Darrow vs. Harvard $ Forum

[lawlorbust]

There's such a unfortunate, anti-inklings-of-prestige reflex that makes this place even less helpful than it could be.

People could easily take "V5" to mean shorthand for "really good NY M&A firm" (and note, this is what OP specifically said he wanted, as opposed to going for a firm simply on the basis of its vault ranking). Instead, you have law students screaming at their tops of their lungs YOU FORGOT SIMPSON AND KIRKLAND.

A) Reality = people make decisions between these firms all the time. Sure, people will defend K&E over, idk, Cravath for its "entrepreneurial" culture, and how Cravath is full of dicks, etc., or Simpson over WLRK because "omg, how many hours you bill." But, guess what, there are tiers between these firms. Some of them are widely acknowledged and others miniscule or subjective, but as long as you're going to be ranking between things on this board I don't know why it's not ok to rank between different law firms.

B) It seems to me that wanting to do M&A at a generically good/elite firm and making partner there is a perfectly legitimate, well thought out goal, and at least a lot more definite than what 90% of law students think they want to do after law school. So far, there are maybe one-and-a-half posts that have any relevant answer to OP's question.

[Tls2016]

Especially since you haven't been accepted to Harvard yet, you might be best off at this point just reading the many, many Darrow vs. Harvard threads from previous years. Once you have all your options in front of you, then come back here and ask for personalized advice.

You're right.
I'm sorry. It's just it's the only thing that's been really going through my mind the past two weeks. I mean it's like the rest of my life on the line, it's pretty nerve racking.

It was the V5 M&A and making partner ASAP. Plus clerkship.
That's all prestige stuff and no substance.
Like I said, you are far from alone in using prestige as a partial basis for decision making. Law is a status driven profession.

What would be something of substance, and what's the difference between status and prestige?
Sorry, I'm just trying to gobble up all the advice/information I can right meow. Particularly because of how ignorant I am of all these sorts of things other than what I've read from other TLS posters.

I was using status and prestige interchangeably
Substance is talking about the actual work you might want to do instead of referring to a label like V5.
Substance is figuring out how incredibly difficult it is to make partner instead of declaring how quickly you intend to become one.
That's all I've got to add. Good luck.

[A. Nony Mouse]

B) It seems to me that wanting to do M&A at a generically good/elite firm and making partner there is a perfectly legitimate, well thought out goal, and at least a lot more definite than what 90% of law students think they want to do after law school. So far, there are maybe one-and-a-half posts that have any relevant answer to OP's question.

Isn't that the goal that at least 50% of the people who sign up here have, though?

[Aeon]

As others have written, it's still somewhat premature to worry about this. You ought to visit each of the schools you're seriously considering to get a feel for them in person. Michigan and Harvard have very different characters, so if you have a strong preference for one or the other, you should follow your instinct.

And you should think about what possible career routes you want to take. Both a Harvard degree and a Michigan Darrow will open most of the same doors, though there are some (teaching at the higher-ranked schools, Supreme Court clerkships, and so forth) that might be marginally easier to achieve with the Harvard name on your resume. But there are of course other factors at play, such as how well you do in school. A Darrow with top grades trumps a Harvard with middling ones. The wrinkle is that you do not know ex ante how you will perform, though if you are happier on a personal level (more pleased with quality of life, less stressed), you are likely to do better in your classes.

Being out of my J.D. for a few years now, I've seen the toll that high debt loads have mentally on my peers. Don't underestimate the intangible benefits of having the freedom of no debt. You can go into BigLaw for a spell but can leave it at any time. You can take a lower-paying job and not have to worry about going on an income-based repayment plan (20 years is a long time, and interest continues to accrue -- what if you decide to take a higher-paying job before then? Or get married and your spouse's income might now be taken into consideration for determining your monthly repayment? What if you won't have the resources to pay off the tax on your imputed cancellation of debt income at the end of that 20 years? What if the government changes the terms of the repayment plan or gets rid of it entirely?). The Michigan Darrow covers your tuition in full, plus gives you something like a $10K/year stipend. In Ann Arbor, this is pretty much enough to live on, so you should have negligible additional debt during those three years, and certainly none if you spend your summers in BigLaw.

Which isn't to discount the difficulty of this choice (assuming you get that Harvard admission letter). The Harvard brand carries weight, and many value it sufficiently to take on six figures-worth of debt to get it. Only you can know how much of a premium you'd put on it and the extent of your debt tolerance. You might consider reaching out to Michigan and asking to be put in touch with Darrow alumni or just finding some online from firm websites and LinkedIn and contacting them directly. Same for Harvard, if you get in.

Best of luck in your choice. It's not an easy one, but rest assured that you have good options.

[Tls2016]

There's such a unfortunate, anti-inklings-of-prestige reflex that makes this place even less helpful than it could be.

People could easily take "V5" to mean shorthand for "really good NY M&A firm" (and note, this is what OP specifically said he wanted, as opposed to going for a firm simply on the basis of its vault ranking). Instead, you have law students screaming at their tops of their lungs YOU FORGOT SIMPSON AND KIRKLAND.

A) Reality = people make decisions between these firms all the time. Sure, people will defend K&E over, idk, Cravath for its "entrepreneurial" culture, and how Cravath is full of dicks, etc., or Simpson over WLRK because "omg, how many hours you bill." But, guess what, there are tiers between these firms. Some of them are widely acknowledged and others miniscule or subjective, but as long as you're going to be ranking between things on this board I don't know why it's not ok to rank between different law firms.

B) It seems to me that wanting to do M&A at a generically good/elite firm and making partner there is a perfectly legitimate, well thought out goal, and at least a lot more definite than what 90% of law students think they want to do after law school. So far, there are maybe one-and-a-half posts that have any relevant answer to OP's question.

I'm not a student. V5 doesn't just mean a good M&A firm. When I was talking about substance I meant, why M&A, why these firms- which OP said was based on reading TLS
I could be wrong but my sense is OP has little real knowledge of corporate practice and just picked M&A because that is what most people talk about.

OP has a Darrow and the chance to go to a great school for free. Yet,OP retakes the LSAT in case of being placed on the Harvard wait list. OP is gunning for Harvard to get the most generic outcome (unless OP seriously is only considering 5 firms) and isn't even admitted, but wants help making the choice. This topic has been discussed every year and people like OP always take the debt at Harvard.
Sorry if my frustration with OP bothers you.
My relevant answer to OP, should it not be clear, is that OP should take the prestigious scholarship and run with it. Harvard isn't worth the debt for a generic biglaw M&A job.

[robotrick]

I'm not a student. V5 doesn't just mean a good M&A firm. When I was talking about substance I meant, why M&A, why these firms- which OP said was based on reading TLS
I could be wrong but my sense is OP has little real knowledge of corporate practice and just picked M&A because that is what most people talk about.

OP has a Darrow and the chance to go to a great school for free. Yet,OP retakes the LSAT in case of being placed on the Harvard wait list. OP is gunning for Harvard to get the most generic outcome (unless OP seriously is only considering 5 firms) and isn't even admitted, but wants help making the choice. This topic has been discussed every year and people like OP always take the debt at Harvard.
Sorry if my frustration with OP bothers you.
My relevant answer to OP, should it not be clear, is that OP should take the prestigious scholarship and run with it. Harvard isn't worth the debt for a generic biglaw M&A job.

And for an OP with 1500 posts before even starting law school, s/he seems to know remarkably little about the legal market and big firm partner prospects.

[appind]

I retook for a variety of reasons. I teach an LSAT class and tutor on the side so it was mostly for more experience, but also in case of getting wait-listed from Harvard I wanted a way to get out, i.e. higher score.

this is related to lsat, but can you share your score and company and how you got the job to teach class?

[Li'l Sebastian]

I retook for a variety of reasons. I teach an LSAT class and tutor on the side so it was mostly for more experience, but also in case of getting wait-listed from Harvard I wanted a way to get out, i.e. higher score.

this is related to lsat, but can you share your score and company and how you got the job to teach class?

I started a free class on my campus for people who can't afford traditional prep companies $1,000 courses.
I'll PM you my current score!

And for an OP with 1500 posts before even starting law school, s/he seems to know remarkably little about the legal market and big firm partner prospects. If I didn't know better I'd guess OP was a high school student who just watched some Suits episodes on Hulu and decided to become a lawyer.

I admit that I know very little about the actual legal market and partner prospects, but that's really not a reason to resort to name calling :/

I'm here precisely because I know so little.

[lawlorbust]

There's such a unfortunate, anti-inklings-of-prestige reflex that makes this place even less helpful than it could be.

People could easily take "V5" to mean shorthand for "really good NY M&A firm" (and note, this is what OP specifically said he wanted, as opposed to going for a firm simply on the basis of its vault ranking). Instead, you have law students screaming at their tops of their lungs YOU FORGOT SIMPSON AND KIRKLAND.

A) Reality = people make decisions between these firms all the time. Sure, people will defend K&E over, idk, Cravath for its "entrepreneurial" culture, and how Cravath is full of dicks, etc., or Simpson over WLRK because "omg, how many hours you bill." But, guess what, there are tiers between these firms. Some of them are widely acknowledged and others miniscule or subjective, but as long as you're going to be ranking between things on this board I don't know why it's not ok to rank between different law firms.

B) It seems to me that wanting to do M&A at a generically good/elite firm and making partner there is a perfectly legitimate, well thought out goal, and at least a lot more definite than what 90% of law students think they want to do after law school. So far, there are maybe one-and-a-half posts that have any relevant answer to OP's question.

I'm not a student. V5 doesn't just mean a good M&A firm. When I was talking about substance I meant, why M&A, why these firms- which OP said was based on reading TLS
I could be wrong but my sense is OP has little real knowledge of corporate practice and just picked M&A because that is what most people talk about.

OP has a Darrow and the chance to go to a great school for free. Yet,OP retakes the LSAT in case of being placed on the Harvard wait list. OP is gunning for Harvard to get the most generic outcome (unless OP seriously is only considering 5 firms) and isn't even admitted, but wants help making the choice. This topic has been discussed every year and people like OP always take the debt at Harvard.
Sorry if my frustration with OP bothers you.
My relevant answer to OP, should it not be clear, is that OP should take the prestigious scholarship and run with it. Harvard isn't worth the debt for a generic biglaw M&A job.

People make choices based around prestige all the time. Guess what: that's perfectly defensible. In some cases, prestige actually makes people happy. It's a perfectly fine independent reason to want to work at Cravath for 160 rather than K&E for 170 because you get to say "I work at Cwavath."

But even more so in the case of law students who know nothing, prestige is a great proxy to base decisions on. Working at a V5 (or V10 (or V10 + W&C + Munger + whatever firm you'd like to murder me for arbitrarily leaving out, probably your own)) and particularly in M&A is a GREAT default choice because it's highly correlated with the informed options that a new lawyer might like to have down the road. Sure, nobody makes partner, and 75% of the class leaves in 3 years, but that's exactly the point. If odds are that your first law firm is only the first stepping stone in your career, then I think it's a lot better a way to pick a firm than on, for example, the warm and fuzzies. It's obviously not the only consideration, but this ostrich-in-sand approach that prestige has no real world effect is breathtakingly stupid.

[Tls2016]

You obviously missed my posts where I said that law is prestige obsessed and lots of people make decisions that way.
OP isn't even close to picking firms. OP hasn't even been admitted, gone to a class or taken an exam.

[cron1834]

There's such a unfortunate, anti-inklings-of-prestige reflex that makes this place even less helpful than it could be.

People could easily take "V5" to mean shorthand for "really good NY M&A firm" (and note, this is what OP specifically said he wanted, as opposed to going for a firm simply on the basis of its vault ranking). Instead, you have law students screaming at their tops of their lungs YOU FORGOT SIMPSON AND KIRKLAND.

A) Reality = people make decisions between these firms all the time. Sure, people will defend K&E over, idk, Cravath for its "entrepreneurial" culture, and how Cravath is full of dicks, etc., or Simpson over WLRK because "omg, how many hours you bill." But, guess what, there are tiers between these firms. Some of them are widely acknowledged and others miniscule or subjective, but as long as you're going to be ranking between things on this board I don't know why it's not ok to rank between different law firms.

B) It seems to me that wanting to do M&A at a generically good/elite firm and making partner there is a perfectly legitimate, well thought out goal, and at least a lot more definite than what 90% of law students think they want to do after law school. So far, there are maybe one-and-a-half posts that have any relevant answer to OP's question.

I'm not a student. V5 doesn't just mean a good M&A firm. When I was talking about substance I meant, why M&A, why these firms- which OP said was based on reading TLS
I could be wrong but my sense is OP has little real knowledge of corporate practice and just picked M&A because that is what most people talk about.

OP has a Darrow and the chance to go to a great school for free. Yet,OP retakes the LSAT in case of being placed on the Harvard wait list. OP is gunning for Harvard to get the most generic outcome (unless OP seriously is only considering 5 firms) and isn't even admitted, but wants help making the choice. This topic has been discussed every year and people like OP always take the debt at Harvard.
Sorry if my frustration with OP bothers you.
My relevant answer to OP, should it not be clear, is that OP should take the prestigious scholarship and run with it. Harvard isn't worth the debt for a generic biglaw M&A job.

People make choices based around prestige all the time. Guess what: that's perfectly defensible. In some cases, prestige actually makes people happy. It's a perfectly fine independent reason to want to work at Cravath for 160 rather than K&E for 170 because you get to say "I work at Cwavath."

But even more so in the case of law students who know nothing, prestige is a great proxy to base decisions on. Working at a V5 (or V10 (or V10 + W&C + Munger + whatever firm you'd like to murder me for arbitrarily leaving out, probably your own)) and particularly in M&A is a GREAT default choice because it's highly correlated with the informed options that a new lawyer might like to have down the road. Sure, nobody makes partner, and 75% of the class leaves in 3 years, but that's exactly the point. If odds are that your first law firm is only the first stepping stone in your career, then I think it's a lot better a way to pick a firm than on, for example, the warm and fuzzies. It's obviously not the only consideration, but this ostrich-in-sand approach that prestige has no real world effect is breathtakingly stupid.

You continue to miss the point. OP is contemplating increasing his debt from zero (Darrow) to six figures (Harvard) to chase prestige that he, admittedly, knows literally nothing about. He's talking about being partner in an NYC firm, about clerking before an M&A career, and about forfeiting a ton of money to chase these things. Stop defending it. It's defensible to take an offer from Cravath over Latham because of prestige, but much less so to take on $130k of non dischargeable debt to aspire to do so before you even know the first thing about law school, let alone job hunting. "Cart before the horse" doesn't even begin to describe it.

Just stop.

[Cochran]

I'm not the most knowledgeable as a 0L, but know and talk to numerous people from T14 schools at V10 firms about job prospects. OP, a lot of this advice is just garbage. There is no way you'll get a proper answer, because many of the factors involved will depend on you (grades, interviewing sills, ect.). I'd say your ability to get into a V5 is ~90% based on your grades. While these firms want H grads, they only want top H grads. While many of the profiles at these firms are from H, you have to remember that H graduates way more lawyers than other schools (besides Gtwn), so they're not simply taking H kids based on their degrees. In general, the difference between H and Mich are fairly marginal, while the difference between the top 10% and top 20% are not. I don't think H with $0 could get close to Mich with $165k+++. Now if you get significant money from H, maybe. But what's most important is going to the place where you feel you can excel most.

Furthermore, what's your reasoning behind V5 or bust goals? I really don't understand the significance of vault rankings within the top 20. I mean is Wachtell really that much better/more prestigious than Covington? (Eric Holder doesn't think so lol).

[Tiago Splitter]

I'm not the most knowledgeable as a 0L, but know and talk to numerous people from T14 schools at V10 firms about job prospects. OP, a lot of this advice is just garbage. There is no way you'll get a proper answer, because many of the factors involved will depend on you (grades, interviewing sills, ect.). I'd say your ability to get into a V5 is ~90% based on your grades. While these firms want H grads, they only want top H grads. While many of the profiles at these firms are from H, you have to remember that H graduates way more lawyers than other schools (besides Gtwn), so they're not simply taking H kids based on their degrees. In general, the difference between H and Mich are fairly marginal, while the difference between the top 10% and top 20% are not. I don't think H with $0 could get close to Mich with $165k+++. Now if you get significant money from H, maybe. But what's most important is going to the place where you feel you can excel most.

Furthermore, what's your reasoning behind V5 or bust goals? I really don't understand the significance of vault rankings within the top 20. I mean is Wachtell really that much better/more prestigious than Covington? (Eric Holder doesn't think so lol).

I'd definitely recommend taking the Darrow, but these top M&A firms are absolutely taking middle of the pack Harvard students. You don't have to tear it up at Michigan to get in top M&A firms either, but it will be really easy from Harvard.

Your last paragraph also explains why Vault alone is fairly useless; Covington and Wachtell have such different strengths as to be pretty much incomparable.

[jbagelboy]

I'm not the most knowledgeable as a 0L, but know and talk to numerous people from T14 schools at V10 firms about job prospects. OP, a lot of this advice is just garbage. There is no way you'll get a proper answer, because many of the factors involved will depend on you (grades, interviewing sills, ect.). I'd say your ability to get into a V5 is ~90% based on your grades. While these firms want H grads, they only want top H grads. While many of the profiles at these firms are from H, you have to remember that H graduates way more lawyers than other schools (besides Gtwn), so they're not simply taking H kids based on their degrees. In general, the difference between H and Mich are fairly marginal, while the difference between the top 10% and top 20% are not. I don't think H with $0 could get close to Mich with $165k+++. Now if you get significant money from H, maybe. But what's most important is going to the place where you feel you can excel most.

Furthermore, what's your reasoning behind V5 or bust goals? I really don't understand the significance of vault rankings within the top 20. I mean is Wachtell really that much better/more prestigious than Covington? (Eric Holder doesn't think so lol).

With all due kindness and only positive intention, I advise that you should probably avoid posting in the on topics like this when you have zero real insight and you're only repeating something else you read online/what someone told you. Essentially this entire post is inaccurate and misleading or uninformed. I don't really blame you, we all posted garbage as 0Ls. But your introductory caveat is insufficient to dispel the danger that others might accept these statements as truths.

1) Only a handful of firms are very concerned with grades at T6 schools. With the exception of Wachtell, the best NY M&A firms will be pretty flexible with HLS students--down to 3-4 Hs or even lower if the candidate has something else to recommend themselves (as Tiaggo said, about median). Firms like Davis Polk, Cravath, and Simpson have the largest summer classes and try to fill them with the most students from elite schools, so they can't afford to be very picky. So yes, to a certain extent, they are taking harvard and nyu and columbia students based on their degrees.

2) I agree the difference between HLS and Michigan in broad strokes is "marginal", but to the extent it matters, it's certainly more important than the difference between 10% and 20% at one of those schools. So that statement is a highly misleading portrayal of how law school works in general.

3) I don't know what you mean "H with $0" versus Darrow, but if you read the OP, the consideration is H with full need based aid. Of course, the entire thread is retarded because OP isn't even admitted to all of these schools yet, but the hypothetical is much more complicated than full ride versus sticker. I would in fact recommend HLS with full aid over the Darrow here, although obviously the Darrow would be much better than Harvard at sticker (which would run over $300,000 in debt).

4) It's actually of relatively little importance "where you feel you can excel most." That generic catch is really just an externality of other factors of preference, and its too subjective to play any meaningful role in the law school decision unless the cost/placement/geography factors are neutral. Implicit in your statement is the faulty proposition that one could "excel" more at Michigan than at Harvard, which is not true--students at one school don't differ substantially from students at the other.

5) You're right that the vault rankings really don't have any significance outside of a narrow set of practice areas in one city, which is the irony of OP saying they "want a V5". There's lots of decent information on here about firms in legal employment so I suggest you check it out.

A) Reality = people make decisions between these firms all the time. Sure, people will defend K&E over, idk, Cravath for its "entrepreneurial" culture, and how Cravath is full of dicks, etc., or Simpson over WLRK because "omg, how many hours you bill." But, guess what, there are tiers between these firms. Some of them are widely acknowledged and others miniscule or subjective, but as long as you're going to be ranking between things on this board I don't know why it's not ok to rank between different law firms.

no, you're just making them up. there's no industry wide consensus

People make choices based around prestige all the time. Guess what: that's perfectly defensible. In some cases, prestige actually makes people happy. It's a perfectly fine independent reason to want to work at Cravath for 160 rather than K&E for 170 because you get to say "I work at Cwavath."

no its not, and these people aren't happy they are deluded. on the other hand, there are practice and culture-related reasons for choosing e.g. Cravath over Kirkland, or the other way around.

[Aeon]

3) I don't know what you mean "H with $0" versus Darrow, but if you read the OP, the consideration is H with full need based aid. Of course, the entire thread is retarded because OP isn't even admitted to all of these schools yet, but the hypothetical is much more complicated than full ride versus sticker. I would in fact recommend HLS with full aid over the Darrow here, although obviously the Darrow would be much better than Harvard at sticker (which would run over $300,000 in debt).

Didn't OP say that if he's admitted to Harvard, the full need-based aid wouldn't cover everything? The poll suggests that going there, he'd still end up incurring six-digit debt. I'm not sure how OP calculated this number, nor how Harvard's need-based aid works, but if the number is accurate, that's a pretty high cost.

[jbagelboy]

3) I don't know what you mean "H with $0" versus Darrow, but if you read the OP, the consideration is H with full need based aid. Of course, the entire thread is retarded because OP isn't even admitted to all of these schools yet, but the hypothetical is much more complicated than full ride versus sticker. I would in fact recommend HLS with full aid over the Darrow here, although obviously the Darrow would be much better than Harvard at sticker (which would run over $300,000 in debt).

Didn't OP say that if he's admitted to Harvard, the full need-based aid wouldn't cover everything? The poll suggests that going there, he'd still end up incurring six-digit debt. I'm not sure how OP calculated this number, nor how Harvard's need-based aid works, but if the number is accurate, that's a pretty high cost.

Right. We're basically comparing de minimis debt at Michigan with ~120,000 in debt at HLS (assuming max need aid at HLS). I'm comfortable with Harvard at that cost given these choices. Others might be less so. Both are fair choices, but the point is, the question was not HLS with nothing versus Michigan full ride.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

Before law school, I would have said Harvard.

Now (after years in biglaw - I'm a midlevel), I'd hands down say take the Darrow.

BIGLAW BLOWS. You will probably hate it and regret ever going to law school, let alone if you paid for it.

HTH.

Your best option, is of course, NOT going to law school in the first place.

[kaiser]

Before law school, I would have said Harvard.

Now (after years in biglaw - I'm a midlevel), I'd hands down say take the Darrow.

BIGLAW BLOWS. You will probably hate it and regret ever going to law school, let alone if you paid for it.

HTH.

Your best option, is of course, NOT going to law school in the first place.

Pretty sure almost any practicing lawyer in biglaw would say that Darrow is the better choice given his goals.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

Before law school, I would have said Harvard.

Now (after years in biglaw - I'm a midlevel), I'd hands down say take the Darrow.

BIGLAW BLOWS. You will probably hate it and regret ever going to law school, let alone if you paid for it.

HTH.

Your best option, is of course, NOT going to law school in the first place.

Pretty sure almost any practicing lawyer in biglaw would say that Darrow is the better choice given his goals.

Exactly. Although I'd tell him to not go to law school in the first place - that's what I wish I could have told 22 year old me.