Harvard vs. Michigan (Darrow) vs. Minnesota (full) for MN Forum

[Jchance]

Let me toss in option 4 on the table: attend Mich first year for free, then if u did well enough and still want H degree, transfer to H and pays full-tuition for 2 years. If you didnt do well enough to transfer, u'd still get a Mich degree for free. This option gives you another year to decide and test out the water with 1L SA in Minn.

I agree with others--i dont understand why UMN is even in the running.

[jumpin munkey]

I gotta say that while Michigan is already winning, this really doesn't seem like a "can't go wrong" thread. Harvard seems like objectively a bad decision barring serious financial aid. People recommending it should realize that there's a lot of money at stake if OP follows your advice and so the reasoning should be a bit more than "duh, it's Harvard."

This isn't to say that Harvard at sticker is in of itself bad -- it's easily justifiable. But as a relative matter, Harvard at sticker-ish vs. any T14 with a named full-ride (let alone plus stipend), is pretty hard to justify for someone who only wants a to work a big firm.

Michigan sure isn't Chicago, but I'd trust that literally nobody would recommend Harvard over a Rubenstein for someone with OP's goals. But if that's the case, I think it's pretty hard to argue that the difference between Michigan's placement and Chicago's placement, while not nothing, is enough to justify choosing a Rubenstein over H while choosing H over a Darrow if you want biglaw. In other words, there are certainly people who get biglaw from Chicago who would have gotten nothing during OCI the same year if they were at Michigan. The stats obviously bear that out. But going the other way on a $200k+ decision just to guard against the chance that you're one of those people seems insane. All the "I'd rather be median at Harvard than..." is irrelevant. Of course he'll be in a better position to get a job from Harvard. But the alternative isn't Georgetown with $15k a year, it's graduating from Michigan with no debt.

Finally, and this isn't my justification by any means, but my (relatively unfounded) suspicion is that people with T14 named scholarships -- Levys, Darrows, Mordecais, Hamiltons -- hardly ever strike out. Certainly give me anecdotes of people who do and I'll happily eat crow on that, no problem. But if true, then regardless why that is -- people with those scholarships are smarter than the average student and do better, the resume line is powerful enough, or schools put more weight behind named full scholly students because it looks bad if they're unemployed -- it is pretty important. It means that OP isn't just another Michigan student for the purposes of this decision.

[northwood]

you are looking at Michigan for free, including books or 3 years. So minus COL ( or is that included?), the financial cost of law school ( taking out any lost wage calculation- as it would apply to all three schools) is the lowest.

Even if Harvard will get you biglaw, you must keep in mind that your wages will be spent on paying down that debt. And biglaw has bigturnover. What happens after that- who knows ( you have to keep the option of going from 150K to 50k open.. while it would suck, it is a possibility) While at Michigan, even if your initial salary was much less, you will have less to worry about, and will be free to use your paycheck as you see fit.

For those reasons, Minnesota is still an option. However, a you may be inclined to want to go biglaw, Michigan would appear to be a better choice between the two. Taking into consideration the potential for a short big law tenure, and the great disparity ( until you know what their offer is- you have to assume you will be paying the full amount), I would be inclined to go to Michigan, and enjoy the satisfaction of not having to worry about massive law school student loan debt.

[Paul Campos]

I gotta say that while Michigan is already winning, this really doesn't seem like a "can't go wrong" thread. Harvard seems like objectively a bad decision barring serious financial aid. People recommending it should realize that there's a lot of money at stake if OP follows your advice and so the reasoning should be a bit more than "duh, it's Harvard."

This isn't to say that Harvard at sticker is in of itself bad -- it's easily justifiable. But as a relative matter, Harvard at sticker-ish vs. any T14 with a named full-ride (let alone plus stipend), is pretty hard to justify for someone who only wants a to work a big firm.

Michigan sure isn't Chicago, but I'd trust that literally nobody would recommend Harvard over a Rubenstein for someone with OP's goals. But if that's the case, I think it's pretty hard to argue that the difference between Michigan's placement and Chicago's placement, while not nothing, is enough to justify choosing a Rubenstein over H while choosing H over a Darrow if you want biglaw. In other words, there are certainly people who get biglaw from Chicago who would have gotten nothing during OCI the same year if they were at Michigan. The stats obviously bear that out. But going the other way on a $200k+ decision just to guard against the chance that you're one of those people seems insane. All the "I'd rather be median at Harvard than..." is irrelevant. Of course he'll be in a better position to get a job from Harvard. But the alternative isn't Georgetown with $15k a year, it's graduating from Michigan with no debt.

Finally, and this isn't my justification by any means, but my (relatively unfounded) suspicion is that people with T14 named scholarships -- Levys, Darrows, Mordecais, Hamiltons -- hardly ever strike out. Certainly give me anecdotes of people who do and I'll happily eat crow on that, no problem. But if true, then regardless why that is -- people with those scholarships are smarter than the average student and do better, the resume line is powerful enough, or schools put more weight behind named full scholly students because it looks bad if they're unemployed -- it is pretty important. It means that OP isn't just another Michigan student for the purposes of this decision.

This is the correct analysis. The question isn't Michigan v. HLS, it's Darrow recipient v. HLS median. I would be very surprised if HLS median wins that matchup for somebody whose goal is Minnesota big law -- and that's without even taking into account that picking HLS means spending an extra $200K for the privilege of doing so.

[kd5]

And keep in mind, the big firms in MN pay 110-120k, NOT 160.

So Harvard with that much debt is pretty scary if OP gets a job in their goal market.

[Over the top]

Michigan seems like the pretty clear winner here.

OP, did you apply to Yale by any chance?

[Emma.]

I gotta say that while Michigan is already winning, this really doesn't seem like a "can't go wrong" thread. Harvard seems like objectively a bad decision barring serious financial aid. People recommending it should realize that there's a lot of money at stake if OP follows your advice and so the reasoning should be a bit more than "duh, it's Harvard."

This isn't to say that Harvard at sticker is in of itself bad -- it's easily justifiable. But as a relative matter, Harvard at sticker-ish vs. any T14 with a named full-ride (let alone plus stipend), is pretty hard to justify for someone who only wants a to work a big firm.

Michigan sure isn't Chicago, but I'd trust that literally nobody would recommend Harvard over a Rubenstein for someone with OP's goals. But if that's the case, I think it's pretty hard to argue that the difference between Michigan's placement and Chicago's placement, while not nothing, is enough to justify choosing a Rubenstein over H while choosing H over a Darrow if you want biglaw. In other words, there are certainly people who get biglaw from Chicago who would have gotten nothing during OCI the same year if they were at Michigan. The stats obviously bear that out. But going the other way on a $200k+ decision just to guard against the chance that you're one of those people seems insane. All the "I'd rather be median at Harvard than..." is irrelevant. Of course he'll be in a better position to get a job from Harvard. But the alternative isn't Georgetown with $15k a year, it's graduating from Michigan with no debt.

Finally, and this isn't my justification by any means, but my (relatively unfounded) suspicion is that people with T14 named scholarships -- Levys, Darrows, Mordecais, Hamiltons -- hardly ever strike out. Certainly give me anecdotes of people who do and I'll happily eat crow on that, no problem. But if true, then regardless why that is -- people with those scholarships are smarter than the average student and do better, the resume line is powerful enough, or schools put more weight behind named full scholly students because it looks bad if they're unemployed -- it is pretty important. It means that OP isn't just another Michigan student for the purposes of this decision.

This is the correct analysis. The question isn't Michigan v. HLS, it's Darrow recipient v. HLS median. I would be very surprised if HLS median wins that matchup for somebody whose goal is Minnesota big law -- and that's without even taking into account that picking HLS means spending an extra $200K for the privilege of doing so.

This. Also, while good admissions numbers (LSAT & GPA) won't guarantee you success in law school, the kids who get offered Darrows are pretty much the elite candidates at Mich. They probably don't all wind up at the top of the class, but I'd be very surprised if most of the Darrows' GPAs aren't distributed in the upper half of the bell curve.

OP, your best source of advice would be talking to practicing attorneys in MN. See whether their firms really look at HLS students that much differently from UMich students in their hiring. I suspect they don't. Take with a (big) grain of salt the advice of anyone who hasn't yet gone through OCI.