Fully from left field... HLS vs Chicago? Forum

[hlsperson123]

The distinction is not great, but 20-25% of Chicago students will clerk, and more like 25-30% of HLS students will clerk.

Do you have an actual source for either of these figures? Because I can tell you the range you gave for HLS is wrong for 2015 (the only year I checked).

Link your source

It's private OCS data that I had to use my HLS login to access. I can't link it to a public forum.

[jbagelboy]

.

[Rigo]

Harvard fed clerk rate is 19.2% for c/o 2016
http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/ ... duates.pdf

Chicago fed clerk rate is 16.7% for c/o 2016
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/ ... _final.pdf

[Colonel_funkadunk]

Majority of those Ruby recipients look like aspies tho. OP better go 2 HLS

OP was sure to hit us with ceteris paribus to alleviate any concerns about Chicago fit.

i <3 u

[jbagelboy]

Harvard fed clerk rate is 19.2% for c/o 2016
http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/ ... duates.pdf

Chicago fed clerk rate is 16.7% for c/o 2016
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/ ... _final.pdf

again, this is useless.

[Rigo]

Harvard fed clerk rate is 19.2% for c/o 2016
http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/ ... duates.pdf

Chicago fed clerk rate is 16.7% for c/o 2016
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/ ... _final.pdf

again, this is useless.

And how are your made up ball park numbers more useful?

[Rigo]

Of course this is all theoretical now since deposit deadlines have passed.
I wonder what OP did.

[jbagelboy]

Harvard fed clerk rate is 19.2% for c/o 2016
http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/ ... duates.pdf

Chicago fed clerk rate is 16.7% for c/o 2016
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/ ... _final.pdf

again, this is useless.

And how are your made up ball park numbers more useful?

Okay. I don't think they are more useful. I'm exaggerating. And I don't think this stat is useless. But it's not what I'm talking about. For example, in 2014, Chicago's 9-month stat was higher than Harvards (~15% to ~14%). But that didn't mean more Chicago students from c/o 2014 clerked than Harvard students.

[Rigo]

Harvard fed clerk rate is 19.2% for c/o 2016
http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/ ... duates.pdf
Chicago fed clerk rate is 16.7% for c/o 2016
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/ ... _final.pdf

again, this is useless.

And how are your made up ball park numbers more useful?

Okay. I don't think they are more useful. I'm exaggerating. And I don't think this stat is useless. But it's not what I'm talking about. For example, in 2014, Chicago's 9-month stat was higher than Harvards (~15% to ~14%). But that didn't mean more Chicago students from c/o 2014 clerked than Harvard students.

Why should we care about gross numbers though since we measure every other outcome by percentage of class?

[Lavitz]

Harvard fed clerk rate is 19.2% for c/o 2016
http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/ ... duates.pdf
Chicago fed clerk rate is 16.7% for c/o 2016
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/ ... _final.pdf

again, this is useless.

And how are your made up ball park numbers more useful?

Okay. I don't think they are more useful. I'm exaggerating. And I don't think this stat is useless. But it's not what I'm talking about. For example, in 2014, Chicago's 9-month stat was higher than Harvards (~15% to ~14%). But that didn't mean more Chicago students from c/o 2014 clerked than Harvard students.

Why should we care about gross numbers though since we measure every other outcome by percentage of class?

He means that those stats just show that 15% of the c/o 2016 is clerking 9 months out. But if grads line up clerkships for later terms, those won't show up in the numbers. So if you include later terms, maybe only 20% of the total Chicago c/o 2016 will clerk vs. something like 30% for the total Harvard c/o 2016.

[xn3345]

Harvard fed clerk rate is 19.2% for c/o 2016
http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/ ... duates.pdf
Chicago fed clerk rate is 16.7% for c/o 2016
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/ ... _final.pdf

again, this is useless.

And how are your made up ball park numbers more useful?

Okay. I don't think they are more useful. I'm exaggerating. And I don't think this stat is useless. But it's not what I'm talking about. For example, in 2014, Chicago's 9-month stat was higher than Harvards (~15% to ~14%). But that didn't mean more Chicago students from c/o 2014 clerked than Harvard students.

Why should we care about gross numbers though since we measure every other outcome by percentage of class?

He means that those stats just show that 15% of the c/o 2016 is clerking 9 months out. But if grads line up clerkships for later terms, those won't show up in the numbers. So if you include later terms, maybe only 20% of the total Chicago c/o 2016 will clerk vs. something like 30% for the total Harvard c/o 2016.

Are those stats approximately accurate? Is there any data available on that metric? Also, jbags, are these stats less than useful because they dont show the full picture or because clerkship numbers are useless generally because they make Columbia look bad?

[Lavitz]

Are those stats approximately accurate? Is there any data available on that metric?

Not sure which stats you're referring to, but to clarify, I made up my 20% vs. 30% numbers. Just saying it's technically possible. Not sure what jb's ballparks are based on. Afaik, few schools make data on how many people from each class clerk at some point publicly available, but I'm sure the schools have it, hence:

It's private OCS data that I had to use my HLS login to access. I can't link it to a public forum.

[guynourmin]

I have seen info from both Michigan and Northwestern about how many people they have clerking next year, not just from the last class, and (as expected) those numbers are much higher than their current 9 month out rates. Nothing coming close to stating how many people from 2-3 classes ago have clerked, though.

[Monday]

.

[Dcc617]

I wonder what OP did.

Taking bets.

I bet Harvard. The fact that he was asking the question meant that he already knew his answer. Because there is objectively not a question.

[Rigo]

I wonder what OP did.

Taking bets.

I bet Harvard. The fact that he was asking the question meant that he already knew his answer. Because there is objectively not a question.

Yeah I never understand CCN fully vs. Harvard posts. Butler vs. Harvard, fine. But not the full rides.

[Monday]

.

[Veil of Ignorance]

I bet Chicago. There's just no way someone intelligent enough to land these options would have a total lack of comprehension of debt. Unless he's K-JD

[Dcc617]

I bet Chicago. There's just no way someone intelligent enough to land these options would have a total lack of comprehension of debt. Unless he's K-JD

30 day profile picture bet?

[Mullens]

My bet is OP goes to Harvard, attributes all success to HARVARD, and refuses to acknowledge that he could've gotten the exact same outcome out of Chicago (even though deep down he knows it's true).

I hope I'm wrong for the sake of OP's financial future.

[shadowfax]

My bet is OP goes to Harvard, attributes all success to HARVARD, and refuses to acknowledge that he could've gotten the exact same outcome out of Chicago (even though deep down he knows it's true).

I hope I'm wrong for the sake of OP's financial future.

I just hate when I go to work in the morning and have to step over all those HYS'ers who took on all that debt. Damn nuisances. Chicago is the better choice here but the op's future will still be bright if H is the choice. Best choice, better choice, no bad choice.

[Veil of Ignorance]

I bet Chicago. There's just no way someone intelligent enough to land these options would have a total lack of comprehension of debt. Unless he's K-JD

30 day profile picture bet?

Deal!

[VeiledProtectorate]

Whenever the OP goes missing after the first 2-3 pages of the thread, you always know they took H over $$$$

[Pure Applesauce]

I bet Chicago. There's just no way someone intelligent enough to land these options would have a total lack of comprehension of debt. Unless he's K-JD

so, you're new here?

[Lordcarnus123]

I wonder what OP did.

Taking bets.

I bet Harvard. The fact that he was asking the question meant that he already knew his answer. Because there is objectively not a question.

Not too bad a read on my priors. I'll give 3:2 odds to H