Hamilton (Columbia) vs. Harvard Forum

[rpupkin]

Doesnt that go against the oft repeated TLS mantra of "incoming credentials dont correlate well with law school performance"?

I don't think that's quite the mantra. "You can't predict your law school performance" isn't the same as "there is no correlation between credentials and performance." There probably is some correlation, but any given applicant can't know whether it will apply to them or not.

I was about to write something like this before Nony said it better than I would have.

[Tls2016]

You misinterpreted what I was saying for the first point. I agree that a named scholarship does NOT have the potential to outweigh poor grades. I thought I was quite clear that grades are the determinative factor. However, I do think that a named scholarship can be weighed in the "preftige" factor, however that might work. A candidate who is a top 10% Hamilton Fellow at CLS is probably likely to be viewed the same as (or, but this is less likely, better than) a candidate who is top 10% at HYS, assuming the person in charge of hiring knows what the Hamilton is.

I'm sorry, but, based on my experience with clerkship and firm hiring, this is just completely wrong. What do you base this statement on?

Read it on the forums plus 0L Harvard mystique? Many 0Ls seem to completely undervalue Columbia. (And then don't understand why they end up in the same job at graduation.)

[jnwa]

First, I confess that I don't have the best sense of how clerkship hiring works other than to know its very relationship-based. Most obviously, you're going to have a sizable number of Rubies with great grades, so that helps. Beyond that, I have to disagree with the idea that professors don't know if you're a named scholar. I just have a measly Dillard Scholarship, but the Dillard group is convened regularly and does have special opportunities to interact with faculty that other students don't have. Also, professors sit on the committees that award these scholarships, so it seems more likely that you'll be known well coming in by at least a few professors. Seems to be an ideal situation to facilitate more success in the clerkship process.

Let's also not forget self-selection. I'd imagine that your typical Ruby student is more interested in clerking than non-Ruby types.

True. The point about faculty reading apps is a good one. Some of the profs before meeting you, liked you enough to deem you worthy of a Dillard. That means something.

[Bearlyalive]

First, I confess that I don't have the best sense of how clerkship hiring works other than to know its very relationship-based. Most obviously, you're going to have a sizable number of Rubies with great grades, so that helps. Beyond that, I have to disagree with the idea that professors don't know if you're a named scholar. I just have a measly Dillard Scholarship, but the Dillard group is convened regularly and does have special opportunities to interact with faculty that other students don't have. Also, professors sit on the committees that award these scholarships, so it seems more likely that you'll be known well come in by at least a few professors. Seems to be an ideal situation to facilitate more success in the clerkship process.

Let's also not forget self-selection. I'd imagine that your typical Ruby student is more interested in clerking than non-Ruby types.

Good to know regarding the Dillard. Before this, I hadn't heard of these kinds of scholarships giving you anything besides the money and the individual mentor. Having that extra face-time and association probably makes it easier to get your foot in the door.

Thanks for sharing.

[Bearlyalive]

You misinterpreted what I was saying for the first point. I agree that a named scholarship does NOT have the potential to outweigh poor grades. I thought I was quite clear that grades are the determinative factor. However, I do think that a named scholarship can be weighed in the "preftige" factor, however that might work. A candidate who is a top 10% Hamilton Fellow at CLS is probably likely to be viewed the same as (or, but this is less likely, better than) a candidate who is top 10% at HYS, assuming the person in charge of hiring knows what the Hamilton is.

I'm sorry, but, based on my experience with clerkship and firm hiring, this is just completely wrong. What do you base this statement on?

Reading the legal employment forum. I try to ignore 0L advise to the best extent I can.

Are you saying that between two otherwise identical students from CLS (w/Hamilton) and HLS, the HLS student will still be given preferential treatment even if the hiring officer knows about those sorts of scholarships? If that's the case, can you elaborate on why? I didn't think that, for the majority of jobs, the gap between CLS and HLS students was that big to begin with.

Also, wasn't factoring in clerkships to the claim; I've been led to believe that they are much more dependent on individual writing ability and the relationships you build with professors in school (with grades being necessary, but not sufficient), and I'm not in a position to evaluate how HLS and CLS differ in clerkship placement once you discount self-selection. If you are, insight is appreciated.

[rpupkin]

Are you saying that between two otherwise identical students from CLS (w/Hamilton) and HLS, the HLS student will still be given preferential treatment even if the hiring officer knows about those sorts of scholarships? If that's the case, can you elaborate on why? I didn't think that, for the majority of jobs, the gap between CLS and HLS students was that big to begin with.

As I mentioned upthread, the gap between CLS and HLS for big law is negligible. My point is not that HLS offers some huge advantage over CLS. My point is that, to the extent employers see daylight between HLS and CLS students, the Hamilton doesn't affect that perception one way or the other. The value of the Hamilton lies in the $180K of tuition that you don't have to pay, not in the prestige that attaches to the scholarship. Once you have a full year of law school grades, a named scholarship won't mean anything to most employers.

As for your statement that a candidate who is a top 10% Hamilton Fellow at CLS is likely to be viewed the same as a candidate who is top 10% at HLS, I just don't think that's true--or, to the extent it is true, it would be equally true if you removed the words "Hamilton Fellow" from your sentence. The employers who place extra weight on HLS do so for a couple of reasons. One reason is simply that the Harvard name is a bit more prestigious than the Columbia name. Some firms like the idea of having a bunch of lawyers with Harvard Law School (or Yale Law School) on their diplomas and web sites. It's a signaling mechanism to clients. A 0L scholarship doesn't mean anything in that world.

The other reason is that, fairly or not, some employers assume that HLS, overall, attracts somewhat better students than CLS, and that the competition is therefore greater at HLS. These folks think that top 10% at HLS is harder to achieve than top 10% at CLS. That was certainly the view of the judge I clerked for. For obvious reasons, a named scholarship does nothing to mitigate that perception: your law school grades are your law school grades, and you're judged based on your performance relative to your peers.

[Bearlyalive]

As I mentioned upthread, the gap between CLS and HLS for big law is negligible. My point is not that HLS offers some huge advantage over CLS. My point is that, to the extent employers see daylight between HLS and CLS students, the Hamilton doesn't affect that perception one way or the other. The value of the Hamilton lies in the $180K of tuition that you don't have to pay, not in the prestige that attaches to the scholarship. Once you have a full year of law school grades, a named scholarship won't mean anything to most employers.

As for your statement that a candidate who is a top 10% Hamilton Fellow at CLS is likely to be viewed the same as a candidate who is top 10% at HLS, I just don't think that's true--or, to the extent it is true, it would be equally true if you removed the words "Hamilton Fellow" from your sentence. The employers who place extra weight on HLS do so for a couple of reasons. One reason is simply that the Harvard name is a bit more prestigious than the Columbia name. Some firms like the idea of having a bunch of lawyers with Harvard Law School (or Yale Law School) on their diplomas and web sites. It's a signaling mechanism to clients. A 0L scholarship doesn't mean anything in that world.

The other reason is that, fairly or not, some employers assume that HLS, overall, attracts somewhat better students than CLS, and that the competition is therefore greater at HLS. These folks think that top 10% at HLS is harder to achieve than top 10% at CLS. That was certainly the view of the judge I clerked for. For obvious reasons, a named scholarship does nothing to mitigate that perception: your law school grades are your law school grades, and you're judged based on your performance relative to your peers.

OK, thanks. Makes sense.

[hopeful94]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the incredible amount of input. It's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not sure why the assumption was that I'm male, but I'm female. The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight? And then my other question is that if we're operating under the theory that getting a Hamilton is in some way correlated with subsequent performance wouldn't the grading system at Columbia make it far easier to differentiate yourself as part of the top of the class?

[Nekrowizard]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the incredible amount of input. It's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not sure why the assumption was that I'm male, but I'm female. The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight? And then my other question is that if we're operating under the theory that getting a Hamilton is in some way correlated with subsequent performance wouldn't the grading system at Columbia make it far easier to differentiate yourself as part of the top of the class?

This is of course anecdotal, but I had a "full tuition merit scholarship" to my undergrad (granted, a state school), and as far as I know nobody has ever cared, even though it's on my resume. Or at least, nobody has brought it up, ever. I've gotta think that there is some benefit to having the Hamilton on there, but it's probably very small due to rpupkin's reasoning above.

[rpupkin]

The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight?

No.

To be clear, I'm not questioning the Hamilton's value as a credential-builder on the basis that employers don't know what a "Hamilton" is. I suspect many do know what it is. And those that don't would likely assume that it's a sizable 0L scholarship of some sort. The reason the Hamilton or "full merit scholarship" doesn't help you is the same reason that your undergrad GPA doesn't really help you: once you have law school grades, employers have information that allows them to evaluate you relative to your law school peers.

[jrc223]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the incredible amount of input. It's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not sure why the assumption was that I'm male, but I'm female. The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight? And then my other question is that if we're operating under the theory that getting a Hamilton is in some way correlated with subsequent performance wouldn't the grading system at Columbia make it far easier to differentiate yourself as part of the top of the class?

What do you want to do? You mentioned that you wanted to work in NY and that you were open to the idea of politics, but that was it.

This entire thread comes down to how much you are willing to pay for an additional unit of prestige. CLS has X, HLS has X + Y. You're trying to justify attending CLS by telling yourself that the Hamilton will close the gap in prestige, but I agree with the other posters ITT that any employer who already believes there is a difference between the two will not view your application any differently just because it says "full tuition merit scholarship."

So we're left with a difference of Y, and whether or not this difference is worth 100K (probably closer to 200K, as another poster pointed out) will boil down to what you want to do with your JD. If your goal is to chase some unicorn PI job or to go into politics, the extra cost might be justified. But from your OP, it sounds like you're unsure what you want to do; the only thing you've figured out is your ultimate location. If that is the case, it would be extremely foolish to turn down the Hamilton scholarship. (Also, as a general note, you should assume you will be median at any school you attend, regardless of your scholarship)

[Tls2016]

Harvard has additional prestige to people who won't be hiring you outside of maybe that one judge who thinks Harvard is tougher to get top 10% over the slackers at Columbia.

If you want to buy into that hype for 6 figures of debt, go ahead.

[fliptrip]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the incredible amount of input. It's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not sure why the assumption was that I'm male, but I'm female. The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight? And then my other question is that if we're operating under the theory that getting a Hamilton is in some way correlated with subsequent performance wouldn't the grading system at Columbia make it far easier to differentiate yourself as part of the top of the class?

1. Don't worry about the "weight" having the Hamilton on your resume will or won't have. There's no combination of anything that's going to make you going to Columbia the same as you going to Harvard. No one advising you to take the Hamilton is saying that Columbia and Harvard are the same, because they are not. They are saying that the differences between the two places are not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nine times out of ten (probably even more often) you're going to end up at the same place from CLS as you would have from HLS.

2. I would in no way assume that the grading system itself makes it easier to be at the top of the class at CLS vs. HLS. At HLS, though no class rank is published (not sure if CLS does this) folks will know what median is in terms of #'s of H's per term. And beyond the grading system, the students you're going to Columbia with are going to be pretty damn similar in every meaningful way to the students you would attend HLS with.

[hopeful94]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the incredible amount of input. It's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not sure why the assumption was that I'm male, but I'm female. The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight? And then my other question is that if we're operating under the theory that getting a Hamilton is in some way correlated with subsequent performance wouldn't the grading system at Columbia make it far easier to differentiate yourself as part of the top of the class?

1. Don't worry about the "weight" having the Hamilton on your resume will or won't have. There's no combination of anything that's going to make you going to Columbia the same as you going to Harvard. No one advising you to take the Hamilton is saying that Columbia and Harvard are the same, because they are not. They are saying that the differences between the two places are not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nine times out of ten (probably even more often) you're going to end up at the same place from CLS as you would have from HLS.

2. I would in no way assume that the grading system itself makes it easier to be at the top of the class at CLS vs. HLS. At HLS, though no class rank is published (not sure if CLS does this) folks will know what median is in terms of #'s of H's per term. And beyond the grading system, the students you're going to Columbia with are going to be pretty damn similar in every meaningful way to the students you would attend HLS with.

Just to clarify, I'm in no way assuming that it would be easier to be at the top of my class at Columbia than it would be at Harvard. I am well aware of the brilliant students that comprise both classes. What I am suggesting is that the more definitive number and letter grade based system at Columbia means that being at the top of your class is more salient and conspicuous for a Columbia student than for a Harvard student by nature of class rankings.

[hopeful94]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the incredible amount of input. It's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not sure why the assumption was that I'm male, but I'm female. The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight? And then my other question is that if we're operating under the theory that getting a Hamilton is in some way correlated with subsequent performance wouldn't the grading system at Columbia make it far easier to differentiate yourself as part of the top of the class?

What do you want to do? You mentioned that you wanted to work in NY and that you were open to the idea of politics, but that was it.

This entire thread comes down to how much you are willing to pay for an additional unit of prestige. CLS has X, HLS has X + Y. You're trying to justify attending CLS by telling yourself that the Hamilton will close the gap in prestige, but I agree with the other posters ITT that any employer who already believes there is a difference between the two will not view your application any differently just because it says "full tuition merit scholarship."

So we're left with a difference of Y, and whether or not this difference is worth 100K (probably closer to 200K, as another poster pointed out) will boil down to what you want to do with your JD. If your goal is to chase some unicorn PI job or to go into politics, the extra cost might be justified. But from your OP, it sounds like you're unsure what you want to do; the only thing you've figured out is your ultimate location. If that is the case, it would be extremely foolish to turn down the Hamilton scholarship. (Also, as a general note, you should assume you will be median at any school you attend, regardless of your scholarship)

It would be wholly dishonest for me to say that I have it all figured out. I am looking for a school where I have the opportunity to pursue multiple legal interests. For now though I love the idea of becoming a public advocate, and certainly would like to be doing public interest work at some point in my career. It's just a question of whether I start in big law and transition, go straight into PI work, or end up doing big law and expressing my love for public interest via pro bono work.

[Mullens]

No. OCI interviewers in NYC are much smarter and better informed than an idiot who would assume a CLS student is not as good as a Harvard.
At such a huge difference in price, Columbia is the obvious choice.
The only time when Harvard was better for a student choosing between a Hanilton and Harvard was when it turned out to be cheaper than Columbia.

Don't disagree that the Hamilton better in 90%+ of cases, but I think that the remaining ~10% is a bit broader than just a strict financial calculus.

As for the OCI interviewers, /shrug, you're probably right. That said, I don't have total faith in anyone, let alone recruiters, and certainly not HR. It may well be in the minority, and maybe even negligible in NY where CLS has such a strong presence, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that there are not a non-significant number of employers and recruiters who are biased towards HLS over CLS students. Worth 180k? Nope, but I already said that. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Your 0L is showing. You need to stop pontificating about this because you clearly have no idea how OCI, law firm hiring, or clerkship hiring works. You are interviewed exclusively by attorneys at OCI. Often, those attorneys went to your law school if you're at a T14.

[fliptrip]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the incredible amount of input. It's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not sure why the assumption was that I'm male, but I'm female. The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight? And then my other question is that if we're operating under the theory that getting a Hamilton is in some way correlated with subsequent performance wouldn't the grading system at Columbia make it far easier to differentiate yourself as part of the top of the class?

1. Don't worry about the "weight" having the Hamilton on your resume will or won't have. There's no combination of anything that's going to make you going to Columbia the same as you going to Harvard. No one advising you to take the Hamilton is saying that Columbia and Harvard are the same, because they are not. They are saying that the differences between the two places are not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nine times out of ten (probably even more often) you're going to end up at the same place from CLS as you would have from HLS.

2. I would in no way assume that the grading system itself makes it easier to be at the top of the class at CLS vs. HLS. At HLS, though no class rank is published (not sure if CLS does this) folks will know what median is in terms of #'s of H's per term. And beyond the grading system, the students you're going to Columbia with are going to be pretty damn similar in every meaningful way to the students you would attend HLS with.

Just to clarify, I'm in no way assuming that it would be easier to be at the top of my class at Columbia than it would be at Harvard. I am well aware of the brilliant students that comprise both classes. What I am suggesting is that the more definitive number and letter grade based system at Columbia means that being at the top of your class is more salient and conspicuous for a Columbia student than for a Harvard student by nature of class rankings.

Okay, but people will be able to read your HLS transcript and pretty easily place you in your class. As I said, any employer that regularly recruits at HLS will know how what your # of H's mean. I believe 4 Hs is median.

[TheProsecutor]

I turned down the Hamilton to go to one of H/Y/S when I was 22. I graduated with well into six figures of debt. I didn't come from money so I had to pay it all back myself. I clerked, and the year I clerked it was tough financially, but overall I was able to pay back my loans at the end of my fourth year practicing. Overall, I am happy I turned down the Hamilton and would have done so again if I had to make the choice again. I think, however, if I were married, had kids, or older at the time, I probably would've taken the Hamilton. You seem to be a recent graduate and have a long time to practice law, if you desire. I am not telling you what to do and I don't have an opinion on what you should do. I'm just telling you that if you decide to go to Harvard, you'll probably be ok.

[rk42]

The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight?

No.

To be clear, I'm not questioning the Hamilton's value as a credential-builder on the basis that employers don't know what a "Hamilton" is. I suspect many do know what it is. And those that don't would likely assume that it's a sizable 0L scholarship of some sort. The reason the Hamilton or "full merit scholarship" doesn't help you is the same reason that your undergrad GPA doesn't really help you: once you have law school grades, employers have information that allows them to evaluate you relative to your law school peers.

Would having NYU's AnBryce or RTK on your resume help you though? I've seen it mentioned in a couple of places of people's profiles

[rpupkin]

The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight?

No.

To be clear, I'm not questioning the Hamilton's value as a credential-builder on the basis that employers don't know what a "Hamilton" is. I suspect many do know what it is. And those that don't would likely assume that it's a sizable 0L scholarship of some sort. The reason the Hamilton or "full merit scholarship" doesn't help you is the same reason that your undergrad GPA doesn't really help you: once you have law school grades, employers have information that allows them to evaluate you relative to your law school peers.

Would having NYU's AnBryce or RTK on your resume help you though? I've seen it mentioned in a couple of places of people's profiles

Aren't those Public Interest scholarships? If so, I really shouldn't comment. PI is its own world, and having a PI-oriented scholarship (along with the networking opportunities that such a scholarship could provide) might be a substantial benefit. But I honestly don't know.

[abl]

The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight?

No.

To be clear, I'm not questioning the Hamilton's value as a credential-builder on the basis that employers don't know what a "Hamilton" is. I suspect many do know what it is. And those that don't would likely assume that it's a sizable 0L scholarship of some sort. The reason the Hamilton or "full merit scholarship" doesn't help you is the same reason that your undergrad GPA doesn't really help you: once you have law school grades, employers have information that allows them to evaluate you relative to your law school peers.

Seconded.

[abl]

The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight?

No.

To be clear, I'm not questioning the Hamilton's value as a credential-builder on the basis that employers don't know what a "Hamilton" is. I suspect many do know what it is. And those that don't would likely assume that it's a sizable 0L scholarship of some sort. The reason the Hamilton or "full merit scholarship" doesn't help you is the same reason that your undergrad GPA doesn't really help you: once you have law school grades, employers have information that allows them to evaluate you relative to your law school peers.

Would having NYU's AnBryce or RTK on your resume help you though? I've seen it mentioned in a couple of places of people's profiles

No, except as a signal to a PI-minded employer that you have a PI commitment that predates law school. That could make a difference in some specific circumstances, although probably not most.

[Executrix]

I'm a 2L at a T-14 who "took the money" over Harvard. You can never know how exams will go, but at the moment anyway I am in the top ~2% of the class. I think some of these questions can never really be answered with the definitiveness that you want, but to answer some of them at least from my perspective.

1) No, I don't think the scholarship on my resume is of any value at all, frankly. I've gotten great opportunities, don't get me wrong, but I think it's more due to my grades than anything else. I can never be sure, of course, but let's put it this way: if an elite firm is hiring 20 people, and has de facto slots for 7 harvard candidates and 1 michigan candidate, the Darrow recipient is still considered as part of the "Michigan" pool, will be judged against the other Michigan candidates, and ultimately, the firm will only hire one Michigan person. I've contemplated taking it off my resume, but career services says I should keep it.

2) There's a real difference between HYS and non-HYS at the high end -- clerkships, elite boutiques, and the like. A lot of this is just that our alumni network is not nearly as good. A lot of feeder judges (and some non-feeder judges on competitive courts) have never hired candidates from our school, we have few alumni active federal judges, we have fewer people in high level government positions, etc. But some of it is honestly straight-up elitism. No one ever went broke betting on the endless prestige obsession of the legal industry. I've been told by some professors that there are judges I shouldn't bother applying to, because they never hire non-HYS, and that there are judges who will literally only hire non-HYS if you are #1 in your class. This difference can limit your opportunities if you're dead set on competitive stuff like impact litigation (I am not), because a lot of competitive positions pretty much require these clerkships as prerequisites, and it's just harder to get them outside of HYS. *This doesn't apply to like 95% of jobs and is irrelevant to most people*, but just so you're aware.

3) That said, I'm still glad I took the money, because my debt is low and I will be able to pay it off pretty quickly in biglaw (hopefully). But I'm not the type of person who is dead set on a certain elite outcome. If you are that type of person, maybe you should still take the scholarship (60k tuition now is it? Just insane...), but you unfortunately may be giving something up. It's hard to say for sure though. Anecdotes are, after all, anecdotes.

[jrc223]

Hey everyone. Thank you for the incredible amount of input. It's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not sure why the assumption was that I'm male, but I'm female. The second is I understand that while many may not know about the Hamilton fellowship, especially outside of New York, wouldn't even having the words "full tuition merit scholarship" on a resume hold weight? And then my other question is that if we're operating under the theory that getting a Hamilton is in some way correlated with subsequent performance wouldn't the grading system at Columbia make it far easier to differentiate yourself as part of the top of the class?

What do you want to do? You mentioned that you wanted to work in NY and that you were open to the idea of politics, but that was it.

This entire thread comes down to how much you are willing to pay for an additional unit of prestige. CLS has X, HLS has X + Y. You're trying to justify attending CLS by telling yourself that the Hamilton will close the gap in prestige, but I agree with the other posters ITT that any employer who already believes there is a difference between the two will not view your application any differently just because it says "full tuition merit scholarship."

So we're left with a difference of Y, and whether or not this difference is worth 100K (probably closer to 200K, as another poster pointed out) will boil down to what you want to do with your JD. If your goal is to chase some unicorn PI job or to go into politics, the extra cost might be justified. But from your OP, it sounds like you're unsure what you want to do; the only thing you've figured out is your ultimate location. If that is the case, it would be extremely foolish to turn down the Hamilton scholarship. (Also, as a general note, you should assume you will be median at any school you attend, regardless of your scholarship)

It would be wholly dishonest for me to say that I have it all figured out. I am looking for a school where I have the opportunity to pursue multiple legal interests. For now though I love the idea of becoming a public advocate, and certainly would like to be doing public interest work at some point in my career. It's just a question of whether I start in big law and transition, go straight into PI work, or end up doing big law and expressing my love for public interest via pro bono work.

CLS and HLS will provide you with very similar opportunities, and the only differences will be at the margins (as others have mentioned: elite boutiques, certain clerkships, etc.). But graduating without debt will provide you with much greater flexibility to choose what you ultimately want to do. It will also allow you to pursue non-legal jobs after law school if you ultimately don't like being a lawyer. Graduating with six figures of debt won't give you this same degree of freedom.

Again, it comes down to how much $100K+ actually means to you. Only you can determine whether the differences between CLS and HLS are worth that much. It seems like, to most people on the board, the differences aren't actually worth much money, but you're the one who has to live with this decision.

[jbagelboy]

You misinterpreted what I was saying for the first point. I agree that a named scholarship does NOT have the potential to outweigh poor grades. I thought I was quite clear that grades are the determinative factor. However, I do think that a named scholarship can be weighed in the "preftige" factor, however that might work. A candidate who is a top 10% Hamilton Fellow at CLS is probably likely to be viewed the same as (or, but this is less likely, better than) a candidate who is top 10% at HYS, assuming the person in charge of hiring knows what the Hamilton is.

I'm sorry, but, based on my experience with clerkship and firm hiring, this is just completely wrong. What do you base this statement on?

When it comes to firm hiring in NYC, interviewers are familiar with the columbia merit aid scholarships. They have noted them (not "what is this", but more, I see you are this, neat). It signals that the applicant/interviewee was admitted to HLS and chose not to attend. This doesn't mean that Hamilton = attended a different school, though. It doesn't provide you with a different degree. It means you went to CLS and you were smart to do so, which doesn't need any buffeting.

I'm a 2L at a T-14 who "took the money" over Harvard. You can never know how exams will go, but at the moment anyway I am in the top ~2% of the class. I think some of these questions can never really be answered with the definitiveness that you want, but to answer some of them at least from my perspective.

1) No, I don't think the scholarship on my resume is of any value at all, frankly. I've gotten great opportunities, don't get me wrong, but I think it's more due to my grades than anything else. I can never be sure, of course, but let's put it this way: if an elite firm is hiring 20 people, and has de facto slots for 7 harvard candidates and 1 michigan candidate, the Darrow recipient is still considered as part of the "Michigan" pool, will be judged against the other Michigan candidates, and ultimately, the firm will only hire one Michigan person. I've contemplated taking it off my resume, but career services says I should keep it.

2) There's a real difference between HYS and non-HYS at the high end -- clerkships, elite boutiques, and the like. A lot of this is just that our alumni network is not nearly as good. A lot of feeder judges (and some non-feeder judges on competitive courts) have never hired candidates from our school, we have few alumni active federal judges, we have fewer people in high level government positions, etc. But some of it is honestly straight-up elitism. No one ever went broke betting on the endless prestige obsession of the legal industry. I've been told by some professors that there are judges I shouldn't bother applying to, because they never hire non-HYS, and that there are judges who will literally only hire non-HYS if you are #1 in your class. This difference can limit your opportunities if you're dead set on competitive stuff like impact litigation (I am not), because a lot of competitive positions pretty much require these clerkships as prerequisites, and it's just harder to get them outside of HYS. *This doesn't apply to like 95% of jobs and is irrelevant to most people*, but just so you're aware.

3) That said, I'm still glad I took the money, because my debt is low and I will be able to pay it off pretty quickly in biglaw (hopefully). But I'm not the type of person who is dead set on a certain elite outcome. If you are that type of person, maybe you should still take the scholarship (60k tuition now is it? Just insane...), but you unfortunately may be giving something up. It's hard to say for sure though. Anecdotes are, after all, anecdotes.

to quote our good friend marcobot, TLS needs to dispel with this fiction that these US News generated 'blocks' of schools have independent significance, like "HYS" and "CCN". Harvard and Yale, for example, are very different schools with different sets out outcomes--far more different, for example, than the differences between Harvard and Columbia (which in many circumstances will be negligible, and in other cases that have been noted ITT will be more significant). This is particularly true when it comes to "how low X firm or judge goes in the class," where the standard at CLS may differ from HLS which may differ from YLS or SLS. It's a sliding scale, not a concrete block.

Your professors are flatly wrong: there are no judges that "only hire from 'hys'". Every major feeder (the most competitive judges) hire from non-HYS. No one on TLS has ever been able to point to a judge that literally only hires from three schools. Same goes for Bristow, elite firms, academic placement, ect.