HYS vs CCN $$$ Forum

[abl]

I'm not quoting that word vomit, but I'm going to clue you in on something that you will quickly learn when you graduate.

Again, there are obvious differences in placement between HYS and CCN which should certainly be taken into account when choosing between schools. But don't think that's because anybody ever sat down and thought this out like you seem to. It's because there needs to be a way for federal judges to rank the thousands of applications they get from students and figure out who is on top, and they go off marginal differences in school rank (just like marginal differences in grades) because it's relatively quick to do that. And then people like you come and create long-winded narratives about Why It Must Be, which is comfortable because it allows you to think there's some kind of ordered or logical system behind the insane hierarchies this profession perpetuates.

When you learn that there's really nothing special about people at HYS over people at CCN, just like there's really no difference in "quality" over CCN vs the rest of the t14, and the rest of the t14 over the t25, you'll appreciate that someone with a no name JD can come in and kick your ass all over the floor. And you'll be a lot better for it.

Ha. I have graduated. I've also hired for a federal judge. And you're wrong, at least with respect to how my judge did it -- we used marginal differences in school rank (although not on the level of HYS versus CCN) to cull the field, but when it came time to actually select a candidate from the roughly 20 or so finalists we'd picked, we were looking a whole lot more closely than just "did this person go to Columbia or Stanford." (We also looked a whole lot more closely than that to narrow things down from 100 to 20 -- it was only on the 800 to 100 level that we were making the sort of broad-based cuts that you describe, and even so, we had a number of finalists (one of whom got the clerkship) who did not go to a T14 or even a top 25 school.)

I have difficulty imagining that, at least with respect to CCN versus HYS, that the vast majority of federal judges don't do as my judge did. There are few enough applicants in the top 5% of HYS/CCN to look at every single one of them carefully. I assure you: the reason why we hired far more HYS candidates than CCN candidates wasn't because we had gave the HYS folks any significant preference with all things being equal. It's because the best candidates we got tended to be from HYS -- those in the top 5% of HYS who we saw had tended to do much more interesting things before law school, in law school, and, if relevant, after law school, than those in the top 5% of CCN.

I'm not arguing that therefore HYS students always or even usually make better lawyers. Nor am I arguing that no good lawyers come from lower-ranked schools. Those are different points. My point is only that the experience of attending HYS is qualitatively different than the experience of attending CCN, in part because HYS has a significantly greater number of superstar students.

What is the basis for saying that Supreme Court clerk hiring and Skadden fellowships are not prestige based? Please return to TLS and report back the day that you figure out that this profession, up to the highest levels, is indeed prestige based. That's not necessarily a terrible thing, it just is what it is. And maybe it justifies you tranferring, to reap those invisible prestige points. But this garbage you are spewing about the amount of famous people and whatnot is just hilarious. It does not affect your experience at all. When Bozo the gunner talked about Elliot Spitzer in class, do you know what that did for you? It allowed you to tell others that it happened which made you feel super cool. That's it. Is that what you are really after in an education?

My basis is that unlike, I suspect, most people here, I've actually gone through a lot of these application processes. And obviously prestige plays a big role in these things. But as selectors can focus more on the more relevant factors in an application, the value of using proxy factors such as prestige decreases substantially. To illustrate my point with an example: RBG can choose whoever she wants to be her clerk. She has nearly unlimited resources on which to rely in making that choice. She has to answer to nobody for the choice she makes. She is one of the smartest legal minds in the country, has years of experience of previous clerks to consider in making her decisions, and has a lot riding on who she hires as her clerk. My point is that if there really were no material difference in the top students from CCN and HYS -- as you suggest -- she would hire roughly equal numbers (relative to class size, of course) from each tier of school. Yet, year in and year out, she does not.*

*Obviously the far better example is the Justices' aggregated totals, not the numbers from any one particular Justice.

[smaug_]

You're pretty thick for someone with amazing credentials. Even if the top students at hys are more interesting or have better experiences before law school than CCN students, an individual candidate's past wouldn't change suddenly because they went to HYS over CCN.

Moreover, I still find the idea that you should choose H/S over CCN because things might be a little different for the top 5% laughable. Most t14 law grads with similar GPAs and social skills are fungible. We are talking about it being slightly easier for some people to work at DPW or SullCrom. Even among the "good" outcomes the differences are nearly nonexistent.

[kwais]

My basis is that unlike, I suspect, most people here, I've actually gone through a lot of these application processes. And obviously prestige plays a big role in these things. But as selectors can focus more on the more relevant factors in an application, the value of using proxy factors such as prestige decreases substantially. To illustrate my point with an example: RBG can choose whoever she wants to be her clerk. She has nearly unlimited resources on which to rely in making that choice. She has to answer to nobody for the choice she makes. She is one of the smartest legal minds in the country, has years of experience of previous clerks to consider in making her decisions, and has a lot riding on who she hires as her clerk. My point is that if there really were no material difference in the top students from CCN and HYS -- as you suggest -- she would hire roughly equal numbers (relative to class size, of course) from each tier of school. Yet, year in and year out, she does not.*

*Obviously the far better example is the Justices' aggregated totals, not the numbers from any one particular Justice.

You are still making conclusory statements. RBG, if all things equal, would hire more evenly among schools why? You just say it with no justification. What you are missing here is that the students who would be competing for a SCOTUS clerkship at HYS and CCN (you know, the top 10-15 students) are all wildly qualified to get the job. The difference between them? The HYS, which we call prestige. No one is saying that the tippy top students at HYS aren't among the absolute brighest law students in the country, it's just that you saying there is a substantive difference between most of them and the valedictorian at CLS or Chicago is pure silliness. The difference is prestige and yes, even SCOTUS justices buy it.

[jingosaur]

(Side note 2: IF YOU WANT TO GO INTO BANKING DON'T GET A LAW DEGREE. Get a job at a bulge bracket bank, if you know nothing about banking, teach yourself financial accounting for a few weeks and you'll get through the interviews. Also, you'll probably want to see what the life of an i-banker is like before setting your life up around achieving that goal. Lawyers get little respect from bankers, my MD was a lawyer and he told me: "I was working the same hours for a tenth the pay of the bankers I worked for and felt like an idiot, so as soon as I could I switched over." I think that was several years later.)

(Side note 3: Wharton and Booth are viewed the same as Harvard Business School in the world of finance. The difference in prestige is non-existent. HBS is basically a gender studies school these days anyway [kidding: unapologetic].)

I feel like these may refer to some of my comments earlier. I'm not gunning for an IB job at Goldman or MS. Long term, I'm looking at stuff like GC at a PE firm or hedge fund or leveraging my network to start my own firm with some colleagues. Short term, I don't mind having IB people as clients (I'm doing that at my job right now) and there's a chance that I may just give up on my long term goals and stick with working at a law firm. I don't really mind getting bossed around my clients as long as the work isn't too horrible.

W/r/t point 3, I can't say that I agree entirely. In bulge bracket, you're pretty close to correct, but at PE and hedge funds, it's essentially Harvard > Wharton/Stanford > everyone else. In VC it's Stanford > Harvard > Wharton with engineering background > everyone else.

And just to diffuse this conversation a little bit, if I go to HLS, do my kids get legacy at Harvard College?

[abl]

You're pretty thick for someone with amazing credentials. Even if the top students at hys are more interesting or have better experiences before law school than CCN students, an individual candidate's past wouldn't change suddenly because they went to HYS over CCN.

Moreover, I still find the idea that you should choose H/S over CCN because things might be a little different for the top 5% laughable. Most t14 law grads with similar GPAs and social skills are fungible. We are talking about it being slightly easier for some people to work at DPW or SullCrom. Even among the "good" outcomes the differences are nearly nonexistent.

No, you're missing my point. My point is that [img]one[/img] factor in deciding between HYS and CCN is the students who you will be taking classes with, networking with, and befriending. My focus was not on the professional benefits, but the qualitative experiential benefits. I acknowledge that the benefit of having several worldchanging-ly brilliant students in your classes, on your journals, and to possibly befriend might be small for some. It might be nonexistent for others. But it is, pretty undeniably in my opinion, a unique benefit of HYS. How important this particular benefit is to you is, well, personal. In my personal experience (and in my personal opinion), it made an enormous difference on the quality of my law school experience and education--a huge amount of what I learned and gained from attending law school came from a relatively small group of students who almost certainly exist in far smaller proportions at CCN than HYS. That will obviously not be the case for everyone--not everyone cares about the contributions of their classmates, and not everyone will experience those interactions in the same way. It is but one of the factors that contributes to a qualitatively different experience for HYS students versus CCN students. Some will value that difference more than others. It is possible that few will value it as much as I do. But it is something that should be considered when deciding between HYS and CCN.

In my opinion, TLS's focus on professional outcomes is myopic. Just like undergrad, law school should be more than simply about obtaining a job -- it's about growing as a lawyer, a thinker, and as an individual, about making friends, and about being well-prepared for your first AND second AND third jobs. There are clear professional advantages to attending HYS over CCN. Depending on your goals, priorities, and risk tolerances, those professional advantages may or may not justify a significant net COA difference between HYS and CCN. But that's a separate point. My point, which I don't think is actually as surprising or controversial as its reception so far on this board implies (at least it shouldn't be) is only that there are relevant considerations that should be built into the valuation of HYS not solely related to employment outcomes.

(And obviously an individual candidate's past wouldn't change based on whether they chose CCN over HYS or not. I'm not sure what I said that implied that I thought it would.)

[09042014]

I had a class with the indian kid who almost invented facebook. CHANGE meh LIFE

[t-14orbust]

For instance, this summer I'm able to look at some private-sector jobs that don't pay enough to service a significant debt load but which a law degree makes accessible and could result in massive pay down the line. One is barred from these jobs if one has a lot of debt.

Care to elaborate on what these jobs are. If you don't want to post here please PM me. Thanks!

[timbs4339]

I'm not arguing that therefore HYS students always or even usually make better lawyers. Nor am I arguing that no good lawyers come from lower-ranked schools. Those are different points. My point is only that the experience of attending HYS is qualitatively different than the experience of attending CCN, in part because HYS has a significantly greater number of superstar students.

There is absolutely no reason to think that there is a noticeable distinction in experience that can't be explained by the confirmation bias of the speaker, and I seriously doubt anybody has done any quantitative work. I'm not even sure how you define "superstar" students, either. Raw numbers? Okay, the distinction is marginal. Cool stuff they've done? Again, without actually counting people, can't figure it out. Future prospects? Hard to separate from prestige. It's like when people say "CLS students are [harder working/more cutthroat] than NYU students who are [friendlier/less driven]." Total bullshit.

But as selectors can focus more on the more relevant factors in an application, the value of using proxy factors such as prestige decreases substantially. To illustrate my point with an example: RBG can choose whoever she wants to be her clerk. She has nearly unlimited resources on which to rely in making that choice. She has to answer to nobody for the choice she makes. She is one of the smartest legal minds in the country, has years of experience of previous clerks to consider in making her decisions, and has a lot riding on who she hires as her clerk.

LOL at any judge having "unlimited resources" to devote to hiring (I know something about that process too). Judges are extremely busy. Clerks are extremely busy. They rely a lot on signals to guide them, and the signals rely on other signals, which rely on other signals. Of course it's taken seriously, but it's difficult to draw any conclusions from it other than that the relevant actors have some level of trust in the process that got a candidate to their chambers door.

[abl]

You are still making conclusory statements. RBG, if all things equal, would hire more evenly among schools why? You just say it with no justification. What you are missing here is that the students who would be competing for a SCOTUS clerkship at HYS and CCN (you know, the top 10-15 students) are all wildly qualified to get the job. The difference between them? The HYS, which we call prestige. No one is saying that the tippy top students at HYS aren't among the absolute brighest law students in the country, it's just that you saying there is a substantive difference between most of them and the valedictorian at CLS or Chicago is pure silliness. The difference is prestige and yes, even SCOTUS justices buy it.

I'm sorry -- I thought the logic was self-evident. Assuming RBG is an intelligent and rational actor, she would hire reasonably evenly among the schools. My previous statements about her selection process support the conclusion that she is an intelligent and rational actor. Trust me, judges are pretty darn self aware about these things. Maybe a lot of law firm hiring partners get suckered into the view that a prospective employee is better simply by virtue of the fact that person went to HYS, but COA judges and Supreme Court Justices just ain't that dumb. They know how ridiculous the law school prestige hierarchies are and generally discuss it with some regularity.

As someone who has hired for a highly competitive federal clerkship, the difference between the top 10-15 students at CLS and the top 10-15 students at Yale and Stanford is not the name of the school. Sure, everyone is wildly qualified, but that over-generalization doesn't get you there. You're going to find students who've swam the English Channel, who've done important PhD work, who've founded a substantial charity, who've written a bestselling novel, etc, with far greater frequency in the top 10-15 students at HYS than you will at CCN.

And to conclude (by dismissing your straw man), I didn't say there was a substantive difference between "the tippy top students at HYS" and "the valedictorian at CLS or Chicago." I said there was a substantive difference between the tippy top students at HYS and the tippy top students at CLS or Chicago. I acknowledge that there are SOME (almost certainly >1) true superstars who attend CCN.

[The Brainalist]

To pull a quote from another thread:

As per [the assertion that a Harvard grad is more likely to make partner]:

http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/w ... law-school

UChi wins, per capita, by a huge margin.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... s&start=50

[abl]

I'm not arguing that therefore HYS students always or even usually make better lawyers. Nor am I arguing that no good lawyers come from lower-ranked schools. Those are different points. My point is only that the experience of attending HYS is qualitatively different than the experience of attending CCN, in part because HYS has a significantly greater number of superstar students.

There is absolutely no reason to think that there is a noticeable distinction in experience that can't be explained by the confirmation bias of the speaker, and I seriously doubt anybody has done any quantitative work. I'm not even sure how you define "superstar" students, either. Raw numbers? Okay, the distinction is marginal. Cool stuff they've done? Again, without actually counting people, can't figure it out. Future prospects? Hard to separate from prestige. It's like when people say "CLS students are [harder working/more cutthroat] than NYU students who are [friendlier/less driven]." Total bullshit.

But as selectors can focus more on the more relevant factors in an application, the value of using proxy factors such as prestige decreases substantially. To illustrate my point with an example: RBG can choose whoever she wants to be her clerk. She has nearly unlimited resources on which to rely in making that choice. She has to answer to nobody for the choice she makes. She is one of the smartest legal minds in the country, has years of experience of previous clerks to consider in making her decisions, and has a lot riding on who she hires as her clerk.

LOL at any judge having "unlimited resources" to devote to hiring (I know something about that process too). Judges are extremely busy. Clerks are extremely busy. They rely a lot on signals to guide them, and the signals rely on other signals, which rely on other signals. Of course it's taken seriously, but it's difficult to draw any conclusions from it other than that the relevant actors have some level of trust in the process that got a candidate to their chambers door.

To address your first point: I'm leaving it up to individuals to decide how important this is to them as a factor. The fact that it's difficult to measure doesn't lessen its importance (and I proposed several ways in which it is measurable). If you (justifiably) believe there are more qualitative superstars (defined however you want to) at HYS than CCN, you make that decision yourself. Incidentally, I DO think school culture is another relevant factor. The culture at NYU is OBVIOUSLY different than the culture at Columbia. Same goes for Stanford versus Harvard versus Yale. Now, I have no idea at which school students work harder (between NYU and Columbia). But schools absolutely have different cultures, school culture will have SOME impact on a student's experience, and therefore school culture is a relevant factor to be considered. If your complaint is that people got the respective NYU and Columbia school cultures wrong, that's a separate point irrelevant to my point (which is that these things do matter for some--likely many--people).

Note: I did not say judge. I said Justice. There's a HUGE difference in how most COA judges conduct hiring decision and how most Supreme Court Justices do.

[kaiser]

^^^

How is this in any way relevant to the average prospective student deciding between HYS and CCN with big $$$?

[Mal Reynolds]

This is just getting sad. Of course the answer to OP's question is to not go to law school. You have to work alongside people like abl.

[jingosaur]

This is just getting sad. Of course the answer to OP's question is to not go to law school. You have to work alongside people like abl.

Or to retake.

[timbs4339]

I'm not arguing that therefore HYS students always or even usually make better lawyers. Nor am I arguing that no good lawyers come from lower-ranked schools. Those are different points. My point is only that the experience of attending HYS is qualitatively different than the experience of attending CCN, in part because HYS has a significantly greater number of superstar students.

There is absolutely no reason to think that there is a noticeable distinction in experience that can't be explained by the confirmation bias of the speaker, and I seriously doubt anybody has done any quantitative work. I'm not even sure how you define "superstar" students, either. Raw numbers? Okay, the distinction is marginal. Cool stuff they've done? Again, without actually counting people, can't figure it out. Future prospects? Hard to separate from prestige. It's like when people say "CLS students are [harder working/more cutthroat] than NYU students who are [friendlier/less driven]." Total bullshit.

But as selectors can focus more on the more relevant factors in an application, the value of using proxy factors such as prestige decreases substantially. To illustrate my point with an example: RBG can choose whoever she wants to be her clerk. She has nearly unlimited resources on which to rely in making that choice. She has to answer to nobody for the choice she makes. She is one of the smartest legal minds in the country, has years of experience of previous clerks to consider in making her decisions, and has a lot riding on who she hires as her clerk.

LOL at any judge having "unlimited resources" to devote to hiring (I know something about that process too). Judges are extremely busy. Clerks are extremely busy. They rely a lot on signals to guide them, and the signals rely on other signals, which rely on other signals. Of course it's taken seriously, but it's difficult to draw any conclusions from it other than that the relevant actors have some level of trust in the process that got a candidate to their chambers door.

To address your first point: I'm leaving it up to individuals to decide how important this is to them as a factor. The fact that it's difficult to measure doesn't lessen its importance (and I proposed several ways in which it is measurable). If you (justifiably) believe there are more qualitative superstars (defined however you want to) at HYS than CCN, you make that decision yourself. Incidentally, I DO think school culture is another relevant factor. The culture at NYU is OBVIOUSLY different than the culture at Columbia. Same goes for Stanford versus Harvard versus Yale. Now, I have no idea at which school students work harder (between NYU and Columbia). But schools absolutely have different cultures, school culture will have SOME impact on a student's experience, and therefore school culture is a relevant factor to be considered. If your complaint is that people got the respective NYU and Columbia school cultures wrong, that's a separate point irrelevant to my point (which is that these things do matter for some--likely many--people).

Note: I did not say judge. I said Justice. There's a HUGE difference in how most COA judges conduct hiring decision and how most Supreme Court Justices do.

You missed my point. There is no way to measure a school's culture that is divorced from the confirmation bias of the person. If you go to New York thinking New Yorkers are assholes, and see a person acting like an asshole, you are going to think "oh yeah, what do you expect, he's a New Yorker." It confirms your previous bias. See that same person in Iowa, and you'll think "wow, what an asshole." This is just how people think. Judges are people. Students are people. You're a person.

Law students are no different when trying to base decisions off of school culture. We don't know whether NYU or CLS or Harvard really have a different "cultures." It could just be a creature of an anonymous law student's imagination on Autoadmit back in 2004 that's been repeated ad nauseum since then. Making decisions on the basis of mushy stuff like "culture" or "experience" without taking into account that those distinctions could be a complete fabrication is unwise when you are playing with numbers as big as some students are.

[abl]

This is just getting sad. Of course the answer to OP's question is to not go to law school. You have to work alongside people like abl.

Hey, I'm actually trying to form an argument and address others' points. If your best recourse is to call me names, well, I think that says a lot about (1) how strong you think your argument is, and (2) how pleasant you are to be around.

[abl]

I'm not arguing that therefore HYS students always or even usually make better lawyers. Nor am I arguing that no good lawyers come from lower-ranked schools. Those are different points. My point is only that the experience of attending HYS is qualitatively different than the experience of attending CCN, in part because HYS has a significantly greater number of superstar students.

There is absolutely no reason to think that there is a noticeable distinction in experience that can't be explained by the confirmation bias of the speaker, and I seriously doubt anybody has done any quantitative work. I'm not even sure how you define "superstar" students, either. Raw numbers? Okay, the distinction is marginal. Cool stuff they've done? Again, without actually counting people, can't figure it out. Future prospects? Hard to separate from prestige. It's like when people say "CLS students are [harder working/more cutthroat] than NYU students who are [friendlier/less driven]." Total bullshit.

But as selectors can focus more on the more relevant factors in an application, the value of using proxy factors such as prestige decreases substantially. To illustrate my point with an example: RBG can choose whoever she wants to be her clerk. She has nearly unlimited resources on which to rely in making that choice. She has to answer to nobody for the choice she makes. She is one of the smartest legal minds in the country, has years of experience of previous clerks to consider in making her decisions, and has a lot riding on who she hires as her clerk.

LOL at any judge having "unlimited resources" to devote to hiring (I know something about that process too). Judges are extremely busy. Clerks are extremely busy. They rely a lot on signals to guide them, and the signals rely on other signals, which rely on other signals. Of course it's taken seriously, but it's difficult to draw any conclusions from it other than that the relevant actors have some level of trust in the process that got a candidate to their chambers door.

To address your first point: I'm leaving it up to individuals to decide how important this is to them as a factor. The fact that it's difficult to measure doesn't lessen its importance (and I proposed several ways in which it is measurable). If you (justifiably) believe there are more qualitative superstars (defined however you want to) at HYS than CCN, you make that decision yourself. Incidentally, I DO think school culture is another relevant factor. The culture at NYU is OBVIOUSLY different than the culture at Columbia. Same goes for Stanford versus Harvard versus Yale. Now, I have no idea at which school students work harder (between NYU and Columbia). But schools absolutely have different cultures, school culture will have SOME impact on a student's experience, and therefore school culture is a relevant factor to be considered. If your complaint is that people got the respective NYU and Columbia school cultures wrong, that's a separate point irrelevant to my point (which is that these things do matter for some--likely many--people).

Note: I did not say judge. I said Justice. There's a HUGE difference in how most COA judges conduct hiring decision and how most Supreme Court Justices do.

You missed my point. There is no way to measure a school's culture that is divorced from the confirmation bias of the person. If you go to New York thinking New Yorkers are assholes, and see a person acting like an asshole, you are going to think "oh yeah, what do you expect, he's a New Yorker." It confirms your previous bias. See that same person in Iowa, and you'll think "wow, what an asshole." This is just how people think. Judges are people. Students are people. You're a person.

Law students are no different when trying to base decisions off of school culture. We don't know whether NYU or CLS or Harvard really have a different "cultures." It could just be a creature of an anonymous law student's imagination on Autoadmit back in 2004 that's been repeated ad nauseum since then. Making decisions on the basis of mushy stuff like "culture" or "experience" without taking into account that those distinctions could be a complete fabrication is unwise when you are playing with numbers as big as some students are.

I gotcha now. First, for reasons that have already been discussed, the factors I've been focusing on are not anywhere close to as difficult to measure as school culture. We know that "higher quality" students go to Yale than NYU. We know that "higher quality" faculty teach at Yale than NYU. We know that if you go to Yale, versus NYU, your classmates will have "higher quality" employment outcomes. Exactly how much "higher quality" these factors are, and what difference it makes, will depend on each individual student's preferences, personality, and priorities. Second, the fact that many accepted truisms about school culture may be incorrect because of selection bias is not a good reason to disregard them entirely. I think it's pretty indisputable that there are differences in different schools' cultures (are you arguing that this is not the case?). What they are may be is difficult to pin down, and some schools' cultural reputations may not be warranted -- but I would argue that disregarding your perception of school culture entirely (especially without any reason other than your lack of confidence in your ability to figure it out) would be a huge mistake when so much is riding on that decision (just as basing your entire decision around school culture would be). So, in economic terms, maybe these soft factors should be discounted for the measurement difficulties inherent to distinguishing things that may not always be quantifiable. But they almost certainly should not be discounted to 0.

[09042014]

Is abl a HLS student? If some I now know the student quality is inferior to Northwestern.

[Mal Reynolds]

Is abl a HLS student? If some I now know the student quality is inferior to Northwestern.

[Mal Reynolds]

Also faculty quality if a fucking flame anywhere in the top fourteen. They all went to Yale and Harvard, they've all clerked and they all publish worthless research.

[09042014]

Also I graduated below median at NW and got DC biglaw. Someone start a NW vs CCN$$$ thread.

The NW students have prior careers, which brings experience to the classrooms. A gamechanger. Totes worth 300k.

[Nonconsecutive]

Also I graduated below median at NW and got DC biglaw. Someone start a NW vs CCN$$$ thread.

The NW students have prior careers, which brings experience to the classrooms. A gamechanger. Totes worth 300k.

For some reason I can't appreciate your posts as much without a tar.

[09042014]

Also I graduated below median at NW and got DC biglaw. Someone start a NW vs CCN$$$ thread.

The NW students have prior careers, which brings experience to the classrooms. A gamechanger. Totes worth 300k.

For some reason I can't appreciate your posts as much without a tar.

I changed my tar for survivor, but can't find the orginial. I Think I have it backed up somewher.e

[2014]

Also I graduated below median at NW and got DC biglaw. Someone start a NW vs CCN$$$ thread.

The NW students have prior careers, which brings experience to the classrooms. A gamechanger. Totes worth 300k.

Weren't you IPSECURE tho bro, that makes you basically a URM

Abl can we go back to your HY(S?) are filled with future senators and presidents and stuff and that has value to most students? I'd accept even anecdotes of you or people you know shamelessly targeting classmates with high chances of future influence and it actually leading to anything more than disdain. Like someone earlier (I think Kwais?) said, the value is limited to you being able to go home to your family and tell them about the time you had a 3 minute conversation with a future congresswoman from a bumblefuck district.

[UnicornHunter]

If you're a K-JD deciding on H vs CCN with $$$, the clear correct response is to sign a 3 year contract with the Navy or Air Force and then go to S for free or Y for a significant discount depending on your goals. HTH.