$$$ vs. ranking Forum

[TaipeiMort]

It depends greatly on what school you're turning down and for how much $$. Also where you want to live after school and what ties you have to various areas.

Turning down Chicago for a full ride at Northwestern? You'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who didn't support that.

Turning down Harvard for 10k a year at UCLA? Not so much.

Many would take Chicago over that-- especially those wanting markets other than Chicago who lack real work experience. Northwestern places better in Chicago than Chicago, and has great NLJ250 placement. However, if you lack work experience it would be a bad choice to go to Northwestern-- part of the reason it places so well is because so many people there have MBA-like work experience and employers obviously love this (you'll understand after you go through OCI). Also Northwestern doesn't place well in mid-level markets and west coast markets. A firm in Arizona is much more likely to hire a Chicago grad than an NU grad.

People wouldn't turn down Harvard for 10k a year at UCLA, but they might if they had a full-ride. Harvard places well in California, but if you get to the top of UCLA's class the options would be similar.

[JustE]

If you're dead set for BigLaw, maybe this is useful:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... slreturn=1

Yeah, saw that. But I'm not conviced going to NU will make it that much easier to get back to Atlanta. I'm a bit of a weird case. I have solid ties to Atlanta (lots of work experience and I went to school here), so I'm honestly not even terribly concerned about landing a job once I get into the room. Problem is, I need grades to get in the room. Hopefully the good folks at Michigan will make me a reasonable offer. If they do, I'll take it and run.

[traehekat]

However, if you lack work experience it would be a bad choice to go to Northwestern-- part of the reason it places so well is because so many people there have MBA-like work experience and employers obviously love this (you'll understand after you go through OCI).

If you lack work experience then you didn't get into NU.

EDIT: If you are more referring to MBA-type WE, then yeah that's a somewhat fair point, although not even close to justify turning down a full ride at NU for Chicago if you want Chicago.

[kitkat450]

.

[TaipeiMort]

However, if you lack work experience it would be a bad choice to go to Northwestern-- part of the reason it places so well is because so many people there have MBA-like work experience and employers obviously love this (you'll understand after you go through OCI).

If you lack work experience then you didn't get into NU.

EDIT: If you are more referring to MBA-type WE, then yeah that's a somewhat fair point, although not even close to justify turning down a full ride at NU for Chicago if you want Chicago.

100% Agreed.

[traehekat]

OP here, was reluctant to post this, but glad I did now. It looks like several of us are considering taking Texas in-state with $$ over sticker or small schollys at higher ranked schools.

@ACROOS170- just commented on your thread

I'm personally considering taking in-state + $$ at UT over small scholarships at Michigan and Chicago, although an increase in UT's scholarship would make this decision easier. I actually don't want biglaw, although the option is nice. I'm thinking of trying for a clerkship or PI/gov job to gain some experience and then trying to get a job at a boutique firm or bigfed (hoping they lift hiring freeze once I'm looking for a job). I realize both boutique firms and bigfed are hard to get, but I don't think I mind working somewhere else first to gain some experience and then giving it a shot.

I also am pretty sure I want to stay in Texas, which is a significant factor. Was originally set on just getting into UT and going there, but I got a little crazy with fee waivers and things went better than expected. Michigan is not super appealing to me for some reason, but I'm having a little trouble getting over the "prestige" of Chicago. I'm not really sure Chicago would be a good fit for me, they seem so biglaw focused, which I am not. It's pretty hard to get a read on Chicago from their students/TLS bc everything everyone says is so positive, but I have serious reservations. Hopefully a visit will give me a better read. I feel like I need some perspective and should maybe stop being so rankings obsessed. These are both really good options regardless.

It's tough because against almost any other school I would say go with UT if you want to work in Texas, but Chicago is one of the few truly "national" schools, IMO (YHSC rounding out the list - sorry NYU). I think if you wanted to get back to Texas from Chicago, you probably could but it would take a bit more work as I assume more Texas firms attend UT's OCI than Chicago's and so you would have to be doing a lot of targeted mailing.

[PMan99]

It's pretty hard to get a read on Chicago from their students/TLS bc everything everyone says is so positive, but I have serious reservations. Hopefully a visit will give me a better read. I feel like I need some perspective and should maybe stop being so rankings obsessed. These are both really good options regardless.

One good thing I'll say about Chicago is that they do a fantastic job developing professors to be poached by HYS.

[rad lulz]

.

[JustE]

If you're dead set for BigLaw, maybe this is useful:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... slreturn=1

Yeah, saw that. But I'm not conviced going to NU will make it that much easier to get back to Atlanta. I'm a bit of a weird case. I have solid ties to Atlanta (lots of work experience and I went to school here), so I'm honestly not even terribly concerned about landing a job once I get into the room. Problem is, I need grades to get in the room. Hopefully the good folks at Michigan will make me a reasonable offer. If they do, I'll take it and run.

ATL biglawl firms are huge grade snobs and don't care that much about ties. Your strong ties aren't gonna do you any huge favors.

I hear you. Was at a Jones Day reception for UGA last night and spoke to an atty that sits on the recruiting committee. She seemed to think I would be fine at median out of NYU and Michigan. I hope she's right...

[danitt]

As an international student who would be facing this decision soon I'm very interested in the topic. Would you also advise and international to focus on ranking as opposed to pricing?

[rad lulz]

.

[094320]

..

[de5igual]

I hear you. Was at a Jones Day reception for UGA last night and spoke to an atty that sits on the recruiting committee. She seemed to think I would be fine at median out of NYU and Michigan. I hope she's right...

Seems pretty optimistic frankly. I don't know what she means by "fine." Maybe "your resume won't immediately get binned."

+1
seems this cycle for atlanta, even at the traditional atlanta-feeding t14 (uva, duke) you needed to be well above median for an offer

[kitkat450]

.

[hung jury]

OP here, was reluctant to post this, but glad I did now. It looks like several of us are considering taking Texas in-state with $$ over sticker or small schollys at higher ranked schools.

@ACROOS170- just commented on your thread

I'm personally considering taking in-state + $$ at UT over small scholarships at Michigan and Chicago, although an increase in UT's scholarship would make this decision easier. I actually don't want biglaw, although the option is nice. I'm thinking of trying for a clerkship or PI/gov job to gain some experience and then trying to get a job at a boutique firm or bigfed (hoping they lift hiring freeze once I'm looking for a job). I realize both boutique firms and bigfed are hard to get, but I don't think I mind working somewhere else first to gain some experience and then giving it a shot.

I also am pretty sure I want to stay in Texas, which is a significant factor. Was originally set on just getting into UT and going there, but I got a little crazy with fee waivers and things went better than expected. Michigan is not super appealing to me for some reason, but I'm having a little trouble getting over the "prestige" of Chicago. I'm not really sure Chicago would be a good fit for me, they seem so biglaw focused, which I am not. It's pretty hard to get a read on Chicago from their students/TLS bc everything everyone says is so positive, but I have serious reservations. Hopefully a visit will give me a better read. I feel like I need some perspective and should maybe stop being so rankings obsessed. These are both really good options regardless.

It's tough because against almost any other school I would say go with UT if you want to work in Texas, but Chicago is one of the few truly "national" schools, IMO (YHSC rounding out the list - sorry NYU). I think if you wanted to get back to Texas from Chicago, you probably could but it would take a bit more work as I assume more Texas firms attend UT's OCI than Chicago's and so you would have to be doing a lot of targeted mailing.

Yea.. I agree Chicago is "national," although I think it may be a slightly different story if we were talking YHS. It's national reputation is what's giving me pause from just taking the money at Texas and running. I'm not sure if this "national" reputation is worth the extra money if I'm looking for PI/Gov or boutique firm work in Texas? My lack of interest in biglaw makes me think the extra money may not be worth it. Good PI jobs in TX and boutique firms are prob. not going to be recruiting out of Chicago and may be more about making connections. But I am admittingly an ignorant OL, so what do I know?.

I'd go to Texas. Chicago's IBR-based LRAP kind of sucks and Texas is great for Texas. The "prestige" difference between Chicago and Texas within Texas is negligible. Given your career goals I think you have it right that being in Texas while you're in school will be a substantial benefit. You'll also avoid the "so why'd you go to Chicago if you wanted to stay in Texas" questions which will be a real (but surmountable) hurdle at smaller/boutique firms that are looking to invest in you long term.

But don't accept until you have to. You might still milk/get offered some more money out of Texas.

[traehekat]

OP here, was reluctant to post this, but glad I did now. It looks like several of us are considering taking Texas in-state with $$ over sticker or small schollys at higher ranked schools.

@ACROOS170- just commented on your thread

I'm personally considering taking in-state + $$ at UT over small scholarships at Michigan and Chicago, although an increase in UT's scholarship would make this decision easier. I actually don't want biglaw, although the option is nice. I'm thinking of trying for a clerkship or PI/gov job to gain some experience and then trying to get a job at a boutique firm or bigfed (hoping they lift hiring freeze once I'm looking for a job). I realize both boutique firms and bigfed are hard to get, but I don't think I mind working somewhere else first to gain some experience and then giving it a shot.

I also am pretty sure I want to stay in Texas, which is a significant factor. Was originally set on just getting into UT and going there, but I got a little crazy with fee waivers and things went better than expected. Michigan is not super appealing to me for some reason, but I'm having a little trouble getting over the "prestige" of Chicago. I'm not really sure Chicago would be a good fit for me, they seem so biglaw focused, which I am not. It's pretty hard to get a read on Chicago from their students/TLS bc everything everyone says is so positive, but I have serious reservations. Hopefully a visit will give me a better read. I feel like I need some perspective and should maybe stop being so rankings obsessed. These are both really good options regardless.

It's tough because against almost any other school I would say go with UT if you want to work in Texas, but Chicago is one of the few truly "national" schools, IMO (YHSC rounding out the list - sorry NYU). I think if you wanted to get back to Texas from Chicago, you probably could but it would take a bit more work as I assume more Texas firms attend UT's OCI than Chicago's and so you would have to be doing a lot of targeted mailing.

Yea.. I agree Chicago is "national," although I think it may be a slightly different story if we were talking YHS. It's national reputation is what's giving me pause from just taking the money at Texas and running. I'm not sure if this "national" reputation is worth the extra money if I'm looking for PI/Gov or boutique firm work in Texas? My lack of interest in biglaw makes me think the extra money may not be worth it. Good PI jobs in TX and boutique firms are prob. not going to be recruiting out of Chicago and may be more about making connections. But I am admittingly an ignorant OL, so what do I know?.

No, I think that makes sense and you are thinking about the right things. It's not an easy choice that's for sure. I don't know much about government/PI hiring so maybe someone else can chime in with what they think would be the better choice with those goals in mind. My instinct says go with Texas.

[TaipeiMort]

OP here, was reluctant to post this, but glad I did now. It looks like several of us are considering taking Texas in-state with $$ over sticker or small schollys at higher ranked schools.

@ACROOS170- just commented on your thread

I'm personally considering taking in-state + $$ at UT over small scholarships at Michigan and Chicago, although an increase in UT's scholarship would make this decision easier. I actually don't want biglaw, although the option is nice. I'm thinking of trying for a clerkship or PI/gov job to gain some experience and then trying to get a job at a boutique firm or bigfed (hoping they lift hiring freeze once I'm looking for a job). I realize both boutique firms and bigfed are hard to get, but I don't think I mind working somewhere else first to gain some experience and then giving it a shot.

I also am pretty sure I want to stay in Texas, which is a significant factor. Was originally set on just getting into UT and going there, but I got a little crazy with fee waivers and things went better than expected. Michigan is not super appealing to me for some reason, but I'm having a little trouble getting over the "prestige" of Chicago. I'm not really sure Chicago would be a good fit for me, they seem so biglaw focused, which I am not. It's pretty hard to get a read on Chicago from their students/TLS bc everything everyone says is so positive, but I have serious reservations. Hopefully a visit will give me a better read. I feel like I need some perspective and should maybe stop being so rankings obsessed. These are both really good options regardless.

It's tough because against almost any other school I would say go with UT if you want to work in Texas, but Chicago is one of the few truly "national" schools, IMO (YHSC rounding out the list - sorry NYU). I think if you wanted to get back to Texas from Chicago, you probably could but it would take a bit more work as I assume more Texas firms attend UT's OCI than Chicago's and so you would have to be doing a lot of targeted mailing.

Yea.. I agree Chicago is "national," although I think it may be a slightly different story if we were talking YHS. It's national reputation is what's giving me pause from just taking the money at Texas and running. I'm not sure if this "national" reputation is worth the extra money if I'm looking for PI/Gov or boutique firm work in Texas? My lack of interest in biglaw makes me think the extra money may not be worth it. Good PI jobs in TX and boutique firms are prob. not going to be recruiting out of Chicago and may be more about making connections. But I am admittingly an ignorant OL, so what do I know?.

Chicago is better for Texas than most other schools, including Texas. Every major Texas firm recruits at Chicago for every office-- this is partially because Chicago is the most conservative school in the top 14 and has a huge Texas network. For example, Baker Botts took 12 on a callback to Houston this last cycle. Everyone I know from Texas had unlimited offers from Texas firms. You can end up way below median and still get Texas offers if you are from Texas. It is also easy because out of the small class size, only a handful of native Texans are gunning for the Texas spots.

In terms of the best firms, Susman takes 1-2 Chicago people per year. AZA (smaller Susman) took 3 or something this year. The Big 3 Houston firms feast on Chicago's class like a bunch of hungry sharks.

You would be crazy not to go to Chicago if you wanted Texas and were from Texas. Only maybe Yale is better (and that is debatable because their conservative Texas network is not as big).

[skers]

Crazy not to take Chicago over Texas if someone wants Texas? Come on bro.

[hung jury]

OP here, was reluctant to post this, but glad I did now. It looks like several of us are considering taking Texas in-state with $$ over sticker or small schollys at higher ranked schools.

@ACROOS170- just commented on your thread

I'm personally considering taking in-state + $$ at UT over small scholarships at Michigan and Chicago, although an increase in UT's scholarship would make this decision easier. I actually don't want biglaw, although the option is nice. I'm thinking of trying for a clerkship or PI/gov job to gain some experience and then trying to get a job at a boutique firm or bigfed (hoping they lift hiring freeze once I'm looking for a job). I realize both boutique firms and bigfed are hard to get, but I don't think I mind working somewhere else first to gain some experience and then giving it a shot.

I also am pretty sure I want to stay in Texas, which is a significant factor. Was originally set on just getting into UT and going there, but I got a little crazy with fee waivers and things went better than expected. Michigan is not super appealing to me for some reason, but I'm having a little trouble getting over the "prestige" of Chicago. I'm not really sure Chicago would be a good fit for me, they seem so biglaw focused, which I am not. It's pretty hard to get a read on Chicago from their students/TLS bc everything everyone says is so positive, but I have serious reservations. Hopefully a visit will give me a better read. I feel like I need some perspective and should maybe stop being so rankings obsessed. These are both really good options regardless.

It's tough because against almost any other school I would say go with UT if you want to work in Texas, but Chicago is one of the few truly "national" schools, IMO (YHSC rounding out the list - sorry NYU). I think if you wanted to get back to Texas from Chicago, you probably could but it would take a bit more work as I assume more Texas firms attend UT's OCI than Chicago's and so you would have to be doing a lot of targeted mailing.

Yea.. I agree Chicago is "national," although I think it may be a slightly different story if we were talking YHS. It's national reputation is what's giving me pause from just taking the money at Texas and running. I'm not sure if this "national" reputation is worth the extra money if I'm looking for PI/Gov or boutique firm work in Texas? My lack of interest in biglaw makes me think the extra money may not be worth it. Good PI jobs in TX and boutique firms are prob. not going to be recruiting out of Chicago and may be more about making connections. But I am admittingly an ignorant OL, so what do I know?.

Chicago is better for Texas than most other schools, including Texas. Every major Texas firm recruits at Chicago for every office-- this is partially because Chicago is the most conservative school in the top 14 and has a huge Texas network. For example, Baker Botts took 12 on a callback to Houston this last cycle. Everyone I know from Texas had unlimited offers from Texas firms. You can end up way below median and still get Texas offers if you are from Texas. It is also easy because out of the small class size, only a handful of native Texans are gunning for the Texas spots.

In terms of the best firms, Susman takes 1-2 Chicago people per year. AZA (smaller Susman) took 3 or something this year. The Big 3 Houston firms feast on Chicago's class like a bunch of hungry sharks.

You would be crazy not to go to Chicago if you wanted Texas and were from Texas. Only maybe Yale is better (and that is debatable because their conservative Texas network is not as big).

Also, Texas has a diluted faculty.

[TaipeiMort]

Crazy not to take Chicago over Texas if someone wants Texas? Come on bro.

If someone wants Texas BigLaw, Midlaw, or high-end boutique work, then yes, it would be crazy not to take Chicago.

At Chicago you will be one of 20 or so Texans gunning for 40-50 available spots. A lot of the top Texas firms don't even have cut-offs if you are from Texas. If you are from Austin or Dallas you have no competition at all-- the firms will take the below median lady from the market over the guy from NYC with a top GPA. Anecdotally, I had three law review grade-on friends who got tons of other offers in other markets that didn't get callbacks to several Texas firms that took every single local on the callback.

If you want Houston, you will have a little more competition, as some firms will let non-Texans compete for spots. However, I know that on Houston callbacks I went on, I saw three types of people: native Texans, medianish people who were a good fit (Southerners, Evangelicals, FedSoc people, Mormons, etc.), and law review people.

Nevertheless, the point remains that at Texas about 40% of the class will have a shot at NLJ250 slots. At Chicago every single Texan should walk away with 10+ callbacks and several offers. We actually during OCI calculated the number of spots available at Texas firms after subtracting all of our Texas classmates, as we knew that they would all get offers.

[hung jury]

Crazy not to take Chicago over Texas if someone wants Texas? Come on bro.

If someone wants Texas BigLaw, Midlaw, or high-end boutique work, then yes, it would be crazy not to take Chicago.

At Chicago you will be one of 20 or so Texans gunning for 40-50 available spots. A lot of the top Texas firms don't even have cut-offs if you are from Texas. If you are from Austin or Dallas you have no competition at all-- the firms will take the below median lady from the market over the guy from NYC with a top GPA. Anecdotally, I had three law review grade-on friends who got tons of other offers in other markets that didn't get callbacks to several Texas firms that took every single local on the callback.

If you want Houston, you will have a little more competition, as some firms will let non-Texans compete for spots. However, I know that on Houston callbacks I went on, I saw three types of people: native Texans, medianish people who were a good fit (Southerners, Evangelicals, FedSoc people, Mormons, etc.), and law review people.

Nevertheless, the point remains that at Texas about 40% of the class will have a shot at NLJ250 slots. At Chicago every single Texan should walk away with 10+ callbacks and several offers. We actually during OCI calculated the number of spots available at Texas firms after subtracting all of our Texas classmates, as we knew that they would all get offers.

Since OP is biglaw or bust, I completely agree with all of this. Plus, Texas' diluted faculty.

[kitkat450]

.

[hung jury]

Crazy not to take Chicago over Texas if someone wants Texas? Come on bro.

If someone wants Texas BigLaw, Midlaw, or high-end boutique work, then yes, it would be crazy not to take Chicago.

At Chicago you will be one of 20 or so Texans gunning for 40-50 available spots. A lot of the top Texas firms don't even have cut-offs if you are from Texas. If you are from Austin or Dallas you have no competition at all-- the firms will take the below median lady from the market over the guy from NYC with a top GPA. Anecdotally, I had three law review grade-on friends who got tons of other offers in other markets that didn't get callbacks to several Texas firms that took every single local on the callback.

If you want Houston, you will have a little more competition, as some firms will let non-Texans compete for spots. However, I know that on Houston callbacks I went on, I saw three types of people: native Texans, medianish people who were a good fit (Southerners, Evangelicals, FedSoc people, Mormons, etc.), and law review people.

Nevertheless, the point remains that at Texas about 40% of the class will have a shot at NLJ250 slots. At Chicago every single Texan should walk away with 10+ callbacks and several offers. We actually during OCI calculated the number of spots available at Texas firms after subtracting all of our Texas classmates, as we knew that they would all get offers.

Since OP is biglaw or bust, I completely agree with all of this. Plus, Texas' diluted faculty.

OP here,

I have absolutely NO idea where you got your last comment from. You all have completely distorted what I said. In both of my above posts I specifically said that I do NOT want big law and was looking to do PI/Gov then move into a boutique after getting a few years of experience. I think if I was "big law or bust" I would be much more inclined to go to Chicago over Texas, no question.

And I'm not so sure about TaipeiMort's comments about Chicago placing well in Texas b/c its conservative. I'm pretty sure it's bc it's a really good school. But, what do I know, I'm a giant liberal that has no interest in biglaw ; )

Thanks for those that actually read what I wrote : )

I was mocking TaipeirMort, I knew your interests as you stated them (my above advice--i.e., my real post above, not the reply to Taipei--was premised on that).

I also doubt the conservative thing has much to do with it. Stanford places more than fine in Texas and it is considerably more left than Chicago.

[kitkat450]

Sorry about that! Internet sarcasm did not translate for me lol Thanks for the advice!

[TaipeiMort]

Crazy not to take Chicago over Texas if someone wants Texas? Come on bro.

If someone wants Texas BigLaw, Midlaw, or high-end boutique work, then yes, it would be crazy not to take Chicago.

At Chicago you will be one of 20 or so Texans gunning for 40-50 available spots. A lot of the top Texas firms don't even have cut-offs if you are from Texas. If you are from Austin or Dallas you have no competition at all-- the firms will take the below median lady from the market over the guy from NYC with a top GPA. Anecdotally, I had three law review grade-on friends who got tons of other offers in other markets that didn't get callbacks to several Texas firms that took every single local on the callback.

If you want Houston, you will have a little more competition, as some firms will let non-Texans compete for spots. However, I know that on Houston callbacks I went on, I saw three types of people: native Texans, medianish people who were a good fit (Southerners, Evangelicals, FedSoc people, Mormons, etc.), and law review people.

Nevertheless, the point remains that at Texas about 40% of the class will have a shot at NLJ250 slots. At Chicago every single Texan should walk away with 10+ callbacks and several offers. We actually during OCI calculated the number of spots available at Texas firms after subtracting all of our Texas classmates, as we knew that they would all get offers.

Since OP is biglaw or bust, I completely agree with all of this. Plus, Texas' diluted faculty.

OP here,

I have absolutely NO idea where you got your last comment from. You all have completely distorted what I said. In both of my above posts I specifically said that I do NOT want big law and was looking to do PI/Gov then move into a boutique after getting a few years of experience. I think if I was "big law or bust" I would be much more inclined to go to Chicago over Texas, no question.

And I'm not so sure about TaipeiMort's comments about Chicago placing well in Texas b/c its conservative. I'm pretty sure it's bc it's a really good school. But, what do I know, I'm a giant liberal that has no interest in biglaw ; )

Thanks for those that actually read what I wrote : )

On your first point. If you want PI, then this totally changes the equation. Nevertheless, do you want generic PI, or do you want to be working at the Southern Center for Justice doing capital defense? Still hard to tell what you want.

You are partially right. I don't think liberal kids are necessarily hurt applying to Texas from Chicago. However, conservatives self-select to Chicago (where law & econ and the FedSoc were created). Conservatives self-select to live in/return to the state of Texas (better cultural fit; can afford to have big families, live your religion openly, pay less taxes and have worse schools, open carry, shoot varmints, not have to pay public workers' pensions, eat only meat and be fat).

Because Chicago has a lot of grads there, and a lot of these grads are conservative, and these firms (except for plaintiffs firms like Susman) are generally filled with more conservative people, service conservative-leaning clients like BigOil, then it just so happens that being a conservative Texan at Chicago may help a little. Think of it like the same boost you might enjoy applying to Keker from NYU as a member of ACS.