Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

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

Harvard vs UVA

Poll ended at Thu May 30, 2013 2:03 am

Harvard ($100K)
116
89%
UVA (near 0)
15
11%
 
Total votes: 131

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby sublime » Mon May 27, 2013 1:56 am

..

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon May 27, 2013 7:21 am

Ti Malice wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:But we do have a lot of data that shows, on a per-capita basis, Harvard places more students into V50 firms, and more students into the top two or three firms in every market except the West Coast, than does Stanford. We have the Leiter data, firm directory data, and the NLJ data that all demonstrate this. Each of these pieces of data has its limitations: The Leiter stuff is fairly dated, the firm directory data naturally lags in estimating current OCIs, and the NLJ data is a small sample size.

But I have never seen data conclusively demonstrate that, in any non-West Coast market at any time, Stanford was placing more grads in upper-echelon firms over a significant period of time on a per-capita basis. If someone has any data that would conclusively show that, please post it and I'll retract my previous statements.


Pure per-capita data by itself doesn't demonstrate anything. Half of SLS grads self-select into jobs in CA. Much larger proportions of HLS's class head to NYC and DC -- the two markets with the most V50 firms. Of course SLS is not going to match HLS on a per-capita basis in V50 placement. This data alone doesn't permit you to make any claims as to relative placement ability.


Absolutely true, and the inherent problem in looking at any kind of placement data. Unfortunately there's no good parameters for estimating what proportion of grads could place into a particular market if they wanted it. That's why I think comparing elite national placement in a bunch of different markets is a relatively good estimate. By definition, there must be some market into which a greater percentage of Stanford grads than Harvard grads--we're presuming this is LA/SF. So I drew a "primary market" comparison, and based on the historical data, the Harvard hiring is robust on the West Coast, whereas the Stanford hiring in top NY/DC is less robust.

But this is complicated by a few factors. For example, on a per-capita basis, Stanford and Harvard place about the same at Gibson Dunn. This would seem to be a point in Harvard's favor--Stanford isn't going to match the per-capita numbers at Simpson or Cleary Gottlieb, for example. But looking at it like that would be excessively simplistic. We usually classify Gibson Dunn as an LA firm, but out of Gibson Dunn's Harvard grads, only a third are on the West Coast, whereas 70% of Gibson Dunn's Stanford grads are. This introduces further uncertainty into the calculations.

So I think Harvard's placement is better, and I think the data suggests this. But it must be noted that the critical pieces of data are constrained by small sample size and imperfect methodology. This renders the margin of error pretty large for such a calculation. So even if I said the difference in Biglaw placement between Harvard and Stanford was "clear", different assumptions could yield different results.

advicewelcome
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:35 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby advicewelcome » Mon May 27, 2013 10:35 am

I think others have already brought this up, but Yellow Ribbon Yellow Ribbon Yellow Ribbon. Harvard and Stanford should be completely free for all vets with GI Bill and Yellow Ribbon eligibility, and Yale should be about half price.

User avatar
FlightoftheEarls
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby FlightoftheEarls » Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:Harvard will outplace them in most markets. Stanford will usually win the West Coast and Harvard usually wins everywhere else. But at the very top, Harvard will almost always do better, even on a per capita basis. Not to say Stanford sucks, I would certainly say it places closer to Harvard than it does to CCN.

Just no.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon May 27, 2013 12:14 pm

twentypercentmore wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:This is the chart I use. Crude, but a reasonable general guideline. My own personal opinion, obviously. For purposes of this, $ is 0-50k, $$ is 50-100k, and anything more is $$$. Depending on one's ability to pay, these can be adjusted to reflect money being more important or less important.

1. CC $$$/Y sticker
2 N $$$/H sticker
3. MVP $$$
4. CCN $$/S sticker
5. DN $$$
6. MVP $$
7. CG $$$
8. CCN $
9. CCN sticker/MVP $/DN $$
10. MVP sticker/DN $/CG $$

To answer your question: My opinion is that the average student with an H acceptance should rule out everything that isn't Yale or a CCN full ride. Those who are in bad financial positions should consider MVP full rides, and the worst of the worst financially (significant outside debt) might want to consider DN full rides. I would recommend different things for different financial positions: Suppose a student has a Stanford acceptance. If that student is very well-off, he/she could easily turn down an MVP full ride. However, if that same student is very poor, they might take a CG full ride. But most of the time, I would say UVA is not in the picture when you've got that JS2.


I see what you're trying to do, and I do support the effort here, but it's not quite so cut and dry. If you're like many TLSers that know from 0L that all they want is NYC biglaw, then Columbia and NYU (probably Penn, too) with full rides beat out everything by a landslide. If you have ties to (and want to practice in) North Carolina, Duke with a full ride beats out H at sticker, no question. If you have a PI resume and know you wouldn't want to be caught dead in a law firm, then HYS at sticker beats everything, followed by NYU and then Berkeley. (speaking of which, where is Berkeley in this ranking system?)

It's not "ability to pay" that's in question here (if your dad is willing to cover 200k of law school expenses, then great, most of us don't have that situation in front of us), it's the earning potential and worst case scenario.


This is certainly true--what I tried to do about does not take into account geographic preferences differences that are quite noticeable and become more relevant as an applicant becomes more sure about where he/she wants to practice. If you are absolutely certain you want to practice on the West Coast, then Berkeley > All else besides HYS. If you are certain you want to be in DC, GULC > CCN. If you know you want to be in Dallas, UT > Most T14s. If you definitely want PI, NYU and Berkeley > Rest of the non-HYS T14.

You are also correct that a student's incoming position is much less relevant to such a calculation than his/her outgoing situation (total debt at graduation, relative to ability to repay qualified for the student's life goals). In that, I should be more specific: The relative value of a given scholarship amount at a given school is relevant to the student's finances only as it relates to debt repayment ability. For example, in the context of a student with incoming UG debt, getting a full ride somewhere will carry more weight than for a student for whom school would have been mostly or entirely paid for anyway. Not that the more well-off students don't want to save their folks some money, but a lower total COA is simply not as salient as for someone looking to avoid burying themselves under a debt mountain.

As far as Berkeley, you can include them wherever you want in your mental framing of what such a chart might mean to you, I suppose. Desired location of employment is a much more important factor to a Berkeley student (e.g. a bigger difference between their placement in home markets versus elsewhere--with the same caveats about placement vs. ability noted above) than to the rest of MVP. Personally, I don't refer to Berkeley's employment statistics as top-ten. But that's maybe because I presume most applicants are not absolutely sure of what they want to do or where they want to practice. If you don't know where you want to go, you may be limiting yourself at Berkeley more than you would be at MVP or Duke. But for students who really want PI or really want to be on the West Coast, it may be a dream come true--who knows? I've had the "Berkeley employment statistics" argument before. Those who disagree bring up some valid points.

ManOfTheMinute wrote:Looking at (COA, supreme court, etc.) clerkships and big law, I fail to see this. But meh.


Nelson wrote:You are one of the most consistently wrong 0L posters to crop up in ages.


coldweather wrote:Pretty sure the consensus on tls when the harvard v stanford debate rages on is that stanford = harvard or maybe stanford has the employment advantage during an economic downturn.


FlightoftheEarls wrote:Just no.


I get that a lot of people disagree with me that Harvard's employment prospects are slightly better than Stanford's. Forgive me for sounding a little frustrated, but I feel like many of you are simply asserting the contrary as though it were self-evident. Could somebody please show me some data as to why they believe this to be true?

I've covered what my data sources were and how I used them to reach the conclusion I did. I have acknowledged that the caveats--placement is not the same thing as placement ability, problems with conceiving of a given firm as a singular geographic entity, small sample size, employment data lagging OCI, and other aggregated figures being perhaps a little dated. I have acknowledged that the uncertainty surrounding these factors creates a margin of error sufficiently large to range outside of the small difference I hypothesized in favor of Harvard.

But I think to assert the notion is ridiculous requires some evidence that would strongly suggest otherwise. This will require posting something outside the bounds of "LOLNO YOU SUCK." I would happily welcome data suggesting otherwise, as it would allow me to look at this issue differently. And if anyone has evidence that would conclusively prove my hypothesis incorrect, I will retract my previous statement.

User avatar
Doorkeeper
Posts: 4872
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:25 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby Doorkeeper » Mon May 27, 2013 12:47 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:This is certainly true--what I tried to do about does not take into account geographic preferences differences that are quite noticeable and become more relevant as an applicant becomes more sure about where he/she wants to practice. If you are absolutely certain you want to practice on the West Coast, then Berkeley > All else besides HYS. If you are certain you want to be in DC, GULC > CCN. If you know you want to be in Dallas, UT > Most T14s. If you definitely want PI, NYU and Berkeley > Rest of the non-HYS T14.

These are not true at all.

Re: Stanford vs. Harvard
Stanford: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=stanford
Harvard: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=harvard

Notice the difference in federal clerkships and overall employment.

User avatar
untar614
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby untar614 » Mon May 27, 2013 12:58 pm

Doorkeeper wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:This is certainly true--what I tried to do about does not take into account geographic preferences differences that are quite noticeable and become more relevant as an applicant becomes more sure about where he/she wants to practice. If you are absolutely certain you want to practice on the West Coast, then Berkeley > All else besides HYS. If you are certain you want to be in DC, GULC > CCN. If you know you want to be in Dallas, UT > Most T14s. If you definitely want PI, NYU and Berkeley > Rest of the non-HYS T14.

These are not true at all.

Re: Stanford vs. Harvard
Stanford: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=stanford
Harvard: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=harvard

Notice the difference in federal clerkships and overall employment.

Yeah, Harvard is just way too big. It's because it's Harvard that they can get away with it. Given the nature of clerkships, I'd be cutting class sizes would not result in a proportional drop in the absolute number of clerkships Harvard grads got. So I think in theory H could outplace S %-wise if their class sizes were anywhere near similar, but they don't cuz H just has too many students to fit into those very limited and finite positions.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon May 27, 2013 1:34 pm

Doorkeeper wrote:Re: Stanford vs. Harvard
Stanford: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=stanford
Harvard: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=harvard

Notice the difference in federal clerkships and overall employment.


Good points. I certainly see your reasoning, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I wouldn't rather have those numbers when Harvard has the better Biglaw placement at the highest level and has run even with Stanford on SCOTUS clerkships. Just as the lower proportion of Stanford grads who actually want elite Biglaw introduces uncertainty in that data, so does the lower proportion of Harvard grads who presumably want federal clerkships.

That leaves me with a couple questions:

1. Is there any way one could take a clerkship if paying back sticker debt? My understanding was that minimum payments made it infeasible past $200k. Could you do it at $150k?
2. What is the relative marketability of Appellate or District clerkships (assuming you do have to pay back a significant amount of debt sometime) versus a very prestigious (V10, or V50, pick your level) Biglaw position? What about the relative difficulty of entering each? Try to make an apples-to-apples comparison as much as possible, though obviously it's harder to say for clerks who don't want to touch Biglaw or associates who never want to clerk.
3. Is there a good breakdown of the locations of federal clerkships by school, like some firms have? This would be interesting data to factor into the idea that some people go to a particular school intending to go to a particular market.

I'm guessing the clerkship numbers are much more representative of desired practice than are the Biglaw numbers, presuming at least some graduates are "forced" to go into Biglaw to repay debt, whereas no one clerks to do so. Even so, no one from either school is really going to have all that much debt trouble, given that pretty much every grad of either school could presumably get a Biglaw job if they wanted one (though not necessarily a great one).

User avatar
ManOfTheMinute
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby ManOfTheMinute » Mon May 27, 2013 3:52 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
Doorkeeper wrote:Re: Stanford vs. Harvard
Stanford: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=stanford
Harvard: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=harvard

Notice the difference in federal clerkships and overall employment.


Good points. I certainly see your reasoning, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I wouldn't rather have those numbers when Harvard has the better Biglaw placement at the highest level and has run even with Stanford on SCOTUS clerkships. Just as the lower proportion of Stanford grads who actually want elite Biglaw introduces uncertainty in that data, so does the lower proportion of Harvard grads who presumably want federal clerkships.

That leaves me with a couple questions:

1. Is there any way one could take a clerkship if paying back sticker debt? My understanding was that minimum payments made it infeasible past $200k. Could you do it at $150k?
2. What is the relative marketability of Appellate or District clerkships (assuming you do have to pay back a significant amount of debt sometime) versus a very prestigious (V10, or V50, pick your level) Biglaw position? What about the relative difficulty of entering each? Try to make an apples-to-apples comparison as much as possible, though obviously it's harder to say for clerks who don't want to touch Biglaw or associates who never want to clerk.
3. Is there a good breakdown of the locations of federal clerkships by school, like some firms have? This would be interesting data to factor into the idea that some people go to a particular school intending to go to a particular market.

I'm guessing the clerkship numbers are much more representative of desired practice than are the Biglaw numbers, presuming at least some graduates are "forced" to go into Biglaw to repay debt, whereas no one clerks to do so. Even so, no one from either school is really going to have all that much debt trouble, given that pretty much every grad of either school could presumably get a Biglaw job if they wanted one (though not necessarily a great one).


So, we can all agree that no one school between the two is definitely better... so your assertion was entirely unfounded beyond lay prestige. K thanks.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby PDaddy » Mon May 27, 2013 4:10 pm

Dr. Dre wrote:
PDaddy wrote:It's the biggest, baddest badass school on the planet!


nope. Yale is.


If you're socially retarded and need to work in some top-secret government think-tank, or have aspirations of (a) teaching or (b) serving as a CNN legal analyst, then I suppose someone, somewhere might consider Yale to be the best. Even under those conditions, its questionable.

For producing real lawyers who actually PRACTICE law and make a real difference on a day-to-day basis, there's no question that Harvard is the best, always has been the best, and probably will be the best until well after we TLSers are gone.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby PDaddy » Mon May 27, 2013 4:19 pm

PRgradBYU wrote:Harvard, and it's not even close. Paying ~$100k for one of the best legal educations in the world is a bargain.


I agree with your conclusion, but not your premises. The legal education one receives at Harvard is not innately better than that you may receive at UVA - which a very good law school - but damn if that Harvard name doesn't open some extra doors that make the $100K a real bargain! For the doors it opens, we are talking pennies.

Think of yourself as Joseph Jackson BEFORE the Jackson-5 took off, and Harvard is your son, future superstar Michael Jackson...as close to a sure thing as you can have down the road. You spend the money and get to where you need to be, because you know that it will soon pay off.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon May 27, 2013 4:38 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
Doorkeeper wrote:Re: Stanford vs. Harvard
Stanford: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=stanford
Harvard: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=harvard

Notice the difference in federal clerkships and overall employment.


Good points. I certainly see your reasoning, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I wouldn't rather have those numbers when Harvard has the better Biglaw placement at the highest level and has run even with Stanford on SCOTUS clerkships. Just as the lower proportion of Stanford grads who actually want elite Biglaw introduces uncertainty in that data, so does the lower proportion of Harvard grads who presumably want federal clerkships.

That leaves me with a couple questions:

1. Is there any way one could take a clerkship if paying back sticker debt? My understanding was that minimum payments made it infeasible past $200k. Could you do it at $150k?
2. What is the relative marketability of Appellate or District clerkships (assuming you do have to pay back a significant amount of debt sometime) versus a very prestigious (V10, or V50, pick your level) Biglaw position? What about the relative difficulty of entering each? Try to make an apples-to-apples comparison as much as possible, though obviously it's harder to say for clerks who don't want to touch Biglaw or associates who never want to clerk.
3. Is there a good breakdown of the locations of federal clerkships by school, like some firms have? This would be interesting data to factor into the idea that some people go to a particular school intending to go to a particular market.

I'm guessing the clerkship numbers are much more representative of desired practice than are the Biglaw numbers, presuming at least some graduates are "forced" to go into Biglaw to repay debt, whereas no one clerks to do so. Even so, no one from either school is really going to have all that much debt trouble, given that pretty much every grad of either school could presumably get a Biglaw job if they wanted one (though not necessarily a great one).

You're forgetting IBR/PAYE. You can sign up for these to limit the size of your loan repayments during the clerkship, then go to biglaw and get your payment adjusted upward. So of course you can clerk if you're paying back sticker.

I'm crap about biglaw stuff, but I'd argue that getting a prestigious/feeder COA is much more difficult than getting a prestigious biglaw position. Generally, though, it seems that people who have the numbers/pedigree for biglaw have the numbers/pedigree to clerk, but it depends on where you want to clerk and at what level (because clerkship hiring is entirely personal - one person, the judge, picks who looks most interesting to them - it can be a little tougher to predict where an applicant will end up).

I also don't understand what you mean by "clerkship numbers are much more representative of desired practice than are biglaw numbers." I'd say the majority of clerks are probably going to biglaw after the clerkship anyway. (By no means all, but many.)

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm

ManOfTheMinute wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
Doorkeeper wrote:Re: Stanford vs. Harvard
Stanford: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=stanford
Harvard: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=harvard

Notice the difference in federal clerkships and overall employment.


Good points. I certainly see your reasoning, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I wouldn't rather have those numbers when Harvard has the better Biglaw placement at the highest level and has run even with Stanford on SCOTUS clerkships. Just as the lower proportion of Stanford grads who actually want elite Biglaw introduces uncertainty in that data, so does the lower proportion of Harvard grads who presumably want federal clerkships.

That leaves me with a couple questions:

1. Is there any way one could take a clerkship if paying back sticker debt? My understanding was that minimum payments made it infeasible past $200k. Could you do it at $150k?
2. What is the relative marketability of Appellate or District clerkships (assuming you do have to pay back a significant amount of debt sometime) versus a very prestigious (V10, or V50, pick your level) Biglaw position? What about the relative difficulty of entering each? Try to make an apples-to-apples comparison as much as possible, though obviously it's harder to say for clerks who don't want to touch Biglaw or associates who never want to clerk.
3. Is there a good breakdown of the locations of federal clerkships by school, like some firms have? This would be interesting data to factor into the idea that some people go to a particular school intending to go to a particular market.

I'm guessing the clerkship numbers are much more representative of desired practice than are the Biglaw numbers, presuming at least some graduates are "forced" to go into Biglaw to repay debt, whereas no one clerks to do so. Even so, no one from either school is really going to have all that much debt trouble, given that pretty much every grad of either school could presumably get a Biglaw job if they wanted one (though not necessarily a great one).


So, we can all agree that no one school between the two is definitely better... so your assertion was entirely unfounded beyond lay prestige. K thanks.


My only "assertion" was that Harvard places better into Biglaw at the highest levels than does Stanford. And I think this is true, even if placement is not the same thing as placement ability. By acknowledging the caveats, my assertion essentially says "Sample A has a higher mean than Sample B. I would guess Population A has a higher mean than Population B, but I can't be sure." As for my conclusion that Harvard would be a more valuable degree than Stanford, I obviously couldn't definitively show such a thing (it likely will vary based on the relative value you put on California, Biglaw, prestigious clerkships, alumni base, and whatnot), so I'll direct you to this, which everyone seems to have missed:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:My own personal opinion, obviously.


I was just trying to provide a sort of desire-blind relative value chart, and even those arguing the case for Stanford wouldn't deviate from it tremendously. If you'd rather have Stanford than MVP $$$, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. If I had know posting what I thought was an innocent framework would turn into a mini-shitstorm, I wouldn't have bothered.

A. Nony Mouse wrote: You're forgetting IBR/PAYE. You can sign up for these to limit the size of your loan repayments during the clerkship, then go to biglaw and get your payment adjusted upward. So of course you can clerk if you're paying back sticker.

I'm crap about biglaw stuff, but I'd argue that getting a prestigious/feeder COA is much more difficult than getting a prestigious biglaw position. Generally, though, it seems that people who have the numbers/pedigree for biglaw have the numbers/pedigree to clerk, but it depends on where you want to clerk and at what level (because clerkship hiring is entirely personal - one person, the judge, picks who looks most interesting to them - it can be a little tougher to predict where an applicant will end up).

I also don't understand what you mean by "clerkship numbers are much more representative of desired practice than are biglaw numbers." I'd say the majority of clerks are probably going to biglaw after the clerkship anyway. (By no means all, but many.)


IBR/PAYE would basically have you treading water on sticker debt, right? I'm presuming if you have $20k interest/year, then that's about all you can pay on a clerk's salary, depending on your COL. So you definitely have to transition to Biglaw at some point at that level, right?

What I mean by the "clerkship is more representative thing" is that no one goes into clerkship for the money (at least not at that moment), whereas some Biglaw grads would rather be in business/government/PI but absolutely have to be making money to pay back debt.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon May 27, 2013 5:12 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote: You're forgetting IBR/PAYE. You can sign up for these to limit the size of your loan repayments during the clerkship, then go to biglaw and get your payment adjusted upward. So of course you can clerk if you're paying back sticker.

I'm crap about biglaw stuff, but I'd argue that getting a prestigious/feeder COA is much more difficult than getting a prestigious biglaw position. Generally, though, it seems that people who have the numbers/pedigree for biglaw have the numbers/pedigree to clerk, but it depends on where you want to clerk and at what level (because clerkship hiring is entirely personal - one person, the judge, picks who looks most interesting to them - it can be a little tougher to predict where an applicant will end up).

I also don't understand what you mean by "clerkship numbers are much more representative of desired practice than are biglaw numbers." I'd say the majority of clerks are probably going to biglaw after the clerkship anyway. (By no means all, but many.)


IBR/PAYE would basically have you treading water on sticker debt, right? I'm presuming if you have $20k interest/year, then that's about all you can pay on a clerk's salary, depending on your COL. So you definitely have to transition to Biglaw at some point at that level, right?

What I mean by the "clerkship is more representative thing" is that no one goes into clerkship for the money (at least not at that moment), whereas some Biglaw grads would rather be in business/government/PI but absolutely have to be making money to pay back debt.

Well, anyone who clerks has to transition to *something,* eventually, because clerkships are temporary positions (you realize you clerk for only 1-2 years, right?). So yes, a lot of people transition to biglaw (many have offers going into the clerkship). But you can transition to government and be eligible for PSLF (ditto for most non-profits), or if you're stuck in a 40-50k smalllaw job you stay on IBR/PAYE. I think there are plenty of people who clerk, then do biglaw to pay off debt, then go to that business/govt/PI job. So I don't think the distinction you're drawing holds water, unless I'm still missing something.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby sinfiery » Mon May 27, 2013 5:36 pm

PDaddy wrote:
I agree with your conclusion, but not your premises. The legal education one receives at Harvard is not innately better than that you may receive at UVA - which a very good law school - but damn if that Harvard name doesn't open some extra doors that make the $100K a real bargain! For the doors it opens, we are talking pennies.


Considering the only data for salary information for a lawyer with a t14 degree 10+ years out is for a UVA class, I find it unlikely Harvard would put those salaries to shame and would not be surprised in the least if they fell below that amount.

Also, SLS dominates HLS in biglaw placement power in a down economy. Compare pre and post recession biglaw NLJ class %s. One school flops, the other doesn't.
Last edited by sinfiery on Mon May 27, 2013 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JamesDean1955
Posts: 744
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby JamesDean1955 » Mon May 27, 2013 5:41 pm

sinfiery wrote:Considering the only data for salary information for a lawyer with a t14 degree 10+ years out is for a UVA class, I find it unlikely Harvard would put those salaries to shame and would not be surprised in the least if they fell below that amount.


Where can I find this? Did not read the rest of this thread.

ETA: How the fuck did this thread make it to 4 pages...Harvard and it's not even close. JFC. People are such pussies when it comes to taking on a little bit of debt...$200k plus ok I understand... but $100k...and Harvard...are you joking.
Last edited by JamesDean1955 on Mon May 27, 2013 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby sinfiery » Mon May 27, 2013 5:46 pm

Lawyers at Mid-Career: A 20-Year Longitudinal ... - Berkeley Law



Google that. Would tldr but on phone, sorry.

User avatar
JamesDean1955
Posts: 744
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby JamesDean1955 » Mon May 27, 2013 5:47 pm

Thanks.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby DoubleChecks » Mon May 27, 2013 6:15 pm

sinfiery wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
I agree with your conclusion, but not your premises. The legal education one receives at Harvard is not innately better than that you may receive at UVA - which a very good law school - but damn if that Harvard name doesn't open some extra doors that make the $100K a real bargain! For the doors it opens, we are talking pennies.


Considering the only data for salary information for a lawyer with a t14 degree 10+ years out is for a UVA class, I find it unlikely Harvard would put those salaries to shame and would not be surprised in the least if they fell below that amount.

Also, SLS dominates HLS in biglaw placement power in a down economy. Compare pre and post recession biglaw NLJ class %s. One school flops, the other doesn't.


? Your bolded statement makes no sense to me. That'd be like me saying, given that only Toyota publishes safety information, I assume all other car brands have much worse safety records. I feel like there's a missing step here in the chain of logic lol.

And while SLS places better than HLS in biglaw, %-wise, esp. in a down economy, I would hardly say HLS "flops" haha. During the recession, all schools felt the squeeze, but the top schools (including Harvard) were not affected too badly, esp. if you're only talking about biglaw placement (vs. getting your first choice firm or something).

I would also worry about biglaw NLJ class %'s for HLS vs. SLS considering SLS grads, through self-selection, primarily choose to work on the west coast. With their already significantly smaller class size, I'd imagine you would be comparing a very small sample vs. a very large one. Doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, but I would wonder about that.

Finally, the Harvard brand isn't so simple as just, oh I got placed in biglaw because of the brand! It is a way people view you. Fairly or not, I've come to realize that the Harvard brand name is problem one of (if not THE) strongest brand names I have ever encountered. Given that most people form opinions of you within the first minute of meeting you, having them automatically presume you are more professional, more competent and more hardworking (and sadly, even more worth knowing) than someone else is a real boon. This is something that can continue to be applied pretty much throughout your whole life. Is it warranted? Probably not, esp. since what separates one at HLS from one at UVA could very easily be like 3 LSAT questions, but that doesn't somehow make it any less true. I do imagine though that the impact of the Harvard brand name is slightly diminished in the NE (due to saturation) and is augmented in international settings.

Is the above worth $100k in present dollars? Depends on one's goals, risk aversion, need for prestige, independent/family wealth, etc.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby jbagelboy » Mon May 27, 2013 6:34 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
sinfiery wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
I agree with your conclusion, but not your premises. The legal education one receives at Harvard is not innately better than that you may receive at UVA - which a very good law school - but damn if that Harvard name doesn't open some extra doors that make the $100K a real bargain! For the doors it opens, we are talking pennies.


Considering the only data for salary information for a lawyer with a t14 degree 10+ years out is for a UVA class, I find it unlikely Harvard would put those salaries to shame and would not be surprised in the least if they fell below that amount.

Also, SLS dominates HLS in biglaw placement power in a down economy. Compare pre and post recession biglaw NLJ class %s. One school flops, the other doesn't.


? Your bolded statement makes no sense to me. That'd be like me saying, given that only Toyota publishes safety information, I assume all other car brands have much worse safety records. I feel like there's a missing step here in the chain of logic lol.

And while SLS places better than HLS in biglaw, %-wise, esp. in a down economy, I would hardly say HLS "flops" haha. During the recession, all schools felt the squeeze, but the top schools (including Harvard) were not affected too badly, esp. if you're only talking about biglaw placement (vs. getting your first choice firm or something).

I would also worry about biglaw NLJ class %'s for HLS vs. SLS considering SLS grads, through self-selection, primarily choose to work on the west coast. With their already significantly smaller class size, I'd imagine you would be comparing a very small sample vs. a very large one. Doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, but I would wonder about that.

Finally, the Harvard brand isn't so simple as just, oh I got placed in biglaw because of the brand! It is a way people view you. Fairly or not, I've come to realize that the Harvard brand name is problem one of (if not THE) strongest brand names I have ever encountered. Given that most people form opinions of you within the first minute of meeting you, having them automatically presume you are more professional, more competent and more hardworking (and sadly, even more worth knowing) than someone else is a real boon. This is something that can continue to be applied pretty much throughout your whole life. Is it warranted? Probably not, esp. since what separates one at HLS from one at UVA could very easily be like 3 LSAT questions, but that doesn't somehow make it any less true. I do imagine though that the impact of the Harvard brand name is slightly diminished in the NE (due to saturation) and is augmented in international settings.

Is the above worth $100k in present dollars? Depends on one's goals, risk aversion, need for prestige, independent/family wealth, etc.


These arbitrary "prestige" comments are stupid and useless. TLS overhypes this obsession with "branding" and "the Harvard name" -- maybe a lot of kids dont come from these backgrounds so they idolize it and fetishize it. Saying you went to Harvard might impress a few people who arent familiar with elite higher education in a "first impression", but harvard law is not a great school because of the name. Its a great school if it can employ its graduates -- once it fails to do so (and Stanford has shown it can more consistently do this better), who gives a shit if you went to Harvard? Both my parents went to Harvard for grad school, as did many of our family friends and my college profs, and it doesnt make any difference in their lives beyond the jobs they received. No one except complete classless boors goes around talking about educational pedigree to gain social "standing". Maybe you don't know many individuals who attended so the mystery still has some bizarre appeal.

To the earlier poster who referenced "social status" coming out of H v CC as more important than "professional status" (or whatever bs was spilt), thats like comparing Viscounts and Earls in a downton abbey parody. Of course, Harvard opens up professional opportunities to more of its students than CC, and that is what matters. No rational person would spend an extra $100,000 on a fetish.

On that note +1 to the "legal education" garbage. There are many schools that offer great "legal educations" but cannot get more than 20% of their grads a good legal job.

Fyi whoever is saying harvard has statistically better placement power than stanford is unfortunate

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby DoubleChecks » Mon May 27, 2013 6:53 pm

jbagelboy wrote:These arbitrary "prestige" comments are stupid and useless. TLS overhypes this obsession with "branding" and "the Harvard name" -- maybe a lot of kids dont come from these backgrounds so they idolize it and fetishize it. Saying you went to Harvard might impress a few people who arent familiar with elite higher education in a "first impression", but harvard law is not a great school because of the name. Its a great school if it can employ its graduates -- once it fails to do so (and Stanford has shown it can more consistently do this better), who gives a shit if you went to Harvard? Both my parents went to Harvard for grad school, as did many of our family friends and my college profs, and it doesnt make any difference in their lives beyond the jobs they received. No one except complete classless boors goes around talking about educational pedigree to gain social "standing". Maybe you don't know many individuals who attended so the mystery still has some bizarre appeal.

To the earlier poster who referenced "social status" coming out of H v CC as more important than "professional status" (or whatever bs was spilt), thats like comparing Viscounts and Earls in a downton abbey parody. Of course, Harvard opens up professional opportunities to more of its students than CC, and that is what matters. No rational person would spend an extra $100,000 on a fetish.

On that note +1 to the "legal education" garbage. There are many schools that offer great "legal educations" but cannot get more than 20% of their grads a good legal job.

Fyi whoever is saying harvard has statistically better placement power than stanford is unfortunate


Wow cool. Your anecdotes and opinions totally convinced me! Obviously things I say are stupid and useless while yours are completely valid. Neat. It'd be rather hard to prove something like this one way or another though, so guess we'll never know. In reality, most people DON'T go to Harvard and DO idolize it. If you grew up around people who all went to Harvard, maybe that effect is not that obvious to you. Great. That doesn't somehow mean everyone else has the same experience as you (shockingly). International communities esp. tend to value the Harvard brand name a lot. I could throw in my own anecdotes here, but I mean, we both know how useless those things are, amirite?

But you're right that Harvard would be nothing if it could not employ its grads. I would imagine its brand name would be pretty worthless pretty fast. Yet this is not the situation we're talking about at all. It is just some random, arbitrary statement you're making out of your ass. Harvard doesn't currently have a problem employing its grads lol. When that actually happens, let me know. Last time I checked, out those who wanted to do biglaw and went to EIP, 80 something percent got 2L SA offers...and these were figures from 2 or 3 yrs ago, when the economy was much worse. It got considerably better the following year, and I hear this year was even better (I quit checking though as it no longer became relevant for me personally).

And no one says anyone is going around talking about their educational pedigree to gain social standing (or at least I didn't). In most professional settings though, employers and peers generally know. More importantly though are the employers knowing of course. I mean, why do biglaw firms hire out of the top firms anyways and only use law school grades to primarily determine their picks? It is a good proxy for someone intelligent. Same for when you actually end up working. I'm not going to bother digging deep through my psych major notes to go into more detail, so let us just agree to disagree on the brand name's weight, esp. since I already said it certainly can be more or less valuable depending on context.

Before I get called out for being biased (which maybe I am), I would like to point out that you're probably biased the other way having been rejected from HLS.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby jbagelboy » Mon May 27, 2013 7:04 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:These arbitrary "prestige" comments are stupid and useless. TLS overhypes this obsession with "branding" and "the Harvard name" -- maybe a lot of kids dont come from these backgrounds so they idolize it and fetishize it. Saying you went to Harvard might impress a few people who arent familiar with elite higher education in a "first impression", but harvard law is not a great school because of the name. Its a great school if it can employ its graduates -- once it fails to do so (and Stanford has shown it can more consistently do this better), who gives a shit if you went to Harvard? Both my parents went to Harvard for grad school, as did many of our family friends and my college profs, and it doesnt make any difference in their lives beyond the jobs they received. No one except complete classless boors goes around talking about educational pedigree to gain social "standing". Maybe you don't know many individuals who attended so the mystery still has some bizarre appeal.

To the earlier poster who referenced "social status" coming out of H v CC as more important than "professional status" (or whatever bs was spilt), thats like comparing Viscounts and Earls in a downton abbey parody. Of course, Harvard opens up professional opportunities to more of its students than CC, and that is what matters. No rational person would spend an extra $100,000 on a fetish.

On that note +1 to the "legal education" garbage. There are many schools that offer great "legal educations" but cannot get more than 20% of their grads a good legal job.

Fyi whoever is saying harvard has statistically better placement power than stanford is unfortunate


Wow cool. Your anecdotes and opinions totally convinced me! Obviously things I say are stupid and useless while yours are completely valid. Neat. It'd be rather hard to prove something like this one way or another though, so guess we'll never know. In reality, most people DON'T go to Harvard and DO idolize it. If you grew up around people who all went to Harvard, maybe that effect is not that obvious to you. Great. That doesn't somehow mean everyone else has the same experience as you (shockingly). International communities esp. tend to value the Harvard brand name a lot. I could throw in my own anecdotes here, but I mean, we both know how useless those things are, amirite?

But you're right that Harvard would be nothing if it could not employ its grads. I would imagine its brand name would be pretty worthless pretty fast. Yet this is not the situation we're talking about at all. It is just some random, arbitrary statement you're making out of your ass. Harvard doesn't currently have a problem employing its grads lol. When that actually happens, let me know. Last time I checked, out those who wanted to do biglaw and went to EIP, 80 something percent got 2L SA offers...and these were figures from 2 or 3 yrs ago, when the economy was much worse. It got considerably better the following year, and I hear this year was even better (I quit checking though as it no longer became relevant for me personally).

And no one says anyone is going around talking about their educational pedigree to gain social standing (or at least I didn't). In most professional settings though, employers and peers generally know. More importantly though are the employers knowing of course. I mean, why do biglaw firms hire out of the top firms anyways and only use law school grades to primarily determine their picks? It is a good proxy for someone intelligent. Same for when you actually end up working. I'm not going to bother digging deep through my psych major notes to go into more detail, so let us just agree to disagree on the brand name's weight, esp. since I already said it certainly can be more or less valuable depending on context.

Before I get called out for being biased (which maybe I am), I would like to point out that you're probably biased the other way having been rejected from HLS.


Never said Harvard wasnt a great school and couldnt employ its grads. It has fantastic numbers, better than all non SY schools, and thats not changing. Im disputing the notion that the brand of the school is the reason its so desirable. You dont have to convince me Harvard is well regarded around the world. Its a huge asset for international hiring. In every day interactions in the states once your career is on a certain track, you're overselling the raw value of having Harvard on your CV or being able to talk the good old days in Cambridge

You didnt make the social "status" comments, someone else did previously but Im on my phone so Im not quoting.

As for your last comment, way to stay classy. Yes I didnt get into Harvard with a 3.71, but Im not bitter or trolling against Harvard. Its a great law school and the best university in the world IMo. I would never use another applicants' cycle against him/her in an on-topic debate here though, so thanks for that.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby DoubleChecks » Mon May 27, 2013 7:22 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:These arbitrary "prestige" comments are stupid and useless. TLS overhypes this obsession with "branding" and "the Harvard name" -- maybe a lot of kids dont come from these backgrounds so they idolize it and fetishize it. Saying you went to Harvard might impress a few people who arent familiar with elite higher education in a "first impression", but harvard law is not a great school because of the name. Its a great school if it can employ its graduates -- once it fails to do so (and Stanford has shown it can more consistently do this better), who gives a shit if you went to Harvard? Both my parents went to Harvard for grad school, as did many of our family friends and my college profs, and it doesnt make any difference in their lives beyond the jobs they received. No one except complete classless boors goes around talking about educational pedigree to gain social "standing". Maybe you don't know many individuals who attended so the mystery still has some bizarre appeal.

To the earlier poster who referenced "social status" coming out of H v CC as more important than "professional status" (or whatever bs was spilt), thats like comparing Viscounts and Earls in a downton abbey parody. Of course, Harvard opens up professional opportunities to more of its students than CC, and that is what matters. No rational person would spend an extra $100,000 on a fetish.

On that note +1 to the "legal education" garbage. There are many schools that offer great "legal educations" but cannot get more than 20% of their grads a good legal job.

Fyi whoever is saying harvard has statistically better placement power than stanford is unfortunate


Wow cool. Your anecdotes and opinions totally convinced me! Obviously things I say are stupid and useless while yours are completely valid. Neat. It'd be rather hard to prove something like this one way or another though, so guess we'll never know. In reality, most people DON'T go to Harvard and DO idolize it. If you grew up around people who all went to Harvard, maybe that effect is not that obvious to you. Great. That doesn't somehow mean everyone else has the same experience as you (shockingly). International communities esp. tend to value the Harvard brand name a lot. I could throw in my own anecdotes here, but I mean, we both know how useless those things are, amirite?

But you're right that Harvard would be nothing if it could not employ its grads. I would imagine its brand name would be pretty worthless pretty fast. Yet this is not the situation we're talking about at all. It is just some random, arbitrary statement you're making out of your ass. Harvard doesn't currently have a problem employing its grads lol. When that actually happens, let me know. Last time I checked, out those who wanted to do biglaw and went to EIP, 80 something percent got 2L SA offers...and these were figures from 2 or 3 yrs ago, when the economy was much worse. It got considerably better the following year, and I hear this year was even better (I quit checking though as it no longer became relevant for me personally).

And no one says anyone is going around talking about their educational pedigree to gain social standing (or at least I didn't). In most professional settings though, employers and peers generally know. More importantly though are the employers knowing of course. I mean, why do biglaw firms hire out of the top firms anyways and only use law school grades to primarily determine their picks? It is a good proxy for someone intelligent. Same for when you actually end up working. I'm not going to bother digging deep through my psych major notes to go into more detail, so let us just agree to disagree on the brand name's weight, esp. since I already said it certainly can be more or less valuable depending on context.

Before I get called out for being biased (which maybe I am), I would like to point out that you're probably biased the other way having been rejected from HLS.


Never said Harvard wasnt a great school and couldnt employ its grads. It has fantastic numbers, better than all non SY schools, and thats not changing. Im disputing the notion that the brand of the school is the reason its so desirable. You dont have to convince me Harvard is well regarded around the world. Its a huge asset for international hiring. In every day interactions in the states once your career is on a certain track, you're overselling the raw value of having Harvard on your CV or being able to talk the good old days in Cambridge

You didnt make the social "status" comments, someone else did previously but Im on my phone so Im not quoting.

As for your last comment, way to stay classy. Yes I didnt get into Harvard with a 3.71, but Im not bitter or trolling against Harvard. Its a great law school and the best university in the world IMo. I would never use another applicants' cycle against him/her in an on-topic debate here though, so thanks for that.


Yes, your first comment was just so classy that it inspired me. If your post had been this one, I would have viewed the whole thing differently (even if it were substantively different). I thought it was rather relevant, given how bitter that post was. It tends to tarnish credibility (same here though). I'm a bit shocked you're saying you didn't say x earlier when you did though...if not directly, at least through strong implication. Feel free to re-read your earlier post and stop to absorb the tone as well. It's refreshing.

As for the overselling of the raw value of having the Harvard brand name while in the states...we can agree to disagree. You do make one critical assumption though: "once your career is on a certain track." That is a bit vague and ambiguous. Depending on what you mean by that, I could agree or disagree with your comment. I think in any new job, the value of the Harvard brand name diminishes over time, but I was focusing mostly on first impressions and how critical they are (at any job or interview). People tend to view things in a biased way afterwards, though you could of course overcome good or bad first impressions/presumptions...just an extra hill to sometimes have to climb over. Again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the value of this depends on the person.

User avatar
TrialLawyer16
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:43 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby TrialLawyer16 » Mon May 27, 2013 8:45 pm

0831kf wrote:If you haven't been poor, you don't have fear of having that much debt... I have been poor for a long time and I do know what it feels like... unfortunately. Never ever ever want to go back to such life, not especially for my future family.

In the midst of all this bickering that is pretty much guaranteed to occur when a thread is created on this site, I would like to take the time to congratulate you on almost assuredly changing the future of your family, regardless of where you choose to attend. People like you are what this country is about and what wars have been fought for and I'm extremely proud, especially today on Memorial Day, to see someone accomplish what you have. Good job - you have made good decisions up until this point and I'm sure you'll make the best one this time as well.

bruin91
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:09 pm

Re: Harvard ($100K) vs UVA (near 0)

Postby bruin91 » Mon May 27, 2013 11:39 pm

TrialLawyer16 wrote:
0831kf wrote:If you haven't been poor, you don't have fear of having that much debt... I have been poor for a long time and I do know what it feels like... unfortunately. Never ever ever want to go back to such life, not especially for my future family.

In the midst of all this bickering that is pretty much guaranteed to occur when a thread is created on this site, I would like to take the time to congratulate you on almost assuredly changing the future of your family, regardless of where you choose to attend. People like you are what this country is about and what wars have been fought for and I'm extremely proud, especially today on Memorial Day, to see someone accomplish what you have. Good job - you have made good decisions up until this point and I'm sure you'll make the best one this time as well.


+1




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest