Berkeley (sticker) vs. UT (full ride) vs. NU (full ride) Forum

[09042014]

I know at least one 2L going to the EPA from NU.

I also had the chance to work for a professor this summer doing environmental work, and I didn't seek it out at all.

BTW NU does have a concentration in environmental law but who knows how good it is. But suspect that doesn't really matter at all in getting a job.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/academi ... ronmental/

[r6_philly]

I don't think the direction is wrong at all. I could be completely off base, but to me Harvard equates to nearly complete career freedom (as with Y and S). Most who go to Harvard choose to go into Corporate/Biglaw/Academia, but in whichever field OP shoots for they'll be able to step closer to the front of the line with a Harvard law degree. I'm sure the difference isn't that great with something like Berkeley for OP's goals, but I still think Harvard would provide a slightly better edge.

It would, I agree, but it doesn't mean the edge is so great that one should definitely go despite whatever reason that makes one unhappy about being a Harvard student/grad. You compare the lost advantage with the gained happiness/preference.

Now if I have $200 in the bank and I want to go to USC over Harvard then maybe there is no way to spin it. But if I had $2mil in the bank and want to do the same thing it is completely understandable. Point is we don't know the basis and value of personal preference for everyone so when someone say I don't want Harvard I take it at face value because I happen to know people who would make that choice (turning down better schools for preference).

[alexonfyre]

I agree that there's a good chance that I will completely change my mind about what I'm interested in. However, there's also a good chance that I won't, and I worry that I will be frustrated by Northwestern's complete lack of an environmental program. I chose to attend the most prestigious undergrad school I was accepted to, even though they didn't have the major I was interested in, because I figured I would probably change my mind anyway. I always regretted that decision, since I remained interested in that particular field and was unable to explore it. I worry about making the same mistake twice.

I'm fairly confident I won't change my mind about BigLaw, as I've been working for a very large law firm for the last year. I think I've had enough exposure to definitively say it's not for me, but I suppose it's not outside the realm of possibility that something could happen to change my mind.

My mother found a great position in environmental policy right after law school. That was thirty years ago, of course--although it was also during a recession. She didn't take any specialized courses in that area, though, which I guess argues I should go to Northwestern. Have I mentioned that it's almost April and the temperatures here are still in the thirties?

You do realize that most law schools, if you have a specific interest, will work with you to hook you up with professors that have experience there, and externships for clinics...but I imagine not, since most colleges (particularly the smaller and higher tier ones) will do the same thing with regards to majors and you didn't pursue that either.

[juliachild-ish]

I know at least one 2L going to the EPA from NU.

I also had the chance to work for a professor this summer doing environmental work, and I didn't seek it out at all.

BTW NU does have a concentration in environmental law but who knows how good it is. But suspect that doesn't really matter at all in getting a job.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/academi ... ronmental/

Thanks for that, Desert Fox. I had tried to search for something similar on their website earlier but hadn't been able to find it. It's good to know it at least exists.

Alexonfyre, I did pursue that avenue in college, but I went to a small liberal arts college which had a limited faculty. There was one faculty member with interest in that area, but it turned out he was on sabbatical my first two years, I was abroad my third year, and then my fourth year I was too involved in my senior thesis to explore it beyond taking one "independent study" course. So, while my college claimed, "You can study anything here!" it didn't quite work out that way. I'm curious to know if it has worked for people in law school. Do law students often explore a specific interest that's not well-represented in the curriculum?

[rayiner]

I know at least one 2L going to the EPA from NU.

I also had the chance to work for a professor this summer doing environmental work, and I didn't seek it out at all.

BTW NU does have a concentration in environmental law but who knows how good it is. But suspect that doesn't really matter at all in getting a job.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/academi ... ronmental/

Thanks for that, Desert Fox. I had tried to search for something similar on their website earlier but hadn't been able to find it. It's good to know it at least exists.

Alexonfyre, I did pursue that avenue in college, but I went to a small liberal arts college which had a limited faculty. There was one faculty member with interest in that area, but it turned out he was on sabbatical my first two years, I was abroad my third year, and then my fourth year I was too involved in my senior thesis to explore it beyond taking one "independent study" course. So, while my college claimed, "You can study anything here!" it didn't quite work out that way. I'm curious to know if it has worked for people in law school. Do law students often explore a specific interest that's not well-represented in the curriculum?

Environmental law isn't billed highly here, but it's not "not well-represented." We have one professor who specializes in environmental law doctrinal classes, and we have an environmental law clinic. I've taken Natural Resources and Environmental Regulation so far this year, and still have a seminar left to take. My friend is doing the clinic and regularly gets to visit superfund sites to help with a big piece of environmental litigation. And you absolutely can explore specific interests beyond t he curriculum. You can get a semester's worth of credits doing research with a professor during your 3L, and I'm sure one of the environmental law professors would work with you.

That said, go to Harvard. My friend is going to EPA for her 2L, but she has great grades and still got rejected from a ton of environmental jobs she wanted at non-profits (not NRDC but similar). EPA ended up being a great fit for her but you don't want to put yourself in a position where you don't get your top choices because you decided to turn down Harvard.

[alexonfyre]

I know at least one 2L going to the EPA from NU.

I also had the chance to work for a professor this summer doing environmental work, and I didn't seek it out at all.

BTW NU does have a concentration in environmental law but who knows how good it is. But suspect that doesn't really matter at all in getting a job.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/academi ... ronmental/

Thanks for that, Desert Fox. I had tried to search for something similar on their website earlier but hadn't been able to find it. It's good to know it at least exists.

Alexonfyre, I did pursue that avenue in college, but I went to a small liberal arts college which had a limited faculty. There was one faculty member with interest in that area, but it turned out he was on sabbatical my first two years, I was abroad my third year, and then my fourth year I was too involved in my senior thesis to explore it beyond taking one "independent study" course. So, while my college claimed, "You can study anything here!" it didn't quite work out that way. I'm curious to know if it has worked for people in law school. Do law students often explore a specific interest that's not well-represented in the curriculum?

Ouch, sorry if I came off as abrasive, it has been rough in the office today. When I was considering International Law (as I think every 0L was in 2007-2008,) I was told by many recruiters that while they didn't stack their staff with international law professors, there were plenty of opportunities to study it, and if I was willing to put in the work to find them, the university would help me procure them and find a way to make it count towards my degree.
So, admittedly it would be a bit more work, but you would also be very unique amongst your classmates, and stand out to any potential employers in that field coming to OCI.
This point is moot, I feel, as DF has pointed out that NU does in fact have an enviro concentration.

[Shaggier1]

Shaggier1 wrote:
Quote:
Can I just come out and say it? Odds are, you will not land an environmental law job straight out of law school, unless you have a science background and work for a biglaw firm focusing on energy law (I know people doing this in DC, which is where a lot of the energy work is located).


Nothing about this is accurate.


Besides working in energy law at a firm, what vast environmental law opportunities are available to a law grad with no post-grad legal experience? Are environmental agencies and the like heavily recruiting 3Ls? And please don't tell me an unpaid 1L or 2L internship with an agency during the summer demonstrates a good shot at post-graduate employment.

You are discounting the entire non-profit sector.

http://earthjustice.org/
http://www.nrdc.org/
http://www.wri.org/
http://www.earthrights.org/

That list goes on for way longer than I am willing to sit here and copy and paste url's.

[alexonfyre]

Shaggier1 wrote:
Quote:
Can I just come out and say it? Odds are, you will not land an environmental law job straight out of law school, unless you have a science background and work for a biglaw firm focusing on energy law (I know people doing this in DC, which is where a lot of the energy work is located).


Nothing about this is accurate.


Besides working in energy law at a firm, what vast environmental law opportunities are available to a law grad with no post-grad legal experience? Are environmental agencies and the like heavily recruiting 3Ls? And please don't tell me an unpaid 1L or 2L internship with an agency during the summer demonstrates a good shot at post-graduate employment.

You are discounting the entire non-profit sector.

http://earthjustice.org/
http://www.nrdc.org/
http://www.wri.org/
http://www.earthrights.org/

That list goes on for way longer than I am willing to sit here and copy and paste url's.

All of the ones you posted, and probably most of the ones you didn't, have one job a piece that a recently minted JD could get (jobs that did not explicitly require a certain number of years working in the legal field) and even those seemed to have very competitive qualifications criteria.

EDIT: I was being a little bit generous there, in fact, earthjustice has one position that a 3L could apply for, and the others have none.

[Shaggier1]

All of the ones you posted, and probably most of the ones you didn't

This is your mistake. While I did list what are among the most prestigious in environmental law PI work, there are an absurd amount of other NGO's out there that have many more positions. You can't just say that the most prestigious "probably" have the same amount of jobs available as the other 99% of the sector.

Regardless, my point was that the quoted poster did not at all mention the non-profit sector.

[rayiner]

Shaggier1 wrote:
Quote:
Can I just come out and say it? Odds are, you will not land an environmental law job straight out of law school, unless you have a science background and work for a biglaw firm focusing on energy law (I know people doing this in DC, which is where a lot of the energy work is located).


Nothing about this is accurate.


Besides working in energy law at a firm, what vast environmental law opportunities are available to a law grad with no post-grad legal experience? Are environmental agencies and the like heavily recruiting 3Ls? And please don't tell me an unpaid 1L or 2L internship with an agency during the summer demonstrates a good shot at post-graduate employment.

You are discounting the entire non-profit sector.

http://earthjustice.org/
http://www.nrdc.org/
http://www.wri.org/
http://www.earthrights.org/

That list goes on for way longer than I am willing to sit here and copy and paste url's.

If she wants a job at a place like that she needs to go to Harvard. Even then it's not a slam-dunk. Look at the attorney bios at those places for people who went to law school recently (someone's already done it for NRDC earlier in this thread).

Re: Shaggier1. My friend just went through the 2L hiring cycle for environmental outfits. Getting a job with one of these places is brutally hard.

[alexonfyre]

All of the ones you posted, and probably most of the ones you didn't

This is your mistake. While I did list what are among the most prestigious in environmental law PI work, there are an absurd amount of other NGO's out there that have many more positions. You can't just say that the most prestigious "probably" have the same amount of jobs available as the other 99% of the sector.

Regardless, my point was that the quoted poster did not at all mention the non-profit sector.

Is it a mistake to believe that you would post the data that most supports your point instead of random links to non-profit groups? The fact of the matter is that in your evidence there exists one job that a JD could get at graduation. Your arguments are resting on thusfar unsubstantiated claims of jobs in NGOs. The non-profit sector is only relevant if there are a substantial amount of jobs that are being discounted by not including them.

[09042014]

Ray is right about environmental law and harvard.

Or really any sort of public interest. I know a guy who works with Gitmo detainees and he said the lawyers are all harvard grads.

[r6_philly]

Ray is right about environmental law and harvard.

Or really any sort of public interest. I know a guy who works with Gitmo detainees and he said the lawyers are all harvard grads.

Yup the community legal service group in my county has half Harvard grads. The bios are more elite looking that most firms in the city here.

[FlightoftheEarls]

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The point is that the preconceived view prospective students have of certain fields and courses (I mean, Admin alone dissuades government-bound students in droves, for example) will reflect their initial intuition for some students, and will completely change for others.

That's a personal process of maturing professionally and discovering what you want to do. No amount of discouragement or advice prior to law school will change that. It's as futile as telling your HS teen kids to pick the right major in college. Let them figure it out, otherwise you are actually robbing them of their maturation process.

ETA: I am saying it isn't a rule that it will change, or vice versa. So we really shouldn't dictate advice/guidance based on that because it is uncertainly either way.

I've never once suggested that she shouldn't attempt to pursue environmental law - in fact, I pointed out the various paths she could take to get into the field. I'm telling her that she can pursue that from a noticeably better school for the same price, or a comparable school for significantly less money. With either of those choices, she can move into the energy/environmental field if she wants without debt or with substantially better prospects. If she does change her mind, her options at graduation are enhanced or comparable (and without the financial burden).

Either way, I suppose I'm fighting an uphill battle. OP is just looking for people to tell her that Berkeley is the right choice financially and career-wise, and no amount of reasoned suggestions from actual law students is going to keep her from choosing Berkeley in the end. Best of luck, OP - hopefully it works out for you. I have no doubt that you'll like Berkeley (it is a fantastic school, after all), but I hope the lessened prospects and/or extra debt are worth it in the end.

[Bumi]

You are aware no one forces you to become a corporate peon if you go to Harvard right? This is just one of the most absurd threads I've seen on TLS in a while.

You are aware the first post said Harvard needs not to be discussed right? Absurd indeed.

Read what OP said about her reasons for not thinking she needed Harvard:

Yes, I'm indecisive in terms of which school to attend (aren't most people?) but not in terms of career goals. Which is why I don't really see why I need to attend, say, Harvard. I don't have very lofty career goals, so I don't necessarily need the boost that the Harvard prestige offers. I understand that both Harvard and Northwestern might open more doors, but those aren't doors that I'm really interested in, if you follow the metaphor.

I know she's against the school. I know. We all know. We also all took the LSAT, and it is bothering us that at least part of her anti-Harvard decision is based on the bolded reasoning. There is obviously more to it than that - she doesn't like the school period and doesn't want to go there period, which is fine. But she should make her decision to go to Berkeley (I'd bet $100 that's where she ends up) with full awareness of what that decision means.

ITT OP asks for her assumptions to be questioned. They are questioned strenuously. OP handles it like a champ, TLS white knights ride valiantly to her aid unnecessarily.

[r6_philly]

Either way, I suppose I'm fighting an uphill battle. OP is just looking for people to tell her that Berkeley is the right choice financially and career-wise, and no amount of reasoned suggestions from actual law students is going to keep her from choosing Berkeley in the end. Best of luck, OP - hopefully it works out for you. I have no doubt that you'll like Berkeley (it is a fantastic school, after all), but I hope the lessened prospects and/or extra debt are worth it in the end.

The point of these threads could be that OP wants to see what other reasons he/she should consider. And maybe all have been accounted for. Searching for alternatives doesn't have to come with the premise that you will select one of them... Just a discussion board.

[r6_philly]

I know she's against the school. I know. We all know. We also all took the LSAT, and it is bothering us that at least part of her anti-Harvard decision is based on the bolded reasoning. There is obviously more to it than that - she doesn't like the school period and doesn't want to go there period, which is fine. But she should make her decision to go to Berkeley (I'd bet $100 that's where she ends up) with full awareness of what that decision means.

ITT OP asks for her assumptions to be questioned. They are questioned strenuously. OP handles it like a champ, TLS white knights ride valiantly to her aid unnecessarily.

Hey, I like to argue, it's fun.

[Curry]

Is nobody else calling troll? who in their right fucking mind wants to go back to ARIZONA

[r6_philly]

Is nobody else calling troll? who in their right fucking mind wants to go back to ARIZONA

Phoenix is the 6th largest city in the US.

[juliachild-ish]

Is nobody else calling troll? who in their right fucking mind wants to go back to ARIZONA

Ouch! Arizona may have its troubles, but it has a lot of amazing qualities too. Plus, I feel an obligation to go back and help improve it.

Also, I'm not the only one who wants to live there. Arizona is the 6th fastest growing state in the nation: check it out.

[alexonfyre]

Is nobody else calling troll? who in their right fucking mind wants to go back to ARIZONA

Ouch! Arizona may have its troubles, but it has a lot of amazing qualities too. Plus, I feel an obligation to go back and help improve it.

Also, I'm not the only one who wants to live there. Arizona is the 6th fastest growing state in the nation: check it out.

Not for long if it illegalizes any more races.

[bigben]

545 for 25 years for three years of personal preference though. I think you'd regret it when you retired with a lot less money in the bank.

Based on my projections, earnings from our retirement funds will outpace the actual earnings somewhere between 55-60, so we can retire comfortably (at pre-retirement standards) before 60, for both of us. This include $225k debt from law school.

ETA, without the debt, it would be a year or so earlier. But no big deal. So 1 extra year of working vs. 3 years of preference.

Do you project making a million dollars a year by then or something? If not you need to check your math because this is ridiculous.

[bigben]

NU, obviously. But did I read correctly that you don't want to go to Harvard (presumably because of the cost?) but you are interested in attending Yale or Stanford? That's a head-scratcher.

I'm not interested in attending Harvard mostly because of the school itself, not because of cost. Though cost is definitely an issue. Yale and Stanford might be better fits, but I don't know for sure.

Strange that you think these law schools will be very different from each other. They won't. They will be the same, except for the location.

[bigben]

This. First, I think this thread is an elaborate flame.

Second, I'm a 2L (as is rayiner) and I would go to Harvard > NU (full ride) > UT (full ride)/Berkeley (sticker). You guys are over-emphasizing the (probably imagined) differences among schools. It's LAW SCHOOL. It's going to be a ton of work at any of these schools. I can't believe this idealized bullshit. Does the OP think she's going to have "better" classmates at Boalt or UT than NU or Harvard? Most of your classmates at ANY of these schools are going to be workaholic, self-absorbed types. The vast majority at Boalt and UT want biglaw, same with NU and Harvard. The purpose of going to law school is to get a JOB while minimizing your debt as much as possible. This is a professional school, not a party time master's degree in the liberal arts.

I don't think law school is going to be fun or anything less than backbreaking nonstop work. Obviously not. But do you really think that all top law schools are essentially the same? That's a genuine question, since you're a 2L and I'm a lowly 0L. Because that's not what schools try to sell you on; they try to convince you to go to a school because of whatever unique aspects set it apart from the competition. Is that all just meaningless?

As you say, the point is to get a job while minimizing debt, and I'm trying to resolve which half of that goal is more important (better job placement or less debt). Assuming I'm not interested in Northwestern because I'd rather not be in Chicago, I'm trying to figure out if it's better to minimize debt at Texas or get better job placement at Berkeley. Or should I put Northwestern back in the picture because it offers the best combination of job placement and cost (still more expensive than Texas due to much higher COL)?

The professors, students, and classes at any top law school will be very similar. Even the facilities will be similar. The big difference between schools is geographic location. And in some cases, employment prospects.

[juliachild-ish]

This. First, I think this thread is an elaborate flame.

Second, I'm a 2L (as is rayiner) and I would go to Harvard > NU (full ride) > UT (full ride)/Berkeley (sticker). You guys are over-emphasizing the (probably imagined) differences among schools. It's LAW SCHOOL. It's going to be a ton of work at any of these schools. I can't believe this idealized bullshit. Does the OP think she's going to have "better" classmates at Boalt or UT than NU or Harvard? Most of your classmates at ANY of these schools are going to be workaholic, self-absorbed types. The vast majority at Boalt and UT want biglaw, same with NU and Harvard. The purpose of going to law school is to get a JOB while minimizing your debt as much as possible. This is a professional school, not a party time master's degree in the liberal arts.

I don't think law school is going to be fun or anything less than backbreaking nonstop work. Obviously not. But do you really think that all top law schools are essentially the same? That's a genuine question, since you're a 2L and I'm a lowly 0L. Because that's not what schools try to sell you on; they try to convince you to go to a school because of whatever unique aspects set it apart from the competition. Is that all just meaningless?

As you say, the point is to get a job while minimizing debt, and I'm trying to resolve which half of that goal is more important (better job placement or less debt). Assuming I'm not interested in Northwestern because I'd rather not be in Chicago, I'm trying to figure out if it's better to minimize debt at Texas or get better job placement at Berkeley. Or should I put Northwestern back in the picture because it offers the best combination of job placement and cost (still more expensive than Texas due to much higher COL)?

The professors, students, and classes at any top law school will be very similar. Even the facilities will be similar. The big difference between schools is geographic location. And in some cases, employment prospects.

Agreed that the difference between top schools is fairly minimal, especially in terms of professors and classes. Although, the interactions I have had with both current and admitted students at different schools have varied widely--but maybe my samples have been highly skewed for some reason.

Location is a big factor in my decision, and I think we can say there are clear differences between, say, Chicago and Austin.