What's the deal with Harvard students? Forum

[Nathanael]

0L, posting a question in this forum because I think it's relevant.

So I went to Harvard's ASW a week ago, and of the 15-20 current students I talked to, almost all had turned down scholarships at CCN, including many full rides, to pay sticker at Harvard -- and they're all totally convinced they made the right decision, and worked to convince me to make it also (I have a Hamilton, which I can't see myself not taking unless some magic scholarship money shows up to bring down Harvard's insane COA, which is 85k for next year). I actually had multiple people coming up to me at one event to try to sell me on going there, explaining without a whole lot of substance why Harvard beats a CCN full ride even at sticker, and then bringing over their friends to back them up. It was a pretty bizarre display. (Not quite as bizarre as the financial aid office's presentation to us on why HLS is a good financial decision, in which they directly told us to turn down full rides because after ten years our income would be equal... that was a trip.)

So what's the deal with these kids? Are they just blinded by the preftige light and drowning in confirmation bias, and will be telling a different story a year into their Biglaw jobs after they've started making debt payments? (I did try to get some of them to elaborate while I was there, but I either got blank stares or "just trust me, it's worth it" back.)

I would assume the TLS response is that they just don't understand money, should have taken their full rides, and are going to suffer in debt because they made the wrong decision. So is that just the modern HLS business model? Jack up tuition 4% every year, and dupe otherwise intelligent people into taking out massive loans to pay for something they probably could've gotten elsewhere much cheaper? Seems like a very exploitative system, if that's really the case.

I went to the same ASW as you and had a wildly different experience. All of the current students were very honest and reasonable and only 1 or 2 were in any way pushy at all.

Your claim that you talked with 15-20 current students and "many" had turned down full rides at CCN seems like total bullshit to me. CCN do not give out many full rides, there is no way there was a serious concentration of people who turned them down in a sample of 15-20 students, even at HLS.

Calling HLS admissions an "exploitative system" is so hilariously dramatic that I can't take it seriously at all. There are many very real problems in the law school system, pick one of them if you want to get up and arms about something. While paying sticker at Harvard isn't something I'd recommend to anyone, the people who do so will end up just fine, barring a few incredibly rare exceptions, and know what they are getting into.

I really don't get the point of this thread. Are you incredibly shocked that people like to justify decisions they have made to themselves? Did you want to exaggerate your ASW experiences to jump on the HLS hate-train? Did you want to humble-brag about your Hamilton in a high profile way?

I mean, I personally think the people who turn down full-rides at CCN for HLS are foolish, but that is a very small segment of the population at HLS and the calculus gets a lot hazier with lower scholarship offers.

[jbagelboy]

why are we assuming applicants debating between harvard and a full ride at ccn are ignorant first-generation college attendees who still somehow don't qualify for any need based aid? this must be like five people in total per year. structurally it's far more likely that those applying to and gaining admission to prestigious graduate programs at columbia's and harvard's are from well educated and at least upper middle class families.

Because the question of Harvard at sticker v. other schools with scholarships only really comes up if you're taking out loans. And if you're "upper middle class" why the hell isn't your family paying? Unless by upper middle class you actually mean middle middle class.

There also isn't a ton of need based aid for professional schools.

Not to personalize, but my parents are upper middle class by any reasonable estimation and they didn't give me a dime for law school. Nor should they. They couldn't have afforded full freight at a private law school even if they wanted to (unless your definition of 'upper middle class' is 'multi-millionaire', which I admit is open to interpretation). They paid for me to go to whatever college I wanted, I graduated and worked, and why should they be responsible for my choice to go to graduate school now? I'm an adult, I'll make an adult decision. People who depend too heavily on their parents post-25 just contribute to the image and reality of our generation as overly coddled IMO.

Moreover, I disagree it's just a question of loans. If your parents would be shoving half their after-tax salary towards private law school tuition to prevent you from taking out loans, delaying retirement/re-mortgaging their home, ect., then that's just as bad.

I think your definition of upper middle class is different from mine.

Fwiw, half my friends in law school (not HYS) had multi millionaire parents and didn't have loans. One of my friend's parents have 50 million; the other 10 million. People with 10 million+ seem relatively common to me in my social circle.

I'd say upper middle class is 2-3 million in the bank if you live in a low cost of living place, and 10 million if you live in a place like New York City.

Just FYI, you've referred to your social circle and their net wealth a dozen times by now on the forums; lots of repeat players here, we remember. Redundancy is unattractive.

That's an extremely restricted reading of upper middle class, and it's not one shared by most commentators in economics (Stiglitz, Piketty), media and politics (Huffington, Reich, Boxer, most policy statements), education, sociology (Foucault, Weber inflation adjusted) or lay impressions. I think, varying on CoL, anyone family that owns property $1M+ with more than six figures in income would be upper middle class; often, however, that property is completely illiquid. But it's less about money per se as it is about other status indicators: education; cultural awareness/sophistication and travel; comfort, as in ability to exist without regular concerns about money or falling into debt. Most "middle class" americans, by contrast, [/url=http://investmentwatchblog.com/40-of-am ... ill-merge/]live in debt or one emergency or financial disaster away from going under.

[BiglawAssociate]

I think your definition of upper middle class is different from mine.

Fwiw, half my friends in law school (not HYS) had multi millionaire parents and didn't have loans. One of my friend's parents have 50 million; the other 10 million. People with 10 million+ seem relatively common to me in my social circle.

I'd say upper middle class is 2-3 million in the bank if you live in a low cost of living place, and 10 million if you live in a place like New York City.

Just FYI, you've referred to your social circle and their net wealth a dozen times by now on the forums; lots of repeat players here, we remember. Redundancy is unattractive.

That's an extremely restricted reading of upper middle class, and it's not one shared by most commentators in economics (Stiglitz, Piketty), media and politics (Huffington, Reich, Boxer, most policy statements), education, sociology (Foucault, Weber inflation adjusted) or lay impressions. I think, varying on CoL, anyone family that owns property $1M+ with more than six figures in income would be upper middle class; often, however, that property is completely illiquid.

I don't really give a crap about what's attractive to people on these forums, and clearly nobody else cares either or else they wouldn't post 99% of the crap on here.

My definition of upper middle class is - who can retire comfortably with a normal lifestyle and live off investments without ever having to work again?

In California pretty much everyone owns property worth 1 million and makes six figures...doesn't mean they are upper middle class, but I guess since COL is high, that might not count.

[jbagelboy]

My definition of upper middle class is - who can retire comfortably with a normal lifestyle and live off investments without ever having to work again?

In California pretty much everyone owns property worth 1 million and makes six figures...doesn't mean they are upper middle class, but I guess since COL is high, that might not count.

Okay, that's just patently ridiculous. You're either unbelievably out of touch or you just say whatever you want because you're bored.

The average per capita income in California is $29,000. So no, the vast majority of Californian's make well under six figures. The vast majority make less than half of that. Nearly 1/4 of Californian's live below the poverty line.

The median home value in California is $440,000, but only 55.9% of California families own homes, and those that don't own homes definitely don't own as much property as those who do. So at most 26% of Californian's own a home valued at over $440,000, and the vast majority of those homes are technically owned by banks on mortgage policies. So only a handful percentage of homeowners actually own homes over $1M in value, and of those, even fewer of them truly own the full value of their property.

The intersection of the set of those earning six figures and owning $1M in assets is a very small fraction of the population. I would term these people upper middle class, with the absurdly wealthy that you describe as upper class.

[RSN]

0L, posting a question in this forum because I think it's relevant.

So I went to Harvard's ASW a week ago, and of the 15-20 current students I talked to, almost all had turned down scholarships at CCN, including many full rides, to pay sticker at Harvard -- and they're all totally convinced they made the right decision, and worked to convince me to make it also (I have a Hamilton, which I can't see myself not taking unless some magic scholarship money shows up to bring down Harvard's insane COA, which is 85k for next year). I actually had multiple people coming up to me at one event to try to sell me on going there, explaining without a whole lot of substance why Harvard beats a CCN full ride even at sticker, and then bringing over their friends to back them up. It was a pretty bizarre display. (Not quite as bizarre as the financial aid office's presentation to us on why HLS is a good financial decision, in which they directly told us to turn down full rides because after ten years our income would be equal... that was a trip.)

So what's the deal with these kids? Are they just blinded by the preftige light and drowning in confirmation bias, and will be telling a different story a year into their Biglaw jobs after they've started making debt payments? (I did try to get some of them to elaborate while I was there, but I either got blank stares or "just trust me, it's worth it" back.)

I would assume the TLS response is that they just don't understand money, should have taken their full rides, and are going to suffer in debt because they made the wrong decision. So is that just the modern HLS business model? Jack up tuition 4% every year, and dupe otherwise intelligent people into taking out massive loans to pay for something they probably could've gotten elsewhere much cheaper? Seems like a very exploitative system, if that's really the case.

I went to the same ASW as you and had a wildly different experience. All of the current students were very honest and reasonable and only 1 or 2 were in any way pushy at all.

Your claim that you talked with 15-20 current students and "many" had turned down full rides at CCN seems like total bullshit to me. CCN do not give out many full rides, there is no way there was a serious concentration of people who turned them down in a sample of 15-20 students, even at HLS.

Calling HLS admissions an "exploitative system" is so hilariously dramatic that I can't take it seriously at all. There are many very real problems in the law school system, pick one of them if you want to get up and arms about something. While paying sticker at Harvard isn't something I'd recommend to anyone, the people who do so will end up just fine, barring a few incredibly rare exceptions, and know what they are getting into.

I really don't get the point of this thread. Are you incredibly shocked that people like to justify decisions they have made to themselves? Did you want to exaggerate your ASW experiences to jump on the HLS hate-train? Did you want to humble-brag about your Hamilton in a high profile way?

I mean, I personally think the people who turn down full-rides at CCN for HLS are foolish, but that is a very small segment of the population at HLS and the calculus gets a lot hazier with lower scholarship offers.

Chill out, bro. I have no reason to bullshit anyone and nothing to brag about on a site full of people who get into Harvard and get full rides to T14s. I talked to a lot of current students, many of whom it turned out turned down full rides, many at CCN, and was taken aback by how aggressive some of them were about going there, so I wanted to see if any current students or others had any idea why. That's all I was asking. Not sure why you feel the need to get testy in response.

[yot11]

I think your definition of upper middle class is different from mine.

Fwiw, half my friends in law school (not HYS) had multi millionaire parents and didn't have loans. One of my friend's parents have 50 million; the other 10 million. People with 10 million+ seem relatively common to me in my social circle.

I'd say upper middle class is 2-3 million in the bank if you live in a low cost of living place, and 10 million if you live in a place like New York City.

Just FYI, you've referred to your social circle and their net wealth a dozen times by now on the forums; lots of repeat players here, we remember. Redundancy is unattractive.

That's an extremely restricted reading of upper middle class, and it's not one shared by most commentators in economics (Stiglitz, Piketty), media and politics (Huffington, Reich, Boxer, most policy statements), education, sociology (Foucault, Weber inflation adjusted) or lay impressions. I think, varying on CoL, anyone family that owns property $1M+ with more than six figures in income would be upper middle class; often, however, that property is completely illiquid.

I don't really give a crap about what's attractive to people on these forums, and clearly nobody else cares either or else they wouldn't post 99% of the crap on here.

My definition of upper middle class is - who can retire comfortably with a normal lifestyle and live off investments without ever having to work again?

In California pretty much everyone owns property worth 1 million and makes six figures...doesn't mean they are upper middle class, but I guess since COL is high, that might not count.

LOL

I had a friend like you in college. I asked her what she thought the median income in America was. She said 100k.

[chuckbass]

BiglawAssociate never fails to stir things up at least.

[BiglawAssociate]

My definition of upper middle class is - who can retire comfortably with a normal lifestyle and live off investments without ever having to work again?

In California pretty much everyone owns property worth 1 million and makes six figures...doesn't mean they are upper middle class, but I guess since COL is high, that might not count.

Okay, that's just patently ridiculous. You're either unbelievably out of touch or you just say whatever you want because you're bored.

The average per capita income in California is $29,000. So no, the vast majority of Californian's make well under six figures. The vast majority make less than half of that. Nearly 1/4 of Californian's live below the poverty line.

The median home value in California is $440,000, but only 55.9% of California families own homes, and those that don't own homes definitely don't own as much property as those who do. So at most 26% of Californian's own a home valued at over $440,000, and the vast majority of those homes are technically owned by banks on mortgage policies. So only a handful percentage of homeowners actually own homes over $1M in value, and of those, even fewer of them truly own the full value of their property.

The intersection of the set of those earning six figures and owning $1M in assets is a very small fraction of the population. I would term these people upper middle class, with the absurdly wealthy that you describe as upper class.

Median household income matters, not per capita. So that's $61,632. Median family income is $70,231.

Also, considering we went to college, shouldn't we be looking at stats of college educated people? I don't get why we should compare with everyone, including high school dropouts. The question should be, what is middling middle class for college grads? And the answer to that in California is probably a million dollar house making six figures. Upper middle class is probably around what I said - 2 to 3 mm in the bank if suburbia; 10 mm in the bank in a city.

My parents own a house worth over one million in California and make six figures and they ain't upper middle class. They are middling of the middle classes. Upper middle class oftentimes means you have multiple vacation homes, take luxury vacations whenever, can pay for your kids' education with no sweat, etc. Can retire and live off investments comfortably, etc. Middling of the middle classes can't do any of that. It's partly about lifestyle. When you still got to sweat at work to pay your bills and can't retire off your investments, you're just a regular Joe.

[chuckbass]

[jbagelboy]

My definition of upper middle class is - who can retire comfortably with a normal lifestyle and live off investments without ever having to work again?

In California pretty much everyone owns property worth 1 million and makes six figures...doesn't mean they are upper middle class, but I guess since COL is high, that might not count.

Okay, that's just patently ridiculous. You're either unbelievably out of touch or you just say whatever you want because you're bored.

The average per capita income in California is $29,000. So no, the vast majority of Californian's make well under six figures. The vast majority make less than half of that. Nearly 1/4 of Californian's live below the poverty line.

The median home value in California is $440,000, but only 55.9% of California families own homes, and those that don't own homes definitely don't own as much property as those who do. So at most 26% of Californian's own a home valued at over $440,000, and the vast majority of those homes are technically owned by banks on mortgage policies. So only a handful percentage of homeowners actually own homes over $1M in value, and of those, even fewer of them truly own the full value of their property.

The intersection of the set of those earning six figures and owning $1M in assets is a very small fraction of the population. I would term these people upper middle class, with the absurdly wealthy that you describe as upper class.

Median household income matters, not per capita. So that's $61,632. Median family income is $70,231.

Also, considering we went to college, shouldn't we be looking at stats of college educated people? I don't get why we should compare with everyone, including high school dropouts. The question should be, what is middling middle class for college grads? And the answer to that in California is probably a million dollar house making six figures. Upper middle class is probably around what I said - 2 to 3 mm in the bank if suburbia; 10 mm in the bank in a city.

My parents own a house worth over one million in California and make six figures and they ain't upper middle class. They are middling of the middle classes. Upper middle class oftentimes means you have multiple vacation homes, take luxury vacations whenever, can pay for your kids' education with no sweat, etc. Can retire and live off investments comfortably, etc. Middling of the middle classes can't do any of that. It's partly about lifestyle. When you still got to sweat at work to pay your bills and can't retire off your investments, you're just a regular Joe.

You have zero self-awareness. This conversation is no longer interesting or instructive since your posting is largely nonsense outside of what you actually claim to understand, working at a large law firm, which I'll concede you have some insight on.

[Helioze]

We're all just jelly BC you're rich AF, and we have to worry about money like the peasants we are.

Millions in the bank is upper class dog. No middle about it.

[UnicornHunter]

All you guys are doing is debating whether people with a net worth of 2-10 million are upper-middle class or rich but not mega-rich. (bagel is right , ftr).

[yomisterd]

OP is a Mets fan. Real question should be what's the deal with Mets fans. Do they hope for an unrealistic future never to come? In which case, shouldn't a Mets fan be shooting for a SCOTUS clerkship and thus settle only for the "best"?

[hdunlop]

Trrooooololololol

[bklynlady]

Does anybody know how many admits to CLS are also admitted to HLS? Of those, how many choose HLS over CLS (with or without money)? Just curious...

[Tiago Splitter]

Does anybody know how many admits to CLS are also admitted to HLS? Of those, how many choose HLS over CLS (with or without money)? Just curious...

Harvard admits like 850 to get a class of 560. Most of the other 290 go to Stanford or Yale. The vast majority of those who get into Harvard also get into CLS and nearly all of them turn down CLS.

[michlaw]

0L, posting a question in this forum because I think it's relevant.

So I went to Harvard's ASW a week ago, and of the 15-20 current students I talked to, almost all had turned down scholarships at CCN, including many full rides, to pay sticker at Harvard -- and they're all totally convinced they made the right decision, and worked to convince me to make it also (I have a Hamilton, which I can't see myself not taking unless some magic scholarship money shows up to bring down Harvard's insane COA, which is 85k for next year). I actually had multiple people coming up to me at one event to try to sell me on going there, explaining without a whole lot of substance why Harvard beats a CCN full ride even at sticker, and then bringing over their friends to back them up. It was a pretty bizarre display. (Not quite as bizarre as the financial aid office's presentation to us on why HLS is a good financial decision, in which they directly told us to turn down full rides because after ten years our income would be equal... that was a trip.)

So what's the deal with these kids? Are they just blinded by the preftige light and drowning in confirmation bias, and will be telling a different story a year into their Biglaw jobs after they've started making debt payments? (I did try to get some of them to elaborate while I was there, but I either got blank stares or "just trust me, it's worth it" back.)

I would assume the TLS response is that they just don't understand money, should have taken their full rides, and are going to suffer in debt because they made the wrong decision. So is that just the modern HLS business model? Jack up tuition 4% every year, and dupe otherwise intelligent people into taking out massive loans to pay for something they probably could've gotten elsewhere much cheaper? Seems like a very exploitative system, if that's really the case.

Vizzini. You told me to go back to the beginning. So I have.
Inigo Montoya

You use words and phrases in your op such as: convince me, blank stares, dupe, bizarre, insane, exploitive, suffer, and drowning in bias. You do know don't you (surely you are that self-aware) that as a student who has been offered admittance, and one whose achievements are respected, no one cares if you go to Harvard. You mistakenly think you bring something irreplaceable to the table. You do not. If I were you I wouldn't be thinking twice about going to a school you hold in such disregard. All it really sounds like is that you are obnoxiously bragging and want everyone at Harvard to tell you they wish they were you, and to burst into tears over the mistakes that you have opened their eyes to. They don't they won't. Move along nothing to see here.

[RSN]

0L, posting a question in this forum because I think it's relevant.

So I went to Harvard's ASW a week ago, and of the 15-20 current students I talked to, almost all had turned down scholarships at CCN, including many full rides, to pay sticker at Harvard -- and they're all totally convinced they made the right decision, and worked to convince me to make it also (I have a Hamilton, which I can't see myself not taking unless some magic scholarship money shows up to bring down Harvard's insane COA, which is 85k for next year). I actually had multiple people coming up to me at one event to try to sell me on going there, explaining without a whole lot of substance why Harvard beats a CCN full ride even at sticker, and then bringing over their friends to back them up. It was a pretty bizarre display. (Not quite as bizarre as the financial aid office's presentation to us on why HLS is a good financial decision, in which they directly told us to turn down full rides because after ten years our income would be equal... that was a trip.)

So what's the deal with these kids? Are they just blinded by the preftige light and drowning in confirmation bias, and will be telling a different story a year into their Biglaw jobs after they've started making debt payments? (I did try to get some of them to elaborate while I was there, but I either got blank stares or "just trust me, it's worth it" back.)

I would assume the TLS response is that they just don't understand money, should have taken their full rides, and are going to suffer in debt because they made the wrong decision. So is that just the modern HLS business model? Jack up tuition 4% every year, and dupe otherwise intelligent people into taking out massive loans to pay for something they probably could've gotten elsewhere much cheaper? Seems like a very exploitative system, if that's really the case.

Vizzini. You told me to go back to the beginning. So I have.
Inigo Montoya

You use words and phrases in your op such as: convince me, blank stares, dupe, bizarre, insane, exploitive, suffer, and drowning in bias. You do know don't you (surely you are that self-aware) that as a student who has been offered admittance, and one whose achievements are respected, no one cares if you go to Harvard. You mistakenly think you bring something irreplaceable to the table. You do not. If I were you I wouldn't be thinking twice about going to a school you hold in such disregard. All it really sounds like is that you are obnoxiously bragging and want everyone at Harvard to tell you they wish they were you, and to burst into tears over the mistakes that you have opened their eyes to. They don't they won't. Move along nothing to see here.

Inconceivable!

[michlaw]

0L, posting a question in this forum because I think it's relevant.

So I went to Harvard's ASW a week ago, and of the 15-20 current students I talked to, almost all had turned down scholarships at CCN, including many full rides, to pay sticker at Harvard -- and they're all totally convinced they made the right decision, and worked to convince me to make it also (I have a Hamilton, which I can't see myself not taking unless some magic scholarship money shows up to bring down Harvard's insane COA, which is 85k for next year). I actually had multiple people coming up to me at one event to try to sell me on going there, explaining without a whole lot of substance why Harvard beats a CCN full ride even at sticker, and then bringing over their friends to back them up. It was a pretty bizarre display. (Not quite as bizarre as the financial aid office's presentation to us on why HLS is a good financial decision, in which they directly told us to turn down full rides because after ten years our income would be equal... that was a trip.)

So what's the deal with these kids? Are they just blinded by the preftige light and drowning in confirmation bias, and will be telling a different story a year into their Biglaw jobs after they've started making debt payments? (I did try to get some of them to elaborate while I was there, but I either got blank stares or "just trust me, it's worth it" back.)

I would assume the TLS response is that they just don't understand money, should have taken their full rides, and are going to suffer in debt because they made the wrong decision. So is that just the modern HLS business model? Jack up tuition 4% every year, and dupe otherwise intelligent people into taking out massive loans to pay for something they probably could've gotten elsewhere much cheaper? Seems like a very exploitative system, if that's really the case.

Vizzini. You told me to go back to the beginning. So I have.
Inigo Montoya

You use words and phrases in your op such as: convince me, blank stares, dupe, bizarre, insane, exploitive, suffer, and drowning in bias. You do know don't you (surely you are that self-aware) that as a student who has been offered admittance, and one whose achievements are respected, no one cares if you go to Harvard. You mistakenly think you bring something irreplaceable to the table. You do not. If I were you I wouldn't be thinking twice about going to a school you hold in such disregard. All it really sounds like is that you are obnoxiously bragging and want everyone at Harvard to tell you they wish they were you, and to burst into tears over the mistakes that you have opened their eyes to. They don't they won't. Move along nothing to see here.

Inconceivable!

Perfect response. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[bklynlady]

Does anybody know how many admits to CLS are also admitted to HLS? Of those, how many choose HLS over CLS (with or without money)? Just curious...

Harvard admits like 850 to get a class of 560. Most of the other 290 go to Stanford or Yale. The vast majority of those who get into Harvard also get into CLS and nearly all of them turn down CLS.

Thanks!

[jbagelboy]

Does anybody know how many admits to CLS are also admitted to HLS? Of those, how many choose HLS over CLS (with or without money)? Just curious...

Harvard admits like 850 to get a class of 560. Most of the other 290 go to Stanford or Yale. The vast majority of those who get into Harvard also get into CLS and nearly all of them turn down CLS.

Thanks!

cross-matriculation for butler and hamilton recipients is less clear than the general population

[bklynlady]

Does anybody know how many admits to CLS are also admitted to HLS? Of those, how many choose HLS over CLS (with or without money)? Just curious...

Harvard admits like 850 to get a class of 560. Most of the other 290 go to Stanford or Yale. The vast majority of those who get into Harvard also get into CLS and nearly all of them turn down CLS.

Thanks!

cross-matriculation for butler and hamilton recipients is less clear than the general population

Yes, I got a Butler. Would rather stay in NYC for personal reasons, but its still expensive and obviously narrows the gap btwn HLS. (I know we had this discussion many pages ago). Still wondering if I can try to get more from them. I see the stats on LSN for people admitted the last couple of days and its a lot lower than mine. As they lose more and more applicants to other schools maybe they are more desperate. Times are different this year with a decreased applicant pool and decreased quality of applicants. Any thoughts?

[jbagelboy]

cross-matriculation for butler and hamilton recipients is less clear than the general population

Yes, I got a Butler. Would rather stay in NYC for personal reasons, but its still expensive and obviously narrows the gap btwn HLS. (I know we had this discussion many pages ago). Still wondering if I can try to get more from them. I see the stats on LSN for people admitted the last couple of days and its a lot lower than mine. As they lose more and more applicants to other schools maybe they are more desperate. Times are different this year with a decreased applicant pool and decreased quality of applicants. Any thoughts?

Maybe it's time for your own thread? (Just so you'd get more particularized advise). FWIW if you want to live and work in new york there's no reason to pay more than CLS for any other school.

It's true that the applicant pool for law students overall has declined, but the applicant pool for top schools, particularly high scorers, has stabilized/increased**. Moreover, from the applicant's perspective, it often seems like schools must be scrambling when they "lose" applicants to other schools: however, remember that the admissions committees plan for this all year, and they are far from "desperate". They know what they're doing, they know their cross-matriculation rates with respect to Harvard, NYU, Chicago, UVA, ect., and they keep a long waitlist/hold pile with numbers they can use.

It's always worth a try to negotiate, but I think Butler -> Hamilton is rarely if ever done.

**as of 2017. I don't know about this year, obviously.

[bklynlady]

cross-matriculation for butler and hamilton recipients is less clear than the general population

Yes, I got a Butler. Would rather stay in NYC for personal reasons, but its still expensive and obviously narrows the gap btwn HLS. (I know we had this discussion many pages ago). Still wondering if I can try to get more from them. I see the stats on LSN for people admitted the last couple of days and its a lot lower than mine. As they lose more and more applicants to other schools maybe they are more desperate. Times are different this year with a decreased applicant pool and decreased quality of applicants. Any thoughts?

Maybe it's time for your own thread? (Just so you'd get more particularized advise). FWIW if you want to live and work in new york there's no reason to pay more than CLS for any other school.

It's true that the applicant pool for law students overall has declined, but the applicant pool for top schools, particularly high scorers, has stabilized/increased**. Moreover, from the applicant's perspective, it often seems like schools must be scrambling when they "lose" applicants to other schools: however, remember that the admissions committees plan for this all year, and they are far from "desperate". They know what they're doing, they know their cross-matriculation rates with respect to Harvard, NYU, Chicago, UVA, ect., and they keep a long waitlist/hold pile with numbers they can use.

It's always worth a try to negotiate, but I think Butler -> Hamilton is rarely if ever done.

**as of 2017. I don't know about this year, obviously.

Thanks! I'll skip on my own thread. I've been following this thread and I feel the people here actually know what they're talking about. Don't want to open myself up and waste time with another thread. Anyway, I think I'm done with this. Going to AS days this week at CLS and maybe I'll have a chance to subtlely mention it to someone in admissions. If not, I'll be happy with what I got realizing that its a lot more than most others received.

[WeeBey]

Middle class must be huge. I consider my family middle class and we have total house hold income of 40k.

Granted we live in a 600k house (cause anyone can sign a mortgage)