Cornell 1L taking questions Forum

[Lincoln]

Thanks for the responses guys. That's very helpful.

One thing I'd like to note is it seems that within the lower T-14, including GULC, people conistently cite top third as being where you need to be for the 90-95% plus chance at getting big law. I just find this interesting because there's such a large disparity between the overall big law employment stats for a school like Cornell vs. a school like GULC.

Based on overall employment stats, I would've thought that if people at Cornell say you need to be top third for 90% chance, then people at GULC might say top 20% when asked the same question, but this has not been the case at all.

Based on the responses that I've received from students at the lower T14s, I am lead to believe that being top third at lower T14s puts you in roughly the same spot, but the reason it's important to look at the overall big law data is because of the likely scenario that you don't end up in the top third. In other words, as far as I can see, a top third student at Cornell, Michigan, GULC, etc. seems to be in roughly the same spot. To put this another way, it seems that a top third student at GULC will fare just as well as top third from Michigan or Cornell etc., but you would want to go to these other schools just for the better odds at big law if you're not in the top third (which is obviously more likely than being top third).

What do you guys think? Am I totally off base with this thinking? It seems counterintuitive based on the overall big law employment data, but the anecdotes that I get seem to point towards it.

So you're saying "the anecdotes" trump "the overall big law employment data". Seems legit.

[Princetonlaw68]

Thanks for the responses guys. That's very helpful.

One thing I'd like to note is it seems that within the lower T-14, including GULC, people conistently cite top third as being where you need to be for the 90-95% plus chance at getting big law. I just find this interesting because there's such a large disparity between the overall big law employment stats for a school like Cornell vs. a school like GULC.

Based on overall employment stats, I would've thought that if people at Cornell say you need to be top third for 90% chance, then people at GULC might say top 20% when asked the same question, but this has not been the case at all.

Based on the responses that I've received from students at the lower T14s, I am lead to believe that being top third at lower T14s puts you in roughly the same spot, but the reason it's important to look at the overall big law data is because of the likely scenario that you don't end up in the top third. In other words, as far as I can see, a top third student at Cornell, Michigan, GULC, etc. seems to be in roughly the same spot. To put this another way, it seems that a top third student at GULC will fare just as well as top third from Michigan or Cornell etc., but you would want to go to these other schools just for the better odds at big law if you're not in the top third (which is obviously more likely than being top third).

What do you guys think? Am I totally off base with this thinking? It seems counterintuitive based on the overall big law employment data, but the anecdotes that I get seem to point towards it.

So you're saying "the anecdotes" trump "the overall big law employment data". Seems legit.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'll put it another way. Is it not possible that top third at these schools puts you in the same spot, but everything below that is wildly different? The anecdotes I received were definitely widly differen't for people who fall below the top third. For example, someone here said median at Cornell you have 65% chance at big law if you go to Cornell. No one who I asked this question to who goes to GULC said this. They all agreed that median at GULC will make it an uphill battle. You don't think it's possible that maybe top third puts you in the same spot, but it's just the other two thirds of the class where the employment advantages come into play?

(edit: I'd also like to add that the other poster who responded to me said something along the lines of "many people well below median will get big law." That response is extremely different from what students who went to GULC told me about being well below median.)

[Lincoln]

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'll put it another way. Is it not possible that top third at these schools puts you in the same spot, but everything below that is wildly different? The anecdotes I received were definitely widly differen't for people who fall below the top third. For example, someone here said median at Cornell you have 65% chance at big law if you go to Cornell. No one who I asked this question to who goes to GULC said this. They all agreed that median at GULC will make it an uphill battle. You don't think it's possible that maybe top third puts you in the same spot, but it's just everywhere else where the employment advantages come into play?

OK, I see what you're saying. I think that's true to some extent, but the bright line big law/no big law skews it to some degree, as does your arbitrary choice of top 1/3 and median. It is always true that you can strike out even when you are in the top, and it's always true that the top of the class have similar firm options from almost any school within a range. The #1 student at Fordham will be choosing from the same firms as the #1 student at Cornell, for example. The notion that higher school ranking translates to people deeper in the class having big law as an option is also fairly uncontroversial.

[Princetonlaw68]

[/quote]OK, I see what you're saying. I think that's true to some extent, but the bright line big law/no big law skews it to some degree, as does your arbitrary choice of top 1/3 and median. It is always true that you can strike out even when you are in the top, and it's always true that the top of the class have similar firm options from almost any school within a range. The #1 student at Fordham will be choosing from the same firms as the #1 student at Cornell, for example. The notion that higher school ranking translates to people deeper in the class having big law as an option is also fairly uncontroversial.[/quote]


One thing I have to say is that top third and median are not arbitrary choices of mine. The people who I talked to who went to GULC uniformly cited top third as where you need to be to all but guarantee big law. That's the only reason I used that distinction here. Median is also not an arbitrary choice of mine. Below median is classicaly seen as a negative if you're trying to get big law, and is also where any prospective student is likely to end up around at a given law school. I found it interesting that the top one third line seems to be the exact same line that people from Cornell seem to also draw for being in the category of people who need to really really mess up to not get big law.

Obviously the number 1 student from Fordham has the same big law options as the #1 student at Cornell, and that is nothing to debate. This is vastly different from saying the top third at GULC (over 200 students) has a similar chance of landing big law to someone in the top third at Cornell. Obviously, the higher the ranking (as far as percentage of students who get big law not USNWR, of course), big law as an option deeper in the class, is not controversial and was not a real point in what I was saying. I just was citing that to explain how it very well could be possible that GULC and Cornell have the same options for top one third students, even if the big law percentages greatly differ. The controversial thing that I'm saying is that maybe top third GULC students are in no worse a position than top third Cornell students, even though Cornell has a MUCH higher percentage of students getting big law. If my top third at both schools is essentially equal statement is true, I think that would surprise many, if not most of the people who choose between T14s and look at these big law placement stats to make a decision.

[Lavitz]

Obviously, the higher the ranking (as far as percentage of students who get big law not USNWR, of course), big law as an option deeper in the class, is not controversial and was not a real point in what I was saying. I just was citing that to explain how it very well could be possible that GULC and Cornell have the same options for top one third students, even if the big law percentages greatly differ. The controversial thing that I'm saying is that maybe top third GULC students are in no worse a position than top third Cornell students, even though Cornell has a MUCH higher percentage of students getting big law. If my top third at both schools is essentially equal statement is true, I think that would surprise many, if not most of the people who choose between T14s and look at these big law placement stats to make a decision.

Huh? There's nothing controversial about that at all. Cornell has a "MUCH higher percentage of students getting big law" for precisely the reason you admitted was not controversial: "big law is an option deeper in the class," not because top 1/3rd is any safer than top 1/3rd at GULC. Maybe you have to go deeper than that to find the difference. Median at Cornell may be safer than median at GULC. But I've never hear anyone say that top 1/3rd at Cornell opens up more doors or makes you safer than top 1/3rd at GULC, considering both send well over 1/3rd of their students into big law.

As Lincoln noted, there's not a perfect correlation between grades and making big law, but again, I don't know anyone who would assume that Cornell is safer than GULC for every rank in the class. #1 at GULC will be just as safe at #1 at Cornell. Top 10% at GULC will be just as safe as top 10% at Cornell. The lower you go, the more likely you'd be safer at Cornell than at GULC, because firms may be willing to dip lower at Cornell (assuming that's the explanation for the difference), but top 1/3rd seems to be about the same as well.

ETA: That's why when TLSers say that a higher-ranked school may be worth the extra money, it's often because they think it's worth paying for the insurance in whatever your particular situation is. Just in case you end up lower in the class, you're safer than you would be had you ended up in the same spot at a school that sends less people into big law at that rank. But this usually applies to differences like below-median at Cornell vs. below-median at Columbia, not top 1/3rd at Cornell vs. top 1/3rd at GULC. But if you turn down a full-ride at Cornell to pay sticker at Columbia and end up top 10%, then you might feel like you wasted a bunch of money because top 10% is pretty damn safe at either school. If you end up below median and get a job at Columbia, you might be thankful you paid extra because it's questionable as to whether you would have even gotten a job coming from Cornell. Of course, in the end, it's impossible to tell what might have been since, again, grades and employment are not perfectly correlated, and you might have gotten a job from both based on your other qualities (interview skills, experience, etc.).

[Princetonlaw68]

Obviously, the higher the ranking (as far as percentage of students who get big law not USNWR, of course), big law as an option deeper in the class, is not controversial and was not a real point in what I was saying. I just was citing that to explain how it very well could be possible that GULC and Cornell have the same options for top one third students, even if the big law percentages greatly differ. The controversial thing that I'm saying is that maybe top third GULC students are in no worse a position than top third Cornell students, even though Cornell has a MUCH higher percentage of students getting big law. If my top third at both schools is essentially equal statement is true, I think that would surprise many, if not most of the people who choose between T14s and look at these big law placement stats to make a decision.

Huh? There's nothing controversial about that at all. Cornell has a "MUCH higher percentage of students getting big law" for precisely the reason you admitted was not controversial: "big law is an option deeper in the class," not because top 1/3rd is any safer than top 1/3rd at GULC. Maybe you have to go deeper than that to find the difference. Median at Cornell may be safer than median at GULC. But I've never hear anyone say that top 1/3rd at Cornell opens up more doors or makes you safer than top 1/3rd at GULC, considering both send well over 1/3rd of their students into big law.

As Lincoln noted, there's not a perfect correlation between grades and making big law, but again, I don't know anyone who would assume that Cornell is safer than GULC for every rank in the class. #1 at GULC will be just as safe at #1 at Cornell. Top 10% at GULC will be just as safe as top 10% at Cornell. The lower you go, the more likely you'd be safer at Cornell than at GULC, because firms may be willing to dip lower at Cornell (assuming that's the explanation for the difference), but top 1/3rd seems to be about the same as well.

I think I'm basically in complete agreement with both of you, other than your beliefs that people seem to know top third at Cornell is essentially the same as top third at GULC. Top 10% wouldn't surprise me, and even top 15% wouldn't. I get that it's a similar concept, but the percent line at which "essentially the same" is drawn, would be more like top 10, 15, or tops 20%, in my mind, without getting the anecdotes I recently obtained. Top third surprises me. I guess maybe it doesn't surprise other people. I don't know. I am definitely very surprised to see both sides citing top third as where you need to be to basically be guaranteed big law. That's all.


Just to add: If it wasn't clear from what I've been writing the whole time, no, I also wouldn't think anyone would think Cornell is safer for every rank in the class than GULC. Nothing I said implies that, at all. The only surprising part is that top third would be the same. That's a lot different from number 1 in the class, and top 10%.

[Lincoln]

Obviously, the higher the ranking (as far as percentage of students who get big law not USNWR, of course), big law as an option deeper in the class, is not controversial and was not a real point in what I was saying. I just was citing that to explain how it very well could be possible that GULC and Cornell have the same options for top one third students, even if the big law percentages greatly differ. The controversial thing that I'm saying is that maybe top third GULC students are in no worse a position than top third Cornell students, even though Cornell has a MUCH higher percentage of students getting big law. If my top third at both schools is essentially equal statement is true, I think that would surprise many, if not most of the people who choose between T14s and look at these big law placement stats to make a decision.

Huh? There's nothing controversial about that at all. Cornell has a "MUCH higher percentage of students getting big law" for precisely the reason you admitted was not controversial: "big law is an option deeper in the class," not because top 1/3rd is any safer than top 1/3rd at GULC. Maybe you have to go deeper than that to find the difference. Median at Cornell may be safer than median at GULC. But I've never hear anyone say that top 1/3rd at Cornell opens up more doors or makes you safer than top 1/3rd at GULC, considering both send well over 1/3rd of their students into big law.

As Lincoln noted, there's not a perfect correlation between grades and making big law, but again, I don't know anyone who would assume that Cornell is safer than GULC for every rank in the class. #1 at GULC will be just as safe at #1 at Cornell. Top 10% at GULC will be just as safe as top 10% at Cornell. The lower you go, the more likely you'd be safer at Cornell than at GULC, because firms may be willing to dip lower at Cornell (assuming that's the explanation for the difference), but top 1/3rd seems to be about the same as well.

I think I'm basically in complete agreement with both of you, other than your beliefs that people seem to know top third at Cornell is essentially the same as top third at GULC. Top 10% wouldn't surprise me, and even top 15% wouldn't. I get that it's a similar concept, but the percent line at which "essentially the same" is drawn, would be more like top 10, 15, or tops 20%, in my mind, without getting the anecdotes I recently obtained. Top third surprises me. I guess maybe it doesn't surprise other people. I don't know. I am definitely very surprised to see both sides citing top third as where you need to be to basically guaranteed big law. That's all.


Just to add: If it wasn't clear from what I've been writing the whole time, no, I also wouldn't think anyone would think Cornell is safer for every rank in the class than GULC. Nothing I said implies that, at all. The only surprising part is that top third would be the same. That's a lot different from number 1 in the class, and top 10%.

The thing is, you can only accept one job. Having three Big Law offers is pretty damn safe. So is having 10 offers. It's only where you get down to one/none where you are not "safe". And we all agree that point is lower in the class for Cornell than GULC. And 1/3 is arbitrary, as is median, regardless of whether you chose that threshold or not. Maybe at Cornell you're 98% safe at 1/3 and at GULC you're 94% safe. Maybe the "safe" threshold is top 29% for GULC but top 32% for Cornell. But (1) there's no way for any of us to judge that without knowing exactly how the grade distribution corresponds to job offers; (2) the knowledge itself is kinda meaningless because there's almost no way to predict where in the class you'll be anyway; and (3) grades is not the only factor for getting big law (albeit an important one).

Sincerely,

Lincoln (home sick from his big law job despite not being top 1/3 at Cornell)

[Arbiter213]

Lincoln (home sick from his big law job despite not being top 1/3 at Cornell)

And let there be no doubt that his Big Law job is big.

[Lincoln]

Lincoln (home sick from his big law job despite not being top 1/3 at Cornell)

And let there be no doubt that his Big Law job is big.

I think the only difference is my salary/hr is less than everyone else's.

[Arbiter213]

Lincoln (home sick from his big law job despite not being top 1/3 at Cornell)

And let there be no doubt that his Big Law job is big.

I think the only difference is my salary/hr is less than everyone else's.

Probably. I hear 3 people left already?

[Yea All Right]

Lincoln (home sick from his big law job despite not being top 1/3 at Cornell)

And let there be no doubt that his Big Law job is big.

I think the only difference is my salary/hr is less than everyone else's.

Though you may be working longer hours, at least it's for a better firm!

[Lincoln]

Lincoln (home sick from his big law job despite not being top 1/3 at Cornell)

And let there be no doubt that his Big Law job is big.

I think the only difference is my salary/hr is less than everyone else's.

Probably. I hear 3 people left already?

4

[gonewiththewind]

And let there be no doubt that his Big Law job is big.

I think the only difference is my salary/hr is less than everyone else's.

Probably. I hear 3 people left already?

4

That sounds unappealing.

[Lincoln]

That sounds unappealing.

Big law generally is.

[Arbiter213]

Lincoln (home sick from his big law job despite not being top 1/3 at Cornell)

And let there be no doubt that his Big Law job is big.

I think the only difference is my salary/hr is less than everyone else's.

Though you may be working longer hours, at least it's for a better firm!

[Lincoln]

Though you may be working longer hours, at least it's for a better firm!

There is some correlation between shitty hours and exit options. But I work a lot more than even friends at peer firms (and more than most first-years at my firm, for that matter).

[Arbiter213]

Though you may be working longer hours, at least it's for a better firm!

There is some correlation between shitty hours and exit options. But I work a lot more than even friends at peer firms (and more than most first-years at my firm, for that matter).

You were always a bit of a gunner though.

[mt2165]

Just for clarification purposes, what would you say are the average employment prospects of a cornell student at median? Like I'm sure they have to hustle, but is the consensus that if such a student acts with care they'll be in an ok spot? Sorry if I'm being too vague. It's kind of a vague inquiry.

[toothbrush]

Just for clarification purposes, what would you say are the average employment prospects of a cornell student at median? Like I'm sure they have to hustle, but is the consensus that if such a student acts with care they'll be in an ok spot? Sorry if I'm being too vague. It's kind of a vague inquiry.

are you weird? are you targeting outside NYC? are you a white male k-jd who never had a job?

if yes to any of those questions, i'd put prospects at borderline difficult. again, it's doable, but it makes it much harder.

if you are 2/3 of those things i'd try to change that before law school anyways. particularly the third one.

[mt2165]

Just for clarification purposes, what would you say are the average employment prospects of a cornell student at median? Like I'm sure they have to hustle, but is the consensus that if such a student acts with care they'll be in an ok spot? Sorry if I'm being too vague. It's kind of a vague inquiry.

are you weird? are you targeting outside NYC? are you a white male k-jd who never had a job?

if yes to any of those questions, i'd put prospects at borderline difficult. again, it's doable, but it makes it much harder.

if you are 2/3 of those things i'd try to change that before law school anyways. particularly the third one.

Lol thanks for the concise answer. I'm like .5 of those (somewhat, though not entirely targeting non-NYC market). But I'm an AA Male k-jd, for what it's worth, with some interesting/possibly beneficial softs.

[toothbrush]

Lol thanks for the concise answer. I'm like .5 of those (somewhat, though not entirely targeting non-NYC market). But I'm an AA Male k-jd, for what it's worth, with some interesting/possibly beneficial softs.

.5 of 3. i like your style.

i feel like everyone asks "what happens if im at median" but the truth is there is no credible answer for that. it's all up to varying factors like interviewing skills, softs, target market, bidding, selectivity, etc.

then again, i think if you top 10% there's a (small) chance you can strike out of big law by having the above factors and not being smart.

from what i hear, diverse students at median who hustle will find big law jobs.

oh, i'm a 1l so it's speculative since i haven't gone through recruitment yet w/ my class to see who strikes out (or not)

hth

[Lincoln]

Just for clarification purposes, what would you say are the average employment prospects of a cornell student at median? Like I'm sure they have to hustle, but is the consensus that if such a student acts with care they'll be in an ok spot? Sorry if I'm being too vague. It's kind of a vague inquiry.

You'll be fine. Just do your homework w/r/t bidding and interviewing, and be yourself.

[hephaestus]

Just for clarification purposes, what would you say are the average employment prospects of a cornell student at median? Like I'm sure they have to hustle, but is the consensus that if such a student acts with care they'll be in an ok spot? Sorry if I'm being too vague. It's kind of a vague inquiry.

You'll be fine. Just do your homework w/r/t bidding and interviewing, and be yourself.

Yes, and with bid lists have a current 2L/3L look at it and sign off on it. Do not rely on career services to know what a good bidlist looks like.

[Lincoln]

Though you may be working longer hours, at least it's for a better firm!

There is some correlation between shitty hours and exit options. But I work a lot more than even friends at peer firms (and more than most first-years at my firm, for that matter).

You were always a bit of a gunner though.

Pot, meet kettle. Also I have no control over my hours.

[Arbiter213]

Pot, meet kettle.

Duh.