T6 Forum

[Haymarket]

Dudes. I am not Chinese/Asian. I planned to blanket all schools, applied to some, but decided I wanted to go to Chicago after visiting and evaluating what was best for my family. I think it is the best value for people with families out there. I was joking about the flirting comment-- I was just trying to inject some humor into what seems like a serious deal to you bros.

Now, back to the original discussion, I will elucidate it further because you guys don't seem to be getting what I am saying. Harvard could be the best school out there because of their awesome top-end faculty and upper job prospects, but instead chooses to hurt the bottom half and dilute their faculty to expand their alumni network. Their value proposition is Alumni $$, not tuition, which they probably don't break even on. By inflating the class size you get more future donors (bigger median and top) but you also get more people losing because of oversupply. The school also fills its faculty by buying unproven young academics from other schools, especially Columbia, Chicago, and Stanford. This effort is a strong tactical move, as it stomps out seedlings in other schools/competitors. However, it decreases actual educational quality because you are essentially unleashing unproven young academics on students. This effect will be worst on the pedagogical side, as it is harder to evaluate teaching skills than academic production. This approach is unique among the T6. NYU and Columbia apparently value educational quality more because they more carefully fill their academic ranks and instead bring in proven practicioners who enhance the school's legal education.

I'm guessing we are just miscommunicating. If you value a degree as being the lay prestige associated with it and top-of-the-curve opportunities, then Harvard is a great choice. If you value educational quality, insurance of safe job prospects at the median-to-bottom, or particular idiosyncratic fit issues (ie. the other five schools each seem to have a unique culture), then one of the other schools may be better.

I feel bad, because posts like this make sense on some level and are somewhat reasonable but all the past chicago trolling in your post history will probably obscure that. i actually kind of see your point. i have no idea if you're pulling this stuff out of your ass though.

I didn't really notice this stuff until I worked with a former Dean at Chicago that also taught at Harvard for many years and pointed this stuff out to me and also because my Harvard buddies and I argue this crap all the time, and are fighting each other in recruiting the same admits.

Nice self-outting.

[sunynp]

Do those percentages for jobs and A3 clerkships sorted by school reflect ITE? Or are they a mixture of pre- ite and ITE? The numbers are generally higher than I thought. ( these percentages were posted a few pages back). Nice substantive addition to the thread!

[mrloblaw]

Dudes. I am not Chinese/Asian. I planned to blanket all schools, applied to some, but decided I wanted to go to Chicago after visiting and evaluating what was best for my family. I think it is the best value for people with families out there. I was joking about the flirting comment-- I was just trying to inject some humor into what seems like a serious deal to you bros.

Now, back to the original discussion, I will elucidate it further because you guys don't seem to be getting what I am saying. Harvard could be the best school out there because of their awesome top-end faculty and upper job prospects, but instead chooses to hurt the bottom half and dilute their faculty to expand their alumni network. Their value proposition is Alumni $$, not tuition, which they probably don't break even on. By inflating the class size you get more future donors (bigger median and top) but you also get more people losing because of oversupply. The school also fills its faculty by buying unproven young academics from other schools, especially Columbia, Chicago, and Stanford. This effort is a strong tactical move, as it stomps out seedlings in other schools/competitors. However, it decreases actual educational quality because you are essentially unleashing unproven young academics on students. This effect will be worst on the pedagogical side, as it is harder to evaluate teaching skills than academic production. This approach is unique among the T6. NYU and Columbia apparently value educational quality more because they more carefully fill their academic ranks and instead bring in proven practicioners who enhance the school's legal education.

I'm guessing we are just miscommunicating. If you value a degree as being the lay prestige associated with it and top-of-the-curve opportunities, then Harvard is a great choice. If you value educational quality, insurance of safe job prospects at the median-to-bottom, or particular idiosyncratic fit issues (ie. the other five schools each seem to have a unique culture), then one of the other schools may be better.

The bolded is a pretty awesome part of NYU, being that all of my most interesting professors have been middle-aged adjuncts who have had ridiculously awesome careers.

With that said, I'm pretty sure I'd trade my adjuncts with awesome stories about their days practicing in front of the Supreme Court on landmark cases for Harvard's alumni network in a second. I mean, seriously. It's Harvard.

[Helmholtz]

Do those percentages for jobs and A3 clerkships sorted by school reflect ITE? Or are they a mixture of pre- ite and ITE? The numbers are generally higher than I thought. ( these percentages were posted a few pages back). Nice substantive addition to the thread!

It's generally a mix of ITE and pre-ITE. That being said, more than 71 percent of the class of 2012 at UChicago had a 2L summer job at a NLJ250 / V100 firm. So that was last summer. And it appears to have been an even better OCI for jobs this upcoming summer. I think it's almost a sure thing that three out of four C/O 2013ers at UChicago will have a 2L summer spot with a NLJ250 / V100 firm.

[IAFG]

Do those percentages for jobs and A3 clerkships sorted by school reflect ITE? Or are they a mixture of pre- ite and ITE? The numbers are generally higher than I thought. ( these percentages were posted a few pages back). Nice substantive addition to the thread!

It's generally a mix of ITE and pre-ITE. That being said, more than 71 percent of the class of 2012 at UChicago had a 2L summer job at a NLJ250 / V100 firm. So that was last summer. And it appears to have been an even better OCI this summer. I think it's almost a sure thing that three out of four C/O 2013ers at UChicago will have a 2L summer spot with a NLJ250 / V100 firm.

Helm don't forget that some portion of that 71% from 2012 summered last summer but won't go straight back. When you think of it that way it looks like 2013 was very similar to the averaged out numbers.

[Helmholtz]

Do those percentages for jobs and A3 clerkships sorted by school reflect ITE? Or are they a mixture of pre- ite and ITE? The numbers are generally higher than I thought. ( these percentages were posted a few pages back). Nice substantive addition to the thread!

It's generally a mix of ITE and pre-ITE. That being said, more than 71 percent of the class of 2012 at UChicago had a 2L summer job at a NLJ250 / V100 firm. So that was last summer. And it appears to have been an even better OCI this summer. I think it's almost a sure thing that three out of four C/O 2013ers at UChicago will have a 2L summer spot with a NLJ250 / V100 firm.

Helm don't forget that some portion of that 71% from 2012 summered last summer but won't go straight back. When you think of it that way it looks like 2013 was very similar to the averaged out numbers.

That's true. The majority of people going directly from UChicago into an A3 clerkship will have spent their 2L summer with a big firm. And some people who worked for the government, for example, for their 2L summer will go straight into an A3 clerkship right after graduation. And some people who didn't work for an NLJ250 firm for their 2L summer might pick up an offer from an NLJ250 firm before the end of 3L. And some people who did do their summer at a biglaw firm might be no-offered. Not sure how it will shake out. UChicago should be releasing, this Spring, an exhaustive list of where everybody is working for the summer of 2012. I'll update everybody with the new numbers then. I don't know how much it will tell us about where the at-graduation numbers might end up, but it will hopefully be useful for getting an idea how all the classes of 2013 are faring versus the classes of 2012.

[ahduth]

Ugh, I can't keep these straight - was this the thread where someone posted a screenshot of Taipei's ED to Chicago?

[zdamico]

I also disagree that this topic has been heavily discussed.

I agree. All we need now is a thread on "the T14 of lay prestige" and a thread asking whether bad grades will get you no-offered, and then we'll be well on our way to answering all of TLS's under-addressed questions.

I was asking why people chose T 6 as opposed to T 5 or T 7. Really simple question. I don't understand why people on here get so angry at the world.

It was a legit question. The funny thing is it wasn't even you who turned this into a debate between the merits of certain schools, it was the same people who are complaining about it. People here like to compensate for low self-esteem in real life, don't worry about it bro.

[ahduth]

Dudes. I am not Chinese/Asian. I planned to blanket all schools, applied to some, but decided I wanted to go to Chicago after visiting and evaluating what was best for my family. I think it is the best value for people with families out there. I was joking about the flirting comment-- I was just trying to inject some humor into what seems like a serious deal to you bros.

Now, back to the original discussion, I will elucidate it further because you guys don't seem to be getting what I am saying. Harvard could be the best school out there because of their awesome top-end faculty and upper job prospects, but instead chooses to hurt the bottom half and dilute their faculty to expand their alumni network. Their value proposition is Alumni $$, not tuition, which they probably don't break even on. By inflating the class size you get more future donors (bigger median and top) but you also get more people losing because of oversupply. The school also fills its faculty by buying unproven young academics from other schools, especially Columbia, Chicago, and Stanford. This effort is a strong tactical move, as it stomps out seedlings in other schools/competitors. However, it decreases actual educational quality because you are essentially unleashing unproven young academics on students. This effect will be worst on the pedagogical side, as it is harder to evaluate teaching skills than academic production. This approach is unique among the T6. NYU and Columbia apparently value educational quality more because they more carefully fill their academic ranks and instead bring in proven practicioners who enhance the school's legal education.

I'm guessing we are just miscommunicating. If you value a degree as being the lay prestige associated with it and top-of-the-curve opportunities, then Harvard is a great choice. If you value educational quality, insurance of safe job prospects at the median-to-bottom, or particular idiosyncratic fit issues (ie. the other five schools each seem to have a unique culture), then one of the other schools may be better.

The bolded is a pretty awesome part of NYU, being that all of my most interesting professors have been middle-aged adjuncts who have had ridiculously awesome careers.

With that said, I'm pretty sure I'd trade my adjuncts with awesome stories about their days practicing in front of the Supreme Court on landmark cases for Harvard's alumni network in a second. I mean, seriously. It's Harvard.

Okay, yeah, having read his post, that does seem to reflect NYU's recruitment policy. Harvard's faculty almost seems like a feeder school sometimes, but that's really just my subjective impression I guess, based on the number of former Harvard profs I've noticed on faculty here.