Top Law Schools

.

Don't limit to an arbitrary T## unless that is T13 if you want NYC Biglaw. Don't pay more for Columbia or NYU to get the same outcome you'd get for a hundred thousand less at Duke or Cornell. You're an accountant. Do the math why that makes no sense.

First, the t7 isn't a thing. Stop that.

Second, you will be judged on your numbers. The CPA thing is nice, but wont change your app in any meaningful way. You are probably out at Columbia, but you might pull a waitlist.

You should retake just to see if you can catch a few more points. Might make the difference between a potential waitlist and some acceptances with $.

Also agree with the guy above. For example, Duke outcompetes every other t13 except Columbia in employment numbers, and is a large NYC biglaw feeder. Plus Duke will likely cost you literally hundreds of thousands of dollars less.

What the fuck is the T7?

And I don't understand the "betting on yourself" thing either. You're going to get good money offers from the T13. Look at employment stats, not rankings.

Anecdote: A friend from my cycle was a CPA (with maybe one more year WE though) with vaguely similar numbers, though higher LSAT (173/3.6), and was accepted at NYU, Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown, and then waitlist-accepted at Harvard. Waitlisted basically everywhere else. Only straight rejected at Stanford.

bosshawg wrote:First post, apologize in advance for any dumb questions.

LSAT: 170
GPA: 3.7
URM: No
Other: I have my CPA, masters in accounting, double majored in finance and accounting. Over a year experience at big 4 accounting firm.

Gunning for Big law preferably in NYC. What are my chances at the T7? Specifically NYU and Columbia? Call me crazy, but I'm even considering early decision to Columbia, I have no undergrad debt and willing to bet on myself. Also only took LSAT once and have no desire to go through it again. Thoughts? If everyone on here thinks I'm an idiot definitely will reconsider.

Also, will admissions take the work experience and cpa into consideration? will my major(s) be a factor at all when considering GPA or nah?

Really appreciate the input.

Same stats, not a CPA. In at all but HYS. >50% scholarship at four T13 schools.

EDing Columbia would be the opposite of betting on yourself. It would be taking on extra, unnecessary debt for a marginal increase in employment outcomes.

Apply to the entire T13 and take your biggest offer.

bosshawg wrote:Call me crazy, but I'm even considering early decision to Columbia, I have no undergrad debt and willing to bet on myself.

This makes no sense.

I don't mean that your thinking is crazy; I mean that I can't even understand what you're thinking. What does "willing to bet on myself" mean in this context?

.

bosshawg wrote:First post, apologize in advance for any dumb questions.

LSAT: 170
GPA: 3.7
URM: No
Other: I have my CPA, masters in accounting, double majored in finance and accounting. Over a year experience at big 4 accounting firm.

Gunning for Big law preferably in NYC. What are my chances at the T7? Specifically NYU and Columbia? Call me crazy, but I'm even considering early decision to Columbia, I have no undergrad debt and willing to bet on myself. Also only took LSAT once and have no desire to go through it again. Thoughts? If everyone on here thinks I'm an idiot definitely will reconsider.

Also, will admissions take the work experience and cpa into consideration? will my major(s) be a factor at all when considering GPA or nah?

Really appreciate the input.

Also want to point out that Columbia and NYU are two schools where EDing doesn't give you any admissions boost whatsoever, and will just condemn you to receiving close to nothing in terms of money.

Platopus wrote:

rpupkin wrote:. What does "willing to bet on myself" mean in this context?

That OP is willing to take on unnecessary debt because they believe they will be able to secure a Big Law job, pay off the debt, and actually remain somewhat happy.

But wouldn't the bolded belief line up with a "bet" on a lower-ranked school (with slightly lower BL placement than CLS) that gave OP a full ride? I mean, if you're confident you can get BL, how are you "betting on yourself" by going to a school with almost 100% BL placement for those who want it?

rpupkin wrote:

Platopus wrote:

rpupkin wrote:. What does "willing to bet on myself" mean in this context?

That OP is willing to take on unnecessary debt because they believe they will be able to secure a Big Law job, pay off the debt, and actually remain somewhat happy.

But wouldn't the bolded belief line up with a "bet" on a lower-ranked school (with slightly lower BL placement than CLS) that gave OP a full ride? I mean, if you're confident you can get BL, how are you "betting on yourself" by going to a school with almost 100% BL placement for those who want it?

We’re too far removed and forget what it’s like to know nothing about law school. To OP, Columbia would be more academically rigorous and difficult than the slightly lower ranked school, but believes in his/her own intellect. It’s naivete that needs to be addressed.

.

Platopus wrote:

UVA2B wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Platopus wrote:

rpupkin wrote:. What does "willing to bet on myself" mean in this context?

That OP is willing to take on unnecessary debt because they believe they will be able to secure a Big Law job, pay off the debt, and actually remain somewhat happy.

But wouldn't the bolded belief line up with a "bet" on a lower-ranked school (with slightly lower BL placement than CLS) that gave OP a full ride? I mean, if you're confident you can get BL, how are you "betting on yourself" by going to a school with almost 100% BL placement for those who want it?

We’re too far removed and forget what it’s like to know nothing about law school. To OP, Columbia would be more academically rigorous and difficult than the slightly lower ranked school, but believes in his/her own intellect. It’s naivete that needs to be addressed.

This is probably more accurate.

Yeah, UVA2B nailed it. "$300K of debt is a small price to pay for the privilege of being able to compete with the best and the brightest!"

.

bosshawg wrote: To clarify a bit, I'm not limiting myself to these schools and will absolutely be applying to most of the T13. Figured my numbers probably put me on the border for getting admitted to CCN, and am more looking for some insight into whether or not the CPA / work experience / degrees (and potentially ED) would potentially give me a boost in chances.

Love hearing some instances of similar numbers / experience having success. Do any T13 schools particularly favor my type of background? Thanks again for the insights, keep em coming.

To give you a data point: I had similar #s, non-URM, similar education (minus masters) and CPA + additional experience.

It has been several years since I went through the admissions process, but I was also wisely advised to apply broadly to the "top 20" schools at that time. My CCN results in no particular order were: WL; WL-Admit with $0; and WL-Admit with $. I found much greater success with lower T13, with scholly offers ranging from $ to $$$$. Being a risk-averse accountant, I took a $$$$ offer from one of those schools. I do not regret it.

To echo others, I found my CPA and work experience to be helpful during interviews and once on the job, but I do not think it played any significant role in the admissions process. Looking back, I probably slightly outperformed my #s, but I attribute that more to dumb luck, willingness to ride out WLs, and scholarship negotiation than I would to my work experience. As others have said, I found that my LSAT + GPA drove 99+% of the decision. Given how medians have changed in the past few years, you may have more luck at CCN today? (I haven't kept up with their admissions statistics.) But even so, I would not advise applying ED (even if doing so would give you the "boost" you seek), as you would be trading potential scholarship opportunities at other great schools.

Best of luck, whatever you decide.

bosshawg wrote:Appreciate the feedback everyone, I realize I came off as a naive dbag, and I am a naive dbag, so not going to defend myself too much. Platopus hit the nail on the head with my "bet on myself" logic, willing to take on a bunch of debt knowing I will be successful and pay it off, but I get where the rest of you are coming from and I am definitely being naive regarding what $300k of debt will be like.

To clarify a bit, I'm not limiting myself to these schools and will absolutely be applying to most of the T13. Figured my numbers probably put me on the border for getting admitted to CCN, and am more looking for some insight into whether or not the CPA / work experience / degrees (and potentially ED) would potentially give me a boost in chances.

Love hearing some instances of similar numbers / experience having success. Do any T13 schools particularly favor my type of background? Thanks again for the insights, keep em coming.

I'll answer your question narrowly first, but another point bears repeating until the logic of your thinking is clear. Having a professional qualification like a CPA is better than no work experience at all, where you might be selected by a completely otherwise equal applicant (in LSAT/GPA) with zero work experience. That's the extent that it helps in admissions. The ED might help get you in as well, because it means you're giving up all negotiating leverage for tuition discounts, meaning you're paying north of $300k for your education.

Now let's walk through this decision for you, assuming you decide not to ED to Columbia and instead just apply across the T13. Here are your most likely results per myLSN:

http://mylsn.info/8kcrlj][img]http://my ... .jpg[/img]

You're about a 50/50% shot at Columbia. Maybe Columbia is your dream school (I'll explain why this is backwards in a bit), so you're uneasy about not getting in. Here are the results when EDs are included:

http://mylsn.info/4jd2sw][img]http://my ... .jpg[/img]

Your chances go up to about 60/40 historically. It's better, but not a lot. And also take note of the low percentage of people who got scholarships there, which means the great majority of either pool are paying sticker, or north of $300k. Also note some of the percentages and amounts of scholarships at the other schools in the T13. You have an 80% shot of $100,000 discount at Cornell. Keep this in mind.

Now let's fast forward to the job hunt. You want NYC Biglaw, which is the most likely biglaw outcome out of pretty much every T13. If you compare historical placement in Biglaw on LST, you'll note these schools range from 65%-80% placement. So if the majority of these 65%-80% of graduates are going into big firms, we're still talking about the majority of a given class. Salaries in different markets may vary, but the great majority of NYC Biglaw firms pay market rate of $180k. So that Cornell graduate who got a $100,000 discount is getting paid the same as the Columbia $300k debt graduate. And they're in the exact same jobs with the exact same shot of excelling at their firm and staying at that firm for more than 2 years (you must understand how deadly attrition is at NYC Biglaw firms, where the assumption is most associates will be departing after 2-4 years. It's called a leveraged business model and it's used throughout the NYC Biglaw firm model with a few exceptions).

So all you've effectively done by "betting on yourself" and EDing to Columbia is increasing your chances by ~10%, guaranteeing you'll be in $300k+ debt, and finding yourself side by side with people exactly like you who saved $100k or more in tuition and debt and are getting paid exactly the same.

And don't be fooled on an important point: Columbia places graduates in the exact same firms as Cornell does for the majority. There are a few firms that will recruit more heavily at Columbia and won't really recruit seriously at Cornell outside of truly elite applicants, but those are the exception, not the rule. Columbia gives you more room for error in getting a NYC Biglaw job (can underperform more with grades), but it doesn't substantially get better Biglaw jobs.

Final point that requires consideration: even if you're confident in your abilities, you have no idea how you'll perform in law school. No one does. That's the cleansing fire of the forced curve of law school combined with a whole new way of learning and being tested. Work ethic, intelligence, and drive are necessary for success in law school, but they are not sufficient to outperform your peers. You can work your butt off, be really smart (everyone in your class at Columbia or Cornell will generally be as intelligent as you are), and not outperform your peers, ending up at median GPA at both. In fact, the safest assumption any incoming law student should make is that they will end up at median, because it's statistically the most likely result.

This is why you need to seriously reconsider why EDing and "betting on yourself" in the context you're thinking is seriously misguided.

I hope this helps.

Inexperienced 0L and not trying to derail the conversation since I agree basically completely with UVA2B's points, but I think the way this data is being used here is off (but correct me if I'm wrong)

In scenario 1, without ED, Columbia's (A, D, WL) stats are: 29, 0, 22 --- 57% acceptance

In scenario 2, with both ED and regular, Columbia's stats are 36, 0, 22. The only thing that changed from scenario 1 to scenario 2 is 7 more people applied and they all got in. These are all the ED applicants to Columbia within these ranges. The ED group's acceptance rate is 100%

If OP applies ED, he'd fall squarely into the ED category, not some pseudo-category that includes both regular and ED applicants (which is the 62% number shown)

That said, I think the right answer here is that 7 ED applicants is a pretty tiny sample size. Probably doesn't make sense to extrapolate conclusions from this small group, all of whom happened to get in, in a way that contradicts conventional wisdom that's data driven elsewhere. It could be the case, but seems unlikely to me that ~170/3.7 just happens to be this sweet spot with columbia ED

UVA2B wrote:
http://mylsn.info/8kcrlj]

You're about a 50/50% shot at Columbia. Maybe Columbia is your dream school (I'll explain why this is backwards in a bit), so you're uneasy about not getting in. Here are the results when EDs are included:

http://mylsn.info/4jd2sw]

Your chances go up to about 60/40 historically. It's better, but not a lot. And also take note of the low percentage of people who got scholarships there, which means the great majority of either pool are paying sticker, or north of $300k. Also note some of the percentages and amounts of scholarships at the other schools in the T13. You have an 80% shot of $100,000 discount at Cornell. Keep this in mind.

searching61 wrote:Inexperienced 0L and not trying to derail the conversation since I agree basically completely with UVA2B's points, but I think the way this data is being used here is off (but correct me if I'm wrong)

In scenario 1, without ED, Columbia's (A, D, WL) stats are: 29, 0, 22 --- 57% acceptance

In scenario 2, with both ED and regular, Columbia's stats are 36, 0, 22. The only thing that changed from scenario 1 to scenario 2 is 7 more people applied and they all got in. These are all the ED applicants to Columbia within these ranges. The ED group's acceptance rate is 100%

If OP applies ED, he'd fall squarely into the ED category, not some pseudo-category that includes both regular and ED applicants (which is the 62% number shown)

That said, I think the right answer here is that 7 ED applicants is a pretty tiny sample size. Probably doesn't make sense to extrapolate conclusions from this small group, all of whom happened to get in, in a way that contradicts conventional wisdom that's data driven elsewhere. It could be the case, but seems unlikely to me that ~170/3.7 just happens to be this sweet spot with columbia ED

UVA2B wrote:
http://mylsn.info/8kcrlj]

You're about a 50/50% shot at Columbia. Maybe Columbia is your dream school (I'll explain why this is backwards in a bit), so you're uneasy about not getting in. Here are the results when EDs are included:

http://mylsn.info/4jd2sw]

Your chances go up to about 60/40 historically. It's better, but not a lot. And also take note of the low percentage of people who got scholarships there, which means the great majority of either pool are paying sticker, or north of $300k. Also note some of the percentages and amounts of scholarships at the other schools in the T13. You have an 80% shot of $100,000 discount at Cornell. Keep this in mind.

This interpretation seems accurate, you’re right. So am ED probably would get this number profile in. But it’s also irrelevant to what actually matters here, since no one should ED to a school unless they’re just fantastically wealthy and don’t care about saving money for marginally increased room for error in getting the same result.