Columbia Full Ride v. Harvard/Stanford for Public Interest Forum

[crackberry]

I think it depends what you want to do with politics. I know a 3L Republican at Columbia who has done a ton of political stuff while there. I don't think it would hurt. After all, Bush went to freakin' Yale.

Yeah, but Bush doesn't exactly exude "Ivy League" the way Obama/Clinton do. Also, I think SCOTUS and POTUS are exceptions to this rule, to a certain extent. Look at senators. A definite majority (no time to look up numbers now) of GOP Sens. went to local/state schools, and those that went to law schools often went to the state law school. For instance, I know Shelby and Sessions both went to Univ. of Alabama Law School. Of course, Alabama is a relatively good state law school, but still, I think the point holds.

Obviously there are Republican politicians who went to good schools, but I think it is more common for a Dem to have gone to a good school than a GOPer.

I think the answer here depends on what driveshaft meant by "something political" in PI. If he means running for public office, then I mostly agree with sfdreaming and crackberry. But if he means a political appointment to a prestigious PI job (e.g., solicitor general), then I disagree that going to an elite school will harm a conservative. To the contrary, Republicans seem to have the same T14 bias--for legal appointments and hiring--as do Democrats.

Yes, this is TCR.

[Reedie]

Call NYU and tell them this. Then call Columbia. Those schools are extremely competitive with one another and neither would want to lose you due to timing. NYU has the best program in the nation for international law according to the most recent citation analysis I saw, though Columbia isn't far behind. Both are better in this field than Stanford or Harvard.

[sfdreaming09]

Yeah, I have to agree with CB on this one. Bush did go to Andover, Harvard, and Yale, but he’s very cleverly created a “common guy” image for himself. Contrast this to Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, etc.. The Repubs painted all these guys as elite eggheads who went to fancy colleges and hung out with (or, in Palin’s words, “palled around with”) similarly out-of-touch, ivory-tower-sheltered elites.

[Dignan]

Yeah, I have to agree with CB on this one. Bush did go to Andover, Harvard, and Yale, but he’s very cleverly created a “common guy” image for himself. Contrast this to Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, etc.. The Repubs painted all these guys as elite eggheads who went to fancy colleges and hung out with (or, in Palin’s words, “palled around with”) similarly out-of-touch, ivory-tower-sheltered elites.

I'm old enough to remember the '92 campaign. Interestingly, the Clinton campaign successfully painted Bush as the elite, out-of-touch Ivy League grad. Democrats are not afraid to resort to populism and anti-intellectualism when it suits their purposes. I agree, however, that Republicans have been much worse in this regard in recent years.

[Reedie]

Yeah, I have to agree with CB on this one. Bush did go to Andover, Harvard, and Yale, but he’s very cleverly created a “common guy” image for himself. Contrast this to Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, etc.. The Repubs painted all these guys as elite eggheads who went to fancy colleges and hung out with (or, in Palin’s words, “palled around with”) similarly out-of-touch, ivory-tower-sheltered elites.

I'm old enough to remember the '92 campaign. Interestingly, the Clinton campaign successfully painted Bush as the elite, out-of-touch Ivy League grad. Democrats are not afraid to resort to populism and anti-intellectualism when it suits their purposes. I agree, however, that Republicans have been much worse in this regard in recent years.

Remember that these people had markedly different entrances into the elite. Clinton was born to fairly normal circumstances, and used his charisma and smarts to get a Rhodes Scholarship and later a Yale law degree. Obama also had to work his behind off to break into the realm of the elite ivy league snobs. Bush and Gore on the other hand both came from families with traditions of power that helped them get into the schools they got into. Personally I resent the people who accomplish so much based on their last name, and respect those who busted ass to get what they have.

That doesn't make them good presidents or vice presidents, though. LBJ, Nixon and Dick Cheney were all "self-made men" who succeeded despite some pretty bad odds (particularly considering that none of them are very charismatic). I don't happen to think any of them did a great job, though they all also had some remarkable successes while in office.

[Dignan]

Yeah, I have to agree with CB on this one. Bush did go to Andover, Harvard, and Yale, but he’s very cleverly created a “common guy” image for himself. Contrast this to Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, etc.. The Repubs painted all these guys as elite eggheads who went to fancy colleges and hung out with (or, in Palin’s words, “palled around with”) similarly out-of-touch, ivory-tower-sheltered elites.

I'm old enough to remember the '92 campaign. Interestingly, the Clinton campaign successfully painted Bush as the elite, out-of-touch Ivy League grad. Democrats are not afraid to resort to populism and anti-intellectualism when it suits their purposes. I agree, however, that Republicans have been much worse in this regard in recent years.

Remember that these people had markedly different entrances into the elite. Clinton was born to fairly normal circumstances, and used his charisma and smarts to get a Rhodes Scholarship and later a Yale law degree. Obama also had to work his behind off to break into the realm of the elite ivy league snobs. Bush and Gore on the other hand both came from families with traditions of power that helped them get into the schools they got into. Personally I resent the people who accomplish so much based on their last name, and respect those who busted ass to get what they have.

I feel similarly, to a point. It's interesting that the two 20th century presidents that progressives probably celebrate the most--FDR and JFK--came from very privileged backgrounds. Neither gets anywhere near the presidency without the money and prestige that came with their family names.

That doesn't make them good presidents or vice presidents, though. LBJ, Nixon and Dick Cheney were all "self-made men" who succeeded despite some pretty bad odds (particularly considering that none of them are very charismatic). I don't happen to think any of them did a great job, though they all also had some remarkable successes while in office.

I am curious to hear what you think Dick Cheney's "remarkable successes" are.

[crackberry]

I am curious to hear what you think Dick Cheney's "remarkable successes" are.

Hah was just posting this too.

Also, this is totally unrelated (to this thread and current topic of discussion) but why are people so in love with JFK? Is it because he was assassinated (and young and attractive)? He didn't really do anything significant in office (unless you consider the space program significant I guess). Also, I'd argue that some progressives hold Clinton in higher regard than JFK (I do, though I could be biased by my youth of course).

[Reedie]

I am curious to hear what you think Dick Cheney's "remarkable successes" are.

He redefined the role of the vice president and turned what had been a fairly useless office into one of the most powerful in the nation. He managed to direct nearly a decade of American foreign policy to enact his vision, and after the fact has become the staunchest defender of that vision (whereas Bush has been more or less silent).

Do I agree with what he's done? No. But it's pretty incredible that he managed to do it.

[crackberry]

I am curious to hear what you think Dick Cheney's "remarkable successes" are.

He redefined the role of the vice president and turned what had been a fairly useless office into one of the most powerful in the nation. He managed to direct nearly a decade of American foreign policy to enact his vision, and after the fact has become the staunchest defender of that vision (whereas Bush has been more or less silent).

Do I agree with what he's done? No. But it's pretty incredible that he managed to do it.

Well, he only managed to do it because his boss let him (whether knowingly or unknowingly, we'll never know). I sincerely doubt many other presidents would let their VPs dictate policy as much as Bush allowed Cheney to do so. It's not like Cheney's changes to the VP office have any staying power. Sure, he expanded the power of the office for him. But not the power of the office in perpetuity.

[Dignan]

I am curious to hear what you think Dick Cheney's "remarkable successes" are.

Hah was just posting this too.

Also, this is totally unrelated (to this thread and current topic of discussion) but why are people so in love with JFK? Is it because he was assassinated (and young and attractive)? He didn't really do anything significant in office (unless you consider the space program significant I guess). Also, I'd argue that some progressives hold Clinton in higher regard than JFK (I do, though I could be biased by my youth of course).

This is an interesting topic. To get a good answer, you need to talk to people of my parents' generation--i.e., people who are in their early to mid 60s. This sounds like a cliche, but Kennedy really did seem to inspire a generation. I have older relatives who dedicated their lives to public service--and who remain in public service to this day--because of Kennedy. He was what Obama tries to be but can't quite pull off.

On the other hand, Kennedy couldn't govern for shit. It took a brilliant politician like LBJ to pass most of Kennedy's challenging initiatives (like the Civil Rights Act). But Kennedy's amazing inspirational speaking skills really did make a difference. And, as you note, being assassinated while young helped create a mythology that elevates JFK's reputation.

[Reedie]

Well, he only managed to do it because his boss let him (whether knowingly or unknowingly, we'll never know). I sincerely doubt many other presidents would let their VPs dictate policy as much as Bush allowed Cheney to do so. It's not like Cheney's changes to the VP office have any staying power. Sure, he expanded the power of the office for him. But not the power of the office in perpetuity.

Nobody succeeds without luck. Would LBJ have managed to get the civil rights act of 1964 through if his boss hadn't of died? No doubt under a firm president like Clinton or Reagan, Cheney wouldn't have been as successful as he was. But I also doubt he would have succeeded if he weren't such a clever, determined, vicious son of a bitch.

[Dignan]

Well, he only managed to do it because his boss let him (whether knowingly or unknowingly, we'll never know). I sincerely doubt many other presidents would let their VPs dictate policy as much as Bush allowed Cheney to do so. It's not like Cheney's changes to the VP office have any staying power. Sure, he expanded the power of the office for him. But not the power of the office in perpetuity.

Nobody succeeds without luck. Would LBJ have managed to get the civil rights act of 1964 through if his boss hadn't of died? No doubt under a firm president like Clinton or Reagan, Cheney wouldn't have been as successful as he was. But I also doubt he would have succeeded if he weren't such a clever, determined, vicious son of a bitch.

I guess I thought you were using "success" in a more normative sense. The others on your initial list--LBJ and Nixon--really did have lasting achievements that have had beneficial effects for the country. LBJ had the Civil Rights Act and Medicare; Nixon had the Clean Air Act and the improvement of relations with China. I acknowledge that these achievements are not without controversy, but I think most Americans would consider them net positives.

Cheney, on the other hand, was only successful in the sense that he managed to do a bunch of stuff. My problem with calling Cheney a success is that the policies that he influenced are generally recognized to be net negatives for the United States.

[Great Satchmo]

Yeah, I have to agree with CB on this one. Bush did go to Andover, Harvard, and Yale, but he’s very cleverly created a “common guy” image for himself. Contrast this to Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, etc.. The Repubs painted all these guys as elite eggheads who went to fancy colleges and hung out with (or, in Palin’s words, “palled around with”) similarly out-of-touch, ivory-tower-sheltered elites.

I'm old enough to remember the '92 campaign. Interestingly, the Clinton campaign successfully painted Bush as the elite, out-of-touch Ivy League grad. Democrats are not afraid to resort to populism and anti-intellectualism when it suits their purposes. I agree, however, that Republicans have been much worse in this regard in recent years.

The operate difference was that Bush was painted as an elite born into that privilege, a "silver platter" type of elite while Obama, on the other hand, has been portrayed as an intellectual elite. The former amounts to entitlement while the latter is more for people who like political issues to be dichotomous (read: the south).

[crackberry]

Also, this is totally unrelated (to this thread and current topic of discussion) but why are people so in love with JFK? Is it because he was assassinated (and young and attractive)? He didn't really do anything significant in office (unless you consider the space program significant I guess). Also, I'd argue that some progressives hold Clinton in higher regard than JFK (I do, though I could be biased by my youth of course).

This is an interesting topic. To get a good answer, you need to talk to people of my parents' generation--i.e., people who are in their early to mid 60s. This sounds like a cliche, but Kennedy really did seem to inspire a generation. I have older relatives who dedicated their lives to public service--and who remain in public service to this day--because of Kennedy. He was what Obama tries to be but can't quite pull off.

On the other hand, Kennedy couldn't govern for shit. It took a brilliant politician like LBJ to pass most of Kennedy's challenging initiatives (like the Civil Rights Act). But Kennedy's amazing inspirational speaking skills really did make a difference. And, as you note, being assassinated while young helped create a mythology that elevates JFK's reputation.

Yeah, I mean my mom (who is 61) absolutely adores JFK. So do all my friends' parents who were between about 14-25 when JFK was killed. I suspect you're right - that he is famous more for his inspiration, etc. than for his political skills, which, as you note, were nothing special.

Nobody succeeds without luck. Would LBJ have managed to get the civil rights act of 1964 through if his boss hadn't of died? No doubt under a firm president like Clinton or Reagan, Cheney wouldn't have been as successful as he was. But I also doubt he would have succeeded if he weren't such a clever, determined, vicious son of a bitch.

There's no question that Cheney was/is all of those things. I just think that weak-willed candidates (Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry) rarely get elected. Bush was able to do so because he ran against Al Gore, who is about as inspirational as the bottom of my shoe and has as much charisma as a goldfish.

[BeastCoastHype]

I guarantee you that any sensible person who has completed at least one semester of law school would take the CLS scholarship. The differences among the top schools are not nearly as pronounced as the TLS community believes, and a full ride at Columbia is huge.

[beef wellington]

Also, this is totally unrelated (to this thread and current topic of discussion) but why are people so in love with JFK? Is it because he was assassinated (and young and attractive)? He didn't really do anything significant in office (unless you consider the space program significant I guess). Also, I'd argue that some progressives hold Clinton in higher regard than JFK (I do, though I could be biased by my youth of course).

This is an interesting topic. To get a good answer, you need to talk to people of my parents' generation--i.e., people who are in their early to mid 60s. This sounds like a cliche, but Kennedy really did seem to inspire a generation. I have older relatives who dedicated their lives to public service--and who remain in public service to this day--because of Kennedy. He was what Obama tries to be but can't quite pull off.

On the other hand, Kennedy couldn't govern for shit. It took a brilliant politician like LBJ to pass most of Kennedy's challenging initiatives (like the Civil Rights Act). But Kennedy's amazing inspirational speaking skills really did make a difference. And, as you note, being assassinated while young helped create a mythology that elevates JFK's reputation.

Yeah, I mean my mom (who is 61) absolutely adores JFK. So do all my friends' parents who were between about 14-25 when JFK was killed. I suspect you're right - that he is famous more for his inspiration, etc. than for his political skills, which, as you note, were nothing special.

Nobody succeeds without luck. Would LBJ have managed to get the civil rights act of 1964 through if his boss hadn't of died? No doubt under a firm president like Clinton or Reagan, Cheney wouldn't have been as successful as he was. But I also doubt he would have succeeded if he weren't such a clever, determined, vicious son of a bitch.

There's no question that Cheney was/is all of those things. I just think that weak-willed candidates (Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry) rarely get elected. Bush was able to do so because he ran against Al Gore, who is about as inspirational as the bottom of my shoe and has as much charisma as a goldfish.

Also he stole the election.

[Dignan]

Yeah, I have to agree with CB on this one. Bush did go to Andover, Harvard, and Yale, but he’s very cleverly created a “common guy” image for himself. Contrast this to Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, etc.. The Repubs painted all these guys as elite eggheads who went to fancy colleges and hung out with (or, in Palin’s words, “palled around with”) similarly out-of-touch, ivory-tower-sheltered elites.

I'm old enough to remember the '92 campaign. Interestingly, the Clinton campaign successfully painted Bush as the elite, out-of-touch Ivy League grad. Democrats are not afraid to resort to populism and anti-intellectualism when it suits their purposes. I agree, however, that Republicans have been much worse in this regard in recent years.

The operate difference was that Bush was painted as an elite born into that privilege, a "silver platter" type of elite while Obama, on the other hand, has been portrayed as an intellectual elite. The former amounts to entitlement while the latter is more for people who like political issues to be dichotomous (read: the south).

I think that's right. To be fair to Bush 41, though, he was a person of considerable achievement. Bush of course benefited from his family name, but he worked hard in the military, in college, and in the professional world. Before entering politics, Bush had a lot of success based on merit. The same could not be said of his son.

[crackberry]

Also he stole the election.

That too.

[crackberry]

Bush 41 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush 43. TCR would be about 10^700 >>s I just didn't want to be too annoying.

[heyguys]

I guarantee you that any sensible person who has completed at least one semester of law school would take the CLS scholarship. The differences among the top schools are not nearly as pronounced as the TLS community believes, and a full ride at Columbia is huge.

+1. Full Ride at Columbia>>>HYS. In fact, full ride at Michigan>HYS as well. I just couldn't imagine myself being at Columbia and thinking 'Man, I sure do wish I had dropped 150k so that I could go to HYS.'

[EijiMiyake]

I guarantee you that any sensible person who has completed at least one semester of law school would take the CLS scholarship. The differences among the top schools are not nearly as pronounced as the TLS community believes, and a full ride at Columbia is huge.

+1. Full Ride at Columbia>>>HYS. In fact, full ride at Michigan>HYS as well. I just couldn't imagine myself being at Columbia and thinking 'Man, I sure do wish I had dropped 150k so that I could go to HYS.'

It's interesting that most of the Hamilton's on LSN turn it down for HYS, and that seemingly the vast majority of the Darrow's on LSN turn it down for other schools.

[crackberry]

I guarantee you that any sensible person who has completed at least one semester of law school would take the CLS scholarship. The differences among the top schools are not nearly as pronounced as the TLS community believes, and a full ride at Columbia is huge.

+1. Full Ride at Columbia>>>HYS. In fact, full ride at Michigan>HYS as well. I just couldn't imagine myself being at Columbia and thinking 'Man, I sure do wish I had dropped 150k so that I could go to HYS.'

It's interesting that most of the Hamilton's on LSN turn it down for HYS, and that seemingly the vast majority of the Darrow's on LSN turn it down for other schools.

0L ignorance FTL.

[EijiMiyake]

I guarantee you that any sensible person who has completed at least one semester of law school would take the CLS scholarship. The differences among the top schools are not nearly as pronounced as the TLS community believes, and a full ride at Columbia is huge.

+1. Full Ride at Columbia>>>HYS. In fact, full ride at Michigan>HYS as well. I just couldn't imagine myself being at Columbia and thinking 'Man, I sure do wish I had dropped 150k so that I could go to HYS.'

It's interesting that most of the Hamilton's on LSN turn it down for HYS, and that seemingly the vast majority of the Darrow's on LSN turn it down for other schools.

0L ignorance FTL.

Hah, it's hard to imagine you turning down Stanford for the Hamilton or Darrow though. I'm just pointing out that people are attached to certain schools for any number of reasons.

[crackberry]

Hah, it's hard to imagine you turning down Stanford for the Hamilton or Darrow though. I'm just pointing out that people are attached to certain schools for any number of reasons.

Nope, you're absolutely right. That said, I want to do PI, so my loans coming out of SLS probably won't be that big a burden.

[EijiMiyake]

Hah, it's hard to imagine you turning down Stanford for the Hamilton or Darrow though. I'm just pointing out that people are attached to certain schools for any number of reasons.

Nope, you're absolutely right. That said, I want to do PI, so my loans coming out of SLS probably won't be that big a burden.

Yeah, I wonder at what salary it becomes worth it to say "screw debt, LRAP is taking care of it anyway." It's becoming clear that this strategy isn't great on federal pay scales.