Top Law Schools

.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I got a scholarship at UVA with a 170, but got waitlisted at Michigan. And besides, they're peer schools.

LSN.

Just wrote:From what I heard, it seems to be hard to get scholarship from UVA with a 170, but for Umich, a 170 can get you at least some money. Is this correct?

So, what's the edge of UVA over umich, except clerkship? Does UVA place better in NYC big laws recently?

Thanks!

Why would the first part of your post have anything to do with the second part? Within the T14, admissions selectivity is only loosely correlated with placement.

rayiner wrote:

Just wrote:From what I heard, it seems to be hard to get scholarship from UVA with a 170, but for Umich, a 170 can get you at least some money. Is this correct?

So, what's the edge of UVA over umich, except clerkship? Does UVA place better in NYC big laws recently?

Thanks!

Why would the first part of your post have anything to do with the second part? Within the T14, admissions selectivity is only loosely correlated with placement.

Exactly. But FYI, OP, the only difference is that you should be careful about going to Michigan if you aren't from the midwest, and you should be careful about going to UVA if you aren't from the South.

Michigan's median is 169, UVA's is 170. By paying for 170s Michigan stands to gain, UVA does not.

I'm not very interested in public service or clerkship, at which UVA seems tobe strong. But is it true that UVA also place better than Michigan in NYC big laws?
I'm trying to decide whether to apply for UVA ED with a 167 and a 170.

BruceWayne wrote:

rayiner wrote:

Just wrote:From what I heard, it seems to be hard to get scholarship from UVA with a 170, but for Umich, a 170 can get you at least some money. Is this correct?

So, what's the edge of UVA over umich, except clerkship? Does UVA place better in NYC big laws recently?

Thanks!

Why would the first part of your post have anything to do with the second part? Within the T14, admissions selectivity is only loosely correlated with placement.

Exactly. But FYI, OP, the only difference is that you should be careful about going to Michigan if you aren't from the midwest, and you should be careful about going to UVA if you aren't from the South.

Why should you be careful about going to Michigan if you are not from the midwest?

LSAT>LDAC wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:

rayiner wrote:

Just wrote:From what I heard, it seems to be hard to get scholarship from UVA with a 170, but for Umich, a 170 can get you at least some money. Is this correct?

So, what's the edge of UVA over umich, except clerkship? Does UVA place better in NYC big laws recently?

Thanks!

Why would the first part of your post have anything to do with the second part? Within the T14, admissions selectivity is only loosely correlated with placement.

Exactly. But FYI, OP, the only difference is that you should be careful about going to Michigan if you aren't from the midwest, and you should be careful about going to UVA if you aren't from the South.

Why should you be careful about going to Michigan if you are not from the midwest?

Or UVA from the south? I thought they were both national schools at this point.

UVA isn't as cold.

Have you ever been to MI in January?

If you have the advantage is self explanatory.

Softball.

BruceWayne wrote:
Exactly. But FYI, OP, the only difference is that you should be careful about going to Michigan if you aren't from the midwest, and you should be careful about going to UVA if you aren't from the South.

Sorry Bruce but I think this is stupid and bad advice

2014 wrote:Michigan's median is 169, UVA's is 170. By paying for 170s Michigan stands to gain, UVA does not.

Not necessarily true unless Michigan is trying to raise its median, which it hasn't shown any sign of doing. Otherwise, 170s are more valuable to UVA to maintain its current median, especially in a year where there are fewer test-takers and thus fewer 170s overall for Penn, Duke, Georgetown (the other 170-median schools off the top of my head).

paulinaporizkova wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:
Exactly. But FYI, OP, the only difference is that you should be careful about going to Michigan if you aren't from the midwest, and you should be careful about going to UVA if you aren't from the South.

Sorry Bruce but I think this is stupid and bad advice

I do think you should be "careful" when going to a non-HYS with no ties to its home market. If you end up outside the target GPA range of NYC firms, targeting smaller firms in the school's home market might be your best bet, and these firms are going to be skeptical of outsiders.

I'm an east-coaster who went to NU, and even big national firms grilled me about why I wanted to work in Chicago when I interviewed there.

Now, this isn't a reason to just not go, but it is something to consider. It's certainly a much more relevant consideration than whatever completely imagined placement differences there are between the two schools.

paulinaporizkova wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:
Exactly. But FYI, OP, the only difference is that you should be careful about going to Michigan if you aren't from the midwest, and you should be careful about going to UVA if you aren't from the South.

Sorry Bruce but I think this is stupid and bad advice

Aren't you a 1L who hasn't gone through OGI? Frankly, it's some of the best advice you'll get about career options--more people need to be aware of it. The idea of "national" schools ITE mostly consists of HYS and people from the rest of the top 14 with really good grades. If you don't have good grades and you don't go to a HYS top 14 you'd be shocked at just how regional your degree is (other than NYC). And if you don't go to CCN or Penn NYC isn't quite as friendly as you might think either with bad grades.

rayiner wrote: I do think you should be "careful" when going to a non-HYS with no ties to its home market. If you end up outside the target GPA range of NYC firms, targeting smaller firms in the school's home market might be your best bet, and these firms are going to be skeptical of outsiders.

I'm an east-coaster who went to NU, and even big national firms grilled me about why I wanted to work in Chicago when I interviewed there.

Now, this isn't a reason to just not go, but it is something to consider. It's certainly a much more relevant consideration than whatever completely imagined placement differences there are between the two schools.

EXACTLY. Especially the bolded. Try getting a firm job going to UVA if you aren't from the South (especially if you're from DC or the North) and end up with a 3.2 or lower GPA. Try the same at Michigan if you aren't from the midwest and you get a 3.0.

Peer schools are peers. Weather differences are most relevant here.

hotter girls - better weather - better rich people sports teams - not in the midwest

BruceWayne wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:
Exactly. But FYI, OP, the only difference is that you should be careful about going to Michigan if you aren't from the midwest, and you should be careful about going to UVA if you aren't from the South.

Sorry Bruce but I think this is stupid and bad advice

Aren't you a 1L who hasn't gone through OGI? Frankly, it's some of the best advice you'll get about career options--more people need to be aware of it. The idea of "national" schools ITE mostly consists of HYS and people from the rest of the top 14 with really good grades. If you don't have good grades and you don't go to a HYS top 14 you'd be shocked at just how regional your degree is (other than NYC). And if you don't go to CCN or Penn NYC isn't quite as friendly as you might think either with bad grades.

In the amount of hustle I've undergone so far, I am 100% sure that my T14 law degree from the school I'm at, not in the region I'm looking into, gives me an advantage over all the lower ranked schools in the region I'm looking into, some of which are solid schools. I just don't understand your doom and gloom sometimes. We have talked before. You got a firm job. It worked out the way you wanted it to work out. And I also know that you go to a T14 that feeds directly into the region you're from and wanted to work in/got a job back in. So I don't think you should be giving strongly worded advice to people not in that position because you didn't go through our particular job application process. Rayiner, thanks for your input.

also, really good grades vs. below a 3.2? that leaves a lot of middle ground that you don't appear to account for, and that's the GPA range most people are in

paulinaporizkova wrote:In the amount of hustle I've undergone so far, I am 100% sure that my T14 law degree from the school I'm at, not in the region I'm looking into, gives me an advantage over all the lower ranked schools in the region I'm looking into, some of which are solid schools.

The point is to interpret the available data with an understanding that the legal market in various parts of the country are insular in a way other professions are not. People from outside the home market will be at a disadvantage relative to their home-town classmates, even if they have an advantage over people at local schools.

rayiner wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:In the amount of hustle I've undergone so far, I am 100% sure that my T14 law degree from the school I'm at, not in the region I'm looking into, gives me an advantage over all the lower ranked schools in the region I'm looking into, some of which are solid schools.

The point is to interpret the available data with an understanding that the legal market in various parts of the country are insular in a way other professions are not. People from outside the home market will be at a disadvantage relative to their home-town classmates, even if they have an advantage over people at local schools.

I think there are very easy ways to rectify this. Get a 1L job in the city you want to work in your 2L summer and network i.e. face to face, with alums. I've liked my experience so far because I have met a few great alums at each large firm around here that would really go to bat to get another alum working with them in a region that doesn't have many representatives from the school by virtue of where it is geographically

Is there any advantage to one or the other if you aren't from the midwest or the south? Like if you are from CA or TX and want to end up back home (or would it always be better to attend UCLA/USC/UT in these cases?).

shifty_eyed wrote:Is there any advantage to one or the other if you aren't from the midwest or the south? Like if you are from CA or TX and want to end up back home (or would it always be better to attend UCLA/USC/UT in these cases?).

i'd choose the t14 if you're from the area and want to return, all debt being equal. firms in LA don't want 100% UCLA/USC. same goes for everywhere. Also ^^ what I said above about t14 alums in insular regions

just to clarify, this is the situation i'm in. I am currently living and looking at working in the state i'm from and I go to a t14 geographically far away

Very confused by what OP is asking, but in case the question about scholarships was relevant:

1. Get scholarship from M
2. Get accepted to V
3. Tell V about scholarship from M
4. Profit

ringo wrote:Very confused by what OP is asking, but in case the question about scholarships was relevant:

1. Get scholarship from M
2. Get accepted to V
3. Tell V about scholarship from M
4. Profit

more money between V and M is credited. everything else can be solved by affirmatively targeting the region you want to be in before 2L fall interviewing. it's not hard

utswdukie80 wrote:Softball.

underrated poast