\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Chicago > Stanford >>>>> Columbia/NYU

I'm not even going to any of these schools, but it seems har...
Antonio Scarpachi
  05/23/05
this is total and complete flamebait.
n00b
  06/15/05
Bump
Antonio Scarpachi
  05/24/05
I'm going to restrict my comments to Chicago vs. Columbia be...
*.*.*
  05/24/05
Chicago has some pretty good law and philosophy folks, and t...
_____________________
  05/24/05
If you're interested in law and philosophy it doesn't seem l...
ricefigaro
  06/15/05
I susupect that Martha is staying put. My point was simply t...
_____________________
  06/15/05
I'm also quite sure Martha and Cass are staying, and have al...
Sexpert
  06/15/05
Really they already said no huh? That's interesting, I'm gla...
_____________________
  06/15/05
That is what I was told (that they have already said no). B...
Sexpert
  06/15/05
I am taking Admin with Sunnstein in the Spring. I think Nuss...
RandomGuy
  12/23/06
The student numbers between Chicago and Columbia are essen...
Antonio Scarpachi
  05/24/05
then why is Columbia ranked better in almost every ranking s...
nurseratchet
  05/24/05
Actually, USNews is pretty much the only ranking where it is...
Antonio Scarpachi
  05/24/05
You have not cited one full composite study analogous to the...
nurseratchet
  05/24/05
Do you seriously consider USNews a "full composite stud...
Antonio Scarpachi
  05/24/05
There's no point in citing the Leiter studies. We all know ...
*.*.*
  05/24/05
We're really good on Corporate stuff too, and not too bad in...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
chicago does not compare to nyu and columbia in jurisprudenc...
n00b
  06/15/05
Yeah, they are definitely better in this area than Chicago (...
Sexpert
  06/15/05
Actually, I think a bunch of single-factor data is a lot mor...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
"Second, although Chicago has an excellent faculty, its...
n00b
  06/15/05
I guess it depends on what you mean by "noticeably stro...
Sexpert
  06/15/05
these however are the subdivisions, used to make his composi...
n00b
  06/15/05
Actually, I don't think the specialty rankings are used to m...
Sexpert
  06/15/05
your response is worded in excessive verbage. let me get dow...
n00b
  06/15/05
Excessive verbiage isn't Sexpertish? Many people would disa...
Sexpert
  06/15/05
the trolling isnt sexpertish is what i meant.
n00b
  06/15/05
I think people would disagree about that as well!
Sexpert
  06/15/05
I think it is true that Chicago does really well in just abo...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
In tersm of student numbers, Chicago is clearly comparable t...
Antonio Scarpachi
  05/24/05
could you be any more of a Chicago troll?
nurseratchet
  05/24/05
could you be any more of a troll?
_____________________
  05/24/05
I guess I could be if I actually went to Chicago. Instead...
Antonio Scarpachi
  05/24/05
I guess you have to define "reasonable". For exam...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
"I therefore can't imagine that Columbia and NYU are mu...
lsatdude
  05/24/05
correct.
UPENN HAS A LAW SCHOOL????
  05/24/05
"I think it is true that Chicago does really well in ju...
*.*.*
  05/24/05
I don't know. I would have sent an app to Chicago if it wer...
Gridlocker
  05/24/05
I didn't apply to Stanford at all, and almost didn't apply t...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
same here. The only school west of the mississippi I'm ap...
Luke_Schenscher_has_a_posse
  06/15/05
I agree to the extent that most people will not choose to at...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
this is correct. however, unfortunately, if you are cont...
simplythebest
  05/24/05
Chicago is only lower ranked in USNews -- not in any of the ...
Antonio Scarpachi
  05/24/05
...
loafer
  05/24/05
i had to make this choice a few months ago and would say tha...
trotwood
  05/24/05
Personally, just like with my skepticism about small LSAT di...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
i dont think there's a tangible difference based on gpa/lsat...
nutella
  05/24/05
if I recall, you were choosing between CCN and got into S by...
nurseratchet
  05/24/05
i am a ttt wl admit. the only schools i was consdiering b...
nutella
  05/24/05
I actually think they have to choose between 3.9s and 175s ....
Sexpert
  05/24/05
"...Chicago or stanford can fill its class with 3.9/175...
Quasar
  05/24/05
and of those 175s, it's unlikely that many of them have 3.9s...
trotwood
  05/24/05
i disagree about the GPA criterion, only because at my under...
trotwood
  05/24/05
I guess my experience in college was different--lots of the ...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
i think the lrap/scholarship comparison is a useful one, tha...
trotwood
  05/24/05
I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure ...
Sexpert
  05/24/05
I think this is the appropriate time to bring out the famous...
[officially retired from this disgusting hellhole]
  05/24/05
On choosing Chicago over Harvard, courtesy of Renada Deshada...
loafer
  05/24/05
wtf? you expect people to read this?
n00b
  06/15/05
Yes.
Recreational Racist
  12/23/06
CORRECT haven't read anything but the line up in the titl...
simplythebest
  06/15/05
People need to stop posting that stupid Chicago over Harvard...
Tard
  06/15/05
That is true. However, international law doesn't exist. ...
Sexpert
  06/15/05
it exists to the same extent l&e does. btw you are fl...
n00b
  06/15/05
Actually, I think Comparative Law and L&E are very simil...
Sexpert
  06/15/05
speaking of which, I chose NU over chicago.
Reade_Seligmann
  12/23/06
I hear NYU keeps making offers to Sykes. I didn't even know ...
_____________________
  06/15/05
"Do you people have this saved away on your desktops so...
loafer
  06/16/05
let's settle this once and for all. my cock is bigger than y...
n00b
  06/15/05
Nothing that you say changes the fact that Chicago is filled...
rickblaine
  06/15/05
Don't forget the CLS rejects as well.
Howie Mandel
  06/15/05
Okay...interesting story here. My BF at time (now hubby) app...
marrymejane
  06/15/05
There is a factor of randomness in the process, true. But th...
loafer
  06/16/05
Although I would still suggest that there will be no detecta...
Sexpert
  06/16/05
I disagree, but my disagreement is founded on the unprovable...
loafer
  06/16/05
god, you sound boring
Reade_Seligmann
  12/23/06
and that was an interesting story!
bobbert
  12/23/06
i tend to agree with the premises of the OP: Ch>S>Co; ...
Renada Deshada
  06/16/05
Yeah, the placement study is supposed to help prospective st...
Sexpert
  06/16/05
not too long ago, even among those who saw HYS as unreachabl...
Renada Deshada
  06/16/05
I think the story goes something like this: From 1992 thr...
Sexpert
  06/16/05
"and since then Chicago has been #6. Did anything subst...
n00b
  06/16/05
Agreed. Chicago's reputation scores this year declined sign...
*.*.*
  06/16/05
chicago's competition in coming more from penn and uva than ...
Reade_Seligmann
  12/23/06
This does not directly answer your question, but the factor ...
loafer
  06/16/05
I miss Sexpert. ::single tear::
MindTheGap76 (is semi-retired)
  12/23/06
"What they don't offer, is really the only important th...
[officially retired from this disgusting hellhole]
  12/23/06
what this (absolutely true) bit of stanford praise neglects,...
loafer
  12/23/06
If only you knew how much I studied (actually, how much I di...
Frigaliment
  12/23/06
*ahem* I beg to differ.
Columbia JD
  12/23/06
this mostly evinces that law school has redefined what it me...
loafer
  12/23/06
I am not sitting through law school comatose, but I certainl...
Columbia JD
  12/23/06
The only thing the OP has right here is that Chicago is the ...
Albert Bundy
  12/23/06
MMmmmm maybe second best.
Columbia JD
  12/23/06
I would never attend either TTT. I was just stating a simple...
Albert Bundy
  12/23/06
Fact eh?
Columbia JD
  12/23/06
The most prestigious job you can get coming out of law schoo...
Albert Bundy
  12/23/06
I guess you showed me.
Columbia JD
  12/23/06
Obviously: Stanford > CLS > Chicago > NYU.
;,.,;.,;.,;.
  12/23/06
Oh look, you're being a faggot on this thread too. What a fu...
*stomps a puppy*
  12/23/06
TITCR
[officially retired from this disgusting hellhole]
  12/23/06
That's about right.
Columbia JD
  12/23/06
Except for aren't CLS students smarter than Stanford student...
schalabba
  12/23/06
sure but aren't SLS students smarter than CLS students, as m...
loafer
  12/23/06
Yeah, but I think most people respect raw intelligence more ...
schalabba
  12/23/06
since when does the lsat measure raw intelligence? you migh...
Frigaliment
  12/24/06
Correction
Yrtd
  12/24/06
S > H > Col > who cares?
Subotai, thief and archer
  12/24/06
Also acceptable.
Yrtd
  12/24/06
I assume that any school below NYU is simply not worth discu...
homeless
  12/24/06


Poast new message in this thread





Date: May 23rd, 2005 11:39 PM
Author: Antonio Scarpachi

I'm not even going to any of these schools, but it seems hard to conclude anything else, objectively speaking.

First off, Chicago generally has higher LSAT medians than Stanford.

Secondly, according to Leiter, Chicago has a better faculty than Stanford. (Chicago: 4.7 Mean / 5.0 Median, same as Harvard. Stanford: 4.5 Mean / 4.5 Median, only a little better than Columbia.)

Thirdly, Chicago places far more SCOTUS Clerks than Stanford (50 vs. 29 from 1991-2001.) This is better than Harvard on a per-capita basis, and kicks the crap out of Stanford, given that they have comparable class-size.

And, of course, Chicago is far more national, ranking in the top 3 in both major placement surveys. (Stanford is 6 and 9.)

In terms of overall reputation, both currently get a 4.7 rating from lawyers and judges in USNews. The peer rating is also usually within a point.

The only areas where Stanford has an edge are in GPA (meaningless) and academic placement, where it does somewhat (but not terribly) better.

NYU and Columbia have comparable student numbers to Chicago, but are so far behind in all other categories it's not even funny. NYU, despite being far larger, has less than one-fifth as many SCOTUS clerks. On a per-capita basis, Chicago places over 1200% better in this area. Columbia's not much closer. Chicago is also superior in national placement, academic placement, overall reputation, and faculty quality.

If anything indicates a diconnect between USNews and reality, it's the relative ranking of these schools, especially Chicago vs. Columbia & NYU.

As far as Stanford goes, I have to think that its reputation is artificially boosted by the strength of its undergrad program, along with the fact it's the dominant regional school on the West Coast. That, and the nice weather, are probably the main reasons it's ranked in the top 5. In most categories, it's certainly not top 3, aside from maybe weather.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2845907)





Date: June 15th, 2005 9:52 AM
Author: n00b

this is total and complete flamebait.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3018721)





Date: May 24th, 2005 12:11 AM
Author: Antonio Scarpachi

Bump

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2846131)





Date: May 24th, 2005 12:31 AM
Author: *.*.*

I'm going to restrict my comments to Chicago vs. Columbia because I don't know very much about SLS.

l

First, there is no doubt that Columbia has objectively "better" students than Chicago, even if the difference is slight. Higher LSAT numbers, higher GPA's, higher percentage of cross-admits choose to attend, and higher yied rate.

Second, although Chicago has an excellent faculty, its strength is really focused on law and economics. So if that's what you're interested in, then you should simply go there. But if your interdisciplinary interests are in something else -- for example philosophy like I am --- then Columbia is clearly better.

Third, if Chicago has more national placement, I am sure it is largely because of choice. I know that Columbia places extraordinarily well in California (see for, example, GTO's employment study), and what could be more national than that? Michigan probably has a more national placement than Columbia because it's in the middle of the country. And obviously Columbia is better.

Fourth, the reputation ratings between Columbi and Chicago are nearly identitical. I believe the judges give Chicago .1 advantage, while the peers give Columbia a .1 advantage. I am not sure why you put so much emphasis on the judges score, especially since they have like a 20% response rate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2846291)





Date: May 24th, 2005 11:24 AM
Author: _____________________

Chicago has some pretty good law and philosophy folks, and the excellent teaching isn't limited to econ related classes at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2847816)





Date: June 15th, 2005 1:18 AM
Author: ricefigaro

If you're interested in law and philosophy it doesn't seem like, with people like Thomas Nagel, Ronald Dworkin, amd Crispin Wright in addition to the high level of the department over all, you could do any better than NYU.

Ned Block, Kit Fine, Peter Unger, Sydney Shoemaker, Jerry Fodor, Derek Parfit....damn.

Chicago has Nussbaum (although leiter says she has an offer on the table from harvard) and Columbia has Raz and Waldron but IMHO NYU is the superior choice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3017363)





Date: June 15th, 2005 10:49 AM
Author: _____________________

I susupect that Martha is staying put. My point was simply that Chigago has top scholars in areas other than Law and Econ.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019019)





Date: June 15th, 2005 11:44 AM
Author: Sexpert

I'm also quite sure Martha and Cass are staying, and have already told Harvard that. What I have heard is that Harvard decided it would keep this offer open, and keep floating it publicly, for many years, just in case.

And, of course, I agree with you that Law and Econ is not Chicago's only strong area. I guess because Chicago is so strongly associated with Law and Econ, it is easy to leap to that assumption (or to want to leap to that assumption).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019364)





Date: June 15th, 2005 1:40 PM
Author: _____________________

Really they already said no huh? That's interesting, I'm glad to hear it. Isn't one of them visiting there next winter?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3020234)





Date: June 15th, 2005 2:06 PM
Author: Sexpert

That is what I was told (that they have already said no). But I am not exactly plugged into the grapevine. I also think Martha might be visiting, but again my information is questionable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3020564)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 1:18 PM
Author: RandomGuy

I am taking Admin with Sunnstein in the Spring. I think Nussbaum may be teaching something too, not sure what though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284134)





Date: May 24th, 2005 1:59 PM
Author: Antonio Scarpachi

The student numbers between Chicago and Columbia are essentially identical.

Rep ratings are also close, but Chicago usually has a better rating among lawyers and judges.

The reason I put emphasis on the lawyer/judge rating is because they do the actual hiring. (The response rate is actually around 30%, which is a a pretty good response rate for any survey.)

Finally, Chicago is clearly superior in SCOTUS and academia. This, coupled with it's smaller class, indicates it probably places better pretty much everywhere.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848480)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:02 PM
Author: nurseratchet

then why is Columbia ranked better in almost every ranking study under the sun, including USNWR?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848489)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:05 PM
Author: Antonio Scarpachi

Actually, USNews is pretty much the only ranking where it is ranked higher, as noted.

In the Ciolli national placement rankings, Chicago is higher.

In the Letier elite-firm national placement rankings, Chicago is higher.

In the SCOTUS ranking, Chicago is much higher.

In the academic placement ranking, Chicago is higher.

In the lawyer/judge reputation rankings, Chicago is higher.

In the faculty quality rankings, Chicago is much higher.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848521)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:11 PM
Author: nurseratchet

You have not cited one full composite study analogous to the USNews ranking, only subsets of other studies. These are not good data.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848577)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:18 PM
Author: Antonio Scarpachi

Do you seriously consider USNews a "full composite study"? Most thoughful observers appear to agree that the methodolgy in USNews is crap, giving weight to questionable self-reported data in several areas. (You really think Penn has better placement than Columbia or YALE?)

The Ciolli and Leiter national placement studies are comprehensive, objective placement studies. So are the SCOTUS and academic placement studies. The reputation surveys are the most worthwhile and important part of the USNews rankings, which is why they recieve the greatest weight in the ranking.

Taken together, they represent far better data than the overall USNews rankings, which are esentially cat piss.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848651)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:38 PM
Author: *.*.*

There's no point in citing the Leiter studies. We all know that his national placement study is completely broken. Read the methodology --- it is rather absurd.

Second, as far as Leiter's faculty rankings go, even he admits that Chicago's very strong performance is largely or mostly due to law and economics. So as I said before, if you are interested in law and econ, there is no better place for you than Chicago. But if you are interested in other stuff (i.e. corporations or internatoinal or law and philosophy) then there is no point in taking Leiter's faculty rankings literally.

Finally, you keep referring to the USNews reputation ratings, but I still don't show how that is a something in Chicago's favor. To me, they are essentially equivalent (and perhaps something in Columbia favor if we give the peer ratings more weight because they have a higher response rate).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848781)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:09 PM
Author: Sexpert

We're really good on Corporate stuff too, and not too bad in Law and Philosophy actually.

If you want something we suck at, consider Critical Theories.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848999)





Date: June 15th, 2005 9:51 AM
Author: n00b

chicago does not compare to nyu and columbia in jurisprudence. (nyu-1, cls-2, chicago-13).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3018718)





Date: June 15th, 2005 10:04 AM
Author: Sexpert

Yeah, they are definitely better in this area than Chicago (note I described Chicago as "not too bad", which is far short of excellent). But I believe we didn't even make the runners-up list for Crit Theories.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3018794)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:08 PM
Author: Sexpert

Actually, I think a bunch of single-factor data is a lot more useful than a composite ranking, because the latter requires weighting factors, and you may or may not share those implied priorities.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848993)





Date: June 15th, 2005 9:50 AM
Author: n00b

"Second, although Chicago has an excellent faculty, its strength is really focused on law and economics. So if that's what you're interested in, then you should simply go there. But if your interdisciplinary interests are in something else -- for example philosophy like I am --- then Columbia is clearly better."

there is no doubt that this is the case. if one looks at the faculty ranking breakdown in leiter's appendix, one sees that chicago is noticeably stronger than columbia only in law and economics, and then in all of the other categories they are neck and neck (except critical theories where columbia destroys chicago). strip chicago's strength in l&e and chicago would lose a significant part of its faculty strength.

all else said chicago is very strong (business law, con law, crim law, admin law, l&e of course and legal history).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3018715)





Date: June 15th, 2005 11:57 AM
Author: Sexpert

I guess it depends on what you mean by "noticeably stronger" as opposed to "neck and neck". After Law and Econ, I would say Chicago's next biggest strength is in Con Law. Leiter has Chicago tied for third in Con Law, and Columbia tied for eighth.

The more global problem is that Leiter's rankings represent only one possible (and incomplete) division of legal academia into subparts. It is a little odd, for example, to lump all of "Business Law" into a single category. And as far as I can tell, Tax isn't anywhere in his rankings (unless it falls into the Business Law catch-all--or maybe L&E?).

So, it doesn't make much sense to use Leiter's rankings to count areas in which one school or another does well, because there are many different ways one could equally-well partition legal academia, and the resulting count could vary as a result.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019471)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:13 PM
Author: n00b

these however are the subdivisions, used to make his composite ranking, hence it is still usefull. needless to say that tax would likely have been considered somewhere (my guees would be business law).

at the end of the day, i think it is more than reasonable to claim that chicago's real strength (ie. what put them in second place) is their strength in law and economics. take away that dominance and i think the difference between chicago and say nyu, becomes marginal at best.

edit: look at the scores for individual scholastic areas. chicago's dominance in law and economics is extreme (4.8), compared to the schools ranked second, yale/harvard (4.5). on leiter's scale, that is quite a difference.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019584)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:31 PM
Author: Sexpert

Actually, I don't think the specialty rankings are used to make his overall ranking. If I understand the methodology correctly, he surveyed directly for overall faculty quality, and independently for specialty quality. Therefore, there is no necessary relationship between the two, and it is not correct to say that the overall ranking is somehow "composed" of the specialty rankings.

And thus Tax really need not have been considered somewhere in the specialty rankings. Instead, Tax people were considered however the respondents wanted in the overall rankings, and potentially not at all for the specialty rankings if they did not fit into any of the speciality categories as the respondents interpreted them. The same is true, by the way, for Torts, Contracts, Property ... they have no clear place in Leiter's specialty rankings, and yet scholars in those areas could be considered for the overall rankings.

Anyway, of course I agree that L&E is Chicago's most notable area of strength. But I think your counterfactual is a bit problematic. What exactly would it mean to take away Chicago's strength in that area? Do you mean taking away all the professors who do L&E? Because those same professors also do lots of "Business Law" and various public law as well. So that really would destroy Chicago's faculty, but not just because they would no longer be teaching L&E.

In that sense, L&E is not exactly discrete in the same way that something like Criminal Law is discrete, because L&E crosses many other disciplines. And in general, what makes the overall faculty at Chicago strong is not a bunch of specialists in L&E, but rather a bunch of very good legal scholars, many of whom do L&E as one of many things that they do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019722)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:35 PM
Author: n00b

your response is worded in excessive verbage. let me get down to the point:

1)the difference between chicago and say columbia wrt faculty is imo chicago's almost monopolistic dominance in l&e. simply put

2)your current trolling is very un-sexpert'ish



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019757)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:45 PM
Author: Sexpert

Excessive verbiage isn't Sexpertish? Many people would disagree.

But I'll give you a simple example of my point. We were discussing Lisa Bernstein on another thread. Professor Bernstein is on the L&E faculty. She is also one of the top young scholars in Private Commercial Law.

So, I'm sure Professor Bernstein contributes to Chicago's reputation in L&E. But is that distinct from her contribution to Chicago's reputation in Business Law? Does it even make sense to treat those as discrete areas?

By the way, it is not true that Chicago has anything close to a monopoly in L&E. It is undoubtedly the strongest single faculty in this area, but there are many people at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale doing L&E stuff, plus a decent number at many other schools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019822)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:50 PM
Author: n00b

the trolling isnt sexpertish is what i meant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019865)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:59 PM
Author: Sexpert

I think people would disagree about that as well!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019926)





Date: May 24th, 2005 12:33 AM
Author: Sexpert

I think it is true that Chicago does really well in just about every category besides student numbers/selectivity. And I pretty much attribute that to location (slap us in Cali or NYC, and I think we would easily boost the numbers).

But for the most part, I think people know all this, and in that sense I think the exact details of something like USNWR do not matter too much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2846303)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:02 PM
Author: Antonio Scarpachi

In tersm of student numbers, Chicago is clearly comparable to Columbia, NYU, and Stanford.

I therefore can't imagine that Columbia and NYU are much more "selective" by any reasonable definition, especially since Chicago has a smaller class.

(How does Chiashu come out on this? I think it's easier to get into NYU with the right LSAT score.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848490)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:02 PM
Author: nurseratchet

could you be any more of a Chicago troll?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848493)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:12 PM
Author: _____________________

could you be any more of a troll?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848591)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:19 PM
Author: Antonio Scarpachi

I guess I could be if I actually went to Chicago.

Instead, I'm simply an objective observer noting objective facts. The fact that Chicago is ranked below schools that don't place as well indicates some severe weaknesses in the USNews methodology.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848660)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:13 PM
Author: Sexpert

I guess you have to define "reasonable". For example, I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference in practice between two groups of otherwise identical students with a median LSAT difference of one point (or two, three, or four points, for that matter). But insofar as we can measure these things with that level of distinction, we can make comparisons, and weight those comparisons at an arbitrarily high level.

My recollection is that you could get the highest or the lowest odds for any of CCN with the right combination of GPA and LSAT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849035)





Date: May 24th, 2005 5:57 PM
Author: lsatdude

"I therefore can't imagine that Columbia and NYU are much more "selective" by any reasonable definition, especially since Chicago has a smaller class."

You've got your logic backwards here. The fact that Chicago's class is half the size of Columbia's and NYU's should make it easier for them to be more selective (EDIT: think of Yale vs. Harvard). If C/N shrank their class sizes to the size of Chicago's, the gap in selectivity would be even greater... hell, if Penn or Virginia cut their classes to that size, they'd probably have higher medians than Chicago too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2850311)





Date: May 24th, 2005 6:37 PM
Author: UPENN HAS A LAW SCHOOL????

correct.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2850554)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:30 PM
Author: *.*.*

"I think it is true that Chicago does really well in just about every category besides student numbers/selectivity. And I pretty much attribute that to location (slap us in Cali or NYC, and I think we would easily boost the numbers)."

I've heard Sexpert say this over and over again, but quite frankly, I find it hard to believe. I think the desirability of location as a deciding factor is grossly overexaggerated. A lot of us who apply to the top law schools try to go to the best possible school we can --- and that is by far the most important consideration. Compared to everything else like reputation of the school or financial packages, location is a very minor thing (for example, I haven't heard very many good things about New Haven, but look at Yale's yield rate).

Plus it isn't like Chicago is some kind of awful place. True, it isn't NYC, but at the same time it isn't in the south or a place like kansas.

It is a plain fact that a (significant) majority of Columbia and Chicago cross-admits choose to attend to Columbia. And until I hear a convincing argument for why this is so, I think it is a feather in Columbia's cap.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848731)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:35 PM
Author: Gridlocker (0L T14 RA)

I don't know. I would have sent an app to Chicago if it were in NYC and they sent me a waiver. Mainly to extort a little extra aid from Columbia, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848760)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:25 PM
Author: Sexpert

I didn't apply to Stanford at all, and almost didn't apply to Chicago, because I wanted to be on the East Coast.

Again, all this is anecdotal, but it strikes me as more common for it to work this way (in favor of the Northeast or Cali) than the other way (in favor of the Midwest).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849147)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:06 PM


same here.

The only school west of the mississippi I'm applying to is Texas

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019543)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:23 PM
Author: Sexpert

I agree to the extent that most people will not choose to attend a notably lower-ranked school simply because of a geographic preference. Hence, Yale still being the most popular school, despite the less-than-stellar reputation of New Haven.

But I do think it becomes a factor among "peer schools". Part of the reason I believe that is pretty much anecdotal: I talked to a bunch of CCN cross-admits at Chicago's Admitted Students Weekend (I was one myself and still weighing my options), and a lot of the people leaning toward Columbia and NYU cited wanting to be in NYC as a major factor. It was a factor for me, in fact. And I've seen a lot of that on this board too (more people leaning toward Columbia or NYU because they want to be in NYC than people leaning toward Chicago because they want to be in Chicago--although the latter do exist).

The other reason I believe that is less anecdotal, but still quite casual: I've noticed that this general pattern seems to exist throughout the law school spectrum, with schools in desirable areas (like NYC or Cali) generally having better student numbers than their "peer schools" in less desirable locations.

Of course, all this is begging the question of what a "peer school" actually means in the first place. But insofar as Chicago and Columbia are peers, I do think the cross-admit effect is caused, at least in part, by Columbia having a more desirable location.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849129)





Date: May 24th, 2005 1:25 AM
Author: simplythebest

this is correct.

however, unfortunately, if you are continuously underrated then you eventually become the lower ranking. self fulfilling prophecy. thus, i fear that soon this won't be true.

chicago is the shit. went to CLS though. new fucking york. can't beat it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2846521)





Date: May 24th, 2005 2:03 PM
Author: Antonio Scarpachi

Chicago is only lower ranked in USNews -- not in any of the areas where it actually matters (firm, clerkship, and academic placement.)

NYC is great if you want to be urinated on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848501)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:49 PM
Author: loafer



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849327)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:04 PM
Author: trotwood

i had to make this choice a few months ago and would say that stanford appeared stronger than chicago, notwithstanding chicago's strengths in SCOTUS clerkship placement. it had nothing, however, to do with faculty (which were indistinguishable to me in quality), but instead to do with student quality and institutional resources.

i don't know why you find GPA a meaningless statistic (other than that it doesn't assist your argument). i understand that GPAs are variable, and are not equal across the institutions, but the undergraduate institutions represented at both chicago and stanford are remarkably similar. they are, predominantly, ivy league institutions, (lots of yales and harvards), prestigious public universities, and prestigious liberal arts colleges. that stanford is comprised of people who tend to graduate with a 3.85 from yale, while chicago is comprised of people who graduate with a 3.6 from yale is, i think, statistically meaningful. given that both schools have roughly equal lsats, the difference in gpa becomes even more significant. (besides, i think assuming that the lsat is any more or less meaningful a barometer than gpa is a mistake, and, in your assumption, gives too much credit to the test). in my experience, and in studying the data, the student body at stanford is superior.

location, i think, is far less relevant on a statistical level than anyone here claims it would be. the reason for chicago's low yield, in my opinion, is not its location, but rather its 1. lack of significant (to say full-ride) scholarships and/or 2. its insufficient loan repayment program relative to HYS and NYU. if chicago had the loan repayment program of Stanford, I *may* have enrolled there, given its other strengths. they don't, however, and despite the $60,000-ish scholarship they provided me, i knew my attending chicago would result in at least a few years of corporate work.

it's no surprise that some of the best, and most qualified law students are idealists. they enter law school with altruistic intentions. to attract the best students in the country to a law school, the school must play to those intentions. stanford does, chicago doesn't. i think this leaves chicago less desirable for students and less of a law school than it could be.

the SCOTUS placement may be a result of many things not having to do with quality. nevertheless, there is no doubt that chicago is better than any law school, save yale at placing its students into the SCOTUS. i wonder, however, how stanford and chicago compare for CoA clerkships.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2848966)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:32 PM
Author: Sexpert

Personally, just like with my skepticism about small LSAT differences, I doubt anyone could tell in practice the difference between two groups of otherwise identical students distinguished by a few tenths of median GPA. That is not to say LSAT is any better--I just don't think these differences are going to have a notable effect on the experience.

By the way, did you get a scholarship from Stanford? Because it would be very unusual to get $60K out of a LRAP program, even the most generous ones.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849217)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:42 PM
Author: nutella

i dont think there's a tangible difference based on gpa/lsat either chicago or stanford can fill its class with 3.9/175s if they really wanted, but they wouldn't necessarily end up w/ a superior student body that way.

the point is that most people admitted at stanford are deciding btwn hys and those at chicago are not. that stnaford admits are choosing among hys and chicago admits are choosing among ccn can't be explained strictly by better numbers alone, so i do think there's some weird soft factors things going on that does contribute to some differences in the stduent body.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849291)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:44 PM
Author: nurseratchet

if I recall, you were choosing between CCN and got into S by the skin of your teeth, no?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849302)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:55 PM
Author: nutella

i am a ttt wl admit.

the only schools i was consdiering before stanford was nyu and hls and i was going to nyu.

cls didn't want me and chicago threw a crapload of money but i didnt' want them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849361)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:46 PM
Author: Sexpert

I actually think they have to choose between 3.9s and 175s ... the actual number of 175s is small enough that there just aren't enough 3.9/175s to go around.

But I agree with your basic point--the schools are not entirely numbers-maximizing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849316)





Date: May 24th, 2005 4:05 PM
Author: Quasar (submarinecaptain@gmail.com)

"...Chicago or stanford can fill its class with 3.9/175s if they really wanted"

I really doubt the truth of this statement. There are around 500 people who score 175+ on the LSAT, and it's exceedingly unlikely that once Harvard and Yale take their share, S and Chi could fill their entire classes with the remnants, especially with a 3.9 GPA filter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849446)





Date: May 24th, 2005 4:12 PM
Author: trotwood

and of those 175s, it's unlikely that many of them have 3.9s. although i'd resist the temptation to apply YH admissions lexicographically with respect to S. well...Y, especially this year, may come close to a full shut-out but H and S still battle for some students each year (20% of cross admits).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849503)





Date: May 24th, 2005 3:50 PM
Author: trotwood

i disagree about the GPA criterion, only because at my undergrad, which is very similar to many of the undergrads represented at both chicago and stanford, there was a noticable difference between the people graduating summa cum laude and those not. it may not be a difference in actual aptitude (but how are we to ever measure the aptitude of those who underperform?) but it was, for me, an indicator of routinely high-quality work. i think the difference of 1-3 points on the lsat is less meaningful than "a few tenths" on a GPA scale (which will often mean the difference between latin honors or not). just my druthers, i guess...

i did get money from stanford, but the lrap program provides loan forgiveness for any employment under 40K, and on a graduated scale up to 80K. stanford's superiority in the resources arena wasn't an issue of absolute amount saved in law school, but rather the freedom to take a very low paying job after i graduated if i wanted to. i read over chicago's hormel program, and perhaps i misread it, but it still seemed like i would have substantial loans to pay, even if i entered the program...is that incorrect?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849331)





Date: May 24th, 2005 4:15 PM
Author: Sexpert

I guess my experience in college was different--lots of the smartest people I knew did not graduate with top grades. That happened for a lot of reasons--tough majors, excessive partying, not caring about non-major classes, and so on. Of course, some of that could translate into affecting their law school grades, but I don't think it would affect my experience as a fellow student.

Incidentally, I know no details of the Stanford program, so I can't compare. It is certainly entirely possible if you are looking at taking a job that will pay less than $40K that you could get more out of that program than Chicago's. But without belaboring the point, and again in the absence of any information about Stanford's program, most people end up getting far less than the theoretical maximum from the LRAP, through a combination of things like making a decent amount of money in PI/gov, to getting married, to having better options (like loan consolidation and prepayment), and so on.

So, I generally think people need to be careful about counting on LRAP's to make up for straight cash.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849533)





Date: May 24th, 2005 4:25 PM
Author: trotwood

i think the lrap/scholarship comparison is a useful one, that is less talked-about on this board. this is how i understand it:

the lrap program covers all loan repayments for graduates who earn salaries under $40,000/year. this means that the payments one would typically make that year would be covered by the school. above 40K, the amount of money one is expected to pay back is adjusted to the salary, and will never leave the graduate with less earnings that 40K.

the hormel program qualified me for 25K in forgiveness, but i would still have to pay back the remaining loans on the same schedule. so if i made 40K or 50K, the loan repayment would be just as significant as if i made 125K.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2849633)





Date: May 24th, 2005 6:21 PM
Author: Sexpert

I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure I follow your reasoning. To begin with, if you have $60K less in debt because of the scholarship, that lowers your loan payments. The $5K/year through the Hormel is then used to offset your remaining loan payments, further reducing the amount you actually pay.

Of course, you are right that you might still end up paying more initially than you would with Stanford's plan. But there are a couple more things to consider. One nice thing about the Hormel is that it doesn't consider spousal income. I don't know if that is true of Stanford, but if not it could make a big difference. Another nice thing about the Hormel is that it doesn't matter how you structure your debt. For example, you can consolidate and stretch out your loan payments, even using a graduated plan to really reduce your early payments, and then prepay with the Hormel. In most traditional LRAPs, however, your benefit is tied to your actual scheduled payments, which means if you stretch them out or otherwise reduce them, you actually reduce your award, and you don't get to offset prepayment.

In other words, to maximize your benefits under a traditional LRAP, you often have to give up other ways of reducing your payments, either in the short or long term, or both. And you may have to worry about the consequences of marriage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2850475)





Date: May 24th, 2005 6:02 PM
Author: [officially retired from this disgusting hellhole]

I think this is the appropriate time to bring out the famous Renada Deshada post, unfortunately I don't have it

:(

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2850356)





Date: May 24th, 2005 6:12 PM
Author: loafer

On choosing Chicago over Harvard, courtesy of Renada Deshada:

How did it happen that making the tired claim that this ghetto shithole is UNDERrated became the signature conversation piece for people who desperately want to be thought smart; really, really smart. smart people love "rigor" and Chicago is full of it; it must be, what with its hair-splitting number grades, punishingly low enforced mean, and oppressive course load. Chicago boosterism usually comes in the form of a comparison with the appallingly UNrigorous Stanford or Yale -- gradeless, abundantly pass-fail, unserious; students who do nothing and know nothing. Chicago: graded, competitive, serious... That it's really just a ruptured ego rehab clinic for Harvard rejects is a fact not emphasized. I have seen a homely Chicago girl, deep into her second year, still spontaneously weeping upon Proustian recollections of the stiff NO Harvard sent her, in brisk three-week turnaround time from the point her doomed application was deemed complete. Happy December, chickiepoo. Then the Yale axe fell, as it does. Welcome to the New Year, dipshit. January passed; February crawled by with those joyless acceptances that only accentuated the horror of Plan B: Georgetown, which is a "Law Center," a failed euphemism if ever there was one. Next: woeful Cornell. Oh, what a very bad school. And -- what do we have here?!? -- a Boston University full-ride. Ummmm, no. On second thought in stead of BU I'd prefer the f free roasted dogshit mignon with a pus reduction sauce and a heaping blob of earwax garnish. Thank you no. I am woe. Add to that the fact that the imbecile whoalways posts about how Sean Hannity is a "serious thinker" just got into Harvard. Time for you to start some damage-control posting here, on the PR board, pretending to seriously consider this BU affront. You wave the flag of thrift and test out a quaintly anachronistic abhorrence of debt. Substantively, you add in some tommyrot about how BU's "really strong in ...'international law,' whatever the fuck that is. BU? Yeah, right. But you need something that gives the illusion that Georgetown, if it comes to that, isn't the three years incarcerated in a smegma chamber that it is. So good, so fine you'll drop the cash dollars despite that lovely gift from BU. You're forming a cover story; something to puff the very real and very nauseating prospect of joining 600 other defeated mediocrities at ... fuck, no ... Georgetown. And you thought going to college at Penn was bad. . Still, there are two more to hear from. Two more law schools ...There's that late April Stanford rejection (inconsiderate bastards) which at least affords you ample time to manufacture the next layer in the cover story: e.g., a strict policy against California, a suburban aversion, a preference for bigness, all of which eliminate Stanford from the sweepstakes. Be sure, too, to ridicule their tepid 25-75 LSAT %ile, too. Kill it dead, if you must. Maybe you thrust out of your frozen horror by sending off one of those strategic "withdrawal" letters, the way all those clowns do when Harvard puts them on hold ... ".you cant't fire me ... i quit! " Adios, Stanford. Suck my cunt, you no-SCOTUS-clerking/dike-dean-TTT. ... die, die, you gravy-sucking pig. .... and now, then, there is just one. Chicago. The Law School. Chicago does do that pathetic yield-maximizing stall, so February passes, March crawls. They haven't the nuts to try the ricockulous move Stanford does. So they write. Ever rigorous, The Law School requests the pleasure of your company. Not so fast . No decision has been made. They want to inspect you in person. The "evaluative interview. Looking for people skills. And evident thirst for knowledge. The life of the law is the law itself. It seems you've fucked up; quite possible3 when the went "behind the numbers." Maybe those two essay paragraphs about why the 171, exactly where you topped out in Kaplan, is a truer measure than the 164. maybe it was two paragraphs too many. You weren't an auto-admit. So off to the "evaluative interview," and you give them not much to evaluate. You stay on message, though: owing to its RIGOR, Chicage is now, and ever was, your FIRST CHOICE. Tell your audience what it wants to hear. Then they decide, engaging the only evaluation that matters in this gig. Looks like they can break even with your sorry ass. Median-wise, your 171 nullifies the 159 URM from Howard they took yesterday. They'll swallow your 3.46; sometimes that's the price of a yield-lock, and you're that. (No one's swallowing the Howard guy, if you catch my racy double entendre.) These admissions guys talk, as you suspected, and you wisely decide against telling them it had come down to Chicago or Harvard for you; first versus second choice; no choice at all. Never get caught lying. Bad idea, even worse than telling that stupid girl from Emory you were "a Kennedy." These things get found out. Like they say, no sense lying about your cock size. Turns out you didn't need to fake a bidding war. The usual stampede of all Chicago's best admitees are going to Y and H and S without so much as the courtesy of telling C to go pound sand. Why tell them what they already know? They need to fill place #143 of their famously teeny-weenie class. The assumed occupant got unheld at Harvard this morning; never so relieved, he had the audacity to ask Chicago for his deposit back. They don't need these headaches. You're in. They write, very pleased to offer admission; then a recital of just how "keen" the competition was for the few precious "seats" in the class of 2006; and, finally, a paragraph celebrating the legal profession with a toploftiness and richly felt purpose so precisely at variance with reality that you are unsettled by the suspicion that you might be the target of a satire so subtly corrosive that you will never connect it with the despair that will progress, exponentially; beginning as a persistent annoyance progressing into a pervasive physical and mental crapulence and ending in the crippling burden as lumber and writhe and tumble toward the epiphany. What epiphany is that? That this "career" of yours --BIGLAW! -- has somewhat less to recommend it than residence in the "shoe" at Pelican Bay. For now, though, the seed of tragic hopelessness finds expression in the "Law Discussion Area." You post -- IN AT CHICAGO -- and, without overtly lying, you manufacture the entirely erroneous impression that you "chose" Chicago, being also the originator of the CHICAGO v. HARVARD and YALE v. CHICAGO threads, under various of your insipid monikers, all selected from either Pulp Fiction or Friends. Be careful not to ass fuck your credibility, though. The purported Yale turn-down is a tough one to pull off. The "New Haven's-an-armpit" trope just doesn't pass the ha-ha test. It's too puny a reason to toss away a lifetime of being supposed a genius ... fuck it: always good to give your fabrications a little populist tint, not to mention a dollop of truth. Join the commiseration thread of Yale rejects; pretend to be sad for that Nuisance turd; be one of the masses for once. Getting rejected isn't the same thing as not getting in, You merely did not get in. You claim to have been wait-listed; and, with admirable maturity, you hold out no hope. Remember, too, this lie must be built on several fronts. Lard up the Harvard thread with grave concern about big classes, low morale, faculty acrimony, and speculation about a precipitous US News ranking drop. Throughout April, you go political, fulminating about Tribe and Dershowitz and how Duncan Kennedy drives a far-too-expensive car. to be a genuine socialist. Chicago's "conservative climate" is just a better fit for you; marginal cost curves figure in your every analytical moment; you read Posner opinions on the crapper; Coase is as important as Socrates. There is that little stinging glitch, though. Somehow Stanford neglected to process that request to quash your application, which is not favorably acted upon and this is memoriaized in a letter that suggests the Stanford Admissions Office ignores their LaserWriter Pro's TONER LOW warning. On May 7th they regret to inform and wish you well at any of the scores of other law schools that, they assure you "offer excellent programs of legal instruction." (Which, you have no doubt, they do. What they don't offer, is really the only important thing Stanford does offer: the opportunity to sit for three years with your thumb up your ass, comatose, and still get the job you'll have to bust nuts to get coming from whichever craphole you end up at.) It's sealed. An ugly, styleless maroon CHICAGO LAW, Champion sweatshirt has arrived, per your online order. You wear it, eliciting congratulations from the babe you want to rail. She's so happy for you, and you're so wrapped up in the fantasy of creaming on her tits you nearly miss perky aside that her boyfriend remains in the throes of elation from his admission to Yale, back in January. Throughout the summer, you bookmark links that embody the wisdom US News lacks. Your are heading off, soon, to your own first choice, which also places first in a ranking produced by the rigorous methodology conceived by a statistician from the University of Maryland Baltimore County. That Harvard tied for #14 undermines your confidence in the ranking diminishes the likelihood it will supplant US News' preeminence. So you go. Your Hyde Park apartment is actually rather nice. Your housemate went to Harvard College. One night, instead of jacking off before sleep, you register as an active component of your self-conception the notion that, transitively, your housemate's undergraduate credential nullifies the Harvard rejection that left you lusterless and unlaid at your senior prom, -- and has persisted as a gnawing ache, going on five years. You are now on equal footing with a Harvard graduate. Should your law school prowess exceed his -- say a 75 in Torts to his 74 -- you will once and for all flick away the scab of that Harvard wound. First cut is the deepest. As it turns out, your housemate is an engaging, witty fellow. He's porking the big bosomed lady with the Dutch accent. Wow! He offers to you, his new chum, the story of his own execution -- by lethal injection -- as expected, he painlessly relates, by the HLS admission staff. You pretend to explore what might have caused things to go awry, flatulating the usual fatuousness about Harvard being excessively "numbers driven," the "arbitrariness" of it all, dangling the threat of going on at some length, when he offers up the only information you genuinely care to know about him: : 178/3.34 ..Of course some one will inevitably have the 6th percentile college GPA in every HLS class; probably not a white guy from Greenwich, though. Friendship is built through reciprocity. So you tell your own story. You attempt to weave compassion into the telling of your story, being careful not to appear boastful about not just possessing, but discarding something he does not possess. HLS. Dreamy, So, your story: the grueling back-and-forth ... one day it's Chicago, the next Harvard; the hardest decision you've ever made; that feeling of immense responsibility to yourself; discovering and summoning the emotional maturity to pierce the specious veil that is prestige. With the bearing of a battle weary soldier you tell what it is to do something rarely done -- circumnavigate the Earth, dunk a basketball on a regulation hoop, turn down Harvard Law School . You picked Chicago. You chose, you adorable little existentialist. You are not exposed, chiefly because this a shared lie, Community glue. (Postscript: Throughout the 1Lyear you and your housemate discover much commonality, He, too, prefers the Stones to the Beatles. You both smoke pot. neither is circumcised. You've each fucked 5 girls; gotten head from several others. Each of you applies to transfer. He gets into HLS. He turns down Harvard Law School. Of course no two people are exactly alike. Your desire to transfer wanes around the time Stanford and Yale's decisions on your transfer applications reach you by mail. You begin the CHIGAGO 1L TAKING QUESTIONS thread. One of your alter ego monikers asks simply: how do you like Chicago. You love it. You wouldn't go anywhere else and, you note, there were other places you could have gone. Same for your housemate. He transfers to Yale.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#2850428)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:36 PM
Author: n00b

wtf? you expect people to read this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019762)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 12:44 AM
Author: Recreational Racist (http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8308/ceilingcatda9.jpg)

Yes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7282795)





Date: June 15th, 2005 10:07 AM
Author: simplythebest

CORRECT

haven't read anything but the line up in the title is simply correct.

if chicago were in nyc i'd be there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3018814)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:21 PM
Author: Tard

People need to stop posting that stupid Chicago over Harvard thing. OK, it was funny the first time. But I mean, come on. Do you people have this saved away on your desktops so that you can whip it out once a week whenever anyone talks about Chicago?

Also, one note: NYU and CLS are much better for international law than Chicago.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019640)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:34 PM
Author: Sexpert

That is true.

However, international law doesn't exist.

Just kidding. Sorta.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019744)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:45 PM
Author: n00b

it exists to the same extent l&e does.

btw you are flirting dangerously with some joe_vaj trolling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019824)





Date: June 15th, 2005 1:04 PM
Author: Sexpert

Actually, I think Comparative Law and L&E are very similar in that respect. Comparative Law obviously cuts across disciplines as well (eg, you can do comparisons of Con Law, Criminal Law, Commercial Law, and so on). Personally, I think Comparative Law is very useful, and I expect it to have increasing importance over time.

International Law is a little different, at least as I understand the definition of the discipline, in that it purports to be about the laws that govern international matters. That is what I was joking about, insofar as it is not clear that there are such laws. But it is just a joke in the sense that I still think treaties and such are worthy of study.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019964)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 12:51 AM
Author: Reade_Seligmann

speaking of which, I chose NU over chicago.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7282814)





Date: June 15th, 2005 1:41 PM
Author: _____________________

I hear NYU keeps making offers to Sykes. I didn't even know he was sought after.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3020240)





Date: June 16th, 2005 4:16 AM
Author: loafer

"Do you people have this saved away on your desktops so that you can whip it out once a week whenever anyone talks about Chicago?"

yes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3028217)





Date: June 15th, 2005 12:30 PM
Author: n00b

let's settle this once and for all. my cock is bigger than yours and you are a ttt.

hth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3019714)





Date: June 15th, 2005 1:11 PM
Author: rickblaine

Nothing that you say changes the fact that Chicago is filled with Harvard rejects!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3020018)





Date: June 15th, 2005 2:10 PM
Author: Howie Mandel

Don't forget the CLS rejects as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3020609)





Date: June 15th, 2005 8:45 PM
Author: marrymejane

Okay...interesting story here. My BF at time (now hubby) applied to LS together with me. Went to same undergrad, both worked two years and had identical GPA's (his a little higher like 3.8 and 3.78 ) and LSAT's (174 and 173) (mine's one point higher, I think) scores. I got into CLS, SLS and dinged at NYU and Harvard and he got into Chicago and Harvard. I went to SLS and he went to Chicago...both clerking (same court but though for diff. judges). You people don't understand...it's a crapshoot. It is crazy to assume you got into NYU and not SLS or Chi and not CLS because it's all so close and believe it or not applicants are pretty interchangable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3024396)





Date: June 16th, 2005 4:26 AM
Author: loafer

There is a factor of randomness in the process, true. But that doesn't mean that generalizations aren't largely accurate. To be frank, I have no idea whether Chicago is in fact full of HLS rejects. But the fact that you and your boyfriend had anomalous admissions -- or even, as you intend that anecdote to demonstrate, that law school admissions in general can have a nontrivial random element -- does not preclude this sort of conclusion. Your argument is akin to the classic argument that there is absolutely no difference between students who score a point apart on the LSAT, since LSAC claims that the test has a margin of error of three points in either direction. That's nonsense; thanks to the law of large numbers, the randomness largely disappears when you deal with sufficiently large population.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3028244)





Date: June 16th, 2005 10:15 AM
Author: Sexpert

Although I would still suggest that there will be no detectable difference between the students in two law school classes, with the only difference being a 1 (or 2 or 3) point difference in the students' median LSAT. That is because while it is likely that in sufficiently large samples even a small median difference would hold up over repeated testing, that still doesn't mean the actual performance of those students in the classroom would reflect that difference to an otherwise detectable degree.

In other words, I think small differences in matriculant numbers will have no detectable effect on the experience of attending the respective schools. And I don't think the argument that employers should care about these population statistics makes much sense either (they could always just ask the individual applicants for their LSAT scores, rather than rely on induction), and there are other ways of just testing directly for the behavior of employers over the respective schools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3028837)





Date: June 16th, 2005 3:08 PM
Author: loafer

I disagree, but my disagreement is founded on the unprovable theory that one's intelligence (like many traits) grows in proportion to the intelligence of one's environment. Thus a small difference in the environment can grow multiplicatively over the course of three years. If you accept this assumption, you might still argue that chicago's rigor (if it does in fact differ from peer schools) would more than compensate for its very slightly inferior student body, but as with my argument, it's assumptions all the way down. We'll agree to disagree on this one, I think.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3030887)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 12:52 AM
Author: Reade_Seligmann

god, you sound boring

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7282817)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 4:37 PM
Author: bobbert

and that was an interesting story!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284643)





Date: June 16th, 2005 4:47 AM
Author: Renada Deshada

i tend to agree with the premises of the OP: Ch>S>Co; and so do people i know who hire about 200 summer associates among them. they are seemingly uninfluenced by us news, and are surprisingly unfamiliar with the "ciolli national placement study."



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3028284)





Date: June 16th, 2005 10:18 AM
Author: Sexpert

Yeah, the placement study is supposed to help prospective students understand the behavior of employers. There is absolutely no reason for employers themselves to care about that study, since it does not purport to evaluate the intrinsic attributes of the schools or their graduates.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3028848)





Date: June 16th, 2005 10:54 AM
Author: Renada Deshada

not too long ago, even among those who saw HYS as unreachably separate, there was virtual consensus that the next slot belonged to chicago, only, and by a far more vast margin than any gap between chicago and those above it (and possibly only above it because of the arbitrary convention wherby elite outliers are designated as a "big three.") has there been any actual decline at chicago? and/or some massive, relative ascendency by, e.g., columbia? i know one hiring partner who regards chicago exactly as yale is regarded here; and it's not as if he's saying duke. a lot of people agree with him. have things actually changed? or is this pure gamesmanship by the rankings-obsessed?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3028989)





Date: June 16th, 2005 11:08 AM
Author: Sexpert

I think the story goes something like this:

From 1992 through 1998, Chicago was #4 in the USNWR rankings, which, as you note, more or less went along with how employers perceived Chicago. For the 1999 rankings, USNWR changed (and hid much of) its methdology, and since then Chicago has been #6. Did anything substantive change in 1999, or since? Not as far as I can tell. Moreover, as far as I can tell the change in USNWR rankings had no immediate effect on Chicago's actual reputation among employers, who continued to perceive Chicago as something like a close #4 (at worst).

Nonetheless, from 1999 until maybe a couple years ago, some prospective and current students were arguing that eventually some convergence would occur between Chicago's actual reputation among employers and its USNWR ranking. But over time, this convergence has not been occuring, and we have actually accumulated additional evidence and analysis indicating that Chicago does in fact remain in higher regard among employers (eg, the various law firm placement studies, studies of SCt clerkship hiring, and studies of academic hiring).

So, I get the sense that the notion that Chicago's reputation among employers was going to converge on its post-1998 USNWR ranking has been fading away, to the point where most people now think that the current situation is pretty stable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3029092)





Date: June 16th, 2005 3:43 PM
Author: n00b

"and since then Chicago has been #6. Did anything substantive change in 1999, or since?"

yes. chicago has seen a decline in its academic rep. in years gone by chicago had rep scores greater than or equal to columbia. now, for the first time chicago's academic rep score is below columbia's (which incidentally carries greater weight than the l/j score), while the l/j rep score (that carries less weight) is still just .1 above columbia. so it is not clear that if usnews went back to its old methodology that chicago would jump back to a number 4 ranking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3031346)





Date: June 16th, 2005 4:16 PM
Author: *.*.*

Agreed. Chicago's reputation scores this year declined significantly from last year's. Trends take time to manifest, and I think Chicago's luck is starting to run out.

It is also worth mentioning that in US News, the difference in overall score between Columbia and Chicago is greater than the difference between Chicago and any other top 14 school. The gap between Columbia and Chicago is the same as the gap between Chicago and Georgetown.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3031800)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 12:53 AM
Author: Reade_Seligmann

chicago's competition in coming more from penn and uva than from nyu and cls these days.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7282821)





Date: June 16th, 2005 3:16 PM
Author: loafer

This does not directly answer your question, but the factor that most accounts for Chicago's underperformance in the ranking is its overhead per student. If Tom W. Bell is to be believed (and I think that he is), the z-scores for YHSCN per capita overhead are respectively 5.22, 3.47, 3.62, 3.11, and 2.68. Chicago clocks in at 0.70. This category is worth 9.75% of the rankings pie.

Of course you can draw your own conclusions about whether per-student spending is a valid metric for assessing school merit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#3030984)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 12:49 AM
Author: MindTheGap76 (is semi-retired)

I miss Sexpert.

::single tear::

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7282807)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 1:00 AM
Author: [officially retired from this disgusting hellhole]

"What they don't offer, is really the only important thing Stanford does offer: the opportunity to sit for three years with your thumb up your ass, comatose, and still get the job you'll have to bust nuts to get coming from whichever craphole you end up at."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7282852)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 1:05 AM
Author: loafer

what this (absolutely true) bit of stanford praise neglects, of course, is that you WON'T be sitting for three years with your thumb up your ass, comatose, no matter how much it seems like a good idea to your pre-lawschool mind, and indeed no matter how much it IS a good idea, because the law school mentality will inevitably take hold and you will value grades and firms and clerkships and you will want to keep your options open and impress your classmates and get words of praise from your professors and your friends and family will dopily nod their heads and agree that workin' hard is a good thing no matter how patiently you explain the actual costs and benefits, and without exception you will fall into line

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7282874)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 1:28 AM
Author: Frigaliment

If only you knew how much I studied (actually, how much I didn't study) for finals....

Edit: Of course, this isn't to say I wasn't working my ass off, it was just I was doing it by working for things I actually care about (pro bono) rather than studying stuff I will never need to know to that level of detail in the future.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7282950)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 1:05 PM
Author: Columbia JD (Soon to be ranked #3 (HYCol))

*ahem* I beg to differ.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284107)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 4:03 PM
Author: loafer

this mostly evinces that law school has redefined what it means to you to sit comatose with your thumb up your ass, i'd guess

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284562)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:20 PM
Author: Columbia JD (Soon to be ranked #3 (HYCol))

I am not sitting through law school comatose, but I certainly don't feel the need to impress anyone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284864)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 4:08 PM
Author: Albert Bundy

The only thing the OP has right here is that Chicago is the best CCN school.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284573)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:25 PM
Author: Columbia JD (Soon to be ranked #3 (HYCol))

MMmmmm maybe second best.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284891)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:26 PM
Author: Albert Bundy

I would never attend either TTT. I was just stating a simple fact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284895)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:27 PM
Author: Columbia JD (Soon to be ranked #3 (HYCol))

Fact eh?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284899)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:29 PM
Author: Albert Bundy

The most prestigious job you can get coming out of law school is a SCOTUS clerkship. Chicago >>> Columbia in this area. Now stop talking, your Columbia JD is stinking up the board.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284905)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:30 PM
Author: Columbia JD (Soon to be ranked #3 (HYCol))

I guess you showed me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284913)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:30 PM
Author: ;,.,;.,;.,;.

Obviously: Stanford > CLS > Chicago > NYU.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284912)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:47 PM
Author: *stomps a puppy*

Oh look, you're being a faggot on this thread too. What a fucking suprise.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284993)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:49 PM
Author: [officially retired from this disgusting hellhole]

TITCR

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7284999)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:58 PM
Author: Columbia JD (Soon to be ranked #3 (HYCol))

That's about right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7285048)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 5:58 PM
Author: schalabba

Except for aren't CLS students smarter than Stanford students, as measured by LSAT?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7285050)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 7:14 PM
Author: loafer

sure but aren't SLS students smarter than CLS students, as measured by UGPA?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7285322)





Date: December 23rd, 2006 7:20 PM
Author: schalabba

Yeah, but I think most people respect raw intelligence more than work ethic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7285339)





Date: December 24th, 2006 1:33 AM
Author: Frigaliment

since when does the lsat measure raw intelligence? you might have an argument here if lsat scores somehow controlled for amount of time spent studying for it... without it, you are only left with broad generalizations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7286902)





Date: December 24th, 2006 2:02 AM
Author: Yrtd
Subject: Correction

Stanford > Harvard > CLS, Chicago >> NYU.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7286958)





Date: December 24th, 2006 2:07 AM
Author: Subotai, thief and archer

S > H > Col > who cares?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7286968)





Date: December 24th, 2006 2:14 AM
Author: Yrtd

Also acceptable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7286985)





Date: December 24th, 2006 2:29 AM
Author: homeless

I assume that any school below NYU is simply not worth discussing?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=186820&forum_id=2#7287034)