Top Law Schools

I get that HLS is more prestigious, but can anyone point me in the direction of some data (anecdotal or otherwise) that shows that it's easier to land a V10 firm from there than NYU or Columbia?

One anecdote: it's conventional wisdom at HLS that median grades (3Hs) is competitive for NYC V10 (that it, having those grades will leave it up to interviewing skills and other softs), and that below average grades (2Hs) doesn't foreclose the possibility. Within this group, Cravath, DPW, and Gibson have the reputation of being slightly more grade selective, S&C more so, and WLRK is on a different level of selectivity.

xn3345 wrote:I get that HLS is more prestigious, but can anyone point me in the direction of some data (anecdotal or otherwise) that shows that it's easier to land a V10 firm from there than NYU or Columbia?

This is assuming that V10 is a meaningful distinction. It IS probably easier to land the most selective firms from Harvard.

Go to NYU or Columbia for less debt so at least you won't feel tied to a job you'll hate. Median grades from NYU and CLS can get v10 so long as you're not a terrible interviewer. Also, why do you want to go to a v10? You realize that the prestige chase ends in law school and you should choose a post grad based on what you'll enjoy, not to measure your self esteem against.

I have heard of people getting Skadden with all P's at H, but I don't know them personally or have actual statistics.

I doubt you will find statistical evidence of V10 placement by school, given the arbitrariness of that label. The links below provide some statistics regarding employment outcomes. Although NYU and CLS send a greater percentage of their students to biglaw, that doesn't account for the fact that many HLS'ers self-select out of pursuing a biglaw career.

It is definitely possible to get V10 with median grades from NYU/CLS (more likely from less grade-selective firms like Skadden or L&W). However, I don't think you should get too caught up in this "V10" distinction. Practice groups and the firm's specific office are arguably more significant. For instance, Covington DC's white collar group is just as well regarded as a "V10" firm.

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/harvard/jobs/

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/nyu/jobs/

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/columbia/jobs/

If you don't get to HLS you'll be stuck toiling at shitholes like Weil, Paul Weiss, and Covington.

If your goal is to work at a prestigious New York biglaw firm and you get a big scholarship at NYU, this is one of the scenarios where it's worth taking it over HLS (whereas the recruitment advantages at Harvard grow as you expand to other markets and jobs other than large firms). HLS and CLS have a narrow edge over NYU in hiring at certain selective firms (which is why they are always the biggest representation in the summer and starting class), but these are minute distinctions to draw; how well you do in school will have far more impact than where you go to school at this level.

jbagelboy wrote:If your goal is to work at a prestigious New York biglaw firm and you get a big scholarship at NYU, this is one of the scenarios where it's worth taking it over HLS (whereas the recruitment advantages at Harvard grow as you expand to other markets and jobs other than large firms). HLS and CLS have a narrow edge over NYU in hiring at certain selective firms (which is why they are always the biggest representation in the summer and starting class), but these are minute distinctions to draw; how well you do in school will have far more impact than where you go to school at this level.

Simultaneously distancing Columbia from NYU and inching it closer to Harvard, all in one post.

Nice

.

BigZuck wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:If your goal is to work at a prestigious New York biglaw firm and you get a big scholarship at NYU, this is one of the scenarios where it's worth taking it over HLS (whereas the recruitment advantages at Harvard grow as you expand to other markets and jobs other than large firms). HLS and CLS have a narrow edge over NYU in hiring at certain selective firms (which is why they are always the biggest representation in the summer and starting class), but these are minute distinctions to draw; how well you do in school will have far more impact than where you go to school at this level.

Simultaneously distancing Columbia from NYU and inching it closer to Harvard, all in one post.

Nice

Brilliant with a just the right touch of snarky...while correct none-the-less.

shadowfax wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:If your goal is to work at a prestigious New York biglaw firm and you get a big scholarship at NYU, this is one of the scenarios where it's worth taking it over HLS (whereas the recruitment advantages at Harvard grow as you expand to other markets and jobs other than large firms). HLS and CLS have a narrow edge over NYU in hiring at certain selective firms (which is why they are always the biggest representation in the summer and starting class), but these are minute distinctions to draw; how well you do in school will have far more impact than where you go to school at this level.

Simultaneously distancing Columbia from NYU and inching it closer to Harvard, all in one post.

Nice

Brilliant with a just the right touch of snarky...while correct none-the-less.

Ive been around a while.

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:you should choose a post grad based on what you'll enjoy, not to measure your self esteem against.

Some people enjoy prestigious careers that give them an inflated sense of self-worth, just sayin. There are people for whom prestige affords legitimate and consistent happiness.

lol

Nebby wrote:

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:you should choose a post grad based on what you'll enjoy, not to measure your self esteem against.

Some people enjoy prestigious careers that give them an inflated sense of self-worth, just sayin. There are people for whom prestige affords legitimate and consistent happiness.

lol

Good for you if you've never met slash been raised by anyone like that

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:you should choose a post grad based on what you'll enjoy, not to measure your self esteem against.

Some people enjoy prestigious careers that give them an inflated sense of self-worth, just sayin. There are people for whom prestige affords legitimate and consistent happiness.

lol

Good for you if you've never met slash been raised by anyone like that

Aside from the fact that most 'prestigious careers' in law are an illusion, there are no people that fit this description because the happiness you refer to is by definition not ever "consistent" (and there may be varying interpretations of the word "legitimate," but lets put that aside.) The entire problem with signaling-based positive reinforcement is that it requires constant nurturing or it fades: in the eternal words of max rushmore, sic transit gloria mundi. At each step -- the right prep school, the right college, the right internships, the right first job, the right law school, the right summer, the right clerkships, the right higher office, ect.--there will be a degree of euphoria but no lasting eudaimonia, to crib the nichomachaen. So those people set themselves up for constant struggle against the basic reality at the heart of their own ego.

jbagelboy wrote:

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:you should choose a post grad based on what you'll enjoy, not to measure your self esteem against.

Some people enjoy prestigious careers that give them an inflated sense of self-worth, just sayin. There are people for whom prestige affords legitimate and consistent happiness.

lol

Good for you if you've never met slash been raised by anyone like that

Aside from the fact that most 'prestigious careers' in law are an illusion, there are no people that fit this description because the happiness you refer to is by definition not ever "consistent" (and there may be varying interpretations of the word "legitimate," but lets put that aside.) The entire problem with signaling-based positive reinforcement is that it requires constant nurturing or it fades: in the eternal words of max rushmore, sic transit gloria mundi. At each step -- the right prep school, the right college, the right internships, the right first job, the right law school, the right summer, the right clerkships, the right higher office, ect.--there will be a degree of euphoria but no lasting eudaimonia, to crib the nichomachaen. So those people set themselves up for constant struggle against the basic reality at the heart of their own ego.

All of this is why I chose to use the much less restrictive word "happiness" over "eudaimonia." You could certainly seek the positive reinforcement you described (or nurture it, as you say) right up to your deathbed. There are always opportunities to do so, and many people take that path. Those peaks of euphoria can occur at fairly regular (maybe "consistent" was too strong of a word) intervals throughout a person's lifetime. And that can certainly be a form of happiness, if not eudaimonia, but I'm of the opinion that the latter isn't super accessible given current society, anyways. It's something for which most people would have to make serious life changes. The "constant struggle" with euphoric peaks is as valid of an approach to shallow happiness as any, IMO.

HLS homer here. Go to NYU.

why does every thread need to devolve into a circle jerk about what v20 is most preftigious?

addie1412 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:you should choose a post grad based on what you'll enjoy, not to measure your self esteem against.

Some people enjoy prestigious careers that give them an inflated sense of self-worth, just sayin. There are people for whom prestige affords legitimate and consistent happiness.

lol

Good for you if you've never met slash been raised by anyone like that

Aside from the fact that most 'prestigious careers' in law are an illusion, there are no people that fit this description because the happiness you refer to is by definition not ever "consistent" (and there may be varying interpretations of the word "legitimate," but lets put that aside.) The entire problem with signaling-based positive reinforcement is that it requires constant nurturing or it fades: in the eternal words of max rushmore, sic transit gloria mundi. At each step -- the right prep school, the right college, the right internships, the right first job, the right law school, the right summer, the right clerkships, the right higher office, ect.--there will be a degree of euphoria but no lasting eudaimonia, to crib the nichomachaen. So those people set themselves up for constant struggle against the basic reality at the heart of their own ego.

All of this is why I chose to use the much less restrictive word "happiness" over "eudaimonia." You could certainly seek the positive reinforcement you described (or nurture it, as you say) right up to your deathbed. There are always opportunities to do so, and many people take that path. Those peaks of euphoria can occur at fairly regular (maybe "consistent" was too strong of a word) intervals throughout a person's lifetime. And that can certainly be a form of happiness, if not eudaimonia, but I'm of the opinion that the latter isn't super accessible given current society, anyways. It's something for which most people would have to make serious life changes. The "constant struggle" with euphoric peaks is as valid of an approach to shallow happiness as any, IMO.

Fair enough. YOLO

addie1412 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:

addie1412 wrote:

Nebby wrote:you should choose a post grad based on what you'll enjoy, not to measure your self esteem against.

Some people enjoy prestigious careers that give them an inflated sense of self-worth, just sayin. There are people for whom prestige affords legitimate and consistent happiness.

lol

Good for you if you've never met slash been raised by anyone like that

Aside from the fact that most 'prestigious careers' in law are an illusion, there are no people that fit this description because the happiness you refer to is by definition not ever "consistent" (and there may be varying interpretations of the word "legitimate," but lets put that aside.) The entire problem with signaling-based positive reinforcement is that it requires constant nurturing or it fades: in the eternal words of max rushmore, sic transit gloria mundi. At each step -- the right prep school, the right college, the right internships, the right first job, the right law school, the right summer, the right clerkships, the right higher office, ect.--there will be a degree of euphoria but no lasting eudaimonia, to crib the nichomachaen. So those people set themselves up for constant struggle against the basic reality at the heart of their own ego.

All of this is why I chose to use the much less restrictive word "happiness" over "eudaimonia." You could certainly seek the positive reinforcement you described (or nurture it, as you say) right up to your deathbed. There are always opportunities to do so, and many people take that path. Those peaks of euphoria can occur at fairly regular (maybe "consistent" was too strong of a word) intervals throughout a person's lifetime. And that can certainly be a form of happiness, if not eudaimonia, but I'm of the opinion that the latter isn't super accessible given current society, anyways. It's something for which most people would have to make serious life changes. The "constant struggle" with euphoric peaks is as valid of an approach to shallow happiness as any, IMO.

What sort of life have you led to think this is true? Jesus.

Edit: You shouldn't talk like that if you end up coming to Harvard. Nobody likes those people.

.

dabigchina wrote:why does every thread need to devolve into a circle jerk about what v20 is most preftigious?

I mean I think the answer to that is Wacthell and not much debate to be had.

First Offense wrote:

dabigchina wrote:why does every thread need to devolve into a circle jerk about what v20 is most preftigious?

I mean I think the answer to that is Wacthell and not much debate to be had.

b...but cravath is V1 now.

dabigchina wrote:

First Offense wrote:

dabigchina wrote:why does every thread need to devolve into a circle jerk about what v20 is most preftigious?

I mean I think the answer to that is Wacthell and not much debate to be had.

b...but cravath is V1 now.

Isn't Harvard tied with Stanford now too?

Vault rankings are dumb.

First Offense wrote:

dabigchina wrote:

First Offense wrote:

dabigchina wrote:why does every thread need to devolve into a circle jerk about what v20 is most preftigious?

I mean I think the answer to that is Wacthell and not much debate to be had.

b...but cravath is V1 now.

Isn't Harvard tied with Stanford now too?

Vault rankings are dumb.

whoosh