abl wrote: TheUnicornHunter wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote: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.").
1) It seems like Columbia may be a different beast than Chicago or NYU when it comes to wealthy students. Still, I don't think you're right. Sure... some of the students who get $$ at C won't need it. But, assuming the need based math is right... 100% of the students at HYS who are graduating debt free are getting 0 aid.
2) In order to actually give 13 Hamiltons, Columbia has to offer more than 13. Still, I agree were talking about a tiny number of people if we're talking H v. Hamilton. The discussion is more relevant if we're framing it as H v. full-ride at any T-14.
3) The Ruby gives a stipend + full tuition. So it might not cover full COA, but it comes pretty close, especially if you include the guaranteed $5,000 Chicago gives 1Ls for their first summer and SA money over the second summer. I think it's pretty clear (and makes sense if you think about it) that Chicago attracts a smaller number of ultra-wealthy
people than Columbia or HYS. Definitely > 0 though.