Top Law Schools

Title says it all. Texas is close to free, expect minimal scholly money at the rest. My sole goal is get biglaw in Texas (where I have very strong ties and solid work experience). It seems as though Columbia and NYU don't do well in the Texas market, but I'm not sure how much of that is due to self selection vs. actual recruiting. Also, I've heard that some Texas firms only recruit at Texas schools + Harvard - how hard would it be to break into one of these firms from CCN?

Without a doubt take Texas.

I vote UChi. Only like 1/3 of UT grads get biglaw. If TX biglaw is your sole goal, that's not nearly good enough odds.

The cheapest of CCN if you want TX biglaw > any biglaw > TX non-biglaw

UT if you want TX biglaw > TX non-biglaw > any biglaw

Depends a lot on prices, too. I probably wouldn't do CCN for sticker regardless.

twenty wrote:The cheapest of CCN if you want TX biglaw > any biglaw > TX non-biglaw

UT if you want TX biglaw > TX non-biglaw > any biglaw

I agree with this. You can and should rule out NYU/Columbia since their COA is noticeably higher than chicago's and Chicago gives competitive scholarship aid (usually more). I think Chicago's Texas placement is more reliable as well, we do really well there. I strongly believe Chicago is worth sticker or close to it for someone wanting big law.

That all being said, if you would rather work non-biglaw in Texas than NY/Chicago big law, you would be justified in minimizing debt and staying local.

I also vote Chicago. Better COA than NYU/CLS and UChi is either the highest or one of the highest in TX placement in the t14.

Balthy wrote:I also vote Chicago. Better COA than NYU/CLS and UChi is either the highest or one of the highest in TX placement in the t14.

I think it's second after HLS. Baker Botts recruits heavily from Chi, not sure abt other big Tex firms though.

Columbia was cheaper for me than UChi would have been when I was considering both, so I don't really buy the CoA arguments here - all depends on your scholarship. Of course, the people who have commented are major chicago shills, so thats to be expected.

That being said, I think Chicago is TCR for Texas biglaw. CLS can get you there fine too, but its a more common destination from UChi. That would be my vote. UT still risks too much striking out altogether.

UT student here- if you're TX big law or bust, then I vote not UT

Of these options I guess Chicago. How's about Duke or UVA with money? Or just get into Harvard? I would prefer either of those options to sticker at Chicago if you want TX big law.

Yeah don't do UT if you really want biglaw. Just go to the cheapest CCN or Duke/UVA w/ money if that's an option.

It seems like there are more people at Chicago that want to end up in TX vs at Columbia and NYU. Would the increased competition make it harder to get there compared to Columbia or NYU where everyone is gunning for NYC? Or does the larger group of like-minded people make recruiting easier?

Bahnking wrote:It seems like there are more people at Chicago that want to end up in TX vs at Columbia and NYU. Would the increased competition make it harder to get there compared to Columbia or NYU where everyone is gunning for NYC? Or does the larger group of like-minded people make recruiting easier?

I doubt there's much difference at all. The percentages are a little higher out of Chicago because of its smaller class size, but at all three schools we're talking 10-15 people a year going back to Texas. Most of the Texas biglaw offices come to all three schools, and at least at CLS getting back there doesn't seem terribly difficult.

jbagelboy wrote:Of course, the people who have commented are major chicago shills, so thats to be expected

2014 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:Of course, the people who have commented are major chicago shills, so thats to be expected

You can't even deny it brosef

jbagelboy wrote:Columbia was cheaper for me than UChi would have been when I was considering both, so I don't really buy the CoA arguments here - all depends on your scholarship. Of course, the people who have commented are major chicago shills, so thats to be expected.

That being said, I think Chicago is TCR for Texas biglaw. CLS can get you there fine too, but its a more common destination from UChi. That would be my vote. UT still risks too much striking out altogether.

I'm not sure there's enough data to support the theory that Chicago enjoys a noticeable advantage over CLS/NYU in Texas. I don't know if it's self selection or what the deal is, but when there are so few students hoping to head back to TX, it's hard to draw any conclusions. Big firms in TX can't even fill their OCI schedules at CN and often end up interviewing for their NY offices with some of those slots. At UT, where almost everyone at the school would kill to interview with those firms, that would never happen.

I think the best choice is to choose the school with the lowest COA, so I agree with this advice:

twenty wrote:The cheapest of CCN if you want TX biglaw > any biglaw > TX non-biglaw

UT if you want TX biglaw > TX non-biglaw > any biglaw

Depends a lot on prices, too. I probably wouldn't do CCN for sticker regardless.

Also, if your sole goal is to get TX biglaw, have you considered UVA and Duke? Both schools place very well in the south and have good relationships with Texas firms (they even participate in the On-Tour Interview Program, where you can interview with Houston and Dallas firms before OCI). Also, I'm not sure that CCN even has an advantage over those schools when it comes to TX biglaw hiring. It seems that the CN employment advantage stems largely from NY biglaw placement.

jbagelboy wrote:

2014 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:Of course, the people who have commented are major chicago shills, so thats to be expected

You can't even deny it brosef

You have to admire his YOLO attitude. I recuse myself from Chicago threads for this reason.

I carry the torch alone, it's an easy torch to carry when it is the objective correct one for 90% of people.

Bahnking wrote: where I have very strong ties and solid work experience

OP,

Every poster is missing this valid point that you make quite clear in your post. TX is incredibly preferential towards Texans, the deeper the roots, the more likely the hire. Add strong work experience and charm, you are coming in strong.

Plus, why even add the debt since UT is giving you the money, you have the ties, and you want TX big law?

Honestly, why add the debt if you already know what you want and you possess what is necessary to get what you want.

food for thought.

Legacy Rabbit wrote:

Bahnking wrote: where I have very strong ties and solid work experience

OP,

Every poster is missing this valid point that you make quite clear in your post. TX is incredibly preferential towards Texans, the deeper the roots, the more likely the hire. Add strong work experience and charm, you are coming in strong.

Plus, why even add the debt since UT is giving you the money, you have the ties, and you want TX big law?

Honestly, why add the debt if you already know what you want and you possess what is necessary to get what you want.

food for thought.

Most students at UT have TX ties.. you still have to be top third to get biglaw. And what you're saying about preference for Texans would apply to OP at CCN too. I don't think anyone is overlooking that.

If you want TX biglaw, and have the option of going to UT for essentially free, then that is the way to go. I went to NYU, and I would say take UT without a doubt, and I'm sure those who went to Chicago and Columbia would agree. The debt simply isn't worth it given your goals and your ability to achieve them without the need for debt.

Balthy wrote:

Legacy Rabbit wrote:

Bahnking wrote: where I have very strong ties and solid work experience

OP,

Every poster is missing this valid point that you make quite clear in your post. TX is incredibly preferential towards Texans, the deeper the roots, the more likely the hire. Add strong work experience and charm, you are coming in strong.

Plus, why even add the debt since UT is giving you the money, you have the ties, and you want TX big law?

Honestly, why add the debt if you already know what you want and you possess what is necessary to get what you want.

food for thought.

Most students at UT have TX ties.. you still have to be top third to get biglaw. And what you're saying about preference for Texans would apply to OP at CCN too. I don't think anyone is overlooking that.

You don't have to be top third. I know people at median who got biglaw through OCI. It isn't easy at median but it's possible.

2014, do you ever say anything bad about UChicago?

blackmooncreeping wrote:
You don't have to be top third. I know people at median who got biglaw through OCI. It isn't easy at median but it's possible.

I meant that in a general sense. Regardless of rank, about a third of the class gets biglaw or fed clerkship. Like others have said, i think that's just too risky if you are biglaw or bust.

thewaves wrote:2014, do you ever say anything bad about UChicago?

I honestly have nothing but positives to say about the school. The city is another story.

I have in fact advised people to go elsewhere though, it just requires certain career goals and usually a hefty cost differential. It just so happens that this whole site wants to do BigLaw in a major market and UChi is the best combinaton of maximizing those odds at the lowest COA for most people.

I tend to at least keep my mouth shut about bashing other schools, it's the best I can do to stay neutral (except GULC fuck GULC). I can't help that I've enjoyed my experience