everywhere (which is a relatively fair assumption, I think) you'll most likely place into big law being top 30-40% from any of them. Michigan gives you a slight advantage. At this point I think your feelings and personal preference matter more than you might think. Being happy at your school will help suceed in classes, find valuable mentors, make like minded networking connections with classmates, all things that matter at the end of the day in the employment game.

Thanks for the replies.
My assumption that I will perform the same no matter where I go only applies to the quality of work I will produce. Would the same quality get me further at Cornell or GULC?

violinst wrote:Thanks for the replies.
My assumption that I will perform the same no matter where I go only applies to the quality of work I will produce. Would the same quality get me further in Cornell or GULC?

Students at Michigan aren't any "smarter" than those at Cornell or GULC. You will not place any higher in your class simply by going to a lower ranked school (especially when we are only talking a handful of spots in the rankings, and all elite schools at that).

bees wrote:

violinst wrote:Thanks for the replies.
My assumption that I will perform the same no matter where I go only applies to the quality of work I will produce. Would the same quality get me further in Cornell or GULC?

Students at Michigan aren't any "smarter" than those at Cornell or GULC. You will not place any higher in your class simply by going to a lower ranked school (especially when we are only talking a handful of spots in the rankings, and all elite schools at that).

That's my perception as well.

bees wrote:

violinst wrote:Thanks for the replies.
My assumption that I will perform the same no matter where I go only applies to the quality of work I will produce. Would the same quality get me further in Cornell or GULC?

Students at Michigan aren't any "smarter" than those at Cornell or GULC. You will not place any higher in your class simply by going to a lower ranked school (especially when we are only talking a handful of spots in the rankings, and all elite schools at that).

Especially since GULC has a higher LSAT median than Michigan, and an almost identical GPA median.

bees wrote:

violinst wrote:Thanks for the replies.
My assumption that I will perform the same no matter where I go only applies to the quality of work I will produce. Would the same quality get me further in Cornell or GULC?

Students at Michigan aren't any "smarter" than those at Cornell or GULC. You will not place any higher in your class simply by going to a lower ranked school (especially when we are only talking a handful of spots in the rankings, and all elite schools at that).

I don't mean to disparage Cornell here, but I don't think it's crazy to assume it would be easier to be XYZ rank there than at any other T14 law school. Half the class is composed of 166, 167, 168. At UVA/Penn/GULC, over a quarter of the class is going to be 170/171.

The difference between Cornell and UVA/Penn is like the difference between Cornell and Cardozo, as far as student quality goes.

RVP11 wrote:

bees wrote:

violinst wrote:Thanks for the replies.
My assumption that I will perform the same no matter where I go only applies to the quality of work I will produce. Would the same quality get me further in Cornell or GULC?

Students at Michigan aren't any "smarter" than those at Cornell or GULC. You will not place any higher in your class simply by going to a lower ranked school (especially when we are only talking a handful of spots in the rankings, and all elite schools at that).

I don't mean to disparage Cornell here, but I don't think it's crazy to assume it would be easier to be XYZ rank there than at any other T14 law school. Half the class is composed of 166, 167, 168. At UVA/Penn/GULC, over a quarter of the class is going to be 170/171.

and lsat score is the best indicator of class rank
OP i suggest mich but im biased

RVP11 wrote:

bees wrote:

violinst wrote:Thanks for the replies.
My assumption that I will perform the same no matter where I go only applies to the quality of work I will produce. Would the same quality get me further in Cornell or GULC?

Students at Michigan aren't any "smarter" than those at Cornell or GULC. You will not place any higher in your class simply by going to a lower ranked school (especially when we are only talking a handful of spots in the rankings, and all elite schools at that).

I don't mean to disparage Cornell here, but I don't think it's crazy to assume it would be easier to be XYZ rank there than at any other T14 law school. Half the class is composed of 166, 167, 168. At UVA/Penn/GULC, over a quarter of the class is going to be 170/171.

The LSAT is loosely predictive of performance on the whole, but not within a few points. There is no reason to believe a 170 group will perform better in law school than a 168 group, even though a 170 group will likely be better than a 160 group.

Joan Hollaway wrote:and lsat score is the best indicator of class rank
OP i suggest mich but im biased

Yeah, actually it IS the best single predictor of law school class rank.

If you got 100 people who scored 170 and put them in one room, and another 100 who scored 165 and put them in another, you would notice some significant differences, in the aggregate/average, in the level of intelligence/discourse/exam performance.

jks289 wrote:
The LSAT is loosely predictive of performance on the whole, but not within a few points. There is no reason to believe a 170 group will perform better in law school than a 168 group, even though a 170 group will likely be better than a 160 group.

Think about what you just said. You might see how it makes no sense.

Protip: if 170 is better than 160, it's also better than 168. And of course there's a REASON to believe that a group of 170s will outperform a group of 168s. If you were at the casino would you call that an even bet? Or would you bet on the 170s?

You can't deny that it's at least probative of law school performance. No one's saying it's 100% predictive in all cases. But a hundred or so of one and a hundred or so of the other? I know who I'd be betting on.

RVP11 wrote:

jks289 wrote:
The LSAT is loosely predictive of performance on the whole, but not within a few points. There is no reason to believe a 170 group will perform better in law school than a 168 group, even though a 170 group will likely be better than a 160 group.

Think about what you just said. You might see how it makes no sense.

Protip: if 170 is better than 160, it's also better than 168.

Protip: The LSAT isn't a an actual predictor, it is just a sort of a little bit correlated predictor. Especially without being adjusted for grades.

jks289 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:

jks289 wrote:
The LSAT is loosely predictive of performance on the whole, but not within a few points. There is no reason to believe a 170 group will perform better in law school than a 168 group, even though a 170 group will likely be better than a 160 group.

Think about what you just said. You might see how it makes no sense.

Protip: if 170 is better than 160, it's also better than 168.

Protip: The LSAT isn't a an actual predictor, it is just a sort of a little bit correlated predictor.

lol wut

Please explain how it's logical to believe that a 10 point difference means something but a 2 point difference doesn't.

RVP11 wrote:

jks289 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:

jks289 wrote:
The LSAT is loosely predictive of performance on the whole, but not within a few points. There is no reason to believe a 170 group will perform better in law school than a 168 group, even though a 170 group will likely be better than a 160 group.

Think about what you just said. You might see how it makes no sense.

Protip: if 170 is better than 160, it's also better than 168.

Protip: The LSAT isn't a an actual predictor, it is just a sort of a little bit correlated predictor.

lol wut

Dude, you are an idiot. You say earlier that the LSAT is "the best single predictor" of performance, which is true. Of all data points you can take (UG grades, race, age) it is the best among those. But it isn't an actually good predictor. Within two points there is no statistical difference among groups while there maybe be a difference at 10 or 20 points. The LSAT is very loosely correlated to performance in law school, but saying that Cornell is closer to Cardozo shows what a tard you are. You must have rocked games, cause lord knows you didn't do well at logical reasoning.

jks289 wrote:The costs difference are negligable and honestly for the most part so is the career stuff. Assuming you perform the same everywhere (which is a relatively fair assumption, I think) you'll most likely place into big law being top 30-40% from any of them. Michigan gives you a slight advantage. At this point I think your feelings and personal preference matter more than you might think. Being happy at your school will help suceed in classes, find valuable mentors, make like minded networking connections with classmates, all things that matter at the end of the day in the employment game.

Very much agree with this. If I were in your shoes, cost and rep would play the smallest roles in my decision. All three scholarships are great, and all three schools offer comparable opportunities. You said you visited all three... where do you see yourself being happiest? being most successful? Beyond that, think about where you want to work (New York, Chicago, or DC). The way the economy is right now, connections and alumni loyalty are important in getting jobs. While all three schools have national reps, in terms of connections you may have better luck coming from Cornell in NY, Michigan in Chicago, and Gtown in DC.

jks289 wrote:Dude, you are an idiot. You say earlier that the LSAT is "the best single predictor" of performance, which is true. Of all data points you can take (UG grades, race, age) it is the best among those. But it isn't an actually good predictor. Within two points there is no statistical difference among groups while there maybe be a difference at 10 or 20 points. The LSAT is very loosely correlated to performance in law school, but saying that Cornell is closer to Cardozo shows what a tard you are. You must have rocked games, cause lord knows you didn't do well at logical reasoning.

No kidding it's not a good predictor. Is it better than nothing? Yes. If you got hundreds of 168s and compared them to hundreds of 170s, would there be a trend? Yes. The fact that you are arguing that 2 points has ZERO statistical significance is what is truly retarded. How can two points have no statistical significance and yet ten points does? That's illogical. Maybe in the individual scenario 2 points has very little significance, but across large groups of people it must mean SOMETHING if you're going to say a 10 point difference is significant. You can't logically separate the two.

I'm doing this from memory of c/o 2012 numbers:

Cardozo median LSAT: 164
Cornell median LSAT: 167
UVA/Penn/GULC median LSAT: 170

Exactly what I said. Cornell is about even between Cardozo and UVA/Penn/GULC. I never said Cornell was closer to Cardozo.

zOMG you must have failed RC.

RVP11 wrote:

jks289 wrote:Dude, you are an idiot. You say earlier that the LSAT is "the best single predictor" of performance, which is true. Of all data points you can take (UG grades, race, age) it is the best among those. But it isn't an actually good predictor. Within two points there is no statistical difference among groups while there maybe be a difference at 10 or 20 points. The LSAT is very loosely correlated to performance in law school, but saying that Cornell is closer to Cardozo shows what a tard you are. You must have rocked games, cause lord knows you didn't do well at logical reasoning.

No kidding it's not a good predictor. Is it better than nothing? Yes. If you got hundreds of 168s and compared them to hundreds of 170s, would there be a trend? Yes. The fact that you are arguing that 2 points has ZERO statistical significance is what is truly retarded. How can two points have no statistical significance and yet ten points does? That's illogical. Maybe in the individual scenario 2 points has very little significance, but across large groups of people it must mean SOMETHING if you're going to say a 10 point difference is significant. You can't logically separate the two.

I'm doing this from memory of c/o 2012 numbers:

Cardozo median LSAT: 164
Cornell median LSAT: 167
UVA/Penn/GULC median LSAT: 170

Sigh. This is why math majors do so much better on the LSAT. I'll just let you think on this for a little while. Don't worry. It'll come to you eventually. In the meantime, troll more threads for UVA.

jks289 wrote:Sigh. This is why math majors do so much better on the LSAT. I'll just let you think on this for a little while. Don't worry. It'll come to you eventually. In the meantime, troll more threads for UVA.

I've actually been picking Penn and Duke a lot lately.

jks289 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:

jks289 wrote:Dude, you are an idiot. You say earlier that the LSAT is "the best single predictor" of performance, which is true. Of all data points you can take (UG grades, race, age) it is the best among those. But it isn't an actually good predictor. Within two points there is no statistical difference among groups while there maybe be a difference at 10 or 20 points. The LSAT is very loosely correlated to performance in law school, but saying that Cornell is closer to Cardozo shows what a tard you are. You must have rocked games, cause lord knows you didn't do well at logical reasoning.

No kidding it's not a good predictor. Is it better than nothing? Yes. If you got hundreds of 168s and compared them to hundreds of 170s, would there be a trend? Yes. The fact that you are arguing that 2 points has ZERO statistical significance is what is truly retarded. How can two points have no statistical significance and yet ten points does? That's illogical. Maybe in the individual scenario 2 points has very little significance, but across large groups of people it must mean SOMETHING if you're going to say a 10 point difference is significant. You can't logically separate the two.

I'm doing this from memory of c/o 2012 numbers:

Cardozo median LSAT: 164
Cornell median LSAT: 167
UVA/Penn/GULC median LSAT: 170

Sigh. This is why math majors do so much better on the LSAT. I'll just let you think on this for a little while. Don't worry. It'll come to you eventually. In the meantime, troll more threads for UVA.

Two points has less significance than ten (and probably less than 20% as much significance) but still some. But its so minor using it to make a decision will be a poor idea.

What is the median LSAT score for accepted students?
We do not use an admissions formula or index system when we evaluate applicants, nor is there a floor below which we will not consider a candidate. However, University of Michigan Law School is very selective, and the LSAT is an important—though not dispositive—factor in our consideration of an applicant. The median LSAT score for the 2009 entering class is 169 (97th percentile) and the 25th and 75th percentiles for the class are 167 and 170, respectively. Bear in mind that there is no statistically significant difference within plus or minus three points of any particular LSAT score.

from the mich website, guess they are just making stuff up too right?

Everyone should be forced to watch this before they start talking about the LSAT's predictive ability and saying "I can to better at school X because its median is 2 points lower than school Y." Seriously, watch it and educate yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c