T30 +MEDIAN -> USC Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just above median at NY T30. Tentatively considering USC transfer offer.

Very strong ties to LA. Ultimately want to work in CA, but absolutely no network built there (spent 1L summer in NYC; Cali networking limited to phone calls with current school alum).

Would my chances at corp. midlaw/biglaw at SC [edit: market notwithstanding, as I'm willing to work in any CA market not named Sacramento] be considerably worse than those at my current school? If so, to what extent?

Any feedback is welcomed and appreciated.

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

Any substantive feedback?

Poll results go against my most risk-averse inclinations right now, although they're pretty much in line with my gut.

Note: I've built a very strong network in NYC, so much so that I'd say biglaw prospects are much higher than what my GPA might otherwise dictate.

[Edit: Non-URM diverse candidate, insignificant WE, secondary journal, strong interpersonal skills]

[Nammertat]

OP here.

Any substantive feedback?

Poll results go against my most risk-averse inclinations right now, although they're pretty much in line with my gut.

Note: I've built a very strong network in NYC, so much so that I'd say biglaw prospects are much higher than what my GPA might otherwise dictate.

Your situation is the paradigm of when someone should transfer... 1) mediocre school 2) not in your target area 3) no LR 4) new school is in target area 5) no large scholarship [mentioned] 6) Strong ties to target market.

[kyle010723]

One more thing to think about, you're only at median at your current school, by transferring, you get a clean slate (GPA wise), so you can actually graduate with really good grade/rank if you transfer.

[DildaMan]

OP here.

Any substantive feedback?

Poll results go against my most risk-averse inclinations right now, although they're pretty much in line with my gut.

Note: I've built a very strong network in NYC, so much so that I'd say biglaw prospects are much higher than what my GPA might otherwise dictate.

Your situation is the paradigm of when someone should transfer... 1) mediocre school 2) not in your target area 3) no LR 4) new school is in target area 5) no large scholarship [mentioned] 6) Strong ties to target market.

If you want to work in CA in the near future go to USC. If you can stand living/working in NY for a few years, I would stay. It would help if you provided more details concerning the cost of attendance, network connections, and/or other relevant factors.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

Any substantive feedback?

Poll results go against my most risk-averse inclinations right now, although they're pretty much in line with my gut.

Note: I've built a very strong network in NYC, so much so that I'd say biglaw prospects are much higher than what my GPA might otherwise dictate.

Your situation is the paradigm of when someone should transfer... 1) mediocre school 2) not in your target area 3) no LR 4) new school is in target area 5) no large scholarship [mentioned] 6) Strong ties to target market.

If you want to work in CA in the near future go to USC. If you can stand living/working in NY for a few years, I would stay. It would help if you provided more details concerning the cost of attendance, network connections, and/or other relevant factors.

OP here.

Thanks everyone, super helpful. Here's a bit more information.

Re COA: Approx. 15k/year scholly + NYC COL

Re Connections: One V100 market salary c/b with ~80% chance of securing offer based on "inside intel" + good repertoire developed with several partners at two V50s.

Re Other Factors: Already missed USC pre-select bidding through OCI (first-year they've done it). Though considering schedules are 70% lottery v. 30% pre-select, I can only assume the change in methodology this year is so that highly ranked students don't get as fucked as they might have in the past in a 100% lottery system at USC. My options would be strictly lottery, open slot sign-ups, diversity fairs (already applied, have several screeners), and mass mailing (already done, canvassed CA with my resume featuring current school).

[bk1]

Overall, I think your odds at biglaw (where most corporate work is) would be highest by staying. There are far more corporate and biglaw jobs in NYC than in CA. My suspicion is that by transferring you would hurt your odds at getting a biglaw job in NYC since they would question why you left Fordham if you want NYC. The only biglaw benefit you gain from USC is in relation to CA biglaw, but CA biglaw is a lot smaller and more competitive than NYC biglaw. You'd essentially be hurting yourself with NYC biglaw while not gaining much in return since CA biglaw is so small and unlikely for you.

I think the truth of the matter is that biglaw is unlikely in general for you. It is possible, but median students at Fordham and transfer students at USC are not raking in biglaw offers. So the question then becomes whether transferring to USC is worth it for other purposes. I think it would dramatically increase your ease of getting a non-biglaw job in CA. If you want it for that purpose, it then depends how much being in CA is worth it to you. Is it worth 30k? It might be. I don't think that's unreasonable and I think you could go either way depending on how important CA is to you.

I think your best shots at biglaw are your current screeners. If they are NYC then I think you'd be served by staying. If they are CA I think you'd be served by going to USC. I will also add that I think transferring gives you an excuse to follow up with all the firms you've mass mailed by sending an update email. Finding legit excuses to follow up on mass mails is always good.

All in all I think it's a toss up. I'd go to USC and prepare yourself for not working on biglaw while getting ready to hustle for non-biglaw CA jobs assuming you strike out this fall.

[Nammertat]

Overall, I think your odds at biglaw (where most corporate work is) would be highest by staying. There are far more corporate and biglaw jobs in NYC than in CA. My suspicion is that by transferring you would hurt your odds at getting a biglaw job in NYC since they would question why you left Fordham if you want NYC. The only biglaw benefit you gain from USC is in relation to CA biglaw, but CA biglaw is a lot smaller and more competitive than NYC biglaw. You'd essentially be hurting yourself with NYC biglaw while not gaining much in return since CA biglaw is so small and unlikely for you.

I think the truth of the matter is that biglaw is unlikely in general for you. It is possible, but median students at Fordham and transfer students at USC are not raking in biglaw offers. So the question then becomes whether transferring to USC is worth it for other purposes. I think it would dramatically increase your ease of getting a non-biglaw job in CA. If you want it for that purpose, it then depends how much being in CA is worth it to you. Is it worth 30k? It might be. I don't think that's unreasonable and I think you could go either way depending on how important CA is to you.

I think your best shots at biglaw are your current screeners. If they are NYC then I think you'd be served by staying. If they are CA I think you'd be served by going to USC. I will also add that I think transferring gives you an excuse to follow up with all the firms you've mass mailed by sending an update email. Finding legit excuses to follow up on mass mails is always good.

All in all I think it's a toss up. I'd go to USC and prepare yourself for not working on biglaw while getting ready to hustle for non-biglaw CA jobs assuming you strike out this fall.

Ultimately want to work in CA

Agreed.... except OP doesn't want NYC. If you want CA, you need to find a way to get to CA.

[bk1]

Agreed.... except OP doesn't want NYC. If you want CA, you need to find a way to get to CA.

Ultimately doesn't necessarily mean right after law school. It could mean after a few years of NYC biglaw which is why I said OP has to weigh that. More importantly, OP also has to weigh his/her desire for corporate work which may, imo, be hurt by transferring from Fordham to USC. If OP truly wants corporate work then being open to NYC is essential.

[Anonymous User]

Overall, I think your odds at biglaw (where most corporate work is) would be highest by staying. There are far more corporate and biglaw jobs in NYC than in CA. My suspicion is that by transferring you would hurt your odds at getting a biglaw job in NYC since they would question why you left Fordham if you want NYC. The only biglaw benefit you gain from USC is in relation to CA biglaw, but CA biglaw is a lot smaller and more competitive than NYC biglaw. You'd essentially be hurting yourself with NYC biglaw while not gaining much in return since CA biglaw is so small and unlikely for you.

I think the truth of the matter is that biglaw is unlikely in general for you. It is possible, but median students at Fordham and transfer students at USC are not raking in biglaw offers. So the question then becomes whether transferring to USC is worth it for other purposes. I think it would dramatically increase your ease of getting a non-biglaw job in CA. If you want it for that purpose, it then depends how much being in CA is worth it to you. Is it worth 30k? It might be. I don't think that's unreasonable and I think you could go either way depending on how important CA is to you.

I think your best shots at biglaw are your current screeners. If they are NYC then I think you'd be served by staying. If they are CA I think you'd be served by going to USC. I will also add that I think transferring gives you an excuse to follow up with all the firms you've mass mailed by sending an update email. Finding legit excuses to follow up on mass mails is always good.

All in all I think it's a toss up. I'd go to USC and prepare yourself for not working on biglaw while getting ready to hustle for non-biglaw CA jobs assuming you strike out this fall.

Ultimately want to work in CA

Agreed.... except OP doesn't want NYC. If you want CA, you need to find a way to get to CA.

Is working two years in NYC and then attempting to lateral to CA infeasible?

Ultimately I need to be in CA, but at the end of the day I need a job. I'm willing to sacrifice 30k in salary to be in CA, but unwilling to sacrifice much more than 40k. Unfortunately, salary is more important to me than type of work (though my preference is corporate, definitely flexible).

I suppose an equally important question is: What are my midlaw chances in CA?

[bk1]

Is working two years in NYC and then attempting to lateral to CA infeasible?

Ultimately I need to be in CA, but at the end of the day I need a job. I'm willing to sacrifice 30k in salary to be in CA, but unwilling to sacrifice much more than 40k. Unfortunately, salary is more important to me than type of work (though my preference is corporate, definitely flexible).

I suppose an equally important question is: What are my midlaw chances in CA?

It is not infeasible. The problem is that this choice is not about absolutes. Your odds, no matter what you choose, of getting biglaw (ignoring your supposed "80%" shot at the firm you've interviewed at) are low. Transferring to USC or staying at Fordham are likely only to have a marginal effect on your chances. It could hurt or help them depending, but it isn't going to be huge either way.

Midlaw isn't a big thing. You're unlikely to work at a midlaw shop out of graduation. If you miss biglaw, you are likely to make a small salary. You should prepare yourself for that likely reality.