Ruby v. Hamilton v. Yale Forum

[CourtroomBrown]

Congrats! Take the Ruby.

First, enjoy the opportunity to live in Chicago for three years. Although I prefer NYC, it’s a great place to be. Second, you can get more “prestigious” NY biglaw jobs relatively deeper into the class than at Columbia or NYU. I think this is because only a small segment of the class wants NY and the grading scale obscures things a bit.

Thank you for your response! I had no idea about the depth benefit at Chicago due to only a small segment of the class interested in that field, that’s fantastic to hear. I had a quick question though. Does the prestige of the firm I end up working at effect the rest of my career? In other words, would my career be hurt in any way if I worked at a V25 instead of a V10? Just curious to know how rankings effect careers beyond law school.

V25 v V10 matters some on the margin, but can easily be outweighed by practice group and other preferences. Prestige matters once you move into a tier of firms that may not be able to keep up with the big guys financially. I also think there is a good argument that the real sweet spot in biglaw for QOL, pay, quality of work and exits is firms in the ~20-40 range.

Very interesting. When you mention the difference mattering on some margin, is that just referring to exit opportunities or compensation packages as one moves higher up the firm hierarchy?

Also I had heard about the QOL possibly improving as one moves slightly down the rankings. Is there any way to find out how good a firm will be in terms of QOL (i.e. finding that sweet spot) before getting employment there, or is more of a ‘start working and hope for the best’ type situation?

This is a question best left answered by going through old threads in the employment forum and figuring it out during law school. None of this has bearing on deciding between T6 schools.

Is it not easier to get into a V10 from Yale? Finding out if going to a V10 matters seems pretty relevant to my decision between T6 schools, no?

[showusyourtorts]

Very interesting. When you mention the difference mattering on some margin, is that just referring to exit opportunities or compensation packages as one moves higher up the firm hierarchy?

Also I had heard about the QOL possibly improving as one moves slightly down the rankings. Is there any way to find out how good a firm will be in terms of QOL (i.e. finding that sweet spot) before getting employment there, or is more of a ‘start working and hope for the best’ type situation?

This is a question best left answered by going through old threads in the employment forum and figuring it out during law school. None of this has bearing on deciding between T6 schools.

Is it not easier to get into a V10 from Yale? Finding out if going to a V10 matters seems pretty relevant to my decision between T6 schools, no?

To add some fresh perspectives:

All else equal: It's easier to get into a V10 from Yale than from Chicago, and it's easier to get a "better" in-house job following your biglaw stint if you're coming from a V10 versus, say, a V25-40. But I think that most people would regard those differences as clearly relatively minor in this situation (i.e. when comparing a Ruby against little to no scholarship money at Yale and when your goals are general corporate biglaw).

For the former, at OCI, average Chicago students that are smack in the middle of the curve are often able to land one or two V10 general corporate offers (in part because, as described above, there are few Chicago students, and even fewer that wish to go to New York, which already has huge class sizes to begin with). There's also pretty good downside protection there, given that Chicago kids are not really that likely to strike out -- Chicago students that are in the bottom 25% of the curve can usually land a NYC biglaw offer, especially if they're willing to venture to the V50-V75 or so. There may be two or three Chicago students every year (out of 200) that end up striking out of biglaw entirely, and most of them end up finding a mid- or big-law job one way or another. I imagine that Yale has less of these "strike-outs" or relative "strike-outs", but perhaps they have 1 or 2 kids every year that have a similar result, too.

As for the latter, the correlation between a V10 job and a "great" in-house job isn't all that tight. I think maybe a good contrast could be comparing this to choosing a law school. I.e., when you're picking a law school, you know that going to a T14 has a pretty strong correlation with landing a biglaw job: most biglaw jobs are taken by T14 graduates, and most T14 graduates are able to land a biglaw job. Of course, there are exceptions in either case (standouts from T20-T50 schools land biglaw jobs; some students in T14 strike out at biglaw), but it's a relatively sure bet that T14 = biglaw. In contrast, I don't think most people consider there to be as strong of a correlation between your firm's vault ranking and your career after biglaw. At the very least, there isn't anything magical about the V5 or V10 as a whole that makes them all that different from the V30+. Instead, your success after biglaw is going to depend mostly on your relationships you built while at biglaw, your practice group, your mentors, the skills that you gained, etc. And I know that's frustratingly vague, but I do think it speaks to the general answer that you're looking for, which is that though going to a V10 will generally afford you a better chance at a "good" next gig, the correlation between those two events is nowhere near as tightly correlated as, say, going to a T14 and landing biglaw in the first place.

Finally, and perhaps most maddeningly, I actually do think that the discussion of whether it's possible to determine QOL at a firm before working there does have some bearing upon this decision between Yale and Chicago, even if it's a relatively slight factor. If you're able to determine during OCI/callbacks whether a few particular V30-V40 firms will ensure relatively good QOL, then you'd be more partial to taking the Ruby versus if QOL were a total blackbox crapshoot (in which case you'd want to simply shoot for the highest Vault ranked firm possible, which would be a plus, even if only a small plus, for Yale). But the maddening part: I don't think that there is generally all that much that you can do prior to joining a firm to figure out what your relative QOL would look like. Sure, some firms will have certain reputations -- Skadden in NYC, Kirkland in Chicago, etc -- and some practice groups will have relatively accurate reputations -- bankruptcy is more likely to be a shitshow, specialist groups have more predictable hours -- but by far, your QOL will almost entirely be driven by details that are pretty hard to ascertain before you begin working (namely, how a particular firm's particular practice group actually functions, and even usually vary with the specific partners or clients that you work for). To be fair, you definitely may be able to sniff out some 'bad eggs' where an associate gives a slight tip-off that the QOL actually sucks, and in some cases like that, you may be able to say with confidence that the QOL would probably be pretty bad. But, unless you happen to have a trusted source within a particular small practice group, you almost certainly will not be able to know with confidence that you'll have a relatively good QOL if you were to accept a certain offer. In other words: like the correlation between going to a V10 and landing a 'good' in-house job, it's pretty hard to tell ahead of time whether the firm that you're at will offer a relatively good QOL.

The one thing that is ABSOLUTELY the case is that leaving law school debt-free will place you in a SIGNIFICANTLY better financial (and emotional/mental) position than leaving it with 200k+ debt. That debt is more than just a 200k difference, and even more than just the difference between 200k + whatever interest you'd accrue before paying it off (varies on interest rate, but usually about ~50k or so, on a 5 year schedule). A huge financial difference is that you're not able to start investing/saving five or so years earlier than you otherwise would have. The emotional benefits of not having debt are not to be understated. And having the freedom to know that you're not beholden to your biglaw job to pay a huge monthly payment is almost certainly more likely to help you find a "great" post-biglaw job than being at a V10 versus at a V25.

I think all of the above cuts toward the Ruby, and I think it's a pretty clear choice.

[CourtroomBrown]

Very interesting. When you mention the difference mattering on some margin, is that just referring to exit opportunities or compensation packages as one moves higher up the firm hierarchy?

Also I had heard about the QOL possibly improving as one moves slightly down the rankings. Is there any way to find out how good a firm will be in terms of QOL (i.e. finding that sweet spot) before getting employment there, or is more of a ‘start working and hope for the best’ type situation?

This is a question best left answered by going through old threads in the employment forum and figuring it out during law school. None of this has bearing on deciding between T6 schools.

Is it not easier to get into a V10 from Yale? Finding out if going to a V10 matters seems pretty relevant to my decision between T6 schools, no?

To add some fresh perspectives:

All else equal: It's easier to get into a V10 from Yale than from Chicago, and it's easier to get a "better" in-house job following your biglaw stint if you're coming from a V10 versus, say, a V25-40. But I think that most people would regard those differences as clearly relatively minor in this situation (i.e. when comparing a Ruby against little to no scholarship money at Yale and when your goals are general corporate biglaw).

For the former, at OCI, average Chicago students that are smack in the middle of the curve are often able to land one or two V10 general corporate offers (in part because, as described above, there are few Chicago students, and even fewer that wish to go to New York, which already has huge class sizes to begin with). There's also pretty good downside protection there, given that Chicago kids are not really that likely to strike out -- Chicago students that are in the bottom 25% of the curve can usually land a NYC biglaw offer, especially if they're willing to venture to the V50-V75 or so. There may be two or three Chicago students every year (out of 200) that end up striking out of biglaw entirely, and most of them end up finding a mid- or big-law job one way or another. I imagine that Yale has less of these "strike-outs" or relative "strike-outs", but perhaps they have 1 or 2 kids every year that have a similar result, too.

As for the latter, the correlation between a V10 job and a "great" in-house job isn't all that tight. I think maybe a good contrast could be comparing this to choosing a law school. I.e., when you're picking a law school, you know that going to a T14 has a pretty strong correlation with landing a biglaw job: most biglaw jobs are taken by T14 graduates, and most T14 graduates are able to land a biglaw job. Of course, there are exceptions in either case (standouts from T20-T50 schools land biglaw jobs; some students in T14 strike out at biglaw), but it's a relatively sure bet that T14 = biglaw. In contrast, I don't think most people consider there to be as strong of a correlation between your firm's vault ranking and your career after biglaw. At the very least, there isn't anything magical about the V5 or V10 as a whole that makes them all that different from the V30+. Instead, your success after biglaw is going to depend mostly on your relationships you built while at biglaw, your practice group, your mentors, the skills that you gained, etc. And I know that's frustratingly vague, but I do think it speaks to the general answer that you're looking for, which is that though going to a V10 will generally afford you a better chance at a "good" next gig, the correlation between those two events is nowhere near as tightly correlated as, say, going to a T14 and landing biglaw in the first place.

Finally, and perhaps most maddeningly, I actually do think that the discussion of whether it's possible to determine QOL at a firm before working there does have some bearing upon this decision between Yale and Chicago, even if it's a relatively slight factor. If you're able to determine during OCI/callbacks whether a few particular V30-V40 firms will ensure relatively good QOL, then you'd be more partial to taking the Ruby versus if QOL were a total blackbox crapshoot (in which case you'd want to simply shoot for the highest Vault ranked firm possible, which would be a plus, even if only a small plus, for Yale). But the maddening part: I don't think that there is generally all that much that you can do prior to joining a firm to figure out what your relative QOL would look like. Sure, some firms will have certain reputations -- Skadden in NYC, Kirkland in Chicago, etc -- and some practice groups will have relatively accurate reputations -- bankruptcy is more likely to be a shitshow, specialist groups have more predictable hours -- but by far, your QOL will almost entirely be driven by details that are pretty hard to ascertain before you begin working (namely, how a particular firm's particular practice group actually functions, and even usually vary with the specific partners or clients that you work for). To be fair, you definitely may be able to sniff out some 'bad eggs' where an associate gives a slight tip-off that the QOL actually sucks, and in some cases like that, you may be able to say with confidence that the QOL would probably be pretty bad. But, unless you happen to have a trusted source within a particular small practice group, you almost certainly will not be able to know with confidence that you'll have a relatively good QOL if you were to accept a certain offer. In other words: like the correlation between going to a V10 and landing a 'good' in-house job, it's pretty hard to tell ahead of time whether the firm that you're at will offer a relatively good QOL.

The one thing that is ABSOLUTELY the case is that leaving law school debt-free will place you in a SIGNIFICANTLY better financial (and emotional/mental) position than leaving it with 200k+ debt. That debt is more than just a 200k difference, and even more than just the difference between 200k + whatever interest you'd accrue before paying it off (varies on interest rate, but usually about ~50k or so, on a 5 year schedule). A huge financial difference is that you're not able to start investing/saving five or so years earlier than you otherwise would have. The emotional benefits of not having debt are not to be understated. And having the freedom to know that you're not beholden to your biglaw job to pay a huge monthly payment is almost certainly more likely to help you find a "great" post-biglaw job than being at a V10 versus at a V25.

I think all of the above cuts toward the Ruby, and I think it's a pretty clear choice.

Thank you so much for this thorough and informative analysis. I really appreciate the depth you’ve gone into here and the time it must have taken and I’m extremely grateful for you insight. After reading all of the information you’ve provided I fully agree, it seems that the Ruby is clearly the best option, I look forward to committing.

[jsnow212]

Congrats! Take the Ruby.

First, enjoy the opportunity to live in Chicago for three years. Although I prefer NYC, it’s a great place to be. Second, you can get more “prestigious” NY biglaw jobs relatively deeper into the class than at Columbia or NYU. I think this is because only a small segment of the class wants NY and the grading scale obscures things a bit.

Thank you for your response! I had no idea about the depth benefit at Chicago due to only a small segment of the class interested in that field, that’s fantastic to hear. I had a quick question though. Does the prestige of the firm I end up working at effect the rest of my career? In other words, would my career be hurt in any way if I worked at a V25 instead of a V10? Just curious to know how rankings effect careers beyond law school.

V25 v V10 matters some on the margin, but can easily be outweighed by practice group and other preferences. Prestige matters once you move into a tier of firms that may not be able to keep up with the big guys financially. I also think there is a good argument that the real sweet spot in biglaw for QOL, pay, quality of work and exits is firms in the ~20-40 range.

Very interesting. When you mention the difference mattering on some margin, is that just referring to exit opportunities or compensation packages as one moves higher up the firm hierarchy?

Also I had heard about the QOL possibly improving as one moves slightly down the rankings. Is there any way to find out how good a firm will be in terms of QOL (i.e. finding that sweet spot) before getting employment there, or is more of a ‘start working and hope for the best’ type situation?

This is a question best left answered by going through old threads in the employment forum and figuring it out during law school. None of this has bearing on deciding between T6 schools.

Is it not easier to get into a V10 from Yale? Finding out if going to a V10 matters seems pretty relevant to my decision between T6 schools, no?

It's not particularly difficult from any of the T6 to get a V10 job, sans-Wachtell. Some firms in the V10 are not selective at all when it comes to hiring people from T6 schools. The marginal ease from Yale (mainly because no one guns for biglaw from there), is not worth the money. Frankly, as a previous poster alluded to, you'll find out that a lot of non V-10 firms may end up being better options for you based on a variety of factors. All this basically means that using ease of getting a V10 offer as a metric for deciding between T6 offers isn't useful.

[nixy]

I'll also throw in the obligatory reminder that the Vault rankings are generated by sending surveys to associates and aren't really objective assessments of firm quality.

[HowAppealing]

I chose a Ruby over H with a big aid package (didn't apply to Columbia, waitlisted at Yale). I can only speak to the Ruby, but it was great. The stipend is a big help, there are small quarterly events which were nice, you get a mentor but how useful that is varies, and that's about it (unless they've changed it recently). COL in Hyde Park is going to be way better than NY and it's easy enough to get downtown. Consider your preference for class size. Chicago is small and in that sense you're a little more special/unique. The main campus is beautiful. Seemed like anyone who wanted biglaw got it but other Chicago students can chime in. It seems you don't care about clerking, but Chicago does pretty well in case you change your mind (some people do, I did and ended up clerking).

Thank you for your input! I’m a non-Citizen so I don’t think it’s possible for me to clerk, but glad to hear that you had such a great experience choosing the Ruby. I’m definitely a fan of smaller class sizes, however I was willing to give that up for the supposedly better big law placement at Columbia. Glad to know their functioanlly equivalent.

A bit off-topic, but wanted to chime in here. The rule is that if you are non-citizen/permanent resident, you can not get paid to clerk within the continental United States. You can get paid to clerk in Hawaii (A3 district court + Ninth Circuit), Alaska (A3 district court + Ninth Circuit), Puerto Rico (A3 district court + First Circuit); Guam (A4 district court); Northern Mariana Islands (A4 district court), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (A4 district court). That narrows your options a lot, but it is not impossible, especially with the schools you are considering.

[Dcc617]

V10 is a meaningless distinction. Look at hours, comp, and culture.

And maybe jump out of the chase for preftige. There’s no there there.

At a certain point, you need to stop letting lists of stuff drive your life decisions.