EDIT: Even more info;;;EDIT: New Info;;;Just got off Stanford Waitlist, is it crazy to consider it? Forum

[abl]

You keep saying 1 hr SF-SLS commute like it's a thing. Where do you think you'll be living?

(hint: unless it's the Caltrain station bathroom, that's not gunna happen. it's an hour and a half commute from almost anywhere in the city.)

Like in Chicago, it totally depends on the time of day (and the location). I'm assuming a driving commute (ditto with Chicago) -- you're right that public transportation will take longer, assuming you don't live within walking distance of Caltrain (and I wouldn't). I can make it from the Mission in probably about 45 minutes without traffic, and the 280 is pretty good with traffic if you avoid rush hour. But see my post above re this not mattering at all.

[cotiger]

You keep saying 1 hr SF-SLS commute like it's a thing. Where do you think you'll be living?

(hint: unless it's the Caltrain station bathroom, that's not gunna happen. it's an hour and a half commute from almost anywhere in the city.)

Is a car not an option?

Traffic is so horrendous due to the 1.5 highways that serve the whole area that you're still looking at about an hour, except that you get to spend that in super fun stop-and-go traffic. Also, if you're living in a part of SF where having a car is worth the hassle, you've pretty much negated the reason to be in SF in the first place. It's actually easier to access the fun parts of SF from the upper peninsula than from the Outer Sunset.

[cotiger]

But see my post above re this not mattering at all.

I get that, and actually completely agree. I think people on this board discount the real value of soft factors like being able to go hiking in January, and that was a factor when I was making my law school decision.

Amazingly, though, soft factors tend to only point in one direction: up. People don't choose NYU w/ $75k over Yale (sticker) because they'd rather live in NYC. They do, however, choose Stanford (sticker) over Chicago w/ $100k because they'd rather live in SF. Perplexing.

It can't be that many times these (truly earnest!) contemplations of soft factors are actually transparent rationalizations of prestige-whoring, can it?

[jbagelboy]

But see my post above re this not mattering at all.

I get that, and actually completely agree. I think people on this board discount the real value of soft factors like being able to go hiking in January, and that was a factor when I was making my law school decision.

Amazingly, though, soft factors tend to only point in one direction: up. People don't choose NYU w/ $75k over Yale (sticker) because they'd rather live in NYC. They do, however, choose Stanford (sticker) over Chicago w/ $100k because they'd rather live in SF. Perplexing.

It can't be that many times these (truly earnest!) contemplations of soft factors are actually transparent rationalizations of prestige-whoring, can it?

Actually, I do know multiple people with SOs based in NY that decided to stay in NY to live with them for law school even if us news and world report would not entirely endorse the decision

[cotiger]

Actually, I do know multiple people with SOs based in NY that decided to stay in NY to live with them for law school even if us news and world report would not entirely endorse the decision

I'm talking about the peculiar striverdom of http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums "Choosing a Law School" supplicants.

[abl]

But see my post above re this not mattering at all.

I get that, and actually completely agree. I think people on this board discount the real value of soft factors like being able to go hiking in January, and that was a factor when I was making my law school decision.

Amazingly, though, soft factors tend to only point in one direction: up. People don't choose NYU w/ $75k over Yale (sticker) because they'd rather live in NYC. They do, however, choose Stanford (sticker) over Chicago w/ $100k because they'd rather live in SF. Perplexing.

It can't be that many times these (truly earnest!) contemplations of soft factors are actually transparent rationalizations of prestige-whoring, can it?

That's an interesting point. I suspect that a big part of the reason for that is TLS's strong culture of debt aversion -- folks feel compelled to justify a choice that entails taking on more debt, but not a choice that entails taking on less. My recollection from several years back, when the predominant TLS culture was more focused with prestige, is that there were far more "but I like NYC so much!" pleas in NYU/Columbia vs. HYS threads.

[WheninLaw]

But none of this is relevant. If you don't believe that I've lived in Chicago and instead think I'm pulling this all out of my ass, fine. I'm not getting into a "I know Chicago" pissing contest with you, and there's nothing to be gained from you trying to convince others that my personal preferences re Chicago neighborhoods and commute times are different from theirs. My point is that one could rationally value even relatively small and inconsequential differences between two schools--like weather and the surroundings--enough to justify tens of thousands of dollars of additional debt. And, that debt, which might seem deathly terrifying to a 2L, 3L, or young attorney, need not necessarily be all that bad (at least in the right circumstances).

It's hard to take you seriously.

[abl]

But none of this is relevant. If you don't believe that I've lived in Chicago and instead think I'm pulling this all out of my ass, fine. I'm not getting into a "I know Chicago" pissing contest with you, and there's nothing to be gained from you trying to convince others that my personal preferences re Chicago neighborhoods and commute times are different from theirs. My point is that one could rationally value even relatively small and inconsequential differences between two schools--like weather and the surroundings--enough to justify tens of thousands of dollars of additional debt. And, that debt, which might seem deathly terrifying to a 2L, 3L, or young attorney, need not necessarily be all that bad (at least in the right circumstances).

It's hard to take you seriously.

Thanks for your productive contribution.

[Notareallawyer123]

Situation changed again:

Chicago offered a full ride.

Stanford is at 30k of scholarship for first year.

[bearsfan23]

Congrats on the full ride OP, you definitely played the negotiating game right.

Unless Stanford counters, enjoy Chicago!

[Instinctive]

Would make sure there are no stips in the Chicago offer.

[Dcc617]

Situation changed again:

Chicago offered a full ride.

Stanford is at 30k of scholarship for first year.

Congratulations on getting to go to a top 5 school for free!

[Notareallawyer123]

Would make sure there are no stips in the Chicago offer.

nope. but im still torn

[snagglepuss]

Congrats! Good luck at University of Chicago!!

[abl]

OP, a bunch of questions:

*Does Chicago's scholarship include COL, or is it just a full tuition scholarship?

*What are your goals immediately post-clerkship? What about longer term (as best as you can say)?

*How successful have you been in your life living relatively cheaply, and is that something that you hate or don't mind (or somewhere between the two)?

*Do you have any support obligations (and, if not, do you anticipate having any within the next five or so years)?

*Are you K-JD and, if not, approximately how old are you / what's your retirement fund situation?

*Why do you want to be a lawyer?

*Do you have any other debt?

*How important is career/grad school prestige to you? How important is making money? How important is having a personally (as opposed to financially) rewarding career?

Everyone here is going to answer your question based on their own personal preferences unless you list yours (see above for some of the ones that I think would be helpful). I'd personally still take Stanford in that circumstance, given my goals and preferences. The question is not what I'd do, or what random other law students on TLS would do, though--it's what you should do.

[hdunlop]

If the Chicago offer is stip-free, full ride for three years including tuition increases, that's really hard to turn down. Best case scenario that 30K offer at SLS is worth maybe 75K over three leaving you 110K+ down, not including the higher cost of living in Palo Alto (but then there's no weather here). I think 100K is basically the far end of what someone could reasonably justify for Stanford or Yale, but only with a better reason than "I prefer CA" (especially if you're from CA and can come here easily) or "I want to clerk," thinking more snowflake pipe dreams like SV or academia fetishes.

Give it a day and go with your gut. Maybe do that stupid thing where you flip a coin and your reaction to the outcome tells you what your gut really says.

And keep in mind that both adcoms probably read this thread (presumably that's why you're being cagey).

[WheninLaw]

Would make sure there are no stips in the Chicago offer.

nope. but im still torn

There won't be stips. And you're torn, most likely, because you are a 0L that doesn't really understand legal hiring/market. Go to Chicago. I'll buy you a Stanford hat.

Edit: Telling him to go with his gut is akin to saying, go to Stanford. There is an objectively right decision here (assuming your Stanford scholarship would decrease significantly if you took summer employment. If they are close in cost, go to Stanford. Then party.).

[Danger Zone]

OP, a bunch of questions:

*Does Chicago's scholarship include COL, or is it just a full tuition scholarship?

*What are your goals immediately post-clerkship? What about longer term (as best as you can say)?

*How successful have you been in your life living relatively cheaply, and is that something that you hate or don't mind (or somewhere between the two)?

*Do you have any support obligations (and, if not, do you anticipate having any within the next five or so years)?

*Are you K-JD and, if not, approximately how old are you / what's your retirement fund situation?

*Why do you want to be a lawyer?

*Do you have any other debt?

*How important is career/grad school prestige to you? How important is making money? How important is having a personally (as opposed to financially) rewarding career?

Everyone here is going to answer your question based on their own personal preferences unless you list yours (see above for some of the ones that I think would be helpful). I'd personally still take Stanford in that circumstance, given my goals and preferences. The question is not what I'd do, or what random other law students on TLS would do, though--it's what you should do.

Lol no. Don't answer any of this

Enjoy UChi OP

[bearsfan23]

OP, a bunch of questions:

*Does Chicago's scholarship include COL, or is it just a full tuition scholarship?

*What are your goals immediately post-clerkship? What about longer term (as best as you can say)?

*How successful have you been in your life living relatively cheaply, and is that something that you hate or don't mind (or somewhere between the two)?

*Do you have any support obligations (and, if not, do you anticipate having any within the next five or so years)?

*Are you K-JD and, if not, approximately how old are you / what's your retirement fund situation?

*Why do you want to be a lawyer?

*Do you have any other debt?

*How important is career/grad school prestige to you? How important is making money? How important is having a personally (as opposed to financially) rewarding career?

Everyone here is going to answer your question based on their own personal preferences unless you list yours (see above for some of the ones that I think would be helpful). I'd personally still take Stanford in that circumstance, given my goals and preferences. The question is not what I'd do, or what random other law students on TLS would do, though--it's what you should do.

\

Ok these two made me LOL. This Abl dude has to be a troll

[rnoodles]

What I would give to be in your position. Anyway, a full-ride at Chicago + you already moved there = no brainer. Have fun in Chitown!

[UofCforme]

Stay at Chicago. Easy decision at this point. Congrats!

[abl]

The idea of there being an "objectively right" decision in this situation is idiotic.

[WheninLaw]

The idea of there being an "objectively right" decision in this situation is idiotic.

Would "rational" make you happier?

[abl]

The idea of there being an "objectively right" decision in this situation is idiotic.

Would "rational" make you happier?

"Rational" is based on individual preferences. And there are a slough of reasonable (and likely) combinations of individual preferences that would lead one to rationally choose Stanford over Chicago at this (and greater) COA differences.

[Kretzy]

Saw this and had to break a lengthy posting silence.

Stanford grad here, who had substantial need-based aid. The amount you're getting 1L almost certainly will drop, and will drop precipitously for 3L. Came in to SLS thinking I might do unicorn-y things (human rights work, prestigious PI, etc.). I clerked, and am now a second year in BL, as are most of my friends.

I loved my time at SLS. It was a phenomenal place to go to law school. I think you should pick Chicago, even if you are dead-set on prestigious PI.