Top Law Schools

Post title basically sums it up.

What are some real reasons why one would choose t6 at sticker (or near sticker) over MVP etc with a substantial scholarship.

I would also be satisfied if someone linked me to any thread that discusses this exact question in detail. (as I am sure they exist but could not find one in the post history).

You need to be more specific. No one wants to write a treatise on this question.

This being said, there is a number of differences even within the T6, especially between HYS and CCN...so it depends on circumstances.

Thats a fair enough answer. **someone might want to write a treatise on this Please? HP or other TLS lords please?**

I guess if you don't want to write a treatise thats fine. but could you at least explain what YOUR reasoning would be.

T6 biglaw placement can be as much as 20% more of the class than lower ranked T14s.


That's really the main thing

Another argument is that even if the T6 are only a small bit better than the lower T14, even at 20k/year you still might be in 150k+ debt from that lower T14 meaning that you need biglaw to pay off your debt. Due to the bimodal salary distribution, taking even a small increase in chances at biglaw could be worth a lot more debt since you're 6 figures in the hole either way.

bk187 wrote:Another argument is that even if the T6 are only a small bit better than the lower T14, even at 20k/year you still might be in 150k+ debt from that lower T14 meaning that you need biglaw to pay off your debt. Due to the bimodal salary distribution, taking even a small increase in chances at biglaw could be worth a lot more debt since you're 6 figures in the hole either way.

This. I think basically once you hit 6 figure debt, you need biglaw, so go where you have the best chances

JamMasterJ wrote:T6 biglaw placement can be as much as 20% more of the class than lower ranked T14s.


That's really the main thing

Tell me a bit more about this. Where is the data coming from and what does it really mean.

It's more like 10% or less in recent years for CC over lower T14, not sure where 20% came from. IIRC, CC is low 70s for NLJ250+A3 average over the past few years, most of the lower T14 is mid-60s, and I think M and B were low 60s. Numbers are in numerous threads, but obviously look at averages for the past few years.

I took low T14 half scholarship over NYU because of a 90k difference (COL included). Don't underestimate debt just because you're already taking out 6 figures.

.

I am assuming that when the OP said T6, he/she was talking about CCN over MVP. Had OP been talking about YHS, he/she would have used T3.

If you're getting a substantial scholarship at MVP, I wouldn't pay sticker at CCN. The differences don't seem to be that substantial. Graduating with less debt from a damn good school >> graduating with more debt from a tiny bit more damn good of a school. HTH

hibiki wrote:

TUP wrote:It's more like 10% or less in recent years for CC over lower T14, not sure where 20% came from. IIRC, CC is low 70s for NLJ250+A3 average over the past few years, most of the lower T14 is mid-60s, and I think M and B were low 60s. Numbers are in numerous threads, but obviously look at averages for the past few years.

I took low T14 half scholarship over NYU because of a 90k difference (COL included). Don't underestimate debt just because you're already taking out 6 figures.

If you look at the most recent SA figures there is a gap, though.

At New York University School of Law -- currently ranked No. 6 by US News & World Report -- preliminary data show that about 70 percent of incoming third-year students got summer associate positions in 2011, up 15 percentage points from 2010. At No. 5-ranked University of Chicago, the number was 77 percent, up eight points from 2010. The increase was three percentage points at No. 1-ranked Yale, and four percentage points at No. 7-ranked University of Michigan.

The sudden decline is reflected in the experiences of top-ten-ranked law schools. At NYU, 55 percent of incoming third-year students held summer positions in 2010, down from 80 percent a year earlier. At Michigan, the drop was to 51 percent from 75 percent; at the University of Chicago the numbers were 69 percent and 89 percent, respectively.

Unless I'm reading something wrong that says the SA gap between NYU and Mich went from 55% versus 51% in 2010 to 70% to 55% in 2011. One doesn't want to read too much from these numbers but the gap is real, even between NYU and Mich.

Where is that data from? The 2009 numbers for NYU and Chi seem very high relative to NLJ250+A3.

.

For the sake of comparison, below is the average of NLJ250 for 2007-2010 plus the average of A3 for 2007-2009.

Chicago: 74%
Stanford: 73%
Columbia: 73%
Penn: 71%
Harvard: 71%
Yale: 67%
Northwestern: 67%
NYU: 66%
Virginia: 65%
Duke: 64%
Cornell: 64%
Michigan: 62%
Berkeley: 60%
Georgetown: 50%

I'd be interested in what the rest of those SAs turned into at NYU if not big law or clerkships.

.

JamMasterJ wrote:

bk187 wrote:Another argument is that even if the T6 are only a small bit better than the lower T14, even at 20k/year you still might be in 150k+ debt from that lower T14 meaning that you need biglaw to pay off your debt. Due to the bimodal salary distribution, taking even a small increase in chances at biglaw could be worth a lot more debt since you're 6 figures in the hole either way.

This. I think basically once you hit 6 figure debt, you need biglaw, so go where you have the best chances

I actually don't think that you need biglaw if you're 100k in the hole. You probably don't need biglaw if you're even 120k in the hole. I think you need more than 60k and/or the ability to file married-jointly along with the willingness to extend payments and live frugally.


But the principle still stands. Better chance at biglaw for roughly the same legal education at probably the same price. But it can depend on circumstance. I would just think that you would want to go to Harvard or Yale because those two names open doors that not any other school will except for Stanford maybe.

Gail wrote:I actually don't think that you need biglaw if you're 100k in the hole. You probably don't need biglaw if you're even 120k in the hole. I think you need more than 60k and/or the ability to file married-jointly along with the willingness to extend payments and live frugally.

I think somewhere in the 100k-150k range is where it becomes unfeasible to pay back that amount in 10 years with a 40-60k salary.

I also think there's an argument to be made for being less in debt. I mean if you are in 150k debt and you get biglaw you're in a better position than the person who is 210k debt and in biglaw. I don't think there's a clearcut answer. Personally I would even slightly better odds at biglaw for a decent amount more debt but I know others who wouldn't. I mean once you're out of school, the person who has less debt is going to be able to do other things sooner/easier (have more disposable income, buy a house, start a family, etc).

bk187 wrote:

Gail wrote:I actually don't think that you need biglaw if you're 100k in the hole. You probably don't need biglaw if you're even 120k in the hole. I think you need more than 60k and/or the ability to file married-jointly along with the willingness to extend payments and live frugally.

I think somewhere in the 100k-150k range is where it becomes unfeasible to pay back that amount in 10 years with a 40-60k salary.

I also think there's an argument to be made for being less in debt. I mean if you are in 150k debt and you get biglaw you're in a better position than the person who is 210k debt and in biglaw. I don't think there's a clearcut answer. Personally I would even slightly better odds at biglaw for a decent amount more debt but I know others who wouldn't. I mean once you're out of school, the person who has less debt is going to be able to do other things sooner/easier (have more disposable income, buy a house, start a family, etc).

This is definitely TCR.

Also, I think TLS tends to overestimate how easy it is to get big money in the lower T14. It's much easier to get into CCN than it is to get big money in the lower T14, and it's easier to get into HYS than get one of the full ride fellowships.

Nelson wrote: Also, I think TLS tends to overestimate how easy it is to get big money in the lower T14. It's much easier to get into CCN than it is to get big money in the lower T14, and it's easier to get into HYS than get one of the full ride fellowships.

+1

hibiki wrote:

TUP wrote:
I'd be interested in what the rest of those SAs turned into at NYU if not big law or clerkships.

I'm not sure; it would be nice if someone chipped in even with anecdotal information. That said, I'd rather be with an SA position than without one.

I guess we'll know more when 2011 NLJ250 comes out. The Reuters data seems school-reported.

Looking merely at percentage in biglaw understates the difference in quality of placements at the top schools.

NU and Chicago might have similar biglaw placement stats at any given time but Chicago places much better into elite positions in all legal sectors (elite biglaw, government, clerkships, etc.)

I'd usually take the money if it was substantial enough, especially over the high COL schools (NYU/Columbia), but you can't ignore quality of placements when doing these calculations.

bk187 wrote:

Gail wrote:I actually don't think that you need biglaw if you're 100k in the hole. You probably don't need biglaw if you're even 120k in the hole. I think you need more than 60k and/or the ability to file married-jointly along with the willingness to extend payments and live frugally.

I think somewhere in the 100k-150k range is where it becomes unfeasible to pay back that amount in 10 years with a 40-60k salary.

I also think there's an argument to be made for being less in debt. I mean if you are in 150k debt and you get biglaw you're in a better position than the person who is 210k debt and in biglaw. I don't think there's a clearcut answer. Personally I would even slightly better odds at biglaw for a decent amount more debt but I know others who wouldn't. I mean once you're out of school, the person who has less debt is going to be able to do other things sooner/easier (have more disposable income, buy a house, start a family, etc).

You're right. Assuming after taxes you make $40k a year (so roughly 60k salary). You're in the hole for $226 a month assuming a frugal living of $2,300 a month for basics (rent + car + food + utilities/cable, etc.) that means no new clothes for ten years. Yikes. So not feasible with 120k of debt.

It's only at 20year repayment that you actually even make enough to save 10% a month.


That assumes no raise and bonus at shitlaw, but I'm not sure how that works.

Out of curiosity, would those of you who say go T6 for the better chance at Biglaw say the same if the options were sticker vs full-ride instead of some money?

For example, how many would take Harvard full price vs Michigan with $$$$? Harvard vs. Cornell with $$$$?

Kikero wrote:Out of curiosity, would those of you who say go T6 for the better chance at Biglaw say the same if the options were sticker vs full-ride instead of some money?

For example, how many would take Harvard full price vs Michigan with $$$$? Harvard vs. Cornell with $$$$?

ITE, i would take Michigan, but not cornell. But that's just because I love michigan so much.

Kikero wrote:Out of curiosity, would those of you who say go T6 for the better chance at Biglaw say the same if the options were sticker vs full-ride instead of some money?

For example, how many would take Harvard full price vs Michigan with $$$$? Harvard vs. Cornell with $$$$?

This has been discussed ad nauseum on TLS. There are multiple threads discussing this on the front page of this forum right now.

It's totally hypothetical for 95+% of the people who post here.

Nelson wrote:

Kikero wrote:Out of curiosity, would those of you who say go T6 for the better chance at Biglaw say the same if the options were sticker vs full-ride instead of some money?

For example, how many would take Harvard full price vs Michigan with $$$$? Harvard vs. Cornell with $$$$?

This has been discussed ad nauseum on TLS. There are multiple threads discussing this on the front page of this forum right now.

It's totally hypothetical for 95+% of the people who post here.

I wasn't asking in a general sense, I was interested in how strongly held were the convictions of the posters in this particular thread who said T6 vs. $$ from lower T14.

Though I apologize if my post made you sick