Hamilton at Columbia vs. Yale/Harvard Forum

[tinman]

Of course it cant be predicted with certainty but if you are going to be giving percentage chances at Biglaw you need to correct for that fact that a Hamilton scholars chances are not the same as the randomly selected student (the overall percentage chance). Idk the exact value but Im pretty sure it is close to "near certainty" the same way you would think YLS is.

I'm a CCN 2L. I also happen to know a bit about my friends' grades, LSAT/GPA combos and OCI results. Going off of that knowledge, I have little reason to credit the idea that percentage chances jump from 60+ to a virtual certainty merely because a person had numbers high enough to merit a full ride.

Some of the most successful people in my class were reverse splitters who I'm pretty sure are paying sticker to go here. Conversely, I can think of several examples that wound up below median with above 75 percentile stats.

My percentage chances (which, btw, are pretty damn accurate) may stand to be somewhat corrected for Hamilton recipients but I heavily doubt that they rise by a whooping 30 percent merely because the person nailed their LSAT and had awesome UG GPA.

A separate question is whether the Hamilton confers value directly by the force of its name - i.e. does the appellation "Hamilton fellow" have any weight to employers/judges etc.? When such a person sends out his resume, does this add to it in a substantial way? Is it likely that the Rubenstein will have similar value?

I don't know if anyone on this board will know the answer for you. If you google for resumes of Hamilton fellows, you find some impressive folk. I think it's definitely something to put on your resume, but I doubt if it's enough of a boast to compensate for turning down HYS IMO. When I was visiting Columbia in 2010, I met with a very impressive 3L who turned down Harvard for the Hamilton. He described that he felt it was worth it once in made Columbia Law Review. So in his mind Columbia Law Review plus Hamilton was at least as good at Harvard. Perhaps he is right.

I agree with Dresden Doll that high numbers do not equate with guaranteed success, especially at CCN. Twenty-five percent of Columbia's class scored 175 or above. I would bet less than half of those people end up in the top quarter of the class (I'd love to see the numbers).

[Casey2889]

to add to the above comment, i think that it's nearly impossible (and probably silly) to make predictions about LS outcomes based on the difference between a LSAT score in the 99.x and 99.y percentile, which is, if this thread is accurate, essentially what the hamilton awards.

unlike some industries in which the name of a degree granting institution is a sufficient credential (i.e. studios, agencies, hollywood in general) regardless from actual performance, hiring partners, judges and academics actually pay attention to what you did in conjunction with where you went.

if you take the hamilton and beast at CLS, it'd be infinitely better than tanking at Stanford/Yale/Harvard. if you take the hamilton and tank at CLS, on the other hand, the scholly would be of very little redemptive value.

TL;DR: if money were no object, i'd say go to one of Y/S (wherever you "fit" better). if money is an object, i'd say go to CLS and dominate, using the fact that you turned down "higher ranked" schools to motivate you.

[adude]

Incredible options. Columbia 100%. Although the money itself would be a good enough reason, the fact that you have ties in NY make it very difficult to choose otherwise. Grats.

[MusicalChairs]

This discussion has been mostly about post LS money and jobs. My guess is that significant psychological consequences might come into play well before passing the bar and entering the workforce.

The plain truth is that irrespective of test scores, financial resources, WE, and past academic performances, most incoming students will not be at the top of their class at any LS after the first year. It's like grading on the primary law review, not gonna happen for most. Some of those not at the very top may have a partial or full ride. The point is that everyone is good at the strongest law schools. The real differences between the weakest and the best might be negligible. Because Y is so small and so well regarded, 3 yrs in New Haven for a Y degree with debt but without letter grades and that comes with a lifetime of Y intangibles might make sense for many who have the full ride option to grind it out at CLS or somewhere else. But just Y. As I see it, not being at the top of the class first year if you don't have connections and are exclusively dependent on your school's resources might cause problems at all other LS. Those problems must be fixed somehow with better LS grades further on, secondary journals, or the like. Perhaps just having the prestige of that grant and all that it means from a top LS plus knowing all that nondischaragable debt has been eliminated could reduce stress. This could be enough to improve 2L-3L performance amidst the vast sea of good students at the point when stress levels might otherwise rise.

[dresden doll]

to add to the above comment, i think that it's nearly impossible (and probably silly) to make predictions about LS outcomes based on the difference between a LSAT score in the 99.x and 99.y percentile, which is, if this thread is accurate, essentially what the hamilton awards.

Yes, this puts it well.

I reiterate that there are excellent reasons to take the full ride. But that said, one must also acknowledge that there are definitely scenarios where HYS could turn out to be a better option than the full ride at CCN.

[dpase22]

Of course it cant be predicted with certainty but if you are going to be giving percentage chances at Biglaw you need to correct for that fact that a Hamilton scholars chances are not the same as the randomly selected student (the overall percentage chance). Idk the exact value but Im pretty sure it is close to "near certainty" the same way you would think YLS is.

I'm a CCN 2L. I also happen to know a bit about my friends' grades, LSAT/GPA combos and OCI results. Going off of that knowledge, I have little reason to credit the idea that percentage chances jump from 60+ to a virtual certainty merely because a person had numbers high enough to merit a full ride.

Some of the most successful people in my class were reverse splitters who I'm pretty sure are paying sticker to go here. Conversely, I can think of several examples that wound up below median with above 75 percentile stats.

My percentage chances (which, btw, are pretty damn accurate) may stand to be somewhat corrected for Hamilton recipients but I heavily doubt that they rise by a whooping 30 percent merely because the person nailed their LSAT and had awesome UG GPA.

A separate question is whether the Hamilton confers value directly by the force of its name - i.e. does the appellation "Hamilton fellow" have any weight to employers/judges etc.? When such a person sends out his resume, does this add to it in a substantial way? Is it likely that the Rubenstein will have similar value?

My attempts at research on this topic has yielded only weak results. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a "full-ride" merit scholarships to a T6 really does mean something. A current 2L noted that it draws very positive comments in firm interviews (as long as the resume includes the fact that the Hamilton is a full-ride merit scholarship). I have no information on whether it means anything for other opportunities. Another good thread is http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=153762. Also check out this post to be found on the sixth page of http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=147854

Sorry to drop in out of the blue. I'm V20 partner involved in firm recruiting. I've lurked off and on for a while; with employer roundtables and interviews on the horizon I've been catching up. I'm writing on a phone watching NBA playoffs; pardon the many typos and grammar issues I'm bound to make. I'm observing and providing some insight. Not answering questions. Hope you'll forgive me that.

First, an observation: prospective students have much more information now and are assessing options in a more thoughtful and methodical way than I could have 13 years ago. That's great. (Though polling strangers that don't have the same options or information as you has marginal value except as entertainment.).

Some key misconceptions/uncertainties prevail in the discussion here. I'll try to be thread-specific. I'm only addressing big firm behavior here and I'm basing this on personal experience plus discussions with partners at other firms.

First, let me confirm that each top firm (at least in the markets where I mostly practice - NY, DC, Chi, Bos) essentially saves summer spots for kids from each of Y-Chi. (NYU is a bit different in a couple of markets for historical reasons. UM or UVA get spots held for Chi and DC, for example. NYU is golden in NY and the grads tend to stay there, so not much thought is given to it in some other markets, relatively speaking, IME. Cal is a similar example.

(The flip side of this point is that, yes, T6 (with minor variations at the "bottom") is real. Be very careful with the common wisdom I see here that "after HYS T14 is mostly the same". For the tippy-top firms, that's just not true.)

So, as a law student you are not competing with other schools so much as your classmates. Once an SA and then an associate, you are generally judged on your individual merits and you compete with your peers at the firm.)

While a top firm (or USAO or judge) might be go "deeper" into Yale's class than UofC's, now would seem to be an odd time for the OP to bet against himself and pay a lot of money for that cushion just in case he doesn't do splendidly his first year at Chi (or Harvard or Colombia for that matter).

Also, since the very most OP can make as a first year is capped at 160k plus bonuses, I don't understand arguments about the marginal extra earning value of the Y degree. OP has little reason to think he won't be at least mediocre at a non-Y T6, which is in fact all he needs to get in the game at a big firm. Not getting a good job in 2014 from a T6 is a remote and I'd say unlikely risk. The debt, a risk in its own right, is real and much more certain.

Finally, anyone who thinks there's more "prestige" in the name Yale than in Hamilton or Rubenstein is nuts. People get into Yale (and Stanford) for all sorts of quirky and good reasons. But the top full ride T6 scholarships are rare and signify top credentials.

[johnkim1982]

I spammed dozens of hamilton fellows I found online. They all worked at law firms, and they unanimously advised me to take the money at Columbia. They also said that in their experience, the Hamilton on your resume didn't really offer any advantage when it came to working for professors, working for judges, or being recruited to law school.

The only caveat most of them gave was, "If you're interested in academia, consider Yale."

I've talked to other current Yale students, and they also mentioned something that was very important to me. Yale is a place where I don't have to stress out over grades. Not having to waste time trying to tailor my learning to a test means that I can be free to pursue my interests, academic and professional. It also allows for a much better lawschool/life balance. Lastly, and most important of all, perhaps, this allows for better interactions with other students and better chances to form friendships. Combine that with the amazing students there, and it's conceivable that I'd be friends with a supreme court justice and other movers-and-shakers in forty years.

Many people pay thousands of dollars per year for membership to various clubs to expand their network. I'm wondering whether or not the difference between Yale and Columbia when you put it that way might be worth 150k to even 200k, let alone the 80k or so that seems to be the realistic difference.

I haven't decided yet, but I think you can tell which way I'm leaning.

[bernaldiaz]

My opinion is that there is (almost) never a good reason to turn down Yale. I don't think lumping Yale and Harvard together here as an option is fair.

[Flash]

My opinion is that there is (almost) never a good reason to turn down Yale. I don't think lumping Yale and Harvard together here as an option is fair.

I would agree with this. COAP gives essentially gives you a safety net.

[icpb]

My opinion is that there is (almost) never a good reason to turn down Yale. I don't think lumping Yale and Harvard together here as an option is fair.

For a lot of people Harvard is a much better option. A lot of people who attend Harvard didn't even apply to Yale.

[bernaldiaz]

My opinion is that there is (almost) never a good reason to turn down Yale. I don't think lumping Yale and Harvard together here as an option is fair.

For a lot of people Harvard is a much better option. A lot of people who attend Harvard didn't even apply to Yale.

How would Harvard be a better option than Yale? Unless maybe you already have roots in Boston, I just don't see it, but I (honestly) am interested in hearing why.

Also, saying that a lot of people who attend Harvard didn't apply to Yale doesn't really prove anything.

[minnesotamike]

My opinion is that there is (almost) never a good reason to turn down Yale. I don't think lumping Yale and Harvard together here as an option is fair.

For a lot of people Harvard is a much better option. A lot of people who attend Harvard didn't even apply to Yale.

How would Harvard be a better option than Yale? Unless maybe you already have roots in Boston, I just don't see it, but I (honestly) am interested in hearing why.

Also, saying that a lot of people who attend Harvard didn't apply to Yale doesn't really prove anything.

This might sound like a joke, but it's not: if you work in shitlaw or plan to hang a shingle anywhere outside of New England - hell, probably most places in New England, depending on your area of practice - H is undoubtedly a better choice because of its lay prestige. This holds true even if you start your career in biglaw. I've found many H grads working in not-so-prestigious places a few years down the road.

disclaimer: I don't know much about the LRAP programs in these situations.

[AttaBoy]

I've found many H grads working in not-so-prestigious places a few years down the road.

This is the exact reason everyone picks Y over H.

[minnesotamike]

I've found many H grads working in not-so-prestigious places a few years down the road.

This is the exact reason everyone picks Y over H.

Meh. Not all of us are seeking the Most Prestigious Job Possible.

[icpb]

My opinion is that there is (almost) never a good reason to turn down Yale. I don't think lumping Yale and Harvard together here as an option is fair.

For a lot of people Harvard is a much better option. A lot of people who attend Harvard didn't even apply to Yale.

How would Harvard be a better option than Yale? Unless maybe you already have roots in Boston, I just don't see it, but I (honestly) am interested in hearing why.

Also, saying that a lot of people who attend Harvard didn't apply to Yale doesn't really prove anything.

If you look beyond the first few years of legal practice, you will see that Harvard opens a lot more doors outside of the NE, outside of the US, and outside of law. You shouldn't attend law school if you don't want to practice law, but you can attend law school even if you don't want to spend your whole life practicing law. There are profitable opportunities for those with a law degree outside of law (distressed asset, M&A, import/export, etc.), and Harvard is better for those. The strength of Harvard Law's alumni network in business/finance is unmatched by any other law school and exceeds those of most business schools. In addition, if you are interested in studying abroad during/working abroad right after law school, Harvard is better. These are Harvard's advantage over Yale, but Yale has advantages such as academia, grading, and a scaled back LRAP.

[anstone1988]

It's important to keep in mind that HYS each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. It makes perfect sense to attend any of the three over the others. Prior to 1980, Harvard was the premier law school, but then it had two lost decades. It's on the rise again, and its international reputation and the strength of its brand outside of law are unmatched by any other law school. Larry Kramer has been trying to transform Stanford into the premier law school by encouraging interdisciplinary studies and by emphasizing clinical experience. It has made many high-profile hires over the past few years. It has always been the place to go for aspiring patent and IP lawyers. It's A3 clerkship placement rate has shot up drastically over the past few years and has now (at 28%) surpassed Yale's 27%.

[booasa]

Not to derail this thread too much, but what do people think of the Rubenstein?

Rubenstein would pretty much immediately end my cycle. Unless you get a HUGE grant at HYS or hate Chicago I think it is the best deal in the T-14 due to the COL difference between Chicago and the northeast. You could potentially leave school with like 30k in debt.

Add in the $ 10,000/year living stipend which is presently part of the Ruby and you literally would graduate without law school costing you a cent. Given Chicago's success in both big law and academia this has too be the best deal going.

[Flash]

It's important to keep in mind that HYS each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. It makes perfect sense to attend any of the three over the others. Prior to 1980, Harvard was the premier law school, but then it had two lost decades. It's on the rise again, and its international reputation and the strength of its brand outside of law are unmatched by any other law school. Larry Kramer has been trying to transform Stanford into the premier law school by encouraging interdisciplinary studies and by emphasizing clinical experience. It has made many high-profile hires over the past few years. It has always been the place to go for aspiring patent and IP lawyers. It's A3 clerkship placement rate has shot up drastically over the past few years and has now (at 28%) surpassed Yale's 27%.

There's really no reason to choose H over YS. Unless you have strong personal connections restricting you to Boston, you're much better off going to Yale or Stanford.

[bernaldiaz]

It's important to keep in mind that HYS each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. It makes perfect sense to attend any of the three over the others. Prior to 1980, Harvard was the premier law school, but then it had two lost decades. It's on the rise again, and its international reputation and the strength of its brand outside of law are unmatched by any other law school. Larry Kramer has been trying to transform Stanford into the premier law school by encouraging interdisciplinary studies and by emphasizing clinical experience. It has made many high-profile hires over the past few years. It has always been the place to go for aspiring patent and IP lawyers. It's A3 clerkship placement rate has shot up drastically over the past few years and has now (at 28%) surpassed Yale's 27%.

There's really no reason to choose H over YS. Unless you have strong personal connections restricting you to Boston, you're much better off going to Yale or Stanford.

I think Yale's matriculation rate speaks for itself. Over 81% of their admits chose to go to the school. I'm sure every single one of them could have chosen Harvard or Stanford or a Ruby or a Hamilton, and they still chose Yale. Honestly, unless there are super specific goals that a person has which would push them towards Stanford or one of the other options, Yale just seems almost impossible to turn down.

[ahnhub]

I think Yale's matriculation rate speaks for itself. Over 81% of their admits chose to go to the school. I'm sure every single one of them could have chosen Harvard or Stanford or a Ruby or a Hamilton, and they still chose Yale. Honestly, unless there are super specific goals that a person has which would push them towards Stanford or one of the other options, Yale just seems almost impossible to turn down.

That probably says as much about the mentality of law school applicants as it does Yale's awesomeness. I don't doubt Yale is awesome--it's so frickin' hard to get into, and everyone knows that, so the degree really does carry its own special pedigree. But depending on your goals I don't think the answer is always to go with the more prestigious school. If I wanted NYC Biglaw I would take the Hamilton over any of HYS.

[bernaldiaz]

I think Yale's matriculation rate speaks for itself. Over 81% of their admits chose to go to the school. I'm sure every single one of them could have chosen Harvard or Stanford or a Ruby or a Hamilton, and they still chose Yale. Honestly, unless there are super specific goals that a person has which would push them towards Stanford or one of the other options, Yale just seems almost impossible to turn down.

That probably says as much about the mentality of law school applicants as it does Yale's awesomeness. I don't doubt Yale is awesome--it's so frickin' hard to get into, and everyone knows that, so the degree really does carry its own special pedigree. But depending on your goals I don't think the answer is always to go with the more prestigious school. If I wanted NYC Biglaw I would take the Hamilton over any of HYS.

Dude from what I've read from Yale student interviews, ANYONE can roll out of bed and get NYC biglaw from Yale. Literally anyone. Even with the Hamilton, if you're bottom 25% there's a chance you wouldn't get biglaw.

[Flash]

I think Yale's matriculation rate speaks for itself. Over 81% of their admits chose to go to the school. I'm sure every single one of them could have chosen Harvard or Stanford or a Ruby or a Hamilton, and they still chose Yale. Honestly, unless there are super specific goals that a person has which would push them towards Stanford or one of the other options, Yale just seems almost impossible to turn down.

That probably says as much about the mentality of law school applicants as it does Yale's awesomeness. I don't doubt Yale is awesome--it's so frickin' hard to get into, and everyone knows that, so the degree really does carry its own special pedigree. But depending on your goals I don't think the answer is always to go with the more prestigious school. If I wanted NYC Biglaw I would take the Hamilton over any of HYS.

Dude from what I've read from Yale student interviews, ANYONE can roll out of bed and get NYC biglaw from Yale. Literally anyone. Even with the Hamilton, if you're bottom 25% there's a chance you wouldn't get biglaw.

One of my profs from YLS said that a lot of people who just want biglaw really just relax and have fun for 3 years before joining firms. COAP is by far the most amazing LRAP in existence and the lack of stress for 3 years should be worth a lot imo. I can see going to Stanford over Yale because you get almost all the same benefits plus have nice weather.

[ahnhub]

Dude from what I've read from Yale student interviews, ANYONE can roll out of bed and get NYC biglaw from Yale. Literally anyone. Even with the Hamilton, if you're bottom 25% there's a chance you wouldn't get biglaw.

Well, quotes from Columbia and NYU students in the mid-2000's went like "the firms don't pick you; you pick the firms," and "getting Biglaw is like shooting fish in a barrel." I'm not sure asking students to evaluate their own school proves that much.

But yes, I do believe the relative scarcity and prestige attached to a Yale degree almost guarantees you Biglaw if you want it (and I think this applies to Stanford too). But in a normal market a Columbia student probably has an 85-90% chance of getting Biglaw too, if they really want it. To me the added risk is worth 200K--again, this only applies if your #1 goal is NYC Biglaw.

[bernaldiaz]

Dude from what I've read from Yale student interviews, ANYONE can roll out of bed and get NYC biglaw from Yale. Literally anyone. Even with the Hamilton, if you're bottom 25% there's a chance you wouldn't get biglaw.

Well, quotes from Columbia and NYU students in the mid-2000's went like "the firms don't pick you; you pick the firms," and "getting Biglaw is like shooting fish in a barrel." I'm not sure asking students to evaluate their own school proves that much.

But yes, I do believe the relative scarcity and prestige attached to a Yale degree almost guarantees you Biglaw if you want it (and I think this applies to Stanford too). But in a normal market a Columbia student probably has an 85-90% chance of getting Biglaw too, if they really want it. To me the added risk is worth 200K--again, this only applies if your #1 goal is NYC Biglaw.

Yeah I agree with everything you said. It wouldn't be an easy decision at all for me, but I think knowing how much the Yale degree would mean to me coupled with the absolute security it confers, I'd end up New Haven.

[drylo]

I think Yale's matriculation rate speaks for itself. Over 81% of their admits chose to go to the school. I'm sure every single one of them could have chosen Harvard or Stanford or a Ruby or a Hamilton, and they still chose Yale. Honestly, unless there are super specific goals that a person has which would push them towards Stanford or one of the other options, Yale just seems almost impossible to turn down.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.