Anyone choose Penn over Chi? Forum

[stripedbanana10]

BACK TO EDITING

[Flash]

yeap - it's me, sorry. (OP)

[deathviaboredom]

Then who was phone!?!?!?

phone?

[deathviaboredom]

yeap - it's me, sorry. (OP)

LMFAO.

The other account is REEEAALLY old. It was bc of s/o I know who knew this alias and I wasn't sure I wanted him/her to read a few things I posted and know it was me. I was just going back to check out what i had posted. I edited most of it out.

[Flash]

phone?

Obviously you're not a golfer.

[deathviaboredom]

phone?

Obviously you're not a golfer.

No. I think this may negatively impact my job options.

I think there's "fore" and "sand" and "putter". Oh, and "par"

[Sentry]

phone?

Obviously you're not a golfer.

No. I think this may negatively impact my job options.

I think there's "fore" and "sand" and "putter". Oh, and "par"

Where's the money Lebowski?

[deathviaboredom]

phone?

Obviously you're not a golfer.

No. I think this may negatively impact my job options.

I think there's "fore" and "sand" and "putter". Oh, and "par"

Where's the money Lebowski?

also have not watched the big lebowski!

[gbpackerbacker]

I just chose Penn over Chi, FWIW.

[Dany]

I just chose Penn over Chi, FWIW.

[Muenchen]

I just chose Penn over Chi, FWIW.

Edit: gif crash, but it was awesome.

[gbpackerbacker]

I just chose Penn over Chi, FWIW.

Haha, image cannot be displayed.... ?

[Lawlcat]

I'm hearing a lot of "2 rankings difference is minimal," but it is still the case that firms prefer CCN over MVPB for many markets. Also, in the long run, chances of high level clerking are better for Chi. Chi is consistently ranks 4-6 and is still on a different class level compared to penn.

Also, are you sure you're not letting yourself become biased by a small # of a$$holes you met at Chi? Just sayin...I have a few friends @ Chi who are really chill & sociable, and I think a lot of Chi's rep is overstated.

MVPB is not a category that exists. B places like 20% of students into biglaw via OCI. Penn places like 50% (both pick up more via non-OCI channels obvi, but still)

In the long run, your chances of high level clearing are better from Chi but your chances of career mobility are better from Penn, both because the alumni network is better and because the school credential transfers more easily to non-legal fields. Again, what do you care about?

I just don't understand how people have trouble with this decision. I can't imagine any two schools that could be more different.

People keep talking about "CCN". Does anyone have some sort of empirical data to support this notion, other than USNWR?

2009 Article III clerkships and NLJ 250 BigLaw jobs
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/5f4d940ea9.png

2007-2010 raw data
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/f3b8e2556b.png


Penn and Chicago both put about 10% of graduates in these clerkships. There is really no meaningful difference in the T14 other than (1) Yale, at about 30% (2) Stanford, at about 20% (3) arguably Harvard, at about 15%.

Look at these graphs:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=150004

and point to CCN for me. (Or tell me why they're bad graphs.)

I think Chicago as a university might be somewhat stronger in a broader range of subjects, but that's at least a step or two removed from the question of how people view the law schools. (I mean, some profs might be like, "Chicago's neat because if I work there, I can mingle with the econ people".)

My general point on those graphs: some people seem to LOVE to focus in on relative differences and ignore the context, but the way I see it, there is just not a meaningful difference among the T1...3? 15? Something like that. Especially before you reach Georgetown, there's maybe 10%-15% difference, and that's easily explainable by differences in PI-inclination based on e.g. ( http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf ) or Aliarrow's graphs. Of course, it's hard to tell who's in PI by choice and who's not, which is part of why I haven't included it.

I think the best counterargument is an assertion that Chicago has fared better ITE than other schools, but I don't see the data to support this proposition.

[Knock]

I'm hearing a lot of "2 rankings difference is minimal," but it is still the case that firms prefer CCN over MVPB for many markets. Also, in the long run, chances of high level clerking are better for Chi. Chi is consistently ranks 4-6 and is still on a different class level compared to penn.

Also, are you sure you're not letting yourself become biased by a small # of a$$holes you met at Chi? Just sayin...I have a few friends @ Chi who are really chill & sociable, and I think a lot of Chi's rep is overstated.

MVPB is not a category that exists. B places like 20% of students into biglaw via OCI. Penn places like 50% (both pick up more via non-OCI channels obvi, but still)

In the long run, your chances of high level clearing are better from Chi but your chances of career mobility are better from Penn, both because the alumni network is better and because the school credential transfers more easily to non-legal fields. Again, what do you care about?

I just don't understand how people have trouble with this decision. I can't imagine any two schools that could be more different.

People keep talking about "CCN". Does anyone have some sort of empirical data to support this notion, other than USNWR?

2009 Article III clerkships and NLJ 250 BigLaw jobs
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/5f4d940ea9.png

2007-2010 raw data
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/f3b8e2556b.png


Penn and Chicago both put about 10% of graduates in these clerkships. There is really no meaningful difference in the T14 other than (1) Yale, at about 30% (2) Stanford, at about 20% (3) arguably Harvard, at about 15%.

Look at these graphs:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=150004

and point to CCN for me. (Or tell me why they're bad graphs.)

I think Chicago as a university might be somewhat stronger in a broader range of subjects, but that's at least a step or two removed from the question of how people view the law schools. (I mean, some profs might be like, "Chicago's neat because if I work there, I can mingle with the econ people".)

My general point on those graphs: some people seem to LOVE to focus in on relative differences and ignore the context, but the way I see it, there is just not a meaningful difference among the T1...3? 15? Something like that. Especially before you reach Georgetown, there's maybe 10%-15% difference, and that's easily explainable by differences in PI-inclination based on e.g. ( http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf ) or Aliarrow's graphs. Of course, it's hard to tell who's in PI by choice and who's not, which is part of why I haven't included it.

I think the best counterargument is an assertion that Chicago has fared better ITE than other schools, but I don't see the data to support this proposition.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p4087006

NLJ 250 averaged over the last 3 years:

Averaged over the last three years:

Chicago: 60.22
Columbia: 60.03
UPenn: 57.27
Northwestern: 54.39
Cornell: 53.94
NYU: 52.92
Berkeley: 52.74
UVA: 52.36
Harvard: 51.61
Stanford: 50.67
Duke: 49.88
Michigan: 49.49
GULC: 43.13
Vanderbilt: 40.50
USC: 39.21
BC: 37.99
UCLA: 37.81
BU: 35.27
GWU: 33.29
Fordham: 32.93

Schools not listed because of lack of 2008 data: Yale, Texas

[bk1]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p4087006

NLJ 250 averaged over the last 3 years:

Averaged over the last three years:

Chicago: 60.22
Columbia: 60.03
UPenn: 57.27
Northwestern: 54.39
Cornell: 53.94
NYU: 52.92
Berkeley: 52.74
UVA: 52.36
Harvard: 51.61
Stanford: 50.67
Duke: 49.88
Michigan: 49.49
GULC: 43.13
Vanderbilt: 40.50
USC: 39.21
BC: 37.99
UCLA: 37.81
BU: 35.27
GWU: 33.29
Fordham: 32.93

Schools not listed because of lack of 2008 data: Yale, Texas

This data is 2010, 2009, 2008. If you add in 2007 and 2005 (the only other data I know of that exists), the clusters sort out to something like CC > PNN > VC > toolazytodotherest.

[glewz]

Is focusing on a consistent historic 4-6 ranking illegitimate to you? It isn't to me because I think that people who graduated 10 years back actually care about their pedigree.

Ok, so now we're getting to the meat of it. If you want my honest answer to your first post, then here: Yes, it's illegitimate. First, I think it's illegitimate because, quite simply, the data just doesn't bear out the claim that Chicago gives you an advantage over Penn for Article III placement. Any self-selection argument at either school is going to be largely null. In fact, it would probably favor Penn since Chicago has a reputation of bringing in students who want to pursue academia/clerkships, and as a result I would wager that more people with dreams of federal clerkships choose Chicago over Penn for that very purpose. If you were going to find that either school is harmed by self-selecting out of clerkships more than the other, Penn is probably the school harmed by the lesser interest.

Second, and although this may seem to be a similar point, I think it's very important: The clerkship hiring data you're looking at has already internalized the reputations of the above schools. As I posted in another thread when people were talking about USC's strong LA placement because of the "Trojan network", it's not as though USC places XYZ% into LA NLJ firms (as recorded in the NLJ stats) plus whatever percentage is helped by the alumni network into LA NLJ firms. The figure that you're looking at already incorporates the hires that result from the reputational benefits of the school. I don't believe this situation is any different. The value of the Chicago name is immense, but it's not as if the school's highly clerkship-geared student body would suddenly start placing better simply because they begin relying on Chicago's reputation. Rather, this factor is already internalized in the school's ~10% average. None of this is to say that Penn is actually better for clerkships simply because it's Article III average is a miniscule 1% higher, but it does suggest that Chicago's purported dominance in Article III placement stems entirely from the school's perceived rankings, rather than the empirical metrics. To the contrary, and as explained in my first point above, these metrics soundly reject that conclusion (unless, of course, you only mean SCOTUS hires).

Those who are able to get CoA at any nonT3 school are probably incredible students who would succeed at any location, but if I were considering a school (and my intention were to pursue CoA), I'd still attend CCN over nonT6 because they have better career options in other areas.

Choosing a law school is as much about backup plans as it is about one's direct career goals.

I don't disagree, but that argument is a red herring. We're talking about Chicago's superior clerkship placement here.

I suppose there aren't any distinctions specifically for CoA - I have no idea how we got pigeon-holed into this discussion...I recall mentioning SCOTUS as well. Anyways, I think you're arguing a moot point since the heart of this entire thing whether choosing MVP over CCN is a good idea. And I think all we can conclude from our argument is: no one should choose a school (non T3) purely for CoA, But if a student were to choose a school for clerking, he/she should choose one that has the more promising backup plan. As a side note, I don't find it unreasonable to put SCOTUS into the equation, if you're looking at clerkships as a whole.

At the bottom of all this, my two reasons for choosing ranks 4-6 (all else equal) over others are: better legal career options (especially LT) and generally higher performing student body. And on that second point, I'm not trying to be a douchebag; it's just that if I worked hard in undergrad/on the LSAT, I would like to see classmates who've performed similarly.

[Lawlcat]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p4087006

NLJ 250 averaged over the last 3 years:

Averaged over the last three years:

Chicago: 60.22
Columbia: 60.03
UPenn: 57.27
Northwestern: 54.39
Cornell: 53.94
NYU: 52.92
Berkeley: 52.74
UVA: 52.36
Harvard: 51.61
Stanford: 50.67
Duke: 49.88
Michigan: 49.49
GULC: 43.13
Vanderbilt: 40.50
USC: 39.21
BC: 37.99
UCLA: 37.81
BU: 35.27
GWU: 33.29
Fordham: 32.93

Schools not listed because of lack of 2008 data: Yale, Texas

I've taken these and added in 2007-2009 clerkship averages (yes, mixing years; clerkships don't seem to vary much)

2008-2010 NLJ 250 + 2007-2009 clerkships
School Total
Stanford 73.2%
Chicago 70.9%
Columbia 69.1%
Harvard 68.7%
Penn 68.5%
UVA 64.0%
Northwestern 62.3%
Cornell 62.2%
Duke 62.0%
NYU 60.8%
Michigan 60.6%
Berkeley 60.5%
Vanderbilt 49.8%
GULC 49.1%
USC 44.1%
UCLA 44.0%


Everyone needs to start talking about CCPV, NCDNMB, and XKFWKAOWKQFJNWIKWE.

Or if you want 2007-2010 NLJ 250 + 2007-2009 Article III,

School Total (all years available)
Chicago 74.1%
Stanford 73.4%
Columbia 72.8%
Penn 71.4%
Harvard 71.1%
Northwestern 67.1%
NYU 65.7%
Duke 64.3%
Cornell 64.3%
Michigan 62.3%
UVA 61.1%
Berkeley 60.8%
Vanderbilt 54.0%
GULC 50.4%
USC 45.2%
UCLA 44.3%

So CCPN(orthwestern)N(YU)DC, MVBV, GUU....

Or if you want 2008-2009 only for both so that they "match" (on the somewhat dubious IMO belief that clerkships vary with the economy -- I think "tiny 2-year dataset" is a bigger cause for concern):

School Total 2008-2009 matching
Stanford 77.7%
Columbia 71.6%
Chicago 71.5%
Penn 70.5%
Harvard 69.6%
Duke 67.9%
Northwestern 67.3%
UVA 66.6%
NYU 65.6%
Michigan 64.1%
Berkeley 64.1%
Cornell 60.0%
Vanderbilt 55.1%
GULC 51.9%
USC 49.3%
UCLA 45.3%

No wait, it's CCPDNVNMB, CVGU(SC), U(CLA)!

[Dany]

I don't really know what's going on, but I like seeing Chicago at the top of these lists!

[Lawlcat]

I don't really know what's going on, but I like seeing Chicago at the top of these lists!

Assuming that was serious: they're lists of two pretty good "floor" measures for "who has a good job". Specifically, the percentage of the graduating class at each school who got jobs at the top 250 firms in the NLJ (roughly: BigLaw) and federal clerkships (which are quite "prestigious" and set you up nicely for BigLaw, government work, or whatever else). They're underinclusive "floor" measures, in that they're good mostly because it's hard to argue that anyone in these two groups just got screwed by law school.

Chicago and Columbia (and usually Penn) do seem to be consistently at the top of these measures, but not by very much. If you leave out GULC, you just about always finish the T14 with about a 10%-15% decrease. E.g.:

using all available years of NLJ250 and Article III data, you go from Chicago at 74% to Berkeley at 61%. That's not much, if you ask me. (13%) (Chicago - Penn difference: Chicago 71 Penn 69 --> 2)

If you use matching data (2008-2009 only, BigLaw + good clerkships), it's from Columbia at 72% to Cornell at 60%. (12%) (Chicago - Penn difference: Chicago 72 Penn 71 --> 1)

If you use the three most recent years of BigLaw data (2008, 2009, 2010) plus the three most recent years of clerkship data (2007, 2008, 2009), you go from Chicago at 71% to Berkeley at 61%. (10%) (Chicago - Penn difference: Chicago 74 Penn 71 --> 3)

So by these measures, if you're picking between any two T13 schools other than HYS, you're talking about AT MOST a 13% difference in placement. Especially given that this is completely ignoring variances in PI interest (I suspect there are more "I want to do PI" types at Berkeley, NYU, or Michigan than Columbia or Penn), that's a very modest difference indeed. I wouldn't see any problem with picking between two T13 schools based on "feel" or whatever else. (including relative placement power or target market)

And if we're talking about Chicago vs. Penn specifically, it's at most 3%. That's just slightly less insane than picking based on Supreme Court clerkship prospects.

[deathviaboredom]

I suppose there aren't any distinctions specifically for CoA - I have no idea how we got pigeon-holed into this discussion...I recall mentioning SCOTUS as well. .

MORRISON FOERSTER?!?

[trudat15]

Have no clue what's going on in this thread. From what I gather, there are 3 OP alts (one of which so he can hide from his gf), an argument about Chicago vs. Penn Article III placement, a bunch of lists with Chicago and Penn near the top, Veyron willing to challenge anyone who dares besmirch Penn's name, the Chicago Class of 2014 making their way to this thread, and an OP that is going to Chicago (?).

Damn I wish I got here earlier.

[FlightoftheEarls]

I suppose there aren't any distinctions specifically for CoA - I have no idea how we got pigeon-holed into this discussion...I recall mentioning SCOTUS as well. Anyways, I think you're arguing a moot point since the heart of this entire thing whether choosing MVP over CCN is a good idea.

We got pigeon-holed into this discussion because you suggested that Chicago was the clear choice for COA clerkships without any substantiating evidence apart from a USNews "4-6 ranking" and "age-old prestige". While Chicago may have an advantage in other areas, I don't dispute that. Rather, I responded specifically to statements like these:

. Also, in the long run, chances of high level clerking are better for Chi. Chi is consistently ranks 4-6 and is still on a different class level compared to penn.

Chi LT is > for academia And for higher level clerking (SCOTUS / CoA).

Though if all else were equal and my goals were CoA, I'd choose Chi

Does that make sense?

As a side note, I don't find it unreasonable to put SCOTUS into the equation, if you're looking at clerkships as a whole.

Already conceded, but if you want to run with the argument that Chicago is better for AIII clerkships because of superior SCOTUS placement, knock yourself out.

[Dany]

Have no clue what's going on in this thread. From what I gather, there are 3 OP alts (one of which so he can hide from his gf), an argument about Chicago vs. Penn Article III placement, a bunch of lists with Chicago and Penn near the top, Veyron willing to challenge anyone who dares besmirch Penn's name, the Chicago Class of 2014 making their way to this thread, and an OP that is going to Chicago (?).

Damn I wish I got here earlier.

<3

[deathviaboredom]

Have no clue what's going on in this thread. From what I gather, there are 3 OP alts (one of which so he can hide from his gf), an argument about Chicago vs. Penn Article III placement, a bunch of lists with Chicago and Penn near the top, Veyron willing to challenge anyone who dares besmirch Penn's name, the Chicago Class of 2014 making their way to this thread, and an OP that is going to Chicago (?).

Damn I wish I got here earlier.

<3

am i going to chicago?

[beachbum]

From what I can gather, the CCN schools gained their reputation by placing into more prestigious firms (when that kind of thing mattered), and not as much by simply placing a greater percentage of students into big firms. So back when top students were gunning for V5 or V10 (as opposed to just "Biglaw"), they might have been well-advised to take CCN over the rest of the T14. But now that the hiring landscape has changed and we're evaluating schools differently, it sure looks like the gap between CCN and the rest of the T14 (er, T13) is pretty minimal.

Edit: Also, go to Chicago, OP.