Harvard v. Chicago | no debt either way

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 24523
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Harvard v. Chicago | no debt either way

Postby Nebby » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:19 pm

I presume Chicago uses its Ruby program as a clerkship farm team. I.e., professors make calls to judges on behalf of Ruby students even if the professor doesn't have a ton of experience with said student. That's how the T6 (except Columbia who's clerkship office can't seem to figure out how to implement this) keeps its numbers so high. Your chance of landing a clerkship is much higher if you have a professor call a judge rather than blindly applying and hoping to make it on merit alone (which few do).

User avatar
Alexandros
Posts: 4848
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:46 am

Re: Harvard v. Chicago | no debt either way

Postby Alexandros » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:30 pm

landshoes wrote:I would say that there are a few factors. The first would be faculty support, which I can't discuss in too much detail because I haven't experienced it (at least not as a Ruby, I've gotten a lot of support otherwise). I also think that self-selection plays a large role. By that, I mean that the people who get Rubies are more likely to apply for clerkships, for various reasons. There are a decent number of people here with good or great grades who just don't care about clerkships because they don't want to do lit or just don't feel like it's necessary. I don't feel that there's a culture here of really being super into clerkships, unless you're in a very specific group of people. That said, I feel like people with Rubies are definitely part of the subset of people who care a lot.

It's a little weird for me to say that the faculty who are involved with the Rubinstein program are especially helpful, because the faculty here, generally, are incredibly accessible and helpful. But I do know the prof who runs the Ruby program (Prof. Strahilevitz) is extremely nice and accessible, and very influential. And second-hand, he seems to have a lot of ongoing contact with students as they consider clerkships during 1L and 2L.

Thanks for the in-depth response. That's very helpful to know.

User avatar
Whittie
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:22 am

Re: Harvard v. Chicago | no debt either way

Postby Whittie » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:29 pm

Nebby wrote:I presume Chicago uses its Ruby program as a clerkship farm team. I.e., professors make calls to judges on behalf of Ruby students even if the professor doesn't have a ton of experience with said student. That's how the T6 (except Columbia who's clerkship office can't seem to figure out how to implement this) keeps its numbers so high. Your chance of landing a clerkship is much higher if you have a professor call a judge rather than blindly applying and hoping to make it on merit alone (which few do).


I guess what I am interested in is hearing from someone with a Ruby whether or not such faculty support actually happens. I'll shoot the admissions office an email and try and get in contact with a few Ruby scholars who might have that information.

Thanks all for an enlightening discussion!

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7883
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Harvard v. Chicago | no debt either way

Postby soj » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:40 pm

I spoke to Professor Strahilevitz and several Ruby recipients in 2012, the initial year of the program. My impression was that the non-financial benefits of the Ruby were not particularly compelling. As I understood them, these benefits consisted of a faculty mentor and a couple of fancy dinners with David Rubenstein. Both are nice perks, but nothing amazing. (The financial benefits, of course, are amazing and game-changing to anyone who could benefit from them.)

Faculty mentors can be hit or miss. Maybe they are helpful; maybe not. You'll find that some professors, like Professor Strahilevitz, have a reputation for being great mentors and are highly popular among students. The one assigned to you might not be one of them. Maybe their personalities and research interests will be compatible with and relevant to yours; maybe not. Mentors are assigned partly based on your own stated interests, but your interests could change early and more than once in law school. Some Rubenstein Scholars had kept in touch with their mentors; others found new mentors based on their evolving interests, or none at all by choice. It's not hard to find a mentor if you want one, whether or not you're a Rubenstein Scholar. The program gives you one early connection, but by no means a deep one (unless you put in the effort to make it so) or the only one you can expect to make. I suspect the same is true of Harvard, though the sheer number of professors and students could make a difference (good and bad) in the mentor-finding process.

Dinners with David Rubenstein are a cool networking opportunity, but most people don't really make a big impression on him either way.

There certainly were some Rubenstein Scholars who had great outcomes in law school. A few of them ended up with feeder clerkships and worked at prestigious law firms, if you're interested in those. But there were also others who had more typical outcomes, though a typical outcome at Chicago is nothing to scoff at.

It's certainly possible that the program has changed since I did the research. The program was not, in 2012, a pipeline for feeder clerkships. Maybe if you had high grades, but high grades are, on their own, a pipeline for feeder clerkships. With the clerkship cycle creeping earlier, maybe that has changed. Take my comments with a grain of salt, considering the time elapsed. My own take-away in 2012 was not to expect too many doors to open because of a scholarship I had received based on my pre-law school credentials (again, other than the financial freedom and opportunities).

User avatar
Whittie
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:22 am

Re: Harvard v. Chicago | no debt either way

Postby Whittie » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:18 am

soj wrote:I spoke to Professor Strahilevitz and several Ruby recipients in 2012, the initial year of the program. My impression was that the non-financial benefits of the Ruby were not particularly compelling. As I understood them, these benefits consisted of a faculty mentor and a couple of fancy dinners with David Rubenstein. Both are nice perks, but nothing amazing. (The financial benefits, of course, are amazing and game-changing to anyone who could benefit from them.)

Faculty mentors can be hit or miss. Maybe they are helpful; maybe not. You'll find that some professors, like Professor Strahilevitz, have a reputation for being great mentors and are highly popular among students. The one assigned to you might not be one of them. Maybe their personalities and research interests will be compatible with and relevant to yours; maybe not. Mentors are assigned partly based on your own stated interests, but your interests could change early and more than once in law school. Some Rubenstein Scholars had kept in touch with their mentors; others found new mentors based on their evolving interests, or none at all by choice. It's not hard to find a mentor if you want one, whether or not you're a Rubenstein Scholar. The program gives you one early connection, but by no means a deep one (unless you put in the effort to make it so) or the only one you can expect to make. I suspect the same is true of Harvard, though the sheer number of professors and students could make a difference (good and bad) in the mentor-finding process.

Dinners with David Rubenstein are a cool networking opportunity, but most people don't really make a big impression on him either way.

There certainly were some Rubenstein Scholars who had great outcomes in law school. A few of them ended up with feeder clerkships and worked at prestigious law firms, if you're interested in those. But there were also others who had more typical outcomes, though a typical outcome at Chicago is nothing to scoff at.

It's certainly possible that the program has changed since I did the research. The program was not, in 2012, a pipeline for feeder clerkships. Maybe if you had high grades, but high grades are, on their own, a pipeline for feeder clerkships. With the clerkship cycle creeping earlier, maybe that has changed. Take my comments with a grain of salt, considering the time elapsed. My own take-away in 2012 was not to expect too many doors to open because of a scholarship I had received based on my pre-law school credentials (again, other than the financial freedom and opportunities).


This is great information to have. Thanks for taking the time!




Return to “Choosing a Law School”