Stan. v. NYU ($$) v. Col. v. Penn ($$) v. Duke ($$) v. UChic Forum

[Elston Gunn]

This thread is a really interesting example of how much of an echo-chamber TLS is/how much the strong opinions of a few vocal and respectable posters can change attitudes. Last year, I think Stanford would be winning by a mile over Chicago with $90K. The common advice was, "If you're borrowing $180K, you're going to need Biglaw to pay it off anyway, so you should go to the better school to make sure you get it." Now it's "Paying off $250K+ of debt is so shitty that even your good outcome won't be worth it. Take the decent scholarship so that your good outcome is actually good."

Both of these positions seem to have merit to me. Rayiner did some really good number crunching last year (I'm not finding it now) that basically implies that (I think) even accounting for time value of money, making Biglaw vs. missing it was worth $500K-$1,000,000 over the course of a career because of the superior jobs available after you exit. BruceWayne and others who missed the Biglaw boat have suggested that once you miss Biglaw and similarly prestige-oriented jobs, employers don't really care where you go to school. You can take it either way, but for me that is a stronger incentive to go to HYS if you can because the odds of missing those jobs are way way lower. Of course, the "paying off debt is shitty" crowd has a really good point as well, so it's a tough call.

The biggest reason I would take Stanford in this situation is these numbers (thanks again, Rayiner): http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=181723

These have Chicago with around 30% undesirable outcomes in 2011, and Stanford with around 12%. Basically I think the reasonable good outcome is better for Chicago (less debt to pay off, same starting salary), but the reasonable bad outcome is better at Stanford (still probably in Biglaw or something else you want to do). The risk-averse choice is Stanford.

[bk1]

I think SLS for 100k more than UChi is a tough call. I'd lean towards UChi but I don't think SLS is unreasonable.

[sinfiery]

@Elston, I think a better economy disproportionately helps non HYS T14obtain a favorable outcome which could also point to the shift in thinking.

Stanford biglaw/clerkship numbers barely change, but NYU went up 15%+ from 2011 to 2012. UChi went up a ridiculous amount too.


So the risk of losing out on that apparent 500k-1m (Holy shit that's a scary number) dwindles but the difficulty of paying back an extra 100k is still as terrible as it was last year.


Also, that C/O 2011 data is significantly different from the C/O 2012 data, especially when comparing HYS and Chicago


In 3 years, who knows how the economy will be and that is reason enough to pick S (And I would) but things seem to be headed steady for now (And you get your 2L SA in about a year from now from what I can gather)

[Elston Gunn]

@Elston, I think a better economy disproportionately helps non HYS T14obtain a favorable outcome which could also point to the shift in thinking.

Stanford biglaw/clerkship numbers barely change, but NYU went up 15%+ from 2011 to 2012. UChi went up a ridiculous amount too.


So the risk of losing out on that apparent 500k-1m (Holy shit that's a scary number) dwindles but the difficulty of paying back an extra 100k is still as terrible as it was last year.


Also, that C/O 2011 data is significantly different from the C/O 2012 data, especially when comparing HYS and Chicago


In 3 years, who knows how the economy will be and that is reason enough to pick S (And I would) but things seem to be headed steady for now (And you get your 2L SA in about a year from now from what I can gather)

Yeah, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

[CanadianWolf]

One way to discover the better choice between Stanford at sticker versus Chicago with 90K in your situation is to send in a seat deposit to one or the other which should lead to the clear insight that you made the wrong choice.

[Elston Gunn]

One way to discover the better choice between Stanford at sticker versus Chicago with 90K in your situation is to send in a seat deposit to one or the other which should lead to the clear insight that you made the wrong choice.

Ha! I agree entirely.

[SportsFan]

This thread is a really interesting example of how much of an echo-chamber TLS is/how much the strong opinions of a few vocal and respectable posters can change attitudes. Last year, I think Stanford would be winning by a mile over Chicago with $90K. The common advice was, "If you're borrowing $180K, you're going to need Biglaw to pay it off anyway, so you should go to the better school to make sure you get it." Now it's "Paying off $250K+ of debt is so shitty that even your good outcome won't be worth it. Take the decent scholarship so that your good outcome is actually good."

Both of these positions seem to have merit to me. Rayiner did some really good number crunching last year (I'm not finding it now) that basically implies that (I think) even accounting for time value of money, making Biglaw vs. missing it was worth $500K-$1,000,000 over the course of a career because of the superior jobs available after you exit. BruceWayne and others who missed the Biglaw boat have suggested that once you miss Biglaw and similarly prestige-oriented jobs, employers don't really care where you go to school. You can take it either way, but for me that is a stronger incentive to go to HYS if you can because the odds of missing those jobs are way way lower. Of course, the "paying off debt is shitty" crowd has a really good point as well, so it's a tough call.

The biggest reason I would take Stanford in this situation is these numbers (thanks again, Rayiner): http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=181723

These have Chicago with around 30% undesirable outcomes in 2011, and Stanford with around 12%. Basically I think the reasonable good outcome is better for Chicago (less debt to pay off, same starting salary), but the reasonable bad outcome is better at Stanford (still probably in Biglaw or something else you want to do). The risk-averse choice is Stanford.

Agree with a lot of what you're saying, and with sinfiery's explanation (basically, the last ~2 cycles we were at the bottom of the market, and no one really knew if/when it'd get better; now, due to leaked OCI info and the c/o 2012 stats, we know its gotten better). Still, I think too many people ignore the underemployment chart when they're trying to decide between schools. The market may be better now, but when 10-30% of the class is screwed, well, I'd much rather be at the school with 10% underemployment than 30%, even if it does mean having more debt to pay off.

[sinfiery]

From the 2012 data for underemployment

SLS:
Not working: 6
School Funded: 4
Academic: 1
Small Firm: 4
Business: 7 (14)
NonFed Clerkships: 5
/181 = 14.5%

UChi:
Not working: 2
School Funded: 17
Academic: 0
Small Firm: 19
Business: 4 (8)
NonFed Clerkships: 4
/215 = 21.3%

[Myself]

.

[bizzybone1313]

I would take Stanny. But only because lay prestige is important for my future.

[jbagelboy]

At stanford, columbia, penn, and chicago, if you want to work at a "big" firm (100+) after graduation and you set that as a goal from the start, you will be able to do it unless you are actually not that intelligent and simply flunk out (and this is a fish/pond argument often relating to adversity/AA programs re mismatch theory that deserves an entire other conversation). I think the "risk minimization" computation between these top choices is nullified by the number of people who go into business, PI, another degree, or even a smaller firm out of PREFERENCE. there are countless reasons to avoid a biglaw job. point is, when you say "30% of chicago grads have an unfavorable outcome vs x% of hys", I challenge both your perception of unfavorability and your ability to decipher your own potential based on non-negligible statistical correlative factors for performance in LS and on the bar (lsat/ugpa).

that said i would go to stanford unless you really like chicago or new york because its just so awesome

[abl]

The fact that California is more litigation-focused than New York (I'm less sure it's more litigation-focused than Chicago, which is the relevant comparison here) doesn't really matter, as Stanford's not a regional school at all. I suspect that no SLS student in the last three years has decided whether to do litigation or transactional work based on the fact that more of the best litigation is in California. There may be other factors driving SLS to be more litigation-focused than Chicago (which could impact clerkship outcomes), but this is not one of them. Another non-incidental factor in how hard a school pushes Art III clerkships is how feasible those clerkships are. Stanford pushes Art III clerkships, to some extent, because getting an Art III clerkship is a feasible goal for such a large percentage of SLS students. UC Davis, for example, almost certainly pushes Art III clerkships far less -- largely because very few Davis students are competitive for Art III clerkships. Now, this may be a cause of Stanford's superior clerkship numbers, but my point is that it's also an effect: Stanford encourages a broad swath of students to pursue Art III clerkships because a large swath of SLS students can get clerkships.

Incidentally, that underemployment post assumes that a lot of pretty prestigious outcomes are undesirable. At least several of those four school-funded SLS positions are hyper-competitive public interest fellowships (which are far more difficult to get than biglaw). I imagine that the same goes for Chicago for at least some of their school-funded positions. Similarly, "small firm" typically means Lieff Cabrasar or Keker Van Nest at Stanford -- far more competitive and sought-after firms than all but a couple of biglaw firms (and probably overall, although not universally, more sought-after than any biglaw). If "Academic" means a fellowship, VAP, or tenure-track position, that's about as baller as you can get. Finally, "business" is really just about self-selection and probably describes people who got joint MBAs at both schools, and non-fed clerkships (which tend to be state supreme court) are generally harder to get than biglaw. If I were trying to calculate actual underemployment at these two schools, I'd probably subtract 2-4 students for prestigious fellowships from each, 2-4 for prestigious small firms from each, and disregard academic, business, and state clerkships entirely.

[dissonance1848]

I think the contenders here are SLS vs UChic, and it is actually somewhat hard of a decision to make.

If OP is pretty sensible, and does not know what they want to do (just wants to get well-paying work and create exit opportunities), then Chicago is definitely the clear choice here.

If OP really wants Academia, clerking, and other stuff where the odds are so rough that you take the marginal chances you can, then Stanford has the better case.

[Elston Gunn]

At stanford, columbia, penn, and chicago, if you want to work at a "big" firm (100+) after graduation and you set that as a goal from the start, you will be able to do it unless you are actually not that intelligent and simply flunk out (and this is a fish/pond argument often relating to adversity/AA programs re mismatch theory that deserves an entire other conversation). I think the "risk minimization" computation between these top choices is nullified by the number of people who go into business, PI, another degree, or even a smaller firm out of PREFERENCE. there are countless reasons to avoid a biglaw job. point is, when you say "30% of chicago grads have an unfavorable outcome vs x% of hys", I challenge both your perception of unfavorability and your ability to decipher your own potential based on non-negligible statistical correlative factors for performance in LS and on the bar (lsat/ugpa).

that said i would go to stanford unless you really like chicago or new york because its just so awesome

Yeah, dude, it's funny how all these Chicago grads started having a PREFERENCE for small firms right when the economy collapsed. Also, PI is not an unfavorable outcome on the chart.

[Elston Gunn]

Incidentally, that underemployment post assumes that a lot of pretty prestigious outcomes are undesirable. At least several of those four school-funded SLS positions are hyper-competitive public interest fellowships (which are far more difficult to get than biglaw). I imagine that the same goes for Chicago for at least some of their school-funded positions. Similarly, "small firm" typically means Lieff Cabrasar or Keker Van Nest at Stanford -- far more competitive and sought-after firms than all but a couple of biglaw firms (and probably overall, although not universally, more sought-after than any biglaw). If "Academic" means a fellowship, VAP, or tenure-track position, that's about as baller as you can get. Finally, "business" is really just about self-selection and probably describes people who got joint MBAs at both schools, and non-fed clerkships (which tend to be state supreme court) are generally harder to get than biglaw. If I were trying to calculate actual underemployment at these two schools, I'd probably subtract 2-4 students for prestigious fellowships from each, 2-4 for prestigious small firms from each, and disregard academic, business, and state clerkships entirely.

Yeah, it's definitely meant to be conservative, though you're probably being a little over generous. But, who knows, HYS is pretty great and not many people end up in even kind of undesirable outcomes.

Do Keker hire pre-clerkship? Usually the really elite small firms require clerkships first, and even Lieff I believe hires mostly clerks (though I'm not sure on that one). That's the main reason the small firms category can usually assumed to at least be less desirable than Biglaw. I should note that that doesn't necessarily mean undesirable, as, for instance, a regulatory boutique paying $120K in a big market is certainly a good outcome for most.

[5buildingsin1]

Update: officially got 0$ from S. This thread has been super helpful and has also reassured me in my being torn between UChic and S that it isn't an obvious choice.

Any and all thoughts welcome, except retake and UVA ED (on WL there).

[Emma.]

Do Keker hire pre-clerkship?

They do. But your chances are roughly equal from UChi and SLS, since KVN tends to offer a position to only one or two students from Y, H, S, UChi, and Boalt. And your point is well taken. You shouldn't assume that people from SLS working at small firms are somewhere awesome like KVN. The reason Keker hires before clerkships is that they only look at people who are pretty much assured to be able to land a clerkship. Whether or not you got hired during OCI, no one goes straight to KVN after graduation.

[Elston Gunn]

Do Keker hire pre-clerkship?

They do. But your chances are roughly equal from UChi and SLS, since KVN tends to offer a position to only one or two students from Y, H, S, UChi, and Boalt. And your point is well taken. You shouldn't assume that people from SLS working at small firms are somewhere awesome like KVN. The reason Keker hires before clerkships is that they only look at people who are pretty much assured to be able to land a clerkship. Whether or not you got hired during OCI, no one goes straight to KVN after graduation.

Right. I wasn't very clear, but your last line is what I meant. People going to KVN, Susman, Kellog Huber etc. are going to count as AIII clerks on a NALP form, even if they summered at the firm after OCI.

[abl]

Ah yea, I hadn't thought about that re Keker et al and clerkships. In any event, my point otherwise stands -- many of the numbers used to calculate underemployment don't actually reflect undesirable outcomes. You could keep the small firm numbers in there, but for a S versus Chicago comparison, at least, you shouldn't be treating business or academic as generally undesirable, and you shouldn't be treating all school-funded positions as undesirable (although I'm skeptical that Chicago offers 17 prestigious and competitive fellowships each year -- likely some of those positions are somewhat undesirable).

[5buildingsin1]

So, in the intervening weeks, I have committed to S, but then got off HLS' waitlist yesterday. I have looking through many of the S v H threads but am still quite torn. Any thoughts?

[sinfiery]

Unless you've torn away from the PI
/Govt goal and want to focus on IP, I'd say Harvard since you seem to value being on the east coast enough to even make this thread.

[Doorkeeper]

Generally speaking, I would say gov + PI on East Coast = Harvard.

This being said, it's a personal decision and personal factors can definitely make the decision for you. There is no objectively wrong choice when it comes to Stanford vs. Harvard. That's why all of the threads haven't helped much. haha.

Also, any differences in aid might play a factor if you're getting need-based aid.

[Big Dog]

HLS

[ManOfTheMinute]

sadly, it's a question of where you think you would fit in the best... (for most people - if you want IP, go SLS; if you want big gov, go HLS; ohhh, if you are a lay prestige whore, go HLS)

if you visited SLS' ASW and felt good about the people you met, I wouldn't risk choosing HLS blindly

[jbagelboy]

Go to Harvard: its the big leagues.

Im only 70% motivated by self interest as a waitlisted candidate at Stanford in this recommendation.