Chicago or NYU for Corporate Law Forum

[JusAbstinendi]

I've looked at some numbers for employment. They seem comparable. Heck, these schools seem comparable in a lot of objective ways, such as student/faculty ratio. Am I missing anything?

NYU
Pros:
-Quality of Living (somewhat subjective)
-Clinics
-NYC market foothold
-Superb tax program, including its LLM program

Chicago
Pros:
-Judicial clerkship placement
-Professorial aspirations
-Faculty generally ranked higher (debatable)
-Slightly higher peer and judge/lawyer prestige (according to USNWR)

What do you guys think? At this point, ignorant as I am, I see myself doing biglaw after graduation. I'm not sure which area, perhaps tax law, perhaps health law. The specialization could easily change, but I don't see myself entering public interest.

[aryncita]

I wouldn't say that it's "debatable" that Chicago has higher-ranked faculty than NYU. By any reasonable metric, Chicago has the top faculty of any law school in the country on this side of Yale (and yes, that includes Harvard and Stanford).

But if your goal is biglaw, that's kind of beside the point. Personally, I think Chicago is a better choice. As you noted, they have a better track record with clerkships if you chose to go that route. Also, the school is significantly smaller than NYU, and I'm told that this can make it easier to get jobs at some firms. (Supposedly these firms like to be able to tell clients that they recruit from all the top schools, so graduates from smaller schools have an advantage. I don't know if that's true, though. This advantage, however, if it exists at all, is probably negligible. You chances will be great coming from either school.) Finally, I've said it a million times, but Chicago is severely underrated by USNWR. They rank just as highly as Harvard or Stanford according to every metric that matters. People act like it's a no-brainer to choose Stanford or Harvard over a school like NYU. If that's the case, then Chicago over NYU should also be a no-brainer, but in practice it doesn't happen because USNWR is so influential.

Having said that, if biglaw is your goal, you really can't go wrong at either school. Any advantages you would get from going to Chicago are likely to be very, very small, and I would recommend NYU in a heartbeat if you felt more comfortable there.

[nahumya]

*

[stavand]

I disagree somewhat. Chicago is a fine school, but I don't think hiring partners really make the distinction between Chicago and NYU when it comes to biglaw. I spoke to a few of these partners when deciding where to go, and they actually all grouped Columbia, NYU, Chicago, Penn together. They said that in hiring terms, one school would give no edge over the other.

With that said, its about location. if you want to go West, it doesn't matter. If you wanna go central, then Chicago is your school. If you want to go East, NYU is your school because NYU just recruits better in the East, especially in NY.

[Katkins]

Your BigLaw chances are awesome from either school. If you want to work in NYC, consider that callbacks/interviews/meeting partners at networking events will be easier from NYU. And I think NYU/NYC are more fun than Hyde Park, though I do love Chicago the city.

Between the two, I'd go wherever is cheaper if you have no strong inclination toward either. Your career chances will be pretty much identical from either.

[EmmyD]

By any reasonable metric, Chicago has the top faculty of any law school in the country on this side of Yale (and yes, that includes Harvard and Stanford).

I strongly disagree.

Dang! You have a tendency to make categorical statements that just don't receive the support you purport to give them. I'm not saying you don't give support; but in general, you conclude a lot more from the evidence than what is permissible–on epistemological grounds–to conclude.

[neskerdoo]

emmy/ aryncita is TLS's greatest new rivalry!

[nellie06]

If you just intend to be corporate, it won't matter. Plus if you intend to do tax law, if you check out firm websites, most of the lawyers have tax llm's from nyu regardless of where they go. It's become almost the status quo for tax lawyers. I doubt the ridiculously minute difference in the percentage of a class that gets top jobs is enough to make one school better than the other. I think it would come down to $. The % of a class who clerks is like saying that about the chances of people who buy lotto tickets from a certain deli winning a jackpot are increased because someone won it two weeks ago. It might be the case that you could have a winning ticket, but without having cracked a casebook, your chances of getting the golden ticket to clerking are no better than any other student who starts in the fall. Unless you're at yale.

[RATRATRAT]

Dang! You have a tendency to make categorical statements that just don't receive the support you purport to give them. I'm not saying you don't give support; but in general, you conclude a lot more from the evidence than what is permissible–on epistemological grounds–to conclude.

Well, I think this may be the most pretentious thing I've read on TLS in quite some time. How about just saying "you don't give enough evidence."

[EmmyD]

Dang! You have a tendency to make categorical statements that just don't receive the support you purport to give them. I'm not saying you don't give support; but in general, you conclude a lot more from the evidence than what is permissible–on epistemological grounds–to conclude.

Well, I think this may be the most pretentious thing I've read on TLS in quite some time. How about just saying "you don't give enough evidence."

That doesn't really express what I was trying to say; the benefit of an intricate vocabulary is that it allows you to express complex ideas. I'm sorry if anything beyond a simple sentence is suddenly pretentious for you.

[RATRATRAT]

Thanks for your apology. Upon rereading, the many nuances of your argument are clearer to me. I will try to gain a greater appreciation of your intricate vocabulary & complex ideas if you promise to try & be less annoying. Can we all agree to that?

[M2008]

I decided on Chicago rather than the Manhattan schools. One piece of propaganda I bought from them was that Chicago's small size gives it an advantage for firms that wish to hire someone from each of the top schools. So, for NYC, you may be competing against 40 UChicago grads instead of nigh 300 NYU grads.

Also, if housing is part of quality of life for you, consider that for the price of 1 bedroom in a 3BR share in the Village, you can get a 3BR all to yourself in Hyde Park. Paying half as much per month for the same or more square footage was definitely a factor in my decision.

[aryncita]

By any reasonable metric, Chicago has the top faculty of any law school in the country on this side of Yale (and yes, that includes Harvard and Stanford).

I strongly disagree.

Dang! You have a tendency to make categorical statements that just don't receive the support you purport to give them. I'm not saying you don't give support; but in general, you conclude a lot more from the evidence than what is permissible–on epistemological grounds–to conclude.

This is interesting. Flaming me for "making categorical statements that just don't receive the support you purport to give them" but offering zero evidence to back this up other than your own assertion. Wouldn't that be an example of "making a categorical statement" with inadequate support. (And wouldn't it also be an ad hominem? Claiming that I'm wrong simply because I was the one who posted it rather than actually refuting the claim...) I would find your argument more compelling if you provided some actual evidence refuting the claim that Chicago has the #2 law faculty in the country rather than merely flaming me. But that's beside the point.

In any event, I made my claim based primarily on Brian Leiter's faculty quality rankings:

http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2 ... pact.shtml
http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2 ... ship.shtml

Chicago ranks #2 (behind Yale and ahead of Stanford/Harvard) ranking the schools both on citations per faculty member and on membership in the AAS. And Chicago was ranked #2 in spite of the fact that Leiter didn't include Easterbrook and Posner in Chicago's numbers, since they are no longer full-time faculty.

Yes, the difference between Chicago and Harvard/Stanford isn't huge. And yes, this study is about a year old. (It would be interesting to see what the numbers look like with Sunstein at Harvard.) But I don't think it's fair to say that I'm just talking out of my butt, either.

However, this is all really a moot point. Unless the OP wants to go into academia, the quality of the faculty at the two schools is not a major consideration. As far as placement in biglaw goes, there will be little-to-no difference in the two schools. If you really want to debate this further, I would suggest that we create a new thread so as not to hijack this one debating a tangential issue.

[EmmyD]

This is interesting. Flaming me for "making categorical statements that just don't receive the support you purport to give them" but offering zero evidence to back this up other than your own assertion. Wouldn't that be an example of "making a categorical statement" with inadequate support. (And wouldn't it also be an ad hominem?

You really need to learn what an ad hominem is, among other things. By the way, in making that statement, you committed an ad hominem tu quoque. Google it.

Chicago was once the leader in faculty behind Yale. Now, however, Harvard is making a huge push for top faculty. You can't just say "Oh, Harvard just got Sunstein, so that might change things." Harvard also nabbed top faculty from other schools; an example of this is Mark Tushnet from GULC.

But what about NYU? They nabbed two CLS profs this year alone (Waldron, among others).

What about the metric by which Leiter does his rankings? Do professors actually take them seriously? As a person who has been following faculty movements for the last for years, I can tell you right now: No.

All of the professors I've spoken to regard the notion of grading a school's overall faculty as absurd; rather, they do it by specific program. Thus, if a student wanted to do academia, whereas you might say "Go to Yale, and if not, HSC [And you would put Stanford on par with Harvard, because you were admitted at the former and not at the latter." I, on the other hand, would say, "Ah! That's interesting. Well, what do you want to focus on in academia?" The person might say, "Jurisprudence," at which point I would respond, "Screw Chicago, Harvard, and Stanford. Go to NYU or Yale."

I encounter this nonsense all the time; students think that just because the overall school is good, this goodness percolates down into individual programs. That couldn't be further from the case.

[parkway45]

"I encounter this nonsense all the time; students think that just because the overall school is good, this goodness percolates down into individual programs. That couldn't be further from the case."

Well, I would guess that you haven't been to law school yet or through the meat market of law school hiring, b/c this nonsense really does rule the field...Law school academia is a bit different than a general phd program IMO, even tho they are converging.

So, if you get into Harvard, don't go to NYU even if you think Dworkin is god...And better yet, don't make the mistake of picking a law school based on some subfield in academia. This seems like an awful way to wager the next 3 years...

I would personally pick NYU for Corporate Law because I couldn't imagine a colder place than Hyde Park...

[EmmyD]

b/c this nonsense really does rule the field...Law school academia is a bit different than a general phd program IMO, even tho they are converging.

They are converging, and I believe now is as good a time as ever for people to question whether HYS hold the keys to academia. Many prospective academics I know, who were facing the choice between HS and NYU, seriously considered NYU (and most chose it).

[aryncita]

This is interesting. Flaming me for "making categorical statements that just don't receive the support you purport to give them" but offering zero evidence to back this up other than your own assertion. Wouldn't that be an example of "making a categorical statement" with inadequate support. (And wouldn't it also be an ad hominem?

You really need to learn what an ad hominem is, among other things. By the way, in making that statement, you committed an ad hominem tu quoque. Google it.

I'm not sure how what I said qualifies as an ad hominem, but even if it was, I responded to the substance of your argument afterward. In your first post, you dismissed everything I said by saying that I'm always "making categorical statements" etc. without offering any warrants for the claim you were making. This time you do offer warrants, so I'll let this one pass.

Chicago was once the leader in faculty behind Yale. Now, however, Harvard is making a huge push for top faculty. You can't just say "Oh, Harvard just got Sunstein, so that might change things." Harvard also nabbed top faculty from other schools; an example of this is Mark Tushnet from GULC.

True. Although Leiter's numbers are still less than a year old. It will be interesting to see what they look like the next time he compiles them, but I'm doubtful that a couple hires here and there will be enough to push Harvard past Chicago. (Especially since the gap between the two would be even wider if you include Easterbrook and Posner in Chicago when compiling Chicago's numbers.) But I could be wrong. I guess we'll see when the numbers are released.

But what about NYU? They nabbed two CLS profs this year alone (Waldron, among others).

In this case I would be willing to bet money that they still won't be anywhere close to Chicago according to these metrics.

What about the metric by which Leiter does his rankings? Do professors actually take them seriously? As a person who has been following faculty movements for the last for years, I can tell you right now: No.

All of the professors I've spoken to regard the notion of grading a school's overall faculty as absurd; rather, they do it by specific program. Thus, if a student wanted to do academia, whereas you might say "Go to Yale, and if not, HSC [And you would put Stanford on par with Harvard, because you were admitted at the former and not at the latter." I, on the other hand, would say, "Ah! That's interesting. Well, what do you want to focus on in academia?" The person might say, "Jurisprudence," at which point I would respond, "Screw Chicago, Harvard, and Stanford. Go to NYU or Yale."

I encounter this nonsense all the time; students think that just because the overall school is good, this goodness percolates down into individual programs. That couldn't be further from the case.

Fascinating. So you think the only reason that I put Stanford on par with Harvard is because I didn't get into Harvard? Even though I'm advocating the rather controversial position that Chicago has better faculty than Stanford or Harvard (and that Chicago is as good as Stanford/Harvard by any other reasonable metric). Why would I be so interested in insisting that a school that I'm not attending is better in some ways than a school I am attending? It's because frankly, I draw my conclusions based on the data, not by bending the data to try to delude myself that I'm in a better position than I actually am. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but I find it rather annoying when you just throw around accusations like that. I would love to be able to say that Stanford's faculty are stronger overall than the faculty at Chicago, but the data simply does not support that assertion. And if the data indicated that an aspiring academic would be much better off attending Harvard than Stanford, I would admit that as well, but I don't see any data to support that assertion, either.

However, your larger point is mostly valid. The "overall quality" of the faculty at a school (to the point where it can quantified at all) doesn't really measure anything important. True, one could argue that if all law schools use more or less the same books, the only thing that distinguishes one school from another is the quality of the faculty, so the "best" schools would be the schools with the "best" faculty. But "overall faculty quality" is a very nebulous metric in the first place and doesn't mean much in practice. And as I've said several times before, I think comparing the quality of the faculty at Chicago versus NYU is unimportant as far as the OP is concerned. The only reason I brought it up at all was to illustrate the fact that Chicago is underrated by USNWR.

And regarding the point about jurisprudence, your point is valid to a degree. If a student were dead set on studying jurisprudence and would not be happy studying anything other than jurisprudence, I might advise them to go to NYU instead of Chicago/Harvard/Stanford. However, many (most?) students who are interested in academia are interested because of the lifestyle rather than having their heart set on one particular area of specialization. For that type of student, they would be better off attending a school that gives them the best chance of finding any sort of academic job, rather than a job in one particular specialty. (Indeed, if a student were only interested in jurisprudence and not interested in any other area of research, I would probably discourage them from trying to enter academia in the first place, given that jurisprudence is an extremely difficult field to break into.)

And even within a particular specialty, attending a lower-ranked school that's strong in that specialty over a higher-ranked school that isn't as strong is still a major gamble. I'm getting a PhD in philosophy at Duke, which is probably the top philosophy of biology program in the country. Still, I'm told that my chances of landing a job would be better with a degree from Harvard. Harvard is not as strong in the philosophy of biology as Duke, but they still have the Harvard brand name, which still carries a lot of weight. Granted, this isn't a totally fair analogy, given Harvard's philosophy of biology program is fairly strong, whereas to my knowledge jurisprudence is pretty much non-existent at Stanford and Harvard. However, I still maintain that it's very risky to turn down a higher-ranked school for a lower-ranked school that's stronger in a particular specialty.

[aryncita]

b/c this nonsense really does rule the field...Law school academia is a bit different than a general phd program IMO, even tho they are converging.

They are converging, and I believe now is as good a time as ever for people to question whether HYS hold the keys to academia. Many prospective academics I know, who were facing the choice between HS and NYU, seriously considered NYU (and most chose it).

I think it's dangerous to predict the future like that. You may very well be right, but the most recent numbers still show Yale's placement record in academia is head and shoulders above anyone else, with Chicago/Harvard/Stanford forming the second tier, and a major drop off after that. Until I see some hard data indicating that these trends are changing, I would have a hard time telling someone interested in academia to turn down one of these schools in favor of a lower-ranked school that's strong in a particular subfield.

[neskerdoo]

One time, on the sports talk show Mike and the Mad Dog, Chris Russo brought up the phenomenon of people dressing in full tennis gear before passing through the turnstiles on the way to their seats in the stands...
They decided that it seemed like those people were waiting to be called down to the court at any moment and handed a racket and just wanted to be ready...

For some reason, I just remembered that story...

[EmmyD]

One time, on the sports talk show Mike and the Mad Dog, Chris Russo brought up the phenomenon of people dressing in full tennis gear before passing through the turnstiles on the way to their seats in the stands...
They decided that it seemed like those people were waiting to be called down to the court at any moment and handed a racket and just wanted to be ready...

For some reason, I just remembered that story...

Oh don't worry, I won't strip Aryncita of her tennis gear; she can pretend all she wants.

[legalogre]

EmmyD,

I thought I remembered reading on a previous thread that you were going to stop posting....?

[aryncita]

One time, on the sports talk show Mike and the Mad Dog, Chris Russo brought up the phenomenon of people dressing in full tennis gear before passing through the turnstiles on the way to their seats in the stands...
They decided that it seemed like those people were waiting to be called down to the court at any moment and handed a racket and just wanted to be ready...

For some reason, I just remembered that story...

Oh don't worry, I won't strip Aryncita of her tennis gear; she can pretend all she wants.

You don't resort to ad hominems, you say?

And for the record, I'll be the first to acknowledge that I'm a 0L that doesn't really know what I'm talking about. I've done as much homework as I can do, but there are still plenty of things that I don't know, and I would encourage anyone who reads my posts to research the subject themselves rather than relying on what I say, because there are plenty of people who know the subject far better than I do. Still, I like to believe that some of the information that I've learned may be useful to others, and I also like to believe that I can back up most of my claims with data. But I'll be the first to concede that I'm probably wrong about many things, and I welcome others to challenge my claims if they have reason to believe that I'm wrong. However, I would be happier if people would stick to the claims themselves and the data supporting the claims rather than making personal attacks and ad hominems, because I don't think that that sort of thing helps the discussion.

At any rate, if you really want to continue this pissing contest, how about we create a new thread? This discussion is completely unrelated to the OP's question, and I think he was looking for advice about his situation rather than a pissing contest.

[EmmyD]

You don't resort to ad hominems, you say?

Once again, that's not an ad hominem!

The general reason I'm not responding fully is that I just don't have time. I made my point clear, and judging from the PMs I'm receiving, my opinion is not in the minority. If you want to discuss this privately at a time that's more convenient, I'd be happy to communicate over AIM. Just PM me when you want to do this.

Before I leave, I impart a lesson a logic:
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/09/at ... ments.html

[ari20dal7]

emmy/ aryncita is TLS's greatest new rivalry!

That's so hot right now.

[Rosstafarian]

EmmyD,

I thought I remembered reading on a previous thread that you were going to stop posting....?

She changed her mind and explained in a later post that she was going to "try to be nicer."

EmmyD, where are you going to law school?