Hamilton at Columbia vs. Yale/Harvard Forum

[kwais]

tl:dr I'd rather have a drink with gooch

you rang.

fo sho

[Bildungsroman]

I can't say what I would do here, but I always find it interesting that those who think this issue is close, speak with balance, nuance and optimism (usually). Those who think it's a no-brainer for CCN with $$$ seem to have chips on their shoulders and often resort to calling the other side prestige whores who have no idea what $ means. I think it is risky, scary and all that to consider H or Y in this position, but I also suspect that many of the people who do choose that route are more adventurous, confident and long-viewed.

tl:dr I'd rather have a drink with those who think this is a close issue.

Lol

exactly

[kwais]

I can't say what I would do here, but I always find it interesting that those who think this issue is close, speak with balance, nuance and optimism (usually). Those who think it's a no-brainer for CCN with $$$ seem to have chips on their shoulders and often resort to calling the other side prestige whores who have no idea what $ means. I think it is risky, scary and all that to consider H or Y in this position, but I also suspect that many of the people who do choose that route are more adventurous, confident and long-viewed.

tl:dr I'd rather have a drink with those who think this is a close issue.

Lol

exactly

Instead of what your gif says, I think you might actually care

[sunynp]

Just a contrary view: I think that not having debt allows you to have a freer and more adventurous life. Compare being debt free to having to work in biglaw just to make that huge nut every month. (Or stay in PI for 10 years.) That is one of the reasons I think the scholarship is better, you have more options of what you want to do with your career (though it may be harder from Columbia to get a SCOTUS clerkship or some crazy job. I never looked into those kinds of jobs and have no insight on that.) If you do want biglaw, you can still get it - but you aren't forced to stay there just to make money.

Also, I think it is difficult to judge a person by how they spend their money. I know a few [older than me] people who do crazy stuff through the Explorers Club and they are the cheapest bastards I've ever met. They work and save solely for their passions, I don't think any one of them would chain themselves to an out-of-control job just to pay loans. They would never cancel a trip, or even a weekend, they had planned just because a client or a partner wants something. But, you might want to have a drink with them to discuss their trip to Easter Island. Or, maybe not because they will never be SCOTUS clerks.

[kwais]

Just a contrary view: I think that not having debt allows you to have a freer and more adventurous life. Compare being debt free to having to work in biglaw just to make that huge nut every month. (Or stay in PI for 10 years.) That is one of the reasons I think the scholarship is better, you have more options of what you want to do with your career (though it may be harder from Columbia to get a SCOTUS clerkship or some crazy job. I never looked into those kinds of jobs and have no insight on that.) If you do want biglaw, you can still get it - but you aren't forced to stay there just to make money.

Also, I think it is difficult to judge a person by how they spend their money. I know a few [older than me] people who do crazy stuff through the Explorers Club and they are the cheapest bastards I've ever met. They work and save solely for their passions, I don't think any one of them would chain themselves to an out-of-control job just to pay loans. They would never cancel a trip, or even a weekend, they had planned just because a client or a partner wants something. But, you might want to have a drink with them to discuss their trip to Easter Island. Or, maybe not because they will never be SCOTUS clerks.

I don't disagree with this analysis. Merely commenting on absolutism and butthurt assumptions

[justinp]

(although for me, Y would change everything. That would be an entirely different deabte).

Why is this sentiment so common on TLS? Is it really Y>>>S/H?

It depends on what you want to do. My 0L impression based on talking to lawyers is that Yale is probably the best for people who want super-prestigious jobs in the public sector or in academia, as well as generally the best place for people for whom clerking is an important goal. As people have noted, they have nutty Article III placement stats, which can be really valuable if you're shooting for gov't jobs or prestigious PI like the ACLU.

On the other hand, Harvard does really well on all of these fronts, too, though to a very slightly lesser extent. However, it has some real advantages for people who want to work internationally or outside of the major legal markets due to its larger alumni network and better name recognition. The top firm in almost any market in the country will have at least one or two HLS grads on staff, and they tend to be quite loyal to the institution and try to help other grads out. And there are still a fair number of hiring partners out there who prefer Harvard kids to Yale kids because they think that Yalies don't have to work hard and don't have a good basis in actual black-letter law. And, for the same name-rec and large alumni pool reasons, HLS is probably best for someone who anticipates having an off-the-beaten-path legal career (or leave law altogether to do business/finance/whatever).

Stanford is a little bit harder of a case-- TLS is all over it lately because of the big transformation that the now former Dean undertook, and it did pass Harvard up in the rankings this year. However, my impression (and this could be wrong) is that, in the minds of the lawyers who are going to be hiring our generation of freshly minted JDs, the top of the pack is still Harvard and Yale alone, with Stanford just a snippet behind. It too has some unique advantages, and there are folks for whom it is a locked-up correct choice even in the case of a three-way cross-admit between all three HYS. Stanford also does pretty well on the super-prestigious jobs stuff, and it shines for anyone interested in working for the tech industry (IP is the standout here, but Stanford does really well in a lot of other tech-related areas-- venture finance and fund formation, etc. etc.). And of course for anyone who wants to work in Cali-- unsurpassed respect and placement into LA/SF/Silicon Valley markets.

You can't go wrong with any of them, is the point, and they all have strengths and weaknesses that I think get lost in the YALE OR BUST mentality around here.

[EdgarWinter]

The freedom thing is key. I'd never want to have to stay in a job or city just because I couldn't afford to go without associate's salary/magical LRAP/whatever. Also I'd rather have a drink with the type who is self-assured enough to turn down HYS prestige than with the guy who isn't. Plus, (unless the latter person is an overprivileged rich bastard) the former person will be able to afford better drinks .

Kwais its pretty subjective for you to call any one side's assumptions "butthurt." CCN people with $$$ understandably don't like the HYS people who look down their noses at them (especially H people---practically any 3.9/173+ joker can get into Haaaaarvaaad), and HYS people understandably don't like the CCN $$$ people pointing out how financially freer they are. Everybody in this ridiculous debate is butthurt about something or other.

[Twit]

Just a contrary view: I think that not having debt allows you to have a freer and more adventurous life. Compare being debt free to having to work in biglaw just to make that huge nut every month. (Or stay in PI for 10 years.) That is one of the reasons I think the scholarship is better, you have more options of what you want to do with your career (though it may be harder from Columbia to get a SCOTUS clerkship or some crazy job. I never looked into those kinds of jobs and have no insight on that.) If you do want biglaw, you can still get it - but you aren't forced to stay there just to make money.

Also, I think it is difficult to judge a person by how they spend their money. I know a few [older than me] people who do crazy stuff through the Explorers Club and they are the cheapest bastards I've ever met. They work and save solely for their passions, I don't think any one of them would chain themselves to an out-of-control job just to pay loans. They would never cancel a trip, or even a weekend, they had planned just because a client or a partner wants something. But, you might want to have a drink with them to discuss their trip to Easter Island. Or, maybe not because they will never be SCOTUS clerks.

FYI: For YSH, COAP/LRAP/LIPP is an annual thing; if you work in PI/whatever for the year (I think it's 6 months for LIPP), your loan payments for that year are paid off. The 10 years comes in determining how much of the loan is paid off each year; the programs won't pony up enough to knock it out in three, nor will they space it out over 30 (as some federal loans can be).

See: http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/tui ... ochure.pdf

So, you don't have to commit to PI for ten years--ten years is only to get the whole thing paid off. If you only want to pay half, do PI for five years, etc.

Still not as good as going for free.

Edit: Supposedly some law schools including some T10's now require participation in IBR/PSLF or other programs; in programs like those, you have to stay in for 10 years and at the end of the tenth year, all your loans are paid off. Gotta read your program's fine print. An email I received twice from H (two different admins, copied and pasted) specified that NYU is one of these.