Attending CCN: A raw deal for some? Forum

[WtRMyChances]

I ask out of pure curiosity. If 100% of the people who attend CCN are smart and hardworking (maybe 97% to account for people who burn out), yet only 70% find jobs in biglaw, then aren't 30% of those smart, hardworking students just getting shafted?

During one's undergraduate career, it's easy to dismiss the students who don't find jobs as "lazy." But if you attend, say, one of CCN, then you already had to be bright and diligent to gain entry, and chances are you're not just going to give up your intelligence/study habits now that you've arrived. So to the layperson, the people at the bottom of the class at CCN might look like slackers, but they're actually just people who did slightly less well on their exams despite working hard - and thus ended up shut out of biglaw.

This doesn't seem to be an issue at HYS, where OCI recruitment figures remain near 100% (yes, I know that some people got screwed over at Harvard this past year). I'm sure it's also an issue at lower-ranked T14s, so don't accuse me of leaving anyone out.

...Anyway, continuing my logic from before. If, no matter how hard you work, CCN only give you a 70% shot at biglaw, then wouldn't it make more sense to attend a lower-ranked school (Georgetown, Vanderbilt) and be a "stand-out" student? If you're ranked below median - say, top 65% - at CCN and get shut out of biglaw, then wouldn't it have been better for your career to attend a lower-ranked school and be a "top" student (e.g. top 25% at Georgetown), where you might stand a better chance at biglaw?

Someone tell me my logic is flawed here.

[miamiman]

Go to ccn. Smile.

[imchuckbass58]

Your logic is flawed here.

What makes you think someone below median at CCN could get top 25% at Georgetown? I'd say it's pretty unlikely.

Even accepting your theory, your outcomes aren't much better. Say bottom third at CCN (= no biglaw ITE) could be median at GULC (= no biglaw ITE). You get the shaft either way, even if you do slightly better (which itself is a questionable proposition).

[yeff]

Your logic is flawed here.

There's no reason at all to assume that the lower third at CCN would be in the top quarter at Georgetown.

Furthermore, are you accounting for people who self-select away from biglaw careers?

[neimanmarxist]

I think people have pointed this out before but it bears repeating.

The difference between getting into CCN and getting into a lower-ranked T14 is often the matter of just a few points on the LSAT, a couple of hundredths of a point on a GPA (and with undergrad institutional quality varying widely and majors varying in difficulty, it's not that reliable an indicator) and the way your essay strikes a particular adcomm on a given day. The difference between a 170 and a 174 is huge in terms of admissions, but really it's just getting four more minutes of your life right.

Given that that's the case, the assumption that if you got into CCN you'll do way better than the people that got into the lower-ranked school if you go there is fundamentally misguided. Read some of the posts on how to do well in law school, and you'll see that most posters that are currently in law school repeat time and again that just because you crushed the LSAT doesn't mean you grade on to law review. It's a bigger skill set, tested over a much longer period of time, that makes the stand-out student.

[ihatelaw]

Flawed logic. The numbers are obviously off by a bit and I can only speak for NYU really but...

60 - 70% get biglaw
10% clerk (which is higher for NYU than before, slightly less than one C and more than the other)
15% do PI/Gov

If we take the worst case scenario, that means 85% of students are okay/doing what they want. 15% are unaccounted for but I doubt they are the bottom 15%, its likely that some people simply don't interview well or only applied for firms/clerkships/etc that were out of their league. This also doesn't take into account people that go back to their home states, work in small firms/offices, etc. So, in short, few people actually get shafted. The people that got shafted were people who got deferred, as opposed to people who had to take jobs that pay less or weren't as "prestigious." Plus, if you take the best case scenario, only 5% of people are shafted.

Most horror stories are...stories. Anecdotal evidence isn't useful here since it just scares people.




Also, contrary to popular belief, people at CCN are not smarter than people at Gtown, UCLA, Fordham or anywhere else. And you don't need to be brilliant to do well on a law school exam. I'd bet that whoever is top 10% at GTown would probably be top 10% at NYU. I'd also bet I could substitute almost any given school in the first tier and get the same result.

[Renzo]

There is another flaw in your logic. The 30% that don't get biglaw are not unemployed, and some substantial percentage of that 30% never wanted biglaw to begin with.

There is no doubt that not everyone who wants biglaw is getting it in the current employment market. That just means they are either going into government (not a bad gig) or going to down-market firms that pay a little less (still not a bad gig). Anyone from those schools who is unemployed either A) got Lathamed and hasn't recovered or B) put zero effort into a job search.

[imchuckbass58]

60 - 70% get biglaw
10% clerk (which is higher for NYU than before, slightly less than one C and more than the other)
15% do PI/Gov

I agree with your general point, but you're overlooking a critical point here. I'm assuming you're getting your 60%-70% figure from 2L OCI stats. One thing to notice is that the vast majority of people who end up in government or clerkships do 2L SAs. So the 10% and 15% are not wholly in addition to the 60%-70%, but already included in that figure.

Also not sure where you're getting the "slightly less than one C and more than the other." Chicago tends to place better in clerkships, but NYU and CLS are generally about the same - one doesn't regularly outpace the other.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... iii_clerks

[Unemployed]

Flawed logic. The numbers are obviously off by a bit and I can only speak for NYU really but...

60 - 70% get biglaw
10% clerk (which is higher for NYU than before, slightly less than one C and more than the other)
15% do PI/Gov

I don't want to get into a CLS/NYU pissing match, but see http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... news-.html. I was surprised by the results myself. Also see http://lawclerkaddict2008.blogspot.com/ ... chool.html. The second link is for federal appellate clerkship only.

Also, you must account for the overlap between the 70% that was successful during OCI and the 10% that ends up doing clerkships. More likely than not, there is significant overlap.

[ihatelaw]

don't want to get into a CLS/NYU pissing match, but see http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... news-.html. I was surprised by the results myself. Also see http://lawclerkaddict2008.blogspot.com/ ... chool.html. The second link is for federal appellate clerkship only.

Also, you must account for the overlap between the 70% that was successful during OCI and the 10% that ends up doing clerkships. More likely than not, there is significant overlap.

I'll buy the overlap but I don't know how that works into hiring numbers that are available.

The 2007 numbers are right but also outdated. NYU put 45 people on COA in 2010, and drastically increased their clerkship numbers overall. This puts them at least in the same ball park as CLS and Chi in terms of clerking percentages (because I think Chi went down a bit). C/C have an advantage for S Ct clerkships but with the increase in COA clerkships, I think NYU will start to catch up.

[Unemployed]

don't want to get into a CLS/NYU pissing match, but see http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... news-.html. I was surprised by the results myself. Also see http://lawclerkaddict2008.blogspot.com/ ... chool.html. The second link is for federal appellate clerkship only.

Also, you must account for the overlap between the 70% that was successful during OCI and the 10% that ends up doing clerkships. More likely than not, there is significant overlap.

I'll buy the overlap but I don't know how that works into hiring numbers that are available.

The 2007 numbers are right but also outdated. NYU put 45 people on COA in 2009, and more than doubled their clerking numbers overall from what I hear. This puts them at least in the same ball park as CLS and Chi in terms of clerking percentages (because I think Chi went down a bit). C/C have an advantage for S Ct clerkships but with the increase in COA clerkships, I think NYU will start to catch up.

Oh I thought the 60-70% biglaw figure was from OCI 2009 (i.e. SA positions for the class of 2011). Were you talking about the overall employment figure for the class of 2009?

Also, 45 is a HUGE jump in appellate clerkships! I can't believe you guys went from 4.2% in 2007 to 10% in 2009! What changed? We'll see how C and C did for the class of 2009.

[ihatelaw]

I actually was just using the number used by the OP but I'm pretty sure 60 - 70% get biglaw at NYU. NYU's site says from previous years 80% get law firm jobs, so I'm assuming around 10 - 15% of law firm jobs aren't big law.


I think the jump (I actually was wrong, its starting fall 2010) is due to the clerkship office. NYU didn't really focus on putting people in clerkships before. They created an office, put good people in charge of it, and started advising kids on how to apply for clerkships and such. I also think its because NYU has been "on the rise" for a few years now. I know its ranking hasn't changed much in the past decade but the administration is constantly trying to improve the school in ways that actually help students.

[vanwinkle]

People have pointed this out already, but I'll just add to it anyway.

Moving down to a lower-ranked school doesn't mean you'll be more successful. Law school success is based on factors once you're in law school, not your GPA or LSAT, which just predict your potential for success. If you fail to do well in one tier of school it's very likely you wouldn't do well at a lower tier.

If you want evidence of this, look at transfer students. Most transfer students are in the top 5-10% of their class at their lower-tier school. They transfer up to a school full of kids with higher UG GPAs and LSATs, but the transfer students still typically end up in the top 25% of their class at their new school, if not better. Why? Because once you know how to be successful in law school, you can be successful in almost any law school, since the same skills that put you ahead of the pack in one school put you ahead in another.

If you think you'll be in the bottom third of your class at CCN, then don't go to law school. You're not likely to rise above median much of anywhere.

[DOS]

People have pointed this out already, but I'll just add to it anyway.

Moving down to a lower-ranked school doesn't mean you'll be more successful. Law school success is based on factors once you're in law school, not your GPA or LSAT, which just predict your potential for success. If you fail to do well in one tier of school it's very likely you wouldn't do well at a lower tier.

If you want evidence of this, look at transfer students. Most transfer students are in the top 5-10% of their class at their lower-tier school. They transfer up to a school full of kids with higher UG GPAs and LSATs, but the transfer students still typically end up in the top 25% of their class at their new school, if not better. Why? Because once you know how to be successful in law school, you can be successful in almost any law school, since the same skills that put you ahead of the pack in one school put you ahead in another.

If you think you'll be in the bottom third of your class at CCN, then don't go to law school. You're not likely to rise above median much of anywhere.

He said bottom 1/3 not bottom 10% (who have other issues). We are talking about people who have straight Bs (perhaps with a single B+) or who have one Low Pass but a higher grade(s) as well. These people should not expect a real job coming out of CCN?

[AngryAvocado]

I have a couple of friends that transferred from T1 schools into the T14 (one into CCN and the other into a lower T14), and they've both noticed a significant difference in competition. They've still managed to do well, to vanwinkle's point, but they are no longer at (or near) the tippity top of the class like the once were. So, while this might put me in the minority here, I don't think it's unreasonable to think you'd end up with a slightly better class rank at Georgetown. However, I don't think the difference will be anywhere near large enough to outweigh the placement advantage CCN has over Georgetown.

[JollyGreenGiant]

Even in CCN, there are gonna be those people who think "Oh, I go to (insert CCN) it doesn't matter what my rank is cuz I have this degree" and they likely won't attend class regularly or do necessary things to do well in school.

[miamiman]

Even in CCN, there are gonna be those people who think "Oh, I go to (insert CCN) it doesn't matter what my rank is cuz I have this degree" and they likely won't attend class regularly or do necessary things to do well in school.

holy sh*t, how'd you know?

[birdmann783]

i didnt read the previous comments so someone might have said it but yeah your logic is fault....

we dont know if 100 percent of the ppl wanted big law anyway..so maybe those 70 percent were the 70 percent who wanted it and the others pursued other jobs

[miamiman]

i didnt read the previous comments so someone might have said it but yeah your logic is fault....

we dont know if 100 percent of the ppl wanted big law anyway..so maybe those 70 percent were the 70 percent who wanted it and the others pursued other jobs

the vast majority of kids attending these schools do OCI. are some efforts half-hearted? maybe. but you have to assume if they're going through the motions they're at least somewhat invested in getting an offer

[09042014]

i didnt read the previous comments so someone might have said it but yeah your logic is fault....

we dont know if 100 percent of the ppl wanted big law anyway..so maybe those 70 percent were the 70 percent who wanted it and the others pursued other jobs

If I recall correctly the stats that were leaked was 70% who went to OCI, got a job from it. I'm not sure why this is surprising. It's better than I thought. Rumors from OCI was that bottom third was a scary place to be.

Even Harvard isn't safe. People there didn't get offers.

[Tofu]

i didnt read the previous comments so someone might have said it but yeah your logic is fault....

we dont know if 100 percent of the ppl wanted big law anyway..so maybe those 70 percent were the 70 percent who wanted it and the others pursued other jobs

If I recall correctly the stats that were leaked was 70% who went to OCI, got a job from it. I'm not sure why this is surprising. It's better than I thought. Rumors from OCI was that bottom third was a scary place to be.

yep. it was something like 67% for CLS and 70% for NYU for people who went and got an offer.

[Core]

Lol how about a MVPB: A raw deal for some? discussion...

[vanwinkle]

So, while this might put me in the minority here, I don't think it's unreasonable to think you'd end up with a slightly better class rank at Georgetown. However, I don't think the difference will be anywhere near large enough to outweigh the placement advantage CCN has over Georgetown.

I actually agree with this. I'd expect someone to possibly do slightly better at Georgetown, not exactly the same as they would at CCN. But I agree it's a difference so small that it doesn't outweigh the placement advantage. The gap is not so large that someone who would do poorly at CCN would be likely to do well at GULC.

[of Benito Cereno]

yea, its hard to get into stanford and yale. but really, overall its not very hard to get into a top10 law school and you really do not have to be very hard working or brilliant to go to CCN or even HYS. Getting over a 170 on the lsat really shouldn't require much effort if you're not an idiot and getting a 3.7+ gpa doesn't require you to be very smart in the humanities and social sciences, it just requires that you show up and do most of your work. I know plenty of mediocre people with 3.8 gpas who just were responsible and relatively bright. I also know plenty of mediocre people with 174+ lsats who just happen to be kinda bright. Sure most kids at yale law are pretty extraordinary. But the students at Columbia or Harvard I know are mostly just responsible students and pretty bright. Sure there are some really smart people at those schools but most are just your run of the mill kinda smart and kinda successful people. Getting into law school, even a top 5 one, is not much of an accomplishment (trust me, the kids doing phds and mds work way harder and often are much smarter) so lets not act as if students at top5 law schools are really competing against the best of the best. Columbia, for example, (where I will be matriculating) is filled with 174/3.65ish types... thats really nothing special. The kid who gets a 3.65 at, say, tufts or williams in english or history is probably not particularly hard working and the 174 lsat is, well, pretty damn easy to get. Sure some people mess up on the test day but really anyone moderately smart can break a 170 on practice tests. After that its just luck (mostly). I don't know anyone who got below a 165 on the lsat (I also don't know anyone going to a school ranked lower than fordham...) and know plenty of totally normal t-shirt wearing bland sportfans who did decently at decent UGs and took a dozen practice tests and now go to top 10 schools. none of these people are very smart; most never read books. really most are just normal bright upper-middle class kids from professional families. the kids i know at yale law are mostly really smart but otherwise let's stop acting like columbia or nyu or even harvard are filled with elite super-brainiacs.

[miamiman]

and the 174 lsat is, well, pretty damn easy to get. Sure some people mess up on the test day but really anyone moderately smart can break a 170 on practice tests.

I was nodding in agreement until you wrote this. Getting a 174 is not easy to get. (99% of the population of LSAT test takers agree with me.) I don't know if you're trying to convey a false sense of modesty, but getting a 174 is many things -- easy not being one of them.