.

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

Which school should I attend?

HLS
17
22%
Chicago
55
72%
UVA
3
4%
Michigan
1
1%
 
Total votes: 76

User avatar
Zelda
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:06 am

.

Postby Zelda » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:46 pm

.
Last edited by Zelda on Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby bk1 » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:51 pm

Why do people make these threads without providing a frame of reference?

What do you want to do? Where do you want to work? How risk averse are you? Will you have to take out loans for HLS? (Also note that without knowing need-based aid info from HLS everyone's responses will hinge based on the kind of $ you get.)

User avatar
NoleinNY
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby NoleinNY » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:58 pm

Zelda wrote:I apologize in advance if there is a thread like this already, but when I searched I couldn't find one.

I will be visiting both schools, but as of right now I am really torn. I won't have any financial information from HLS until mid March. I have to make a decision by April 2nd.

I also plan on visiting UVA and Michigan.

Overall, would really appreciate your opinions!

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Zelda


Based on nothing particular to you whatsoever and totally on myself, take the 180k at Chicago and don't turn back UNLESS you what to be a SCOTUS clerk or an academic.

This is all useless unless you give us more info, as bk said.

pupperoni
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:48 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby pupperoni » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:02 pm

ask again when HLS gives you aid info. even if OP wanted clerkship/academia, i think it is unwise to turn down full scholly at uchi unless harvard came out with a generous scholly.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:07 pm

NoleinNY wrote:
Zelda wrote:I apologize in advance if there is a thread like this already, but when I searched I couldn't find one.

I will be visiting both schools, but as of right now I am really torn. I won't have any financial information from HLS until mid March. I have to make a decision by April 2nd.

I also plan on visiting UVA and Michigan.

Overall, would really appreciate your opinions!

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Zelda


Based on nothing particular to you whatsoever and totally on myself, take the 180k at Chicago and don't turn back UNLESS you what to be a SCOTUS clerk or an academic.


Even if that's what he wanted to do, not sure that anybody should be making a $180,000 decision based upon a 0.9 percent chance at a SCOTUS clerkship / academia versus a 0.7 percent chance at a SCOTUS clerkship / academia.

User avatar
NoleinNY
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby NoleinNY » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:44 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
NoleinNY wrote:
Zelda wrote:I apologize in advance if there is a thread like this already, but when I searched I couldn't find one.

I will be visiting both schools, but as of right now I am really torn. I won't have any financial information from HLS until mid March. I have to make a decision by April 2nd.

I also plan on visiting UVA and Michigan.

Overall, would really appreciate your opinions!

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Zelda


Based on nothing particular to you whatsoever and totally on myself, take the 180k at Chicago and don't turn back UNLESS you what to be a SCOTUS clerk or an academic.


Even if that's what he wanted to do, not sure that anybody should be making a $180,000 decision based upon a 0.9 percent chance at a SCOTUS clerkship / academia versus a 0.7 percent chance at a SCOTUS clerkship / academia.


Which is why all I essentially said was the intent to gun for those rare spots in SCOTUS and academia would be the only things to make me question (not turn down, but just reconsider) such an otherwise slam dunk scholly.

Regardless... OP, you're a lucky/fortunate bastard. Congrats on your acceptances.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby sunynp » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:23 pm

I don't know why this is even a question. Do you want to graduate school with debt or do you want to be debt free. This question in various permutations comes up frequently - I admit I am amazed that people would turn down a prestigious named full scholarship at Chicago or Columbia. The fact that people even question what to do make me wonder how they possibly qualified for these scholarships in the first place. Do people really not understand the benefit of these scholarships? The Rubenstein, like the Hamilton, is a very known scholarship that you can boast about on your resume.

But maybe I am so debt adverse I just can't do the calculation that would justify spending any significant money at all when you don't need to (at a T6).

The point isn't that you may be making a biglaw salary some day so you can pay back the loans. The point is why would you do that to your future self? Think how much better your life will be when you can save the 1000 a month and your bonuses instead of spending it on loans. Having a biglaw salary without loans makes your life so much easier from day one. And, if you don't want biglaw, you don't have to take it simply to repay loans.

Further, should the bottom fall out of the economy again, you won't have to freak out about jobs just so you don't default on loans. Law firms seem to be improving, but I don't think stability over the next 5 -10 years is a sure thing.

User avatar
gaud
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby gaud » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:25 pm

If I were in your shoes I would take the money and never look back

User avatar
Flash
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Flash » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:25 pm

sunynp wrote:I don't know why this is even a question. Do you want to graduate school with debt or do you want to be debt free. This question in various permutations comes up frequently - I admit I am amazed that people would turn down a prestigious named full scholarship at Chicago or Columbia. The fact that people even question what to do make me wonder how they possibly qualified for these scholarships in the first place. Do people really not understand the benefit of these scholarships? The Rubenstein, like the Hamilton, is a very known scholarship that you can boast about on your resume.

But maybe I am so debt adverse I just can't do the calculation that would justify spending any significant money at all when you don't need to (at a T6).

The point isn't that you may be making a biglaw salary some day so you can pay back the loans. The point is why would you do that to your future self? Think how much better your life will be when you can save the 1000 a month and your bonuses instead of spending it on loans. Having a biglaw salary without loans makes your life so much easier from day one. And, if you don't want biglaw, you don't have to take it simply to repay loans.

Further, should the bottom fall out of the economy again, you won't have to freak out about jobs just so you don't default on loans. Law firms seem to be improving, but I don't think stability over the next 5 -10 years is a sure thing.

The difference is at CC you have a not insignificant chance of striking out and ending up with a shitty job. At Harvard you basically will only strike out if you have a horrible personality, and even then you'll likely get a job.

Also, the lower stress that comes with not having real grades at H should be worth something.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby sunynp » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:37 pm

Flash wrote:
sunynp wrote:I don't know why this is even a question. Do you want to graduate school with debt or do you want to be debt free. This question in various permutations comes up frequently - I admit I am amazed that people would turn down a prestigious named full scholarship at Chicago or Columbia. The fact that people even question what to do make me wonder how they possibly qualified for these scholarships in the first place. Do people really not understand the benefit of these scholarships? The Rubenstein, like the Hamilton, is a very known scholarship that you can boast about on your resume.

But maybe I am so debt adverse I just can't do the calculation that would justify spending any significant money at all when you don't need to (at a T6).

The point isn't that you may be making a biglaw salary some day so you can pay back the loans. The point is why would you do that to your future self? Think how much better your life will be when you can save the 1000 a month and your bonuses instead of spending it on loans. Having a biglaw salary without loans makes your life so much easier from day one. And, if you don't want biglaw, you don't have to take it simply to repay loans.

Further, should the bottom fall out of the economy again, you won't have to freak out about jobs just so you don't default on loans. Law firms seem to be improving, but I don't think stability over the next 5 -10 years is a sure thing.

The difference is at CC you have a not insignificant chance of striking out and ending up with a shitty job. At Harvard you basically will only strike out if you have a horrible personality, and even then you'll likely get a job.

Also, the lower stress that comes with not having real grades at H should be worth something.


If you don't owe any money, you don't even have to practice law if you decide you hate it. The pressure on jobs is, in large part, to pay back money. Without that pressure you can take a job you want - I don't believe many people would take biglaw as a lifestyle if they didn't owe loans. Some would, but not everyone.

Look at it this way - the Rubenstein money is equivalent to real cash money, not hypothetical money based on what job you might get or what stress you might feel in school. I know I said this in another thread, but a prudent financial advisor would never recommend a person turn down such a scholarship - even if the person had a trust fund to cover Harvard. It is so foolish to spend money this way. Money once spent is impossible to get back, you can never really catch up. You have to look on what you would otherwise do with the money and how much it would be worth if invested over a number of years.

It isn't lower stress if you have to pay back real money for years. This thread is a chicago grade who got biglaw and is planning on spending more than 5,000 a month on loan repayment, think he would have taken the Rubenstein?

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=172143#p4959727

User avatar
bernaldiaz
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby bernaldiaz » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:40 pm

Why is Michigan even on the poll?

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby IAFG » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:44 pm

Flash wrote:The difference is at CC you have a not insignificant chance of striking out and ending up with a shitty job. At Harvard you basically will only strike out if you have a horrible personality, and even then you'll likely get a job.

Also, the lower stress that comes with not having real grades at H should be worth something.

I think that, for c/o 2013, that risk actually was insignificant. The bad economy was an outlier, and the boom right before it was too, but for our class, CCN was a very safe bet.

User avatar
Flash
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Flash » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:45 pm

sunynp wrote:
Flash wrote:
sunynp wrote:I don't know why this is even a question. Do you want to graduate school with debt or do you want to be debt free. This question in various permutations comes up frequently - I admit I am amazed that people would turn down a prestigious named full scholarship at Chicago or Columbia. The fact that people even question what to do make me wonder how they possibly qualified for these scholarships in the first place. Do people really not understand the benefit of these scholarships? The Rubenstein, like the Hamilton, is a very known scholarship that you can boast about on your resume.

But maybe I am so debt adverse I just can't do the calculation that would justify spending any significant money at all when you don't need to (at a T6).

The point isn't that you may be making a biglaw salary some day so you can pay back the loans. The point is why would you do that to your future self? Think how much better your life will be when you can save the 1000 a month and your bonuses instead of spending it on loans. Having a biglaw salary without loans makes your life so much easier from day one. And, if you don't want biglaw, you don't have to take it simply to repay loans.

Further, should the bottom fall out of the economy again, you won't have to freak out about jobs just so you don't default on loans. Law firms seem to be improving, but I don't think stability over the next 5 -10 years is a sure thing.

The difference is at CC you have a not insignificant chance of striking out and ending up with a shitty job. At Harvard you basically will only strike out if you have a horrible personality, and even then you'll likely get a job.

Also, the lower stress that comes with not having real grades at H should be worth something.


If you don't owe any money, you don't even have to practice law if you decide you hate it. The pressure on jobs is, in large part, to pay back money. Without that pressure you can take a job you want - I don't believe many people would take biglaw as a lifestyle if they didn't owe loans. Some would, but not everyone.

Look at it this way - the Rubenstein money is equivalent to real cash money, not hypothetical money based on what job you might get or what stress you might feel in school. I know I said this in another thread, but a prudent financial advisor would never recommend a person turn down such a scholarship - even if the person had a trust fund to cover Harvard. It is so foolish to spend money this way. Money once spent is impossible to get back, you can never really catch up. You have to look on what you would otherwise do with the money and how much it would be worth if invested over a number of years.

It isn't lower stress if you have to pay back real money for years. This thread is a chicago grade who got biglaw and is planning on spending more than 5,000 a month on loan repayment, think he would have taken the Rubenstein?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3#p4959727

Look at it this way.
Take Ruby end up bottom 10% at CC=end up in shitlaw making 50k/year. After 3 years you've made around 150k.
Go to H with no grades and no real way to differentiate below median, even if you end up in bottom 10% still most likely end up in biglaw making 160k/year to start. After 3 years you've made around 500k with lockstep and bonuses.

Even with 200k in debt, after 3 years you would still be +150k by going to Harvard over the Ruby.

I'm not saying any of this is likely to happen just that it's possible and worth considering.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby sunynp » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:53 pm

You might want to look at the spreadsheet in this thread. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=166275#p4774951

Note the 50,000 in interest expected to be paid over 5 years of the loan even with paying 50k a year on the loans. Note the total take home after loan, taxes and saving 10%.

There are other threads here where people have specified how much their take home pay actually is after taxes, insurance, 401K, etc. And then taking out for rent and other expenses in the city. I haven't been able to find it, but they aren't living the high life.

I'll just say again that to not take this scholarship is a terrible financial decision. Harvard isn't some guarantee of lifelong financial success that justifies the risk.

I dunno, I'm not going to post in these threads anymore. It is a stupid argument. I doubt there are many biglaw associates or partners who would tell a person to turn down a named scholarship. I don't think there is anyone who is happy about the toll the debt takes on them.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby skers » Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:02 pm

Flash wrote:Look at it this way.
Take Ruby end up bottom 10% at CC=end up in shitlaw making 50k/year. After 3 years you've made around 150k.
Go to H with no grades and no real way to differentiate below median, even if you end up in bottom 10% still most likely end up in biglaw making 160k/year to start. After 3 years you've made around 500k with lockstep and bonuses.

Even with 200k in debt, after 3 years you would still be +150k by going to Harvard over the Ruby.

I'm not saying any of this is likely to happen just that it's possible and worth considering.


We have anecdotal evidence from people at Harvard saying that people below median have still been struggling. It's definitely not as dicey as being below median at most other schools, but being in the bottom 10% is a bad position to be in regardless of what school you go to (except for probably Yale).

OP take the money.

User avatar
Flash
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Flash » Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:06 pm

TemporarySaint wrote:
Flash wrote:Look at it this way.
Take Ruby end up bottom 10% at CC=end up in shitlaw making 50k/year. After 3 years you've made around 150k.
Go to H with no grades and no real way to differentiate below median, even if you end up in bottom 10% still most likely end up in biglaw making 160k/year to start. After 3 years you've made around 500k with lockstep and bonuses.

Even with 200k in debt, after 3 years you would still be +150k by going to Harvard over the Ruby.

I'm not saying any of this is likely to happen just that it's possible and worth considering.


We have anecdotal evidence from people at Harvard saying that people below median have still been struggling. It's definitely not as dicey as being below median at most other schools, but being in the bottom 10% is a bad position to be in regardless of what school you go to (except for probably Yale).

OP take the money.

I would take the Ruby no question. I'm just saying it's not a 100% sure thing. More like 80-20. imo.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby IAFG » Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:11 pm

TemporarySaint wrote:
We have anecdotal evidence from people at Harvard saying that people below median have still been struggling. It's definitely not as dicey as being below median at most other schools, but being in the bottom 10% is a bad position to be in regardless of what school you go to (except for probably Yale).

OP take the money.

I doubt that's true of c/o 2013.

User avatar
Perdevise
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:45 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Perdevise » Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:50 pm

I just read in another thread that Harvard's new grading system is just like the old one, but with new letters. You'll probably stress about grades wherever you go, but if you choose Chicago, paying back a hundred thousand dollars of loans won't add to that stress.

At Chicago, you will be treated like a queen, paid cash to attend school (if your Rubenstein has the stipend) and (this is speculative) I imagine the Rubenstein would make up a bit for lower grades.

SCOTUS/academia may be irrelevant, as you would need incredible grades at either school. I think Ruby is the way to go.

User avatar
Zelda
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Zelda » Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:47 pm

.
Last edited by Zelda on Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Dany » Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:49 pm

Zelda wrote: I am wondering how much debt Harvard is worth.

Not $180k more than Chicago, but that didn't really stop people from going to Harvard last year, so best of luck with your decision.

User avatar
blank403
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:18 am

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby blank403 » Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:58 am

Flash wrote:
sunynp wrote:
Flash wrote:
sunynp wrote:I don't know why this is even a question. Do you want to graduate school with debt or do you want to be debt free. This question in various permutations comes up frequently - I admit I am amazed that people would turn down a prestigious named full scholarship at Chicago or Columbia. The fact that people even question what to do make me wonder how they possibly qualified for these scholarships in the first place. Do people really not understand the benefit of these scholarships? The Rubenstein, like the Hamilton, is a very known scholarship that you can boast about on your resume.

But maybe I am so debt adverse I just can't do the calculation that would justify spending any significant money at all when you don't need to (at a T6).

The point isn't that you may be making a biglaw salary some day so you can pay back the loans. The point is why would you do that to your future self? Think how much better your life will be when you can save the 1000 a month and your bonuses instead of spending it on loans. Having a biglaw salary without loans makes your life so much easier from day one. And, if you don't want biglaw, you don't have to take it simply to repay loans.

Further, should the bottom fall out of the economy again, you won't have to freak out about jobs just so you don't default on loans. Law firms seem to be improving, but I don't think stability over the next 5 -10 years is a sure thing.

The difference is at CC you have a not insignificant chance of striking out and ending up with a shitty job. At Harvard you basically will only strike out if you have a horrible personality, and even then you'll likely get a job.

Also, the lower stress that comes with not having real grades at H should be worth something.


If you don't owe any money, you don't even have to practice law if you decide you hate it. The pressure on jobs is, in large part, to pay back money. Without that pressure you can take a job you want - I don't believe many people would take biglaw as a lifestyle if they didn't owe loans. Some would, but not everyone.

Look at it this way - the Rubenstein money is equivalent to real cash money, not hypothetical money based on what job you might get or what stress you might feel in school. I know I said this in another thread, but a prudent financial advisor would never recommend a person turn down such a scholarship - even if the person had a trust fund to cover Harvard. It is so foolish to spend money this way. Money once spent is impossible to get back, you can never really catch up. You have to look on what you would otherwise do with the money and how much it would be worth if invested over a number of years.

It isn't lower stress if you have to pay back real money for years. This thread is a chicago grade who got biglaw and is planning on spending more than 5,000 a month on loan repayment, think he would have taken the Rubenstein?

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=172143#p4959727

Look at it this way.
Take Ruby end up bottom 10% at CC=end up in shitlaw making 50k/year. After 3 years you've made around 150k.
Go to H with no grades and no real way to differentiate below median, even if you end up in bottom 10% still most likely end up in biglaw making 160k/year to start. After 3 years you've made around 500k with lockstep and bonuses.

Even with 200k in debt, after 3 years you would still be +150k by going to Harvard over the Ruby.

I'm not saying any of this is likely to happen just that it's possible and worth considering.


This calculation is so over-simplified, it's mind blowing.

Taxes? Interest? The difference is substantially smaller than you make it out to be.

Not to mention there is such a small chance of this happening. There is an 80% chance you come out 250k+ on top by choosing UChi, if you are looking for biglaw.

Disclaimer: UChi 0L facing sticker. Regardless, your math is wayyyyy off here.

User avatar
Flash
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Flash » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:09 am

blank403 wrote:
This calculation is so over-simplified, it's mind blowing.

Taxes? Interest? The difference is substantially smaller than you make it out to be.

Not to mention there is such a small chance of this happening. There is an 80% chance you come out 250k+ on top by choosing UChi, if you are looking for biglaw.

Disclaimer: UChi 0L facing sticker. Regardless, your math is wayyyyy off here.

The numbers were just placeholders to show that there is a worst case scenario where you're worse off taking the Ruby over HLS.

Disclaimer: UChi 1L paying near sticker.

Edited for jackassness.

User avatar
blank403
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:18 am

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby blank403 » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:22 am

Flash wrote:
blank403 wrote:
This calculation is so over-simplified, it's mind blowing.

Taxes? Interest? The difference is substantially smaller than you make it out to be.

Not to mention there is such a small chance of this happening. There is an 80% chance you come out 250k+ on top by choosing UChi, if you are looking for biglaw.

Disclaimer: UChi 0L facing sticker. Regardless, your math is wayyyyy off here.

The numbers were just placeholders to show that there is a worst case scenario where you're worse off taking the Ruby over HLS.

Disclaimer: UChi 1L paying near sticker.

Edited for jackassness.


Oh ok, my bad. Didn't realize that was the point of the post. That's what I get for being pathetic/on TLS at 12am on a Saturday a few drinks in.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Bildungsroman » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:22 am

Obviously there may be situations where Harvard was the better choice, but I think those are 1. limited, and 2. almost always impossible to foresee ahead of time. I'd recommend taking the money and never looking back, but then, I am currently experiencing the rapid accumulation of non-dischargeable debt and know what it feels like to lie awake at night thinking you're being sucked into quicksand because you realize that in a couple of years you'll be >$180,000 in debt. When the consequences of missing a lucrative job are so severe, even though the chance either way of not getting that job is fairly small, you want to minimize those consequences.

User avatar
Flash
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: Harvard v. Rubenstein

Postby Flash » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:24 am

Bildungsroman wrote: I am currently experiencing the rapid accumulation of non-dischargeable debt and know what it feels like to lie awake at night thinking you're being sucked into quicksand because you realize that in a couple of years you'll be >$180,000 in debt. When the consequences of missing a lucrative job are so severe, even though the chance either way of not getting that job is fairly small, you want to minimize those consequences.

I cope with cheap beer. I doubt your refined Colorado beer drinking palate can handle mass quantities of simple times though.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests