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

[fliptrip]

Eh. I don't think that's something you can rely on when you're at really selective schools.

I agree very much with this. You can be Rhodes and Fulbright'ed to the max, but I'd still have a very humble attitude when going to compete with kids at NYU or Columbia. Not too many dummies there.

[kloseframe]

Thanks for this discussion. I was using the forums to prepare for a meeting with an admit. I am, thankfully, out of touch with the conventional wisdom.

I am a practicing PI lawyer. I chose SLS over a free ride at Columbia and NYU (and slightly better fin aid at Harvard, for that matter) and, for what its worth, I never regret it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have loved my time at NYU or CLS. I can't speak to the counterfactual, but I know that I loved SLS. I also know a few people who did the Woodrow Wilson/SLS thing (and lots who did Harvard or SIPA or some other distant grad school). It's not a huge deal (from the SLS side at least) and not uncommon. Plenty of those people clerk too.

LRAP is a great, if flawed program. I am on it and live pretty comfortably and get to do the kind of work I want to do.

For what its worth, it sounds like you would like to go to SLS and Princeton. If you are fine living with the debt and can manage that for 5-10 years after graduation, I don't see why you shouldn't do that.

[abl]

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.

See, I think you're wrong about that. Just about everyone at HYSCCN has a strong track record of "consistently performing above your typical bright, hardworking, lower-ivy kind of kid."

[fliptrip]

^^^but isn't the issue that law school aggregates the over-performers? Sure, I was magna at my Ivy, but there's plenty of other folks at any T-6 who did the exact same thing or were summa, even.

e: I think that's exactly what you're saying abl. Sorry.

[Elbble]

See, I think you're wrong about that. Just about everyone at HYSCCN has a strong track record of "consistently performing above your typical bright, hardworking, lower-ivy kind of kid."

Oof, I guess we're coming at this from very different perspectives, so let's agree to disagree. (And by the way, not suggesting anyone at cls or nyu is a dummy - not by a long shot).
OP, feel free to pm me if you'd like to hear what some faculty at cls have told me about this question.

[Alive97]

Don't Ivies aggregate the over performers as well? Maybe to a lesser extent, due to the legacies and whatnot?

[abl]

See, I think you're wrong about that. Just about everyone at HYSCCN has a strong track record of "consistently performing above your typical bright, hardworking, lower-ivy kind of kid."

Oof, I guess we're coming at this from very different perspectives, so let's agree to disagree. (And by the way, not suggesting anyone at cls or nyu is a dummy - not by a long shot).
OP, feel free to pm me if you'd like to hear what some faculty at cls have told me about this question.

Wait, I'm curious: what's your perspective? Do you disagree that most people at HYSCCN have track records at least that strong (and I'll note that at my school, "consistently performing above your typical bright, hardworking, lower-ivy kind of kid" was probably a below-average descriptor)? Or do you think that most of these students are justified in thinking that they're going to continue to outperform their well-qualified peers? Or is there something else that you disagree with?

[Dishydiana]

Thanks for this discussion. I was using the forums to prepare for a meeting with an admit. I am, thankfully, out of touch with the conventional wisdom.

I am a practicing PI lawyer. I chose SLS over a free ride at Columbia and NYU (and slightly better fin aid at Harvard, for that matter) and, for what its worth, I never regret it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have loved my time at NYU or CLS. I can't speak to the counterfactual, but I know that I loved SLS. I also know a few people who did the Woodrow Wilson/SLS thing (and lots who did Harvard or SIPA or some other distant grad school). It's not a huge deal (from the SLS side at least) and not uncommon. Plenty of those people clerk too.

LRAP is a great, if flawed program. I am on it and live pretty comfortably and get to do the kind of work I want to do.

For what its worth, it sounds like you would like to go to SLS and Princeton. If you are fine living with the debt and can manage that for 5-10 years after graduation, I don't see why you shouldn't do that.

Just curious, what kind of PI do you practice?

[Tiago Splitter]

See, I think you're wrong about that. Just about everyone at HYSCCN has a strong track record of "consistently performing above your typical bright, hardworking, lower-ivy kind of kid."

Oof, I guess we're coming at this from very different perspectives, so let's agree to disagree. (And by the way, not suggesting anyone at cls or nyu is a dummy - not by a long shot).
OP, feel free to pm me if you'd like to hear what some faculty at cls have told me about this question.

Even if what you're saying is true, you only have seven grades to show your stuff during 1L at Columbia. One day where you get sick, one day where the prof grading your test is in a bad mood, etc. will single-handedly send you into the giant swath of the "middle of the pack" along with about 70% of the class. Profs also aren't required to give higher than an A or lower than a B, so one's ability to stand out is pretty limited even if you go on a hot run. I would be shocked if OP ended up near the bottom, but wouldn't be at all shocked if OP ended up in that big mushy middle.

[unc0mm0n1]

See, I think you're wrong about that. Just about everyone at HYSCCN has a strong track record of "consistently performing above your typical bright, hardworking, lower-ivy kind of kid."

Oof, I guess we're coming at this from very different perspectives, so let's agree to disagree. (And by the way, not suggesting anyone at cls or nyu is a dummy - not by a long shot).
OP, feel free to pm me if you'd like to hear what some faculty at cls have told me about this question.

Even if what you're saying is true, you only have seven grades to show your stuff during 1L at Columbia. One day where you get sick, one day where the prof grading your test is in a bad mood, etc. will single-handedly send you into the giant swath of the "middle of the pack" along with about 70% of the class. Profs also aren't required to give higher than an A or lower than a B, so one's ability to stand out is pretty limited even if you go on a hot run. I would be shocked if OP ended up near the bottom, but wouldn't be at all shocked if OP ended up in that big mushy middle.

I just don't think Elbble's right. If it was, it would show up in the Honors numbers. My graduating class at HYS Honors list had many K-TFA-JD, state school kids etc. You don't know how you're going to do in law school until you get there, esp. at that level. A close friend of mine had an amazing resume, best schools, advanced degree, great work experience, won a pretty unique award and he struggled a bit in law school. You just don't know.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

MPA is a professional degree

MPP is more of an academic/research degree

Haven't heard of either - doesn't seem like employable degrees

LOL. They are very employable, particularly from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. So much so that I wonder why OP wants to go to law school at all.

Well then, sign me up for one!

[willtraven]

OP here. Thanks for all your insight on this. Lemme know if there's anything I'm overlooking/not considering on this... seems like I've got a ton of great thoughts.

[jbagelboy]

a few points

1) this "h y s" and "c c n" garbage is such an outmoded joke. these are six different schools and while each provide some unique opportunities, they all provide very similar ones to their students. this concept of a tier between them is largely a product of this website in my experience. I have never heard a legal employer--including the several judges I've worked for and will work for and the several firms I've worked for--use this terminology or consider the firms within these made up 'tiers' equal. Yale is as different from Harvard as Harvard is from Chicago or Chicago is from NYU.

2) when abl refers to my preaching on debt, he's right, I'm probably super annoying, but it's important to note that I'm talking about its structural limitations. Obviously these don't apply to you if you come from money. I'm the first person to tell the rich kid to take every edge he can in this profession (including the UMC kid whose parents don't want to shell out for grad school but would if push came to shove). I'm the only one in my family full of degrees from selective colleges who's had to bear witness to the grim spectre of long term debt (due to my problematic family relationships and the unbelievably exaggerated costs of university tuition). There's a slim majority of people who will actually find relief in loan repayment programs, but pay close attention and you'll see that even the very best of them fail to account for a multitude of circumstances that can't otherwise repay massive debt.

What happens when you take on loans to attend law school is difficult to describe. You have to really feel it once you realize what "repayment" means to understand. It infects your core. You may not have a family now, but you will someday; it drives a wedge between you and their happiness. It corrupts your every decision and forces you to make compromises that make you question whether you wanted to join the profession in the first place. It's what I hate most about myself and my life, far above anything else, and thus far I've had an objectively successful career in law.

3) With regard to where you will place: it's extremely difficult to tell, unless you are truly one of the most brilliant students in your class. If you are one of these people, you know it without reinforcement from an internet board. It doesn't mean you scored one or two points higher on the LSAT and got an A instead of a C in one class in college (the distinction between the average graduate of school X on the US News survey and school X+2). At a school like CLS, over two-thirds of the students in one class year will come form Ivy or Ivy-caliber undergraduate colleges and will have been significantly above the median GPA at those schools.

That being said, Elbble has a point that a lot of personal factors not related to the name on your law school diploma go into what type of job you will get coming out, including how well you interview, how well you write and research, how well you perform on law school exams (which is incredibly difficult predict), how strong your pre-law WE is, and others; the critique of the "doors" metaphor is spot on. I've found that people with full tuition or near full tuition named scholarships 'perform' very well in school, not just on the basis of their test scores but their overall participation in academic life at the law school and success in the field.

4) As for your mental health, OP. I'm really curious about this because if you feel like the west coast is better for your "mental health," why an east coast masters degree? Stanford law is an incredible school and opportunity, and no one is going to deny that. So are Columbia and NYU. But the draw towards one school or another based on these remote emotional factors better be pretty damn convincing for you to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars. Again, you have no idea right now how much that will mean to you in a few years (since you won't really feel the effects until then, and it's all just paper flying in the air until it punches you in the gut.) As someone who has struggled a lot with mental health issues in college, I'm available to talk about it in the law school and masters context if you're ever interested.

Good luck

[wons]

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).

This is an excellent point that I cannot emphasize enough. It's not that your past academic work isn't predictive of law school aptitude - of course, it is. It's that the schools are already selective and sorted, so you're in a pool with 200 people that are roughly at your level in terms of aptitude - even at a place that gives out full-ride schollies, the difference in general aptitude between your typical Hamilton/RTK/Ruby recipient and the median of the class is smaller than you think.

The consequence of this is that aptitude in the very limited area of law intelligence - which is a specific kind of writing, a specific kind of thinking, and most importantly (unfortunately) a specific kind of test-taking - is vastly more important than general aptitude. And one thing that is categorically certain is that until you set foot into law school - hell, until you set foot into your first law school EXAM - you have NO idea what your aptitude is in that very specific sort of intelligence. When you go to law school, you are effectively gambling on your law school aptitude.

People who say that law school grades are random are bullshitting you (and themselves). Honestly, if you have the 'knack', your bad days are A-s and most of your grades are As and professors love working with you and recommend you and law school is a piece of fucking cake, especially compared to the grind of being a practicing lawyer (where I sit now). But I had NO idea I had the knack until I started getting grades back (and in my case, not till second semester - my 1L Fall grades were meh b/c I was a former STEM student who didn't know how to write yet). You wont know either.

At where I went to school, I think the named scholly kids did better than average but not dramatically so - I think the average was probably in the top third or quarter but they didn't dominate law review or the good clerkships. The collection of people with spectacular grades was a hodgepodge of different backgrounds and credentials. No one should ever assume they will be a star in their class until they have the As in hand.

[RZ5646]

Thanks for this discussion. I was using the forums to prepare for a meeting with an admit. I am, thankfully, out of touch with the conventional wisdom.

I am a practicing PI lawyer. I chose SLS over a free ride at Columbia and NYU (and slightly better fin aid at Harvard, for that matter) and, for what its worth, I never regret it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have loved my time at NYU or CLS. I can't speak to the counterfactual, but I know that I loved SLS. I also know a few people who did the Woodrow Wilson/SLS thing (and lots who did Harvard or SIPA or some other distant grad school). It's not a huge deal (from the SLS side at least) and not uncommon. Plenty of those people clerk too.

LRAP is a great, if flawed program. I am on it and live pretty comfortably and get to do the kind of work I want to do.

For what its worth, it sounds like you would like to go to SLS and Princeton. If you are fine living with the debt and can manage that for 5-10 years after graduation, I don't see why you shouldn't do that.

Thanks for this perspective. (I'm also trying to choose between one of HYS and a T14 with $$$$ for PI.) In these situations, TLS always tells the prospective student to take the money and run because LIPP/LRAP isn't as great as you might think, but at the same time, you never hear anyone say, "I hate myself for going to HYS and should have taken that scholarship instead."

The people who argue against taking out loans make good points, but I wonder if "scholarship > HYS" has become the conventional wisdom mostly because there are so few HYS PI grads here and so many other T14 biglawyers.

[Ohiobumpkin]

\

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).

Stanford. No question in my mind. Law school will take a big toll on most peoples' mental/emotional health at some point during law school (including garden variety anxiety). If you feel that West Coast/ Bay Area is going to make it easier on your mental health situation while you are dealing with the stresses of law school, then go to Stanford and enjoy three-four years in paradise. If you do IP, Sanford probably has some sort of LRAP type program, but I must admit I don't know much about how Stanford does its financial aid.

[Tiago Splitter]

The people who argue against taking out loans make good points, but I wonder if "scholarship > HYS" has become the conventional wisdom mostly because there are so few HYS PI grads here and so many other T14 biglawyers.

Or maybe it's because while 95% of HYS students go in dreaming of PI we all work with the large portion of HYS grads who end up not going that route. If you end up working 10 years in low paying PI (and, depending on the LRAP, not getting married during that time) then you're right and it's all funny money. Just be careful if you might deviate from that path even a little.

[jbagelboy]

The people who argue against taking out loans make good points, but I wonder if "scholarship > HYS" has become the conventional wisdom mostly because there are so few HYS PI grads here and so many other T14 biglawyers.

Or maybe it's because while 95% of HYS students go in dreaming of PI we all work with the large portion of HYS grads who end up not going that route. If you end up working 10 years in low paying PI (and, depending on the LRAP, not getting married during that time) then you're right and it's all funny money. Just be careful if you might deviate from that path even a little.

This, except its not that you "might" deviate--you almost certainly will. Also remember that if you want to go the LRAP route, in some cases you're essentially ruling out having a high earning spouse. Practically speaking this means if you fall in love with one of your classmates (who in almost all cases will be making a firm salary), your finances have a direct conflict with your personal life.

[kloseframe]

Thanks for this discussion. I was using the forums to prepare for a meeting with an admit. I am, thankfully, out of touch with the conventional wisdom.

I am a practicing PI lawyer. I chose SLS over a free ride at Columbia and NYU (and slightly better fin aid at Harvard, for that matter) and, for what its worth, I never regret it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have loved my time at NYU or CLS. I can't speak to the counterfactual, but I know that I loved SLS. I also know a few people who did the Woodrow Wilson/SLS thing (and lots who did Harvard or SIPA or some other distant grad school). It's not a huge deal (from the SLS side at least) and not uncommon. Plenty of those people clerk too.

LRAP is a great, if flawed program. I am on it and live pretty comfortably and get to do the kind of work I want to do.

For what its worth, it sounds like you would like to go to SLS and Princeton. If you are fine living with the debt and can manage that for 5-10 years after graduation, I don't see why you shouldn't do that.

Just curious, what kind of PI do you practice?

I do criminal justice policy and litigation in New York City.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The people who argue against taking out loans make good points, but I wonder if "scholarship > HYS" has become the conventional wisdom mostly because there are so few HYS PI grads here and so many other T14 biglawyers.

Or maybe it's because while 95% of HYS students go in dreaming of PI we all work with the large portion of HYS grads who end up not going that route. If you end up working 10 years in low paying PI (and, depending on the LRAP, not getting married during that time) then you're right and it's all funny money. Just be careful if you might deviate from that path even a little.

This, except its not that you "might" deviate--you almost certainly will. Also remember that if you want to go the LRAP route, in some cases you're essentially ruling out having a high earning spouse. Practically speaking this means if you fall in love with one of your classmates (who in almost all cases will be making a firm salary), your finances have a direct conflict with your personal life.

I guess I don't understand why people are so convinced someone who does PI can't possibly stay in it for 10 years.

[RZ5646]

The people who argue against taking out loans make good points, but I wonder if "scholarship > HYS" has become the conventional wisdom mostly because there are so few HYS PI grads here and so many other T14 biglawyers.

Or maybe it's because while 95% of HYS students go in dreaming of PI we all work with the large portion of HYS grads who end up not going that route. If you end up working 10 years in low paying PI (and, depending on the LRAP, not getting married during that time) then you're right and it's all funny money. Just be careful if you might deviate from that path even a little.

This, except its not that you "might" deviate--you almost certainly will. Also remember that if you want to go the LRAP route, in some cases you're essentially ruling out having a high earning spouse. Practically speaking this means if you fall in love with one of your classmates (who in almost all cases will be making a firm salary), your finances have a direct conflict with your personal life.

I guess I don't understand why people are so convinced someone who does PI can't possibly stay in it for 10 years.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but staying in for the full 10 years isn't as important from HYS because their LRAPs aren't all or nothing. If you do Harvard's LIPP for 6 years and then move to a firm, 60% of your debt is gone, and you can pay the remaining 40% with your biglaw salary.

That might not be the optimal path from a financial perspective, but if there's anything I've learned from TLS (besides "retake"), it's that there's more to life than money. A lot of people are seeking not the best way to grow their bank accounts, but the assurance that they'll be able to keep their heads above water while pursuing a career they enjoy or think is meaningful. As far as I can tell, the HYS LRAPs do that.

(Again, clueless 0L, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Tiago Splitter]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but staying in for the full 10 years isn't as important from HYS because their LRAPs aren't all or nothing. If you do Harvard's LIPP for 6 years and then move to a firm, 60% of your debt is gone, and you can pay the remaining 40% with your biglaw salary.

You aren't just gonna switch from six years of PI to biglaw. It's great that they pay your loans but 4/10 of 300k is still a lot of money. Your ability to switch to something that isn't LRAP eligible is absolutely compromised by that debt.

[clovis]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but staying in for the full 10 years isn't as important from HYS because their LRAPs aren't all or nothing. If you do Harvard's LIPP for 6 years and then move to a firm, 60% of your debt is gone, and you can pay the remaining 40% with your biglaw salary.

You aren't just gonna switch from six years of PI to biglaw. It's great that they pay your loans but 4/10 of 300k is still a lot of money. Your ability to switch to something that isn't LRAP eligible is absolutely compromised by that debt.

What are you going to switch to? In house?

[fliptrip]

Well, when folks talk about what you can and can't do, again that's really more subjective. What's closer to objective is that if you borrow massive sums and think you'll LRAP it away, changing your mind could be very, very, very expensive and involve compromises you will not enjoy making.

You can certainly get six years in on LRAP at H and decide to go into some kind of non-LRAP job. But, you're going to pay dearly for the opportunity. Here's some implications:

1. The most basic one...you're going from paying nothing to paying something.
2. You could end up changing your amortization to lower your monthly, but you'll pay thousands of dollars in interest
3. Every dime you spend on student loans is a dime that doesn't go to savings, college funds, private school tuition, an engagement ring for your sweetheart who might decide to marry you even though she might be high-earning, mortgage payments, mortgage downpayments, vacations, coaches, piano lessons, care for your elderly parents, Ferragamo shoes, Hermes ties, Hublot Watches, dinner at Bobby Van's in New York, or any other good/activity that's high on Flip's list of living the high life.

[clovis]

0L, but what I get confused by is that some people say they are chained to BigLaw jobs by debt, and then other people say they are chained to certain PI jobs because they can't afford to lose LRAP coverage. In either case, they seem to acknowledge that both BigLaw salaries and LRAPs are sufficient to pay back debt. What I'm wondering is, what are these other jobs that people seem to be worried about that are neither LRAP-eligible nor high paying enough to manage debt?