Top Law Schools

Newsflash: secondary markets don't hire very many people. If you want to work in BigLaw you better be prepared to work in New York. If you aren't willing to work in New York, don't spend much, if any, money on tuition. If you absolutely must end up in Atlanta after you law school you are just as stupid for spending 150K on Duke as you would be for spending 200K for Columbia.

To the OP's question, yeah pretty much, cuz it's super sweet to say you went to Harvard. And BW's one comment re: Harvard vs. Columbia is credited; Columbia doesn't give you anything that Harvard can't.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Newsflash: secondary markets don't hire very many people. If you want to work in BigLaw you better be prepared to work in New York. If you aren't willing to work in New York, don't spend much, if any, money on tuition. If you absolutely must end up in Atlanta after you law school you are just as stupid for spending 150K on Duke as you would be for spending 200K for Columbia.

To the OP's question, yeah pretty much, cuz it's super sweet to say you went to Harvard. And BW's one comment re: Harvard vs. Columbia is credited; Columbia doesn't give you anything that Harvard can't.

Yeah, I figured as much. Was jw because I have ties to a secondary, but definitely set on NYC. Was one motivating factor for ED'ing NYU.

twentypercentmore wrote:

BlaqBella wrote:

twentypercentmore wrote:I'd absolutely take Columbia at a full ride over H.

Do.not.do.it.

The post directly above you, you say Hamilton. That's... a full ride scholarship.

My bad. I somehow misread your comment to mean taking CLS at full price over H, also at full price. As for Hamilton, IMHO it will be the only reason to attend CLS over H. My opinion still stands that even if presented with the OP's scenario of a partial scholly to CLS, H prevails. COL in NYC is ridiculously expensive...not to mention tuition at CLS. I believe Harvard comes out cheaper.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Newsflash: secondary markets don't hire very many people. If you want to work in BigLaw you better be prepared to work in New York. If you aren't willing to work in New York, don't spend much, if any, money on tuition. If you absolutely must end up in Atlanta after you law school you are just as stupid for spending 150K on Duke as you would be for spending 200K for Columbia.

To the OP's question, yeah pretty much, cuz it's super sweet to say you went to Harvard. And BW's one comment re: Harvard vs. Columbia is credited; Columbia doesn't give you anything that Harvard can't.

LOL this is terrible logic. I mean in a way I'm not even sure what the hell you're saying. So because it's a lot harder to get secondary market biglaw don't spend a lot of money on Duke or Columbia--and this relates to Harvard how? Of course you shouldn't spend a lot of money on a law school like Duke or Columbia if you want secondary market biglaw--that's really the point of what I'm saying. But HYS are just in a completely different league from Columbia and the rest of the top 14. The beauty of attending Harvard is that if you want secondary market biglaw and you have the ties you will get it (or you can probably get DC). On top of that you STILL have a better shot at getting NYC biglaw from Harvard than you do at Columbia. The ability to get a secondary market or DC biglaw even ITE if you go to Harvard makes the gap between Harvard and Columbia colossal. I'm sorry but it just does. Having the luxury of being able to choose to work in NYC biglaw or biglaw somewhere else is incredible. And again that's not even taking into account the huge difference for clerkships and BigFed.

Hell I know people from Harvard with average grades who got biglaw in secondary markets they DIDN'T even have ties to just because of the Harvard name and being able to interview well (in Chicago and Texas at that--2 tough places to get without ties). Trying to do that with below median grades from Columbaai= LULZ. I don't know which poster started the "top 6" and "CCN" is borderline HYS movement but it is absolute garbage. Outside of NYC biglaw firms employers do not differentiate between the top 14 other than which one is located in their region.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:

kwais wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:Because of the way Harvard does aid, and because of the massive difference in job prospects, there is no circumstance where Columbia over Harvard makes sense (unless you have some sort of serious personal reason to attend CLS).

super lulz

This. You do realize that more than a handful of people at Harvard strike out each year?

As for the OP, how much money is Columbia giving you?

Definitely not much more than a handful and even among those handful there are predictable characteristics (i.e. beyond grades) that lead to striking out. Someone with straight P grades, reasonable personality/interviewing and reasonable bidding strategy will likely get multiple V100 offers.

ETA: Im somewhere in bottom third at H and not IP and I got 15+ callbacks, all firms that pay top of their market.

BruceWayne wrote: Hell I know people from Harvard with average grades who got biglaw in secondary markets they DIDN'T even have ties to just because of the Harvard name and being able to interview well (in Chicago and Texas at that--2 tough places to get without ties).

TaipeiMort transferred to Harvard?

BruceWayne wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Newsflash: secondary markets don't hire very many people. If you want to work in BigLaw you better be prepared to work in New York. If you aren't willing to work in New York, don't spend much, if any, money on tuition. If you absolutely must end up in Atlanta after you law school you are just as stupid for spending 150K on Duke as you would be for spending 200K for Columbia.

To the OP's question, yeah pretty much, cuz it's super sweet to say you went to Harvard. And BW's one comment re: Harvard vs. Columbia is credited; Columbia doesn't give you anything that Harvard can't.

LOL this is terrible logic. I mean in a way I'm not even sure what the hell you're saying. So because it's a lot harder to get secondary market biglaw don't spend a lot of money on Duke or Columbia--and this relates to Harvard how? Of course you shouldn't spend a lot of money on a law school like Duke or Columbia if you want secondary market biglaw--that's really the point of what I'm saying. But HYS are just in a completely different league from Columbia and the rest of the top 14. The beauty of attending Harvard is that if you want secondary market biglaw and you have the ties you will get it (or you can probably get DC). On top of that you STILL have a better shot at getting NYC biglaw from Harvard than you do at Columbia. The ability to get a secondary market or DC biglaw even ITE if you go to Harvard makes the gap between Harvard and Columbia colossal. I'm sorry but it just does. Having the luxury of being able to choose to work in NYC biglaw or biglaw somewhere else is incredible. And again that's not even taking into account the huge difference for clerkships and BigFed.

Hell I know people from Harvard with average grades who got biglaw in secondary markets they DIDN'T even have ties to just because of the Harvard name and being able to interview well (in Chicago and Texas at that--2 tough places to get without ties). Trying to do that with below median grades from Columbaai= LULZ. I don't know which poster started the "top 6" and "CCN" is borderline HYS movement but it is absolute garbage. Outside of NYC biglaw firms employers do not differentiate between the top 14 other than which one is located in their region.

This is an insane amount of bullshit. Your ability to get a job in a secondary market (which appears coveted by some weirdos on this site) is not going to be different whether you go to Harvard or Columbia. In a place like Atlanta, they will be happy you can read. People massively underestimate how much your own interviewing skills, personality, and work experience come into play, and these alleged advantages that Harvard confers sure haven't helped the legions of unemployed Harvard grads out there.

Anecdotal evidence - I taught LSAT classes before law school, and one of the guys who was trying (and failed) to get a job at the prep company was a Harvard Law graduate. There are plenty of people who strike out at Harvard and go straight down the drain from there. This whole notion that it is some kind of golden ticket forever is absolute nonsense.

If you're a loser with no personality and no ability to convince someone to give you a job with Columbia on your resume instead of Harvard, you have bigger problems in life. If you think that you have a reasonable ability to make friends and connect with other professionals in a meaningful way, the two are functionally identical and won't change your employment opportunities. This was one of the many choices I considered when choosing a law school, and I do not believe that it's nearly as cut and dry as the mouth breathers on this site think it is.

Wow it's terrifying how many people on this site give out job advice and have no idea what they're talking about. What's worse is how it's gotten so bad that they think that saying things like "for weirdos who want to work somewhere other than NYC" supports their horrible info. Wow just wow. I knew Thiago had no idea about jobs and liked giving bad advice but where this other guy came from...It's amazing how many people pick up US News and think they suddenly understand legal hiring.

BruceWayne wrote:Wow it's terrifying how many people on this site give out job advice and have no idea what they're talking about. What's worse is how it's gotten so bad that they think that saying things like "for weirdos who want to work somewhere other than NYC" supports their horrible info. Wow just wow. I knew Thiago had no idea about jobs and liked giving bad advice but where this other guy came from...It's amazing how many people pick up US News and think they suddenly understand legal hiring.

Right... because I haven't been successful in the hiring process for both law and banking during school... I worked in a secondary market after 1L, and I made my school choice on info similar to yours, and I have often thought that it was complete BS since then. I could definitely have gotten the same job from a school lower ranked than the one I attend. You know how I know? Because some of the other summers went to lower ranked schools and were around median. Fit, personality, and work experience matter tremendously. They certainly matter much more than whether you go to Harvard or Columbia. It's incorrect to believe that hiring is so linear and grade/rank based that it will change your prospects whether you go to Harvard or Columbia.

Borg wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:Wow it's terrifying how many people on this site give out job advice and have no idea what they're talking about. What's worse is how it's gotten so bad that they think that saying things like "for weirdos who want to work somewhere other than NYC" supports their horrible info. Wow just wow. I knew Thiago had no idea about jobs and liked giving bad advice but where this other guy came from...It's amazing how many people pick up US News and think they suddenly understand legal hiring.

Right... because I haven't been successful in the hiring process for both law and banking during school... I worked in a secondary market after 1L, and I made my school choice on info similar to yours, and I have often thought that it was complete BS since then. I could definitely have gotten the same job from a school lower ranked than the one I attend. You know how I know? Because some of the other summers went to lower ranked schools and were around median. Fit, personality, and work experience matter tremendously. They certainly matter much more than whether you go to Harvard or Columbia. It's incorrect to believe that hiring is so linear and grade/rank based that it will change your prospects whether you go to Harvard or Columbia.

you are obviously right, but good luck convincing bruce wayne on this one.

Borg wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:Wow it's terrifying how many people on this site give out job advice and have no idea what they're talking about. What's worse is how it's gotten so bad that they think that saying things like "for weirdos who want to work somewhere other than NYC" supports their horrible info. Wow just wow. I knew Thiago had no idea about jobs and liked giving bad advice but where this other guy came from...It's amazing how many people pick up US News and think they suddenly understand legal hiring.

Right... because I haven't been successful in the hiring process for both law and banking during school... I worked in a secondary market after 1L, and I made my school choice on info similar to yours, and I have often thought that it was complete BS since then. I could definitely have gotten the same job from a school lower ranked than the one I attend. You know how I know? Because some of the other summers went to lower ranked schools and were around median. Fit, personality, and work experience matter tremendously. They certainly matter much more than whether you go to Harvard or Columbia. It's incorrect to believe that hiring is so linear and grade/rank based that it will change your prospects whether you go to Harvard or Columbia.

I think the issue here is about people a bit below median. There probably is a little bit of gap there where firms will take your shitty gpa so they can prestige whore.

Borg wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:Wow it's terrifying how many people on this site give out job advice and have no idea what they're talking about. What's worse is how it's gotten so bad that they think that saying things like "for weirdos who want to work somewhere other than NYC" supports their horrible info. Wow just wow. I knew Thiago had no idea about jobs and liked giving bad advice but where this other guy came from...It's amazing how many people pick up US News and think they suddenly understand legal hiring.

Right... because I haven't been successful in the hiring process for both law and banking during school... I worked in a secondary market after 1L, and I made my school choice on info similar to yours, and I have often thought that it was complete BS since then. I could definitely have gotten the same job from a school lower ranked than the one I attend. You know how I know? Because some of the other summers went to lower ranked schools and were around median. Fit, personality, and work experience matter tremendously. They certainly matter much more than whether you go to Harvard or Columbia. It's incorrect to believe that hiring is so linear and grade/rank based that it will change your prospects whether you go to Harvard or Columbia.

The problem is that these don't change depending on what school you go to. All else equal, in many non-NYC markets you would have better prospects from Harvard than Columbia. It probably also has a lot to do with the fact that their are often just more Harvard partners at more firms in a lot of these major secondary markets (BOS/ATL/CHI/SF/etc).

It's getting downright scary how bad the career advice being given out in this thread. Really it's to a point where it could shut someone out of the job they want if they follow it.

"Fit, personality, and interview skills" will not get a below median Columbia student a firm job in DC. It will at Harvard. Williams and Conolly hires top 1/3 Harvard students. They barely hire the very top of the class from Columbia. DC firms like filling up their classes with HYS students and then the VERY top of the class at the rest of the top 14. Simply needing a JD from Harvard and interview skills is a big difference from needing a 3.4 and interview skills at CLS just to stand a chance at a DC firm job. A 3.1 CLS grad isn't getting biglaw in Chicago, DC, Dallas, Atlanta, SF etc. A Harvard one will as long as they interview well.

What people like Borg and the other Columbia 1Ls don't get is that, except for HYS, schools are pretty regional unless you have high grades and or ties. Firms in non NYC markets aren't jumping to take below median Columbia students based on "fit". Yet even in super selective DC they are trying to fill their class with HYS students. Hell Columbia below median isn't beating out median Boalt in Cali, median UVA in Atlanta, or median NU in Chicago.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Newsflash: secondary markets don't hire very many people. If you want to work in BigLaw you better be prepared to work in New York. If you aren't willing to work in New York, don't spend much, if any, money on tuition. If you absolutely must end up in Atlanta after you law school you are just as stupid for spending 150K on Duke as you would be for spending 200K for Columbia.

To the OP's question, yeah pretty much, cuz it's super sweet to say you went to Harvard. And BW's one comment re: Harvard vs. Columbia is credited; Columbia doesn't give you anything that Harvard can't.

Except for money.

Summary: if you're dead set on NYC biglaw, and you get lots of money from Columbia, then ya maybe it's fine to take Columbia over Harvard. Or if you're Ruth Bader Ginsburg then go for it (but you're not). But if you're interested in anything other than NYC biglaw, then go to Harvard.

are we really advocating going to H over C even at full price vs. a full scholarship? For any reason (other than academia)? It's not like CCN don't place alot into clerkships... unless you want to go into politics/academia I see no reason why someone should shell out 200k for Harvard vs COL for Columbia.

I think the idea of a debt-free (or even a reduced-debt) law school education at a highly-ranked school is being underrated in this thread. $160k is a lot of money when you don't have loan payments, or when you're paying down $80k in loans rather than $200k.

BigBucks wrote:are we really advocating going to H over C even at full price vs. a full scholarship? For any reason (other than academia)? It's not like CCN don't place alot into clerkships... unless you want to go into politics/academia I see no reason why someone should shell out 200k for Harvard vs COL for Columbia.

No. That would be dumb. Evene if you want to go into politics/academia.

CreativityKing wrote:I think the idea of a debt-free (or even a reduced-debt) law school education at a highly-ranked school is being underrated in this thread. $160k is a lot of money when you don't have loan payments, or when you're paying down $80k in loans rather than $200k.

Its not being underrated. The OP assumes nominal money at Columbia vs. zero at Harvard. Take a full-ride at Columbia over Harvard at full price every single time.

Hamilton or personal reasons are the only reasons to consider CLS over HLS.

Next topic.

kwais wrote:

Borg wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:Wow it's terrifying how many people on this site give out job advice and have no idea what they're talking about. What's worse is how it's gotten so bad that they think that saying things like "for weirdos who want to work somewhere other than NYC" supports their horrible info. Wow just wow. I knew Thiago had no idea about jobs and liked giving bad advice but where this other guy came from...It's amazing how many people pick up US News and think they suddenly understand legal hiring.

Right... because I haven't been successful in the hiring process for both law and banking during school... I worked in a secondary market after 1L, and I made my school choice on info similar to yours, and I have often thought that it was complete BS since then. I could definitely have gotten the same job from a school lower ranked than the one I attend. You know how I know? Because some of the other summers went to lower ranked schools and were around median. Fit, personality, and work experience matter tremendously. They certainly matter much more than whether you go to Harvard or Columbia. It's incorrect to believe that hiring is so linear and grade/rank based that it will change your prospects whether you go to Harvard or Columbia.

you are obviously right, but good luck convincing bruce wayne on this one.

^
Yep, kwais is exactly right on this one. Despite people's personal experiences that contradict his absolutist statements (like me personally knowing 3 URMs who were wayyyyy below median who landed V100 jobs but him insisting there is a strict grade cut off and URM is not a modest boost in hiring), BruceWayne won't budge on his black-and-white opinions. I don't disagree that there is a gap in how Harvard is seen by employers in comparison to how CCN are seen by employers, but it is not the gigantic chasm he makes it out to be. Likewise, when 80-90% of the people who do CLS's EIP get offers whereas the # is nowhere near as high at UVa, I am not convinced that employers see the rest of the T14 as fungible.

This is crazy. Unless you have the Hamilton and no money at HLS, go to HLS.

To sum up for any readers who just joined, ITT:

1. OP puts horse before cart, others argue about hypothetical horse and cart positioning and proper horse to cart ratio.

2. Columbia 1L's inform us of the heretofore unknown "legions" of unemployed Harvard grads. Legions.

3. Posters marshal more or less every possible hypothetical, mostly arguing about money, and yet no one actually mentions LRAP programs or the differences between them - particularly the very salient differences in what employment qualifies - because that would require reading and not just making generalizations based on personal anecdotes about how secondary markets - defined variously through the thread as everything between Macon, GA and Chicago(!) - make hiring decisions.

4. A few people give the correct answer, which is take the full scholarship at Columbia unless you really want academia, and if it's a less substantial money interest go with Harvard.

Stinson wrote: 2. Columbia 1L's inform us of the heretofore unknown "legions" of unemployed Harvard grads. Legions.

Nah.

somewhatwayward wrote:

kwais wrote:

Borg wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:Wow it's terrifying how many people on this site give out job advice and have no idea what they're talking about. What's worse is how it's gotten so bad that they think that saying things like "for weirdos who want to work somewhere other than NYC" supports their horrible info. Wow just wow. I knew Thiago had no idea about jobs and liked giving bad advice but where this other guy came from...It's amazing how many people pick up US News and think they suddenly understand legal hiring.

Right... because I haven't been successful in the hiring process for both law and banking during school... I worked in a secondary market after 1L, and I made my school choice on info similar to yours, and I have often thought that it was complete BS since then. I could definitely have gotten the same job from a school lower ranked than the one I attend. You know how I know? Because some of the other summers went to lower ranked schools and were around median. Fit, personality, and work experience matter tremendously. They certainly matter much more than whether you go to Harvard or Columbia. It's incorrect to believe that hiring is so linear and grade/rank based that it will change your prospects whether you go to Harvard or Columbia.

you are obviously right, but good luck convincing bruce wayne on this one.

Yep, kwais is exactly right on this one. Despite people's personal experiences that contradict his absolutist statements (like me personally knowing 3 URMs who were wayyyyy below median who landed V100 jobs but him insisting there is a strict grade cut off and URM is not a modest boost in hiring), BruceWayne won't budge on his black-and-white opinions. I don't disagree that there is a gap in how Harvard is seen by employers in comparison to how CCN are seen by employers, but it is not the gigantic chasm he makes it out to be. Likewise, when 80-90% of the people who do CLS's EIP get offers whereas the # is nowhere near as high at UVa, I am not convinced that employers see the rest of the T14 as fungible.

First I had no idea there were so many Columbia grads on here and that they were so vehement about them being "basically the same as Harvard". Normally I'm not a fan of that form of argument but it's just a bit too coincidental that EVERYONE arguing that point goes to Columbia.

Second, that whole "80 & of Columbia got a firm offer" thing is really only something that's been repeated by Columbia/NYU students online. It doesn't match up with the nlj numbers (or anything else) and its nothing more than internet hearsay.

Third, one argument technique that I notice a very large percentage of TLS Columbia posters like to use when it comes to employment prospects in general--but particularly in regard to how they compare to HYS (well either a technique or they can't read very well but I'll assume it's the former since they got into CLS) is that when people ask them about how CLS compares to other schools in placement they ignore any and everything people ask about non-NYC biglaw jobs. It's very weird. Even when people specifically say that they want to know about how job prospects compare between CLS and another school they never respond with anything other than how many people get big NYC firm jobs. This last guy is a prime example. Even though several people specifically said that Columbia is no different than the rest of the top 14 for NON-NYC BIGLAW jobs he STILL is talking about how NYC firms are hiring far more at Columbia than UVA. The next thing you know he'll be telling us how remarkable it is that more California firms are hiring from Boalt than Georgetown.


Bottom line for any job that ISN"T AT A NYC BIGLAW FIRM, YES WE KNOW THAT COLUMBIA PUTS A LOT OF PEOPLE INTO FIRMS IN THE CITY WHERE IT IS LOCATED ,Columbia is NOT close to Harvard. Harvard blows Columbia out of the water for DC firm jobs, California firms jobs, Chicago firm jobs, Texas firm jobs, and any other non NYC market. YES COLUMBIA IS PRETTY CLOSE FOR NYC NO ONE IS SAYING THAT IT ISN'T. But Harvard is also far better for the DOJ and any federal government work. Harvard is also in another league for federal clerkship jobs. But again everyone is WELL aware that Columbia puts a lot of people into firms in its home market---you don't have to keep reminding us of that lol.

And as an aside, when people ask for an honest answer about the employment prospect differences between the 2 schools, telling them that trying to get a job that isn't in NYC is "stupid" or that "secondary market firms don't hire" is not a helpful (or mature) response.

Even so, I'd rather graduate with little debt, and take my chances on the strength CLS's reach outside of NYC, whatever it may be. Sure, its not H-level reach, but relative to almost anything else, it is pretty damn good. So yeah, I'd take big $$ at CLS over sticker at H pretty much anytime, unless I was so deadset on the prestige of the H name.

kaiser wrote:Even so, I'd rather graduate with little debt, and take my chances on the strength CLS's reach outside of NYC, whatever it may be. Sure, its not H-level reach, but relative to almost anything else, it is pretty damn good. So yeah, I'd take big $$ at CLS over sticker at H pretty much anytime, unless I was so deadset on the prestige of the H name.

One of the most ironic things about this whole thread is that this scenario it isn't particularly relevent. Harvard does nothing but need-based aid. So if you are truly in financial position where you need scholarship money there's no way in hell you're paying sticker. The only people who face Hamilton vs. Harvard full price are well off people who could pay sticker for Harvard without a problem and who have sky high numbers. I.e wealthy WASPS.