Stanford v Harvard v Columbia $$$ v NYU ($$$) Forum

[abl]

I'd say Columbia or NYU here. Full tuition is full tuition is full tuition.

Also I wouldn't advise picking a law school for how competitive you think it is/feels. It's law school, it's competitive by nature.

I'm in a comparable situation as OP, in that I'm weighing a 2/3 ride @ NYU v. Harvard. Would you give the same advice? (also looking to do PI work).

What kind of PI work? How sure about doing PI are you? And are you debt averse? How comfortable do you feel about the idea of having to rely on Harvard's loan repayment system for ~10 years if you do PI?

Environmental advocacy. My research indicates that those who get jobs in this field overwhelmingly have H/Y/S degrees. Without a background in the hard sciences, I may need to bite the bullet and take the more prestigious program for the much, much higher cost.

100% committed to PI work. Big Law would be a big, big mistake for me.

Harvard's LIPP seems very good, relative to other programs. I need to do more research on this front...specifically, I'd like to talk to a few attorneys who have chosen this debt-repayment route, at least right out of school.

Yep. Getting a top environmental advocacy position from outside HYS without a hard science degree will be pretty tough. This is a risk-reward question for you. There is a material difference between HYS and CCN in this area (especially if you can do Stanford's joint environmental science degree). But there's also a real possibility that you don't get a position like this coming from any of these schools. You have to decide how much it's worth it to you to maximize your chances of this specific outcome. There's no one correct choice.

[kaiser]

Without question, its between Columbia and NYU. If you get the NYU PI scholarship, I'd lean that way given NYU's huge focus in this area.

[fliptrip]

Any feeling of competitiveness will be entirely self-induced at all of these schools.

I don't really know how joint degrees work but is there any logistical problem with going to school in both Palo Alto and Princeton?

SLS is really flexible with allowing you to pursue a degree at another school concurrently with your JD. The extent to which they will count classes earned elsewhere varies, but they will allow you to be away to do it at the very least. Sounds like from OP that H isn't so flexible. I'm pretty much in the dual degree boat myself, so I have been learning as much as I can.

[Clearly]

Columbia or nyu. No question.

"No question" is hyperbole.

I really don't think it is. The fact that every single person here says Columbia or NYU except H students should be pretty illustrative. For generic PI work, s/he's pretty much guaranteed a job at either NYU or Harvard. Except one is free, and the other you'll be forced to stay in public interest for a huge part of your career to LRAP. If they said I want to clerk for a COA judge, I would reconsider, but for these goals paying 250,000 instead of 25,000 is pretty silly.

[fliptrip]

I'm a little confused. I don't know why public policy broadly writ = law school.

The WWS MPA is a super credential. Why law school too?

[jbagelboy]

Any feeling of competitiveness will be entirely self-induced at all of these schools.

I don't really know how joint degrees work but is there any logistical problem with going to school in both Palo Alto and Princeton?

SLS is really flexible with allowing you to pursue a degree at another school concurrently with your JD. The extent to which they will count classes earned elsewhere varies, but they will allow you to be away to do it at the very least. Sounds like from OP that H isn't so flexible. I'm pretty much in the dual degree boat myself, so I have been learning as much as I can.

You spend 3 semesters in new jersey and 5 in california. It's a tough beat for anyone with a family or serious commitments, but if you're totally flexible and you don't mind moving around then you can swing it. The way it works at CLS/HLS is typically two years of law school, one of MPP, and then one semester each at the MPP school and law school for the fourth year.

[Philafaler]

Something to consider while you make your choices: Law school and a joint degree are very long and very disruptive to your personal life. Sounds like you took a few years off - consider the cost of not really settling down in a region until you're at least 27 or so, and maybe much later, if you do a joint degree (1 or 2 more years?) or perhaps clerk.

I think these considerations counsel in favor of either: 1) just the SLS degree, taking advantage of the institutional prestige to move into your desired PI area, perhaps after a fancy clerkship, depending on how well you do at S, or 2) Columbia or NYU (preferably NYU w/ RTK) and the degree from Wilson, since they're relatively close and won't require you to move over and over again.

I don't think H is a good call. I think the joint degree there will just be too expensive, and SLS alone would be the same cost and probably better situated to place you where you want.

[kaiser]

Columbia or nyu. No question.

"No question" is hyperbole.

I really don't think it is. The fact that every single person here says Columbia or NYU except H students should be pretty illustrative. For generic PI work, s/he's pretty much guaranteed a job at either NYU or Harvard. Except one is free, and the other you'll be forced to stay in public interest for a huge part of your career to LRAP. If they said I want to clerk for a COA judge, I would reconsider, but for these goals paying 250,000 instead of 25,000 is pretty silly.

Plus every practicing lawyer on here has said CLS/NYU. I used to discount that (or not really take it into account) when I was a 0L, but now I wish I had given more weight to the input of practicing lawyers than the input of fellow 0L's

[krads153]

Columbia or nyu. No question.

"No question" is hyperbole.

I really don't think it is. The fact that every single person here says Columbia or NYU except H students should be pretty illustrative. For generic PI work, s/he's pretty much guaranteed a job at either NYU or Harvard. Except one is free, and the other you'll be forced to stay in public interest for a huge part of your career to LRAP. If they said I want to clerk for a COA judge, I would reconsider, but for these goals paying 250,000 instead of 25,000 is pretty silly.

I wouldn't say "guaranteed" a PI job at either just because you went there - generic PI hiring is a lot different than biglaw hiring.

But yeah, it doesn't matter that much for generic PI hiring what school you went to out of these (or the T-14 and maybe even outside of the T-14). What matters more is your background/languages/and possibly grades.

I think people who are interested in PI should realize that you will likely make less than teachers/janitors/construction workers/etc......except you'll be saddled with debt and be locked into certain jobs for 10 years if you take out a lot of debt.

[Dishydiana]

Yep. Getting a top environmental advocacy position from outside HYS without a hard science degree will be pretty tough. This is a risk-reward question for you. There is a material difference between HYS and CCN in this area (especially if you can do Stanford's joint environmental science degree). But there's also a real possibility that you don't get a position like this coming from any of these schools. You have to decide how much it's worth it to you to maximize your chances of this specific outcome. There's no one correct choice.

Thanks for weighing in. I'll keep these risks in mind while I continue to look into my options.

[abl]

Columbia or nyu. No question.

"No question" is hyperbole.

I really don't think it is. The fact that every single person here says Columbia or NYU except H students should be pretty illustrative. For generic PI work, s/he's pretty much guaranteed a job at either NYU or Harvard. Except one is free, and the other you'll be forced to stay in public interest for a huge part of your career to LRAP. If they said I want to clerk for a COA judge, I would reconsider, but for these goals paying 250,000 instead of 25,000 is pretty silly.

Plus every practicing lawyer on here has said CLS/NYU. I used to discount that (or not really take it into account) when I was a 0L, but now I wish I had given more weight to the input of practicing lawyers than the input of fellow 0L's

I'm a practicing lawyer, and I didn't say CLS/NYU. (Although in all fairness, I didn't say S/Y either -- I think we need more info.)

[kaiser]

Columbia or nyu. No question.

"No question" is hyperbole.

I really don't think it is. The fact that every single person here says Columbia or NYU except H students should be pretty illustrative. For generic PI work, s/he's pretty much guaranteed a job at either NYU or Harvard. Except one is free, and the other you'll be forced to stay in public interest for a huge part of your career to LRAP. If they said I want to clerk for a COA judge, I would reconsider, but for these goals paying 250,000 instead of 25,000 is pretty silly.

Plus every practicing lawyer on here has said CLS/NYU. I used to discount that (or not really take it into account) when I was a 0L, but now I wish I had given more weight to the input of practicing lawyers than the input of fellow 0L's

I'm a practicing lawyer, and I didn't say CLS/NYU. (Although in all fairness, I didn't say S/Y either -- I think we need more info.)

I had always recommended to TLS some kind of coding system so we can tell who is 0L, current law student, and law grad. It would be great to "take the temperature" of each group separately to compare. Like, the debate among practicing lawyers would likely be very different than the debate between 0L's on the same topics because certain considerations would be more pressing and salient.

[Clearly]

Columbia or nyu. No question.

"No question" is hyperbole.

I really don't think it is. The fact that every single person here says Columbia or NYU except H students should be pretty illustrative. For generic PI work, s/he's pretty much guaranteed a job at either NYU or Harvard. Except one is free, and the other you'll be forced to stay in public interest for a huge part of your career to LRAP. If they said I want to clerk for a COA judge, I would reconsider, but for these goals paying 250,000 instead of 25,000 is pretty silly.

I wouldn't say "guaranteed" a PI job at either just because you went there - generic PI hiring is a lot different than biglaw hiring.

But yeah, it doesn't matter that much for generic PI hiring what school you went to out of these (or the T-14 and maybe even outside of the T-14). What matters more is your background/languages/and possibly grades.

I think people who are interested in PI should realize that you will likely make less than teachers/janitors/construction workers/etc......except you'll be saddled with debt and be locked into certain jobs for 10 years if you take out a lot of debt.

Thats fair, I really should have said the difference between the two schools is minimal. To the extent that you could have gotten a job at H you almost certainly could have gotten one at NYU, but certainly neither is guaranteed.

[willtraven]

OP here. Trying to answer as much as I can from the above thread:

1. Public policy broadly writ was a little vague. I've worked in policy advocacy for a few years now and see those people who are able to advance policy change most effectively have tended to be lawyers/using legal tools - I see the joint degree as two different ways to think about policy. An ideal mid-to-end career goal would be an upper-level director in a state or federal executive agency, executive director of a policy nonprofit, or an elected official. We'll see. I'd REALLY like to clerk, too.
2. Yes, you can combine Stanford and Princeton in a 4 year joint degree. Confirmed with the Dean.
3. HLS only wants to combine with HKS; Princeton's WWS will combine with Columbia/NYU/Stanford easily, but HLS doesn't allow a joint combo. I think I could do concurrent but that'd take another whole year and seems like a huge waste.
4. I actually *like* the idea of getting to split my time on both coasts. I am young, flexible, and have strong connections/meaningful relationships in both places. That doesn't bother me.

So far, the biggest case being made about NYU/Columbia over Stanford (I think) seems to be full tuition. Is there anything I'm missing?

[fliptrip]

0L here and excluding any factors that may be idiosyncratic (i.e. your love of prestige/the west coast), this is NYU/Columbia every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

1. Clerking is not an end in and of itself. For the vast majority of folks it's a means to an end. I'm pretty sure you can get where you'd like to go whether or not you clerk.
2. Stanford or Harvard aren't going to deliver improved employment/exit opportunities at a level that justifies paying at least $100k more for them. If you go to Stanford, you'll have the additional cost of moving across the country multiple times and in the middle of a year. It's also easy to argue that being an RTK is at least equal to just being the latest PI-focused SLS/HLS person.

[abl]

OP here. Trying to answer as much as I can from the above thread:

1. Public policy broadly writ was a little vague. I've worked in policy advocacy for a few years now and see those people who are able to advance policy change most effectively have tended to be lawyers/using legal tools - I see the joint degree as two different ways to think about policy. An ideal mid-to-end career goal would be an upper-level director in a state or federal executive agency, executive director of a policy nonprofit, or an elected official. We'll see. I'd REALLY like to clerk, too.
2. Yes, you can combine Stanford and Princeton in a 4 year joint degree. Confirmed with the Dean.
3. HLS only wants to combine with HKS; Princeton's WWS will combine with Columbia/NYU/Stanford easily, but HLS doesn't allow a joint combo. I think I could do concurrent but that'd take another whole year and seems like a huge waste.
4. I actually *like* the idea of getting to split my time on both coasts. I am young, flexible, and have strong connections/meaningful relationships in both places. That doesn't bother me.

So far, the biggest case being made about NYU/Columbia over Stanford (I think) seems to be full tuition. Is there anything I'm missing?

I think you've pretty much nailed it. For your goals, though, debt is almost certainly going to be an important factor. Getting an elected position or a JD-preferred executive position at a NGO or something of the sort generally requires taking some medium financial risks. You'll likely have to spend a couple of years working on campaigns (in various relatively low-paid capacities) or move up the ranks through an NGO. During these periods, you may not know whether you'll be employed for more than the next 6 months or so. And these jobs may not necessarily qualify for loan assistance under the terms of the HYS's programs (they will for Yale, but may not for S).

If you're pretty financially secure (esp. if you have access to family money) and think you can manage these sorts of shaky transitions with a lot of debt, well, Stanford/Harvard will give you a leg up versus NYU/Columbia for these sorts of odd career tracks. But I think that the debt is going to be pretty limiting on your freedom to make the sort of risky and weird choices you generally have to make to land these sorts of jobs.

This is the point that jdbagelboy often makes on these boards -- that debt can really limit graduates' abilities to pursue "unicorn" positions. I usually don't agree with him (for various reasons not relevant here). But in your circumstances, I think he's right on the money. Unless there's something about your financial circumstances we're unaware of, the debt from S/H will likely be a bigger limiting factor on your ability to do the weird career things necessary to find your way into public office or something of that sort than the minor relative handicap of graduating from C/N.

[abl]

0L here and excluding any factors that may be idiosyncratic (i.e. your love of prestige/the west coast), this is NYU/Columbia every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

1. Clerking is not an end in and of itself. For the vast majority of folks it's a means to an end. I'm pretty sure you can get where you'd like to go whether or not you clerk.

I absolutely think clerking can be an end in and of itself. Also, to the extent that it is also a means to an end, it's almost always a means to an end for jobs that are not available without a clerkship.

2. Stanford or Harvard aren't going to deliver improved employment/exit opportunities at a level that justifies paying at least $100k more for them. If you go to Stanford, you'll have the additional cost of moving across the country multiple times and in the middle of a year. It's also easy to argue that being an RTK is at least equal to just being the latest PI-focused SLS/HLS person.

I don't think RTK is "at least equal to just being the latest PI-focused SLS/HLS person" -- in my experience, far fewer folks care about named scholarships than they do the difference between HYS and CCN. I also think that how much the HYS improved employment opportunities justify paying is going to be an individual decision. For some people, it's going to be worth well more than $100k for those opportunities. For others, it might not be worth more than $10k.

[willtraven]

0L here and excluding any factors that may be idiosyncratic (i.e. your love of prestige/the west coast), this is NYU/Columbia every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

1. Clerking is not an end in and of itself. For the vast majority of folks it's a means to an end. I'm pretty sure you can get where you'd like to go whether or not you clerk.
2. Stanford or Harvard aren't going to deliver improved employment/exit opportunities at a level that justifies paying at least $100k more for them. If you go to Stanford, you'll have the additional cost of moving across the country multiple times and in the middle of a year. It's also easy to argue that being an RTK is at least equal to just being the latest PI-focused SLS/HLS person.

Love of West Coast is pretty big - I've struggled with mental health in the past (and now), and just generally feel a lot better on the other side of the country (especially in the Bay Area).

Prestige is a meh except for what it does for my career (and point taken - not more than on the very margin, here).

And just a point of clarification - I'm interviewing for one of the *non*-RTK scholarships at NYU, with much less heft/weight behind it. Many students/alumni I've spoken to don't even know what it is.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Something to consider while you make your choices: Law school and a joint degree are very long and very disruptive to your personal life. Sounds like you took a few years off - consider the cost of not really settling down in a region until you're at least 27 or so, and maybe much later, if you do a joint degree (1 or 2 more years?) or perhaps clerk.

Obligatory old person jumping in to say that there is no particular "cost" to settling in a region one year or two years or even three years later than the earliest possible date. There may well be reasons not to do a joint degree, but age should not be one (and length of degree should be pretty minor, except to the extent that another year costs a lot more money).

(I agree that clerking can be an end in itself, since most of the time it's a cool experience that teaches you a lot. But clerkship chances probably shouldn't determine school choice unless everything else is equal - people can get cool clerkships from any of these schools.)

[abl]

0L here and excluding any factors that may be idiosyncratic (i.e. your love of prestige/the west coast), this is NYU/Columbia every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

1. Clerking is not an end in and of itself. For the vast majority of folks it's a means to an end. I'm pretty sure you can get where you'd like to go whether or not you clerk.
2. Stanford or Harvard aren't going to deliver improved employment/exit opportunities at a level that justifies paying at least $100k more for them. If you go to Stanford, you'll have the additional cost of moving across the country multiple times and in the middle of a year. It's also easy to argue that being an RTK is at least equal to just being the latest PI-focused SLS/HLS person.

Love of West Coast is pretty big - I've struggled with mental health in the past (and now), and just generally feel a lot better on the other side of the country (especially in the Bay Area).

Prestige is a meh except for what it does for my career (and point taken - not more than on the very margin, here).

And just a point of clarification - I'm interviewing for one of the *non*-RTK scholarships at NYU, with much less heft/weight behind it. Many students/alumni I've spoken to don't even know what it is.

I stand by my previous post saying that the money is really probably a bigger deal than you're giving it credit for, given your semi non-traditional career goals. That said, I do think the mental health side of things is a big factor. Feeling like being in NY (or at Columbia or NYU in particular) is likely going to do bad things for you in that area, well, that should weigh very heavily in favor of Stanford. (Ditto if you feel like Stanford's going to be really good for you, for whatever reason.) Your health absolutely has to come first. And if we're being really crass about these things, your ability to pursue your goals out of either H/S or C/N is going to be based far more on how you do at these schools than any sort of prestige or placement differences. If you'd thrive at Stanford but falter at NYU, that's going to have a huge impact on what options are available post-Stanford or NYU. I think most people should be cautious about putting too much weight on things like "fit" (because it's hard to tell as a 0L) when deciding between schools. In your case, it might justify what otherwise might not be the best choice (S with a lot of debt).

[willtraven]

OP here. Trying to answer as much as I can from the above thread:

1. Public policy broadly writ was a little vague. I've worked in policy advocacy for a few years now and see those people who are able to advance policy change most effectively have tended to be lawyers/using legal tools - I see the joint degree as two different ways to think about policy. An ideal mid-to-end career goal would be an upper-level director in a state or federal executive agency, executive director of a policy nonprofit, or an elected official. We'll see. I'd REALLY like to clerk, too.
2. Yes, you can combine Stanford and Princeton in a 4 year joint degree. Confirmed with the Dean.
3. HLS only wants to combine with HKS; Princeton's WWS will combine with Columbia/NYU/Stanford easily, but HLS doesn't allow a joint combo. I think I could do concurrent but that'd take another whole year and seems like a huge waste.
4. I actually *like* the idea of getting to split my time on both coasts. I am young, flexible, and have strong connections/meaningful relationships in both places. That doesn't bother me.

So far, the biggest case being made about NYU/Columbia over Stanford (I think) seems to be full tuition. Is there anything I'm missing?

I think you've pretty much nailed it. For your goals, though, debt is almost certainly going to be an important factor. Getting an elected position or a JD-preferred executive position at a NGO or something of the sort generally requires taking some medium financial risks. You'll likely have to spend a couple of years working on campaigns (in various relatively low-paid capacities) or move up the ranks through an NGO. During these periods, you may not know whether you'll be employed for more than the next 6 months or so. And these jobs may not necessarily qualify for loan assistance under the terms of the HYS's programs (they will for Yale, but may not for S).

If you're pretty financially secure (esp. if you have access to family money) and think you can manage these sorts of shaky transitions with a lot of debt, well, Stanford/Harvard will give you a leg up versus NYU/Columbia for these sorts of odd career tracks. But I think that the debt is going to be pretty limiting on your freedom to make the sort of risky and weird choices you generally have to make to land these sorts of jobs.

This is the point that jdbagelboy often makes on these boards -- that debt can really limit graduates' abilities to pursue "unicorn" positions. I usually don't agree with him (for various reasons not relevant here). But in your circumstances, I think he's right on the money. Unless there's something about your financial circumstances we're unaware of, the debt from S/H will likely be a bigger limiting factor on your ability to do the weird career things necessary to find your way into public office or something of that sort than the minor relative handicap of graduating from C/N.

Thanks for this. This feels detailed and nuanced and where a lot of my conversations seem to have brought me.

[Elbble]

I'm struggling with a similar decision myself (mainly Yale vs Hamilton at cls, with Harvard also in the running).
Here's what I've gathered after much hand-wringing: ANY job will technically remain open to you, even if you take the free nyu/cls route. Look through the resumes of people in the positions you want: I guarantee that they will have come from a large handful of schools, some of which are well outside T6. What sets those people apart is grades, cool experiences, good recs, and a variety of other things not directly tied to where you go to school.

People will tell you that Harvard/Stanford opens more doors, but that's just false: they open the very same doors, just to different widths, so that in the H/S case more people can squeeze through.

People will also tell you not to treat yourself as exceptional, or to expect median results. Those people are bad statisticians. You should expect results that are likely *for you*. In your case, (im working with only a little bit of evidence here, of course) it seems like what is likely will be well above average. You should trust that - not blindly, but as an objective fact about yourself to consider. Could you be one of those people who hustles hard and ends up in a good place after going to nyu (for free)? Seems likely. Definitely doesn't seem worth betting 200k against that possibility.

[abl]

I'm struggling with a similar decision myself (mainly Yale vs Hamilton at cls, with Harvard also in the running).
Here's what I've gathered after much hand-wringing: ANY job will technically remain open to you, even if you take the free nyu/cls route. Look through the resumes of people in the positions you want: I guarantee that they will have come from a large handful of schools, some of which are well outside T6. What sets those people apart is grades, cool experiences, good recs, and a variety of other things not directly tied to where you go to school.

People will tell you that Harvard/Stanford opens more doors, but that's just false: they open the very same doors, just to different widths, so that in the H/S case more people can squeeze through.

People will also tell you not to treat yourself as exceptional, or to expect median results. Those people are bad statisticians. You should expect results that are likely *for you*. In your case, (im working with only a little bit of evidence here, of course) it seems like what is likely will be well above average. You should trust that - not blindly, but as an objective fact about yourself to consider. Could you be one of those people who hustles hard and ends up in a good place after going to nyu (for free)? Seems likely. Definitely doesn't seem worth betting 200k against that possibility.

On what basis are you assuming you'll do above average at a T14? If you have a 4.0 in engineering from Caltech, a 180, and are a Rhodes scholar, sure, that's probably a justified assumption. But once you fall off too much from that level, I'm just not sure you're on firm ground.

[Elbble]

People will tell you that Harvard/Stanford opens more doors, but that's just false: they open the very same doors, just to different widths, so that in the H/S case more people can squeeze through.

People will also tell you not to treat yourself as exceptional, or to expect median results. Those people are bad statisticians. You should expect results that are likely *for you*. In your case, (im working with only a little bit of evidence here, of course) it seems like what is likely will be well above average. You should trust that - not blindly, but as an objective fact about yourself to consider. Could you be one of those people who hustles hard and ends up in a good place after going to nyu (for free)? Seems likely. Definitely doesn't seem worth betting 200k against that possibility.

On what basis are you assuming you'll do above average at a T14? If you have a 4.0 in engineering from Caltech, a 180, and are a Rhodes scholar, sure, that's probably a justified assumption. But once you fall off too much from that level, I'm just not sure you're on firm ground.

Not sure what you regard as falling "off too much from that level," but I think we can all agree that the qualifications you described don't apply to even the top 10% of places like nyu/cls. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to predict above average performance; you have to have a track record of consistently performing above your typical bright, hardworking, lower-ivy kind of kid.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Eh. I don't think that's something you can rely on when you're at really selective schools. Law school exams really aren't like previous academic work. I know PhDs who struggled with law school exams (and others who didn't, but it's not guaranteed).