deleted Forum

[tsoprano]

.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

What are your numbers? It might make sense to reapply...

[IAFG]

do you have really, really great WE? maybe a boss who loves you and has the pull to get you a job?

[unc0mm0n1]

Since money means nothing I don't know how Berk isn't the answer. I think you have a better chance at NYC from Berk but more than that if you don't get NYC Biglaw you have a realistic chance at a legal job which is more than I can say for Fordham. If you get Cornell and Georgetown I'd choose Cornell.

[tsoprano]

What are your numbers? It might make sense to reapply...

If it wasn't clear in the OP: retaking/reapplying is not a consideration.

do you have really, really great WE? maybe a boss who loves you and has the pull to get you a job?

My WE is definitely not exceptional but I do have connections at a few firms.

Since money means nothing I don't know how Berk isn't the answer. I think you have a better chance at NYC from Berk but more than that if you don't get NYC Biglaw you have a realistic chance at a legal job which is more than I can say for Fordham. If you get Cornell and Georgetown I'd choose Cornell.

Why does Fordham not give me a realistic chance at a legal job? I know the overall numbers are not great, but it does place a good number of its graduates in biglaw.

[dwil770]

Knowledgable advice givers should unionize and refuse to give a speck of advice unless posters can provide an adequate argument for not retaking.

[Scuppers]

Having ruled out retake/don't go, you really only have one option: Berkeley. (And this is from someone who was defending Fordham in another thread.)

[cron1834]

Berk does about 60% biglaw/fedclerk, Fordham does about a third. If money REALLY doesn't matter, then why is this even a question?

Also, retake.

[SteelPenguin]

Retake. For NY Biglaw, 1 year and a few points can take you from Fordham at near sticker to Cornell with good money or better.

[Clearly]

How the hell did you end up with only these options? Also, if you don't post your full information, including stats, why waste your time at all? We can't give you valid answers without a full picture...

[BigZuck]

Retake the LSAT and set your sights on a big scholarship at Cornell. Good NYC big law placement and you save money. Win-win.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Some have noted that OCI is less competitive for NY since so many of the students want SF/SV/LA, and firms have difficulty even filling up OCI slots for NY offices. But the fact remains that only 10% of grads go to NY. If I'm being honest, the major reason why Berkeley is still in contention is the prestige factor.

Yes, what you are seeing is 100% self-selection. People who go to B typically do so to work in CA. Most turned down much more $ at other schools (Cornell, NU, etc.) for this very reason. NYC big law is really easy to land from B and firms go deep in the class. In fact, the typically strategy for those in the bottom 1/3 is to big NYC 100%. Lots of firms want a token Berkeley kid, and most students are bidding CA hard. If you are a decent interviewer and your resume has no red flags (i.e. heavy PI focus), you have a solid shot at NYC from B no matter what your grades are.

Honestly, if you choose Fordham over B for a measely $25k/yr scholarship, when your goal is NYC big law, you'll probably regret it. If you end up at median at Fordham, you're probably fucked. Berkeley is the far safer choice here.

This may be a different story if it was Fordham for free v. B at sticker. (but it's not).

[jbagelboy]

Some have noted that OCI is less competitive for NY since so many of the students want SF/SV/LA, and firms have difficulty even filling up OCI slots for NY offices. But the fact remains that only 10% of grads go to NY. If I'm being honest, the major reason why Berkeley is still in contention is the prestige factor.

Yes, what you are seeing is 100% self-selection. People who go to B typically do so to work in CA. Most turned down much more $ at other schools (Cornell, NU, etc.) for this very reason. NYC big law is really easy to land from B and firms go deep in the class. In fact, the typically strategy for those in the bottom 1/3 is to big NYC 100%. Lots of firms want a token Berkeley kid, and most students are bidding CA hard. If you are a decent interviewer and your resume has no red flags (i.e. heavy PI focus), you have a solid shot at NYC from B no matter what your grades are.

Honestly, if you choose Fordham over B for a measely $25k/yr scholarship, when your goal is NYC big law, you'll probably regret it. If you end up at median at Fordham, you're probably fucked. Berkeley is the far safer choice here.

This may be a different story if it was Fordham for free v. B at sticker. (but it's not).

So honest question, you think all those Cal kids are striking out just cause they didn't bid NYC? I don't buy it personally, but if you have actual data you can link me to I'd be interested.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Some have noted that OCI is less competitive for NY since so many of the students want SF/SV/LA, and firms have difficulty even filling up OCI slots for NY offices. But the fact remains that only 10% of grads go to NY. If I'm being honest, the major reason why Berkeley is still in contention is the prestige factor.

Yes, what you are seeing is 100% self-selection. People who go to B typically do so to work in CA. Most turned down much more $ at other schools (Cornell, NU, etc.) for this very reason. NYC big law is really easy to land from B and firms go deep in the class. In fact, the typically strategy for those in the bottom 1/3 is to big NYC 100%. Lots of firms want a token Berkeley kid, and most students are bidding CA hard. If you are a decent interviewer and your resume has no red flags (i.e. heavy PI focus), you have a solid shot at NYC from B no matter what your grades are.

Honestly, if you choose Fordham over B for a measely $25k/yr scholarship, when your goal is NYC big law, you'll probably regret it. If you end up at median at Fordham, you're probably fucked. Berkeley is the far safer choice here.

This may be a different story if it was Fordham for free v. B at sticker. (but it's not).

So honest question, you think all those Cal kids are striking out just cause they didn't bid NYC? I don't buy it personally, but if you have actual data you can link me to I'd be interested.

1. I didn't say that (read what I underlined in my post)
2. Not sure what you mean by "all those Cal kids striking out." Do you have stats on Cal student OCI strikeouts that I am unaware of? And don't say Law school transparency, because you know those stats don't show that.

I can't find it on the website right now, but career services gave us stats from last year's (2013) OCI. I'll link it later if I can find it. Basically, about 75% of the class participated in at least some capacity. Of those who participated around 80% had at least one offer (~60% of the total class).

Personally, I don't know anyone who struck out, but I'm a rising 2L so I only know like 15 people or so who did 2013 OCI (they all have SA's this summer). In fact, I know two people with horrible grades (like bottom 25%) who are going to V5 firms this summer. From talking to all these people as well as the CDO, here's what I think are the top reason people strike out from B.

1. Their resume and interview screamed public interest/flight risk. Firms are very cautious about avoiding these types because they don't want to waste an offer on someone who will leave in 6 months. Berkeley has a lot of these. I think a lot of these kids didn't really want to go big firm, but felt pressured to do OCI so they'd have an offer in their back pocket. The firms could smell it on them.

2. They were a bad interviewer in general. Socially awkward, completely clueless about the firm / law firms in general, etc. For example, if an interviewer asks you "litigation or corporate," and you don't know what the difference is, that's bad. If your resume indicates you spent the last 4 years trying to save the rainforest, it's worse.

3. They bid stupidly with respect to their grades. If you are below median, you should bid NYC pretty heavily and go further down the Vault rankings, obviously. You can still land CA, but you need to start hedging your risk.


Basically, people who were gunning for big law from day 1, who could articulately express their interest in an OCI interview (in a way that's consistent w/ their resume), who bid realistically, did fine. The PI kids who did OCI for the hell of it did worse.

[BigZuck]

I guess I'm willing to buy that Berkeley has more PI-oriented kids so that characterization of the school I'm cool with. But sometimes from the way it's portrayed by posters on this site you would swear its HYS. A no letter grades utopia and good big law chances regardless of how well you do in class. I mean, maybe? I don't know, multiple posters have portrayed it that way so maybe that's true. I have heard "CA big law regardless of grades" and now I'm hearing "NY big law regardless of grades." But personally I would think that if big law chances were so good out of B there would be more kids getting big law.

Eta: I fully expect a rage-filled response to this

[timbs4339]

What you want to be concerned about is how low firms will go in the class. Below median at Fordham is going to make life very difficult for you. Below median at Berkeley still gives you a pretty decent shot.

I'd be wary of blowing all your hard-earned savings on law school, but if you do get NY biglaw with a small debt load you're not going to be one of the ones eating ramen in a 1K apartment with three roommates while paying 5K a month to loans.

[jumpin munkey]

The idea that you can count on getting NYC biglaw from Berkeley from any place on the class is inane. That many firms want to round out SA classes with someone from Berkeley doesn't mean that you can just settle and waltz into White and Case if you're in the bottom quarter. We know the same isn't true even for Harvard so why would anyone believe that for Berkeley?

[jbagelboy]

Some have noted that OCI is less competitive for NY since so many of the students want SF/SV/LA, and firms have difficulty even filling up OCI slots for NY offices. But the fact remains that only 10% of grads go to NY. If I'm being honest, the major reason why Berkeley is still in contention is the prestige factor.

Yes, what you are seeing is 100% self-selection. People who go to B typically do so to work in CA. Most turned down much more $ at other schools (Cornell, NU, etc.) for this very reason. NYC big law is really easy to land from B and firms go deep in the class. In fact, the typically strategy for those in the bottom 1/3 is to big NYC 100%. Lots of firms want a token Berkeley kid, and most students are bidding CA hard. If you are a decent interviewer and your resume has no red flags (i.e. heavy PI focus), you have a solid shot at NYC from B no matter what your grades are.

Honestly, if you choose Fordham over B for a measely $25k/yr scholarship, when your goal is NYC big law, you'll probably regret it. If you end up at median at Fordham, you're probably fucked. Berkeley is the far safer choice here.

This may be a different story if it was Fordham for free v. B at sticker. (but it's not).

So honest question, you think all those Cal kids are striking out just cause they didn't bid NYC? I don't buy it personally, but if you have actual data you can link me to I'd be interested.

1. I didn't say that (read what I underlined in my post)
2. Not sure what you mean by "all those Cal kids striking out." Do you have stats on Cal student OCI strikeouts that I am unaware of? And don't say Law school transparency, because you know those stats don't show that.

I can't find it on the website right now, but career services gave us stats from last year's (2013) OCI. I'll link it later if I can find it. Basically, about 75% of the class participated in at least some capacity. Of those who participated around 80% had at least one offer (~60% of the total class).

Personally, I don't know anyone who struck out, but I'm a rising 2L so I only know like 15 people or so who did 2013 OCI (they all have SA's this summer). In fact, I know two people with horrible grades (like bottom 25%) who are going to V5 firms this summer. From talking to all these people as well as the CDO, here's what I think are the top reason people strike out from B.

1. Their resume and interview screamed public interest/flight risk. Firms are very cautious about avoiding these types because they don't want to waste an offer on someone who will leave in 6 months. Berkeley has a lot of these. I think a lot of these kids didn't really want to go big firm, but felt pressured to do OCI so they'd have an offer in their back pocket. The firms could smell it on them.

2. They were a bad interviewer in general. Socially awkward, completely clueless about the firm / law firms in general, etc. For example, if an interviewer asks you "litigation or corporate," and you don't know what the difference is, that's bad. If your resume indicates you spent the last 4 years trying to save the rainforest, it's worse.

3. They bid stupidly with respect to their grades. If you are below median, you should bid NYC pretty heavily and go further down the Vault rankings, obviously. You can still land CA, but you need to start hedging your risk.


Basically, people who were gunning for big law from day 1, who could articulately express their interest in an OCI interview (in a way that's consistent w/ their resume), who bid realistically, did fine. The PI kids who did OCI for the hell of it did worse.

Okay, those factors are not specific to berkeley. those are common strike-out elements at any T13 school.

Part of what I'm struggling with is that your facts are wrong wrt Berkeley's OCI: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/caree ... tation.pdf

You had an 85% participation rate, with a roughly 60% offer rate for the class. That means Berkeley OCI had a 70.5% success rate of employing graduates in 2013. Yes, I know, some kids mass-mail, but that's true at every school.

I can buy that 10% of the class has good grades that would otherwise get a firm job, but one of overly PI focused profile, or blew shits during all of their interviews, or bid only Munger and Wachtell (or in Cal's case, just SF firms). That happens at Harvard and Stanford too, which is why they also have a roughly 10% strike-out rate (because there are low vault NY firms that will take straight P's at H or S). So, comparatively, Cal has a 15-20% gap with HSCC, roughly speaking. This must be grades, unless you are saying Cal students are that much worse on the soft factors at doing OCI than other top schools - and I would not impute that insult onto your classmates. So that's what I mean by "all the kids striking out": those 15-20% of participants who interview and bid well, not to mention the bottom 5% of the class that traditionally does not participate in EIW/OCI. It does not logically compute that if NY was a safe haven for almost any Berkeley student (as you suggested), there would be this delta.

[jbagelboy]

with the above in mind, re: my initial post when I say "data" that supports your claim, I mean, mitigate causation/correlation diffusion for us: can you show me (or indicate non-circumstantial evidence from which we may infer that) a statistically significant number of bid lists from students who struck out with grades otherwise capable of landing NYC (by reference to their peers' medians) that feature exclusively California firms? Then you could argue with some force that NY is a holy but neglected reservoir of big law jobs for Cal students

[WhiskeynCoke]

with the above in mind, re: my initial post when I say "data" that supports your claim, I mean, mitigate causation/correlation diffusion for us: can you show me (or indicate non-circumstantial evidence from which we may infer that) a statistically significant number of bid lists from students who struck out with grades otherwise capable of landing NYC (by reference to their peers' medians) that feature exclusively California firms? Then you could argue with some force that NY is a holy but neglected reservoir of big law jobs for Cal students

Short answer is no, I don't have the data you seek, because it doesn't exist. However, I'm not trying to claim what you appear to think I'm claiming. What I'm saying is not very controversial, you can choose to reject it if you want for lack of statistical support, but that's your choice. And really? I'm insulting my classmates by attempting to analyze likely factors that affect success at OCI? Come on dude, chill.

All I'm saying is while I agree that grades play a huge part, OP can still have a decent chance to land big law from the bottom 1/3 if (s)he's a good interviewer, can present a coherent big law narrative, and bids strategically. Actually, I thought this was pretty common across the T14's. Also, I thought it was common knowledge that NYC is the easiest (biggest) market to land from any T14. OP deserves to hear perspectives aside from "check LST bro, you've got X chance of big law."

What I'm saying is that 29.5% of students (I forgot the exact numbers, thanks for providing) strike out at OCI at B. During the presentation that the slide show you linked is from, they said roughly 75% of the bottom 1/3 of the class struck out and something like 25% of the middle 1/3 struck out.

Obviously this is largely grade-centric, but you need to account for why 25% of the bottom 1/3 were successful. This shows that a lot of firms at OCI do not have hard grade cut offs (and B doesn't do preselect). It suggests you have a chance at big law (25% flat) with shit grades. People I know who were successful from the bottom of the class bid NYC heavily, crafted a good big law narrative, and are good interviewers. They told me this is why they thought they were successful, and that others attributed a lack of some of these things to their lack success (in addition to grades, yes). I'm suggesting that by doing these things well, you can boost your own chances to above 25%, despite being at the bottom of the class. At Fordham, it's probably a different story.

Yes this is mostly anecdotal evidence, but I'm not attempting to publish my suggestions in a scientific journal. If you'd prefer to continue thinking that 100% of OCI is grades-dependent, suit yourself.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Also, of course HSCC has a lower strikeout rate then Berkeley. Obviously it's mostly because more firms are willing to go deeper into their classes. I would also point out that 3 of those schools heavily feed into NYC and the other is Stanford, so geography plays some role. But OP isn't deciding between Fordham, B & HYCC, so I'm not sure why this a helpful comparison.

[jbagelboy]

with the above in mind, re: my initial post when I say "data" that supports your claim, I mean, mitigate causation/correlation diffusion for us: can you show me (or indicate non-circumstantial evidence from which we may infer that) a statistically significant number of bid lists from students who struck out with grades otherwise capable of landing NYC (by reference to their peers' medians) that feature exclusively California firms? Then you could argue with some force that NY is a holy but neglected reservoir of big law jobs for Cal students

Short answer is no, I don't have the data you seek, because it doesn't exist. However, I'm not trying to claim what you appear to think I'm claiming. What I'm saying is not very controversial, you can choose to reject it if you want for lack of statistical support, but that's your choice. And really? I'm insulting my classmates by attempting to analyze likely factors that affect success at OCI? Come on dude, chill.

All I'm saying is while I agree that grades play a huge part, OP can still have a decent chance to land big law from the bottom 1/3 if (s)he's a good interviewer, can present a coherent big law narrative, and bids strategically. Actually, I thought this was pretty common across the T14's. Also, I thought it was common knowledge that NYC is the easiest (biggest) market to land from any T14. OP deserves to hear perspectives aside from "check LST bro, you've got X chance of big law."

What I'm saying is that 29.5% of students (I forgot the exact numbers, thanks for providing) strike out at OCI at B. During the presentation that the slide show you linked is from, they said roughly 75% of the bottom 1/3 of the class struck out and something like 25% of the middle 1/3 struck out.

Obviously this is largely grade-centric, but you need to account for why 25% of the bottom 1/3 were successful. This shows that a lot of firms at OCI do not have hard grade cut offs (and B doesn't do preselect). It suggests you have a chance at big law (25% flat) with shit grades. People I know who were successful from the bottom of the class bid NYC heavily, crafted a good big law narrative, and are good interviewers. They told me this is why they thought they were successful, and that others attributed a lack of some of these things to their lack success (in addition to grades, yes). I'm suggesting that by doing these things well, you can boost your own chances to above 25%, despite being at the bottom of the class. At Fordham, it's probably a different story.

Yes this is mostly anecdotal evidence, but I'm not attempting to publish my suggestions in a scientific journal. If you'd prefer to continue thinking that 100% of OCI is grades-dependent, suit yourself.

I don't believe the bolded at all, because it's not true - except at TT's to the extent you need certain grades to even be considered, or for DC firms with sharp cutoffs.

Everything you are saying here is reasonable and I agree. If you reread what you wrote earlier, it seemed a little too rosy. You were throwing out phrases like "100% self-selection" and "NYC big law is really easy," "solid shot at NYC no matter what your grades are," ect. [this is probably the main issue; I don't consider 25% to be a "solid shot" for a third of the class]. These platitudes are dangerous because they don't tell the full story - Berkeley is a fucking terrific law school, but it's no panacea and we are talking about sticker here.

Clearly Berkeley provides a much larger safety net than a school like Fordham. But it's not just you, as Zuck noted, other people have positioned Boalt as a strike-out free zone (or strike-out free notwithstanding the aspies and bid fools).

[WhiskeynCoke]

Yea I guess I was being a bit too fluffy. The point I want to get across is that A LOT of B students are CA or bust. In fact, a lot of students went to B for this very reason (I did). A lot are so CA/West Coast or bust, that despite winding up with weak grades, they prefer to risk bidding CA hard, because they'd prefer any job in CA over big law in NY. I can completely appreciate this mentality. I wish I had statistics for you, but if you talked to 100 random students around here, I think you'd believe me.

OP should know that just because only 10% of B students wind up in NY, that doesn't mean NY is disproportionately hard to land from B. It's widely accepted around here that bidding NY is a lot safer than CA if your grades are weak, because there's less competition, the summer classes are a lot bigger, and many NY firms want a token B kid in their summer class. Basically, many NY firms are less grade selective because they have less to choose from than the CA firms. Also, if you're smart, you take advantage of any NYC callbacks you have by arranging more interviews with NY firms who didn't come to OCI. They like free interviews.

[tsoprano]

.

[BigZuck]

We can't help you with the personal stuff, that's for you to decide.

Objectively speaking, I think going to Fordham with a goal of big law is a dubious decision at best. I also think anything more than about 100K total debt is an objectively bad decision.

Finally, you don't HAVE to go to law school if it doesn't make sense to do so.

All that being said, we all know you're going to go to Fordham regardless of what you say and on behalf of TLS, we sincerely wish you luck.