Top Law Schools

delete

All the lower T14 with an outside shot at NYU. Probably locked out of HYSCCB. You'll probably have UVA or Penn at sticker vs. NU or Gtown w/$$ and full rides at some T25, with NYU holding you off on the WL with a possible mid-late June acceptance if they risk a 169 median

I'd apply to the T14 that aren't YHS, UChi, or B. UT is a good lower-cost option if you get some money, especially if it's on top of resident tuition. By all means apply to Vandy if you want, but I don't see that as ultimately giving you a better option than UT. They might be useful for scholly negotiation, though.

Retaking is a good idea, though not a game changer. A higher LSAT doesn't change the outcomes for you from most of the schools that much. However, if you can hit even a 172 or 173, you've got a much better shot at CLS and NYU.

Awesome, thanks for the advice! Since I am retaking in December, I wasn't planning on ED anywhere.... what are your thoughts on that? I obviously want them to use my December score, so would applying in November effect that?

jbagelboy wrote:All the lower T14 with an outside shot at NYU. Probably locked out of HYSCCB. You'll probably have UVA or Penn at sticker vs. NU or Gtown w/$$ and full rides at some T25, with NYU holding you off on the WL with a possible mid-late June acceptance if they risk a 169 median

isn't 3.3/170 getting in at Penn a little optimistic?

0heL wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:All the lower T14 with an outside shot at NYU. Probably locked out of HYSCCB. You'll probably have UVA or Penn at sticker vs. NU or Gtown w/$$ and full rides at some T25, with NYU holding you off on the WL with a possible mid-late June acceptance if they risk a 169 median

isn't 3.3/170 getting in at Penn a little optimistic?

Penn and NYU will be the only schools fighting to hold a 170 next year (Chicago can probably still get it easy). I think every 170/3.2+ stands "some" chance at those two this cycle and should apply to both schools. You'll have to write all essays for Penn (and UVA) and hopefully bring along some other decent soft or regional tie.

Its no guarantee of admission but there's a good enough chance to be hopeful

jbagelboy wrote:

0heL wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:All the lower T14 with an outside shot at NYU. Probably locked out of HYSCCB. You'll probably have UVA or Penn at sticker vs. NU or Gtown w/$$ and full rides at some T25, with NYU holding you off on the WL with a possible mid-late June acceptance if they risk a 169 median

isn't 3.3/170 getting in at Penn a little optimistic?

Penn and NYU will be the only schools fighting to hold a 170 next year (Chicago can probably still get it easy). I think every 170/3.2+ stands "some" chance at those two this cycle and should apply to both schools. You'll have to write all essays for Penn (and UVA) and hopefully bring along some other decent soft or regional tie.

Its no guarantee of admission but there's a good enough chance to be hopeful

interesting.

counter-argument: U Penn has gotten alot of good press this year via ATL Rankings and other stuff I can't seem to remember. Maybe it won't be so hard for them to keep their medians after all...

0heL wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

0heL wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:All the lower T14 with an outside shot at NYU. Probably locked out of HYSCCB. You'll probably have UVA or Penn at sticker vs. NU or Gtown w/$$ and full rides at some T25, with NYU holding you off on the WL with a possible mid-late June acceptance if they risk a 169 median

isn't 3.3/170 getting in at Penn a little optimistic?

Penn and NYU will be the only schools fighting to hold a 170 next year (Chicago can probably still get it easy). I think every 170/3.2+ stands "some" chance at those two this cycle and should apply to both schools. You'll have to write all essays for Penn (and UVA) and hopefully bring along some other decent soft or regional tie.

Its no guarantee of admission but there's a good enough chance to be hopeful

interesting.

counter-argument: U Penn has gotten alot of good press this year via ATL Rankings and other stuff I can't seem to remember. Maybe it won't be so hard for them to keep their medians after all...

Sure. That's perfectly possible. Both claims are speculative and grounded in real patterns. I'm of the opinion that in every meaningful sense MVP is dead, its very much CCNP. However, admission trends take a little time to catch up.

If we look ex poste, its a little clearer:



At 170 and low GPA's, there's a clear divergence between HYSCC (no acceptances) and NPV (about half after considering WL->admits). The ED plane is even more positive:



About half of the people EDing Penn with roughly OP's numbers are getting in, and another 2/5ths are being WL'd (still chance of admission).

I think these make a pretty strong case for my initial post.

jbagelboy wrote:

0heL wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:All the lower T14 with an outside shot at NYU. Probably locked out of HYSCCB. You'll probably have UVA or Penn at sticker vs. NU or Gtown w/$$ and full rides at some T25, with NYU holding you off on the WL with a possible mid-late June acceptance if they risk a 169 median

isn't 3.3/170 getting in at Penn a little optimistic?

Penn and NYU will be the only schools fighting to hold a 170 next year (Chicago can probably still get it easy). I think every 170/3.2+ stands "some" chance at those two this cycle and should apply to both schools. You'll have to write all essays for Penn (and UVA) and hopefully bring along some other decent soft or regional tie.

Its no guarantee of admission but there's a good enough chance to be hopeful

So where would you recommend that I ED? I'm a little hesitant to do that since I am retaking in December... I'm not really sure how it effects everything.

tbesancon wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

0heL wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:All the lower T14 with an outside shot at NYU. Probably locked out of HYSCCB. You'll probably have UVA or Penn at sticker vs. NU or Gtown w/$$ and full rides at some T25, with NYU holding you off on the WL with a possible mid-late June acceptance if they risk a 169 median

isn't 3.3/170 getting in at Penn a little optimistic?

Penn and NYU will be the only schools fighting to hold a 170 next year (Chicago can probably still get it easy). I think every 170/3.2+ stands "some" chance at those two this cycle and should apply to both schools. You'll have to write all essays for Penn (and UVA) and hopefully bring along some other decent soft or regional tie.

Its no guarantee of admission but there's a good enough chance to be hopeful

So where would you recommend that I ED? I'm a little hesitant to do that since I am retaking in December... I'm not really sure how it effects everything.

Aren't you a different poster from the OP? Assuming you're a numbers twin, the best bet is to probably ED NYU, and if that doesn't work, you can always second round ED PENN. If you're thinking your LSAT will improve, consider just RDing everywhere and see if you can nail down some scholly offers.

tbesancon wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

0heL wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:All the lower T14 with an outside shot at NYU. Probably locked out of HYSCCB. You'll probably have UVA or Penn at sticker vs. NU or Gtown w/$$ and full rides at some T25, with NYU holding you off on the WL with a possible mid-late June acceptance if they risk a 169 median

isn't 3.3/170 getting in at Penn a little optimistic?

Penn and NYU will be the only schools fighting to hold a 170 next year (Chicago can probably still get it easy). I think every 170/3.2+ stands "some" chance at those two this cycle and should apply to both schools. You'll have to write all essays for Penn (and UVA) and hopefully bring along some other decent soft or regional tie.

Its no guarantee of admission but there's a good enough chance to be hopeful

So where would you recommend that I ED? I'm a little hesitant to do that since I am retaking in December... I'm not really sure how it effects everything.

I think ED is justified at NYU or Penn given that there's basically zero cash flow at either school RD for those numbers (the Penn $ is a clear example of the misreporting that plagues LSN - either that Levy scholarship is a URM who checked the wrong box or a fraudulent entry. Filtering for errors, everyone admitted to NYU or Penn RD with your numbers was at sticker.)

Delete

Austinbound wrote:Thanks to the poster a few up.... I was going to ask about ED too.


Thanks for the advice everyone, I really appreciate it. I'm hoping for some money out of UT but I guess we'll see.... I know they only accept something like 35% out of state so hopefully I prove a little higher LSAT-wise than some other out of state people.

I know NYU and Penn keep getting brought up (and I apologize for being a little naive about this) but would it be a good idea to go to schools in those areas if I do have my eyes set on the south/southwest? I could see UVA being a good option, but other than that I don't know. Clearly, I don't know enough! I originally looked to UT and Vandy because of their locations, but if you all think that I would have a shot at the south by going to a higher ranked school then its definitely worth considering!

So wait, are you looking for the south, the southwest, or Texas?

The advisability of aiming for some of these locations is going to depend on where you grew up/have family/went to UG.

As far as I can tell, the southwest pretty much requires some kind of ties. Ideally meaning that you grew up there. There aren't top-notch schools in the region, so your best bet is that your PAC12 school is CU (or UA/ASU/Utah), then go to a T14 and do well. Even then it's still tough because Denver (or Phoenix, or SLC) is such a small legal market. But at least from a T14 you'll have other options.

The south is a little strange because while there are plenty of good law schools located there (UVA/Duke/Vandy), their placement is very spread out across the country. From what I've gleaned from TLS, the legal market in the south can be quite closed off to non-southerners, so while you can develop ties a little bit by going to law school there, it's still pretty difficult to break in as an outsider.

Texas is easier because the combined Dallas/Houston/Austin market is pretty sizable, and UT is the big dog in the state. If you go to UT, pre-existing ties make the job search easier but aren't essential like they are in the southwest and south. I'm sure BigZuck can chime in here.

*Disclaimer: The above is all info gleaned from TLS, not from personal experience.

cotiger wrote:

Austinbound wrote:Thanks to the poster a few up.... I was going to ask about ED too.


Thanks for the advice everyone, I really appreciate it. I'm hoping for some money out of UT but I guess we'll see.... I know they only accept something like 35% out of state so hopefully I prove a little higher LSAT-wise than some other out of state people.

I know NYU and Penn keep getting brought up (and I apologize for being a little naive about this) but would it be a good idea to go to schools in those areas if I do have my eyes set on the south/southwest? I could see UVA being a good option, but other than that I don't know. Clearly, I don't know enough! I originally looked to UT and Vandy because of their locations, but if you all think that I would have a shot at the south by going to a higher ranked school then its definitely worth considering!

So wait, are you looking for the south, the southwest, or Texas?

The advisability of aiming for some of these locations is going to depend on where you grew up/have family/went to UG.

As far as I can tell, the southwest pretty much requires some kind of ties. Ideally meaning that you grew up there. There aren't top-notch schools in the region, so your best bet is that your PAC12 school is CU (or UA/ASU/Utah), then go to a T14 and do well. Even then it's still tough because Denver (or Phoenix, or SLC) is such a small legal market. But at least from a T14 you'll have other options.

The south is a little strange because while there are plenty of good law schools located there (UVA/Duke/Vandy), their placement is very spread out across the country. From what I've gleaned from TLS, the legal market in the south can be quite closed off to non-southerners, so while you can develop ties a little bit by going to law school there, it's still pretty difficult to break in as an outsider.

Texas is easier because the combined Dallas/Houston/Austin market is pretty sizable, and UT is the big dog in the state. If you go to UT, pre-existing ties make the job search easier but aren't essential like they are in the southwest and south. I'm sure BigZuck can chime in here.

*Disclaimer: The above is all info gleaned from TLS, not from personal experience.

I haven't gone through the job search process so all I can really speak to is the research I did when choosing schools. But, I wouldn't go to UT unless I wanted to work in Texas (and only in Texas), and I would not go to UT without pre-existing ties to the state. I'm not saying its impossible to get a job outside of Texas with a UT degree and I'm not saying its impossible to get a job in Texas without pre-existing ties to the state, I'm just saying that I wouldn't put myself behind the eight ball by not having both those things. The job market is tough and even at a school as good as UT 25% of the students are not becoming lawyers. That's a high probability of making law school a bad investment.

Everything I said above pretty much applies to any school not in the T14.

delete

Being out of state, the your gpa might preclude you from getting a big enough scholarship to make UT worthwhile. If you really want to go to UT I would consider working for at least a year to establish residency and ties. Instate splitters were offered a lot of money this cycle.

As for Vandy, at least for me they offered the same amount that I got at Duke and Cornell.

I don't want to overstate the point but going to a school in a state where you don't already have ties might make for an uphill battle. Hard work and people skills are all well and good but those things might not neccessarily be enough.

BigZuck wrote:Being out of state, the your gpa might preclude you from getting a big enough scholarship to make UT worthwhile. If you really want to go to UT I would consider working for at least a year to establish residency and ties. Instate splitters were offered a lot of money this cycle.

As for Vandy, at least for me they offered the same amount that I got at Duke and Cornell.

I don't want to overstate the point but going to a school in a state where you don't already have ties might make for an uphill battle. Hard work and people skills are all well and good but those things might not neccessarily be enough.

If I'm not mistaken, the whole reason employers place value in "ties" is because of the fear of flight risk. If OP moved to Dallas for a year with the express purpose of gaining residency so that she could go to UT and then ultimately practice in the state, wouldn't that fulfill the dedication to living in the area requirement?

Compared to the south, where it sounds more "tribal," and the southwest, where the size of the market is just so small that requiring intense ties serves to narrow down the field, I imagine that if OP shows legit dedication to working/living in Texas, she wouldn't have too much difficulty. Of course it would be better if she had grown up there, but I think you're being too cautious.

cotiger wrote:

BigZuck wrote:Being out of state, the your gpa might preclude you from getting a big enough scholarship to make UT worthwhile. If you really want to go to UT I would consider working for at least a year to establish residency and ties. Instate splitters were offered a lot of money this cycle.

As for Vandy, at least for me they offered the same amount that I got at Duke and Cornell.

I don't want to overstate the point but going to a school in a state where you don't already have ties might make for an uphill battle. Hard work and people skills are all well and good but those things might not neccessarily be enough.

If I'm not mistaken, the whole reason employers place value in "ties" is because of the fear of flight risk. If OP moved to Dallas for a year with the express purpose of gaining residency so that she could go to UT and then ultimately practice in the state, wouldn't that fulfill the dedication to living in the area requirement?

Compared to the south, where it sounds more "tribal," and the southwest, where the size of the market is just so small that requiring intense ties serves to narrow down the field, I imagine that if OP shows legit dedication to working/living in Texas, she wouldn't have too much difficulty. Of course it would be better if she had grown up there, but I think you're being too cautious.

I'm not saying you have to be "from" Texas. I'm not a "Texan" but I have lived here for years so I'm not incredibly worried about my ties. That's why I said:

If you really want to go to UT I would consider working for at least a year to establish residency and ties.

I understand that I am probably overly cautious. But look, 25% of the most recent class did not become a lawyer. That's a huge percentage of the class. And this is at the king of all regional schools. UT reigns supreme in Texas. And still a bunch of graduates can't find lawyer jobs. It could be all grades. Maybe it's just the very bottom of the class who can't find work? But I wouldn't be surprised if it was some combination of grades and then either trying to find work out of state OR trying to find work in state but having no real connection to the state outside of going to school there and employers not really being interested. I'm sure the OP thinks she is smart and has a sparkling personality but she needs to consider what will happen if her classmates are just as smart and/or sparkly and she ends up median (or worse). Median at UT, paying a substantial amount of money to attend, and only having a "well I like the area and my boyfriend is from here" to offer up in interviews would make me feel pretty uncomfortable if I were the OP.

I just think that law school is such a huge investment in terms of time and money that you really need to consider things from all angles. I take/took an overly cautious approach to everything and maybe that won't work for everyone but I think it's better than the alternative.

BigZuck wrote:

cotiger wrote: If I'm not mistaken, the whole reason employers place value in "ties" is because of the fear of flight risk. If OP moved to Dallas for a year with the express purpose of gaining residency so that she could go to UT and then ultimately practice in the state, wouldn't that fulfill the dedication to living in the area requirement?

Compared to the south, where it sounds more "tribal," and the southwest, where the size of the market is just so small that requiring intense ties serves to narrow down the field, I imagine that if OP shows legit dedication to working/living in Texas, she wouldn't have too much difficulty. Of course it would be better if she had grown up there, but I think you're being too cautious.

I'm not saying you have to be "from" Texas. I'm not a "Texan" but I have lived here for years so I'm not incredibly worried about my ties. That's why I said:

If you really want to go to UT I would consider working for at least a year to establish residency and ties.

I understand that I am probably overly cautious. But look, 25% of the most recent class did not become a lawyer. That's a huge percentage of the class. And this is at the king of all regional schools. UT reigns supreme in Texas. And still a bunch of graduates can't find lawyer jobs. It could be all grades. Maybe it's just the very bottom of the class who can't find work? But I wouldn't be surprised if it was some combination of grades and then either trying to find work out of state OR trying to find work in state but having no real connection to the state outside of going to school there and employers not really being interested. I'm sure the OP thinks she is smart and has a sparkling personality but she needs to consider what will happen if her classmates are just as smart and/or sparkly and she ends up median (or worse). Median at UT, paying a substantial amount of money to attend, and only having a "well I like the area and my boyfriend is from here" to offer up in interviews would make me feel pretty uncomfortable if I were the OP.

I just think that law school is such a huge investment in terms of time and money that you really need to consider things from all angles. I take/took an overly cautious approach to everything and maybe that won't work for everyone but I think it's better than the alternative.

Since OP doesn't want to stay in AZ, I think her main focus depends on the relative priority of two things: likelihood of a desired employment outcome, and living in TX.

If biglaw employment in general is the top priority, then go T14. Northwestern will definitely take you, and you have a decent chance at places like NYU, Penn, and UVA. This will maximize the quality of your employment outcomes. However, unless you do very well, Texas will not be available. UVA may give you a better shot at Texas than NU, NYU, and Penn, but that is still contingent on doing very well in school. This route will cost a lot of money. Assuming a 45k scholarship, you'll be looking at ~225k in debt.

If your bigger desire is to live in Texas, then UT is the better option. You won't have to do nearly as well in school as you would at those other schools to get a job in Texas. There's a bigger risk by going to UT, though, that you strike out altogether. As far as money goes, UT will be much cheaper than T14. If you get resident tuition and then an average scholarship for your numbers on top of that (say, 60k), you'll only be looking at ~95k in debt.

Do not even think about Baylor. SMU and Houston are the only other schools in Texas worth going to, but not for you.

BigZuck makes the true point that about 25% of the class at UT are not getting lawyer jobs, and that for someone without deep ties that effective number should be somewhat higher. Keep in mind, however, that at a place like Northwestern that percentage isn't actually any better--it's still around 25%. You're more likely to land a biglaw position out of Northwestern, sure, but that's counter-balanced by the fact that you'll owe $225k rather than $95k. The employment situation at NYU and Penn, OTOH, is substantially better than at UT.

Delete

Austinbound wrote:I should have been more clear. Yes, I want to work in Texas. I mentioned law schools in the South/Southwest because I figured that the top law schools in that area (UT, Vandy) would have better opportunities for employment post grad. I didn't even think to expand as far east as UVA or Duke simply because of their general location in relation to the state of Texas. However, I totally appreciate the input and will certainly be submitting apps to those schools as well. Penn is a great school that I honestly never considered them.

I really do appreciate the input you all have provided me. I have some connections in Dallas, but they aren't family connections (if that is what you meant Big Zuck). My boyfriend's cousin is a partner a big firm, and I also have an attorney connection with the Dallas County (kind of considering government route) because I was offered a job with them for this spring. Obviously I can solidify that relationship in a few months.

Is there a particular reason why you shot down Baylor so quickly? Waco is relatively close to the DFW metro-area and Baylor/SMU/UH are all within 5 ranks of each other. On LST, they even have a slightly higher employment outcome than UH (although SMU tops both of them by far). Just curious as to this suggestion if you don't mind exanding?

It sounds like you're pretty well set on wanting to be in Texas, so I would definitely recommend UT. Those T14 schools are really just going to give you a much better shot at landing a big law gig in NYC. Firms in Texas aren't really going to look at you from Northwestern, etc without ties unless you do really well. I said UVA over Penn or NYU because from what I've read on the threads here is that UVA tends to place really well in secondary markets. NYU and Penn, while giving you better placement overall, generally derive that advantage from the NYC market. That being said, you sill have to do really well at UVA to go to Texas with no real ties.

I have no idea if working in Dallas for a year would be enough to grant you "legit" ties, but I would recommend it in any case for both gaining residency and developing ties. However, in my completely speculative opinion, living in TX before law school and then spending another three years at law school there would seem to demonstrate a commitment to the region. Living there for one year and then leaving to go elsewhere for law school would not.

I say UT over those other TX law schools because according to LSN you're not going to get any more money out of them than you would UT. Think about it, you're already above 75th LSAT for all and below median GPA. You help them all out equally. Also, with your questionable ties up need to go to the best school there you can. The little extra money those other schools might throw your way is absolutely meaningless in comparison.

As for why people should stay away from Baylor.. First of all: Waco. Second nastiest place on the planet (slighly defeats Lubbock only because it's not too far from Austin/Hill Country). Also, while 3 hours away is "close" in Texas terms, it's not actually in Dallas or Houston, so that's a clear disadvantage. As for employment stats, look instead at the Large Firm + Federal Clerkship scores. While you might not be interested in that route, tons of students are, and it's a good measure of the ability of the school to place students in the tough to get jobs that its students want. SMU and UH are much better than Baylor in that regard. They also all have similar PI scores, so Baylor can't even cry "self selection." The university itself is super Baptist, which, while not as oppressive as BYU-Mormonism, is still a major influence on campus life/culture. Lastly, the law school culture is the most brutal/cut-throat/unpleasant in the country. I can't do a good search bc I'm on my phone, but the threads on TLS are pretty intense.

TL;DR go to UT with your location/career goals. If you have a change of heart on Texas or decide you really want big law over anything else, go to T14.

Again, just a 1L so take with the appropriate heaping of salt:

I think going to UT to establish ties is significantly worse than working for a year in Dallas to establish ties and then attending UT or a T14 (if TX big law is the goal) for a few reasons.

1. Unless I'm mistaken about UTs scholarship strategy (and I very well could be), the money an out of state splitter will get will be worse than an instate splitter with the same numbers. I don't think 170/3.3 out of state will get enough to make UT worthwhile.

2. From what I gather Dallas is highly suspicious of outsiders. Search threads for "Texas ties: what counts." Although maybe they just are suspicious of instate outsiders (there is a huge Houston/Dallas fight over which is better- talk about a cripple fight!) and maybe they won't be suspicious of a non-Texan. However, the OP just having a BF who is from Dallas doesn't sound like a very strong tie to me by itself just because, as we all know, boyfriends have a tendency to become not boyfriends. I think if it were a fiancé or husband it might be different.

Also, attending UT doesn't neccessarily signal ties to Texas. It signals ties to Austin. Austin is cool and fun and rapidly becoming one of the most desirable cities in the country to live. If the OPs only experience living in Texas is Austin and she gets mediocre grades and a BF is the only tie to Dallas then a Dallas firm might view her with some suspicion. "Ya she likes Austin, but how does she know she likes Dallas if she's never lived there? And what if they break up? Will she bolt?"

However, living in Dallas before law school creates credible ties to the actual city itself.

If you want Dallas big law I would move to Dallas for at least a year and then attend a T14. If you are ok with non-big law in Dallas I would move to Dallas for at least a year before school and then attend UT or SMU. I don't see any other options. Vandy is out- big law chances too law and not located in the state of Texas. UH is out- its in Houston. Baylor is out- its Hell on earth.

BigZuck wrote:Again, just a 1L so take with the appropriate heaping of salt:

I think going to UT to establish ties is significantly worse than working for a year in Dallas to establish ties and then attending UT or a T14 (if TX big law is the goal) for a few reasons.

1. Unless I'm mistaken about UTs scholarship strategy (and I very well could be), the money an out of state splitter will get will be worse than an instate splitter with the same numbers. I don't think 170/3.3 out of state will get enough to make UT worthwhile.

Yeah, if I wasn't clear before, I absolutely agree with this. You need to work in Dallas for a year before school, no matter where you end up going.

BigZuck wrote: If you want Dallas big law I would move to Dallas for at least a year and then attend a T14. If you are ok with non-big law in Dallas I would move to Dallas for at least a year before school and then attend UT or SMU. I don't see any other options. Vandy is out- big law chances too law and not located in the state of Texas. UH is out- its in Houston. Baylor is out- its Hell on earth.

I agree with this except for one part. Assuming OP specifically wants Dallas (good choice, btw) would you really recommend SMU as a legitimate alternative to UT? Looking at LSN, SMU seems to give the same amount of money as UT, but with resident status SMU would need to give ~65k more than UT to even come to cost parity. SMU lists COL as absurdly high (insert SMU joke here), but even holding that even between the two SMU would need to cough up 35k more. Even at SMU full-ride scholly (125k/not gunna happen), the expected 60k from UT would make it only 30k more expensive, which is well worth it.

Edit: Actually, scratch that. Disagree with T14 as top choice for Dallas biglaw. If she really wants Dallas biglaw, is she more likely to get that from median Northwestern with her "tie" being that she lived in Dallas for a year, or from median at UT? I'd say median UT. Sure, she'd be in a better position for Chi/NYC biglaw, but that's not going to do her a lot of good, except for the fact that she'll be forced to take it due to massive debt. Median UT is still going to find a job somewhere in Texas, while median NU with small tie most likely won't. On top of the COA difference of likely 225k vs 95k debt, I say UT no question. Maybe it makes a difference if it's Penn/NYU, but median is still probably not going to cut it, those schools are even more focused on NYC, and there's still no easy fallback to Texas.

Never applied to SMU so not really familiar with their scholarship policy. But Texas schools are kind of wonky with their scholarship offers (one instate splitter on this site was offered as much at UH as at Northwestern and UT). But if SMU is decently cheaper AND the OP doesn't really care about big law I think SMU could be a decent option.

I think lower T14 is always credited over UT if big law is the be all, end all goal (and you're not concerned about cost). Maybe you can parse it out and say median at Duke is better than median at NU if you want TX big law (I honestly don't know if that's true or not) but when I was deciding schools I was given the impression that TX big law was relatively easy to get out of the T14, much more so than out of UT. "Like shooting fish in a barrel" and anecdotes about 1L SA offers before 1st semester grades came were common things I heard when speaking to kids at lower T14s. None of that is really true of UT, for the most part you're going to need good grades.

It's when you start considering things like cost and personal preference and maybe wanting non-big law jobs that UT starts to be a consideration over the lower T14. Again, just my opinion.

Also, I'm still kind of operating under the assumption that her number will leave her with a "need to get big law" level of debt. True, NU might technically be more than UT but I would probably prefer to roll with 180K debt at NU than 120K at UT. NU is going to give you a much better shot at paying it off in one way or another.

Finally, I could be wrong but has the OP said she wants big law? If she just wants any lawyer job in Texas then zeroing in on UT and SMU (ideally after living and working in state before applying and if its at a resonable, "don't need big law" cost) makes a ton of sense to me.

Delete