Harvard vs. Chicago

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9850
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:32 pm

dirac wrote:Oh yes, I am a 2L at HLS. Do not tell me you do not attend HLS and guess from your intuition that HLS students do not have involvement with MIT. Cross-registration aside, HLEP, Harvard Innovation Lab, MIT Entrepreneurship contests, etc. are a few among the abundant activities involving both HLS and MIT engineering students. Those are the benefits of being two train stops (half an hour's walk away) away from one of the best engineering schools in the country. The only other law schools that have this benefit are SLS and BOALT.


I know these programs exist. Cross-registration at Fletcher and MIT is awesome. Similar interactive programs exist at many universities. That is not my contention. You have a particular interest in emerging tech and maybe you have a STEM background: that's great, I'm genuinely glad you are taking advantage of that community. That is not the traditional experience for an HLS student (heavy interaction with MIT engineering students and faculty). Far from it.

dirac wrote:To be fair to Chicago that I have a lot of respect for, let us look at the percentage of HLS and Chicago graduates who have secured SCOTUS clerkships.

http://www.bcgsearch.com/article/900047 ... erkships/#

Yes, top law firm opportunities fall to the top students of every law school in t-20 and you could advise OP to choose Wash U over Yale (no offense to Wash U) if Wash U offers half tuition discount while Yale sticker.



Again, my contention is not that Harvard does not outperform Chicago in SCOTUS clerkships, or that more HLS students do not get summer positions at Wachtell and Bill and Conny. It does, and they do. But you framed these three examples as unique "opportunities available to HLS students." In reality, it takes 7-8+ H's during 1L to be competitive for these firms. And all or nearly all H's with several DS to be competitive for the types of feeder judges (Garland, Reinhardt, Katzmann, ect.). These are slices, of various sizes, of the class. They are not opportunities available to the majority of students at the school, anecdata from well-performing friends aside.

And that's the larger point: there are similarly sized slices (on a percentage basis) of students at Chicago who have access to these same professional opportunities. Not identical; but substantially similar. The distinction between the treatment of a Chicago student and a Harvard student by any particular firm or judge will vary. WashU versus Yale is not an apt analogy. Those are two very different schools; there are firms and judges that hire at one of those schools are not the other. This is not the case with Chicago, and HLS, two very similar schools insofar as the opportunities available to their graduates at different places in the class.


dirac wrote:To address your question about my summer internship place, I am interested in venture capital and startup (that is why I am involved a lot with MIT) and I am going to do my summer internship in CA, Fenwick & West. I did not bid NY firms. But two of my section mates (a section is 80 students at HLS) declined Wachtell offer and at least one other accepted Wachtell.


Fenwick is a great shop. I have classmates who started there. Much better for what you want to do than New York firms. When you arrive and see you have to work with attorneys that went to schools other than Harvard--dare I say it, maybe even a graduate from the University of Chicago--I hope you can contain your surprise.

VA2lawschool
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:52 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby VA2lawschool » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:39 pm

jbagelboy wrote:Fenwick is a great shop. I have classmates who started there. Much better for what you want to do than New York firms. When you arrive and see you have to work with attorneys that went to schools other than Harvard--dare I say it, maybe even a graduate from the University of Chicago--I hope you can contain your surprise.


Loled. Can confirm that I work at a top private firm in DC and there are partners and associates from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and *gasp* OTHER SCHOOLS! :lol: Maybe OP gets more money at UChicago, maybe OP likes smaller class sizes, or the city of Chicago. Both choices are plenty defensible, even with the highest aspirations.

cavalier1138
Posts: 2260
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby cavalier1138 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:51 pm

dirac wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
dirac wrote:
ponderingmeerkat wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
dirac wrote:Ruby beats Harvard at sticker. But Harvard at sticker beats half tuition discount at Chicago.


Because...?


Because dat preftige son! Oh and access to the Harvard club. :lol:

Really though, Dirac, terrible advice. I'm not entirely sure what kind of sad, prole-ish law firms
Justtrying2help wrote:
is referring to, but no law firm OP "should" be interviewing with is going to be overly awed by Harvard credentials (especially compared side-by-side to near-equivalent Chicago credentials).


Nope. Because of the other excellent schools of Harvard, e.g. Kennedy, HBS, etc. In addition, because of the strong alumni network and all the awesome opportunities (e.g. SCOTUS clerkships, Wachtell Lipton, William Connolly, etc.), especially true for people who would love to work in DC.


I'm sure that a lot of firms really care that Harvard also has the Kennedy School. It's totally worth $150k.

JFC.


Interestingly you did not include HBS in the calculation here. Plus, the total worth of HBS, HKS, HMS, involvement with engineering departments at MIT, etc. is $75K,not $150K.


I think it should have been quite obvious that I was referring to the fact that it doesn't matter. What do you think most law firm interviews look like?

Interviewer: "Any business experience?"
Interviewee: "Not a bit. But I did go to class right next to an excellent business school. Can I have a job now?"

dirac
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby dirac » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:42 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
dirac wrote:Oh yes, I am a 2L at HLS. Do not tell me you do not attend HLS and guess from your intuition that HLS students do not have involvement with MIT. Cross-registration aside, HLEP, Harvard Innovation Lab, MIT Entrepreneurship contests, etc. are a few among the abundant activities involving both HLS and MIT engineering students. Those are the benefits of being two train stops (half an hour's walk away) away from one of the best engineering schools in the country. The only other law schools that have this benefit are SLS and BOALT.


I know these programs exist. Cross-registration at Fletcher and MIT is awesome. Similar interactive programs exist at many universities. That is not my contention. You have a particular interest in emerging tech and maybe you have a STEM background: that's great, I'm genuinely glad you are taking advantage of that community. That is not the traditional experience for an HLS student (heavy interaction with MIT engineering students and faculty). Far from it.


dirac wrote:
To be fair to Chicago that I have a lot of respect for, let us look at the percentage of HLS and Chicago graduates who have secured SCOTUS clerkships.

http://www.bcgsearch.com/article/900047 ... erkships/#

Yes, top law firm opportunities fall to the top students of every law school in t-20 and you could advise OP to choose Wash U over Yale (no offense to Wash U) if Wash U offers half tuition discount while Yale sticker.



Again, my contention is not that Harvard does not outperform Chicago in SCOTUS clerkships, or that more HLS students do not get summer positions at Wachtell and Bill and Conny. It does, and they do. But you framed these three examples as unique "opportunities available to HLS students." In reality, it takes 7-8+ H's during 1L to be competitive for these firms. And all or nearly all H's with several DS to be competitive for the types of feeder judges (Garland, Reinhardt, Katzmann, ect.). These are slices, of various sizes, of the class. They are not opportunities available to the majority of students at the school, anecdata from well-performing friends aside.

And that's the larger point: there are similarly sized slices (on a percentage basis) of students at Chicago who have access to these same professional opportunities. Not identical; but substantially similar. The distinction between the treatment of a Chicago student and a Harvard student by any particular firm or judge will vary. WashU versus Yale is not an apt analogy. Those are two very different schools; there are firms and judges that hire at one of those schools are not the other. This is not the case with Chicago, and HLS, two very similar schools insofar as the opportunities available to their graduates at different places in the class.


dirac wrote:To address your question about my summer internship place, I am interested in venture capital and startup (that is why I am involved a lot with MIT) and I am going to do my summer internship in CA, Fenwick & West. I did not bid NY firms. But two of my section mates (a section is 80 students at HLS) declined Wachtell offer and at least one other accepted Wachtell.


Fenwick is a great shop. I have classmates who started there. Much better for what you want to do than New York firms. When you arrive and see you have to work with attorneys that went to schools other than Harvard--dare I say it, maybe even a graduate from the University of Chicago--I hope you can contain your surprise.


I agree traditional experience for an HLS student does not include much interaction with MIT. But it is changing now at HLS (probably that is part of the reason HLS is trying to admit students with only GREs in the pilot program). More and more HLS students are getting involved with MIT, especially when AI is becoming more imminent.

I apologize for the miscommunication about the top law firm opportunities. I was trying to say the probability of landing those positions is higher for HLS students based on statistics study in terms of percentage. Wachtell does require 7H plus but it is the only law firm that has this implicit requirement. Cravath and Skadden recruit a lot of below 3H, i.e. below median, students. The H/P system at HLS (also YLS, SLS, and BOALT) takes a lot of pressure out of your 1L life if you just want to find a good law firm job. For clerkships, you need to work hard everywhere. However, I respectfully disagree "there are similarly sized slices (on a percentage basis) of students at Chicago who have access to these same professional opportunities. Not identical; but substantially similar." I do not think it is "substantially similar" (SLS and HLS are "substantially similar" while YLS is noticeably better than these two) because most of the statistics for professional opportunities tell another way. For example, the Judicial clerkship percentage showed otherwise. That said I have very much respect for Chicago and it is one of the best law schools in the country. My favorite SCOTUS judge the late Justice Scalia likes Chicago students very much and had a lot of clerks from Chicago.

I appreciate your kind words about my law firm and it is indeed a great place to work. Thank you! Again, I have full respect for all the law schools (saying one affords less opportunity than another one does not border on disrespect; I always say YLS affords more opportunity to students who want to do PI than HLS). I always feel honored to work with students from other law schools. In my 1L summer, I was thrilled to work with students from UC Hasting and Santa Clara as well as with students from SLS, Chicago, Berkely, etc. and I cannot wait to work with them again. That is the benefit of the large class of HLS: you enjoy (or learn to enjoy for some people) being in the same class as people from various background (I am NOT an HPYSMC undergraduate or Ivy kid but get along very well with those "prestigious" kids as well as kids from large public universities ranked outside of top 50 by US News). No one at HLS would be surprised by studying in the same classroom with a kid from a non-known undergraduate college. Therefore, working together with a Chicago Law student is a privilege and pleasure for me.
Last edited by dirac on Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

dirac
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby dirac » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:20 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
dirac wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
dirac wrote:
ponderingmeerkat wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
dirac wrote:Ruby beats Harvard at sticker. But Harvard at sticker beats half tuition discount at Chicago.


Because...?


Because dat preftige son! Oh and access to the Harvard club. :lol:

Really though, Dirac, terrible advice. I'm not entirely sure what kind of sad, prole-ish law firms
Justtrying2help wrote:
is referring to, but no law firm OP "should" be interviewing with is going to be overly awed by Harvard credentials (especially compared side-by-side to near-equivalent Chicago credentials).


Nope. Because of the other excellent schools of Harvard, e.g. Kennedy, HBS, etc. In addition, because of the strong alumni network and all the awesome opportunities (e.g. SCOTUS clerkships, Wachtell Lipton, William Connolly, etc.), especially true for people who would love to work in DC.


I'm sure that a lot of firms really care that Harvard also has the Kennedy School. It's totally worth $150k.

JFC.


Interestingly you did not include HBS in the calculation here. Plus, the total worth of HBS, HKS, HMS, involvement with engineering departments at MIT, etc. is $75K,not $150K.


I think it should have been quite obvious that I was referring to the fact that it doesn't matter. What do you think most law firm interviews look like?

Interviewer: "Any business experience?"
Interviewee: "Not a bit. But I did go to class right next to an excellent business school. Can I have a job now?"


I certainly have figured out you were trying to say it "does not matter".

Even if we were discussing only about finding a summer associate job in a law firm (not the long term career development), having the experience of being a research assistant for HBS professors does help (my personal experience). If you do not want to have that commitment or do not find an opportunity, going to HBS classes also help the conversation with the interviewer very much (the same as going to classes at Booth). By the way, more and more HLS students land consulting and investment bank jobs after they get more involved with HBS (right they declined law firm offers). That is the benefit of being closer to NY.

cavalier1138
Posts: 2260
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby cavalier1138 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:31 pm

dirac wrote:
Even if we were discussing only about finding a summer associate job in a law firm (not the long term career development), having the experience of being a research assistant for HBS professors does help (my personal experience). If you do not want to have that commitment or do not find an opportunity, going to HBS classes also help the conversation with the interviewer very much (the same as going to classes at Booth). By the way, more and more HLS students land consulting and investment bank jobs after they get more involved with HBS (right they declined law firm offers). That is the benefit of being closer to NY.


So it is your contention that most HLS students are also studying at the business school? And that Chicago students interested in that field have no options?

Solid reasoning. Top-notch. 180.

dirac
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby dirac » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:43 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
dirac wrote:
Even if we were discussing only about finding a summer associate job in a law firm (not the long term career development), having the experience of being a research assistant for HBS professors does help (my personal experience). If you do not want to have that commitment or do not find an opportunity, going to HBS classes also help the conversation with the interviewer very much (the same as going to classes at Booth). By the way, more and more HLS students land consulting and investment bank jobs after they get more involved with HBS (right they declined law firm offers). That is the benefit of being closer to NY.


So it is your contention that most HLS students are also studying at the business school? And that Chicago students interested in that field have no options?

Solid reasoning. Top-notch. 180.


Hey dude, being cynical does you no good. I rest my argument on "more or less", not "options or no options". Plus, the value for this difference is $75000, not $150000. HBS has more interaction with Wall Street than Booth, alumni base being much larger. HKS has more connection with DC (probably that is one of the reasons Prof. Cass Sunstein left U Chicago for Harvard on top of family reasons). All of these give you an edge in exploring different opportunities (the OP did not mention a clear career goal so I assume he would like to explore every possibility). But that edge is not worth more than $75000.

shadowfax
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:39 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby shadowfax » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:01 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
big_willy_style_333 wrote:
shadowfax wrote:
big_willy_style_333 wrote:
shadowfax wrote:The Harvard network...bigger is better. Just look at the endowment. Attend the Head of the Charles. A Yale Harvard football game. Doesn't matter if you know them personally.

I don't know what the Head of Charles, the Y-H football game, and even the endowment (per student) have to do with class size. If you want to say that Harvard has a better network, that's fine, but none of the things you mention relate to your point that the network is better because it is bigger.


Also other schools have traditions too. This is all relative. And HLS =\= Harvard College. These things mean and matter a lot less as a grad student.

Responding to shadowfax arguments is a lot like responding to Milo Yiannopolis on twitter--he always has something inappropriate, snippy but at base completely without substance to float around the point.


Wow a Milo comparison. Couldn't think of anyone worse? Stalin? Mao? Genghis Khan? Attila the Hun? I get you are angry with the latest rankings labeling you now as NYU's north campus. And I know at this time of year when events like March Madness occur you can only understand the interest in the abstract. That's the dilemma of CCN. They are not the best and yet have none of the joys of the next tier (or for that matter the top tier) like sports and a sense of humor. But don't take it out on me.

The question was about Harvard Law being too big to facilitate a meaningful network. My use of casual gathering events was simply an attempt to say if you went to Harvard you are connected to everyone who went to Harvard. It's called school pride. And yes that school pride is a big reason for the $37 billion endowment.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9850
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:20 pm

dirac wrote: stuff


I appreciate you tempering your response and engaging with me in polite conversation.

However, you are factually incorrect about the bolded and your assumptions about variance between HLS and Chicago in employment opportunities. I am relying on both empirical assessment (i.e. data), and my own professional experience, which is several years more advanced than yours and involves the other side of recruiting for both federal judges and selective law firms.

Here are some facts about federal clerkships, about which you have stated the following:

dirac wrote:For example, the Judicial clerkship percentage showed otherwise


Here are the federal clerkship numbers for the class of 2014, drawn directly from the ABA (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/):
Harvard: 85 out of 559 graduates, 15.2%
Chicago: 33 out of 203 graduates, 16.3%

Obviously, these numbers vary year to year--for example, HLS was higher in 2015, Chicago higher a few years before--and these numbers are deeply flawed because they only consider persons that begin their clerkships within 9 months of graduation, whereas the increasing trend is for most students (especially at schools like HLS) to begin their clerkships one or two years out of law school for competitive judges that are hiring further and further in advance. Regardless, even if HLS's actual clerkship numbers are more like 25%, Chicago's are as well. It is empirically false to state that Harvard has substantially superior clerkship numbers than Chicago. They are not identical; Harvard averaged over several years is a little better; but they are substantially similar.

These are the facts of how the schools line up against each other at a high level for the class of 2015:

https://www.lstreports.com/compare/harvard/chicago/

As you can see, Chicago has a slightly better overall employment score; the schools have similar under-employment rates (~8%); Chicago sends more persons into large firms out of law school (HLS has more join after clerking); HLS had more people going into public service in 2015, but compare to 2011 and 2013, where Chicago did (you can compare by moving your cursor over the graph and seeing prior years). I would call these results substantially similar. Compare to a school like Washington University: https://www.lstreports.com/compare/harv ... ago/washu/.

Pictorally now, you can see what I mean. Wash U is a pretty good school. Still, WashU has substantially fewer grads obtaining JD-required full time employment; substantially higher underemployment; very, very different numbers of persons going into large firms (several times less); a much higher small firm score, which often reflects inability to procure a large firm position; and substantially fewer clerks (although I wouldn't put much weight in the LST clerkship scores, they are quite off). That's a school that does not have substantially similar results.

But these are just numbers--what about quality, you might ask? Here's where I'd speak a little more from experience. The most rigorous way to talk about quality is the grade cutoff that employers apply to various schools. HLS and Chicago, of course, are notoriously difficult to compare. HLS is easier because it stacks its grades against a 4.0+ scale (LP, P, H, DS). So its relatively easy to compute an HLS student's GPA before an interview. Still, they usually don't provide class rank (neither does Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, ect.) Chicago is messier, but judges and firms that hire regularly from there have sophisticated tools for doing so. The only qualitative argument here, looking at the numbers above that are substantially similar, is converting the grade systems, employers will reach deeper to interview a Harvard student on however they've computed their grade scale than a Chicago student. Now, most employers will consider the two schools slightly differently. Usually Harvard grades are evaluated slightly more leniently than Chicago. But only slightly. For example, taking what you've stated--that 3H's will suffice for most new V10 firms barring Wachtell--that lines up with perhaps small variation with my understanding of how those firms recruit at Chicago as well from what people who attend that school have stated (summoning 2014). For more competitive firms in other cities and boutiques, you need better grades at both schools. I won't get into specifics here (happy to over PM), but in my experience seeing the recruiting end at several of these types of employers at these types of top schools, I don't see the marked difference you're espousing. Harvard's better, but by a margin that's difficult to assess and even more difficult to monetize.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9850
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:30 pm

shadowfax wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Responding to shadowfax arguments is a lot like responding to Milo Yiannopolis on twitter--he always has something inappropriate, snippy but at base completely without substance to float around the point.


Wow a Milo comparison. Couldn't think of anyone worse? Stalin? Mao? Genghis Khan? Attila the Hun?


I don't think you're a mass murderer. That's hardly apt. You're harmless. Like Milo, you've undermined your credibility via hyperbole and off-hand observations on non-germane subject matter. I don't impute his vicious misogyny, reactionary politics, or other delusions to you, though. I'm sure you're a smart and thoughtful person and we'd enjoy working together. You're just not that helpful on this website.

shadowfax
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:39 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby shadowfax » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:44 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
shadowfax wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Responding to shadowfax arguments is a lot like responding to Milo Yiannopolis on twitter--he always has something inappropriate, snippy but at base completely without substance to float around the point.


Wow a Milo comparison. Couldn't think of anyone worse? Stalin? Mao? Genghis Khan? Attila the Hun?


I don't think you're a mass murderer. That's hardly apt. You're harmless. Like Milo, you've undermined your credibility via hyperbole and off-hand observations on non-germane subject matter. I don't impute his vicious misogyny, reactionary politics, or other delusions to you, though. I'm sure you're a smart and thoughtful person and we'd enjoy working together. You're just not that helpful on this website.


We see the world differently. I don't know which view is the right one. Your numbers and analysis always make sense. Take your example of 33 open slots for federal clerkship's in 2014 for Chicago versus 85 out of Harvard for the same year. You are correct that the odds are slightly better out of Chicago but at Harvard the view is that there are 52 more open slots and that makes it a better opportunity. Now maybe I took too many classes at HBS but the striving for the brass ring for those who want it is deeply ingrained in the culture. Predicting how one will do in law school is not easy. But if you come into any of these schools with a 172 and a 4.0, which a lot of folks do, you might care more about the gross number of opportunities than the odds.

dirac
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby dirac » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:20 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
dirac wrote: stuff


I appreciate you tempering your response and engaging with me in polite conversation.

However, you are factually incorrect about the bolded and your assumptions about variance between HLS and Chicago in employment opportunities. I am relying on both empirical assessment (i.e. data), and my own professional experience, which is several years more advanced than yours and involves the other side of recruiting for both federal judges and selective law firms.

Here are some facts about federal clerkships, about which you have stated the following:

dirac wrote:For example, the Judicial clerkship percentage showed otherwise


Here are the federal clerkship numbers for the class of 2014, drawn directly from the ABA (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/):
Harvard: 85 out of 559 graduates, 15.2%
Chicago: 33 out of 203 graduates, 16.3%

Obviously, these numbers vary year to year--for example, HLS was higher in 2015, Chicago higher a few years before--and these numbers are deeply flawed because they only consider persons that begin their clerkships within 9 months of graduation, whereas the increasing trend is for most students (especially at schools like HLS) to begin their clerkships one or two years out of law school for competitive judges that are hiring further and further in advance. Regardless, even if HLS's actual clerkship numbers are more like 25%, Chicago's are as well. It is empirically false to state that Harvard has substantially superior clerkship numbers than Chicago. They are not identical; Harvard averaged over several years is a little better; but they are substantially similar.

These are the facts of how the schools line up against each other at a high level for the class of 2015:

https://www.lstreports.com/compare/harvard/chicago/

As you can see, Chicago has a slightly better overall employment score; the schools have similar under-employment rates (~8%); Chicago sends more persons into large firms out of law school (HLS has more join after clerking); HLS had more people going into public service in 2015, but compare to 2011 and 2013, where Chicago did (you can compare by moving your cursor over the graph and seeing prior years). I would call these results substantially similar. Compare to a school like Washington University: https://www.lstreports.com/compare/harv ... ago/washu/.

Pictorally now, you can see what I mean. Wash U is a pretty good school. Still, WashU has substantially fewer grads obtaining JD-required full time employment; substantially higher underemployment; very, very different numbers of persons going into large firms (several times less); a much higher small firm score, which often reflects inability to procure a large firm position; and substantially fewer clerks (although I wouldn't put much weight in the LST clerkship scores, they are quite off). That's a school that does not have substantially similar results.

But these are just numbers--what about quality, you might ask? Here's where I'd speak a little more from experience. The most rigorous way to talk about quality is the grade cutoff that employers apply to various schools. HLS and Chicago, of course, are notoriously difficult to compare. HLS is easier because it stacks its grades against a 4.0+ scale (LP, P, H, DS). So its relatively easy to compute an HLS student's GPA before an interview. Still, they usually don't provide class rank (neither does Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, ect.) Chicago is messier, but judges and firms that hire regularly from there have sophisticated tools for doing so. The only qualitative argument here, looking at the numbers above that are substantially similar, is converting the grade systems, employers will reach deeper to interview a Harvard student on however they've computed their grade scale than a Chicago student. Now, most employers will consider the two schools slightly differently. Usually Harvard grades are evaluated slightly more leniently than Chicago. But only slightly. For example, taking what you've stated--that 3H's will suffice for most new V10 firms barring Wachtell--that lines up with perhaps small variation with my understanding of how those firms recruit at Chicago as well from what people who attend that school have stated (summoning 2014). For more competitive firms in other cities and boutiques, you need better grades at both schools. I won't get into specifics here (happy to over PM), but in my experience seeing the recruiting end at several of these types of employers at these types of top schools, I don't see the marked difference you're espousing. Harvard's better, but by a margin that's difficult to assess and even more difficult to monetize.


My facts are not incorrect and it is our different understanding of "substantial similarity". For several-year clerkship numbers I used above the law numbers: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/08/the-best ... lerkships/. I would not say 16.8% and 13.5% are "substantially similar" (I might say "similar" because it is ~ 20% difference), but 31.3% (Yale) and 28.6% (Stanford) might be substantially similar (~10% difference). I also completely agree that in a certain year there might be fluctuation like in 2011 Harvard is 17.1% and Chicago is 9.5% (https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/ ... clerkships). By the way, 2014 is year Harvard and Chicago have the most similar percentage and in other years as shown by the link provided by you, Harvard is noticeably higher:

2010 Harvard 96 Chicago 24
2011 Harvard 95 Chicago 19
2012 Harvard 105 Chicago 31
2013 Harvard 98 Chicago 22
2014 Harvard 85 Chicago 33
2015 Harvard 112 Chicago 28

I did not see Chicago "number higher a few years before".


After all, without corrected clerkship data available, I do not agree with this one: Regardless, even if HLS's actual clerkship numbers are more like 25%, Chicago's are as well.


I agree that the margin between Harvard and Chicago is difficult to assess and monetize. That is why it might be zero to you and might be half tuition to me (I have my justification and you also have yours.That is why I declined half tuition waiver from Chicago to attend Harvard but you may also have declined admission from Harvard). That is why we have this forum and OP would love to listen to different opinions. He will also appreciate our data and discussion.
Last edited by dirac on Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
lawdawg69
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:00 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby lawdawg69 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:25 pm

I'd say retake for better options, a few points go a long way.

dirac
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby dirac » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:40 pm

lawdawg69 wrote:I'd say retake for better options, a few points go a long way.


I actually agree:)

sadie2law
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:09 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby sadie2law » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:55 pm

Well this did not go the way I expected ...

Shout out to the few grown adults on this thread who replied to the questions at hand without flat-out insulting each other.

Genuine thanks to everyone who answered.

I'm also genuinely shocked at the childish display of one-upping and name-calling.

dirac
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby dirac » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:34 pm

sadie2law wrote:Well this did not go the way I expected ...

Shout out to the few grown adults on this thread who replied to the questions at hand without flat-out insulting each other.

Genuine thanks to everyone who answered.

I'm also genuinely shocked at the childish display of one-upping and name-calling.


Welcome to law school:)

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9850
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Harvard vs. Chicago

Postby jbagelboy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:46 am

dirac wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
dirac wrote: stuff


I appreciate you tempering your response and engaging with me in polite conversation.

However, you are factually incorrect about the bolded and your assumptions about variance between HLS and Chicago in employment opportunities. I am relying on both empirical assessment (i.e. data), and my own professional experience, which is several years more advanced than yours and involves the other side of recruiting for both federal judges and selective law firms.

Here are some facts about federal clerkships, about which you have stated the following:

dirac wrote:For example, the Judicial clerkship percentage showed otherwise


Here are the federal clerkship numbers for the class of 2014, drawn directly from the ABA (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/):
Harvard: 85 out of 559 graduates, 15.2%
Chicago: 33 out of 203 graduates, 16.3%

Obviously, these numbers vary year to year--for example, HLS was higher in 2015, Chicago higher a few years before--and these numbers are deeply flawed because they only consider persons that begin their clerkships within 9 months of graduation, whereas the increasing trend is for most students (especially at schools like HLS) to begin their clerkships one or two years out of law school for competitive judges that are hiring further and further in advance. Regardless, even if HLS's actual clerkship numbers are more like 25%, Chicago's are as well. It is empirically false to state that Harvard has substantially superior clerkship numbers than Chicago. They are not identical; Harvard averaged over several years is a little better; but they are substantially similar.

These are the facts of how the schools line up against each other at a high level for the class of 2015:

https://www.lstreports.com/compare/harvard/chicago/

As you can see, Chicago has a slightly better overall employment score; the schools have similar under-employment rates (~8%); Chicago sends more persons into large firms out of law school (HLS has more join after clerking); HLS had more people going into public service in 2015, but compare to 2011 and 2013, where Chicago did (you can compare by moving your cursor over the graph and seeing prior years). I would call these results substantially similar. Compare to a school like Washington University: https://www.lstreports.com/compare/harv ... ago/washu/.

Pictorally now, you can see what I mean. Wash U is a pretty good school. Still, WashU has substantially fewer grads obtaining JD-required full time employment; substantially higher underemployment; very, very different numbers of persons going into large firms (several times less); a much higher small firm score, which often reflects inability to procure a large firm position; and substantially fewer clerks (although I wouldn't put much weight in the LST clerkship scores, they are quite off). That's a school that does not have substantially similar results.

But these are just numbers--what about quality, you might ask? Here's where I'd speak a little more from experience. The most rigorous way to talk about quality is the grade cutoff that employers apply to various schools. HLS and Chicago, of course, are notoriously difficult to compare. HLS is easier because it stacks its grades against a 4.0+ scale (LP, P, H, DS). So its relatively easy to compute an HLS student's GPA before an interview. Still, they usually don't provide class rank (neither does Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, ect.) Chicago is messier, but judges and firms that hire regularly from there have sophisticated tools for doing so. The only qualitative argument here, looking at the numbers above that are substantially similar, is converting the grade systems, employers will reach deeper to interview a Harvard student on however they've computed their grade scale than a Chicago student. Now, most employers will consider the two schools slightly differently. Usually Harvard grades are evaluated slightly more leniently than Chicago. But only slightly. For example, taking what you've stated--that 3H's will suffice for most new V10 firms barring Wachtell--that lines up with perhaps small variation with my understanding of how those firms recruit at Chicago as well from what people who attend that school have stated (summoning 2014). For more competitive firms in other cities and boutiques, you need better grades at both schools. I won't get into specifics here (happy to over PM), but in my experience seeing the recruiting end at several of these types of employers at these types of top schools, I don't see the marked difference you're espousing. Harvard's better, but by a margin that's difficult to assess and even more difficult to monetize.


My facts are not incorrect and it is our different understanding of "substantial similarity". For several-year clerkship numbers I used above the law numbers: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/08/the-best ... lerkships/. I would not say 16.8% and 13.5% are "substantially similar" (I might say "similar" because it is ~ 20% difference), but 31.3% (Yale) and 28.6% (Stanford) might be substantially similar (~10% difference). I also completely agree that in a certain year there might be fluctuation like in 2011 Harvard is 17.1% and Chicago is 9.5% (https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/ ... clerkships). By the way, 2014 is year Harvard and Chicago have the most similar percentage and in other years as shown by the link provided by you, Harvard is noticeably higher:

2010 Harvard 96 Chicago 24
2011 Harvard 95 Chicago 19
2012 Harvard 105 Chicago 31
2013 Harvard 98 Chicago 22
2014 Harvard 85 Chicago 33
2015 Harvard 112 Chicago 28

I did not see Chicago "number higher a few years before".


After all, without corrected clerkship data available, I do not agree with this one: Regardless, even if HLS's actual clerkship numbers are more like 25%, Chicago's are as well.


I agree that the margin between Harvard and Chicago is difficult to assess and monetize. That is why it might be zero to you and might be half tuition to me (I have my justification and you also have yours.That is why I declined half tuition waiver from Chicago to attend Harvard but you may also have declined admission from Harvard). That is why we have this forum and OP would love to listen to different opinions. He will also appreciate our data and discussion.


No, I think you probably made the right choice. I'm not challenging your individual decision. Just some of the hyperbolic assertions made on the earlier page. I don't really think we disagree so much as to substance, just form (and probably value judgments, but that's different.) It's misleading to pretend there's a big difference in opportunity between the schools. It's also misleading to pretend they are the same.

OP: sorry if we were snide. But I do think I engaged in real conversation nonetheless. That's TLS




Return to “Choosing a Law School”