Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

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

Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Columbia (Hamilton)
66
67%
Harvard
32
33%
 
Total votes: 98

Paul Campos

Silver
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby Paul Campos » Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:37 pm

Do you realize you are citing my own post at LGM? And that the dollar figures in it are in constant 2014 dollars?

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby Npret » Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:41 pm

Cantabridgian wrote:Interesting comments to my post. If true, then there was no need for this discussion at all. I guess all you 0Ls are just smarter than me. I bow to your experience and judgment.

But my point was, and remains, that Harvard's networking and collegial opportunities outweigh the other considerations. Harvard, more than any other law school, is national and international in scope and has a depth and breadth in its student body that is unmatched anywhere else. Columbia, not so much. If you want to practice Big Law in the Big Apple, then maybe Columbia is close. (Back then the top 5 were Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago and Penn.) But you can't beat Harvard.

If memory serves me, my tuition was around $8800 a year at Harvard (and had been about $1800 a year at UCLA). In today's dollars the Harvard equivalent would be about $55,600. https://www.officialdata.org/1970-dolla ... mount=8800 According to Harvard's website current tuition is $63,800. And, yes, in 1970-1971 I took out student loans.

So I made the 1970-equivalent decision and put my money then where my mouth is now. And will never regret it. And all of you who are pounding me, keep it up. I'm sure the hiring partners in the firms you will apply to will be just as impressed with you as you are.


Don’t worry. I have a top degree, did a big law corporate M&A job for 7 years where I did extensive amounts of interviewing of SAs and laterals, and, have a career I love now.

I do feel sorry that clueless old guys like you are in charge of hiring. Maybe start listening to people who live in the current decade instead of your past.

Also an alleged grown up partner acting vindictive and threatening on a law school forum post is a bad look. Why not put your firm so we can advise the 0Ls?

By the way, I graduated with no debt. Just to be clear - did you graduate with an amount of debt equivalent to buying a first house?

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby Npret » Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:46 pm

Paul Campos wrote:Do you realize you are citing my own post at LGM? And that the dollar figures in it are in constant 2014 dollars?


Professor Campos is a well-known law professor. I believe he went to Michigan if you want to sneer at him with your pals at the Harvard Club.

I’m sorry I can’t help laughing at how deluded you are and how terrible your advice is- I hope you don’t live in the 70s when advising your clients.

Oh, by the way, your associates feel the same way about useless Boomers as we do here. Obviously you haven’t grasped that yet.

nixy

Silver
Posts: 532
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby nixy » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:08 pm

Cantabridgian wrote:
QContinuum wrote:There's little that can be added to Npret and nixy's great points, except the observation that, as much as it wouldn't make sense for the lion's share of candidates to choose Harvard at sticker over Columbia with a Butler or Hamilton, it'd make even less sense for almost anyone to choose Harvard over Yale.

Yale places significantly more strongly than Harvard not just into academia, but also into clerkships, boutiques, government, PI, and the most prestigious large law firms. At least in the Harvard vs. Columbia with $ debate, there are legitimate strengths on the H side of the equation (better clerkship placement, for instance). With exceedingly few exceptions, there's nothing H offers that Y doesn't do better.

And since neither Harvard nor Yale award merit aid, COA is likely to be similar (if not lower at Yale given the lower COL in New Haven vs. Cambridge). Basically the only reason I can think of for choosing Harvard over Yale is if an applicant has a spouse who'd be unable to find work in New Haven. For a 20-year-old applicant like the Harvard alum's daughter, choosing H over Y would be an awful move.

I doubt my daughter will want to teach law school. If she did, then it would be a toss up from my perspective. But the decision is hers. If she is going to practice law, to try cases, then Harvard is the clear choice.

While I am a geezer, because I still practice I get to see all the recent admits and I occasionally find myself opposite them. Recent Harvard grads are better prepared to practice law and represent clients than their Yalie counterparts. Most judges have little interest in discussing the intricacies of Robert Cover's Nomos and Narrative. But they appreciate a lawyer who can make a proper objection or a proffer, or authenticate and introduce exhibits and conduct direct examination. (While anecdotal, I'm also thinking about how Kansas SoS Kris Kobach ineptly represented himself earlier this year in the trial of a voter fraud case. He had a Harvard BA, but a Yale Law Degree that seemed to have provided him with no lawerly skills.)

Oh my goodness, how did I miss this post earlier?

Law schools all offer exactly the same opportunities to learn to object/proffer/authenticate etc, which is to say that students can graduate from any law school in the land and not know how to do any of that. No one is required to learn any of that.

Also Kris Kobach graduated law school in 1995. Any weaknesses he showed in a trial from earlier this year are absolutely not on the law school he graduated from. It does look like he might not be a great litigator, but that’s probably because he doesn’t appear actually to have worked as one particularly consistently before going into politics.

helpfulposter215

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:12 pm

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby helpfulposter215 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:19 pm

Npret wrote:
Cantabridgian wrote:Interesting comments to my post. If true, then there was no need for this discussion at all. I guess all you 0Ls are just smarter than me. I bow to your experience and judgment.

But my point was, and remains, that Harvard's networking and collegial opportunities outweigh the other considerations. Harvard, more than any other law school, is national and international in scope and has a depth and breadth in its student body that is unmatched anywhere else. Columbia, not so much. If you want to practice Big Law in the Big Apple, then maybe Columbia is close. (Back then the top 5 were Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago and Penn.) But you can't beat Harvard.

If memory serves me, my tuition was around $8800 a year at Harvard (and had been about $1800 a year at UCLA). In today's dollars the Harvard equivalent would be about $55,600. https://www.officialdata.org/1970-dolla ... mount=8800 According to Harvard's website current tuition is $63,800. And, yes, in 1970-1971 I took out student loans.

So I made the 1970-equivalent decision and put my money then where my mouth is now. And will never regret it. And all of you who are pounding me, keep it up. I'm sure the hiring partners in the firms you will apply to will be just as impressed with you as you are.


Don’t worry. I have a top degree, did a big law corporate M&A job for 7 years where I did extensive amounts of interviewing of SAs and laterals, and, have a career I love now.

I do feel sorry that clueless old guys like you are in charge of hiring. Maybe start listening to people who live in the current decade instead of your past.

Also an alleged grown up partner acting vindictive and threatening on a law school forum post is a bad look. Why not put your firm so we can advise the 0Ls?

By the way, I graduated with no debt. Just to be clear - did you graduate with an amount of debt equivalent to buying a first house?


Is your "top degree" from Columbia? Just curious since it seems as though some of the posts ITT have hit a sore spot for you. When I see this level of defensiveness, the poster usually attended a school less prestigious than Harvard. My suspicion is that you're continuing the trend

Mercat

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:22 pm

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby Mercat » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:28 pm

No way someone who is in their 70s knows what a 0L is. Flame post.

I really enjoyed reading the narrative though.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby Npret » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:42 pm

nixy wrote:
Cantabridgian wrote:
QContinuum wrote:There's little that can be added to Npret and nixy's great points, except the observation that, as much as it wouldn't make sense for the lion's share of candidates to choose Harvard at sticker over Columbia with a Butler or Hamilton, it'd make even less sense for almost anyone to choose Harvard over Yale.

Yale places significantly more strongly than Harvard not just into academia, but also into clerkships, boutiques, government, PI, and the most prestigious large law firms. At least in the Harvard vs. Columbia with $ debate, there are legitimate strengths on the H side of the equation (better clerkship placement, for instance). With exceedingly few exceptions, there's nothing H offers that Y doesn't do better.

And since neither Harvard nor Yale award merit aid, COA is likely to be similar (if not lower at Yale given the lower COL in New Haven vs. Cambridge). Basically the only reason I can think of for choosing Harvard over Yale is if an applicant has a spouse who'd be unable to find work in New Haven. For a 20-year-old applicant like the Harvard alum's daughter, choosing H over Y would be an awful move.

I doubt my daughter will want to teach law school. If she did, then it would be a toss up from my perspective. But the decision is hers. If she is going to practice law, to try cases, then Harvard is the clear choice.

While I am a geezer, because I still practice I get to see all the recent admits and I occasionally find myself opposite them. Recent Harvard grads are better prepared to practice law and represent clients than their Yalie counterparts. Most judges have little interest in discussing the intricacies of Robert Cover's Nomos and Narrative. But they appreciate a lawyer who can make a proper objection or a proffer, or authenticate and introduce exhibits and conduct direct examination. (While anecdotal, I'm also thinking about how Kansas SoS Kris Kobach ineptly represented himself earlier this year in the trial of a voter fraud case. He had a Harvard BA, but a Yale Law Degree that seemed to have provided him with no lawerly skills.)

Oh my goodness, how did I miss this post earlier?

Law schools all offer exactly the same opportunities to learn to object/proffer/authenticate etc, which is to say that students can graduate from any law school in the land and not know how to do any of that. No one is required to learn any of that.

Also Kris Kobach graduated law school in 1995. Any weaknesses he showed in a trial from earlier this year are absolutely not on the law school he graduated from. It does look like he might not be a great litigator, but that’s probably because he doesn’t appear actually to have worked as one particularly consistently before going into politics.


1995 is recent if you graduated in 1970.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby Npret » Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:12 pm

Mercat wrote:No way someone who is in their 70s knows what a 0L is. Flame post.

I really enjoyed reading the narrative though.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby Npret » Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:57 pm

helpfulposter215 wrote:
Npret wrote:
Cantabridgian wrote:Interesting comments to my post. If true, then there was no need for this discussion at all. I guess all you 0Ls are just smarter than me. I bow to your experience and judgment.

But my point was, and remains, that Harvard's networking and collegial opportunities outweigh the other considerations. Harvard, more than any other law school, is national and international in scope and has a depth and breadth in its student body that is unmatched anywhere else. Columbia, not so much. If you want to practice Big Law in the Big Apple, then maybe Columbia is close. (Back then the top 5 were Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago and Penn.) But you can't beat Harvard.

If memory serves me, my tuition was around $8800 a year at Harvard (and had been about $1800 a year at UCLA). In today's dollars the Harvard equivalent would be about $55,600. https://www.officialdata.org/1970-dolla ... mount=8800 According to Harvard's website current tuition is $63,800. And, yes, in 1970-1971 I took out student loans.

So I made the 1970-equivalent decision and put my money then where my mouth is now. And will never regret it. And all of you who are pounding me, keep it up. I'm sure the hiring partners in the firms you will apply to will be just as impressed with you as you are.


Don’t worry. I have a top degree, did a big law corporate M&A job for 7 years where I did extensive amounts of interviewing of SAs and laterals, and, have a career I love now.

I do feel sorry that clueless old guys like you are in charge of hiring. Maybe start listening to people who live in the current decade instead of your past.

Also an alleged grown up partner acting vindictive and threatening on a law school forum post is a bad look. Why not put your firm so we can advise the 0Ls?

By the way, I graduated with no debt. Just to be clear - did you graduate with an amount of debt equivalent to buying a first house?


Is your "top degree" from Columbia? Just curious since it seems as though some of the posts ITT have hit a sore spot for you. When I see this level of defensiveness, the poster usually attended a school less prestigious than Harvard. My suspicion is that you're continuing the trend

Hahahahaha

QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard

Postby QContinuum » Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:42 pm

Npret wrote:
Cantabridgian wrote:all of you who are pounding me, keep it up. I'm sure the hiring partners in the firms you will apply to will be just as impressed with you as you are.


I do feel sorry that clueless old guys like you are in charge of hiring. Maybe start listening to people who live in the current decade instead of your past.

Also an alleged grown up partner acting vindictive and threatening on a law school forum post is a bad look. Why not put your firm so we can advise the 0Ls?


Oh, don't worry, Npret - Cantabridgian isn't a BigLaw or even midlaw partner. Per his earlier post:

Cantabridgian wrote:I worked for a couple of small firms and then started my own firm in 1974. For the past 48 years I've been a trial lawyer, representing ordinary people, and enjoying the hell out of it.


He's a classic, small-law/hang-your-own-shingle kind of lawyer. He represents the middle class, not mega-corporations and the top 1%. Which is great, don't get me wrong! The middle class is in dire need of quality, affordable lawyers. But small law is hardly what the legal industry (or the typical Harvard Law grad, for that matter) would consider prestigious. So it's kind of funny that this poster is here bragging about his impressive resume. Almost makes you wonder why Cantabridgian didn't join a V10 or a lit boutique out of Hahvahd. Or the Honors Program or prestigious PI, if he wanted to help ordinary people.

The funniest thing, though, is how, for all his looking down on Yale, Cantabridgian's own posts reveal that Yale is better. On the one hand, he declares:

Cantabridgian wrote:As a law school and as a resource neither Yale nor Stanford can touch [Harvard].


Yet in the same post, he reveals:

Cantabridgian wrote:UCLA and Boalt Hall accepted me. Harvard put me on the waiting list. Yale Law School told me not to bother.


Notice how, as we go up the law school prestige ladder, Cantabridgian's results go from acceptances to being waitlisted to being flat-out rejected. Funny how Yale, a school he alleges can't even "touch" Harvard, could afford to turn up its nose at him, when Harvard was willing to at least keep him in reserve.

Also funny? On the one hand, Cantabridgian extols the superior quality of Harvard's litigation training. On the other hand, he himself is hardly a shining example of logical reasoning:

Cantabridgian wrote:I guess all you 0Ls are just smarter than me. I bow to your experience and judgment.


Obviously, since we don't agree with him, we must be 0Ls. Brilliant deduction. If I had to choose between Cantabridgian and Kobach to represent me, it'd be a really tough choice.



Return to “Choosing a Law School?

Who is online

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