H vs S Forum

[abl]

I agree, and I'm also sympathetic to rpupkin's very fair criticisms. One year of data isn't reliable. Using clerkship placement at all as a metric is problematic. (To use CLS as an example, it traditionally averaged around 8-10% of the class, but the past few years have seen few grads going directly to their clerkships; upwards of 20% of c/o 2011 and 2012 ultimately clerked while only single digits did so for the purposes of the ABA report). Culture plays a big role here and HLS may share this trait vis a vis SLS.

Trends are telling, though. Stanford's placement has been on an upward trend towards 30% for the past few years. While it's certainly not double HLS, it's had a meaningful advantage for some time. Whatever that's worth -- maybe nothing for this OP.

Sure, so looking at 5-year numbers, Stanford still places over 50% better than Harvard--that's meaningful. And I think that knowing how many folks clerk not-immediately is only somewhat useful: just about nobody prefers to work in biglaw for a year and then clerk rather than just to clerk straight out. (So I don't think that dismissing those differences as cultural is really fair.) If we're using clerkships as an indicator of the schools' respective placement strengths, the numbers that we have are pretty fair indicators.*

*I'd hedge on this more if we were trying to distinguish between, say, Columbia and Berkeley -- although the two appear to have nearly-identical clerkship placements, if ultimately 20% of Columbia students clerk whereas only 10% of Berkeley students ultimately clerk, that does imply that the two schools aren't as indistinguishable re clerking as might first appear. My suspicion, though, is that the overall number of clerks at these schools all jump in roughly similar proportions when you look at folks who don't clerk immediately. So, for example, as Columbia's "ultimate" placement rises from 10%-20%, Harvard's goes from 15-25%, Stanford's goes from 30%-40%, etc.

[nejlas]

There is a good pros/cons of the quarter system discussion going on in the UChicago form if that will help you make your decision... although UChicago does do 1L year differently than Stanford, so focus on the perspectives about 2L/3L vs. quarter system.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... start=4225

[zaetoroftheprotoss]

.

[UpandDown97]

I like what you have to say, but one issue I have is this: In my mind, lay prestige=portability of a degree. Since Harvard has more lay prestige, it has more portability.

Lay prestige is much more important than people think.

I would think even more so if he is interested in "MBB/business stuff", since to some degree that would be dealing with people more outside of the legal world.

As one currently in the consulting world, there is no prestige difference between H and S. The recruiting people are professionals (not ordinary lay people) who have robust knowledge about the strengths (and reputations) of both universities and their respective b-schools / law schools. Both universities will always (barring cataclysmic earthquake / Day After Tomorrow hurricanes / end of time) be at the very top of the list for institutions from which to hire new grads.

PS: I removed the names in case y'all want to delete the posts in the future

Considerate of you. I have read that Harvard goes much further internationally, especially in Asia. I'm inclined to believe the same is true in Europe. Of course, this applies to a narrow band of students and lawyers, but nonetheless lends credence to my argument.

[abl]

I like what you have to say, but one issue I have is this: In my mind, lay prestige=portability of a degree. Since Harvard has more lay prestige, it has more portability.

Lay prestige is much more important than people think.

I would think even more so if he is interested in "MBB/business stuff", since to some degree that would be dealing with people more outside of the legal world.

As one currently in the consulting world, there is no prestige difference between H and S. The recruiting people are professionals (not ordinary lay people) who have robust knowledge about the strengths (and reputations) of both universities and their respective b-schools / law schools. Both universities will always (barring cataclysmic earthquake / Day After Tomorrow hurricanes / end of time) be at the very top of the list for institutions from which to hire new grads.

PS: I removed the names in case y'all want to delete the posts in the future

Considerate of you. I have read that Harvard goes much further internationally, especially in Asia. I'm inclined to believe the same is true in Europe. Of course, this applies to a narrow band of students and lawyers, but nonetheless lends credence to my argument.

I suspect "much further" = "very marginally further" in reality. But really, the question is: do you want to work internationally? If not, who cares?

[myspiritanimal]

What does "carry further" really mean? That more people know about H internationally than S? That may be the case. But it likely won't matter. The only example I can think of in which such carry may help a candidate is when mass mailing to small regional firms in small international cities without a global footprint. It's possible that these firms do not understand much about U.S. higher education, and therefore one of these schools may carry further. However, I think this situation is really unlikely. Much, much more likely is a situation in which one applies to a regional office of a large, international firm (law or consulting or other). Most, if not all, of these firms will have recruiting departments that are sufficiently sophisticated such that the idea of carry won't matter, at all.

So, if you plan to follow the first route, then maybe consider the idea of carry. Otherwise, don't. In other words, if you follow the second route with dreams of working in Paris or Hong Kong, I seriously doubt one name will be better than the other.

[UpandDown97]

What does "carry further" really mean? That more people know about H internationally than S? That may be the case. But it likely won't matter. The only example I can think of in which such carry may help a candidate is when mass mailing to small regional firms in small international cities without a global footprint. It's possible that these firms do not understand much about U.S. higher education, and therefore one of these schools may carry further. However, I think this situation is really unlikely. Much, much more likely is a situation in which one applies to a regional office of a large, international firm (law or consulting or other). Most, if not all, of these firms will have recruiting departments that are sufficiently sophisticated such that the idea of carry won't matter, at all.

So, if you plan to follow the first route, then maybe consider the idea of carry. Otherwise, don't. In other words, if you follow the second route with dreams of working in Paris or Hong Kong, I seriously doubt one name will be better than the other.

Without really typing much, this should post should demonstrate my point well: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... p?t=246004

Also, several assumptions in your post. Plain and simple: Harvard carries more weight internationally. Not all firms, businesses, etc. have sophisticated recruiting departments and some just rely on what they know for hiring and contracting. Often, it's not just about getting a particular job, but about clients- clients care about the school their lawyer attended; example would be getting a mid-size company as a client in China or anywhere in Europe. They know Harvard. If they want the smartest lawyer/businessman, they'll hire the Harvard grad even though some other attorney went to Cornell for free and made the better decision according to TLS. Same applies to a lesser extent, but still applies, to S.

TLS unfortunately does not concentrate enough on the long-term value of a degree, which basically translates to the value of its name. You want to get international clients? Work with foreign companies and contacts? Harvard will get you farther and more money. It's a more valuable degree.

[JRSmithCantMiss]

For big law aspirations in the NE/Chi/TX market, I feel like harvard has more fungibility

Nice username

What a jinx it was

[Mack.Hambleton]

Seriously. Smdh

[myspiritanimal]

What does "carry further" really mean? That more people know about H internationally than S? That may be the case. But it likely won't matter. The only example I can think of in which such carry may help a candidate is when mass mailing to small regional firms in small international cities without a global footprint. It's possible that these firms do not understand much about U.S. higher education, and therefore one of these schools may carry further. However, I think this situation is really unlikely. Much, much more likely is a situation in which one applies to a regional office of a large, international firm (law or consulting or other). Most, if not all, of these firms will have recruiting departments that are sufficiently sophisticated such that the idea of carry won't matter, at all.

So, if you plan to follow the first route, then maybe consider the idea of carry. Otherwise, don't. In other words, if you follow the second route with dreams of working in Paris or Hong Kong, I seriously doubt one name will be better than the other.

Without really typing much, this should post should demonstrate my point well: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... p?t=246004

Also, several assumptions in your post. Plain and simple: Harvard carries more weight internationally. Not all firms, businesses, etc. have sophisticated recruiting departments and some just rely on what they know for hiring and contracting. Often, it's not just about getting a particular job, but about clients- clients care about the school their lawyer attended; example would be getting a mid-size company as a client in China or anywhere in Europe. They know Harvard. If they want the smartest lawyer/businessman, they'll hire the Harvard grad even though some other attorney went to Cornell for free and made the better decision according to TLS. Same applies to a lesser extent, but still applies, to S.

TLS unfortunately does not concentrate enough on the long-term value of a degree, which basically translates to the value of its name. You want to get international clients? Work with foreign companies and contacts? Harvard will get you farther and more money. It's a more valuable degree.

I agree with most of this, and much of this agrees with my last post. Where a firm has an unsophisticated recruiting department, then, yes, one may carry beyond the other (you're quick to claim H has a better name, but I'm not convinced). That was one of my points.

As to the point that the long-term value of a degree matters, I absolutely agree. I'm actually a big believer in this, having seen the importance of this with clients in the consulting world. But, again, H may win in some cases, but in others, such as Chinese tech, etc., S likely has the advantage.

In my earlier post, my main argument was that situations in which carry really matters are rare for students from H and S. And, when they do, the difference in such carry between H and S is minimal, if at all discernible. So, bottom line, when deciding between the two, I'd say the idea of which will carry further is an interesting but moot point.

[abl]

What does "carry further" really mean? That more people know about H internationally than S? That may be the case. But it likely won't matter. The only example I can think of in which such carry may help a candidate is when mass mailing to small regional firms in small international cities without a global footprint. It's possible that these firms do not understand much about U.S. higher education, and therefore one of these schools may carry further. However, I think this situation is really unlikely. Much, much more likely is a situation in which one applies to a regional office of a large, international firm (law or consulting or other). Most, if not all, of these firms will have recruiting departments that are sufficiently sophisticated such that the idea of carry won't matter, at all.

So, if you plan to follow the first route, then maybe consider the idea of carry. Otherwise, don't. In other words, if you follow the second route with dreams of working in Paris or Hong Kong, I seriously doubt one name will be better than the other.

Without really typing much, this should post should demonstrate my point well: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... p?t=246004

Also, several assumptions in your post. Plain and simple: Harvard carries more weight internationally. Not all firms, businesses, etc. have sophisticated recruiting departments and some just rely on what they know for hiring and contracting. Often, it's not just about getting a particular job, but about clients- clients care about the school their lawyer attended; example would be getting a mid-size company as a client in China or anywhere in Europe. They know Harvard. If they want the smartest lawyer/businessman, they'll hire the Harvard grad even though some other attorney went to Cornell for free and made the better decision according to TLS. Same applies to a lesser extent, but still applies, to S.

TLS unfortunately does not concentrate enough on the long-term value of a degree, which basically translates to the value of its name. You want to get international clients? Work with foreign companies and contacts? Harvard will get you farther and more money. It's a more valuable degree.

If you want to work in areas in which international lay prestige matters, sure, Harvard might have a slight edge. But if you don't or even if you're not sure, it'd be foolish to put any weight on this incredibly minor factor. There are probably a grand total of six graduates between these two law schools in a given year who see their careers impacted at all by international lay prestige, and I bet that just about all of them knew that this would be the case before starting law school.

And, once again, we're talking about two of the most internationally lay prestigious schools in the world -- arguably the top two, and inarguably two of the top ten. It's possibly fair to consider lay prestige when deciding between somewhere like NYU and somewhere like Columbia--where there is a noticeable difference between two otherwise similar schools. (Although I would still put very little weight on that distinction.) It's foolish to put any weight on this factor when you're talking about Harvard vs. Stanford (unless you are pretty sure you're doing something in which international lay prestige matters--and no, it will not matter for 98% of HYS careers--and even so, I would only put the slightest weight on this).

There are real differences between Harvard and Stanford. These differences are going to dwarf this silly consideration for a student who is not pretty darn committed to doing some pretty niche sorts of work (and honestly they'll probably dwarf the lay prestige advantages for even such a student). Spend your time thinking about whether you'll academically thrive or flounder in a pleasant climate, because I can almost guarantee that the impact of climate on your law school performance will have a far greater impact on your ultimate career success than the extraordinarily marginal lay prestige differences between Harvard and Stanford. Will Stanford's warm weather keep you in a better mood, and therefore allow you to more happily and healthily perform in law school? Or will the enticement of BBQing outside year-round prove to be a distraction, taking away from your focus? This might seem silly, but I can guarantee that this difference is going to have a bigger career impact on probably something like 98% of H and S students than will international lay prestige. (And climate is obviously far from the most important distinction between H and S.)

[Clearly]

You guys are having the wrong argument. The correct argument is "how dumb was turning down a Penn full ride for H/S sticker, for someone who wants big law"

[TasmanianToucan]

You guys are having the wrong argument. The correct argument is "how dumb was turning down a Penn full ride for H/S sticker, for someone who wants big law"

Sorry Mack, I don't see how the above is incorrect.

And cmon man, you preach debt aversion like it's you job!

[jbagelboy]

TLS unfortunately does not concentrate enough on the long-term value of a degree, which basically translates to the value of its name.

wrong, TLS focuses exactly too much on the perceived value, both long-term and otherwise, of names.

besides, come on, this isn't Harvard and University of Kentucky, it's Harvard and Stanford. don't be ridiculous

[UpandDown97]

TLS unfortunately does not concentrate enough on the long-term value of a degree, which basically translates to the value of its name.

wrong, TLS focuses exactly too much on the perceived value, both long-term and otherwise, of names.

besides, come on, this isn't Harvard and University of Kentucky, it's Harvard and Stanford. don't be ridiculous

If TLS focused "too much" on the long term, percieved value of a degree, then I don't think you'd see: 1. as much Georgetown hate, and 2. an avalanche of posters telling someone to pick NYU over Columbia unless the cost difference was truly substantial. Focus is on outcomes for first job; not the value of your degree when you try to be a rain maker 20 years down the line for your company/biglaw firm/mid-law firm/whatever and you want to impress a client with where you went to law school.

Edit: I get the point very much, as discussed above, that the prestige difference between Harvard and Stanford isn't much since they are both absolute elite institutions. I just don't quite see it that way. Maybe Stanford and Yale that holds; just Harvard has a stronger signaling power than just about every single school in the entire world, save maybe Oxford or Cambridge.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well, that's what the Harvard people would like to think, anyway.

(Signaling doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's not like an employer or whoever has a gun to their head and is told, "you have to hire one of these 2 people, all you know is that one went to Harvard and the other didn't." Twenty years down the road, what matters is what you've accomplished, not where you went to school. Now, obviously where you go to school can give you a leg up on accomplishing certain things, but that's not the same thing.)

[abl]

TLS unfortunately does not concentrate enough on the long-term value of a degree, which basically translates to the value of its name.

wrong, TLS focuses exactly too much on the perceived value, both long-term and otherwise, of names.

besides, come on, this isn't Harvard and University of Kentucky, it's Harvard and Stanford. don't be ridiculous

If TLS focused "too much" on the long term, percieved value of a degree, then I don't think you'd see: 1. as much Georgetown hate, and 2. an avalanche of posters telling someone to pick NYU over Columbia unless the cost difference was truly substantial. Focus is on outcomes for first job; not the value of your degree when you try to be a rain maker 20 years down the line for your company/biglaw firm/mid-law firm/whatever and you want to impress a client with where you went to law school.

Edit: I get the point very much, as discussed above, that the prestige difference between Harvard and Stanford isn't much since they are both absolute elite institutions. I just don't quite see it that way. Maybe Stanford and Yale that holds; just Harvard has a stronger signaling power than just about every single school in the entire world, save maybe Oxford or Cambridge.

Look, nobody's arguing that Harvard's lay prestige value is < Stanford's. Folks are arguing with your repeated unsupported assertions that (1) lay prestige matters more than a whit over the short or long term for someone not interested in a small selection of niche careers; and (2) Harvard has more than a slight edge in lay prestige over Stanford. In response, you essentially keep saying "but Harvard is prestigious!" Sure. So's Stanford. And in many circles that are likely to matter to the average biglaw-bound HYS grad (a hell of a lot more than international lay-circles)--see, e.g., tech and VC--Stanford is more prestigious than Harvard.

But just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Stanford is more lay prestigious than Harvard overall. I'm arguing that lay prestige counts for very little--even over a long-term career--and that the relative difference between Harvard and Stanford when it comes to lay prestige is very little. Multiplying these two very small effects for the average HYS graduate amounts to a non-effect. (Because you have to not only account for the small likelihood that lay prestige could play a role in a graduate's job outcomes, but you then have to account for the fact that even for those small minority of cases in which lay prestige could matter some, the bump you will get from attending H rather than S is so small that it is exceedingly unlikely to result in a different outcome.)

Really, though, my main argument is that anyone deciding between H and S has a dozen or so more substantial effects she should weigh before turning to this tiny non-factor. The difference in career outcomes between H and S are already small. If five other factors contribute to 98% of this difference, you're far more likely to be misled than make the right decision for yourself if you focus on a factor that only contributes 2% to the (small) difference between H and S. Ironically, it's probably worth noting that despite Harvard's slight lay prestige edge, empirically, the career outcomes from S appear significantly better than the career outcomes from H.

Incidentally, are you a practicing lawyer? Are you even in law school yet? I don't mean any offence, but you sound like someone who hasn't had much first-hand experience with legal hiring.

[rpupkin]

Ironically, it's probably worth noting that despite Harvard's slight lay prestige edge, empirically, the career outcomes from S appear significantly better than the career outcomes from H.

I'm sorry if I missed it, but what is your basis for this statement?

You keep pointing out that the reputational differences between HLS and SLS are minor, a position I basically agree with. But then you make the same mistake that you say others are making: you overstate the advantages of SLS based on, as far as I can tell, your intuition about how the two schools compare. (See, e.g.,"tech and VC--Stanford is more prestigious than Harvard.")

[jbagelboy]

As fun as an rpupkin/abl showdown would be, let's not indulge in the worst kind of tls nitpicking right now for a point on which we agree

[abl]

Ironically, it's probably worth noting that despite Harvard's slight lay prestige edge, empirically, the career outcomes from S appear significantly better than the career outcomes from H.

I'm sorry if I missed it, but what is your basis for this statement?

You keep pointing out that the reputational differences between HLS and SLS are minor, a position I basically agree with. But then you make the same mistake that you say others are making: you overstate the advantages of SLS based on, as far as I can tell, your intuition about how the two schools compare. (See, e.g.,"tech and VC--Stanford is more prestigious than Harvard.")

Sorry -- by "significant" I meant it in the statistical sense. So I was trying to say that the career outcome difference between S and H appear likely meaningful (and, I should have added, small). But you're right insofar as I was just talking out of my ass: I haven't actually run any statistical tests on the empirical differences between S and H, so I don't actually know if there is any statistical significance to the differences.

(Incidentally, I didn't have any one metric in mind when I made my comment. I don't know that it matters: I'm pretty sure that S empirically ranks ahead of H on just about any career outcomes measure that one could reasonably choose, possibly with the exception of SCOTUS clerkships.)

But yea, what jbagelboy said: I don't think we disagree on anything for purposes of this thread.

[hdunlop]

People do get LPs or whatever we call them at Stanford I hear so the guy who said you don't have to try is wrong. But the word is the victims literally did not try.

[rpupkin]

Ironically, it's probably worth noting that despite Harvard's slight lay prestige edge, empirically, the career outcomes from S appear significantly better than the career outcomes from H.

I'm sorry if I missed it, but what is your basis for this statement?

You keep pointing out that the reputational differences between HLS and SLS are minor, a position I basically agree with. But then you make the same mistake that you say others are making: you overstate the advantages of SLS based on, as far as I can tell, your intuition about how the two schools compare. (See, e.g.,"tech and VC--Stanford is more prestigious than Harvard.")

Sorry -- by "significant" I meant it in the statistical sense. So I was trying to say that the career outcome difference between S and H appear likely meaningful (and, I should have added, small). But you're right insofar as I was just talking out of my ass: I haven't actually run any statistical tests on the empirical differences between S and H, so I don't actually know if there is any statistical significance to the differences.

(Incidentally, I didn't have any one metric in mind when I made my comment. I don't know that it matters: I'm pretty sure that S empirically ranks ahead of H on just about any career outcomes measure that one could reasonably choose, possibly with the exception of SCOTUS clerkships.)

But yea, what jbagelboy said: I don't think we disagree on anything for purposes of this thread.

Fair enough! Though I must say to jbagelboy: you think this is an example of "the worst kind of tls nitpicking?" C'mon, you've been around these parts awhile; I'm certain you've seen worse

[Mack.Hambleton]

You guys are having the wrong argument. The correct argument is "how dumb was turning down a Penn full ride for H/S sticker, for someone who wants big law"

I'll have around 50k of debt. That's more than worth the security of not striking out at lower T14 to me and being able to place into better firms/PI/gov/non law jobs.

And as I already said, I'm not sure if I want to go into biglaw.

[Clearly]

You guys are having the wrong argument. The correct argument is "how dumb was turning down a Penn full ride for H/S sticker, for someone who wants big law"

I'll have around 50k of debt. That's more than worth the security of not striking out at lower T14 to me and being able to place into better firms/PI/gov/non law jobs.

And as I already said, I'm not sure if I want to go into biglaw.

You'll have 50k of debt. But how much money will you spend? Be it yours or someone else's?

[UpandDown97]

Ironically, it's probably worth noting that despite Harvard's slight lay prestige edge, empirically, the career outcomes from S appear significantly better than the career outcomes from H.

I'm sorry if I missed it, but what is your basis for this statement?

You keep pointing out that the reputational differences between HLS and SLS are minor, a position I basically agree with. But then you make the same mistake that you say others are making: you overstate the advantages of SLS based on, as far as I can tell, your intuition about how the two schools compare. (See, e.g.,"tech and VC--Stanford is more prestigious than Harvard.")

Sorry -- by "significant" I meant it in the statistical sense. So I was trying to say that the career outcome difference between S and H appear likely meaningful (and, I should have added, small). But you're right insofar as I was just talking out of my ass: I haven't actually run any statistical tests on the empirical differences between S and H, so I don't actually know if there is any statistical significance to the differences.

(Incidentally, I didn't have any one metric in mind when I made my comment. I don't know that it matters: I'm pretty sure that S empirically ranks ahead of H on just about any career outcomes measure that one could reasonably choose, possibly with the exception of SCOTUS clerkships.)

But yea, what jbagelboy said: I don't think we disagree on anything for purposes of this thread.

Fair enough! Though I must say to jbagelboy: you think this is an example of "the worst kind of tls nitpicking?" C'mon, you've been around these parts awhile; I'm certain you've seen worse

I think we can agree to disagree. You have your view, I have mine.

I advise OP to go to Harvard if all else is even. I can't see how all could be even though, but that's besides the point.