Top Law Schools

So I think this answer is obvious, but want to see what others think.

I have yet to be admitted to NU, and prob will be dinged anyways. If I get in, probably won't get any money. I have at least tuition to Texas (Hazelwood Exemption) and have already been admitted.

Given the following, what would you pick?

• Gunning for biglaw
• TX resident
• Strong TX ties
• all non-$ given will be on loans
• 2.75/168, but really good WE softs for someone who is K-JD

Texas - full tuition (COL would be roughly 15k/year)
NU - sticker (~65k/year)

And go!

Edited for Nova

Texas, but I am really debt averse, so take that into consideration. I think NU at sticker is way too much, although I do understand that you can graduate median at make biglaw. If you are 100% positive that you want to work biglaw and you don't mind working in Chicago, then NU would probably be an appropriate choice. Full tuition at TX is a fantastic deal, and I just couldn't pass it up.

I go to NU and really like it, but I would take Texas in this situation.

I would definitely pick Texas here.

.

Poll could be helpful for you too OP.

brotherdarkness wrote:I'm also in the "go to Texas" camp. Not only is tuition going to be free, but you're in an arguably better position for Texas biglaw if you go to UT. You're a Texas resident with strong Texas ties, so I'm assuming you're gunning for Texas biglaw. If you're not, you should be... Outside of NYC, it seems to be the strongest market and, when you combine the low COL with market pay, you get something wonderful.

Go. To. Texas.

Thanks for the substantive reviews guys. This is what I've been thinking, I had a mini freakout after already putting a deposit down on an apt here. Definitely gunning for TX biglaw, and Chicago is my second choice. NY would be a fun experience but I don't think I'd want to live there for long times.

Winston1984 wrote:Poll could be helpful for you too OP.

Good point, and also thanks to your post above. I think everyone seems to agree with my general idea of the best choice.

I think this is pretty much a no-brainer but keep in mind that if you really, really want big law, it will be much, much easier to get from Northwestern (not neccessarily TX big law, just big law somewhere). The reason to choose UT is to mitigate the effect of striking out.

If costs were equal, I think NU would be the better choice, even for texas biglaw. Texas biglaw with ties from NU is probably the easier biglaw you can get from NU.

But the money is huge, huge, huge different. Take Texas, it's the right call.

UT all the way.

Attax wrote:So I think this answer is obvious, but want to see what others think.

I have yet to be admitted to NU, and prob will be dinged anyways. If I get in, probably won't get any money. I have at least tuition to Texas (Hazelwood Exemption) and have already been admitted.

Given the following, what would you pick?

• Gunning for biglaw
• TX resident
• Strong TX ties
• all non-$ given will be on loans
• 2.75/168, but really good WE softs for someone who is K-JD

Texas - full tuition (COL would be roughly 15k/year)
NU - sticker (~65k/year)

And go!

Edited for Nova

Jesus....

I work with a guy.
TX kid all the way...

He left home and worked in Chicago. He told me it was the best experience of his life.

If you a TX lifer, really take into consideration Chicago.

Do not write off Chicago just yet, you need to let them know the TX option. Of course, those who are debt adverse are right, very very right. But let NU know what is going on.

But then TX....
Geography is always on your side in TX. If you are from the state, employers always favor the TX kids.
I was hired at a Fortune 50 IT company simply because both my hiring managers are from TX. One went to UT Law the other SMU, both of the them are TX lifers. The entire interview was discussing being raised in TX. The pay was very good.

Congrats. What a great fucking dilemma to be in.

You should go to UT but biglaw (firms of 100+) is unlikely

I would actually go NU given the choice, but given that you're K-JD with a 2.75, I don't think you're going to have the choice, regardless of how good your WE may be. Not trying to be a downer, but when NU takes lower GPA, it tends to be with stellar WE, not just really good for someone who's K-JD.

BVest wrote:I would actually go NU given the choice, but given that you're K-JD with a 2.75, I don't think you're going to have the choice, regardless of how good your WE may be. Not trying to be a downer, but when NU takes lower GPA, it tends to be with stellar WE, not just really good for someone who's K-JD.

You would take sticker at NU over a full ride at UT? Curious as to why?

If there wasn't such a chasm in debt I would agree.

I didn't even stop to think about this when I initially replied, but are things really this bad for schools on the admissions front? I mean a full ride going to an applicant with a 2.75 would have been unheard of from any school in the top 25 (probably 50) when I applied a few years ago. Even with a high 17X LSAT.

Now UT is giving away full rides to 2.75/168 applicants? That's a sign of some really serious problems at law schools as far as sustainability goes. I read about the decline, but didn't recognize that it had this kind of drastic effect on really highly ranked schools. Wow.

They didn't give him a full ride there is some gi bill like program doing it. Hazel wood exemption.

Desert Fox wrote:They didn't give him a full ride there is some gi bill like program doing it. Hazel wood exemption.

This. Probably should have clarified what my full tuition is. It is a military service exemption.

I would be flabbergasted if NU gave an admit. I have a 168/3.95/3-4 yrs mediocre WE and I'm still worrying.

If they DO, however, does this military $$ count everywhere else? If so, you obviously have to go NU.

BigZuck wrote:

BVest wrote:I would actually go NU given the choice, but given that you're K-JD with a 2.75, I don't think you're going to have the choice, regardless of how good your WE may be. Not trying to be a downer, but when NU takes lower GPA, it tends to be with stellar WE, not just really good for someone who's K-JD.

You would take sticker at NU over a full ride at UT? Curious as to why?

If there wasn't such a chasm in debt I would agree.

If what he really wants is biglaw, NU gives him twice the shot. Further, the difference in salary shows him making up the difference in 4-5 years on average. (I say this as someone walking your halls Zuck).

As for folks asking about taking the military money elsewhere, it's a Texas state benefit, so it's only good at UT, UH, TT, and maybe now TWU/Texas A&M.

BVest wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

BVest wrote:I would actually go NU given the choice, but given that you're K-JD with a 2.75, I don't think you're going to have the choice, regardless of how good your WE may be. Not trying to be a downer, but when NU takes lower GPA, it tends to be with stellar WE, not just really good for someone who's K-JD.

You would take sticker at NU over a full ride at UT? Curious as to why?

If there wasn't such a chasm in debt I would agree.

If what he really wants is biglaw, NU gives him twice the shot. Further, the difference in salary shows him making up the difference in 4-5 years on average. (I say this as someone walking your halls Zuck).

As for folks asking about taking the military money elsewhere, it's a Texas state benefit, so it's only good at UT, UH, TT, and maybe now TWU/Texas A&M.

Well sure, but that's assuming he gets biglaw at NU and wouldn't at UT. Plus it's not really 2x the shot either. Biglaw + clerkship at NU= 55.6%, vs. 35.1% at UT.

NU is easily an extra 200k in debt for only moderately better chances at biglaw. I can't fathom any EV calculation that would have NU coming out on top.

BVest wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

BVest wrote:I would actually go NU given the choice, but given that you're K-JD with a 2.75, I don't think you're going to have the choice, regardless of how good your WE may be. Not trying to be a downer, but when NU takes lower GPA, it tends to be with stellar WE, not just really good for someone who's K-JD.

You would take sticker at NU over a full ride at UT? Curious as to why?

If there wasn't such a chasm in debt I would agree.

If what he really wants is biglaw, NU gives him twice the shot. Further, the difference in salary shows him making up the difference in 4-5 years on average. (I say this as someone walking your halls Zuck).

As for folks asking about taking the military money elsewhere, it's a Texas state benefit, so it's only good at UT, UH, TT, and maybe now TWU/Texas A&M.

Yeah, I know you're a fellow comrade in arms. I wasn't asking as a UT butthurt bro. I was just wondering if you thought the increased big law opportunity is worth the extra COA.

In general I'm a big proponent of T14 over UT if big law is the goal (See: thread discussing the ease of T14 bros snagging 1L SAs without grades while us UT bros have to slug it out, even with pretty good grades. Ok, maybe I am a little bitter ). I even acknowledged here that big law will be much easier for him out of NU. But when it is a huge difference in COA I'm inclined to side with wokeupinacar's analysis.

I'm not entirely sure you can simply add the clerkship score to the biglaw score. I think clerkships often get double-counted where the attorney has a clerkship and a standing post-clerkship offer. For example, look at Yale. They have an employment score of 82%. But if you add their clerkships, biglaw, public service, and school funded, which is not even all of the sectors their graduates will be going into, those numbers add up to 88%. Maybe I'm misreading it though.

While we disagree on an economic analysis working out in favor of NU, but even after you do the math on repaying $200 vs $50k between the two schools, there's the psychic benefits to consider of doubling your chances of doing what you really want to do. But yeah, I would do NU in OP's shoes, if given the opportunity. That said, I have empirical evidence as to whether NU would accept me, which mooted the point.

You can't just take the number of people who GOT biglaw at a school and then assume that's the % chance you'll have. Only a tiny portion of NU students try for Texas big law.

BVest wrote:I'm not entirely sure you can simply add the clerkship score to the biglaw score. I think clerkships often get double-counted where the attorney has a clerkship and a standing post-clerkship offer. For example, look at Yale. They have an employment score of 82%. But if you add their clerkships, biglaw, public service, and school funded, which is not even all of the sectors their graduates will be going into, those numbers add up to 88%. Maybe I'm misreading it though.

School-funded is not a separate category. It's almost exclusively PI.

cotiger wrote:

BVest wrote:I'm not entirely sure you can simply add the clerkship score to the biglaw score. I think clerkships often get double-counted where the attorney has a clerkship and a standing post-clerkship offer. For example, look at Yale. They have an employment score of 82%. But if you add their clerkships, biglaw, public service, and school funded, which is not even all of the sectors their graduates will be going into, those numbers add up to 88%. Maybe I'm misreading it though.

School-funded is not a separate category. It's almost exclusively PI.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if that might be an issue (PI overlap) or if maybe some school funded didn't count towards the JD required/advantage score. Either way I looked for information on the scoring of clerkships on the site and didn't find anything definitive either way.