What's the deal with Harvard students? Forum

[hdunlop]

Harvard's ASW was an amazing sales job. My favorite was on the debt and you thing where they're like, "We know what it's like to have debt." I thought they were gonna be like "because we're all HLS grads!" But no. They're like, "Because we all own houses." Ha.

I really thought Harvard ASW felt more like buying a car than law school.

[star fox]

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)

middle class is generally a catch all phrase.

[abl]

Wow. This upper middle class stuff has entirely derailed the conversation (and yet I can't resist contributing).

I'm 100% with jdbagelboy on this. In fact, I'd probably define upper middle class lower than he would -- someone who makes in the six figures and owns a house worth over $1 million strikes me as being someone who is solidly upper class.* The idea that someone who makes $300,000 a year with net worth of $5 million is somehow still part of the middle class (which I think we can all agree includes people who make $60,000/year, rent their house, and lease their cars) is ridiculous. Maybe people with net worths of $5 million who make $300,000 a year don't feel super rich (because there are always additional ways to spend your money), but I don't think that's reason to categorize them as being anything other than upper class. I suspect the vast majority of people in this country would agree with me and jdbagelboy about this. But it's really all semantics.

*My caveat here is assuming the house is paid off -- because, like an earlier poster said, it doesn't take much to qualify for a mortgage.

[abl]

Wow. This upper middle class stuff has entirely derailed the conversation (and yet I can't resist contributing).

I'm 100% with jdbagelboy on this. In fact, I'd probably define upper middle class lower than he would -- someone who makes in the six figures and owns a house worth over $1 million strikes me as being someone who is solidly upper class.* The idea that someone who makes $300,000 a year with net worth of $5 million is somehow still part of the middle class (which I think we can all agree includes people who make $60,000/year, rent their house, and lease their cars) is ridiculous. Maybe people with net worths of $5 million who make $300,000 a year don't feel super rich (because there are always additional ways to spend your money), but I don't think that's reason to categorize them as being anything other than upper class. I suspect the vast majority of people in this country would agree with me and jdbagelboy about this. But it's really all semantics.

*My caveat here is assuming the house is paid off -- because, like an earlier poster said, it doesn't take much to qualify for a mortgage.

To add to this, these things are also all relative. If you grew up in a community where everyone owns a >$1 million house and earns six figures, you probably feel very average and distinctively "middle class" if your $1 million house is one of the shabbiest on the street. On the other hand, I've spent significant amounts of time in one of the poorest communities in America, and I saw people unanimously label folks who make in the range of $50,000 or $60,000 and owned homes with probably sub-$100,000 values as "upper class." For purposes of a discussion like this, probably both respective definitions (valid in their own ways) should be disregarded--given that we're using the term in a national message board, we should probably give the term as close to its national understanding as possible.

Here's one take:

"One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.

If you're in the middle of the middle, however – not lower or upper-middle class – that would be an income range between $39,764 and $64,582, says Aaron Pacitti, an assistant professor of economics at Siena College in Loudonville, N.Y."

http://money.usnews.com/money/personal- ... lass-today

[jbagelboy]

Wow. This upper middle class stuff has entirely derailed the conversation (and yet I can't resist contributing).

I'm 100% with jdbagelboy on this. In fact, I'd probably define upper middle class lower than he would -- someone who makes in the six figures and owns a house worth over $1 million strikes me as being someone who is solidly upper class.* The idea that someone who makes $300,000 a year with net worth of $5 million is somehow still part of the middle class (which I think we can all agree includes people who make $60,000/year, rent their house, and lease their cars) is ridiculous. Maybe people with net worths of $5 million who make $300,000 a year don't feel super rich (because there are always additional ways to spend your money), but I don't think that's reason to categorize them as being anything other than upper class. I suspect the vast majority of people in this country would agree with me and jdbagelboy about this. But it's really all semantics.

*My caveat here is assuming the house is paid off -- because, like an earlier poster said, it doesn't take much to qualify for a mortgage.

To add to this, these things are also all relative. If you grew up in a community where everyone owns a >$1 million house and earns six figures, you probably feel very average and distinctively "middle class" if your $1 million house is one of the shabbiest on the street. On the other hand, I've spent significant amounts of time in one of the poorest communities in America, and I saw people unanimously label folks who make in the range of $50,000 or $60,000 and owned homes with probably sub-$100,000 values as "upper class." For purposes of a discussion like this, probably both respective definitions (valid in their own ways) should be disregarded--given that we're using the term in a national message board, we should probably give the term as close to its national understanding as possible.

Here's one take:

"One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.

If you're in the middle of the middle, however – not lower or upper-middle class – that would be an income range between $39,764 and $64,582, says Aaron Pacitti, an assistant professor of economics at Siena College in Loudonville, N.Y."

http://money.usnews.com/money/personal- ... lass-today

I agree with all of this (and thank you for co-citing Reich!), but I think you'd agree with me as well that from a cultural perspective, "upper middle class" isn't strictly a relative judgment, there are absolutes since we live in a globalized world: the 'poorer' families in very rich communities still enjoy similar privileges, consumption preferences, educational opportunities, access, ect. as others with the same salary/assets who might be "higher" relative to their neighborhood. So I'd still label the family in your example as "upper middle class" as soon as they venture beyond their community.

[DoubleChecks]

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.

This post is a little hypocritical in my opinion since you are essentially doing the same thing as these Harvard 0Ls...you are discounting another point of view, thinking it is obviously silly without, you know, even having real life experience to back it up.

Making something seem black and white (both you and these Harvard 0Ls) is the problem here. It is a gray area. It depends on a lot of factors and what you want to do with your degree. Where do you want to practice, what work do you want to do, etc. There are of course areas where Harvard beats CCN, but yes, financially, if you are just going to do biglaw in NYC, it probably isn't best to choose sticker Harvard over say a Hamilton.

Yet there are other factors. Some JDs actually do plan on moving more to the business side, or handling a lot of international accounts. I personally transitioned from law to business and I will tell you, the prestige is real. Saying I went to Harvard law vs. CCN is sometimes the difference between the other party deciding to work with you or another competitor, esp. if they are international individuals.

And if you are in an area that is not simply overflowing with Harvard grads (say you want to practice in the South or Midwest vs. East Coast), your Harvard brand name will carry you farther. First impressions and initial perceptions/biases are hard to shake. Same work product from the same two people, if person knows one is Harvard and other is some other decent school...Harvard gets more credit. Fairly or unfairly, having the Harvard name is worth a lot because people project certain values and traits on you (that are positive in the working world) that other brands simply do not have. That's right, Harvard is a brand and is, in my opinion, the strongest brand name I have ever encountered. Note again that I often deal with international companies, have transitioned into the business world (though my opinion was the same even when still in law) and practiced in the South/Midwest haha.

What is right for you may not be for them. They could be looking for something else or have different life goals than you. They could also, believe it or not, be richer :O!! and so the cost-savings of a Hamilton just isn't that impressive to them.

I think you were just turned off by how obnoxious they seemed and how strong headed they were on their opinion, which is at best, only right in certain contexts for certain people. You know, kind of how I felt when I read your original post.....

[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.

This post is a little hypocritical in my opinion since you are essentially doing the same thing as these Harvard 0Ls...you are discounting another point of view, thinking it is obviously silly without, you know, even having real life experience to back it up.

Making something seem black and white (both you and these Harvard 0Ls) is the problem here. It is a gray area. It depends on a lot of factors and what you want to do with your degree. Where do you want to practice, what work do you want to do, etc. There are of course areas where Harvard beats CCN, but yes, financially, if you are just going to do biglaw in NYC, it probably isn't best to choose sticker Harvard over say a Hamilton.

Yet there are other factors. Some JDs actually do plan on moving more to the business side, or handling a lot of international accounts. I personally transitioned from law to business and I will tell you, the prestige is real. Saying I went to Harvard law vs. CCN is sometimes the difference between the other party deciding to work with you or another competitor, esp. if they are international individuals.

And if you are in an area that is not simply overflowing with Harvard grads (say you want to practice in the South or Midwest vs. East Coast), your Harvard brand name will carry you farther. First impressions and initial perceptions/biases are hard to shake. Same work product from the same two people, if person knows one is Harvard and other is some other decent school...Harvard gets more credit. Fairly or unfairly, having the Harvard name is worth a lot because people project certain values and traits on you (that are positive in the working world) that other brands simply do not have. That's right, Harvard is a brand and is, in my opinion, the strongest brand name I have ever encountered. Note again that I often deal with international companies, have transitioned into the business world (though my opinion was the same even when still in law) and practiced in the South/Midwest haha.

What is right for you may not be for them. They could be looking for something else or have different life goals than you. They could also, believe it or not, be richer :O!! and so the cost-savings of a Hamilton just isn't that impressive to them.

I think you were just turned off by how obnoxious they seemed and how strong headed they were on their opinion, which is at best, only right in certain contexts for certain people. You know, kind of how I felt when I read your original post.....

Great post.

[CicerBRo]

So I'm a dude who is upper middle class. Like not fake "upper middle class," but my family actually makes an upper middle class salary. I chose HLS over the types of schollys people are talking about ITT and have a TON of loans to pay off. I can confirm that many of my friends at HLS by contrast are having their parents pay for their law school debts, and to be honest, a lot of them are insanely, insanely rich (like they take vacations to Europe every single school break, when I just head home).

That being said, I think what it came down to for me is that I'm not so much risk averse as driven by my dreams/desires, etc. So I took on the risk of loans over schools and luckily for me things have been working out. I think HLS has given me a ton of opportunities I wouldn't have had, especially as far as connections are concerned. But I'm not going to list any specifics. I tend to be less driven by money than a lot of other people so the prospect of having to pay off loans for a while didn't scare me as much as it might scare others. Plus my family is at least paying for my board while I'm up here; I know a lot of other people don't even have that luxury. So take what I said with a grain of salt.

TL;DR -- People on TLS are risk averse. I'm not risk-averse so much as risk-taking. If there is a pile of gold in the middle of a snake pit, I tend to be the type of person who would jump in and try to get that gold. TLS tends to attract the types of people who will run 1,000 miles in the opposite direction. Personal outlook has a lot to do with it for people at HLS who are in my position (probably a minority cause, again, there are tons of super wealthy people here who are having mommy/daddy pay off their loans).

[Tiago Splitter]

Harvard class of 2013:

Percentage with student loans: 79

Average indebtedness of those with loans: $123,673.

Average does not include interest or undergrad debt.

[Tiago Splitter]

I think HLS has given me a ton of opportunities I wouldn't have had, especially as far as connections are concerned. But I'm not going to list any specifics.

Let me guess: Biglaw post grad?

[Emma.]

I think HLS has given me a ton of opportunities I wouldn't have had, especially as far as connections are concerned.

I mean, this is almost a tautology. Of course you wouldn't have the same connections had you attended CLS with a full ride. But that isn't to say you wouldn't have made different, but equally valuable, connections as a Columbia student.

[legends159]

I think HLS has given me a ton of opportunities I wouldn't have had, especially as far as connections are concerned. But I'm not going to list any specifics.

Let me guess: Biglaw post grad?

Pearson Specter Litt

[abl]

Harvard class of 2013:

Percentage with student loans: 79

Average indebtedness of those with loans: $123,673.

Average does not include interest or undergrad debt.

It's actually an interesting comparison. I just included all of the top six below. Apologies for any rounding errors.

Harvard
Percentage with debt: 79
Average indebtedness of those with loans: $123,673

Stanford
Percentage with debt: 84
Average indebtedness of those with loans: $108,000

Yale
Percentage with debt: 80
Average indebtedness of those with loans: $112,000

Columbia
Percentage with debt: 75
Average indebtedness of those with loans: $141,000

Chicago
Percentage with debt: 85
Average indebtedness of those with loans: $153,000

NYU
Percentage with debt: 80
Average indebtedness of those with loans: $148,000

Source: http://tippingthescales.com/2014/03/whi ... dent-debt/

Edit: correct me if I'm wrong, but because none of HYS give 100% need based aid, the % of students with debt numbers at those schools likely reflect the % of students who don't have substantial pre-law school savings / parental support, right? We could easily figure out how HYS stacks up with CCN on that front by just subtracting out the % of the class at CCN who get full rides that include COL. If it's around 5%, then it would seem that these schools are all pretty darn similar with respect to rich matriculants (that between 15-20% of the class at each of these schools is pretty well off).

[Tiago Splitter]

Yeah I think the takeaway is that the demographic makeup of most of the top schools is pretty similar. Plenty of rich people at each one who are just going to the top option, but most students are still taking out large loans.

EDIT: Regarding your edit, about 3% of CLS gets full rides, and those don't include COL, and no one else gets more than about half.

[jbagelboy]

CicerBro: just curious, which one's the "fake" upper middle class and which is the "real" one of which you are a set?

Many students are absurdly wealthy at top law programs. Most of the people I know went abroad for spring break.

Honestly, if we're going to play the awesome law school game, I've definitely had pretty unique opportunities at my law school that I can safely attribute to attending that law school, including connections among other privileges. I'd place them on par with anyone else's at another top program. There are also some pretty shitty parts of my law school, as there are at all others.

[UnicornHunter]

Yeah I think the takeaway is that the demographic makeup of most of the top schools is pretty similar. Plenty of rich people at each one who are just going to the top option, but most students are still taking out large loans.

Similar, but not identical. Because of the whole need v. merit scholarship thing, graduating HYS debt free indicates a level of wealth that graduating CCN debt free doesn't.

Which reinforces a point I made a while ago, to the extent that HYS grads do get better outcomes more frequently than CCN grads, it's very difficult to sort out how much of that is because of the HYS brand and how much is because HYS tend to get students with more usefule backgrounds for unicorn job hiring. Like, the 21% of H students who didn't take out loans for law school probably had very good networks in place before they even took the LSAT.

Edit regarding your edit regarding his edit: I didn't realize that it was only 3% at Columbia. I think there's about 10-12 Rubys at Chicago (could be wrong), which is 5-6% of the class.

[Tiago Splitter]

Like I said CLS gives almost no aid above a half ride. 13 students in the whole school, yet a smaller percentage finish with loans compared to Harvard.

[UnicornHunter]

Like I said CLS gives almost no aid above a half ride. 13 students in the whole school, yet a smaller percentage finish with loans compared to Harvard.

This makes sense. I'm sure CLS attracts a certain percentage of people who were born and raised in Manhattan.

[CicerBRo]

CicerBro: just curious, which one's the "fake" upper middle class and which is the "real" one of which you are a set?

Many students are absurdly wealthy at top law programs. Most of the people I know went abroad for spring break.

Honestly, if we're going to play the awesome law school game, I've definitely had pretty unique opportunities at my law school that I can safely attribute to attending that law school, including connections among other privileges. I'd place them on par with anyone else's at another top program. There are also some pretty shitty parts of my law school, as there are at all others.

Fake upper middle class is peeps who make like 300,000 and up who claim to be middle class. I don't wanna go into details but I would say my approximation of real upper middle class is in the 100,000-150,000 range. Obviously this depends on what region of the country you are in.

Yeah, tons of law schools have great opportunities like HLS.But I had a few opportunities here (including people I've met) that I wouldn't have had elsewhere; granted, I also chose HLS over YLS, which is something most people don't do either ... so maybe I'm just a hardcore outlier. I had many personal reasons that contributed to my decision to choose HLS.

TL;DR of my opinion: Lots of people at HLS are super wealthy and their parents are paying for everything. That said, in my humble opinion, if you are like me and still have to take out tons of loans to attend HLS, it can be worth it, but it is (admittedly) risky. Thus, your preference comes down to whether you are risk-averse or risk-accepting.

[yomisterd]

OP still didn't explain his illogical support of the Mets and why he doesn't apply similar illogic to LS decision.

[CicerBRo]

I think HLS has given me a ton of opportunities I wouldn't have had, especially as far as connections are concerned. But I'm not going to list any specifics.

Let me guess: Biglaw post grad?

Pearson Specter Litt

[Tiago Splitter]

Like I said CLS gives almost no aid above a half ride. 13 students in the whole school, yet a smaller percentage finish with loans compared to Harvard.

This makes sense. I'm sure CLS attracts a certain percentage of people who were born and raised in Manhattan.

According to the 509's 60 people, or about 10% of the class at Chicago get at least a full ride. The percentage is even higher at NYU. So the aid levels probably do make more of a difference throughout the rest of the T-14.

[abl]

Yeah I think the takeaway is that the demographic makeup of most of the top schools is pretty similar. Plenty of rich people at each one who are just going to the top option, but most students are still taking out large loans.

Similar, but not identical. Because of the whole need v. merit scholarship thing, graduating HYS debt free indicates a level of wealth that graduating CCN debt free doesn't.

Which reinforces a point I made a while ago, to the extent that HYS grads do get better outcomes more frequently than CCN grads, it's very difficult to sort out how much of that is because of the HYS brand and how much is because HYS tend to get students with more usefule backgrounds for unicorn job hiring. Like, the 21% of H students who didn't take out loans for law school probably had very good networks in place before they even took the LSAT.

Edit regarding your edit regarding his edit: I didn't realize that it was only 3% at Columbia. I think there's about 10-12 Rubys at Chicago (could be wrong), which is 5-6% of the class.

I don't understand your point -- if anything, wouldn't it cut toward there being more ultra wealthy people at Columbia? Presumably, there are a number of folks at Columbia each year who have 0 loans because they got full COA scholarships, but would have had 0 loans even without the full scholarship (e.g., people who had families who could afford to cover full cost, but didn't have to given the scholarships).

Also, if CLS gives almost no aid above half a ride, this whole discussion seems pretty misleading -- the total possible number of students who are actually deciding between Columbia at 0 and Harvard at ~$250,000 cannot be greater than 13. Almost certainly, some of those 13 will also have gotten into Yale and/or Stanford, some of those 13 won't have gotten into any of HYS, some of those 13 will be sufficiently wealthy that they won't have to take out the full amount in loans, and some of those 13 will have received need-based aid at one of HYS. Therefore, we may really just be talking about <5 people each year (and in some years potentially no people).

Finally, these numbers seem to imply that for the remaining 30 or 40 (or whatever) people choosing between Harvard and Columbia each year, the COA difference is much smaller (and often makes Harvard the cheaper of the two?)?

Re the Chicago full ride poster: do you mean full tuition scholly or full COA scholly? That's a big difference (and I think really only the latter should be called a "full ride.").

[rpupkin]

OP still didn't explain his illogical support of the Mets and why he doesn't apply similar illogic to LS decision.

Yeah, we got it the first time, yomisterd. It's not clever/funny enough to merit repeating again several pages later.

[RSN]

Just for clarity, I'm pretty sure 13 is the number of current students receiving greater than half tuition scholarships at Columbia, as reported on the school's 509. It's hard to say how many people are offered Hamiltons every year, but based on the sample on LSN over the past few years, it's probably many more than 13. It's just that only 3-4 per year seem to take it (13 divided across 3 classes).