EDIT: Even more info;;;EDIT: New Info;;;Just got off Stanford Waitlist, is it crazy to consider it? Forum

[sparty99]

Who gives a shit about clerking. They all end up going into litigation after 1 or 2 years. Clerks also make less money than "straight" to Big law people since they are working as clerks and not associates. The clerkship bonus does not make up for this difference.

You would be a fool to forgoe University of Chicago for $100,000. Not to mention Palo Alto is more expensive than Chicago.

[Bildungsroman]

The idea of having $100,000 less debt to pay off should make an applicant literally wet.

[love4life29]

.

[jbagelboy]

Not crazy to consider! I'm a 2L at Stanford, I love it. But I'd totally go to Chicago. After just having finished OCI, I can tell you coming out of SLS and Chicago, its likely we'll end up at the same firm. You may have to do well at Chicago to get a clerkship, but you're going to work your ass off either way, so you might as well save $100k! I'd also note that getting a clerkship at Stanford is no where near a sure thing, I've applied to district court clerkships all over with pretty good grades, and I haven't even gotten any interviews. Also, I'm pretty sure Scalia's 2017 clerk went to Chicago. Take the money -- good luck!

Unrelatedly, most district court judges are really looking for 3 or 4 semesters of grades, so reapply or keep your apps on file and update in february/march and you'll get a lot of bites. The only hiring that really happens over the summer before 2L are for 9/2/DC & feeders (and a handful of sdny and ddc judges). Don't get discouraged!

[Akroman]

Not crazy to consider! I'm a 2L at Stanford, I love it. But I'd totally go to Chicago. After just having finished OCI, I can tell you coming out of SLS and Chicago, its likely we'll end up at the same firm. You may have to do well at Chicago to get a clerkship, but you're going to work your ass off either way, so you might as well save $100k! I'd also note that getting a clerkship at Stanford is no where near a sure thing, I've applied to district court clerkships all over with pretty good grades, and I haven't even gotten any interviews. Also, I'm pretty sure Scalia's 2017 clerk went to Chicago. Take the money -- good luck!

I disagree- especially if you're interested in clerkships. SLS placed a larger % of its class in clerkships than Yale last year. I have no idea how Chicago has been doing, but so far this year, SLS has been killing it with the early movers. I honestly think that if clerkships are your thing, you're much better off going to SLS than any other school.

[terrier27]

.

[bearsfan23]

Not crazy to consider! I'm a 2L at Stanford, I love it. But I'd totally go to Chicago. After just having finished OCI, I can tell you coming out of SLS and Chicago, its likely we'll end up at the same firm. You may have to do well at Chicago to get a clerkship, but you're going to work your ass off either way, so you might as well save $100k! I'd also note that getting a clerkship at Stanford is no where near a sure thing, I've applied to district court clerkships all over with pretty good grades, and I haven't even gotten any interviews. Also, I'm pretty sure Scalia's 2017 clerk went to Chicago. Take the money -- good luck!

I disagree- especially if you're interested in clerkships. SLS placed a larger % of its class in clerkships than Yale last year. I have no idea how Chicago has been doing, but so far this year, SLS has been killing it with the early movers. I honestly think that if clerkships are your thing, you're much better off going to SLS than any other school.

1. Chicago was 3rd in clerkships last year (yes even ahead of Harvard).

2. Clerkships have to be the most overrated thing on TLS. Clerking is not a career, and even at Yale and Stanford a majority of students will not end up clerking.

If everything was equal or the money was even reasonably close, SLS would be the obvious choice. Since it looks like it's not, I'm not sure it makes much objective sense to choose SLS, but it's your decision

[Notareallawyer123]

Hey everyone,

So the situation has changed slightly.

Stanford has offered 30k in scholarship the first year.

If that holds, then the attendance at Stanford wouldn't be as expensive as I thought (Chicago was 105k total)

Only worry is if it doesn't hold. Seems a little scary.

[jbagelboy]

Hey everyone,

So the situation has changed slightly.

Stanford has offered 30k in scholarship the first year.

If that holds, then the attendance at Stanford wouldn't be as expensive as I thought (Chicago was 105k total)

Only worry is if it doesn't hold. Seems a little scary.

Stanford all the way. Congrats.

You'll probably lose a chunk of it for 3L if you summer at a large firm, but this is more than even money to make it worthwhile even with that cut.

[Instinctive]

It will not hold if you get a biglaw summer. If you do a public interest summer and your situation doesn't change materially in other ways, it should hold.

They count something like 50% of all earnings above $6,000 as money against any fellowship(s) you would otherwise receive.


That said, I'd come to SLS. It's pretty awesome. At $100k difference, there's a tough decision to be made. At a likely $35k or so difference, SLS seems like a simple call to me.

EDIT: with regard to that clerkship comment above...a large number of people also aren't trying for clerkships. I wish (and maybe there are) there were stats on how many people tried for clerkships and didn't get them. For instance, I'm going to hurt our "x% of students get clerkships," but I also have no desire whatsoever to clerk and am not trying to. I bet it's closer to 75% or more of people who want a clerkship get one, if not even higher.

[abl]

First, I think it's likely that most 0Ls giving this advice will still agree with their initial advice in 2-3 years. Why? Because much of folks' relevant advice on these threads is based on the personal value that they assign to things like career risk, career reward, debt, prestige, etc -- and those things tend to change fairly slowly for most people. Sure, some folks will do a 180 (and will undoubtedly be the most vocal about airing their changed views) but most folks will feel roughly similarly about these factors after graduating from Chicago or Stanford as they did entering.

And those valuations are dumb and often irrational. 0L's, in general, assign far too much value to certain factors (e.g., prestige) and far too little value to other (e.g., debt). I treat them as people that buy expensive wine, but couldn't tell the difference between a $50 and $100 bottle, with one caveat: most don't have the $100 to buy the fucking bottle in the first place.

The analogous example to your wine example is someone choosing Stanford over Chicago because of weather, having lived their entire life inside. The fact that some people value prestige more than you do, or debt less than you do, doesn't make them dumb or wrong or irrational. I agree with you that 0Ls probably overvalue prestige. But I also very strongly believe that 2Ls, 3Ls--and most young folks in debt--overvalue the cost of debt. Ten years feels incredibly long when you're 27, and $1,000/m in payments seems huge when you've never made more than $35,000 in a given year. Both of those feelings will change with age and with increases in salary.

People will feel the same when they graduate due to confirmation bias. That doesn't mean the original decision wasn't objectively bad. Like, there are a lot of threads where people turn down the Ruby or Hamilton for truly no other reason than prestige. Unfortunately, they (and 99% of 0L's) don't have any conception of debt or big law. Graduating from Liberal Arts school X with 50K in debt is a lot different than 250K.

I don't disagree with this. But your point was that 0L opinions don't count for much because they will "undoubtedly change." My point was that that's not true. I agree that confirmation bias is part of the reason why so few folks actually change their opinions. There are also other factors in play (see my earlier post). Whether or not a 0L's opinion was based on good or bad assumptions to begin with is a different question.

And once again, turning down the Ruby or Hamilton for truly no other reason than prestige can be a fully rational decision for someone who places a shit-ton of value on prestige (or relatively little value on debt). For a certain type of person, this can be not only the correct result, but a rational basis for that result. The fact that you (and I) personally value prestige relatively less and debt relatively more than these folks doesn't make their decisions objectively bad. An objectively bad decision would be for someone who values the COA difference between Chicago vs. Stanford at $100k and the prestige difference between these schools at $50k still choosing Stanford. And no, you or I don't get to decide how much someone values debt or prestige--that's an inherently subjective valuation.

Like, christ - "there are valid reasons to pick S over C and pay $200K more." Are you serious? I can think of a few, and they won't apply to 99% of law students. edit: trying to be nicer.

Well, there are two easy ones to begin with (that together probably comprise a quarter or more of the class at schools like Chicago or Stanford:
1. Any student who anticipates using an LRAP; and
2. any student with significant wealth.

Then, there are the harder ones to figure out -- folks whose little valuations add up to a lot overall.

I'll use myself as an example. I don't come from family money, did not amass significant personal savings prior to law school, have probably more than average "support" obligations (relatively to TLS), have a job paying < market in a lower COL city that pays < market, and do have real amounts of debt. I've lived in both Chicago and Palo Alto (although neither necessarily to attend school). The amount that I value the weather differences between these two places is pretty substantial (although I don't think I hated Chicago's weather substantially more than is typical for Chicago, or liked Palo Alto's substantially more than is typical for Palo Alto). I think a good way to think about debt is: what will you give up? In other words, what are the first luxuries that you will ditch if you have [x] amount less in marginal income? And do you value these luxuries more or less than you value the [y] net cumulative advantages of Stanford as compared with Chicago?

For me, I'd rather live some place with Palo Alto's weather than Chicago's weather for three years more than live in an apartment with hardwood floor throughout instead of just in the common spaces (and I'm using this as an example because it's probably the first major QOL concession I'd make in my current lifestyle if I had less money to play with). Where I currently live, that equates to about $200/m less in rent. Moreover, I value the weather so much more in Palo Alto that I'd trade Palo Alto weather not just for carpeted bedrooms, but for ten year's worth of apartments with ~1,400 vs. ~1,100 square feet and apartments that were remodeled within the past five years as opposed to the past 15 years. That equates to about another $300/m in rent where I live (and these are probably the next major lifestyle concessions I'd make if I had to cut back). So, personally, I'd trade three years of Palo Alto sunshine (instead of Chicago wind and cold) for ten years' worth of a less nice apartment valued at approximately $600/m less. $600/m is the ten-year loan repayment obligation for $60,000 in debt (at 4.5% fixed rate interest, which is about what I qualify for). So, for me, it's worth taking on an additional $60,000 to go to Stanford rather than Chicago for no other reason than the weather.*

Now everyone's calculus is going to be different. And I don't think weather is the #1 reason to choose Stanford over Chicago; I just wanted to illustrate how easy it is to rationally value seemingly large blocks of debt relatively little.

*Another easy illustration: I greatly prefer the general surroundings of Stanford (the accessible world-class coast, wineries, and skiing) to those of Chicago. I'd gladly trade ten year's worth of packed work lunches instead of lunches out, my own brewed hot drinks instead of those at Starbucks, and eight dinners out a month instead of ten, for three years of Napa, Half Moon Bay, and Tahoe (instead of suburbs, more suburbs, and corn fields). If I spend $10 for a lunch out but $4 for a nice packed lunch, $6/day for Starbucks but $2/day for homemade hot drinks, and $30/dinner out on average, that's $260/m of QOL value over ten years I'd gladly trade for three year's worth of Bay Area surroundings -- or $25,000 in debt. Put in other words, based on two pretty straight-forward differences between Stanford and Chicago, I'd be justified to go $85,000 more in debt to attend Stanford than Chicago (given my current financial circumstances) -- and I haven't even gotten to any of the substantive differences between the schools.

[Traynor Brah]

This is obviously a very personal decision but I turned down a Ruby to go to Stanford and will be a 1L this fall. I don't regret it at all and could not be more excited to get started.

Since it is relevant to your goals, I'll share with you the fact that I talked to a former COA clerk who went to H undergrad and Y for law school and told me to not consider scholarships to Chicago and Columbia if I'm interested in clerk ships and instead go to Stanford. He told me if he could go back in time he would go to S over Y. He also was active in hiring the clerks that replaced him and at his firm.

I talked to other lawyers (partners, clerks, public interest) and Stanford was the most recommended by far.

Lololol

[cotiger]

(instead of suburbs, more suburbs, and corn fields).

You know where Stanford is located, right?

And what that thing called Chicago is?

[cotiger]

Also, lol at the implication that essentially every decision is a rational decision bc of bullshit rationalization.

People delude themselves. Frequently. Especially on this website.

[terrier27]

.

[Mack.Hambleton]

(instead of suburbs, more suburbs, and corn fields)

R u dense what schools are you even talking about.

Enjoy Stanford OP

[abl]

(instead of suburbs, more suburbs, and corn fields).

You know where Stanford is located, right?

And what that thing called Chicago is?

Yea. To clarify, I was talking about what was nearby each school, as opposed to where I'd live if I attended either tomorrow. In any event, I prefer the city of SF to the city of Chicago, although not by much. I'd probably live in SF if I went to Stanford. The commute's a bummer, and I think that this would probably be a wash for me in the end (SF with ~1 hour commute = Hyde Park with 0.25 hour commute IMO (and both are > Palo Alto with no commute (which is >>>>>> any of Chicago's suburbs))). Maybe I should have factored in living on campus for 1L, and, sure, maybe that adds $10,000 to $15,000 on Chicago's side of the ledger. But there's 1,000 other factors at play here and I just wanted to highlight a couple easy ones. There will obviously be some +s and -s for everyone for every decision.

Edit: my point isn't that this isn't going to be the right decision for everyone, or an easy decision for anyone. I'm just trying to illustrate how much--or little--seemingly large amounts of debt can be worth to someone who (I hope) comes across as being pretty typical.

[El Pollito]

(instead of suburbs, more suburbs, and corn fields).

You know where Stanford is located, right?

And what that thing called Chicago is?

Yea. To clarify, I was talking about what was nearby each school, as opposed to where I'd live if I attended either tomorrow. In any event, I prefer the city of SF to the city of Chicago, although not by much. I'd probably live in SF if I went to Stanford. The commute's a bummer, and I think that this would probably be a wash for me in the end (SF with ~1 hour commute = Hyde Park with 0.25 hour commute (and both are > Palo Alto with no commute)). Maybe I should factor in living on campus for 1L, and, sure, maybe that adds $10,000 to $15,000 on Chicago's side of the ledger. There will obviously be some +s and -s for everyone for every decision.

getting to campus from SF 5 days a week would be a joy

[abl]

(instead of suburbs, more suburbs, and corn fields).

You know where Stanford is located, right?

And what that thing called Chicago is?

Yea. To clarify, I was talking about what was nearby each school, as opposed to where I'd live if I attended either tomorrow. In any event, I prefer the city of SF to the city of Chicago, although not by much. I'd probably live in SF if I went to Stanford. The commute's a bummer, and I think that this would probably be a wash for me in the end (SF with ~1 hour commute = Hyde Park with 0.25 hour commute (and both are > Palo Alto with no commute)). Maybe I should factor in living on campus for 1L, and, sure, maybe that adds $10,000 to $15,000 on Chicago's side of the ledger. There will obviously be some +s and -s for everyone for every decision.

getting to campus from SF 5 days a week would be a joy

First of all, I'm not sure any law schools require on-campus attendance 5-days a week, at least past first semester/quarter of 1L. Secondly, yea, depending on where you live in SF, it could be a bummer. It's about as much of a bummer as living in Hyde Park instead of SF IMO. Maybe you disagree, but that's my point: folks are going to value these subjective factors differently. I'm pushing back on the bald "you're wrong" posts that so frequently pop up on these sorts of threads.

[bearsfan23]

(instead of suburbs, more suburbs, and corn fields).

You know where Stanford is located, right?

And what that thing called Chicago is?

Yea. To clarify, I was talking about what was nearby each school, as opposed to where I'd live if I attended either tomorrow. In any event, I prefer the city of SF to the city of Chicago, although not by much. I'd probably live in SF if I went to Stanford. The commute's a bummer, and I think that this would probably be a wash for me in the end (SF with ~1 hour commute = Hyde Park with 0.25 hour commute (and both are > Palo Alto with no commute)). Maybe I should factor in living on campus for 1L, and, sure, maybe that adds $10,000 to $15,000 on Chicago's side of the ledger. There will obviously be some +s and -s for everyone for every decision.

getting to campus from SF 5 days a week would be a joy

First of all, I'm not sure any law schools require on-campus attendance 5-days a week, at least past first semester/quarter of 1L. Secondly, yea, depending on where you live in SF, it could be a bummer. It's about as much of a bummer as living in Hyde Park instead of SF IMO.

Wut? You zero idea what you are talking about I can't speak for Stanford but all 1L's at Chicago have class 5 days a week all 3 Quarters.

2nd, you don't have to live in Hyde Park at all if you don't want to at Chicago. Even without a car you can get downtown or back in less than 30 minutes. With a car its around 15-20

[cotiger]

First of all, I'm not sure any law schools require on-campus attendance 5-days a week, at least past first semester/quarter of 1L. Secondly, yea, depending on where you live in SF, it could be a bummer. It's about as much of a bummer as living in Hyde Park instead of SF IMO.

Why are you comparing HP to SF. You can get a lux 1BR in the Loop for like $1600. In SF that'll get you a room in a shared house in the Mission. AKA an hour and half commute each way.

[cotiger]

I can totally understand someone preferring the Bay Area to Chicago. Just be aware that while at Stanford you'll be living a suburban life instead of an urban one at Chicago, and paying out the ass for the privilege.

[abl]

(instead of suburbs, more suburbs, and corn fields).

You know where Stanford is located, right?

And what that thing called Chicago is?

Yea. To clarify, I was talking about what was nearby each school, as opposed to where I'd live if I attended either tomorrow. In any event, I prefer the city of SF to the city of Chicago, although not by much. I'd probably live in SF if I went to Stanford. The commute's a bummer, and I think that this would probably be a wash for me in the end (SF with ~1 hour commute = Hyde Park with 0.25 hour commute (and both are > Palo Alto with no commute)). Maybe I should factor in living on campus for 1L, and, sure, maybe that adds $10,000 to $15,000 on Chicago's side of the ledger. There will obviously be some +s and -s for everyone for every decision.

getting to campus from SF 5 days a week would be a joy

First of all, I'm not sure any law schools require on-campus attendance 5-days a week, at least past first semester/quarter of 1L. Secondly, yea, depending on where you live in SF, it could be a bummer. It's about as much of a bummer as living in Hyde Park instead of SF IMO.

Wut? You zero idea what you are talking about I can't speak for Stanford but all 1L's at Chicago have class 5 days a week all 3 Quarters.

2nd, you don't have to live in Hyde Park at all if you don't want to at Chicago. Even without a car you can get downtown or back in less than 30 minutes. With a car its around 15-20

I don't think that's true at Stanford, but in any event, I acknowledged that Stanford 1Ls might want to live on campus. In any event, it's definitely not true after 1L at Stanford, which would then be the relevant period.

Also, I obviously know you don't have to live in Hyde Park, but my second choice neighborhood for attending U of C would probably be something like Lincoln Park or Lakeview--I hate the loop, and I'm not going to live in Back of the Yards. And I wouldn't prefer Lakeview with a 35-45 minute car commute over SF with a 1-1.25 hour commute, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

But none of this is relevant. If you don't believe that I've lived in Chicago and instead think I'm pulling this all out of my ass, fine. I'm not getting into a "I know Chicago" pissing contest with you, and there's nothing to be gained from you trying to convince others that my personal preferences re Chicago neighborhoods and commute times are different from theirs. My point is that one could rationally value even relatively small and inconsequential differences between two schools--like weather and the surroundings--enough to justify tens of thousands of dollars of additional debt. And, that debt, which might seem deathly terrifying to a 2L, 3L, or young attorney, need not necessarily be all that bad (at least in the right circumstances).

[cotiger]

You keep saying 1 hr SF-SLS commute like it's a thing. Where do you think you'll be living?

(hint: unless it's the Caltrain station bathroom, that's not gunna happen. it's an hour and a half commute from almost anywhere in the city.)

[Tiago Splitter]

You keep saying 1 hr SF-SLS commute like it's a thing. Where do you think you'll be living?

(hint: unless it's the Caltrain station bathroom, that's not gunna happen. it's an hour and a half commute from almost anywhere in the city.)

Is a car not an option?