Top Law Schools

.

Can you expand on what you plan to do? My understanding of international arbitration is that it's not a very big practice area, and even Cleary (which is well-known for its international arbitration practice) isn't exactly doing a whole lot of it.

Right now Duke or NYU. If Columbia and Berkeley offer the same scholarships, and you hate NY, go to Berkeley.

MyopicVisage wrote: No financial aid info from Columbia or Berkeley yet, but they should be comparable since Berkeley has a matching program.

I won't attempt to give you advice as a 0L, but as an applicant this cycle as well I looked heavily into the Berkeley v. Columbia cost difference when I was in at Columbia and waiting to hear from Berkeley (ultimately wait-listed). As a CA resident, Berkeley's in-state tuition is about $10k less than Columbia's per year. When I was doing some number crunching, the lower tuition and the little cheaper cost of Berkeley ended up making a decent difference in cost. Though, I grew up in the Bay Area so I may have been underestimating some costs based on family being nearby, etc.

I'm sure you already knew this, but for others wanting to give you advice it's nice to mention. Also I am very interested in this as I am considering staying on the Berkeley wait-list because I share your love for California. Congratulations on the awesome choices!

.

.

No reason to turn down NYU with 75k for Columbia unless the latter's aid offer comes close.

And going to a school with a strong reputation in a certain area of law has little bearing on whether you will actually get the chance to practice in that field (or at least that's what I heard), so probably wise not to let that factor weigh too heavily in your decision-making process.

Were you at ASW at Columbia yesterday? Someone I met was considering Columbia v. Berkeley under similar circumstances, and a Columbia 3L basically told the person to go to Berkeley. I think Berkeley would make the most sense in terms of finding employment in the Bay Area, especially if you can get Berkeley to match the NYU scholarship.

I hope you realize that the vast majority of "international arbitration" within the United states work takes place in New York City (or by New York offices at the London arbitration tribunal). California is not a hub for international work in general, quite the opposite - your goals match NY firm work, so why do you want to be in the bay area? None of what I'm reading makes sense.

Columbia is undoubtedly the best school to go to for international arbitration - it has trans-Atlantic arbitration speakers, practitioners, judges, academics ect come to campus every week or several times a week, firm lunches nearly every friday through the society for international law or arbitration where you meet people from the practice areas, George Bermann is at CLS (monster in the field); CLS is one of the few schools to host a serious competitive Vis team (the international commercial arbitration moot court, which is actually competing in Vienna right now). So if you are serious about international arbitration, CLS over any other school IMO (including riding out the Harvard wait list at sticker).

But there are some major caveats. First, CLS at sticker is pretty crazy - but so is Boalt (crazier actually). Second, international arbitration is a very niche field, and as a previous poster mentioned, even top firms with a relative large amount of work in the subject wouldn't be able to assign you to it as an exclusive practice area; you'd be in the litigation department, getting on some arbitration award projects when you had time. Third, since you want to go back to California and you "hate" NY, I am highly suspicious of your commitment to international arbitration, or true international work, at all.

jojobean7 wrote:Were you at ASW at Columbia yesterday? Someone I met was considering Columbia v. Berkeley under similar circumstances, and a Columbia 3L basically told the person to go to Berkeley. I think Berkeley would make the most sense in terms of finding employment in the Bay Area, especially if you can get Berkeley to match the NYU scholarship.

I can imagine a CLS student telling an 0L to go to Cal if they are bay-area-or-bust (although some of my closest friends here chose CLS over Cal and are heading back to SF), but I can't imagine them giving that advise for any kind of "international" practice.

Post removed.

No, I would take NYU with $75k over CLS here. No one niche practice area strength is worth that kind of money. I was more responding to OPs statements and the Cal v CLS question, not making an overall judgment call.

.

.

MyopicVisage wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:I hope you realize that the vast majority of "international arbitration" within the United states work takes place in New York City (or by New York offices at the London arbitration tribunal). California is not a hub for international work in general, quite the opposite - your goals match NY firm work, so why do you want to be in the bay area? None of what I'm reading makes sense.

Columbia is undoubtedly the best school to go to for international arbitration - it has trans-Atlantic arbitration speakers, practitioners, judges, academics ect come to campus every week or several times a week, firm lunches nearly every friday through the society for international law or arbitration where you meet people from the practice areas, George Bermann is at CLS (monster in the field); CLS is one of the few schools to host a serious competitive Vis team (the international commercial arbitration moot court, which is actually competing in Vienna right now). So if you are serious about international arbitration, CLS over any other school IMO (including riding out the Harvard wait list at sticker).

But there are some major caveats. First, CLS at sticker is pretty crazy - but so is Boalt (crazier actually). Second, international arbitration is a very niche field, and as a previous poster mentioned, even top firms with a relative large amount of work in the subject wouldn't be able to assign you to it as an exclusive practice area; you'd be in the litigation department, getting on some arbitration award projects when you had time. Third, since you want to go back to California and you "hate" NY, I am highly suspicious of your commitment to international arbitration, or true international work, at all.

This confirms what I've read elsewhere, and I agree career wise NY is a much better choice. My desire to go back to CA is based solely on personal/emotional preference of the location...which perhaps is irrational

It's okay I understand. I've struggled with similar choices (Im also from CA). Feel free to pm me

.

NYU. And then Duke.

You probably won't get CA biglaw out of any of these schools. Berkeley's biglaw placement is the second worst behind Georgetown out of the top 14 and you're not going to find a job in international arbitration, whatever that means. So minimize your debt and go to the school with one of the better biglaw placement out of the list.

As for these:

antitrust - you're looking at NYC
energy - you're looking at the South, maybe DC
tax - small niche practice group
emerging company/venture capital - not sure what you're talking about. hard to get straight out of law school

lecsa wrote:NYU. And then Duke.

You probably won't get CA biglaw out of any of these schools. Berkeley's biglaw placement is the second worst behind Georgetown out of the top 14 and you're not going to find a job in international arbitration, whatever that means. So minimize your debt and go to the school with one of the better biglaw placement out of the list.

As for these:

antitrust - you're looking at NYC
energy - you're looking at the South, maybe DC
tax - small niche practice group
emerging company/venture capital - not sure what you're talking about. hard to get straight out of law school

I think saying "probably not going to get CA biglaw" from berkeley is a bit much

james.bungles wrote:

lecsa wrote:NYU. And then Duke.

You probably won't get CA biglaw out of any of these schools. Berkeley's biglaw placement is the second worst behind Georgetown out of the top 14 and you're not going to find a job in international arbitration, whatever that means. So minimize your debt and go to the school with one of the better biglaw placement out of the list.

As for these:

antitrust - you're looking at NYC
energy - you're looking at the South, maybe DC
tax - small niche practice group
emerging company/venture capital - not sure what you're talking about. hard to get straight out of law school

I think saying "probably not going to get CA biglaw" from berkeley is a bit much

Not really. Didn't only 54 to 55% get biglaw and federal clerkships? What percentage of that is in California? Less than half the class in California biglaw + federal clerkships then.

There just aren't that many associate biglaw jobs in California. The market sucks (not getting better) and they tend to hire higher in the class from all t-14s (except maybe HYS where they let grades slide more) rather than digging deeper in one school. I wouldn't put my money on California biglaw unless i were at least top 1/3 at a top 14 or at HYS or is hard science background going to IP.

lecsa wrote: Not really. Didn't only 54 to 55% get biglaw and federal clerkships? What percentage of that is in California? Less than half the class in California biglaw + federal clerkships then.

There just aren't that many associate biglaw jobs in California. The market sucks (not getting better) and they tend to hire higher in the class from all t-14s (except maybe HYS where they let grades slide more) rather than digging deeper in one school. I wouldn't put my money on California biglaw unless i were at least top 1/3 at a top 14 or at HYS or is hard science background going to IP.

Surely you realize your flawed reasoning...by that same logic the average student at NYU "is probably not" getting NY Big Law (67.1% Big Law + Clerks, only 63.5% in NY, so less than half are in NY Big Law).

aboutmydaylight wrote:

lecsa wrote: Not really. Didn't only 54 to 55% get biglaw and federal clerkships? What percentage of that is in California? Less than half the class in California biglaw + federal clerkships then.

There just aren't that many associate biglaw jobs in California. The market sucks (not getting better) and they tend to hire higher in the class from all t-14s (except maybe HYS where they let grades slide more) rather than digging deeper in one school. I wouldn't put my money on California biglaw unless i were at least top 1/3 at a top 14 or at HYS or is hard science background going to IP.

Surely you realize your flawed reasoning...by that same logic the average student at NYU "is probably not" getting NY Big Law (67.1% Big Law + Clerks, only 63.5% in NY, so less than half are in NY Big Law).

Not really. I think most people who get CA biglaw could have gotten NYC biglaw but not vice versa. The biglaw market matters a lot - Of the major markets, NYC is easiest. Chicago and California are probably next most difficult. DC usually only has the very top of the class. I wouldn't bet on getting CA biglaw unless I were at HYS.

lecsa wrote:

aboutmydaylight wrote:

lecsa wrote: Not really. Didn't only 54 to 55% get biglaw and federal clerkships? What percentage of that is in California? Less than half the class in California biglaw + federal clerkships then.

There just aren't that many associate biglaw jobs in California. The market sucks (not getting better) and they tend to hire higher in the class from all t-14s (except maybe HYS where they let grades slide more) rather than digging deeper in one school. I wouldn't put my money on California biglaw unless i were at least top 1/3 at a top 14 or at HYS or is hard science background going to IP.

Surely you realize your flawed reasoning...by that same logic the average student at NYU "is probably not" getting NY Big Law (67.1% Big Law + Clerks, only 63.5% in NY, so less than half are in NY Big Law).

Not really. I think most people who get CA biglaw could have gotten NYC biglaw but not vice versa. The biglaw market matters a lot - Of the major markets, NYC is easiest. Chicago and California are probably next most difficult. DC usually only has the very top of the class. I wouldn't bet on getting CA biglaw unless I were at HYS.

*Meh*

Mucho evidence to the contrary from CC and Berkeley tho (if we define as "betting on" as "people don't strike out from median in that market.") Although for Berkeley it's weird because I don't know what median is.

Also huge caveat is that SF =/= CA.

MyopicVisage wrote:This might be a dumb question. Is there any other area of law that remotely resembles the type of work involved in international arbitration?

I doubt any kind of litigation work is going to even remotely resemble international arbitration. Each individual arbitration matter will probably not resemble other arbitrations, especially in the international context where you have a multitude of different rules that parties can choose from (UNCITRAL, IBA, etc.), as well as a number of different conventions and bilateral agreements between countries that affect the confirmation and enforcement of the awards (New York Convention, ICSID, etc.). It is complicated as hell.

lecsa wrote: Not really. I think most people who get CA biglaw could have gotten NYC biglaw but not vice versa.

That's true if by "CA biglaw" you mean "SF big law." But, based on what I saw, Boalties who targeted LA fared as well (if not better) than Boalties who targeted NYC.

DC usually only has the very top of the class.

Uh, no. Unless "very top of the class" means "top third of the class."

OP: CLS places well in California. I think Boalt gives you a slightly better chance in SF. I think the two schools place equally well in LA.

Also, while I suppose it can't hurt to keep "international arbitration" as a long-term career goal, I wouldn't make too many choices based on that dream. No matter where you go to law school, I suspect you'll have a tough time finding work in that field right out of school.

MyopicVisage wrote:This confirms what I've read elsewhere, and I agree career wise NY is a much better choice. My desire to go back to CA is based solely on personal/emotional preference of the location...which perhaps is irrational

Making choices based on personal/emotional preferences is not irrational.
Yes, you'll have to work for a really long time and you should do something that you find gratifying, are proud of, enjoy, etc. But you also have to live. If you end up in a big firm in NY, it is unlikely that your job will be very much fun. You might find it fulfilling and what not, but it'll probably also be very stressful. If you leave the stress of the office everyday just to step into a city that you hate, you're not going to last very long.
If you love outdoorsy life and climbing and shit, don't give that up because you feel like you're supposed to focus everything on your career. There is plenty of good work for lawyers in California (at least for the lawyers with your options). Your life is really important. Don't overlook your passions because you think it's juvenile or something.
Of course, you should try to get Boalt to give you some money.