Need some guidance on choosing between UChicago, Northwestern, and Cornell Forum

[eg_m]

I could really use some guidance and I would LOVE to hear from some people currently in big law who are paying 3k or more monthly on their loans.

So, for starters, I am graduating from undergrad with 45k in direct federal loans. This makes my calculations on which school to attend quite a bit more difficult. Also I'm older than 25 but younger than 30.
Career goals and Considerations: Basically I don't know what I want yet. The idea of going into academia and doing research and being a law professor sounds amazing to me. I love research and I this is probably the best fit for me personality wise and such. However, if I really wanted academia then that means the obvious choice is UChicago and that comes with baggage (estimated 225k debt just for uchicago--calculated using this http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5&start=25). That also means I would be going onto UChicago's LRAP program (if PSLF still exists in 2023) which ONLY considers Uchicago's debt and not any undergrad debt. I'd have to pay on my undergrad debt on a public interest salary. The other main thing is that I plan on getting married probably the summer before 3L (long time girlfriend is not American and I grew up outside the US. We want to get married 1 year before graduating so we can get the paperwork in order for her to immigrate which can take up to a year). The prospect of her working in the US is still unknown. She has a clinical degree (dentistry) and she can't practice in the US. Also, her parents are pretty old and will probably come live with us within a few years after that. So supporting a 2-4 person household on a sub 80k (income limit for UChicago LRAP), and paying on undergrad debt, while doing unknown wtf during the first few years of academic career, sounds really hard.

The other option is either go to Uchicago anyways and go into Big Law to pay off the debt, but I don't know if I would last 10 years making near 4k monthly loan payments (according to lexis calc). Then the calculus becomes interesting between Northwestern and Cornell because I don't really know how to compare them. I don't want to work in NYC. I would much prefer either DC or Chicago or California. Chicago sounds nice for the CoL, DC sounds nice for career stuff and possibility of working in government (DOJ sounds really nice, but again if I went public interest I'd probably prefer academia; I am just interested in everything wtf). All I know is that I probably wouldn't last 10 years in BL because it would likely (from what I've read) be really hard on a marriage but maybe I'm misjudging it.

Current offers:
UChicago: 60k (20k/yr) -- could potentially negotiate to 75k (25k/yr) but the odds aren't great; I think negotiation to 90k (30/yr) is near impossible but is a non-zero probability.
Cornell: 120k (40k/yr) -- I don't think there is much room for negotiation as 40k/yr is already above their 75th grant award, but honestly I don't know much about Cornell at all so maybe I'm wrong.

I expect either 40, 50, or 60k /yr from Northwestern. I'd like to run through a few scenarios of differing scholarship offers and sort of hear peoples' opinion on them (if they change from scenario to scenario).

So for the scenarios, I'm gonna just assume that I'll try my best to get a BL job from wherever I go (because I'll either need it or I just want to do it for a few years for some money and experience). Unless someone can convince me that academia is doable and I go to Chicago.

** For all debt calculations, I assumed that I would have 20k from each summer before 2L and 3L to put towards cost of attendance

Scenario 1: Conservative Scenario

• Chicago: 60k; 225k Uchicago debt + ~55-60k (?) undergrad debt after interest (UG debt from now on)
• Northwestern: 120k; 170k debt + 55-60k UGdebt
• Cornell: 120k; 142k debt + 55-60k UGdebt

What to do here?

Scenario 2: Middle Scenario A

• Chicago: 60k; 225k Uchicago debt + ~55-60k UGdebt
• Northwestern: 150k; 134k debt + 55-60k UGdebt
• Cornell: 120k; 142k debt + 55-60k UGdebt

What to do here?

Scenario 3: Middle Scenario B

• Chicago: 60k; 225k Uchicago debt + ~55-60k UGdebt
• Northwestern: 180k; 94k debt + 55-60k UGdebt
• Cornell: 120k; 142k debt + 55-60k UGdebt

I'm gonna just say that I should probably choose NU here.

Scenario 4: Middle Scenario C

• Chicago: 75k; 207k Uchicago debt + ~55-60k UGdebt
• Northwestern: 150k; 134k debt + 55-60k UGdebt
• Cornell: 120k; 142k debt + 55-60k UGdebt

What to do here if I successfully negotiate UChicago up a bit?

Scenario 5: Completely Unrealistic Scenario

• Chicago: 90k; 189k Uchicago debt + ~55-60k UGdebt
• Northwestern: 180k; 94k debt + 55-60k UGdebt
• Cornell: 120k; 142k debt + 55-60k UGdebt

What to do here if I successfully negotiate UChicago up a bit?

Lastly, can someone tell me how to compare NU and Cornell? I mean, outside of their BL+FedClerk numbers which are extremely close. Can Cornell be negotiated up? Is 140k at Cornell better than 150k at NU?

I want UChicago more than anything, but I don't think it's doable--but wtf do I know I haven't worked in BL and I don't know how bad or not bad it will be. I'm a nerd and a super hard worker so maybe it won't be terrible. I just don't want to end up getting divorced after 7 years of working like an indentured servant, billing 2400 hrs a year.

[The Lsat Airbender]

If I were you, I would pay down the undergrad debt, get your fiancee's green card sorted and help her find a job, all of which will help to create a sounder foundation for your marriage, and then take a second look at law school. It's not going anywhere, and you definitely shouldn't rush into the profession if your career goals are "whatever, but hopefully not biglaw".

1) What are you doing for a living currently? The ROI of law school is medicore and needs to take into account the opportunity cost of whatever you're giving up for law school. And even if the ROI math looks good in the long run, 3 years of income leave a big whole in your medium-term plans plans to pay undergrad debt, get your fiancee on her feet, etc.

2) No offense, but you probably are an extreme long shot for academia based on what you've written above. Without a background (strong publishing track record, PhD in another field, etc.) that positions you for a tenure-track position, you could be top of your class at UChicago and still miss out on academia.

It also doesn't sound like a great career path for you anyway given your financial and family needs -- what if the only professor job you get is at Mizzou? Will mom- and dad-in-law want to move to the fourth-biggest city in Missouri for the rest of their lives?

3) It's very hard to make $20k the summer before 2L.

4) Cornell is pretty much a non-starter if you don't want NYC.

5) UChicago is not worth that debt load unless you are ride-or-die public interest (public defender or legal aid, not professor) and plan on using LRAP. (And I'm one of the biggest Chicago stans on this board.)

[eg_m]

Thanks for the reply. From what I've read, going into academia in the legal market is not so far off-limits for me as you describe as "an extreme long shot." Here is a decent write up about the academic job market (part 1 of 5) https://www.law.uchicago.edu/careerserv ... awteaching.

The vast majority of legal scholars and law professors do not have PhDs. It's less than 40% of faculty at almost all law schools from what I've read. Northwestern even has this little blurb on their faculty page:

Northwestern Law students have access to the most interdisciplinary research faculty in the nation. No other law school can boast as high a percentage of PhD-trained faculty members. Northwestern Law has the highest percentage (48 percent) of full-time research faculty with PhDs in the nation.

I'm currently in my last year of undergrad. I started university 5 years late after high school lol. Things were different for me when I was living overseas (idk if I elaborated on this in my main post but I grew up outside the US). As far as doing research goes, I think I'm pretty capable even though I haven't published anything (not to say that some of my prior work couldn't be published if I polished it up a bit and spent a few weeks doing corrections). My current professors have pushed for me to get a PhD but that is 6 years that I'm not willing to spend right now. But, I do a ton of independent research, particularly data driven research in R and Python. I'm a poli sci grad like most law applicants but my focus in undergrad has been on statistics and economics.

Also, why is it so difficult to make 20k during the summer after 1L? I mean, at Chicago I would assume that most (>50%) of the people who want a SA position can get a decent one; especially at the top schools when lots of the PI focused people are going after PI related summer positions.

I do appreciate the candor, I just don't agree with everything you said. But this is certainly the kind of discussion and questions that I want to address so thank you very much for responding! Just curious, can you detail your authority (for lack of a better word) to speak on certain matters? Are you a law school grad? Are you currently in law school? Which school did/do you attend? etc.

Thanks!

[cavalier1138]

Thanks for the reply. From what I've read, going into academia in the legal market is not so far off-limits for me as you describe as "an extreme long shot." Here is a decent write up about the academic job market (part 1 of 5) https://www.law.uchicago.edu/careerserv ... awteaching.

I'd read that blog a little closer. The only path that doesn't involve a PhD or Tax LLM requires exceptional academic performance, law review (preferably with a board position) and a court of appeals clerkship. That's a long shot from anywhere. Assuming you even were able to fill those requirements, the "Path A" mentioned in that article is still not a guarantee. You can do all those things and still not find a path to academia. There will always be far more applicants than there are jobs.

And doctorates are becoming much more common in legal academia. According to recent articles, roughly half of new hires had a PhD. The overall proportion of professors with a PhD will remain lower (professors tend to stay in their positions well past retirement age), but that's irrelevant to you.

Also, why is it so difficult to make 20k during the summer after 1L? I mean, at Chicago I would assume that most (>50%) of the people who want a SA position can get a decent one; especially at the top schools when lots of the PI focused people are going after PI related summer positions.

There's a massive difference between summer associate hiring for 1L summer vs. 2L summer. For the latter, students at top schools generally have a good shot at those positions (obligatory reminder that you can still strike out at Harvard, especially if the market goes south). 1L SA positions, however, are much harder to get, especially for non-diverse candidates. Not every big firm hires 1L summers, and those that do often reserve most of their spots for diverse candidates. The remainder of the spots require exceptional 1L fall grades. While most median students at Chicago can land a biglaw position if they want to, even students with decent grades will likely not be able to score a 1L summer position.

And I definitely wouldn't rely on the PI-focused people making a dent in the competition at schools like Chicago or Northwestern. Barely anyone at those schools even goes into PI; you're going to be competing with the majority of your class for biglaw spots.

I agree with Lsat Airbender entirely. Law school isn't going anywhere, and you should probably focus on paying down your current debt, figuring out your priorities, etc. Otherwise, you could end up in a financial and career position that neither you nor your future spouse want to be in.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I do appreciate the candor, I just don't agree with everything you said. But this is certainly the kind of discussion and questions that I want to address so thank you very much for responding! Just curious, can you detail your authority (for lack of a better word) to speak on certain matters? Are you a law school grad? Are you currently in law school? Which school did/do you attend? etc.

Thanks!

I'm a T13 grad working in a big firm in a major US market.

Cavalier covered the rest of your questions, and I agree with everything he said. To be a bit more clear than I was earlier on the academia thing: I don't mean that a PhD is either necessary or sufficient for legal academia. But it would increase your chances from, say, 1 in 1000 to 1 in 50.

I'm also not trying to say that law school is 100% a bad idea for you. I understand the appeal of taking 3 years to hide from the coronavirus economy and job market. But you need to make this decision based on facts, not intuition, because of the stakes involved. Your dual risks of 1) drowning in debt and 2) derailing your marriage/family plans are not only plausible, they are rather common outcomes in the legal profession, and you are more perceptive than most undergrads in that you are already thinking about these issues.

So, again, key facts:

1) You probably need to revise your expected debt loads upward to account for the relative difficulty of getting paid work 1L summer as well as the costs of getting your fiancee a green card and supporting her while she finds work. For UChicago this probably pushes your debt into the >$300k zone where it would take a decade of biglaw just to pay it down, with the downside risk of burnout or getting laid off and having negative net worth the rest of your life and no upside opportunity because because biglaw is already the highest-paying corner of the industry.

2) If you go to Cornell, you have to be okay with working in NYC. If you go to Chicago/Northwestern, working in Chicago is realistic but avoiding NYC still hamstrings your job prospects and substantially increases your chance of missing biglaw (i.e., Chicago goes from "you have to actively fuck up to strike out on biglaw" to "you should be fine from median but could still strike out, especially with bad grades", and Northwestern goes from "you should be fine from median but could still strike out, especially with bad grades" to "you will need good grades to get an offer; median has a chance but is nowhere near secure").

To be clear, working elsewhere is perfectly doable from all three schools, but wanting to avoid NYC means you need to substantially discount your expected outcomes because NYC is what makes the T13>biglaw pipeline such a sure thing.

3) Academia is tough to get for anyone, even those who have jumped through all the hoops, and you have jumped through zero hoops. Don't let the survivor bias of current professors' profiles fool you. The only people who can justifiably plan on being a law professor have other advanced degrees and attend Yale Law. And even they might end up as a professor at a mediocre-to-bad law school in the middle of nowhere.

[64Fl]

Re: Academia. Of the 35 tenure-track data entries on this years current entry-level hiring law professor spreadsheet, 21/35 (60%) have either a MA/MS, LLM, or PhD. Of the remaining, 13/14 had either a fellowship/VAP and/or at least one federal clerkship. This means that 34/35 (97%) had at least one marker of prestige that is achievable by at most the top 15% of any law school class outside of HYS.

This is all to say that at the very least academia is a long shot and in the best case scenario you'll spend 2-7 years post law school grinding out pursuing a PhD, grinding out publications in a VAP, or getting prestigious clerkships just to have a CHANCE at teaching at a likely very MEDIOCRE law school (your chances of landing a job at a T13 school are essentially non-existent). You'll then spend 5-6 years grinding at whatever school you land at to get tenure. At this point, you'll be roughly 42 years old.

Landing legal academia is nothing less than an extremely low probability slog. If this is truly what you want, sit out this cycle and apply for JD-PhD programs that will take 6-8 years to complete. They will be fully funded, so you won't accrue any debt, and you can create a more intentional course of study. Most of the top schools support JD-PhDs.

You'd be an idiot to attend Chicago at this cost of attendance.
Attending Cornell and not wanting biglaw is equally dumb, though the scholly is nice.
If Northwestern gives you big $$$ and you're not going to follow my JD-PhD plan, go there.

[eg_m]

Thanks for all the great replies. I am little confused as to why everyone only addresses the academia point though. In my scenarios and calculations, I was focusing entirely going into big law. If I was going to try and go into academia, I would obviously use LRAP and it would be less of an issue.

So, in an attempt to change the course of the discussion, how does everyone's advice change when it comes to corporate law outcomes and not academia?

[64Fl]

Thanks for all the great replies. I am little confused as to why everyone only addresses the academia point though. In my scenarios and calculations, I was focusing entirely going into big law. If I was going to try and go into academia, I would obviously use LRAP and it would be less of an issue.

So, in an attempt to change the course of the discussion, how does everyone's advice change when it comes to corporate law outcomes and not academia?

People, myself included, are focusing on it, because it's a near-zero probability event that you expressed interest in. Posters want to make sure that they hammer home that it is truly a near-zero probability event. When it comes to biglaw, all of those schools are fine, and sticker is payable from all of them, although it's a terrible idea, so I think people are giving that component much less attention.

If you want generic big law in not NY, go to Northwestern. The debt seems at least manageable around 150-180k. All Chicago will do is help you land at a V10 instead of a V20 or V20 instead of a V50 on the margins. It's not worth 100k more in debt.

This is really a cut and dry case.

TL;DR - Academia isn't going to happen from anywhere. You seem to want generic big law/goals. You don't want NY. Cornell is out. UChi is not worth 100k more than Northwestern. Go to Northwestern. I hope you enjoy purple.

[Johnnybgoode92]

Thanks for all the great replies. I am little confused as to why everyone only addresses the academia point though. In my scenarios and calculations, I was focusing entirely going into big law. If I was going to try and go into academia, I would obviously use LRAP and it would be less of an issue.

So, in an attempt to change the course of the discussion, how does everyone's advice change when it comes to corporate law outcomes and not academia?

People, myself included, are focusing on it, because it's a near-zero probability event that you expressed interest in. Posters want to make sure that they hammer home that it is truly a near-zero probability event. When it comes to biglaw, all of those schools are fine, and sticker is payable from all of them, although it's a terrible idea, so I think people are giving that component much less attention.

If you want generic big law in not NY, go to Northwestern. The debt seems at least manageable around 150-180k. All Chicago will do is help you land at a V10 instead of a V20 or V20 instead of a V50 on the margins. It's not worth 100k more in debt.

This is really a cut and dry case.

TL;DR - Academia isn't going to happen from anywhere. You seem to want generic big law/goals. You don't want NY. Cornell is out. UChi is not worth 100k more than Northwestern. Go to Northwestern. I hope you enjoy purple.

Okay we get that academia is always uphill and unrealistic. But at least say “if you’re set on it, retake until you get YLS and clerk at the appellate level, preferably SC.” Giving the alternative path is more helpful than “academic isn’t going to happen from anywhere.”

[64Fl]

Okay we get that academia is always uphill and unrealistic. But at least say “if you’re set on it, retake until you get YLS and clerk at the appellate level, preferably SC.” Giving the alternative path is more helpful than “academic isn’t going to happen from anywhere.”

This is pedantic. Academia is about as realistic of a goal as a SCOTUS clerkship. Academia isn't going to happen from anywhere is about as true of a statement as you aren't going to win the lottery. You aren't. Your response is basically "well, if you buy the winning lottery ticket you'll win!" Yes, congrats, you figured out how to win the lottery.

Getting into YLS, grabbing yourself an elite PhD in an in demand field, producing scholarship that places well, and doing a VAP/prestigious clerkship combine to make up such an extreme list of factors that could not go your way. OP might not have the stats to get into YLS even with a retake. OP might not be a suitable candidate for an elite PhD for a wide variety of personal and departmental reasons. OP might not do well enough in law school to get a good clerkship/VAP. OP might not actually produce good publications.

But, yes, if you want to be pedantic, legal academia is possible. Because, obviously, when you originally read my statement, you reasonably assumed that you found the one poster on the internet that truly thought that law schools no longer hired faculty members and would never hire a faculty member in the future. Thank god you corrected me.

[Johnnybgoode92]

Okay we get that academia is always uphill and unrealistic. But at least say “if you’re set on it, retake until you get YLS and clerk at the appellate level, preferably SC.” Giving the alternative path is more helpful than “academic isn’t going to happen from anywhere.”

This is pedantic. Academia is about as realistic of a goal as a SCOTUS clerkship. Academia isn't going to happen from anywhere is about as true of a statement as you aren't going to win the lottery. You aren't. Your response is basically "well, if you buy the winning lottery ticket you'll win!" Yes, congrats, you figured out how to win the lottery.

Getting into YLS, grabbing yourself an elite PhD in an in demand field, producing scholarship that places well, and doing a VAP/prestigious clerkship combine to make up such an extreme list of factors that could not go your way. OP might not have the stats to get into YLS even with a retake. OP might not be a suitable candidate for an elite PhD for a wide variety of personal and departmental reasons. OP might not do well enough in law school to get a good clerkship/VAP. OP might not actually produce good publications.

But, yes, if you want to be pedantic, legal academia is possible. Because, obviously, when you originally read my statement, you reasonably assumed that you found the one poster on the internet that truly thought that law schools no longer hired faculty members and would never hire a faculty member in the future. Thank god you corrected me.

I did not say you made that as a factual statement. I was referring to your unhelpful tone. The OP deserves to know how to break into academia and make a decision with that information and plan of attack.

Also you are overemphasizing the importance of a PhD and why a high proportion of new hires hold the degree. The humanities/social sciences are saturated by multiples beyond legal academia. These PhDs unable to obtain a tenure track position often enroll in law school because the market is stronger.

[nixy]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that the PhD hasn't become common currency, for whatever reason.

And really, producing well-placed scholarship is more important for academia than clerking on SCOTUS. Admittedly, the more elite schools give you more opportunities to produce that scholarship (and since law reviews don't do blind review, the name on your degree definitely has some influence), but then, so does doing a PhD.

[Johnnybgoode92]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that the PhD hasn't become common currency, for whatever reason.

And really, producing well-placed scholarship is more important for academia than clerking on SCOTUS. Admittedly, the more elite schools give you more opportunities to produce that scholarship (and since law reviews don't do blind review, the name on your degree definitely has some influence), but then, so does doing a PhD.

Thank you Nixy. This is useful information for OP.

[QContinuum]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that the PhD hasn't become common currency, for whatever reason.

Maybe not the Ph.D. specifically, but as 64Fl noted above, a large majority - 60% - of this year's hirees have advanced graduate degrees (aside from the J.D.). While it's still possible to succeed with only a J.D., it is no longer the most common path. Further, the J.D.-only candidates, with a single exception, have a federal clerkship or a fellowship/VAP position. In this hiring climate, getting a Ph.D. (or relevant Master's) upfront is actually the least risky (relatively speaking) bet. It's easier to get into a relevant Ph.D. program than to count on landing a sufficiently prestigious clerkship or a sufficiently prestigious fellowship/VAP position (not all are created equal) after law school.

And really, producing well-placed scholarship is more important for academia than clerking on SCOTUS. Admittedly, the more elite schools give you more opportunities to produce that scholarship (and since law reviews don't do blind review, the name on your degree definitely has some influence), but then, so does doing a PhD.

No one's going to produce a sufficient body of work these days as a J.D. student to get hired directly into a tenure-track position. That's why you generally need a Ph.D. or a fellowship/VAP (sometimes both), to gain the opportunity to produce enough scholarship to make a credible case to hiring committees.

[nixy]

I agree with both of your points, and though that was clear from what I said. (My point about the PhD was that it doesn’t matter if they became common because of oversupply - it doesn’t make them less important now. I agree too that most candidates are not going to produce significant enough research during law school. Someone with the right background/preparation/clear research agenda might, in theory, but that’s why you would want a PhD (or as you suggest a fellowship or VAP) - to have the opportunity to write stuff.)

[The Lsat Airbender]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that the PhD hasn't become common currency, for whatever reason.

Maybe not the Ph.D. specifically, but as 64Fl noted above, a large majority - 60% - of this year's hirees have advanced graduate degrees (aside from the J.D.). While it's still possible to succeed with only a J.D., it is no longer the most common path. Further, the J.D.-only candidates, with a single exception, have a federal clerkship or a fellowship/VAP position. In this hiring climate, getting a Ph.D. (or relevant Master's) upfront is actually the least risky (relatively speaking) bet. It's easier to get into a relevant Ph.D. program than to count on landing a sufficiently prestigious clerkship or a sufficiently prestigious fellowship/VAP position (not all are created equal) after law school.

I think nixy's double-negative might be confusing - you both seem to agree.