Harvard (15k) v Chicago (Ruby) Forum

[dissonance1848]

Whoever's voting for Harvard is trolling very hard, lol.

[Dr. Dre]

Whoever's voting forHarvard NYU is trolling very hard, lol.

[kaiser]

Def Chicago

[unc0mm0n1]

A Ruby (which I won't get) would give me flexibility. I'm not a K-JD and I'll be way closer to 30 than 20 when I graduate law school. Maybe after few years working when I have my first child I'll want to take some time off. A Ruby lets me do that. A Ruby lets me leave big law early, or even not do it at all and not worry about my loan debts. This bullshit trying to frame people taking scholarships as only wanting luxury goods is just that, complete bullshit.

Well, if I planned to go to law school and then have a child and stop working, I'd probably take the Ruby as well. Of course, let's not forget HLS has the LIPP if you don't plan on doing big law.

Certainly there are situations where the Ruby is the correct choice over Harvard (for instance if one has debt from undergrad). I just disagree with this idea that the Ruby is usually the correct decision, or is the correct decision in the OP's case.

In most people's situation, it comes down to whether or not you want HLS prestige and career options or more money.

edit: Forgot to mention that I have not heard anyone suggest that Chicago is a more enjoyable school to attend than Harvard.

You're a 0L, right? I really hope so because I don't see how anybody in law school or a law school graduate could make these arguments.

[kaiser]

A Ruby (which I won't get) would give me flexibility. I'm not a K-JD and I'll be way closer to 30 than 20 when I graduate law school. Maybe after few years working when I have my first child I'll want to take some time off. A Ruby lets me do that. A Ruby lets me leave big law early, or even not do it at all and not worry about my loan debts. This bullshit trying to frame people taking scholarships as only wanting luxury goods is just that, complete bullshit.

Well, if I planned to go to law school and then have a child and stop working, I'd probably take the Ruby as well. Of course, let's not forget HLS has the LIPP if you don't plan on doing big law.

Certainly there are situations where the Ruby is the correct choice over Harvard (for instance if one has debt from undergrad). I just disagree with this idea that the Ruby is usually the correct decision, or is the correct decision in the OP's case.

In most people's situation, it comes down to whether or not you want HLS prestige and career options or more money.

edit: Forgot to mention that I have not heard anyone suggest that Chicago is a more enjoyable school to attend than Harvard.

You're a 0L, right? I really hope so because I don't see how anybody in law school or a law school graduate could make these arguments.

Its why I've always said that TLS users should be color-coded based on class year. No need for "0L alerts" since it would be evident from the name color. And if we could somehow work that info into poll results, the data would be so much more useful (since we currently have to allow for the inevitable "0L factor" in most polls). Would really speak volumes if you see a large majority of current students and graduates vote one way while a huge number of 0L's go the other way.

P.S. Nothing against utility (didn't even read his post) but just speaking in general

[UtilityMonster]

A Ruby (which I won't get) would give me flexibility. I'm not a K-JD and I'll be way closer to 30 than 20 when I graduate law school. Maybe after few years working when I have my first child I'll want to take some time off. A Ruby lets me do that. A Ruby lets me leave big law early, or even not do it at all and not worry about my loan debts. This bullshit trying to frame people taking scholarships as only wanting luxury goods is just that, complete bullshit.

Well, if I planned to go to law school and then have a child and stop working, I'd probably take the Ruby as well. Of course, let's not forget HLS has the LIPP if you don't plan on doing big law.

Certainly there are situations where the Ruby is the correct choice over Harvard (for instance if one has debt from undergrad). I just disagree with this idea that the Ruby is usually the correct decision, or is the correct decision in the OP's case.

In most people's situation, it comes down to whether or not you want HLS prestige and career options or more money.

edit: Forgot to mention that I have not heard anyone suggest that Chicago is a more enjoyable school to attend than Harvard.

You're a 0L, right? I really hope so because I don't see how anybody in law school or a law school graduate could make these arguments.

I would hope a law student had the capacity to recognize when an argument was made, and when one was not.

[unc0mm0n1]

Well, if I planned to go to law school and then have a child and stop working, I'd probably take the Ruby as well. Of course, let's not forget HLS has the LIPP if you don't plan on doing big law.

Certainly there are situations where the Ruby is the correct choice over Harvard (for instance if one has debt from undergrad). I just disagree with this idea that the Ruby is usually the correct decision, or is the correct decision in the OP's case.

In most people's situation, it comes down to whether or not you want HLS prestige and career options or more money.

edit: Forgot to mention that I have not heard anyone suggest that Chicago is a more enjoyable school to attend than Harvard.

You're a 0L, right? I really hope so because I don't see how anybody in law school or a law school graduate could make these arguments.

I would hope a law student had the capacity to recognize when an argument was made, and when one was not.

Ok so you are an 0L. Your comments make sense now. Well not really make sense but I can see why you say them.

[unc0mm0n1]

Its why I've always said that TLS users should be color-coded based on class year. No need for "0L alerts" since it would be evident from the name color. And if we could somehow work that info into poll results, the data would be so much more useful (since we currently have to allow for the inevitable "0L factor" in most polls). Would really speak volumes if you see a large majority of current students and graduates vote one way while a huge number of 0L's go the other way.

That would be awesome, we need a mod to get on that.

[Rahviveh]

If UM is correct in suggesting a greater "safety net" for those at the bottom of the class, I guess it comes down to how much you value that. 180k (or 150k for a Hamilton) seems like a very steep price for what probably isn't a big cushion at HLS vs one of CCN, given that 80-85% of the class at the latter are getting offers based on OCI data and recent employment stats. So the safety net can't be more than 10%. Would you pay 180k for an extra 10% chance at a biglaw offer and 160k salary? That's just way over the extra income you can expect to make in a 10-year period.

[Emma.]

If UM is correct in suggesting a greater "safety net" for those at the bottom of the class, I guess it comes down to how much you value that. 180k (or 150k for a Hamilton) seems like a very steep price for what probably isn't a big cushion at HLS vs one of CCN, given that 80-85% of the class are getting offers based on OCI data and recent employment stats. So the safety net can't be more than 10%. Would you pay 180k for an extra 10% chance at a biglaw offer and 160k salary? That's just way over the extra income you can expect to make in a 10-year period.

Nor is it the case that folks at the bottom of the class at HLS are having a ton of luck finding jobs.

[UtilityMonster]

If UM is correct in suggesting a greater "safety net" for those at the bottom of the class, I guess it comes down to how much you value that. 180k (or 150k for a Hamilton) seems like a very steep price for what probably isn't a big cushion at HLS vs one of CCN, given that 80-85% of the class at the latter are getting offers based on OCI data and recent employment stats. So the safety net can't be more than 10%. Would you pay 180k for an extra 10% chance at a biglaw offer and 160k salary? That's just way over the extra income you can expect to make in a 10-year period.

You treat the existence of a HLS safety net as the only thing HLS has going for it that CCN does not.

There are other things:

Improved career prospects generally at each class rank and regardless of career trajectory (although apparently this is contested)
Fairly generous LIPP for PI
More enjoyable law school experience
Larger alumni network
Lay prestige self-esteem boost (important for people like me who make stupid comments)

and others. Not saying these will be sufficient for some applicants, or even most applicants, but they aren't negligible.

[Emma.]

If UM is correct in suggesting a greater "safety net" for those at the bottom of the class, I guess it comes down to how much you value that. 180k (or 150k for a Hamilton) seems like a very steep price for what probably isn't a big cushion at HLS vs one of CCN, given that 80-85% of the class at the latter are getting offers based on OCI data and recent employment stats. So the safety net can't be more than 10%. Would you pay 180k for an extra 10% chance at a biglaw offer and 160k salary? That's just way over the extra income you can expect to make in a 10-year period.

You treat the existence of a HLS safety net as the only thing HLS has going for it that CCN does not.

There are other things:

Improved career prospects generally regardless of class rank and career trajectory (although apparently this is contested)
Fairly generous LIPP for PI
More enjoyable law school experience
Larger alumni network
Lay prestige self-esteem boost (important for people like me who make stupid comments)

and others. Not saying these will be sufficient for some applicants, or even most applicants, but they aren't negligible.

Saying "improved career prospects" 100 times doesn't make it true. Unless someone making this decision has some firm evidence of this, they shouldn't count on it in their decision.

Have you seen comparisons of HLS LIPP vs UChi LRAP?

The "more enjoyable experience thing" is a joke, right? HLS has an objectively more enjoyable experience?

[UtilityMonster]

Have you seen comparisons of HLS LIPP vs UChi LRAP?

The "more enjoyable experience thing" is a joke, right? HLS has an objectively more enjoyable experience?

UChi LRAP is irrelevant if one has a Rubenstein.

Regarding how enjoyable the experience is, I have heard the difference in stress due to grading systems is huge. Certainly, Harvard has better facilities and probably more interesting students (not an attempt to reinforce the Chicago students stereotype). Also, Boston, and Cambridge in particular, is a better place to live than Hyde Park, or so most people say. So, "objectively better"? Only in the sense that it is true for most people.

[2012applicant2013]

Don't be a douche OP-- come back to TLS and tells us what you ultimately decided to do. It seems like a lot of people that create these type of threads never come back and tell everyone where they ended up.

Thanks for the all the advice so far. I'm still very much undecided. I loved Harvard during ASW and only briefly visited Chicago before applying last fall. I think a second visit will help me make a decision.

I will update as soon as I've made any sort of decision.

[Nelson]

Currently I am interested in PI however, I know that many people say this going into law school and change their minds (due to finances, personal interest, the market ect) so I'm not sure i want to lock myself into that career path as a 0L (hence my hesitation about RTK).

I think I am becoming increasingly debt averse as this cycle plays out. It seems that even with a very flexible LARP or LIPP I will be locked into their a very low paying job or a very high paying big law job for 8-10 years if if I want to aggressively pay back my loans (which I want to do).

I would love to have flexibility in my career because the legal market is changing/shrinking and I would hope not to get caught somewhere just to pay off loans. That being said I want to set myself up in the best way possible. And if HLS delivers on intangibles (like name recognition outside of the legal world) I would be willing to sacrifice flexibility in the beginning of my career for later payoffs. Especially as a URM I am concerned that I will already have to be working harder for many opportunities and a HLS degree can help me open more doors.

Disregarding all of the preposterous trolling in this thread, if you're really undecided about what you want to do, you should go the option that leaves you with the least debt and therefore most flexibility, which is Chicago. If you were truly PI committed, I would say the RTK is the best option but it doesn't sound like you really want to do PI or know what legal PI is. Harvard would only make sense if you knew for sure that you wanted to work in academia or policy. Given that most undecided 0Ls end up at firms to start, you should take the money and enjoy the superior lifestyle of firm salary without debt.

[Emma.]

Have you seen comparisons of HLS LIPP vs UChi LRAP?

The "more enjoyable experience thing" is a joke, right? HLS has an objectively more enjoyable experience?

UChi LRAP is irrelevant if one has a Rubenstein.

Regarding how enjoyable the experience is, I have heard the difference in stress due to grading systems is huge. Certainly, Harvard has better facilities and probably more interesting students (not an attempt to reinforce the Chicago students stereotype). Also, Boston, and Cambridge in particular, is a better place to live than Hyde Park, or so most people say. So, "objectively better"? Only in the sense that it is true for most people.

Meh. You seemed to have strayed away from HLS v. Ruby to be talking generally about the awesome benefits of HLS over CCN as a whole.

Additional stress from grading seems impossible to quantify. Would I be less stressed worrying about HPs than about 180+ grades? I have no idea. I'm sure current HLS students will say that they can't imagine how much more stressful school would be with grades, but we really can say for sure. Even for people who have transferred from a school with grades to HLS, comparing 1L at their old school to 2L is really apples to oranges.

Better facilities?

I'll agree that HP isn't a huge selling point, but it isn't too bad. After 1L most people live in the city, and Chicago v. Boston is really just a question of preference.

[EdgarWinter]

I'm a 1L Ruby at Chicago. I have an SA in the city where I want to be; I will graduate in the black; I will be able to avoid financially relying on my parents; I will be able to choose a lower-paying job in the medium-term future while still maintaining a comfortable (not merely LIPP-style poverty) lifestyle; etc.. It all comes down to incredible flexibility. I'm not bound.

UtilityMonster, all of these are things which you could have had if you had taken the Ruby. Harvard might get you the first. At the moment I suspect this thread is an attempt to justify, to yourself as much as anyone else, what is for the vast majority of un-trust-funded, little-to-no-financial-aid applicants a very poor decision. It's true that Chicago isn't as fancy, might have more stressful grades, might reduce your odds of a SCOTUS clerkship from 1% to .1%, and won't wow lay people. But these are very poor arguments to anyone who has even a vague understanding of how a great a debt-free future is.

I knew a guy who dropped out of Columbia after 1L year. He realized that he just didn't like law and wouldn't want to practice it. Had he gone to Harvard he would have been epicly screwed with debt. Thankfully, he had a Hamilton. Nobody can predict what things might happen in one's future, but somebody who hasn't thrown all their financial eggs in one basket is better able to face down life's crazy challenges.

I talked to another Ruby the other day who had communicated with an applicant who turned down the Ruby for Harvard. He seemed stunned and just couldn't imagine the folly of it. I tend to agree.

[UtilityMonster]

I will be able to choose a lower-paying job in the medium-term future while still maintaining a comfortable (not merely LIPP-style poverty) lifestyle; etc..

You have a questionable conception of what constitutes poverty.

UtilityMonster, all of these are things which you could have had if you had taken the Ruby. Harvard might get you the first. At the moment I suspect this thread is an attempt to justify, to yourself as much as anyone else, what is for the vast majority of un-trust-funded, little-to-no-financial-aid applicants a very poor decision.

Faulty assumption, considering I haven't turned the Ruby down.

I knew a guy who dropped out of Columbia after 1L year. He realized that he just didn't like law and wouldn't want to practice it. Had he gone to Harvard he would have been epicly screwed with debt. Thankfully, he had a Hamilton. Nobody can predict what things might happen in one's future, but somebody who hasn't thrown all their financial eggs in one basket is better able to face down life's crazy challenges.

I talked to another Ruby the other day who had communicated with an applicant who turned down the Ruby for Harvard. He seemed stunned and just couldn't imagine the folly of it. I tend to agree.

People value different things. For me, though, if I were to imagine what I could spend the $100s of thousands I save by choosing Chicago on, and someone were to offer me the experience of going to HLS, I would choose that. I value that more than whatever that money could buy me later in life. I live a simple and very frugal lifestyle. I wouldn't know what to do with a high earning attorney salary if I had one.

[JollyGreenGiant]

Please just say that lay prestige is worth $200k to you.

[Emma.]

Please just say that lay prestige is worth $200k to you.

I can only imaging what this kid thinks "the experience of going to HLS" is like.



I bet there are unicorns.

[BerkeleyBear]

[bizzybone1313]

Please just say that lay prestige is worth $200k to you.

Lay prestige is worth $200K for me. If I get into Harvard, I am going.

Part of the problem is too many people on TLS come from upper-class/upper middle class lifestyles and are used to living a life that most of the world doesn't come remotely close to living. When I see people complaining about "only" having $70K in disposable income after debt payments and necessary living costs during their stint in Big Law, I just shake my head. There are a lot of people that will be paying $2K in rent every month while they are at Boston or Chicago or even Ann Arbor. What does that eventually come out to in the form of loan payments? $1K vs $2K vs. $700 in rent per month over the span of three years of law school amounts to a shit load of money.

[spyke123]

I'm a 1L Ruby at Chicago. I have an SA in the city where I want to be; I will graduate in the black; I will be able to avoid financially relying on my parents; I will be able to choose a lower-paying job in the medium-term future while still maintaining a comfortable (not merely LIPP-style poverty) lifestyle; etc.. It all comes down to incredible flexibility. I'm not bound.

I think the value of this "flexibility" argument isnt as strong as many people believe to be. I really believe (maybe im in the minority here) working in biglaw shouldnt be just about "the unfortunate soul selling ritual to pay down your crushing debt", rather I think it is extremely valuable regardless of your career goals for various reasons: building a strong professional network, learning to work effectively in a high pressure/stress environment to name a few.

[JollyGreenGiant]

I'm a 1L Ruby at Chicago. I have an SA in the city where I want to be; I will graduate in the black; I will be able to avoid financially relying on my parents; I will be able to choose a lower-paying job in the medium-term future while still maintaining a comfortable (not merely LIPP-style poverty) lifestyle; etc.. It all comes down to incredible flexibility. I'm not bound.

I think the value of this "flexibility" argument isnt as strong as many people believe to be. I really believe (maybe im in the minority here) working in biglaw shouldnt be just about "the unfortunate soul selling ritual to pay down your crushing debt", rather I think it is extremely valuable regardless of your career goals for various reasons: building a strong professional network, learning to work effectively in a high pressure/stress environment to name a few.

You're right in that biglaw is a valuable rite of passage, but you're not going to see tangible long-term career benefits from being forced to stay for 6 years instead of 3 because you have a ton of debt to pay off.

[envisciguy]

I've never even visited HLS or Chicago and obviously don't have a preference for the "experience" of one over the other. But it's ridiculous to list lay prestige and the experience as a reason for a roughly $180-$200k difference. Sure, if there's a $30k difference, maybe I understand some of those weaker arguments. But really, here it should be an easy choice for most. Whatever cushion there is for dipping lower in the HLS class is more than offset by the cushion of not having crushing debt at Chicago.

I reaffirm my post from earlier in this thread and vote Ruby. Though they're obviously both amazing choices and one isn't really objectively wrong.