Yale vs. Ruby at Chicago vs. Harvard Forum

[Chrysogonus]

These decisions are a lot easier to make in theory. Harder when presented with actual Stanford, Harvard, and (wow, unicorns exist!) Yale acceptances.

... Really? I find it pretty easy to say no to sticker.

Are you in at Yale and saying no?

[YLSGraduate]

For what it's worth, I regret choosing YLS over the Hamilton at Columbia all the time. I acknowledge that I have done well in large part due to professor connections and other opportunities at YLS (I have two clerkships in very competitive courts). But I was very unhappy at YLS and I resent the albatross of debt.

Having been out of school for a few years, I now think that a lot of the YLS advantage is self-perpetuating. People at YLS are extremely ambitious, talented and successful. They would still be ambitious, talented and successful somewhere else. The Hamilton scholars I know have all done very well and are clerking on the same courts I am and practicing in the same fields that I am interested in. I have no way of knowing if I would have done as well professionally at Columbia as I did at Yale, but I am fairly certain that I would have been much happier.

If you have these choices, you will do well wherever you go. Try to make a decision based on more than theoretical advantages for unicorn job opportunities. Learn more about the culture of the schools, the curriculum, what it is really like to be a student there. YLS is a great law school, but it is not right for everyone.

To offer a contrasting opinion: I have mixed feelings about YLS, and there are a lot of things that I absolutely despise about the professorate and administration, but ultimately I'm happy that I made the decision to attend school there over a full scholarship at Columbia. This is because I learned, after enrolling in law school, that I'm not very good at issue-spotter exams. I don't write quickly enough to be at the top of the class and I tend to analyze issues for depth instead of breadth (or so I tell myself). I killed the LSAT and I did fine in undergrad across a breadth of subjects, so my mediocrity at this skill isn't something I would have predicted before law school. Speaking with fellow YLS students, this is more common than one might think.

Despite being easily in the bottom quarter of YLS students at taking exams, I managed to score a job at an elite firm that I'm very happy with (think W+C, Munger, Wachtell, Susman) and a very good COA clerkship. Sure, I would probably have invested more time and energy into exam studying and strategy at another school, but I seriously doubt that I would have the same opportunities if I had taken the scholarship money.

This is something to seriously consider when you're choosing between the schools. Law school exams are different, and you just might not be that great at them.

[cotiger]

These decisions are a lot easier to make in theory. Harder when presented with actual Stanford, Harvard, and (wow, unicorns exist!) Yale acceptances.

... Really? I find it pretty easy to say no to sticker.

Are you in at Yale and saying no?

In at Harvard and Stanford, and I'd choose my full-ride Duke over either. Pretty sure I wouldn't feel any differently about Yale.

[DrStudMuffin]

These decisions are a lot easier to make in theory. Harder when presented with actual Stanford, Harvard, and (wow, unicorns exist!) Yale acceptances.

... Really? I find it pretty easy to say no to sticker.

Are you in at Yale and saying no?

In at Harvard and Stanford, and I'd choose my full-ride Duke over either. Pretty sure I wouldn't feel any differently about Yale.

Don't have Yale either, but I'll probably wind up doing something similar. Paying sticker anywhere is ridiculous to me.

[Theopliske8711]

I tend to think of law school like any other product. I go to the store because I need something, not because I think it could perhaps be useful in the future. I'm not going to spend a bunch more for something I don't need, and may very well never even use. Thats why the whole "I want to keep lots of doors open" argument seems a bit silly to me, especially when compared to the six figures of debt it will take to keep those extra doors open.

I also think that the argument is kind of shitty. We go to a top law school so that we have the best chance of getting through the door. After getting through it, and working for several years, I doubt that it will be the degree that will define you at that point.

Take the fucking Ruby. Don't look back...

[kaiser]

I tend to think of law school like any other product. I go to the store because I need something, not because I think it could perhaps be useful in the future. I'm not going to spend a bunch more for something I don't need, and may very well never even use. Thats why the whole "I want to keep lots of doors open" argument seems a bit silly to me, especially when compared to the six figures of debt it will take to keep those extra doors open.

I also think that the argument is kind of shitty. We go to a top law school so that we have the best chance of getting through the door. After getting through it, and working for several years, I doubt that it will be the degree that will define you at that point.

Take the fucking Ruby. Don't look back...

Exactly. And thats especially true if you are choosing between all elite, top-level schools. You know how many times you see kids push aside tons of scholarship money at elite schools to keep open the door to some magical unicorn job, only to end up in biglaw, or other position that they likely could have still gotten at the "lower" ranked school? I can't tell you how fast I would have snatched up that Rubenstein, were I in OP's situation. Sure, I sometimes buy into the "chase your dreams" mentality, but it can't be at the expense of so much clear logic and rationality.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

I tend to think of law school like any other product. I go to the store because I need something, not because I think it could perhaps be useful in the future. I'm not going to spend a bunch more for something I don't need, and may very well never even use. Thats why the whole "I want to keep lots of doors open" argument seems a bit silly to me, especially when compared to the six figures of debt it will take to keep those extra doors open.

I also think that the argument is kind of shitty. We go to a top law school so that we have the best chance of getting through the door. After getting through it, and working for several years, I doubt that it will be the degree that will define you at that point.

Take the fucking Ruby. Don't look back...

Exactly. And thats especially true if you are choosing between all elite, top-level schools. You know how many times you see kids push aside tons of scholarship money at elite schools to keep open the door to some magical unicorn job, only to end up in biglaw, or other position that they likely could have still gotten at the "lower" ranked school? I can't tell you how fast I would have snatched up that Rubenstein, were I in OP's situation. Sure, I sometimes buy into the "chase your dreams" mentality, but it can't be at the expense of so much clear logic and rationality.

The issue I have with this is that past data show most people actually turn down Ruby and Hammy in favour of HYS, now either they know something we dont, or they are quite silly/irrational. I am more of a believer in the former.

[aboutmydaylight]

I tend to think of law school like any other product. I go to the store because I need something, not because I think it could perhaps be useful in the future. I'm not going to spend a bunch more for something I don't need, and may very well never even use. Thats why the whole "I want to keep lots of doors open" argument seems a bit silly to me, especially when compared to the six figures of debt it will take to keep those extra doors open.

I also think that the argument is kind of shitty. We go to a top law school so that we have the best chance of getting through the door. After getting through it, and working for several years, I doubt that it will be the degree that will define you at that point.

Take the fucking Ruby. Don't look back...

Exactly. And thats especially true if you are choosing between all elite, top-level schools. You know how many times you see kids push aside tons of scholarship money at elite schools to keep open the door to some magical unicorn job, only to end up in biglaw, or other position that they likely could have still gotten at the "lower" ranked school? I can't tell you how fast I would have snatched up that Rubenstein, were I in OP's situation. Sure, I sometimes buy into the "chase your dreams" mentality, but it can't be at the expense of so much clear logic and rationality.

The issue I have with this is that past data show most people actually turn down Ruby and Hammy in favour of HYS, now either they know something we dont, or they are quite silly/irrational. I am more of a believer in the former.

Its a different legal climate. Even 5 years ago turning down a Ruby would have been way easier.

[ph14]

I also think that the argument is kind of shitty. We go to a top law school so that we have the best chance of getting through the door. After getting through it, and working for several years, I doubt that it will be the degree that will define you at that point.

Take the fucking Ruby. Don't look back...

Exactly. And thats especially true if you are choosing between all elite, top-level schools. You know how many times you see kids push aside tons of scholarship money at elite schools to keep open the door to some magical unicorn job, only to end up in biglaw, or other position that they likely could have still gotten at the "lower" ranked school? I can't tell you how fast I would have snatched up that Rubenstein, were I in OP's situation. Sure, I sometimes buy into the "chase your dreams" mentality, but it can't be at the expense of so much clear logic and rationality.

The issue I have with this is that past data show most people actually turn down Ruby and Hammy in favour of HYS, now either they know something we dont, or they are quite silly/irrational. I am more of a believer in the former.

Its a different legal climate. Even 5 years ago turning down a Ruby would have been way easier.

Ruby first came out for the law school class of 2014 and I'm not sure it's a "different legal climate" than that. If anything, the legal climate was worse then, though it's not much better today.

[patogordo]

HYS doesn't open any "doors" that Chicago doesn't. it gives more wiggle room in terms of grades (which isn't nothing) but that's about it. there are situations where paying a little more for more job security might be worth it but full ride vs. sticker is not one of them.

[Tiago Splitter]

The issue I have with this is that past data show most people actually turn down Ruby and Hammy in favour of HYS, now either they know something we dont, or they are quite silly/irrational. I am more of a believer in the former.

Or they regret it. I know of at least one TLSer in that position. Could also be that a lot of those people have family paying a significant portion of their law school costs so the full ride doesn't mean as much to them.

[aboutmydaylight]

Ruby first came out for the law school class of 2014 and I'm not sure it's a "different legal climate" than that. If anything, the legal climate was worse then, though it's not much better today.

Not Ruby then, but full tuition at a lower T14. Wages have been stagnant since 2007 but tuition/coa keeps rising. Opportunity cost to turning town money increases for most people every year as long as those two things hold.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

HYS doesn't open any "doors" that Chicago doesn't. it gives more wiggle room in terms of grades (which isn't nothing) but that's about it. there are situations where paying a little more for more job security might be worth it but full ride vs. sticker is not one of them.

From my non-informed opinion, it would appear that nationally that is the case. But if anyone has significant ties to another country (especially Asia), Harvard's reputation is unparalleled

The issue I have with this is that past data show most people actually turn down Ruby and Hammy in favour of HYS, now either they know something we dont, or they are quite silly/irrational. I am more of a believer in the former.

Or they regret it. I know of at least one TLSer in that position. Could also be that a lot of those people have family paying a significant portion of their law school costs so the full ride doesn't mean as much to them.

Well the issue with regret is you hear stories people all the time saying I wish I would have went Harvard instead of 150k at NW or whatever.

I think if one is set on just having a regular biglaw career in US, taking $$$$ is the right choice.

[ph14]

Ruby first came out for the law school class of 2014 and I'm not sure it's a "different legal climate" than that. If anything, the legal climate was worse then, though it's not much better today.

Not Ruby then, but full tuition at a lower T14. Wages have been stagnant since 2007 but tuition/coa keeps rising. Opportunity cost to turning town money increases for most people every year as long as those two things hold.

Legal hiring was down a lot and there was a lot of uncertainty in the air about whether it would go up or when. And even if you did get a big law summer associate gig, there was no guarantee of getting an offer or long-term stability.

[patogordo]

Well the issue with regret is you hear stories people all the time saying I wish I would have went Harvard instead of 150k at NW or whatever.

I think if one is set on just having a regular biglaw career in US, taking $$$$ is the right choice.

the people who regret going to northwestern are people who didn't get jobs. the people who regret going to harvard are people who got jobs that they could have got at NW and paid $150k extra for the privilege. i don't think it's surprising that the former is going to be more vocal than the latter. i think i said this earlier in the thread but subjective regret is a pretty terrible metric for decisionmaking.

[Tiago Splitter]

Well the issue with regret is you hear stories people all the time saying I wish I would have went Harvard instead of 150k at NW or whatever.

You do?

I think people who end up with the job they want often stupidly assume they'd have gotten that same job from a lower ranking school and wish they had taken the money, but that's not the regret I'm talking about. I'm saying lots of people pay good money for HYS when they could have gone to a lower T-14 for free and end up working the same boring biglaw job from either place. Usually the problem is that these people went to HYS for all the extra "doors" they thought it would open without realizing that the vast majority of people at both Harvard and Northwestern will start out at big firms.

[pedestrian]

I also think that the argument is kind of shitty. We go to a top law school so that we have the best chance of getting through the door. After getting through it, and working for several years, I doubt that it will be the degree that will define you at that point.

That is not the sort of thing that you can deduce from common sense. I have spoken with several biglaw associates and alums about their exit strategies. Overwhelmingly I hear that once you are in the door at the firm your degree doesn't matter anymore... until you try to leave. Then suddenly your law school matters a great deal.

Is it rational? Maybe not. But there are also cases of lateral partners being evaluated based on their law school grades from 15 years ago. Sometimes these things don't make a lot of sense. You have to research how the market actually works, not how it should work in theory. I'm not saying that a Chicago grad won't be able to find a great job, I'm saying that it does matter at the margins even decades down the road where you went to school.

Is it work the additional debt? I think that rational minds can disagree. But it is flat out false that you just go to a firm and then nobody cares about law school anymore.

[aboutmydaylight]

Ruby first came out for the law school class of 2014 and I'm not sure it's a "different legal climate" than that. If anything, the legal climate was worse then, though it's not much better today.

Not Ruby then, but full tuition at a lower T14. Wages have been stagnant since 2007 but tuition/coa keeps rising. Opportunity cost to turning town money increases for most people every year as long as those two things hold.

Legal hiring was down a lot and there was a lot of uncertainty in the air about whether it would go up or when. And even if you did get a big law summer associate gig, there was no guarantee of getting an offer or long-term stability.

Well if legal hiring was down a similar percentage at all top schools, then that shouldn't really make a difference.

[jumpin munkey]

Wouldn't it almost have to be the case statistically that most people turn down Hamiltons/Rubensteins in favor of HYS? Tons of spots at HYS go to students that have numbers that could get them a Hamilton/Rubenstein, whereas there are very few of those scholarships being handed out.

ETA I think re: "opening doors" that increased grade wiggle room is a lot of what people usually mean when they say school A opens more doors than school B. I mean if you're summa cum laude at NYU you can basically do anything you want, so sure no doors are necessarily *totally closed* by choosing NYU over Yale, but middle of the pack at Yale has a hell of a lot of more options than middle of the pack at NYU.

That said, I don't see substantial grade wiggle room difference between Chicago and Harvard to warrant shelling out significant money.

[Emma.]

I tend to think of law school like any other product. I go to the store because I need something, not because I think it could perhaps be useful in the future. I'm not going to spend a bunch more for something I don't need, and may very well never even use. Thats why the whole "I want to keep lots of doors open" argument seems a bit silly to me, especially when compared to the six figures of debt it will take to keep those extra doors open.

I also think that the argument is kind of shitty. We go to a top law school so that we have the best chance of getting through the door. After getting through it, and working for several years, I doubt that it will be the degree that will define you at that point.

Take the fucking Ruby. Don't look back...

Exactly. And thats especially true if you are choosing between all elite, top-level schools. You know how many times you see kids push aside tons of scholarship money at elite schools to keep open the door to some magical unicorn job, only to end up in biglaw, or other position that they likely could have still gotten at the "lower" ranked school? I can't tell you how fast I would have snatched up that Rubenstein, were I in OP's situation. Sure, I sometimes buy into the "chase your dreams" mentality, but it can't be at the expense of so much clear logic and rationality.

The issue I have with this is that past data show most people actually turn down Ruby and Hammy in favour of HYS, now either they know something we dont, or they are quite silly/irrational. I am more of a believer in the former.

You're wrong.

[Theopliske8711]

Ruby first came out for the law school class of 2014 and I'm not sure it's a "different legal climate" than that. If anything, the legal climate was worse then, though it's not much better today.

Not Ruby then, but full tuition at a lower T14. Wages have been stagnant since 2007 but tuition/coa keeps rising. Opportunity cost to turning town money increases for most people every year as long as those two things hold.

It could be that many of them see themselves going into the PI field and (mistakenly) see the LRAP as something that counters the scholarship. Secondly, never doubt high achieving status strivers' ability to make prestige picks over sound economic reasoning.

[politics89]

Ruby first came out for the law school class of 2014 and I'm not sure it's a "different legal climate" than that. If anything, the legal climate was worse then, though it's not much better today.

Not Ruby then, but full tuition at a lower T14. Wages have been stagnant since 2007 but tuition/coa keeps rising. Opportunity cost to turning town money increases for most people every year as long as those two things hold.

It could be that many of them see themselves going into the PI field and (mistakenly) see the LRAP as something that counters the scholarship. Secondly, never doubt high achieving status strivers' ability to make prestige picks over sound economic reasoning.

Why do you consider this "mistaken"? Curious because I'm in the position of having to make a similar choice.

[Theopliske8711]

Why do you consider this "mistaken"? Curious because I'm in the position of having to make a similar choice.

I just hate the idea of living in the future. 10 years of debt sucks, and you never know what will arise in that time. Not to mention that you hear endless stories of 0Ls going to law school with PI in mind but ending up at a regular ol' Biglaw firm.

There is an awesome thread on this that I think is definitely worth reading if are weighing these options.

I'm unequivocal about this: take the Ruby.

[patogordo]

ETA I think re: "opening doors" that increased grade wiggle room is a lot of what people usually mean when they say school A opens more doors than school B. I mean if you're summa cum laude at NYU you can basically do anything you want, so sure no doors are necessarily *totally closed* by choosing NYU over Yale, but middle of the pack at Yale has a hell of a lot of more options than middle of the pack at NYU.

That said, I don't see substantial grade wiggle room difference between Chicago and Harvard to warrant shelling out significant money.

if that's what people meant by "opening doors" then they would engage in that sort of cost benefit analysis (which pretty clearly points to UChi for free). instead, they say things like "cost is irrelevant, you can't turn down Yale" or "every supreme court justice went to Harvard or Yale" etc

[Emma.]

I also think that the argument is kind of shitty. We go to a top law school so that we have the best chance of getting through the door. After getting through it, and working for several years, I doubt that it will be the degree that will define you at that point.

That is not the sort of thing that you can deduce from common sense. I have spoken with several biglaw associates and alums about their exit strategies. Overwhelmingly I hear that once you are in the door at the firm your degree doesn't matter anymore... until you try to leave. Then suddenly your law school matters a great deal.

Is it rational? Maybe not. But there are also cases of lateral partners being evaluated based on their law school grades from 15 years ago. Sometimes these things don't make a lot of sense. You have to research how the market actually works, not how it should work in theory. I'm not saying that a Chicago grad won't be able to find a great job, I'm saying that it does matter at the margins even decades down the road where you went to school.

Is it work the additional debt? I think that rational minds can disagree. But it is flat out false that you just go to a firm and then nobody cares about law school anymore.

If your premise is that your choice of law school can matter down the line in your career that's almost certainly correct, at least with respect to schools that are far apart reputation-wise. But the extent anyone differentiates between Harvard and UChi/Columbia once you are out in practice and looking at exit options is either non-existent or so minimal that it surely isn't worth giving up a full ride for.