Michigan (Darrow) vs. HLS Forum

[drylo]

On a resume:
HLS >>> Michigan, Darrow Scholar

With a full grant, it would be really tough to turn down HLS.

Why? Isn't it true that Darrow is much more selective than HLS? (Just challenging your 0L assumption...)

Well, youre right that ther are fewer Darrows than HLS students, but that doesn't tell anything close to the full picture. Almost anyone with HLS numbers could have gotten some sort of Darrow (correct me if I'm wrong, but not all Darrows are full rides, right?). and I don't think that's an assumption lost on employers.
There are probably fewer Darrows than yls students, but that doesn't mean it's more prestigious.

See, I think you are wrong that "almost anyone with HLS numbers could have gotten some sort of Darrow." (According to the school: "... Darrow Scholarships, which cover as much as full tuition plus a stipend, are awarded to approximately 14 members of each entering class ...")

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/firefox/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/jrap/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/swimbrad/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/dutchstriker/jd

Need I go on?

[bayvcroberts]

if this were columbia (hamilton) vs HLS, i would lean to the former but i'm surprised by the mich results. easily harvard on this one.

[LLB2JD]

if this were columbia (hamilton) vs HLS, i would lean to the former but i'm surprised by the mich results. easily harvard on this one.

Really?

[Fresh]

if this were columbia (hamilton) vs HLS, i would lean to the former but i'm surprised by the mich results. easily harvard on this one.

Really?

[The Real Jack McCoy]

They are equal enough offers that you should go where you feel most comfortable. The obvious point, which I think gets lost in a lot of these TLS discussions, is that you need to be happy and wanting to succeed wherever you end up.

So I voted Michigan because it seems like you'd be happier at Michigan, though I'm making the opposite choice in a similar situation (I'm choosing Harvard over the Hamilton rather than the Darrow). But it is certainly worth a visit and worth talking to current students at both schools to see where you'd fit better.

[CryingMonkey]

if this were columbia (hamilton) vs HLS, i would lean to the former but i'm surprised by the mich results. easily harvard on this one.

Really?

just throwing this out there - this isn't a "clearly x is the best choice" kind of scenario. for every person who says "harvard, no question" you can find someone who'll say "michigan, of course." there are risks and rewards to deciding either way, and at the end of the day it'll come down to how each individual weighs those risks and rewards. as an example, to someone extremely debt averse, or to someone whose only goal is to make money and knows they want biglaw, michigan is probably a better choice; i don't have statistics, but the difference between spending ten years paying down debt and ten years investing the money you would've used to pay down debt is going to be pretty huge by the time you're ready for retirement.

someone whose good at math stuff should probably check these numbers, but i think this is right - let's say if you go to harvard, at 35 you will have paid off all your debt, but if you went to Michigan, by 35 you could have put the $150,000 into a 401k with a 10% average return. by the time you're 70, that's an additional $4.8 million.

someone tell me if i'm ridiculously wrong, i haven't taken a math class in forever, but if that's right, then Harvard is only the clear choice (financially) if it's going to make you an extra 5 mil by the time you're 70, which, for most people, it probably won't.

now, if you want to go into politics, work for SCOTUS, work in academia (right out of school), be on the federal bench...that's a whole different issue. that stuff's almost impossible from anywhere that's not HYS, and in that case, Harvard is the clear answer.

[drylo]

if this were columbia (hamilton) vs HLS, i would lean to the former but i'm surprised by the mich results. easily harvard on this one.

Really?

now, if you want to go into politics, work for SCOTUS, work in academia (right out of school), be on the federal bench...that's a whole different issue. that stuff's almost impossible from anywhere that's not HYS, and in that case, Harvard a reality check is the clear answer.

[CryingMonkey]

now, if you want to go into politics, work for SCOTUS, work in academia (right out of school), be on the federal bench...that's a whole different issue. that stuff's almost impossible from anywhere that's not HYS, and in that case, Harvard a reality check is the clear answer.

yeah i realized i'd put politics on there after i posted and was too lazy to fix it, that's not harvard dependent. working in academia directly out of school is, from what i understand, nigh-impossible unless you went to hys. there are exceptions, but that seems to be the rule. as far as politics, working in DC or in a gov't job is going to be easier with harvard and the harvard network, but it's not a prerequisite.

[drylo]

now, if you want to go into politics, work for SCOTUS, work in academia (right out of school), be on the federal bench...that's a whole different issue. that stuff's almost impossible from anywhere that's not HYS, and in that case, Harvard a reality check is the clear answer.

yeah i realized i'd put politics on there after i posted and was too lazy to fix it, that's not harvard dependent. working in academia directly out of school is, from what i understand, nigh-impossible unless you went to hys. there are exceptions, but that seems to be the rule. as far as politics, working in DC or in a gov't job is going to be easier with harvard and the harvard network, but it's not a prerequisite.

Read the whole post.

[CryingMonkey]

now, if you want to go into politics, work for SCOTUS, work in academia (right out of school), be on the federal bench...that's a whole different issue. that stuff's almost impossible from anywhere that's not HYS, and in that case, Harvard a reality check is the clear answer.

yeah i realized i'd put politics on there after i posted and was too lazy to fix it, that's not harvard dependent. working in academia directly out of school is, from what i understand, nigh-impossible unless you went to hys. there are exceptions, but that seems to be the rule. as far as politics, working in DC or in a gov't job is going to be easier with harvard and the harvard network, but it's not a prerequisite.

Read the whole post.

gotcha, very valid point.

[sarahh]

someone whose good at math stuff should probably check these numbers, but i think this is right - let's say if you go to harvard, at 35 you will have paid off all your debt, but if you went to Michigan, by 35 you could have put the $150,000 into a 401k with a 10% average return. by the time you're 70, that's an additional $4.8 million.

someone tell me if i'm ridiculously wrong, i haven't taken a math class in forever, but if that's right, then Harvard is only the clear choice (financially) if it's going to make you an extra 5 mil by the time you're 70, which, for most people, it probably won't.

now, if you want to go into politics, work for SCOTUS, work in academia (right out of school), be on the federal bench...that's a whole different issue. that stuff's almost impossible from anywhere that's not HYS, and in that case, Harvard is the clear answer.

I don't think it is reasonable to assume a 10% return. Clearly the person who took the Darrow and got a big law job is in the best financial position, but I don't think we can assume that just because someone got a Darrow that s/he will be at the top of the class. Someone who took the Darrow, wound up at the bottom of the class, was unemployed for a year, and wound up with a job paying $45,000 is in a worse financial position than someone who went to Harvard, borrowed $100,000, and got a big law job paying $160,000 a year. (Of course, the person who went to Harvard, borrowed $100,000 and could not find a job is in the worst position.) The question is, how much better are your chances of finding a job from Harvard than Michigan (assuming you are in the middle or bottom of the class)?

[Fresh]

I don't think it is reasonable to assume a 10% return. Clearly the person who took the Darrow and got a big law job is in the best financial position, but I don't think we can assume that just because someone got a Darrow that s/he will be at the top of the class. Someone who took the Darrow, wound up at the bottom of the class, was unemployed for a year, and wound up with a job paying $45,000 is in a worse financial position than someone who went to Harvard, borrowed $100,000, and got a big law job paying $160,000 a year. (Of course, the person who went to Harvard, borrowed $100,000 and could not find a job is in the worst position.) The question is, how much better are your chances of finding a job from Harvard than Michigan (assuming you are in the middle or bottom of the class)?

To this end, should 0Ls be choosing schools in regard to the potential to be below median or @ the bottom of the class? (of course I'm just looking for opinions, not "right" answers)

[drylo]

I don't think we can assume that just because someone got a Darrow that s/he will be at the top of the class.

Very true. Just like we can't assume that this person would be at the top of the class at Harvard. Or at the bottom of the class either place. You definitely cannot assume that you will be at the top of the class, but I suspect that the average class rank of Darrows is easily high enough in the class to get a market-paying job.

(Of course, the person who went to Harvard, borrowed $100,000 and could not find a job is in the worst position.)

Notwithstanding what I said immediately above, if you want to talk doomsday scenarios, this is it. What's the worst that could happen if you to law school for three years for free, with a stipend? Obviously you could have potentially made more money (than the stipend) in that time if you had been working instead, but seriously--what's the worst that could happen?

[sarahh]

Notwithstanding what I said immediately above, if you want to talk doomsday scenarios, this is it. What's the worst that could happen if you to law school for three years for free, with a stipend? Obviously you could have potentially made more money (than the stipend) in that time if you had been working instead, but seriously--what's the worst that could happen?

You have to move in with your parents and are depressed that you cannot find a job? That sounds pretty bad to me - I am going to law school because I want a satisfying career. Also, the Darrow stipend does not cover the cost of living for three years, so some people may have to borrow anyway. Granted, it probably won't be that much, since the rent in Ann Arbor seems pretty low - especially compared to Cambridge. Definitely a plus for Michigan that you will have no problem finding a place for less than $1,000 a month.

[vamedic03]

I would take Harvard and wouldn't look back. T-14 schools, and MVP in particular, can open lots of doors for you and, especially for the top of the class, can place you into some amazing places. That said, Harvard opens more doors for more of the class than any T14 school outside of Yale and Stanford.

While OP suggests that he just wants big law, he would be closing doors by choosing Michigan over Harvard. It's easier to get biglaw from Harvard, it's easier to get clerkships from Harvard, and it's easier to get government positions from Harvard.

Sometimes it pays to not be risk adverse and take a chance. Incur the debt and go to Harvard. It'll be an amazing experience.

NB - I say all of this from the perspective of a 2L who likes UVA a lot (and considers Michigan to be a peer).

[CryingMonkey]

Notwithstanding what I said immediately above, if you want to talk doomsday scenarios, this is it. What's the worst that could happen if you to law school for three years for free, with a stipend? Obviously you could have potentially made more money (than the stipend) in that time if you had been working instead, but seriously--what's the worst that could happen?

You have to move in with your parents and are depressed that you cannot find a job? That sounds pretty bad to me - I am going to law school because I want a satisfying career.

I'd say your worst-case scenario from Michigan is probably better than your worst-case scenario from Harvard; in both scenarios, worst-case is having to move in with your parents because you can't find a job, but in one of those scenarios you are an extra 150+k in debt. Granted, this scenario is somewhat less likely out of Harvard, but we are looking at doomsday scenarios.

Sometimes it pays to not be risk adverse and take a chance. Incur the debt and go to Harvard. It'll be an amazing experience.

For me, this is what it boils down to. I think Michigan w/ Darrow is probably the safer option - realistically, if you can do well enough to get a Darrow, you can probably do well enough @ Michigan to get BigLaw if you want it, and if you decide you don't, well, you can do something else without being burdened by debt. I think Harvard is higher risk, higher reward. There are doors that will close if you go to Mich, and there are things that will be much more difficult even if still possible. Harvard also has a basically incomparable alumni network. However, you run the risk of being stuck with a ton of debt if you decide BigLaw isn't the thing for you - and especially if you decide law generally isn't the thing for you, since LIPP only covers government, non-profit, academic, or law-related private sector jobs. So if you decide you really want to be a screenwriter, too bad.

Even with LIPP, you can still be expected to pay a not-insignificant portion on your own. If you're making decent-but-not-biglaw money, you're still paying a fair amount towards your loans. say you make 80k, you're paying a thousand dollars a month to service your debt. That's not nothing.

To sarah's earlier point, seems like 10% is quite aggressive. This is why I'm going into law and not finance. At 5%, you're still looking at over a mil, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong on LIPP, that's my understanding from the materials I've seen.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/sfs/ ... scale.html

[BruceWayne]

realistically, if you can do well enough to get a Darrow, you can probably do well enough @ Michigan to get BigLaw if you want it

To anyone reading this thread please ignore this quote. It's a horrendously bad assumption to make. Essentially it breaks down to gambling how well you are going to do on two metrics that do a mediocre job--at best---of predicting law school success. Law school success is not like other fields where it's mostly objective and in your control. Things like the professors you get, the semester you take the class, and most of all who you are taking classes with have a very large impact on what your class rank turns out to be.

Also remember that law school admissions don't even require you to take a specified course load or have a specific major. The only uniform requirement is an undergraduate degree and a high LSAT. In other words anyone gambling on how well they are going to do based off of GPA/LSAT is making a huge bet on nothing more than what they did in some random, probably unrelated, coursework in undergraduate and one 4 hour test--that's insane.

[jcunni5]

I admit on fairly uninformed on this issue but OP is an URM so doesn't that mean even if he is below median he has a great shot at big law plus he'd be a darrow scholar I can't imagine an unemployed URM Darrow Scholar I think it is literally impossible. To this end Michigan seems to be the obvious answer.

correct me if i'm wrong

[hoopla14]

Fresh, are you still keeping the Darrow in mind in light of the Rubenstein?

[drylo]

realistically, if you can do well enough to get a Darrow, you can probably do well enough @ Michigan to get BigLaw if you want it

To anyone reading this thread please ignore don't read the words "can probably" to mean "will definitely" in this quote. It's a horrendously bad assumption to make. reading comprehension fail, especially for someone who probably did pretty well on the LSAT.

FTFY

There are doors that will close if you go to Mich,

While OP suggests that he just wants big law, he would be closing doors by choosing Michigan over Harvard.

Let's deal in specifics here--what doors?

Also, the way many of you talk, shouldn't Michigan be the "riskier" option because of OP's high unlikelihood of getting a BigLaw job, which is, after all, what he wants?

[CryingMonkey]

realistically, if you can do well enough to get a Darrow, you can probably do well enough @ Michigan to get BigLaw if you want it

To anyone reading this thread please ignore this quote. It's a horrendously bad assumption to make. Essentially it breaks down to gambling how well you are going to do on two metrics that do a mediocre job--at best---of predicting law school success. Law school success is not like other fields where it's mostly objective and in your control. Things like the professors you get, the semester you take the class, and most of all who you are taking classes with have a very large impact on what your class rank turns out to be.

Also remember that law school admissions don't even require you to take a specified course load or have a specific major. The only uniform requirement is an undergraduate degree and a high LSAT. In other words anyone gambling on how well they are going to do based off of GPA/LSAT is making a huge bet on nothing more than what they did in some random, probably unrelated, coursework in undergraduate and one 4 hour test--that's insane.

I dispute this. Saying you are going to NECESSARILY get BigLaw would be insane, because there are a lot of factors. But getting BigLaw at Michigan, although harder ITE, doesn't require top 10% or anything like that. From what I've seen, something like 65% of Michigan grads get biglaw or federal clerkships. Even assuming no self-selection - assuming that everyone tries to get one of these things - the top 2/3 of the class will be fine. LSAT and GPA, while not highly predictive, are somewhat predictive of law school success. My assertion is that if you can get a Darrow, you can probably get within the top 65% of the class, and can probably get biglaw if you decide what that's what you really want. I don't think that's an insane assertion to make.

ETA: Lol, thanks drylo, didn't see your post. As has been noted, most of the doors closing aren't things that most people are going to be able to do anyways - SCOTUS or CoA clerkships, working at a V5 firm, working in academia, sitting on the federal bench - things that, wherever you go, are going to be very hard to do, but will be somewhat more realistic goals if you go to Harvard.

Also, this is all just my thoughts as I try to make this decision, not gospel truth or anything. I'm just trying to contribute what I've been thinking about, because I find it very helpful to see what other people are thinking about. It's a really tough position to be in (but in a good way).

[rundoxierun]

realistically, if you can do well enough to get a Darrow, you can probably do well enough @ Michigan to get BigLaw if you want it

To anyone reading this thread please ignore this quote. It's a horrendously bad assumption to make. Essentially it breaks down to gambling how well you are going to do on two metrics that do a mediocre job--at best---of predicting law school success. Law school success is not like other fields where it's mostly objective and in your control. Things like the professors you get, the semester you take the class, and most of all who you are taking classes with have a very large impact on what your class rank turns out to be.

Also remember that law school admissions don't even require you to take a specified course load or have a specific major. The only uniform requirement is an undergraduate degree and a high LSAT. In other words anyone gambling on how well they are going to do based off of GPA/LSAT is making a huge bet on nothing more than what they did in some random, probably unrelated, coursework in undergraduate and one 4 hour test--that's insane.

Huh? That is a perfectly good point to account for. Its simple math. Darrow scholars are not randomly selected students. They do better than the randomly selected student. On average, Im 1000% a greater percentage of Darrow scholars get prestigious employment than the general Michigan population. I understand what you are trying to say but you are missing the point. If we look at it from your point of view then you really shouldnt choose a T14 over a tier 1 school based on the "assumption" that T14 students do better in the job market on average.

[thsmthcrmnl]

I have this dream that I'll be able to negotiate my way to a Darrow. I think you should go to Harvard and leave the money for me.

[BruceWayne]

Huh? That is a perfectly good point to account for. Its simple math. Darrow scholars are not randomly selected students. They do better than the randomly selected student. On average, Im 1000% a greater percentage of Darrow scholars get prestigious employment than the general Michigan population. I understand what you are trying to say but you are missing the point. If we look at it from your point of view then you really shouldnt choose a T14 over a tier 1 school based on the "assumption" that T14 students do better in the job market on average.

That's a horrible analogy. The bolded comparison is silly because you have hard data showing that a very large percentage of people at the top 14 school get jobs, while a very low percentage of those at lower ranked schools do. On the other hand, If you look up the data on LSAT/GPA correlation to grades it's OK. Further it's not data of the percentage who do well, it's just a statistical number that shows there is some correlation in terms of class rank. You don't make bets on "some correlation". Especially with an admissions system like that used by law schools. If we were talking about medical school or another field like that where the admissions metrics are very closely aligned with the form of schooling that a student is undertaking then I'd feel comfortable making a bet of that nature. If the OP is going to make a bet: ie bet on getting a great job from HLS with more debt vs. bet on getting a good job from Michigan with minimal debt. He should be aware that one of those bets is much more of a sure thing; and it's the former.

[drylo]

Huh? That is a perfectly good point to account for. Its simple math. Darrow scholars are not randomly selected students. They do better than the randomly selected student. On average, Im 1000% a greater percentage of Darrow scholars get prestigious employment than the general Michigan population. I understand what you are trying to say but you are missing the point. If we look at it from your point of view then you really shouldnt choose a T14 over a tier 1 school based on the "assumption" that T14 students do better in the job market on average.

That's a horrible analogy. The bolded comparison is silly because you have hard data showing that a very large percentage of people at the top 14 school get jobs, while a very low percentage of those at lower ranked schools do.

First a reading comp fail; now a logical reasoning fail.

I think tkgrrett was trying to say that the assumption that T14 students do better than other T1 students is irrelevant based on your thinking because you seem to be saying that a Michigan law student (one of the top admits, no less) probably will not be able to get a BigLaw job, even though approx 2/3 (or whatever) do. In other words, tkgrrett is extrapolating from your posts that the employment prospects for the best students (whether top 10% or top 60%) are not what you should be looking at when deciding because you can't expect to be one of them anyway.

ETA: Not necessarily commenting on the quality of the analogy, just saying that I agree that you are missing the point.