Page 1 of 1

Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:54 am
by Sploshy
I found a few posts and some things popped up on google. I didn't see the answer to my question specifically. Sorry if it is already answered somewhere.

If you would like to pursue BigLaw at what point does rank overtake scholarship? Should I apply ED to Penn with the high possibility of 0$ if I think that the only scholarship money I'd get would be from something like WUSTL/USC or the like?

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:56 am
by Sploshy
Also I read some articles about ED boost and they concluded that Chicago/Duke/Penn/NW/UVA had the biggest boost. Is that accurate? Which school would be the best to apply ED to if I have a 3.01 177?

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:07 am
by UVA2B
This is a highly specific question that belies all of the nuance of picking a law school. I'll give answering a shot, but in no way will it be complete in properly choosing a given law school.

Prestige matters to the extent that only a handful of schools nearly guarantee a job in a big firm. That roughly equates to the T13. They put >50% of their graduates into big firms every year, and ~65-80% of their graduates into jobs that will eventually end up in big firms or other desirable employment. So yes, prestige to that extent matters.

That being the case, EDing to a place like UVA or Penn may give an admissions boost, but it should be used lightly due to the exorbitant cost of attending weighed against the ability to pay it off. If your parents are paying for it (and are super wealthy so paying for it isn't a huge stress on their financials), or you have it paid for some other way that isn't loans, go ahead and ED at a place like Penn or UVA, where there is a recognizable boost in admissions chances and a high likelihood of no tuition discount. But if you're taking out loans and/or straining your family's financials, you should absolutely not ED anywhere that doesn't offer nearly a full tuition discount to attend (like NU as you mentioned).

You have a desirable LSAT and a below 25% GPA pretty much everywhere desirable, so your best bet is to apply broadly and see what options you end up with. It's impossible in the abstract to weigh the right decision when so many other factors come into play like desired market, tuition discounts offered, how you're paying for it, and other relevant personal factors.

I hope this at least initially helps your thinking in applying to law school.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:34 am
by Sploshy
We have the means to be able to pay any amount, but free money is free money so if I could get a scholarship at Cornell or Georgetown/Texas I'd take it. However, I have strong doubts about that happening just because my gpa is so low.

I want to apply everywhere and see what I get, but I'm a bit scared that I would end up not getting any offers. If I applied ED I'm assuming that would boost my chances enough to get an acceptance. UVA and Penn are both some of my top choices (if you take away the fantasy dreams of HYS then Penn and UVA are my 2 highest choices because of proximity to family and friends). I'd be ecstatic to get an acceptance at either of them even if it meant 0 money, but I'd probably be even more excited to get something at the lower t14 with a scholarship. I have to make a choice and the ED seems less risky to get a desired outcome, but if I took the risk maybe I'd end up happily disproven. Really just looking for any insight into my situation and which case seems the best outcome for me from an outside perspective. I'm leaning towards ED, but saving money would be amazing. If I got a scholarship that paid for 50% I'd be happy, anything less than that and I'd probably just rather have gone to Penn/UVA.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:42 am
by UVA2B
Sploshy wrote:We have the means to be able to pay any amount, but free money is free money so if I could get a scholarship at Cornell or Georgetown/Texas I'd take it. However, I have strong doubts about that happening just because my gpa is so low.

I want to apply everywhere and see what I get, but I'm a bit scared that I would end up not getting any offers. If I applied ED I'm assuming that would boost my chances enough to get an acceptance. UVA and Penn are both some of my top choices (if you take away the fantasy dreams of HYS then Penn and UVA are my 2 highest choices because of proximity to family and friends). I'd be ecstatic to get an acceptance at either of them even if it meant 0 money, but I'd probably be even more excited to get something at the lower t14 with a scholarship. I have to make a choice and the ED seems less risky to get a desired outcome, but if I took the risk maybe I'd end up happily disproven. Really just looking for any insight into my situation and which case seems the best outcome for me from an outside perspective. I'm leaning towards ED, but saving money would be amazing. If I got a scholarship that paid for 50% I'd be happy, anything less than that and I'd probably just rather have gone to Penn/UVA.


You'll likely see some scholarships in the T13, so lean away from ED if you want scholarships in the T13. They might be small scholarships, but every cent counts when you're talking about peers. And again, there are other things you should be considering/providing if you want advice. What markets are you targeting? What type of law interests you, at least initially? Do you have a work background that makes your resume attractive for a specific area of law?

Here are your results from mylsn (I'm hoping you've already seen this and done searches, but if not, you should). It's a small sample size that makes the reliability of the data suspect, but it shows small scholarships in lower T13.

Image

Here are the results if you include EDing. The chances go up only slightly throughout the T13. It's still small sample size, but worth comparing.

Image

You should apply to everywhere you'd consider attending in markets you'd be interested in working in so you can figure out your best options. EDing hamstrings you severely, and even if you can pay for it, essentially removing the ability to pay less for a similar outcome should matter to you.

If you have a well-crafted application, you'll get options inside and outside the T13. Get all of those options, see if you like any of them, and decide. If you don't get an option you like the first time around, sit out, work, and improve your applications so your fate can be different the second time around.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:55 am
by Sploshy
I'm probably mostly interested in Texas Biglaw, but if there was an opportunity for a prestigious firm in DC/NY/LA I'd consider it. I want to do civil litigation or possibly white collar defense. I am leaning towards litigation (almost any kind) over anything else, but I haven't been to law school and I've only taken some remedial courses in UG so I could change. I have an ACCT UG and the only thing I have experience in is being a cook under an executive chef in a country club. After your help/advice I think I may be leaning to ED to Texas because I'm a resident and the $$ could be my best outcome, also they can always hold me for RD if I don't get the ED scholarship. I'll then blanket t20 and add SMU for good measure. Does this sound like a good strategy?

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:59 am
by UVA2B
I hesitate to be the only voice offering advice here, but I would just apply to T14 (this includes GULC and UT), Vandy, and SMU. Let the cards fall where they may, and go from there.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:02 pm
by Phil Brooks
UVA2B wrote:This is a highly specific question that belies all of the nuance of picking a law school. I'll give answering a shot, but in no way will it be complete in properly choosing a given law school.

Prestige matters to the extent that only a handful of schools nearly guarantee a job in a big firm. That roughly equates to the T13. They put >50% of their graduates into big firms every year, and ~65-80% of their graduates into jobs that will eventually end up in big firms or other desirable employment. So yes, prestige to that extent matters.

That being the case, EDing to a place like UVA or Penn may give an admissions boost, but it should be used lightly due to the exorbitant cost of attending weighed against the ability to pay it off. If your parents are paying for it (and are super wealthy so paying for it isn't a huge stress on their financials), or you have it paid for some other way that isn't loans, go ahead and ED at a place like Penn or UVA, where there is a recognizable boost in admissions chances and a high likelihood of no tuition discount. But if you're taking out loans and/or straining your family's financials, you should absolutely not ED anywhere that doesn't offer nearly a full tuition discount to attend (like NU as you mentioned).

You have a desirable LSAT and a below 25% GPA pretty much everywhere desirable, so your best bet is to apply broadly and see what options you end up with. It's impossible in the abstract to weigh the right decision when so many other factors come into play like desired market, tuition discounts offered, how you're paying for it, and other relevant personal factors.

I hope this at least initially helps your thinking in applying to law school.


No. Nobody should willingly pay sticker in any situation, even if it is paid from an external source. Schools need to realize that they need to lower tuition, period. As long as anybody is paying sticker, schools will not do so.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:11 pm
by UVA2B
Phil Brooks wrote:
UVA2B wrote:This is a highly specific question that belies all of the nuance of picking a law school. I'll give answering a shot, but in no way will it be complete in properly choosing a given law school.

Prestige matters to the extent that only a handful of schools nearly guarantee a job in a big firm. That roughly equates to the T13. They put >50% of their graduates into big firms every year, and ~65-80% of their graduates into jobs that will eventually end up in big firms or other desirable employment. So yes, prestige to that extent matters.

That being the case, EDing to a place like UVA or Penn may give an admissions boost, but it should be used lightly due to the exorbitant cost of attending weighed against the ability to pay it off. If your parents are paying for it (and are super wealthy so paying for it isn't a huge stress on their financials), or you have it paid for some other way that isn't loans, go ahead and ED at a place like Penn or UVA, where there is a recognizable boost in admissions chances and a high likelihood of no tuition discount. But if you're taking out loans and/or straining your family's financials, you should absolutely not ED anywhere that doesn't offer nearly a full tuition discount to attend (like NU as you mentioned).

You have a desirable LSAT and a below 25% GPA pretty much everywhere desirable, so your best bet is to apply broadly and see what options you end up with. It's impossible in the abstract to weigh the right decision when so many other factors come into play like desired market, tuition discounts offered, how you're paying for it, and other relevant personal factors.

I hope this at least initially helps your thinking in applying to law school.


No. Nobody should willingly pay sticker in any situation, even if it is paid from an external source. Schools need to realize that they need to lower tuition, period. As long as anybody is paying sticker, schools will not do so.


Ok, the actual portion of the population that falls into this category would not move the needle for law schools lowering tuition or even keeping it stagnant. There aren't that many 1%ers and people with an employer paying/GI Bill recipients applying ED to law schools. They exist, but they're a distinct minority. And even that fails to understand the arms race of law school that undercuts traditional supply and demand economics. Just because certain individuals start going to Duke with $90k instead of Columbia at sticker or WUSTL for free instead of Penn at full price doesn't mean the market will miraculously dry up for top law schools getting people to attend.

I appreciate what you're saying in theory because theoretically if no one ever agreed to pay sticker for school, it could drive down prices. But a grass roots movement like that just isn't realistic, and so confining the subset of the population who should consider paying full price for a law school is ultimately a better way to limit the impact of law school tuition.

Every persons personal circumstance is different, and a categorical dismissal of anyone ever EDing and "paying full sticker" needs to be understood contextually. I have friends who are going to UVA on GI Bill as veterans. I don't care if they paid full price for it or not, because they aren't paying for it.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:30 pm
by Phil Brooks
UVA2B wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
UVA2B wrote:This is a highly specific question that belies all of the nuance of picking a law school. I'll give answering a shot, but in no way will it be complete in properly choosing a given law school.

Prestige matters to the extent that only a handful of schools nearly guarantee a job in a big firm. That roughly equates to the T13. They put >50% of their graduates into big firms every year, and ~65-80% of their graduates into jobs that will eventually end up in big firms or other desirable employment. So yes, prestige to that extent matters.

That being the case, EDing to a place like UVA or Penn may give an admissions boost, but it should be used lightly due to the exorbitant cost of attending weighed against the ability to pay it off. If your parents are paying for it (and are super wealthy so paying for it isn't a huge stress on their financials), or you have it paid for some other way that isn't loans, go ahead and ED at a place like Penn or UVA, where there is a recognizable boost in admissions chances and a high likelihood of no tuition discount. But if you're taking out loans and/or straining your family's financials, you should absolutely not ED anywhere that doesn't offer nearly a full tuition discount to attend (like NU as you mentioned).

You have a desirable LSAT and a below 25% GPA pretty much everywhere desirable, so your best bet is to apply broadly and see what options you end up with. It's impossible in the abstract to weigh the right decision when so many other factors come into play like desired market, tuition discounts offered, how you're paying for it, and other relevant personal factors.

I hope this at least initially helps your thinking in applying to law school.


No. Nobody should willingly pay sticker in any situation, even if it is paid from an external source. Schools need to realize that they need to lower tuition, period. As long as anybody is paying sticker, schools will not do so.


Ok, the actual portion of the population that falls into this category would not move the needle for law schools lowering tuition or even keeping it stagnant. There aren't that many 1%ers and people with an employer paying/GI Bill recipients applying ED to law schools. They exist, but they're a distinct minority. And even that fails to understand the arms race of law school that undercuts traditional supply and demand economics. Just because certain individuals start going to Duke with $90k instead of Columbia at sticker or WUSTL for free instead of Penn at full price doesn't mean the market will miraculously dry up for top law schools getting people to attend.

I appreciate what you're saying in theory because theoretically if no one ever agreed to pay sticker for school, it could drive down prices. But a grass roots movement like that just isn't realistic, and so confining the subset of the population who should consider paying full price for a law school is ultimately a better way to limit the impact of law school tuition.

Every persons personal circumstance is different, and a categorical dismissal of anyone ever EDing and "paying full sticker" needs to be understood contextually. I have friends who are going to UVA on GI Bill as veterans. I don't care if they paid full price for it or not, because they aren't paying for it.


Schools love veterans, for good reason. Veterans with average scores could negotiate deep discounts based off of their personal stories alone. And given that most veterans are Republican, shouldn't they do what they can to minimize government expenditure on law school tuition?

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:39 pm
by UVA2B
Phil Brooks wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
UVA2B wrote:This is a highly specific question that belies all of the nuance of picking a law school. I'll give answering a shot, but in no way will it be complete in properly choosing a given law school.

Prestige matters to the extent that only a handful of schools nearly guarantee a job in a big firm. That roughly equates to the T13. They put >50% of their graduates into big firms every year, and ~65-80% of their graduates into jobs that will eventually end up in big firms or other desirable employment. So yes, prestige to that extent matters.

That being the case, EDing to a place like UVA or Penn may give an admissions boost, but it should be used lightly due to the exorbitant cost of attending weighed against the ability to pay it off. If your parents are paying for it (and are super wealthy so paying for it isn't a huge stress on their financials), or you have it paid for some other way that isn't loans, go ahead and ED at a place like Penn or UVA, where there is a recognizable boost in admissions chances and a high likelihood of no tuition discount. But if you're taking out loans and/or straining your family's financials, you should absolutely not ED anywhere that doesn't offer nearly a full tuition discount to attend (like NU as you mentioned).

You have a desirable LSAT and a below 25% GPA pretty much everywhere desirable, so your best bet is to apply broadly and see what options you end up with. It's impossible in the abstract to weigh the right decision when so many other factors come into play like desired market, tuition discounts offered, how you're paying for it, and other relevant personal factors.

I hope this at least initially helps your thinking in applying to law school.


No. Nobody should willingly pay sticker in any situation, even if it is paid from an external source. Schools need to realize that they need to lower tuition, period. As long as anybody is paying sticker, schools will not do so.


Ok, the actual portion of the population that falls into this category would not move the needle for law schools lowering tuition or even keeping it stagnant. There aren't that many 1%ers and people with an employer paying/GI Bill recipients applying ED to law schools. They exist, but they're a distinct minority. And even that fails to understand the arms race of law school that undercuts traditional supply and demand economics. Just because certain individuals start going to Duke with $90k instead of Columbia at sticker or WUSTL for free instead of Penn at full price doesn't mean the market will miraculously dry up for top law schools getting people to attend.

I appreciate what you're saying in theory because theoretically if no one ever agreed to pay sticker for school, it could drive down prices. But a grass roots movement like that just isn't realistic, and so confining the subset of the population who should consider paying full price for a law school is ultimately a better way to limit the impact of law school tuition.

Every persons personal circumstance is different, and a categorical dismissal of anyone ever EDing and "paying full sticker" needs to be understood contextually. I have friends who are going to UVA on GI Bill as veterans. I don't care if they paid full price for it or not, because they aren't paying for it.


Schools love veterans, for good reason. Veterans with average scores could negotiate deep discounts based off of their personal stories alone. And given that most veterans are Republican, shouldn't they do what they can to minimize government expenditure on law school tuition?


These are weird blanket statements that are both incomplete and kind of untrue. Sure, some veterans can outperform their numbers to get discounts at schools based off of their record. And sure, some veterans are Republicans who ostensibly might care about how much money is pouring out of the VA every year. But neither of those statements are uniformly true. Some veterans will get in based entirely on their numbers. And there is a not insignificant portion of veterans who aren't Republicans. But even that is silly when you consider these are people making individual decisions based on improving their own lot in life. If you begrudge a veteran who served this country and was offered a benefit for serving this country during a time of war taking Columbia at sticker over Cornell with $115k when they are functionally the same price for that applicant, we need to have an entirely different discussion.

Law schools charge exorbitant prices for tuition to keep pace with their peers. I get it. It sucks. But change is not coming to the legal academia industry because all law students decide to take tuition discounts. It's not at all realistic, and nor should it be the way people look at the decision. People should be making prudent decisions that avoid them going into unnecessary debt for their given goals.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:50 pm
by Yugihoe
Apply widely to the t14. Literally do not waste your money to go full sticker to any school because it is most definitely not worth it ESPECIALLY when you want to do big law.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:12 pm
by Phil Brooks
UVA2B wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
UVA2B wrote:This is a highly specific question that belies all of the nuance of picking a law school. I'll give answering a shot, but in no way will it be complete in properly choosing a given law school.

Prestige matters to the extent that only a handful of schools nearly guarantee a job in a big firm. That roughly equates to the T13. They put >50% of their graduates into big firms every year, and ~65-80% of their graduates into jobs that will eventually end up in big firms or other desirable employment. So yes, prestige to that extent matters.

That being the case, EDing to a place like UVA or Penn may give an admissions boost, but it should be used lightly due to the exorbitant cost of attending weighed against the ability to pay it off. If your parents are paying for it (and are super wealthy so paying for it isn't a huge stress on their financials), or you have it paid for some other way that isn't loans, go ahead and ED at a place like Penn or UVA, where there is a recognizable boost in admissions chances and a high likelihood of no tuition discount. But if you're taking out loans and/or straining your family's financials, you should absolutely not ED anywhere that doesn't offer nearly a full tuition discount to attend (like NU as you mentioned).

You have a desirable LSAT and a below 25% GPA pretty much everywhere desirable, so your best bet is to apply broadly and see what options you end up with. It's impossible in the abstract to weigh the right decision when so many other factors come into play like desired market, tuition discounts offered, how you're paying for it, and other relevant personal factors.

I hope this at least initially helps your thinking in applying to law school.


No. Nobody should willingly pay sticker in any situation, even if it is paid from an external source. Schools need to realize that they need to lower tuition, period. As long as anybody is paying sticker, schools will not do so.


Ok, the actual portion of the population that falls into this category would not move the needle for law schools lowering tuition or even keeping it stagnant. There aren't that many 1%ers and people with an employer paying/GI Bill recipients applying ED to law schools. They exist, but they're a distinct minority. And even that fails to understand the arms race of law school that undercuts traditional supply and demand economics. Just because certain individuals start going to Duke with $90k instead of Columbia at sticker or WUSTL for free instead of Penn at full price doesn't mean the market will miraculously dry up for top law schools getting people to attend.

I appreciate what you're saying in theory because theoretically if no one ever agreed to pay sticker for school, it could drive down prices. But a grass roots movement like that just isn't realistic, and so confining the subset of the population who should consider paying full price for a law school is ultimately a better way to limit the impact of law school tuition.

Every persons personal circumstance is different, and a categorical dismissal of anyone ever EDing and "paying full sticker" needs to be understood contextually. I have friends who are going to UVA on GI Bill as veterans. I don't care if they paid full price for it or not, because they aren't paying for it.


Schools love veterans, for good reason. Veterans with average scores could negotiate deep discounts based off of their personal stories alone. And given that most veterans are Republican, shouldn't they do what they can to minimize government expenditure on law school tuition?


These are weird blanket statements that are both incomplete and kind of untrue. Sure, some veterans can outperform their numbers to get discounts at schools based off of their record. And sure, some veterans are Republicans who ostensibly might care about how much money is pouring out of the VA every year. But neither of those statements are uniformly true. Some veterans will get in based entirely on their numbers. And there is a not insignificant portion of veterans who aren't Republicans. But even that is silly when you consider these are people making individual decisions based on improving their own lot in life. If you begrudge a veteran who served this country and was offered a benefit for serving this country during a time of war taking Columbia at sticker over Cornell with $115k when they are functionally the same price for that applicant, we need to have an entirely different discussion.

Law schools charge exorbitant prices for tuition to keep pace with their peers. I get it. It sucks. But change is not coming to the legal academia industry because all law students decide to take tuition discounts. It's not at all realistic, and nor should it be the way people look at the decision. People should be making prudent decisions that avoid them going into unnecessary debt for their given goals.


This is the problem. People should consider the consequences of their decisions not just on themselves, but on society at large. Veterans may have earned the right to be completely self-interested because of their service. But everyone else? Forget it.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:17 pm
by UVA2B
Phil Brooks wrote:
UVA2B wrote:These are weird blanket statements that are both incomplete and kind of untrue. Sure, some veterans can outperform their numbers to get discounts at schools based off of their record. And sure, some veterans are Republicans who ostensibly might care about how much money is pouring out of the VA every year. But neither of those statements are uniformly true. Some veterans will get in based entirely on their numbers. And there is a not insignificant portion of veterans who aren't Republicans. But even that is silly when you consider these are people making individual decisions based on improving their own lot in life. If you begrudge a veteran who served this country and was offered a benefit for serving this country during a time of war taking Columbia at sticker over Cornell with $115k when they are functionally the same price for that applicant, we need to have an entirely different discussion.

Law schools charge exorbitant prices for tuition to keep pace with their peers. I get it. It sucks. But change is not coming to the legal academia industry because all law students decide to take tuition discounts. It's not at all realistic, and nor should it be the way people look at the decision. People should be making prudent decisions that avoid them going into unnecessary debt for their given goals.


This is the problem. People should consider the consequences of their decisions not just on themselves, but on society at large. Veterans may have earned the right to be completely self-interested because of their service. But everyone else? Forget it.


I appreciate your suggestion that all prospective law students should be benevolent communists who work for the greater good of toppling the ivory tower of legal academia and bringing down tuition, but rich people should also have every right to spend their money as they see fit. They have every right to overpay for vague notions of prestige, even if it is foolish, self-interested, and destructive to your cause. It's not the financially wise decision in nearly every instance, but people invest irrationally in things all the time, and that's on them individually.

If you want there to be structural changes to the cost of tuition at law schools, and higher education more generally, there are much better vehicles for fighting tuition inflation than asking a portion of the applicant pool to join in the fight for the collective good. So while your plan could work in an ideal world, it's just never going to happen. Prospective law students are going to strive for the best opportunity to achieve a goal in their career, and sometimes they are going to overpay to get it because they believe the prestige on their diploma will lead to a better career than they otherwise would have had, regardless of whether it's ultimately true or not once the career is in motion.

A not insignificant portion of the applicant pool will apply to a place like Harvard simply because it's Harvard, and they think Harvard will definitely get them to the point of being a US Attorney in SDNY one day (or partner at Wachtell, doing impact litigation at the ACLU, insert other really unlikely to occur careers), and they will pay for that perceived edge in ever getting there, even though it's foolish and it's an unlikely outcome to bank that kind of money on at pretty much any school.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:52 pm
by courtneylove
I chose prestige over scholarship, attending UChicago with $ instead of Duke or Texas with $$$$. I did not get biglaw and have been preaching the scholarship route since law school. However, I have had some significant advantages in my non-biglaw career that are a direct result of prestige. I got headhunted by a company that gave me an amazing offer, which I was able to use for leverage to get a major raise at my current job. I also occasionally get mid- to biglaw firm interviews from resume-drops on LinkedIn which my coworkers (mostly TTT) definitely do not. Having the loans sucks, but I have to admit the prestige might be working out.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:44 pm
by RedPurpleBlue
courtneylove wrote:I chose prestige over scholarship, attending UChicago with $ instead of Duke or Texas with $$$$. I did not get biglaw and have been preaching the scholarship route since law school. However, I have had some significant advantages in my non-biglaw career that are a direct result of prestige. I got headhunted by a company that gave me an amazing offer, which I was able to use for leverage to get a major raise at my current job. I also occasionally get mid- to biglaw firm interviews from resume-drops on LinkedIn which my coworkers (mostly TTT) definitely do not. Having the loans sucks, but I have to admit the prestige might be working out.


Do you think your recent good fortunes and non-biglaw success would have been possible from Duke? Personally, I don't really perceive a huge prestige drop moving down from Chicago to Duke, but I've been wrong before.

Re: Prestige vs Scholarship

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:10 pm
by courtneylove
RedPurpleBlue wrote:Do you think your recent good fortunes and non-biglaw success would have been possible from Duke? Personally, I don't really perceive a huge prestige drop moving down from Chicago to Duke, but I've been wrong before.


Maybe. I've found that even regional midlaw firms have an associate or two who went to a school ranked as high as Duke, or higher. Having HYSCCN grads is rarer. The most recent firm I interviewed with had like two partners from HYS, both of whom graduated before I was born, and no other associates from schools ranked higher than like, Michigan. The majority of their associates were from mid-60s schools and some TTT schools. I know I got the interview because I am a rare bird with my CCN degree, lol, and Duke would probably still seem rare, but not quite as special.