Take the money and Run; YS - CCNH? Forum

[abl]

If you're going to go part-way, you should go all of the way in the economics approach. What's the monetary value of having your dream job, and the percent increase in possibility of getting that job out of a better school? How about your second choice vs. your third choice? Your third choice vs. your fourth choice. Etc. Then, what's the value to you of spending three years at the school that you're going to be the most happy, have the best experiences, learn the most, etc? What's the marginal financial value to you of getting to say, over your lifetime, that you went to x school instead of y school? What about the value of increased career flexibility years down the road? What about the value of the marginal decrease in the possibility of you being stuck in doc review? I can go on and on, but my point is that a rational economic actor's decision about law school should be based on far more than simply % increase in biglaw possibility or anything nearly so simple.

For me, I'd value the experiences alone that I had in law school in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Could I have had some of these experiences at a different school? Sure. But I feel very confident that the experiential advantage alone of my school over some other very fine schools was worth substantial amounts of money to me. Factor in all of the rest of the considerations, and I would have made a terrible economic choice if I had taken full scholly at a school 5-10 lower in the rankings over the one I ultimately ended up going to -- despite the fact that I'm confident that my "% chance of biglaw outcome" or some other blunt indicator might have implied that I made the wrong decision.

Schools like HYS (and to a lesser extent, CCN, and to an even lesser extent, the rest of the T14) offer experiences and opportunities far beyond merely the possibility of biglaw. This, of course, does not mean that the better ranked school is always or even often the correct choice, cost be damned. $200,000 is a lot of money, whereas the difference between Northwestern and Chicago is relatively small.

tl;dr version: this thread generally oversimplifies things. When you take into account all of the relevant considerations, HYS are going to be substantial amounts in cost over CCN for many (not necessary all or even most) students; and CCN are going to be worth substantial amounts over Cornell/Georgetown/etc for many; and Cornell/Georgetown are going to be worth substantial amounts over USC/WUSTL/etc for many; etc.

[kaiser]

So, who should go to YLS? Anyone?

My (0L opinion): people who want incredibly weird, elusive, possibly imaginary jobs. People who receive family support and/or need based aid. Firmly committed PI folks who are certain they'll be covered by Yale's LRAP (or whatever Yale calls it.)

If you borrow 250k to go to Yale, you'll get that Big Law job, no question. But you almost certainly would've gotten it by taking CCN with a scholarship, too, and now you're much deeper in debt and have shackled yourself to Big Law for that much longer.

In general, this is right. The debt load from YLS most certainly would be idiotic if you intend to go with private practice. For those super elusive unicorn jobs, the most prestigious PI, a concrete desire to clerk and transition into academia, etc. Yale would be a totally rational choice. But absent some pretty narrow circumstances, the debt load simply isn't justified (assuming mommy and daddy aren't footing the bill for you).

I love this rationale. "Well as long as you want some stupid job that probably doesn't exist, and you probably couldn't get if it did, ANY AMOUNT IS OKAY!"

It isn't that those unicorn jobs don't actually exist. Its just that they are super hard to get. And if any school actually somewhat opens doors to them, its going to be YLS.

[emitremmus]

So does everyone in this day and age agree that scholly outweighs prestige?

[TheSpanishMain]

So does everyone in this day and age agree that scholly outweighs prestige?

I don't think you can make it quite that black and white. 50% of at a T14 > full ride at a TTTT, even though full ride > 1/2 off.

[abl]

So does everyone in this day and age agree that scholly outweighs prestige?

I don't (always). See above.

[Splitter1415]

Threads like this make me not to want to go to law school.

What is the maximum amount of loans one should be allowed to take?

[jbagelboy]

If you're going to go part-way, you should go all of the way in the economics approach. What's the monetary value of having your dream job, and the percent increase in possibility of getting that job out of a better school? How about your second choice vs. your third choice? Your third choice vs. your fourth choice. Etc. Then, what's the value to you of spending three years at the school that you're going to be the most happy, have the best experiences, learn the most, etc? What's the marginal financial value to you of getting to say, over your lifetime, that you went to x school instead of y school? What about the value of increased career flexibility years down the road? What about the value of the marginal decrease in the possibility of you being stuck in doc review? I can go on and on, but my point is that a rational economic actor's decision about law school should be based on far more than simply % increase in biglaw possibility or anything nearly so simple.

For me, I'd value the experiences alone that I had in law school in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Could I have had some of these experiences at a different school? Sure. But I feel very confident that the experiential advantage alone of my school over some other very fine schools was worth substantial amounts of money to me. Factor in all of the rest of the considerations, and I would have made a terrible economic choice if I had taken full scholly at a school 5-10 lower in the rankings over the one I ultimately ended up going to -- despite the fact that I'm confident that my "% chance of biglaw outcome" or some other blunt indicator might have implied that I made the wrong decision.

Schools like HYS (and to a lesser extent, CCN, and to an even lesser extent, the rest of the T14) offer experiences and opportunities far beyond merely the possibility of biglaw. This, of course, does not mean that the better ranked school is always or even often the correct choice, cost be damned. $200,000 is a lot of money, whereas the difference between Northwestern and Chicago is relatively small.

tl;dr version: this thread generally oversimplifies things. When you take into account all of the relevant considerations, HYS are going to be substantial amounts in cost over CCN for many (not necessary all or even most) students; and CCN are going to be worth substantial amounts over Cornell/Georgetown/etc for many; and Cornell/Georgetown are going to be worth substantial amounts over USC/WUSTL/etc for many; etc.

As usual, we disagree and this "experiential" analysis is a load of crap. We all get it you think your law school was the tits and anything differently ranked is varying degrees of crap. But you really wouldn't know would you because you've never attended another law school. I agree school and experience matter, but not in this pretentious sliding scale. Somehow, Im doubting the UChicago students graduating with $100K less than their peers at Harvard are crying themselves to sleep every night over the deficiencies of their "student experience." There's far more difference in "student experience" for example between a small, western school like Stanford and a huge, new england ivy like Harvard than between Columbia and Harvard or Stanford and Cal. Your breakdown is stupid and your rationalizations, other than the career opportunities which we all acknowledge to be valid considerations, are asinine.

[Straw_Mandible]

Quantifying nonquantifiables: "experiential" value

Can you please share with us some of the details of these $200,000 experiences? They sound truly spectacular.

[d cooper]

34.9% fedclerk + 12.8% academia (these 5 years averaged) = 47.7%.

Given that this number is closer to 10% at even CCN, it's fair to say that YLS gives you a substantial advantage in pursuing these unicorn positions. It's not too different from someone attending a lower T14 for biglaw.

[rayiner]

Re: splitters. I paid sticker (though back then, sticker meant $240k, not ~$300k), and I'm glad I did it. But it was the roll of the dice, and the student loans I pay every month are my punishment for having screwed up undergrad. In any case, exceptions shouldn't be used to define the rule. Splitters do not make up the majority or even a large fraction of everyone considering law school.

[rayiner]

34.9% fedclerk + 12.8% academia (these 5 years averaged) = 47.7%.

Given that this number is closer to 10% at even CCN, it's fair to say that YLS gives you a very substantial advantage in pursuing these unicorn positions. It's not too different from someone attending a lower T14 for biglaw.

Yeah, but most clerks do it for a year and end up in big law, even from Yale. Clerking is not a "unicorn" position. It's hard to get, but it's not a career. Academia is a unicorn position, and if you want to be an academic Yale is TCR, but it's also not something most people are cut out for or even would really like doing.

[UVAIce]

If you're going to go part-way, you should go all of the way in the economics approach. What's the monetary value of having your dream job, and the percent increase in possibility of getting that job out of a better school? How about your second choice vs. your third choice? Your third choice vs. your fourth choice. Etc. Then, what's the value to you of spending three years at the school that you're going to be the most happy, have the best experiences, learn the most, etc? What's the marginal financial value to you of getting to say, over your lifetime, that you went to x school instead of y school? What about the value of increased career flexibility years down the road? What about the value of the marginal decrease in the possibility of you being stuck in doc review? I can go on and on, but my point is that a rational economic actor's decision about law school should be based on far more than simply % increase in biglaw possibility or anything nearly so simple.

For me, I'd value the experiences alone that I had in law school in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Could I have had some of these experiences at a different school? Sure. But I feel very confident that the experiential advantage alone of my school over some other very fine schools was worth substantial amounts of money to me. Factor in all of the rest of the considerations, and I would have made a terrible economic choice if I had taken full scholly at a school 5-10 lower in the rankings over the one I ultimately ended up going to -- despite the fact that I'm confident that my "% chance of biglaw outcome" or some other blunt indicator might have implied that I made the wrong decision.

Schools like HYS (and to a lesser extent, CCN, and to an even lesser extent, the rest of the T14) offer experiences and opportunities far beyond merely the possibility of biglaw. This, of course, does not mean that the better ranked school is always or even often the correct choice, cost be damned. $200,000 is a lot of money, whereas the difference between Northwestern and Chicago is relatively small.

tl;dr version: this thread generally oversimplifies things. When you take into account all of the relevant considerations, HYS are going to be substantial amounts in cost over CCN for many (not necessary all or even most) students; and CCN are going to be worth substantial amounts over Cornell/Georgetown/etc for many; and Cornell/Georgetown are going to be worth substantial amounts over USC/WUSTL/etc for many; etc.

Such a load of bull to think there is some extreme experiential difference between these schools. This is what drives kids to take $100k in debt to go to a LAC for a degree in drama.

I will keep my negativity to that.

[t-14orbust]

LS22s spreadsheet says I'll be in ~180k debt territory at HLS. Am I crazy for going there? FWIW I got more need aid from H than I got in merit from CCN.

edit: only other option would be to wait a year and reapply since P dinged me, V WLed me, and I didn't apply anywhere else. Please help me convince myself this isn't a huge mistake.

[kaiser]

So does everyone in this day and age agree that scholly outweighs prestige?

No, thats taking it far more extreme than what any of us have been saying.

[abl]

If you're going to go part-way, you should go all of the way in the economics approach. What's the monetary value of having your dream job, and the percent increase in possibility of getting that job out of a better school? How about your second choice vs. your third choice? Your third choice vs. your fourth choice. Etc. Then, what's the value to you of spending three years at the school that you're going to be the most happy, have the best experiences, learn the most, etc? What's the marginal financial value to you of getting to say, over your lifetime, that you went to x school instead of y school? What about the value of increased career flexibility years down the road? What about the value of the marginal decrease in the possibility of you being stuck in doc review? I can go on and on, but my point is that a rational economic actor's decision about law school should be based on far more than simply % increase in biglaw possibility or anything nearly so simple.

For me, I'd value the experiences alone that I had in law school in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Could I have had some of these experiences at a different school? Sure. But I feel very confident that the experiential advantage alone of my school over some other very fine schools was worth substantial amounts of money to me. Factor in all of the rest of the considerations, and I would have made a terrible economic choice if I had taken full scholly at a school 5-10 lower in the rankings over the one I ultimately ended up going to -- despite the fact that I'm confident that my "% chance of biglaw outcome" or some other blunt indicator might have implied that I made the wrong decision.

Schools like HYS (and to a lesser extent, CCN, and to an even lesser extent, the rest of the T14) offer experiences and opportunities far beyond merely the possibility of biglaw. This, of course, does not mean that the better ranked school is always or even often the correct choice, cost be damned. $200,000 is a lot of money, whereas the difference between Northwestern and Chicago is relatively small.

tl;dr version: this thread generally oversimplifies things. When you take into account all of the relevant considerations, HYS are going to be substantial amounts in cost over CCN for many (not necessary all or even most) students; and CCN are going to be worth substantial amounts over Cornell/Georgetown/etc for many; and Cornell/Georgetown are going to be worth substantial amounts over USC/WUSTL/etc for many; etc.

As usual, we disagree and this "experiential" analysis is a load of crap. We all get it you think your law school was the tits and anything differently ranked is varying degrees of crap. But you really wouldn't know would you because you've never attended another law school. I agree school and experience matter, but not in this pretentious sliding scale. Somehow, Im doubting the UChicago students graduating with $100K less than their peers at Harvard are crying themselves to sleep every night over the deficiencies of their "student experience." There's far more difference in "student experience" for example between a small, western school like Stanford and a huge, new england ivy like Harvard than between Columbia and Harvard or Stanford and Cal. Your breakdown is stupid and your rationalizations, other than the career opportunities which we all acknowledge to be valid considerations, are asinine.

Calling my points asinine don't make them asinine. And I would agree that there is a lot of experiential difference between being on the west coast, east coast, and midwest. Maybe these differences for some outweigh other relevant differences -- the lack of grades at some top schools, quarters vs. semesters, unique clinical opportunities, etc. My point is that these are all things that must be factored into a value-based decision. I'm not sure why you are so resistant to that -- it strikes me as being incredibly obvious.

I do think that there are some unique experiential possibilities that open up at the better schools. Funding and support for student research at Yale, for example, will generally be better than at Columbia. Access to the top scholars will be greater. Your classmates will be more impressive. How much you value, say, getting to write briefs on behalf of Windsor in the DOMA case as part of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is up to you. I personally have not, but I'd value that experience easily in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Put another way, I'd gladly leave $100,000+ on the table in salary over three years to work at a firm where I knew I had a real shot to substantively contribute to something like that at some point in my first three years.

Maybe you don't value an experience like that as highly as I do. I imagine there are many potential law students who value it much more highly. And my point isn't that HYS are always going to be worth $200k + over CCN for every student. My point is that there are important considerations -- not merely limited to such experiential values -- that may for some students dwarf whatever blunt-based career metric you're advocating they use. If you're looking just at "what will this law school do for my chance of getting 160k at any biglaw firm," it may become difficult to justify spending more to go to a better school. But if that's all you're looking at, you're missing out on a huge number of considerations that should also be relevant to your decision.

[jbagelboy]

LS22s spreadsheet says I'll be in ~180k debt territory at HLS. Am I crazy for going there? FWIW I got more need aid from H than I got in merit from CCN.

edit: only other option would be to wait a year and reapply since P dinged me, V WLed me, and I didn't apply anywhere else. Please help me convince myself this isn't a huge mistake.

No. If Harvard's cheaper than columbia, go there. $180k isn't sticker. Let's not take this too far: you have a good outcome. The only thing better would be to have richer parents.

[francesfarmer]

LS22s spreadsheet says I'll be in ~180k debt territory at HLS. Am I crazy for going there? FWIW I got more need aid from H than I got in merit from CCN.

edit: only other option would be to wait a year and reapply since P dinged me, V WLed me, and I didn't apply anywhere else. Please help me convince myself this isn't a huge mistake.

No. If Harvard's cheaper than columbia, go there. $180k isn't sticker. Let's not take this too far: you have a good outcome. The only thing better would be to have richer parents.

You are a good poster and you should feel good

ETA: if she had poorer parents she might have gotten more money

[t-14orbust]

LS22s spreadsheet says I'll be in ~180k debt territory at HLS. Am I crazy for going there? FWIW I got more need aid from H than I got in merit from CCN.

edit: only other option would be to wait a year and reapply since P dinged me, V WLed me, and I didn't apply anywhere else. Please help me convince myself this isn't a huge mistake.

No. If Harvard's cheaper than columbia, go there. $180k isn't sticker. Let's not take this too far: you have a good outcome. The only thing better would be to have richer parents.

You are a good poster and you should feel good

ETA: if she had poorer parents she might have gotten more money

lol almost poor enough for max aid. I was actually only off by 3k or so. Thanks for helping me feel better, bagelboy.

[DrStudMuffin]

LS22s spreadsheet says I'll be in ~180k debt territory at HLS. Am I crazy for going there? FWIW I got more need aid from H than I got in merit from CCN.

edit: only other option would be to wait a year and reapply since P dinged me, V WLed me, and I didn't apply anywhere else. Please help me convince myself this isn't a huge mistake.

No. If Harvard's cheaper than columbia, go there. $180k isn't sticker. Let's not take this too far: you have a good outcome. The only thing better would be to have richer parents.

Funnily enough, having richer parents would actually make HLS more expensive in this case. (I know what you actually meant)

[rayiner]

If you're going to go part-way, you should go all of the way in the economics approach. What's the monetary value of having your dream job, and the percent increase in possibility of getting that job out of a better school? How about your second choice vs. your third choice? Your third choice vs. your fourth choice. Etc. Then, what's the value to you of spending three years at the school that you're going to be the most happy, have the best experiences, learn the most, etc? What's the marginal financial value to you of getting to say, over your lifetime, that you went to x school instead of y school? What about the value of increased career flexibility years down the road? What about the value of the marginal decrease in the possibility of you being stuck in doc review? I can go on and on, but my point is that a rational economic actor's decision about law school should be based on far more than simply % increase in biglaw possibility or anything nearly so simple.

For me, I'd value the experiences alone that I had in law school in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Could I have had some of these experiences at a different school? Sure. But I feel very confident that the experiential advantage alone of my school over some other very fine schools was worth substantial amounts of money to me. Factor in all of the rest of the considerations, and I would have made a terrible economic choice if I had taken full scholly at a school 5-10 lower in the rankings over the one I ultimately ended up going to -- despite the fact that I'm confident that my "% chance of biglaw outcome" or some other blunt indicator might have implied that I made the wrong decision.

Schools like HYS (and to a lesser extent, CCN, and to an even lesser extent, the rest of the T14) offer experiences and opportunities far beyond merely the possibility of biglaw. This, of course, does not mean that the better ranked school is always or even often the correct choice, cost be damned. $200,000 is a lot of money, whereas the difference between Northwestern and Chicago is relatively small.

tl;dr version: this thread generally oversimplifies things. When you take into account all of the relevant considerations, HYS are going to be substantial amounts in cost over CCN for many (not necessary all or even most) students; and CCN are going to be worth substantial amounts over Cornell/Georgetown/etc for many; and Cornell/Georgetown are going to be worth substantial amounts over USC/WUSTL/etc for many; etc.

As usual, we disagree and this "experiential" analysis is a load of crap. We all get it you think your law school was the tits and anything differently ranked is varying degrees of crap. But you really wouldn't know would you because you've never attended another law school. I agree school and experience matter, but not in this pretentious sliding scale. Somehow, Im doubting the UChicago students graduating with $100K less than their peers at Harvard are crying themselves to sleep every night over the deficiencies of their "student experience." There's far more difference in "student experience" for example between a small, western school like Stanford and a huge, new england ivy like Harvard than between Columbia and Harvard or Stanford and Cal. Your breakdown is stupid and your rationalizations, other than the career opportunities which we all acknowledge to be valid considerations, are asinine.

Calling my points asinine don't make them asinine. And I would agree that there is a lot of experiential difference between being on the west coast, east coast, and midwest. Maybe these differences for some outweigh other relevant differences -- the lack of grades at some top schools, quarters vs. semesters, unique clinical opportunities, etc. My point is that these are all things that must be factored into a value-based decision. I'm not sure why you are so resistant to that -- it strikes me as being incredibly obvious.

I do think that there are some unique experiential possibilities that open up at the better schools. Funding and support for student research at Yale, for example, will generally be better than at Columbia. Access to the top scholars will be greater. Your classmates will be more impressive. How much you value, say, getting to write briefs on behalf of Windsor in the DOMA case as part of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is up to you. I personally have not, but I'd value that experience easily in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Put another way, I'd gladly leave $100,000+ on the table in salary over three years to work at a firm where I knew I had a real shot to substantively contribute to something like that at some point in my first three years.

Yes, HYS is definitely the place to go for people who really "love the law." You have a tremendously better prospect of doing SCOTUS, working in the solicitor general's office, etc.

[kaiser]

LS22s spreadsheet says I'll be in ~180k debt territory at HLS. Am I crazy for going there? FWIW I got more need aid from H than I got in merit from CCN.

edit: only other option would be to wait a year and reapply since P dinged me, V WLed me, and I didn't apply anywhere else. Please help me convince myself this isn't a huge mistake.

Given this situation, I would very likely choose H

[aboutmydaylight]

LS22s spreadsheet says I'll be in ~180k debt territory at HLS. Am I crazy for going there? FWIW I got more need aid from H than I got in merit from CCN.

edit: only other option would be to wait a year and reapply since P dinged me, V WLed me, and I didn't apply anywhere else. Please help me convince myself this isn't a huge mistake.

No. If Harvard's cheaper than columbia, go there. $180k isn't sticker. Let's not take this too far: you have a good outcome. The only thing better would be to have richer parents.

You are a good poster and you should feel good

ETA: if she had poorer parents she might have gotten more money

lol almost poor enough for max aid. I was actually only off by 3k or so. Thanks for helping me feel better, bagelboy.

It kinda sucks that max aid still leaves someone at ~170k debt at graduation. Just goes to show that even being super poor is disadvantageous at H.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Parsing the "experiential" difference between HYS and CCN sounds pretty darn silly from outside the t14. They're all elite schools; they all offer amazing experiences; to say that there's any remotely significant difference sounds like splitting the tiniest of hairs. I mean, I'm not going to knock anyone for going to HYS at whatever cost, I didn't have that opportunity, but insisting on some kind of objectively better experience at HYS than CCN sounds a lot like an attempt to justify the cost beyond "I wanted HYS." (This argument aid occurred already, but saying that classmates at HYS are "more impressive" than classmates at CCN is sort of like saying that the president is "more impressive" than the vice-president.) I recognize that there are certain very elite jobs where HYS gives an edge, but that's a different argument than saying the HYS experience is different enough from other elite schools to make the difference.

[kaiser]

Parsing the "experiential" difference between HYS and CCN sounds pretty darn silly from outside the t14. They're all elite schools; they all offer amazing experiences; to say that there's any remotely significant difference sounds like splitting the tiniest of hairs. I mean, I'm not going to knock anyone for going to HYS at whatever cost, I didn't have that opportunity, but insisting on some kind of objectively better experience at HYS than CCN sounds a lot like an attempt to justify the cost beyond "I wanted HYS." (This argument aid occurred already, but saying that classmates at HYS are "more impressive" than classmates at CCN is sort of like saying that the president is "more impressive" than the vice-president.) I recognize that there are certain very elite jobs where HYS gives an edge, but that's a different argument than saying the HYS experience is different enough from other elite schools to make the difference.

Its contrived nonsense to think that students who got into HYS are more "impressive" than the students you would find at CCN. In many cases, they are separated by an LSAT point or 2. And saying its an objectively better "experience" is equally contrived. This all sounds like something a 0L would cook up to try and justify a choice.

[jbagelboy]

If you're going to go part-way, you should go all of the way in the economics approach. What's the monetary value of having your dream job, and the percent increase in possibility of getting that job out of a better school? How about your second choice vs. your third choice? Your third choice vs. your fourth choice. Etc. Then, what's the value to you of spending three years at the school that you're going to be the most happy, have the best experiences, learn the most, etc? What's the marginal financial value to you of getting to say, over your lifetime, that you went to x school instead of y school? What about the value of increased career flexibility years down the road? What about the value of the marginal decrease in the possibility of you being stuck in doc review? I can go on and on, but my point is that a rational economic actor's decision about law school should be based on far more than simply % increase in biglaw possibility or anything nearly so simple.

For me, I'd value the experiences alone that I had in law school in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Could I have had some of these experiences at a different school? Sure. But I feel very confident that the experiential advantage alone of my school over some other very fine schools was worth substantial amounts of money to me. Factor in all of the rest of the considerations, and I would have made a terrible economic choice if I had taken full scholly at a school 5-10 lower in the rankings over the one I ultimately ended up going to -- despite the fact that I'm confident that my "% chance of biglaw outcome" or some other blunt indicator might have implied that I made the wrong decision.

Schools like HYS (and to a lesser extent, CCN, and to an even lesser extent, the rest of the T14) offer experiences and opportunities far beyond merely the possibility of biglaw. This, of course, does not mean that the better ranked school is always or even often the correct choice, cost be damned. $200,000 is a lot of money, whereas the difference between Northwestern and Chicago is relatively small.

tl;dr version: this thread generally oversimplifies things. When you take into account all of the relevant considerations, HYS are going to be substantial amounts in cost over CCN for many (not necessary all or even most) students; and CCN are going to be worth substantial amounts over Cornell/Georgetown/etc for many; and Cornell/Georgetown are going to be worth substantial amounts over USC/WUSTL/etc for many; etc.

As usual, we disagree and this "experiential" analysis is a load of crap. We all get it you think your law school was the tits and anything differently ranked is varying degrees of crap. But you really wouldn't know would you because you've never attended another law school. I agree school and experience matter, but not in this pretentious sliding scale. Somehow, Im doubting the UChicago students graduating with $100K less than their peers at Harvard are crying themselves to sleep every night over the deficiencies of their "student experience." There's far more difference in "student experience" for example between a small, western school like Stanford and a huge, new england ivy like Harvard than between Columbia and Harvard or Stanford and Cal. Your breakdown is stupid and your rationalizations, other than the career opportunities which we all acknowledge to be valid considerations, are asinine.

Calling my points asinine don't make them asinine. And I would agree that there is a lot of experiential difference between being on the west coast, east coast, and midwest. Maybe these differences for some outweigh other relevant differences -- the lack of grades at some top schools, quarters vs. semesters, unique clinical opportunities, etc. My point is that these are all things that must be factored into a value-based decision. I'm not sure why you are so resistant to that -- it strikes me as being incredibly obvious.

I do think that there are some unique experiential possibilities that open up at the better schools. Funding and support for student research at Yale, for example, will generally be better than at Columbia. Access to the top scholars will be greater. Your classmates will be more impressive. How much you value, say, getting to write briefs on behalf of Windsor in the DOMA case as part of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is up to you. I personally have not, but I'd value that experience easily in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Put another way, I'd gladly leave $100,000+ on the table in salary over three years to work at a firm where I knew I had a real shot to substantively contribute to something like that at some point in my first three years.

Maybe you don't value an experience like that as highly as I do. I imagine there are many potential law students who value it much more highly. And my point isn't that HYS are always going to be worth $200k + over CCN for every student. My point is that there are important considerations -- not merely limited to such experiential values -- that may for some students dwarf whatever blunt-based career metric you're advocating they use. If you're looking just at "what will this law school do for my chance of getting 160k at any biglaw firm," it may become difficult to justify spending more to go to a better school. But if that's all you're looking at, you're missing out on a huge number of considerations that should also be relevant to your decision.

First, sorry for my diction. This is the internet. And no, the name I assign to your "points" doesn't qualify them as such, the explanations for my assignment do. Our verbose and often confrontational exchanges litter the hallowed threads of this board already so I often find it unnecessary to repeat myself on every occasion.

Yea, I wouldn't pay $100,000 to feel marginally relevant to a single SCOTUS brief or oral argument as some 2L, no matter the significance of the subject or controversy. So technically you're correct, we each make a value judgment. But you must realize you are taking an incredibly entitled attitude: materially speaking, $100K could lift hundreds of Americans out of poverty every year. It could feed every 2-7 year old child in a Johannesburg slum-suburb for a month; and you are placing that on par with an intellectual ego boost. I know we consume and waste inordinate quantities of wealth every day in this country, but that's a whole other level of psychological perversion, regardless of the independent value you place on your academic persuasions.

Moreover, it sounds like you've been drinking the kool-aid for a while, and now you're completely shitfaced on pretention. Do you really think that experience is unique? The fact that I don't feel like it's necessary to regale my anonymous peers with the famed heights of my objectively "neat" academic/scholarly accomplishments does not imply they do not exist, or do not have value to me. Goldberg's RA's got to work on the DOMA amici too, and every top school probably provides comparable "unique" opportunities in major litigation. Was presenting oral argument in front of the European Court of Justice a "cool" experience? Sure! Was meeting a supreme court justice and being taught by and having dinner with federal court of appeals judges and the pre-eminent scholar in each field "valuable"? Yes! We do cool things in law school all the time - but they are largely transient and no matter what monetary "value" you assign them, not actually all that unique. Basically, newsflash, you might not be as special as you think you are, and for the average applicant, fooling themselves into thinking they will be just that special and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to think so is a fool's errand.

ETA: abl might just be that special, actually, I can't say one way or the other. But it's a more general point.