First of all, a consulting gig + egineering background is a great way to move into upper management. Second, some companies are snobbier than others. At places that don't care much about the pedigree of your MBA, middle management is unlikely to make much more than a senior engineer anyway. It also helps for lateral-ing up.

CLS and Penn might be the exceptions. NYU and Chi got hosed for C/O 2011.

Bruce may be arguing purely secondary markets, but I don't think anyone else was. Sure, in terms of trying to get one of those markets, there is less to differentiate non-HYS kids (though depends on the market, obviously). But in terms of "being worth it" at sticker, as in getting a job that pays back what you pay at sticker, there are some schools in the T14 that are much better than others.

With the understanding that the added placement comes in the form of either their home market or NYC. I think that's what a lot of people don't get or don't consider. Below median at Penn may be better off than below median at Michigan, but you're almost certainly going to have to work in NYC. If a non-NYC region is important to you, that should shift the conversation a little towards the T14 in that area, even if placement overall is weaker. Essentially, people are overvaluing differences in placement, by assuming that the increased placement power applies to all markets or that T14s shouldn't be looked at as regional.

Then this is where i echo other posters who have called for more specifics in order to answer the OP's question. In terms of getting a job that will pay back the debt you incur, and you're fine working in NYC, then most of the T14 is still worth it, though some schools certainly more than others. But that strategy, and thus the answer to the original question, changes if you're gunning for a secondary market.

We're essentially saying the same thing, but wasn't his point that everyone below median at a non-HYS T14 was basically in the same boat?

Hiring in secondary markets if pure crap right now. That's why I'm gunning for NYC, as should many people within the T14. Then again, I'm gunning for biglaw because of exit options.


Interesting. How do you think the market looks like for someone w/ a CS/Math background but that isn't patent-bar eligible? If I calculated correctly, I'm basically a few science credits short (plan to do these after law school or maybe during 3L).


True, but I was under the impression that NYC firms still go deeper into NYU/Chi's classes, and the results for C/O 2011 were more due to self-selection/biding strategy. I'm not entirely sure though.

CS background is great--there is a ton of software patent litigation going on. Patent bar eligibility is meaningless for litigators, but the CS background is really helpful.



I don't like the "self-selection" and "bidding strategy" explanations, largely because there is no way to support them with evidence. I don't think NYU's C/O 2011 just bid so much worse than CLS's C/O 2011, and if you look at historical data, self-selection into PI explains only a small %-age of the discrepancy.

As for firms "going deeper" into NYU/Chi's classes, I think that's true to an extent, but that it's important to understand the contours of that phenomenon. Most firms will hire below median from any T14. And I don't see firms really making grades-based distinctions amongst below-median candidates (willing to hire bottom 1/3 at Michigan but bottom 1/4 at NYU). There's probably just a few dozen firms that won't hire below median at the T14, and they're mostly the V25 + some elite smaller firms like Munger. Only a subset of those seem to go deeper into NYU/Chicago than at other T14's. E.g. your odds at elite DC firms don't seem any better from NYU than from say Duke (though Chicago seems to have an edge in DC over the rest of the non-HYS T14).

There's one group of firms that hire mostly from above-median at any T14 but go deeper into CCN: the NYC V10+Deb/Shearman/etc. These are the firms that might have a callback target of top 20% at Michigan but top 35% at NYU. This is an edge not to be discounted--probably 1/6 of all the SA spots in the whole country are at the NYC V10. But V10 placement doesn't help the kids who are substantially below median such that no V10 will touch them.

So while it's true that some firms go deeper into CLS than Duke, I think the mechanism of how that affects overall placement is generally misunderstood. It's not that lower V100 firms are making distinctions between bottom 20% at CLS and equating that to bottom 30% at Duke. Rather, the placement difference is the result of more reliable placement at the top and middle. It's much, much, much, better to bid on a firm that has 100 SA slots than on one that has 10. For a CLS kid at median, bids to Skadden, Weil, etc, are credible bids and with so many SA slots in play likely to turn into an offer. Not so much for a Duke kid at median, who is stuck trying to compete for one of the 30 SA slots at Fried Frank.

Ray (or whoever) do you think there is a placement advantage for attending a school with one of the smaller class sizes (I.e. Chicago, Duke, Cornell, and perhaps Penn and NU)? There is a lot at play so it is hard to isolate that as an individually meaningful variable, but it seems like when you have a mountain of employers coming to those campuses presumably with a desire to hire from those schools that they might necessarily have to extend offers/CBs deeper into classes to be competitive. Or if they don't give a fuck about actually hiring from those schools and consistently don't have anyone accept their SA offers, why do those firms keep showing up to the smaller schools?

I think size does work against some schools. Georgetown is the obvious one, but Virginia and Michigan are big too. I don't know if firms go into OCI trying to hire 40-80% more people at Michigan/Virginia versus Penn/NU versus Duke/Cornell. From the firm SA lists I've seen leaked over the years, I haven't noticed Virginia/Michigan having consistently larger representation than smaller schools.

I think size also hurts NYU at the bottom of the class. If you're top-half-ish, you're competitive for the V10 who are going to expect to hire 10-20 NYC kids apiece, but below that there is kind of a cliff in SA class sizes, and a ton of bottom 1/3 NYU kids competing for those slots.

Appreciate the insights, rayiner.

Tagged as interesting discussion.

I echo the general sentiment that sticker is worthwhile, though I don't envy the people who aren't wild about ending up as lawyers but are convinced that the 8-10 year detour through law school + big law is a necessary path to take to their next career move. That's gonna be a shitty eight years.

Tagged. Can't believe this is such a productive discussion free of trolling.

To me, CLS/Chi are in a league of their own below HYS, and I would pay substantially more (sticker) to go to those 2 than any other T13. Besides those 2, the rest is highly dependent on all the things that were talked about.

But I do want to throw the idea of "fit" in there as well. I would definitely be ok paying more if I feel like I would enjoy my time at the school, regardless of where the school ranks between 6 and 13. (granted this is not something you can necessarily have a good idea of during a one-day visit in the spring when the whole school puts on its Sunday best, but I definitely got different feels from different T-14s)

Yes, fit is really important. The student bodies at the various schools are really quite different, and so is the surrounding environment. College town Ann Arbor is quite different than downtown Chicago, for example.

Has anyone calculated what total sticker including interest will be for these schools for the incoming class or the next one? I'm asking because I will do the math tomorrow if no one else has- my debt thread is getting no traction. I saw an article on constitutional daily that calculates NYU at $280,000.

I haven't seen it calculated exactly, but $280k should be the approximate cost at NU, assuming no summer income, etc.

Yes, I have made several calculations along these lines. I have pasted them below.

I believe these figures to be accurate. Unfortunately copying my excel spreadsheet into here didn't work so well. If someone knows how to clean this up let me know. (These calculations also do not capitalize interest.)
[*]
71,594 Per Year 71,594 71,594 71,594 214,782
Origination Fee 1%/4% 2,263 2,263 2,263 6,789
Interest Accumulated in School 4,852 9,704 14,566 29,122
Debt upon Graduation: 250,693


$53,150 Per Year 53,150 53,150 53,150 Borrowed: 159, 450
Origination Fee 1%/4% 1502 1,502 1,502 Origination Fees: 4,506
Interest Accumulated In School 3372 6,744 10,116 Interest: 20,232
Indebtedness Upon Graduation: 184,324


$43,150 Per Year 43,150 43,150 43,150 129,450
Origination Fee 1%/4% 205+894= $1099 1,099 1,099 3,297
Interest Accumulated in School 2,606 5,212 7,818 15,636
148,383

I am not going to read this thread but I did something similar to this and my # was 0.

I ended up getting a pretty legit scholarship but I would have gone at sticker. Looking back that was probably a dumb move but during the process I was looking more at fit.

If you are extremely risk adverse I would say 50% of Tuition or 50% of COL + Tuition is the smart choice.

This seems likes solid start. I think we need to include tuition and cost of living increases. I guess the total COA just increases. It might also be interesting to add the 6 months of interest before loans are due.

I'm going to look at the NYU calculation too.

Do you mind posting the schools next to the calculation?

Sorry for posting above the quote. I'm on my phone and it won't let me scroll down far enough to post below the quoted.

I didn't calculate this figure for any individual school. I did use the highest base tuition from 2010 (which happened to be Cornell's). From there I created a spreadsheet that calculates indebtedness based on amount borrowed per year. This spread sheet tabulates totals from $30,000 up to $72,000 in $5,000 increments. I tried pasting the whole thing into TLS but it came out very sloppy so i just put summations for those three entries. These calculations include origination fees (of 1 and 4% for Stafford/Grad plus loans respectively, account for the small portion of the Stafford Loan which is interest deferred, and account for variable interest rates between Stafford and Grad plus loans.

LST has done this for all law schools:

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/cl ... &sub=costs


Also, Georgetown's calculator:

http://141.161.16.100/finaid/Georgetown ... entsV2.htm

what do SA and ITE mean?

I would personally not attend a T14 unless I could do it for less than $100k in loans for all three years.

*keeps change in fireproof safe*

Seriously, that's extreme

The rule of thumb is generally this: don't take on more debt then you plan to make your first year. So for those shooting for Biglaw, your ideal max debt load would be roughly $160k at graduation. If I had to put a number to it, that's about the most I'd personally feel comfortable with taking out ITE.

Yeah wtf?! That's insane

I'd say it's worth it to go w 1/3 tuition scholarship, ~50k. Below that, it's arguably worth it but not quite as clear cut for me