UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

Help me fam (Interested in public and private int law)

UVA Dillard
85
81%
NYU
6
6%
Columbia
14
13%
 
Total votes: 105

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby UVA2B » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:11 pm

Po$eidon wrote:*debt*


We probably just disagree about the functional outcomes from CLS and UVA and whether someone with disposable wealth should splurge on marginal prestige-whoring, and I'm willing to accept that. In my mind, there is slightly more security to CLS to get Biglaw generally (which is the only thing the OP should likely be making decisions based on with dichotomous goals of international arbitration and IHR), but the ROI will never make sense given the options currently, which even rich people should factor into their decisions.

TL:DR probably agree to disagree about the value in this decision, and on my side, even rich people should invest wisely in their kids

User avatar
Po$eidon

Bronze
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Po$eidon » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:13 pm

Npret wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:
BoyJord wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


Fair enough. "marginal" was probably not entirely accurate but I would stand by the fact that the gains are not worth the ~200k we are discussing.


But they're rich. The value of a 200k expense is relative to the wealth of the individual. For most? Indefensible. For OP? Makes sense imo


Really odd prestige whoring in this logic. You denounce UVA for having zero international lay prestige, but say nothing of whether the other option has similar lay-prestige.

The entire exercise of discussing outcomes is largely masturbatory. UVA places less graduates in firms, relatively speaking, who will be doing international arbitration. The sample size of those going into IHR is too small to make any particular generalizations about placement in that field. If you want to pay $200k for ill-defined prestige in a field that doesn't have a statistical pattern worth relying on, that's on you. But don't pretend CLS magically gives a statistically advantaged chance of getting those jobs.

Even jbagelboy, arguably the biggest proponent of CLS on this site, thinks UVA is the financially responsible decision.

It all changes when we're talking F U money from the family, but even then no one should rightfully propose it's the best choice. You're paying $200k for the most likely outcome to be substantially the same. That's irrational, and I'm not sure how you convince yourself it isn't.


That's a serious straw man: I didn't say UVA has no prestige at all. I just said Columbia has marginal benefits (and I'd say it also has significantly more international prestige but I didn't say anything about prestige previously). If they were middle class I'd say take money. But they're not. They want CLS and they have money so let someone else get their Dillard shot


I'm sure OP said that the money for school would take away from money available from parents for buying a house, etc. Where did that change? You have to be extremely wealthy to waste $200,000. I don't think OP is that rich. If OP were that rich, he wouldn't even be asking outside of some ridiculous humblebrag.

Here's what OP said:
Lol yeah exactly, it's nice to not be facing debt but after mine and my brothers (who's a 3L now) school expenses, if I pay sticker then whatever finances I could have used down the line for a safety net/house/adult things will be entirely used up.

But maybe his story changed.


Hmmm I missed that. Still overall the OP has seemed very blasé about money throughout. I know middle class ppl, I know poor ppl, and I know rich ppl and middle class and poor ppl are not usually so ambivalent about such huge expenditures. If my intuitive sense of Op's finances are right, I say take the prestige and let others have the money.

User avatar
Po$eidon

Bronze
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Po$eidon » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:16 pm

UVA2B wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:*debt*


We probably just disagree about the functional outcomes from CLS and UVA and whether someone with disposable wealth should splurge on marginal prestige-whoring, and I'm willing to accept that. In my mind, there is slightly more security to CLS to get Biglaw generally (which is the only thing the OP should likely be making decisions based on with dichotomous goals of international arbitration and IHR), but the ROI will never make sense given the options currently, which even rich people should factor into their decisions.

TL:DR probably agree to disagree about the value in this decision, and on my side, even rich people should invest wisely in their kids


Yeah I will say that if OP was in any way debt financing I'd be a hard pro-UVA stance (debt is scary) but I just think otherwise given ample resources (and I would go CLS over the Dillard in the OP's seeming situation but I would NEVER in my situation for instance). I don't think it's a slam dunk either way in OP's situation.

User avatar
BoyJord

Bronze
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:15 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby BoyJord » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:32 pm

UVA2B wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:*debt*


We probably just disagree about the functional outcomes from CLS and UVA and whether someone with disposable wealth should splurge on marginal prestige-whoring, and I'm willing to accept that. In my mind, there is slightly more security to CLS to get Biglaw generally (which is the only thing the OP should likely be making decisions based on with dichotomous goals of international arbitration and IHR), but the ROI will never make sense given the options currently, which even rich people should factor into their decisions.

TL:DR probably agree to disagree about the value in this decision, and on my side, even rich people should invest wisely in their kids


I feel that this is key. Why not pocket/invest the money the Dillard saves you and let your money make money? Investing this difference will presumably yield a greater return than the margins gained by the CLS diploma.

That being said, I am also on the side of the "communists" ITT who suggest going to CLS so someone else can have the UVA $$. I think it is a poor financial decision but if you don't care about that then more power to you. Someone else will happily accepted the declined Dillard.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Npret » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:32 pm

Po$eidon wrote:
Npret wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:
BoyJord wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


Fair enough. "marginal" was probably not entirely accurate but I would stand by the fact that the gains are not worth the ~200k we are discussing.


But they're rich. The value of a 200k expense is relative to the wealth of the individual. For most? Indefensible. For OP? Makes sense imo


Really odd prestige whoring in this logic. You denounce UVA for having zero international lay prestige, but say nothing of whether the other option has similar lay-prestige.

The entire exercise of discussing outcomes is largely masturbatory. UVA places less graduates in firms, relatively speaking, who will be doing international arbitration. The sample size of those going into IHR is too small to make any particular generalizations about placement in that field. If you want to pay $200k for ill-defined prestige in a field that doesn't have a statistical pattern worth relying on, that's on you. But don't pretend CLS magically gives a statistically advantaged chance of getting those jobs.

Even jbagelboy, arguably the biggest proponent of CLS on this site, thinks UVA is the financially responsible decision.

It all changes when we're talking F U money from the family, but even then no one should rightfully propose it's the best choice. You're paying $200k for the most likely outcome to be substantially the same. That's irrational, and I'm not sure how you convince yourself it isn't.


That's a serious straw man: I didn't say UVA has no prestige at all. I just said Columbia has marginal benefits (and I'd say it also has significantly more international prestige but I didn't say anything about prestige previously). If they were middle class I'd say take money. But they're not. They want CLS and they have money so let someone else get their Dillard shot


I'm sure OP said that the money for school would take away from money available from parents for buying a house, etc. Where did that change? You have to be extremely wealthy to waste $200,000. I don't think OP is that rich. If OP were that rich, he wouldn't even be asking outside of some ridiculous humblebrag.

Here's what OP said:
Lol yeah exactly, it's nice to not be facing debt but after mine and my brothers (who's a 3L now) school expenses, if I pay sticker then whatever finances I could have used down the line for a safety net/house/adult things will be entirely used up.

But maybe his story changed.


Hmmm I missed that. Still overall the OP has seemed very blasé about money throughout. I know middle class ppl, I know poor ppl, and I know rich ppl and middle class and poor ppl are not usually so ambivalent about such huge expenditures. If my intuitive sense of Op's finances are right, I say take the prestige and let others have the money.


I don't understand this argument at all. These are merit based highly selective scholarships- why are you assuming the next people will need the money more than OP? This money doesn't go to need based aid at all (unless I misunderstand Dillard scholarships entirely.)

The only certain thing is that whoever takes the scholarship values money more than OP does. Their wealth is irrelevant to merit scholarship and I would guess most Dillard scholars are well off because generally working poors don't have time to assemble the same resumes.

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby UVA2B » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:37 pm

Npret wrote:I don't understand this argument at all. These are merit based highly selective scholarships- why are you assuming the next people will need the money more than OP? This money doesn't go to need based aid at all (unless I misunderstand Dillard scholarships entirely.)

The only certain thing is that whoever takes the scholarship values money more than OP does. Their wealth is irrelevant to merit scholarship and I would guess most Dillard scholars are well off because generally working poors don't have time to assemble the same resumes.


This is a fantastic point, and I feel bad for having glossed over it.

User avatar
Po$eidon

Bronze
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Po$eidon » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:39 pm

Npret wrote:
I don't understand this argument at all. These are merit based highly selective scholarships- why are you assuming the next people will need the money more than OP? This money doesn't go to need based aid at all (unless I misunderstand Dillard scholarships entirely.)

The only certain thing is that whoever takes the scholarship values money more than OP does. Their wealth is irrelevant to merit scholarship and I would guess most Dillard scholars are well off because generally working poors don't have time to assemble the same resumes.


Wealth is irrelevant to the decision by UVA to GIVE a Dillard. It is not irrelevant to the decision to ACCEPT a Dillard.

curry1

Silver
Posts: 877
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 11:41 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby curry1 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:39 pm

Npret wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:
BoyJord wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


Fair enough. "marginal" was probably not entirely accurate but I would stand by the fact that the gains are not worth the ~200k we are discussing.


But they're rich. The value of a 200k expense is relative to the wealth of the individual. For most? Indefensible. For OP? Makes sense imo


Really odd prestige whoring in this logic. You denounce UVA for having zero international lay prestige, but say nothing of whether the other option has similar lay-prestige.

The entire exercise of discussing outcomes is largely masturbatory. UVA places less graduates in firms, relatively speaking, who will be doing international arbitration. The sample size of those going into IHR is too small to make any particular generalizations about placement in that field. If you want to pay $200k for ill-defined prestige in a field that doesn't have a statistical pattern worth relying on, that's on you. But don't pretend CLS magically gives a statistically advantaged chance of getting those jobs.

Even jbagelboy, arguably the biggest proponent of CLS on this site, thinks UVA is the financially responsible decision.

It all changes when we're talking F U money from the family, but even then no one should rightfully propose it's the best choice. You're paying $200k for the most likely outcome to be substantially the same. That's irrational, and I'm not sure how you convince yourself it isn't.


That's a serious straw man: I didn't say UVA has no prestige at all. I just said Columbia has marginal benefits (and I'd say it also has significantly more international prestige but I didn't say anything about prestige previously). If they were middle class I'd say take money. But they're not. They want CLS and they have money so let someone else get their Dillard shot


I'm sure OP said that the money for school would take away from money available from parents for buying a house, etc. Where did that change? You have to be extremely wealthy to waste $200,000. I don't think OP is that rich. If OP were that rich, he wouldn't even be asking outside of some ridiculous humblebrag.

Here's what OP said:
Lol yeah exactly, it's nice to not be facing debt but after mine and my brothers (who's a 3L now) school expenses, if I pay sticker then whatever finances I could have used down the line for a safety net/house/adult things will be entirely used up.

But maybe his story changed.

I don't think Columbia is justified but OP seems to have his heart set on it.


This isn't really true positively speaking. Plenty of plain UMC folks waste ~250k so their precious child can go to Sarah Lawrence or Scripps or Boston University for UG. People definitely don't make financially prudent decisions when it comes to education, even if they're not super rich. This is part of the problem w/r/t the insane education costs in the U.S. for UG and graduate/professional school.

User avatar
Po$eidon

Bronze
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Po$eidon » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:40 pm

BoyJord wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:*debt*


We probably just disagree about the functional outcomes from CLS and UVA and whether someone with disposable wealth should splurge on marginal prestige-whoring, and I'm willing to accept that. In my mind, there is slightly more security to CLS to get Biglaw generally (which is the only thing the OP should likely be making decisions based on with dichotomous goals of international arbitration and IHR), but the ROI will never make sense given the options currently, which even rich people should factor into their decisions.

TL:DR probably agree to disagree about the value in this decision, and on my side, even rich people should invest wisely in their kids


I feel that this is key. Why not pocket/invest the money the Dillard saves you and let your money make money? Investing this difference will presumably yield a greater return than the margins gained by the CLS diploma.

That being said, I am also on the side of the "communists" ITT who suggest going to CLS so someone else can have the UVA $$. I think it is a poor financial decision but if you don't care about that then more power to you. Someone else will happily accepted the declined Dillard.


Jooooooooinnn usss

User avatar
BoyJord

Bronze
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:15 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby BoyJord » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:45 pm

Po$eidon wrote:
BoyJord wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:*debt*


We probably just disagree about the functional outcomes from CLS and UVA and whether someone with disposable wealth should splurge on marginal prestige-whoring, and I'm willing to accept that. In my mind, there is slightly more security to CLS to get Biglaw generally (which is the only thing the OP should likely be making decisions based on with dichotomous goals of international arbitration and IHR), but the ROI will never make sense given the options currently, which even rich people should factor into their decisions.

TL:DR probably agree to disagree about the value in this decision, and on my side, even rich people should invest wisely in their kids


I feel that this is key. Why not pocket/invest the money the Dillard saves you and let your money make money? Investing this difference will presumably yield a greater return than the margins gained by the CLS diploma.

That being said, I am also on the side of the "communists" ITT who suggest going to CLS so someone else can have the UVA $$. I think it is a poor financial decision but if you don't care about that then more power to you. Someone else will happily accepted the declined Dillard.


Jooooooooinnn usss


Image

User avatar
Po$eidon

Bronze
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Po$eidon » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:47 pm

BoyJord wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:
BoyJord wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:*debt*


We probably just disagree about the functional outcomes from CLS and UVA and whether someone with disposable wealth should splurge on marginal prestige-whoring, and I'm willing to accept that. In my mind, there is slightly more security to CLS to get Biglaw generally (which is the only thing the OP should likely be making decisions based on with dichotomous goals of international arbitration and IHR), but the ROI will never make sense given the options currently, which even rich people should factor into their decisions.

TL:DR probably agree to disagree about the value in this decision, and on my side, even rich people should invest wisely in their kids


I feel that this is key. Why not pocket/invest the money the Dillard saves you and let your money make money? Investing this difference will presumably yield a greater return than the margins gained by the CLS diploma.

That being said, I am also on the side of the "communists" ITT who suggest going to CLS so someone else can have the UVA $$. I think it is a poor financial decision but if you don't care about that then more power to you. Someone else will happily accepted the declined Dillard.


Jooooooooinnn usss


Image


Communist zombies for OP to go to CLS

dabigchina

Silver
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby dabigchina » Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 am

LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


at this risk of turning this into another lay prestige thread, the average person in California couldn't tell you where Columbia is.

source: just got done speaking with a bunch of undergrads about law school.

point is, this is a bad reason to turn down a bunch of money.

candidlatke

Bronze
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 3:52 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby candidlatke » Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:21 am

dabigchina wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


at this risk of turning this into another lay prestige thread, the average person in California couldn't tell you where Columbia is.

source: just got done speaking with a bunch of undergrads about law school.

point is, this is a bad reason to turn down a bunch of money.

to be fair, the average person can't tell you where any school is that doesn't have its city in its name so i'm not sure how useful of a defense that statement is.
i didn't know where any of the ivy's were when i was younger before i went out of my way to look them up (except upenn for obvious reasons) but that doesn't mean that the ivy's aren't generally prestigious


that being said op, turning down the dillard short of anything but like 80% scholly at columbia/nyu would probably be an objectively terrible position (and even at 80% it would be debatable)

User avatar
Pragmatic Gun

Silver
Posts: 1361
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:25 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Pragmatic Gun » Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:28 am

I really want to hear OP's opinion on this Robin Hoodism. If OP is a troll, then he/she is a very good one.

tinyvessels

Bronze
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby tinyvessels » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:52 am

Po$eidon wrote:
I was thinking this: TLS skews high scoring but also working class. The advice this site gives is largely contingent on those two lenses but wealthy ppl don't take the risks of debt and spending in their position is defensible and reasonable in a way that it wouldn't be for ppl of more modest backgrounds. In fact the current law school model is built on rich ppl paying sticker while us poors pursue scholarship and kind of requires it. I say go to Columbia.


'TLS skews high scoring but also working class.'

Really? I would say TLS skews waaaay more toward middle/upper middle class than working class. Sure, a lot of working class students come here to use the forums and get info. But the regulars and ones usually dishing out advice seem overwhelmingly middle/upper middle class.

I mean the amount of people that talk about how they'll take out loans but still have their families willing to give them upwards of 40,000-100,000 for their studies is really prevalent. Working class parents usually will never have half of that to give, and implying they have extra cash laying around for law school is pushing it.

LHS17

Bronze
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:29 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby LHS17 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:00 am

dabigchina wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


at this risk of turning this into another lay prestige thread, the average person in California couldn't tell you where Columbia is.

source: just got done speaking with a bunch of undergrads about law school.

point is, this is a bad reason to turn down a bunch of money.


Pretty sure this wasn't presented as a definitive reason to do anything.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Npret » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:35 am

tinyvessels wrote:
Po$eidon wrote:
I was thinking this: TLS skews high scoring but also working class. The advice this site gives is largely contingent on those two lenses but wealthy ppl don't take the risks of debt and spending in their position is defensible and reasonable in a way that it wouldn't be for ppl of more modest backgrounds. In fact the current law school model is built on rich ppl paying sticker while us poors pursue scholarship and kind of requires it. I say go to Columbia.


'TLS skews high scoring but also working class.'

Really? I would say TLS skews waaaay more toward middle/upper middle class than working class. Sure, a lot of working class students come here to use the forums and get info. But the regulars and ones usually dishing out advice seem overwhelmingly middle/upper middle class.

I mean the amount of people that talk about how they'll take out loans but still have their families willing to give them upwards of 40,000-100,000 for their studies is really prevalent. Working class parents usually will never have half of that to give, and implying they have extra cash laying around for law school is pushing it.


lots of people here seem willing to take sticker debt so it isn't just rich people paying sticker.

I'm also disagreeing fairly strongly again about rich people spending money they don't need to. You know what a trust fund trustee would advise in these circumstances. Just because some (or many)people think wasting $200,000 is ok, no financially prudent person would.

0Ls talk about these kinds of figures as if it is normal because of COA. But $200,000 is a great deal of money in the real world outside of the bubble of law school tuition.

I didn't address your Sarah Lawrence example because it has nothing to do with this circumstance of turning down a full tuition scholarship.
Last edited by Npret on Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

LHS17

Bronze
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:29 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby LHS17 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:38 am

candidlatke wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


at this risk of turning this into another lay prestige thread, the average person in California couldn't tell you where Columbia is.

source: just got done speaking with a bunch of undergrads about law school.

point is, this is a bad reason to turn down a bunch of money.

to be fair, the average person can't tell you where any school is that doesn't have its city in its name so i'm not sure how useful of a defense that statement is.
i didn't know where any of the ivy's were when i was younger before i went out of my way to look them up (except upenn for obvious reasons) but that doesn't mean that the ivy's aren't generally prestigious


that being said op, turning down the dillard short of anything but like 80% scholly at columbia/nyu would probably be an objectively terrible position (and even at 80% it would be debatable)


I should have qualified "average person" to say "average fee-generating lawyer and businessperson abroad."

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Npret » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:42 am

LHS17 wrote:
candidlatke wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


at this risk of turning this into another lay prestige thread, the average person in California couldn't tell you where Columbia is.

source: just got done speaking with a bunch of undergrads about law school.

point is, this is a bad reason to turn down a bunch of money.

to be fair, the average person can't tell you where any school is that doesn't have its city in its name so i'm not sure how useful of a defense that statement is.
i didn't know where any of the ivy's were when i was younger before i went out of my way to look them up (except upenn for obvious reasons) but that doesn't mean that the ivy's aren't generally prestigious


that being said op, turning down the dillard short of anything but like 80% scholly at columbia/nyu would probably be an objectively terrible position (and even at 80% it would be debatable)


I should have qualified "average person" to say "average fee-generating lawyer and businessperson abroad."

But those people will only be looking at your firm for prestige and status. By then you should have a job. The hiring people all know UVA.

LHS17

Bronze
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:29 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby LHS17 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:50 am

Npret wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
candidlatke wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


at this risk of turning this into another lay prestige thread, the average person in California couldn't tell you where Columbia is.

source: just got done speaking with a bunch of undergrads about law school.

point is, this is a bad reason to turn down a bunch of money.

to be fair, the average person can't tell you where any school is that doesn't have its city in its name so i'm not sure how useful of a defense that statement is.
i didn't know where any of the ivy's were when i was younger before i went out of my way to look them up (except upenn for obvious reasons) but that doesn't mean that the ivy's aren't generally prestigious


that being said op, turning down the dillard short of anything but like 80% scholly at columbia/nyu would probably be an objectively terrible position (and even at 80% it would be debatable)


I should have qualified "average person" to say "average fee-generating lawyer and businessperson abroad."

But those people will only be looking at your firm for prestige and status. By then you should have a job. The hiring people all know UVA.


I don't disagree in terms of the initial employment outcome.

I would still give serious thought to strength of alumni network abroad, including ancillary schools such as the MBA program. This would seem relevant (not conclusive) to opening new doors and sourcing new business within a foreign context.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Npret » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:02 am

LHS17 wrote:
Npret wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
candidlatke wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


at this risk of turning this into another lay prestige thread, the average person in California couldn't tell you where Columbia is.

source: just got done speaking with a bunch of undergrads about law school.

point is, this is a bad reason to turn down a bunch of money.

to be fair, the average person can't tell you where any school is that doesn't have its city in its name so i'm not sure how useful of a defense that statement is.
i didn't know where any of the ivy's were when i was younger before i went out of my way to look them up (except upenn for obvious reasons) but that doesn't mean that the ivy's aren't generally prestigious


that being said op, turning down the dillard short of anything but like 80% scholly at columbia/nyu would probably be an objectively terrible position (and even at 80% it would be debatable)


I should have qualified "average person" to say "average fee-generating lawyer and businessperson abroad."

But those people will only be looking at your firm for prestige and status. By then you should have a job. The hiring people all know UVA.


I don't disagree in terms of the initial employment outcome.

I would still give serious thought to strength of alumni network abroad, including ancillary schools such as the MBA program. This would seem relevant (not conclusive) to opening new doors and sourcing new business within a foreign context.

Your employment matters more. But this is way off topic. I doubt OP will bother to return to this thread.

LHS17

Bronze
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:29 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby LHS17 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:22 am

Npret wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
Npret wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
candidlatke wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
LHS17 wrote:
I think if you ask the average person on the streets of Europe or Asia what UVA law is, they won't have a clue. "International" prestige can diverge widely from domestic prestige, but I admittedly don't know what is really being pursued here. Marginal gain is debatable to me.


at this risk of turning this into another lay prestige thread, the average person in California couldn't tell you where Columbia is.

source: just got done speaking with a bunch of undergrads about law school.

point is, this is a bad reason to turn down a bunch of money.

to be fair, the average person can't tell you where any school is that doesn't have its city in its name so i'm not sure how useful of a defense that statement is.
i didn't know where any of the ivy's were when i was younger before i went out of my way to look them up (except upenn for obvious reasons) but that doesn't mean that the ivy's aren't generally prestigious


that being said op, turning down the dillard short of anything but like 80% scholly at columbia/nyu would probably be an objectively terrible position (and even at 80% it would be debatable)


I should have qualified "average person" to say "average fee-generating lawyer and businessperson abroad."

But those people will only be looking at your firm for prestige and status. By then you should have a job. The hiring people all know UVA.


I don't disagree in terms of the initial employment outcome.

I would still give serious thought to strength of alumni network abroad, including ancillary schools such as the MBA program. This would seem relevant (not conclusive) to opening new doors and sourcing new business within a foreign context.

Your employment matters more. But this is way off topic. I doubt OP will bother to return to this thread.


Sourcing clients at a salary 10-15 years from now is very much an employment matter.

User avatar
jjcorvino

Silver
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:49 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby jjcorvino » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:32 am

Wow, people are really pissed that OP's family is wealthy. I understand being jealous of the flexibility that wealth gives you, but this person didn't steal anything from you guys. The Dillard is a purely merit-based award. Him turning it down doesn't harm anyone else. Would a lot of us love that money? Sure! But it wasn't going to us anyway.

People should be addressing his actual question. If he wants to work in international human rights, what is the better school? How much of a better chance will Columbia/NYU give him? Lets say it is a 10% better chance (just throwing a number out there). Is that 10% worth it to OP over a down payment for a house or condo?

Personally, if I didn't have to worry about money at all I would take the absolute best school I could get into. You get one chance at law school, why possibly hamper your potential over money that will not matter to you anyway?

please do not hate me

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10245
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:40 am

curry1 wrote:
Npret wrote:
I don't think Columbia is justified but OP seems to have his heart set on it.


This isn't really true positively speaking. Plenty of plain UMC folks waste ~250k so their precious child can go to Sarah Lawrence or Scripps or Boston University for UG. People definitely don't make financially prudent decisions when it comes to education, even if they're not super rich. This is part of the problem w/r/t the insane education costs in the U.S. for UG and graduate/professional school.

its fairly different from graduate school since schools like Sarah Lawrence and Scripps have large endowments per capita that they use to provide generous financial assistance to anyone that qualifies for need based aid. Law schools do not do this (except HYS to some extent, but even they leave you with a $130k bill). Also, have you ever met a scripps grad from a poor family? c'mon.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: UVA Dillard v Columbia v NYU

Postby Npret » Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:10 am

jjcorvino wrote:Wow, people are really pissed that OP's family is wealthy. I understand being jealous of the flexibility that wealth gives you, but this person didn't steal anything from you guys. The Dillard is a purely merit-based award. Him turning it down doesn't harm anyone else. Would a lot of us love that money? Sure! But it wasn't going to us anyway.

People should be addressing his actual question. If he wants to work in international human rights, what is the better school? How much of a better chance will Columbia/NYU give him? Lets say it is a 10% better chance (just throwing a number out there). Is that 10% worth it to OP over a down payment for a house or condo?

Personally, if I didn't have to worry about money at all I would take the absolute best school I could get into. You get one chance at law school, why possibly hamper your potential over money that will not matter to you anyway?

please do not hate me


People did address the question repeatedly but OP dismissed the responses.



Return to “Choosing a Law School?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 16 guests