HYS, T6 or UW for Seattle Law Forum

[mac2013]

Update 4/10!

Background:
Will be three years out of school when I start law school. I went to HYS for undergrad. I have lived outside of Seattle, but know for sure I want to return after law school.

Paying for school: myself = loans, minimal savings

Career Goals: Clerkship, Big law (litigation). I would rather do a smaller law firm in seattle rather than big law in another market. I also would prefer to clerk in washington state.

Here are my top options( Stanford and Berkeley came through with money):

[*]Stanford - 21K grant a year means $125- 150,000 in loans
[*]Chicago - Ruby scholarship (0K in loans)
[*]Berkeley - Full Scholarship $45,000 in loans
[*]University of Washington - $45,000 in loans


I have not heard back from Harvard and Yale. But, note if acceptance to either of them would change your answer.

[PrideandGlory1776]

Ruby and it's not remotely close. Hamilton and Ruby are perhaps the best possible scenario in all situations other than maybe Yale. If you get Yale go with it but otherwise take the Ruby & enjoy ChiTown!

[rickgrimes69]

You should be a little insulted that UW didn't offer you a fully and can safely discount that option

If your top goal is a clerkship TCR is Stanford

If your top goal is just Seattle ideally you'd do Berk on a fully, but when they stiff you (Berk 'gon Berk) take the Ruby instead

[lawschool2014hopeful]

You should be a little insulted that UW didn't offer you a fully and can safely discount that option

If your top goal is a clerkship TCR is Stanford

If your top goal is just Seattle ideally you'd do Berk on a fully, but when they stiff you (Berk 'gon Berk) take the Ruby instead

Lol?

Stanford and Chicago's Clerkship rate is NOT significantly different....

Chicago, and this is not even close. You already have a ivy undergrad, the extra lay prestige, which is the only thing you would get for going to HYS wont even matter.

[unc0mm0n1]

Ruby and it's not remotely close. Hamilton and Ruby are perhaps the best possible scenario in all situations other than maybe Yale. If you get Yale go with it but otherwise take the Ruby & enjoy ChiTown!

If you get Yale still take the Ruby.

[abl]

You should be a little insulted that UW didn't offer you a fully and can safely discount that option

If your top goal is a clerkship TCR is Stanford

If your top goal is just Seattle ideally you'd do Berk on a fully, but when they stiff you (Berk 'gon Berk) take the Ruby instead

Lol?

Stanford and Chicago's Clerkship rate is NOT significantly different....

Chicago, and this is not even close. You already have a ivy undergrad, the extra lay prestige, which is the only thing you would get for going to HYS wont even matter.

24% vs 9%. That's pretty significant.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/c ... clerkships

[jbagelboy]

You should be a little insulted that UW didn't offer you a fully and can safely discount that option

If your top goal is a clerkship TCR is Stanford

If your top goal is just Seattle ideally you'd do Berk on a fully, but when they stiff you (Berk 'gon Berk) take the Ruby instead

Lol?

Stanford and Chicago's Clerkship rate is NOT significantly different....

Chicago, and this is not even close. You already have a ivy undergrad, the extra lay prestige, which is the only thing you would get for going to HYS wont even matter.

24% vs 9%. That's pretty significant.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/c ... clerkships

You are right S dominates in A3, but why do you use weird data? LST is all you need. Chicago places ~15% into fed clerkships, just shy of H but pretty substantially below Stanford and Yale.

[abl]

The question is what is your risk tolerance. Going to Chicago is somewhat of a gamble regarding clerkships relative to Stanford. You will have a real shot of getting a clerkship (less so getting a clerkship in WA) at Chicago, but it will be substantially less of a shot than if you went to Stanford. So ask yourself: how heartbroken will you be if you don't clerk / don't clerk in WA? How willing are you to bust your butt for 3 years to be in the top 20% or so of the class at Chicago? If your answer is that you'll be fine if you don't get the clerkship and/or you're willing to outwork your classmates to try, well, Chicago's probably the correct choice. It becomes a much harder question if you really want the clerkship (and/or are not optimistic about your ability to outwork your classmates at Chicago -- mind, that's a LOT of work). The balance tips more towards Chicago if you'd be happy with a state court clerkship, or would be happy taking a district court clerkship after several years in practice. The balance tips more towards Stanford if you're looking for an appellate clerkship (and tips hard towards SLS if you have your heart set on a 9th Cir. clerkship in Seattle).

[Winston1984]

Stanford if you really want the clerkship. If you are cool with not getting one, I'd take the Ruby.

[abl]

You are right S dominates in A3, but why do you use weird data? LST is all you need. Chicago places ~15% into fed clerkships, just shy of H but pretty substantially below Stanford and Yale.

Sorry if that wasn't the best data -- I just used what came up first when I googled "Chicago clerkship percentage" or something of the sort. I figured US News was a legit source. It also jibed with my intuitions (which were that Chicago places roughly 12-15% in fed clerkships and SLS places roughly 30% in fed clerkships).

[cotiger]

Over the last six years, Chicago has averaged 11.3% of grads going straight to A3 clerkships. Stanford 24.8%.

Of course, this doesn't include people who go into clerkships after first going into practice. Overall, about 20% of Chicago's classes end up A3 clerking. I don't know what the equivalent number is for Stanford.

[jbagelboy]

It's not like a 9th circuit clerkship is a guarantee from Stanford either though. There are only a handful in Seattle, and while it's no SDNY or even Los Angeles feeders, you'll need a very solid H to P ratio your first three/five semesters depending on the judge. It will be very tough from Chicago, and still pretty difficult from Stanford. I think in this light it's foolish to bet $200,000 in non-dischargeable debt on it.

[abl]

It's not like a 9th circuit clerkship is a guarantee from Stanford either though. There are only a handful in Seattle, and while it's no SDNY or even Los Angeles feeders, you'll need a very solid H to P ratio your first three/five semesters depending on the judge. It will be very tough from Chicago, and still pretty difficult from Stanford. I think in this light it's foolish to bet $200,000 in non-dischargeable debt on it.

A 9th Cir clerkship in Seattle is easily harder to land than an SDNY/CDCA clerkship (am I misreading you, or did you imply otherwise?). But yea, I think we can all agree, regardless, that it's far from guaranteed at either school. That said, there's a big difference between how "not guaranteed" it is, and how "foolish" it is to base one's law school decision on it as an option depends on how set the OP is on that particular option. Academia is pretty near-impossible to break into these days, but that doesn't mean that it'd be "foolish" to bet $200,000 in (low-interest, LRAP-eligible) debt on it to choose SLS over, say, GW, especially since one's earning potential at a school like SLS is through the roof.

[unc0mm0n1]

It's not like a 9th circuit clerkship is a guarantee from Stanford either though. There are only a handful in Seattle, and while it's no SDNY or even Los Angeles feeders, you'll need a very solid H to P ratio your first three/five semesters depending on the judge. It will be very tough from Chicago, and still pretty difficult from Stanford. I think in this light it's foolish to bet $200,000 in non-dischargeable debt on it.

That's my thinking as well. Even if you go to Stanford an A3 clerkship isn't guaranteed. I wonder how many people would take an A3 clerkship if their judge said they had to pay 200K before they started working. I personally wouldn't and that's not even the choice the OP has.

[Ohiobumpkin]

Stanford if you really want the clerkship. If you are cool with not getting one, I'd take the Ruby.

+1

[rickgrimes69]

You should be a little insulted that UW didn't offer you a fully and can safely discount that option

If your top goal is a clerkship TCR is Stanford

If your top goal is just Seattle ideally you'd do Berk on a fully, but when they stiff you (Berk 'gon Berk) take the Ruby instead

Lol?

Stanford and Chicago's Clerkship rate is NOT significantly different....

Yeah, it is. Go look at the clerkship numbers dood

For the record I'd take the Ruby, but I don't want a clerkship

[northwood]

Since you already went to HYS for undergrad, and can put that on your resume, I'd go to Chicago ( unless Berk offers you a ton of money- i.e. close to full scholarship) if I were in your shoes.

Its hard to go against walking across the stage at graduation day in 2017 knowing that you do not have to pay back the gov't, or can pay back your COL debt( which should be minimal) very soon.

[jbagelboy]

It's not like a 9th circuit clerkship is a guarantee from Stanford either though. There are only a handful in Seattle, and while it's no SDNY or even Los Angeles feeders, you'll need a very solid H to P ratio your first three/five semesters depending on the judge. It will be very tough from Chicago, and still pretty difficult from Stanford. I think in this light it's foolish to bet $200,000 in non-dischargeable debt on it.

A 9th Cir clerkship in Seattle is easily harder to land than an SDNY/CDCA clerkship (am I misreading you, or did you imply otherwise?). But yea, I think we can all agree, regardless, that it's far from guaranteed at either school. That said, there's a big difference between how "not guaranteed" it is, and how "foolish" it is to base one's law school decision on it as an option depends on how set the OP is on that particular option. Academia is pretty near-impossible to break into these days, but that doesn't mean that it'd be "foolish" to bet $200,000 in (low-interest, LRAP-eligible) debt on it to choose SLS over, say, GW, especially since one's earning potential at a school like SLS is through the roof.

Yes, I meant to be relative - "in this light" - in my opinion, weighing the relative opportunities, there's not a strong enough chance (or differential in chance) to bank that much cash on it. If OPs #1 goal was near guarantee from SLS and 1/5 chance from Chicago, I might feel differently, but I highlighted the competitiveness of the clerkships to show we are dealing in gradations of difficulty and not absolutes. You only reaffirmed the nature of that competitiveness.

I'm confused by your example - yes, academia is far more plausible from SLS than some T20, but then you mention "earning potential" as well, which cuts towards a more general career perspective and not a specific goal. I would take Stanford sticker over GW full ride because the difference in "earning potential" is so great. Maybe ~30% of GW grads have a favorable outcome. That's not the situation here at all, Chicago and Stanford provide the same proportion of favorable outcomes to their graduates - among that set, more Stanford kids can clerk, but nowhere near $200K more. In fact, it only reinforces what I'm saying about relative opportunity cost on a case by case basis.

What I think you are trying to state is that OP can make an independent value judgement of what that bump in clerkship hiring may mean to him/her. They posted here for an objective opinion on what that value judgment should be or how others would see it - it's pretty clearly not worth $200,000 interest bearing loans to the vast majority here. Taking on that debt for that goal would be an objectively poor decision. One might even be so bold as to say "foolish".

[abl]

It's not like a 9th circuit clerkship is a guarantee from Stanford either though. There are only a handful in Seattle, and while it's no SDNY or even Los Angeles feeders, you'll need a very solid H to P ratio your first three/five semesters depending on the judge. It will be very tough from Chicago, and still pretty difficult from Stanford. I think in this light it's foolish to bet $200,000 in non-dischargeable debt on it.

A 9th Cir clerkship in Seattle is easily harder to land than an SDNY/CDCA clerkship (am I misreading you, or did you imply otherwise?). But yea, I think we can all agree, regardless, that it's far from guaranteed at either school. That said, there's a big difference between how "not guaranteed" it is, and how "foolish" it is to base one's law school decision on it as an option depends on how set the OP is on that particular option. Academia is pretty near-impossible to break into these days, but that doesn't mean that it'd be "foolish" to bet $200,000 in (low-interest, LRAP-eligible) debt on it to choose SLS over, say, GW, especially since one's earning potential at a school like SLS is through the roof.

Yes, I meant to be relative - "in this light" - in my opinion, weighing the relative opportunities, there's not a strong enough chance (or differential in chance) to bank that much cash on it. If OPs #1 goal was near guarantee from SLS and 1/5 chance from Chicago, I might feel differently, but I highlighted the competitiveness of the clerkships to show we are dealing in gradations of difficulty and not absolutes. You only reaffirmed the nature of that competitiveness.

I'm confused by your example - yes, academia is far more plausible from SLS than some T20, but then you mention "earning potential" as well, which cuts towards a more general career perspective and not a specific goal. I would take Stanford sticker over GW full ride because the difference in "earning potential" is so great. Maybe ~30% of GW grads have a favorable outcome. That's not the situation here at all, Chicago and Stanford provide the same proportion of favorable outcomes to their graduates - among that set, more Stanford kids can clerk, but nowhere near $200K more. In fact, it only reinforces what I'm saying about relative opportunity cost on a case by case basis.

What I think you are trying to state is that OP can make an independent value judgement of what that bump in clerkship hiring may mean to him/her. They posted here for an objective opinion on what that value judgment should be or how others would see it - it's pretty clearly not worth $200,000 interest bearing loans to the vast majority here. Taking on that debt for that goal would be an objectively poor decision. One might even be so bold as to say "foolish".

I chose GW to differentiate academia chances rather than earning potential -- sorry for the confusion. My point is that 200k in low-interest non-dischargeable debt means something very different for someone with a high earning potential than for someone without one. And, the reason why I chose academia as an example was to highlight that it can be rational to choose option A over option B even if the chances of your desired career outcome are slight at either school.

The biglaw outcomes at Chicago vs. Stanford are similar, but certainly not identical. I agree, though -- the 200k difference in COA almost certainly doesn't justify SLS over Chicago for a biglaw career. Whether it does for a prospective clerk is a harder question (as the clerkship advantage is substantial), and will depend on the OP's priorities. My feeling, which I outlined in my post, is that SLS is a justifiable choice IF the OP feels very strongly about the clerkship being a federal clerkship (and is even stronger if the OP wants to do the clerkship immediately post-graduation, and is even stronger if the OP wants a 9th Cir. clerkship). Depending on the OP's views about clerkships, it would be far from foolish for the OP to choose SLS in certain circumstances.

[dobryden]

Since you already went to HYS for undergrad, and can put that on your resume, I'd go to Chicago ( unless Berk offers you a ton of money- i.e. close to full scholarship) if I were in your shoes.

Its hard to go against walking across the stage at graduation day in 2017 knowing that you do not have to pay back the gov't, or can pay back your COL debt( which should be minimal) very soon.

I want to jump into this conversation to say that, according to the current Rubies that I have spoke with, no Rubies that have wanted a clerkship have been unable to secure a clerkship. Clerking seems extremely doable.

[cotiger]

My point is that 200k in low-interest non-dischargeable debt means something very different for someone with a high earning potential than for someone without one.

[mac2013]

Thanks for all the feedback!

Does anyone have any view on how Seattle firms would view these different schools?

[abl]

Since you already went to HYS for undergrad, and can put that on your resume, I'd go to Chicago ( unless Berk offers you a ton of money- i.e. close to full scholarship) if I were in your shoes.

Its hard to go against walking across the stage at graduation day in 2017 knowing that you do not have to pay back the gov't, or can pay back your COL debt( which should be minimal) very soon.

I want to jump into this conversation to say that, according to the current Rubies that I have spoke with, no Rubies that have wanted a clerkship have been unable to secure a clerkship. Clerking seems extremely doable.

I know for a fact that's not true. I also know one Ruby who conveniently stopped "wanting" a fed clerkship when his/her grades dipped to the point where it was no longer an option for all practical purposes.

[Nomo]

At this point how do you even know you want a clerkship? Are you even that sure you want to litigate? Many people change their minds in law school. If you have a true area of interest (environment, IP, etc.) that should be a factor. Whether you are willing to work long hours on sometimes tedious tasks in exchange for lots of money is a factor. Where you want to live during and after law school is a factor. Clerkship numbers? I don't think so.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.