Stay or Transfer? T2 in Chicago Forum

[dawhite484]

Hi. I'm a 1l, T2 school in chicago, 3.9 first semester grades, one cali award for the highest score in contracts, interested in transferring to UChicago or maybe Northwestern. I'm on a 4/5 scholarship atm, and could almost certainly find a way to have the rest discounted in whole or in part, meaning the price of finishing my education if i don't transfer will likely be 30,000 give or take, including living expenses (I enjoy some familial support). At Uchicago, I'd be paying 130,000, plus another 20,000 at least for living expenses.

I'm not a huge gunner for big law because I'm a big ol lefty, but I bet I could tough it out for a few years if I had to to deal with the debt. The dream path would be to get a federal clerkship, spend a few years working in the private sector in complex torts litigation, then go work for some high-powered nonprofit, or the government prosecuting environmental crimes or writing regulations. I'm ambivalent about academia at this point, but it would be nice to have the option. I am confident I can defend my class rank moving forward at my current school, and I expect I would be more or less average at a top school unless i seriously hustled.

I'm wondering if people have thoughts about how much of a boost UChicago/Northwestern would be compared to where I am now, and if you think that would be worth the cost considering my interests. My thoughts are that I have a really good shot at my current school of having a successful career that looks very much like what I described in the preceding paragraph, except only at the state level, and possibly with a bit more hustle/compromises, and 160,000 more dollars in my pocket + a slightly inferior education. Does this seem like an accurate appraisal to you?

[Pennoyer v. Meh]

Transferring to Chicago or Northwestern would significantly boost your chances, because there's no guarantee you'll maintain that ~3.9 that is essential to getting a clerkship from where you currently are (not to mention the luck you'd need anyway); it really only takes 1-2 bad days (e.g. not feeling well, family problems, etc.) to sink your GPA at your current school below what you need to get those clerkship opportunities. I'd recommend throwing in the transfer apps--it's always better to make the decision with the acceptances in hand, rather than preemptively ruling yourself out.

[dawhite484]

Is a clerkship really worth 130,000 more in debt minimum when the salary for such a position might only be 1/3 my total law school debt? That's undeniably a really shitty ratio, and it's not even clear that I could make payments on my loans during a clerkship.

[nixy]

Loan payment isn't an issue during a clerkship - get on an income-based repayment plan and your payments track your income and it's fine. I can't tell you how much debt a federal clerkship is worth, you really have to assess your other job aspirations and figure out how much difference the clerkship would make (I think many federal government jobs really really really like clerkships, for instance, but). I don't think the way to measure the value of a clerkship has anything to do with the salary, though.

[decimalsanddollars]

I think you're generally thinking about this the right way, except that idk how likely your current school is to offer to pay your living expenses upon hearing that you could transfer to UChicago or NW, so I think your living expenses are the same regardless of the school. The clerkship point is important: transferring will increase your chances of landing one, and you can't guarantee you'll remain that high in your class.

Federal government work and top NGO is very prestige-conscious, and I would suggest that if you want to do something like Honors Programs, PI fellowships, etc. you should probably transfer (and probably also clerk). Even with great grades, it's hard for someone from T2 schools to get their apps read for these positions.

[dawhite484]

Thanks for the replies. And yes, my current school would pay the rest of my tuition but not living expenses.

I very much would like a top NGO or state/fed government position one day. Broader options later in my career seems somehow priceless.

On a deeper level though, I think the whole system is bullshit and that I should not play into it. I do not believe for half a second that Uchicago/northwestern are so much substantially superior that it actually merits the extra opportunities compared to if I maintained a 3.9 at my current school. Its a classist system
and I have serious misgivings about participating in it.

That said, I am definitely going to apply. the real question for me now is whether to take the dive for early action at Uchicago. It seems my chances would be considerably better if I did. As you said, there's no guarantee i could maintain that gpa even this term, and as things are my gpa is above the 25th percentile for transfers into Uchicago. They also take several students from my school every year.

[cavalier1138]

On a deeper level though, I think the whole system is bullshit and that I should not play into it. I do not believe for half a second that Uchicago/northwestern are so much substantially superior that it actually merits the extra opportunities compared to if I maintained a 3.9 at my current school. Its a classist system and I have serious misgivings about participating in it.

I'm glad you recognize that taking a moral stand on this isn't going to help you at all. Agree with "the system" or not, the job opportunities are vastly different. And most importantly, maintaining a 3.9 at any school is not a given. All it takes is one B, and you've failed that particular goal. Top schools offer much more peace of mind when it comes to class rank.

I'm definitely not sure how it's classist, though. There are only so many T2 schools in Chicago, and they aren't charging that much less than Northwestern or UChicago for tuition. Poor people get just as fucked over (if not more so) by lower-tier schools.

[decimalsanddollars]

There are only so many T2 schools in Chicago, and they aren't charging that much less than Northwestern or UChicago for tuition. Poor people get just as fucked over (if not more so) by lower-tier schools.

I definitely agree with this sentiment, and it's true in markets like NYC, LA, SF, Boston, and even Texas (Baylor and SMU both cost more than UT out-of-state), but oddly enough, the T2 (and lower) schools in Chicago are each about $15k less than UChicago/NW---per year. I still think it's a terrible idea to go to one of those schools at full price, and it's worth it for OP here to transfer and pay sticker for a couple years to achieve their long term goals, but the better schools in this market do in fact cost more money.

[dawhite484]

I'm definitely not sure how it's classist, though. There are only so many T2 schools in Chicago, and they aren't charging that much less than Northwestern or UChicago for tuition. Poor people get just as fucked over (if not more so) by lower-tier schools.

I just meant to say that it seems unfair to my colleagues at the t2 school, some of whom did get in to northwestern at sticker price, but chose not to attend/could not attend for financial reasons, that they have fewer options. After all, there are plenty of people at tier 2 schools with comparable gpas/test scores (& who are in my opinion intellectual equals to much of the t12 student bodies) that will not receive the same consideration in the job market because they are less well enmeshed in the legal establishment. It is also true that tier two schools in chicago are about 18 grand cheaper than uchicago/northwestern. I don't have the stats to back it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't also considerably more generous scholarship-wise with students of my caliber.

Would you guys say that the advantages (of northwestern/uchicago) we've enumerated here hold even within Chicago, not just across the national market?

[decimalsanddollars]

I just meant to say that it seems unfair to my colleagues at the t2 school, some of whom did get in to northwestern at sticker price, but chose not to attend/could not attend for financial reasons, that they have fewer options. After all, there are plenty of people at tier 2 schools with comparable gpas/test scores (& who are in my opinion intellectual equals to much of the t12 student bodies) that will not receive the same consideration in the job market because they are less well enmeshed in the legal establishment. It is also true that tier two schools in chicago are about 18 grand cheaper than uchicago/northwestern. I don't have the stats to back it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't also considerably more generous scholarship-wise with students of my caliber.

Would you guys say that the advantages (of northwestern/uchicago) we've enumerated here hold even within Chicago, not just across the national market?

Lower-ranked schools generally (almost always) give generous scholarships to people with the credentials to attend top law schools because they have to. From a free-market perspective, nobody would go to Loyola or Kent for the same price as UChicago or Northwestern, because the latter schools have much better placement power and brand recognition than the former (for a variety of reasons, some of which are "unfair"). One step further: to most people making that decision, an $18k/yr sticker-to-sticker discount isn't enough to compensate for the difference in outcomes. To compensate for that difference and attract students who will represent the school well in the legal market, schools like Loyola and Kent (and T2 schools across the country) offer scholarship money to people with better options. Each student makes their own decisions as to whether the cost difference of their options is worth it, and "could not attend for financial reasons" means that they chose not to take on the significant additional debt because it wasn't worth it to them. You have to make the same decision if and when you transfer, except that it'll be two years of increased debt instead of three.

As to Chicago specifically, I don't know the market well enough to comment on things like midlaw/plaintiff's firms/local public interest, but the most prestigious and lucrative positions (clerkships, biglaw, federal govt) are all rank-conscious and consider applications from all top national schools. There are exceptions (Easterbrook basically only hires from UChicago, and some judges like to hire one clerk from a local T2), but prestige is more important than locality for these positions in Chicago and elsewhere (save for some more insular markets like Florida, Colorado, and to a lesser extent Texas). Prestige matters again later in your career for things like partnership, going in-house, of course academia. As to the jobs I don't know much about (midlaw, plaintiff, PI), they each sort of have their own track that's a bit more dependent on other factors. If your sole objective were landing one of those jobs, I'd reserve the advice above and instead say that you should make the choice based on whatever those other factors are.

[dawhite484]

Lower-ranked schools generally (almost always) give generous scholarships to people with the credentials to attend top law schools because they have to. From a free-market perspective, nobody would go to Loyola or Kent for the same price as UChicago or Northwestern, because the latter schools have much better placement power and brand recognition than the former (for a variety of reasons, some of which are "unfair"). One step further: to most people making that decision, an $18k/yr sticker-to-sticker discount isn't enough to compensate for the difference in outcomes. To compensate for that difference and attract students who will represent the school well in the legal market, schools like Loyola and Kent (and T2 schools across the country) offer scholarship money to people with better options. Each student makes their own decisions as to whether the cost difference of their options is worth it, and "could not attend for financial reasons" means that they chose not to take on the significant additional debt because it wasn't worth it to them. You have to make the same decision if and when you transfer, except that it'll be two years of increased debt instead of three.

As to Chicago specifically, I don't know the market well enough to comment on things like midlaw/plaintiff's firms/local public interest, but the most prestigious and lucrative positions (clerkships, biglaw, federal govt) are all rank-conscious and consider applications from all top national schools. There are exceptions (Easterbrook basically only hires from UChicago, and some judges like to hire one clerk from a local T2), but prestige is more important than locality for these positions in Chicago and elsewhere (save for some more insular markets like Florida, Colorado, and to a lesser extent Texas). Prestige matters again later in your career for things like partnership, going in-house, of course academia. As to the jobs I don't know much about (midlaw, plaintiff, PI), they each sort of have their own track that's a bit more dependent on other factors. If your sole objective were landing one of those jobs, I'd reserve the advice above and instead say that you should make the choice based on whatever those other factors are.

Thanks for your perspective. Yes, I agree on the dynamics of why different schools offer more money than others, but I do disagree on your assessment that people choose not to take on that debt solely because it's "not worth it to them." Let us not forget that people with greater socioeconomic status can take on debt with less risk & skin in the game if things go south. It is possible that it is "not worth it to them" for reasons unrelated to their own idiosyncracies as far as debt-aversion. Not all choices are made equal. I did not intend to turn the thread into a debate, but it's an interesting discussion imo.