Top Law Schools

I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts on transferring, or from anyone who has done so under similar conditions.

Are Columbia and NYU realistic, perhaps even a shot at the trinity? Or are the most likely schools more along the lines of GULC/Duke with reaches at Michigan/Penn?

If the later is the case, is it worth giving up the GPA and Law Review for a t14 if your goal is big law in NYC.

|fame| wrote: If the later is the case, is it worth giving up the GPA and Law Review for a t14 if your goal is big law in NYC.

Frankly my hunch would be no. Fordham is a pretty stellar law school, especially if you want to practice in NYC. Besides, Michael Clayton went there.

I've heard of a few people transferring to NYU from Fordham and only being in the top 20% of their class. If this is true than I would think you would have a great shot if you are in the top 5%.

On a side note what is your overall opinion of Fordham specifically career prospects, quality of life, etc. I am headed there this fall.

.

NYU loves transfers!

I would think it would be worth it to go to NYU or Columbia.

If you're worried about career prospects, I don't see how transferring can do anything but hurt you. Obviously, you are doing well and are comfortable with the system. Besides the top 5% at Fordham should get you hired at any of the firms you would probably want. If you're looking for more name recognition or prestige...that's a different question.

I'd probably transfer, especially to Columbia. At worst, you will be considered a top 5% Fordham student who know goes to Columbia. In 20 years, I think you would rather say you were a Columbia grad than a Fordham grad on law review. I don't think you could ever regret transferring to Columbia, but you may regret NOT transferring.

Just my 2 cents... and it isn't about prestige, it's about keeping all options open.

i personally agree with nitsudrx's reasoning. The Columbia name is special.

Amory Blaine wrote:If you're worried about career prospects, I don't see how transferring can do anything but hurt you. Obviously, you are doing well and are comfortable with the system. Besides the top 5% at Fordham should get you hired at any of the firms you would probably want. If you're looking for more name recognition or prestige...that's a different question.

OP's scenario is hypothetical

neskerdoo wrote:

Amory Blaine wrote:If you're worried about career prospects, I don't see how transferring can do anything but hurt you. Obviously, you are doing well and are comfortable with the system. Besides the top 5% at Fordham should get you hired at any of the firms you would probably want. If you're looking for more name recognition or prestige...that's a different question.

OP's scenario is hypothetical

How do you know it is hypothetical?

beccause OP is currently applying to law school

If that is the case (if I were him) I wouldn't assume I could be in the top 5%. Especially at Fordham which seems to have a higher quality of students relative to its rank.

Yeah, I had no way of knowing that -- a pretty presumptuous hypothetical.

indeed

I was debating the question with my neighbor who is currently top 3% at Fordham. My two cents were he should try and transfer to Columbia or NYU because down the road yada yada. He believes down the road all that will matter are his merits as a lawyer and that out the gate he can get the same job as a Columbia/NYU grad.

SoftBoiledLife wrote:

|fame| wrote: If the later is the case, is it worth giving up the GPA and Law Review for a t14 if your goal is big law in NYC.

Frankly my hunch would be no. Fordham is a pretty stellar law school, especially if you want to practice in NYC. Besides, Michael Clayton went there.

Yeah, I mean, Michael Clayton did go to Fordham. But consider what he did next - he became a District Attorney from Queens, and when he finally made the transition to a big law firm, he was a fixer who had a salary below the typical big law associate. It seems he provides little evidence that Fordham is a gateway to a big law career (not that the school isn't.)

i wonder if Michael Clayton finished in the top 3% of his class at fordham

I believe a DA is a completive job especially for those who are politically inclined.

Was Michael Clayton's salary really below an associate, or did you just infer that? His job is wayyy more interesting, though.

Do you think firms really have a position similar to this?

nitsudrx wrote:Was Michael Clayton's salary really below an associate, or did you just infer that? His job is wayyy more interesting, though.

I infer this because of his debts and the big deal it was when he wanted $80k to pay it off. Maybe I'm wrong.

And DA jobs may be competitive, but I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't show evidence of BigLaw prospects since he didn't go to BigLaw. Maybe he could of, but as he didn't, how can we use that as evidence?

Portal wrote:

nitsudrx wrote:Was Michael Clayton's salary really below an associate, or did you just infer that? His job is wayyy more interesting, though.

I infer this because of his debts and the big deal it was when he wanted $80k to pay it off. Maybe I'm wrong.

And DA jobs may be competitive, but I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't show evidence of BigLaw prospects since he didn't go to BigLaw. Maybe he could of, but as he didn't, how can we use that as evidence?

Man, way to kill a joke. To set the record straight, though, Michael Clayton was "counsel" at his Biglaw firm, meaning he is in that no-man's-land between senior associate and full equity partner. Counsel usually make slightly more than senior associates at their firms. The only reason I remember this is that there was an abovethelaw posting on this exact topic a while back:

--LinkRemoved--

Also, I thought the cause of his debt was excessive personal spending, not inability to pay off regular student loans.

FLS08 wrote:

Portal wrote:

nitsudrx wrote:Was Michael Clayton's salary really below an associate, or did you just infer that? His job is wayyy more interesting, though.

I infer this because of his debts and the big deal it was when he wanted $80k to pay it off. Maybe I'm wrong.

And DA jobs may be competitive, but I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't show evidence of BigLaw prospects since he didn't go to BigLaw. Maybe he could of, but as he didn't, how can we use that as evidence?

Man, way to kill a joke. To set the record straight, though, Michael Clayton was "counsel" at his Biglaw firm, meaning he is in that no-man's-land between senior associate and full equity partner. Counsel usually make slightly more than senior associates at their firms. The only reason I remember this is that there was an abovethelaw posting on this exact topic a while back:

--LinkRemoved--

Also, I thought the cause of his debt was excessive personal spending, not inability to pay off regular student loans.

You're right that his debt was from personal expenditures (mostly gambling, heh.)

And maybe you're right that he makes more than associates. I got the impression he didn't because he had almost no assets, but if he really gambled away his entire salary, then perhaps I see your point.

I don't remember the movie ever stating that he was a senior associate. Is that just because he worked at the law firm for years and did not make partner? I'll note that, whatever is the case, he's not the traditional law firm employee: he probably didn't bill many hours, spending his time fixing embarrassing problems for the firm and its clients.

dude, are you serious here?

Using the internet, I've discovered that Michael Clayton is not the person that wrote Jurassic Park. This makes a lot more sense to me now.