Stanford 32k/year v Rubenstein Forum

[jimbeam21]

After the Rubenstein, Chicago would cost about $11k for the first year out of pocket (COA minus tuition and stipend). After need-based grant, Stanford would cost $52k (COA minus grant). That's a difference of $41k for one year. If I choose Stanford, I'm looking at taking out around $30k in loans for the first year.

I hope to clerk after graduation and then work in litigation. I have no interest in NYC sweatshops, and would prefer Bay Area/DC/Chicago, in that order, as future destinations. I also wouldn't mind working in a secondary market in the Midwest.

I haven't heard anything from Yale, and am no longer considering Harvard for a variety of reasons. I know the prevailing opinion on these boards is to take the Ruby, but does Stanford's substantial aid package sway others?

[PrideandGlory1776]

It's purely preferential both situations are optimal. Enjoy.

[PotLuck]

First off, I hate you. Second off, grats because that is seriously like the most amazing dilemma to have. As the poster above said, it is definitely preferential. However, for the Bay Area, Stanford dominates. In fact, there really aren't a lot of places where Stanford doesn't dominate. If it were me, thats what I would do.

[El Principe]

Rubenstein.

[aboutmydaylight]

I'd take Stanford. That's an amazing financial aid package; I'm jelly.

[jimbeam21]

Rubenstein.

Reasoning?

Thanks for the replies. It is definitely a first world problem.

Are there any Stanford students on these boards that regret choosing Stanford?

[jselson]

Clerking + Bay Area = Stanford. Congrats.

[beepboopbeep]

.

[TooOld4This]

Is your desire for the few jobs where Stanford gives you the edge worth $150k (or more)? With that amount of debt, nearly every decision you make for the next 10 years will have to be weighed against your debt.

I would take the Ruby in a heartbeat.

[Paul Campos]

If you have to take out $30K in loans to cover 1L at SLS that implies you won't have to take any loans at all in Chicago. And you'll have to take out more than $30K as a 2L and 3L because of tuition hikes, and discounting of need aid because of SA income. So with interest you're probably looking at $125K or so in debt from Stanford and zero from Chicago.

The odds are extremely high that you're going to be doing pretty much exactly the same thing whichever school you go to. Sure it'll be easier to clerk out of Stanford, but do you really want to take on $125K of moderately high interest non-dischargeable debt to increase those chances? And yes it'll be easier to get a job with a Bay Area firm, but same question.

Does anybody who has ever made a four-figure monthly loan payment think this is a toss up?

[jbagelboy]

$32k grant means you must have dependents or be super low income or something. Either way, congrats. I guess given your goals, Stanford takes my vote here.

[unc0mm0n1]

Rubenstein.

[kaiser]

As a grad, I definitely vote Ruby. You haven't said much at all that would warrant thousands more in debt. You shouldn't spend more unless the reason for doing so is clear. The idea is to set goals, and choose the school that will best allow you to accomplish those goals at the cheapest price. You haven't listed a single goal that Stanford could get you but Chicago couldn't. So the extra debt isn't justified. Knowing what I know now, I would absolutely take Ruby and not look back.

[TooOld4This]

If you have to take out $30K in loans to cover 1L at SLS that implies you won't have to take any loans at all in Chicago. And you'll have to take out more than $30K as a 2L and 3L because of tuition hikes, and discounting of need aid because of SA income. So with interest you're probably looking at $125K or so in debt from Stanford and zero from Chicago.

The odds are extremely high that you're going to be doing pretty much exactly the same thing whichever school you go to. Sure it'll be easier to clerk out of Stanford, but do you really want to take on $125K of moderately high interest non-dischargeable debt to increase those chances? And yes it'll be easier to get a job with a Bay Area firm, but same question.

Does anybody who has ever made a four-figure monthly loan payment think this is a toss up?

Not me. (See above.)

Also, I think $125k is probably conservative. Most applicants don't take into account origination fees on every loan (which leads to higher than expected loan amounts), plus capitalized interest for non-subsdized, plus decreased need-based levels in years 2 and 3 (I don't know how common this is anymore, but I know going through school financial situations wouldn't change much, yet "need" would decrease once you were locked in). Add in the factors you mentioned, and I think a lot of people wind up with much more debt than they anticipate.

[jbagelboy]

As a grad, I definitely vote Ruby. You haven't said much at all that would warrant thousands more in debt. You shouldn't spend more unless the reason for doing so is clear. The idea is to set goals, and choose the school that will best allow you to accomplish those goals at the cheapest price. You haven't listed a single goal that Stanford could get you but Chicago couldn't. So the extra debt isn't justified. Knowing what I know now, I would absolutely take Ruby and not look back.

OP said Bay Area litigation practice and clerking. I would read those as Stanford-leaning goals.

[ph14]

Stanford.

[transferror]

Is your desire for the few jobs where Stanford gives you the edge worth $150k (or more)?

This ^^^. If the extra bump for your goals of clerkship and target market are worth the extra debt, then Stanford. That's something only you know and TLS has nothing more to offer.

Either way, you'll probably be my boss one day if I'm lucky enough to work for whatever ridiculous firm you make partner at...

[anyriotgirl]

take the money! debt is real! buy part of a house, or a boat or a retirement instead

[TooOld4This]

As a grad, I definitely vote Ruby. You haven't said much at all that would warrant thousands more in debt. You shouldn't spend more unless the reason for doing so is clear. The idea is to set goals, and choose the school that will best allow you to accomplish those goals at the cheapest price. You haven't listed a single goal that Stanford could get you but Chicago couldn't. So the extra debt isn't justified. Knowing what I know now, I would absolutely take Ruby and not look back.

OP said Bay Area litigation practice and clerking. I would read those as Stanford-leaning goals.

Chicago, Rubenstein on your resume = also got into HYS. And neither of these goals are inaccessible to Chicago. And clerking is a couple year gig at most, and of no real use if OP eventually decides to go corporate. So is the small bump worth the price tag? Put real $$$ to the decision. Are OP's theoretically better chances from Stanford worth $1500 per month for the next 10 years? If OP gets his second choice because he didn't go to Stanford, would he pay $1500 post-tax dollars per month for a decade to "trade up"?

[jbagelboy]

As a grad, I definitely vote Ruby. You haven't said much at all that would warrant thousands more in debt. You shouldn't spend more unless the reason for doing so is clear. The idea is to set goals, and choose the school that will best allow you to accomplish those goals at the cheapest price. You haven't listed a single goal that Stanford could get you but Chicago couldn't. So the extra debt isn't justified. Knowing what I know now, I would absolutely take Ruby and not look back.

OP said Bay Area litigation practice and clerking. I would read those as Stanford-leaning goals.

Chicago, Rubenstein on your resume = also got into HYS. And neither of these goals are inaccessible to Chicago. And clerking is a couple year gig at most, and of no real use if OP eventually decides to go corporate. So is the small bump worth the price tag? Put real $$$ to the decision. Are OP's theoretically better chances from Stanford worth $1500 per month for the next 10 years? If OP gets his second choice because he didn't go to Stanford, would he pay $1500 post-tax dollars per month for a decade to "trade up"?

To your first point, not sure what someone thinking you go into Harvard and turned it down really matters at all. That wasn't related to any point I was making. But I digress.

I think reasonable people could disagree as to how large a "bump" Stanford would provide in certain career trajectories. And everyone places a different dollar value on their goals -- for example, if this was sticker at SLS vs Ruby, I'd say Chicago too. Even at equal cost, if OP wanted to work in the corporate department of Kirkland chicago office, I'd take UChi over stanford. But we should at least take OP's stated goals, as long as they have some rational basis, at face value. And from my experience with California employers, and the statements of 9th circuit judges, Stanford has a sufficient edge here to justify a $30K/year added debt balance. It's not an easy decision and it could go either way, but I'm sticking with SLS as my vote here.

Also, in a sense, OP is paying a premium for a significantly higher standard of living in Palo Alto over Hyde Park. I'm imputing a little personal preference here, since for me bay area >> chicago, and maybe OP doesn't share that preference, but since your argument is strictly monetary and money = lifestyle, it's not unreasonable to chalk up $30K over 3 years to live in a much nicer place (since actual adults do this all the time - we drive nicer cars, live in nicer apartment/homes, dress and eat nicer and accrue more debt).

[kaiser]

As a grad, I definitely vote Ruby. You haven't said much at all that would warrant thousands more in debt. You shouldn't spend more unless the reason for doing so is clear. The idea is to set goals, and choose the school that will best allow you to accomplish those goals at the cheapest price. You haven't listed a single goal that Stanford could get you but Chicago couldn't. So the extra debt isn't justified. Knowing what I know now, I would absolutely take Ruby and not look back.

OP said Bay Area litigation practice and clerking. I would read those as Stanford-leaning goals.

I never said that Stanford isn't better for those goals. I said that he hadn't listed a single goal that Stanford could get him but Chicago couldn't. Someone coming out of Chicago, with the connections and support of a Ruby, who has ties to the Bay Area, will almost certainly get a killer job there. And keep in mind that he doesn't sound all that deadset on Bay Area. Had he said "I absolutely have to get back there after graduation and wouldn't want to be anywhere else", it would be a different story.

[jimbeam21]

Thanks for the opinions guys.

On one hand, I feel as if the logical, risk-averse thing to do is to take the Rubenstein. Like many of you pointed out, it is likely that outcomes will be similar at both schools. When talking about schools on the caliber of Chicago and Stanford, I get the sense that success is 85% on the student, 10% luck, and 5% on the opportunities presented by the institution.

That being said, there are two main reasons I'm heavily considering Stanford. First, I keep thinking that even a minuscule bump in opportunities at Stanford might be worth an extra $90-$120k- but a part of me thinks that this bump isn't minuscule. I think simply being in Silicon Valley presents incredible opportunities, from working on cutting edge IP issues, to promising startups, to being around more innovative and creative thinkers. I do have a technical background, and in that sense I feel like Stanford would be a great fit if I knew for sure that I wanted to work on IP.

Second, quality of life. I've never lived in Cali before, but I'm salivating at the thought of being able to study in the sun, play some sand volleyball after 1L year, or go on a trek in the Sierra Nevadas. I'm much less excited about moving to Chicago (maybe this will change when I visit). I think a happier student might equal a more successful student.

I'm not poor, and I don't have dependents! My parents don't make much money, but I've been working for a few years. For those who haven't applied for financial aid yet, I definitely suggest making your 2014 IRA contribution and contributing 100% of your income in a 401k until you max it out for the year. I suggest traditional 401k and IRA as it decreases your AGI. I don't think Stanford touches that money (I think Harvard does to an extent).

[Jchance]

this bump isn't minuscule

Its not. I'd take Stanford.

[gottago]

edit

[aboutmydaylight]

As a grad, I definitely vote Ruby. You haven't said much at all that would warrant thousands more in debt. You shouldn't spend more unless the reason for doing so is clear. The idea is to set goals, and choose the school that will best allow you to accomplish those goals at the cheapest price. You haven't listed a single goal that Stanford could get you but Chicago couldn't. So the extra debt isn't justified. Knowing what I know now, I would absolutely take Ruby and not look back.

OP said Bay Area litigation practice and clerking. I would read those as Stanford-leaning goals.

Chicago, Rubenstein on your resume = also got into HYS. And neither of these goals are inaccessible to Chicago. And clerking is a couple year gig at most, and of no real use if OP
eventually decides to go corporate. So is the small bump worth the price tag? Put real $$$ to the decision. Are OP's theoretically better chances from Stanford worth $1500 per month for the next 10 years? If OP gets his second choice because he didn't go to Stanford, would he pay $1500 post-tax dollars per month for a decade to "trade up"?

I hadn't thought about this before. Most of the HYS benefit is signaling that you're good enough to get in. I read an article a months ago that said that firms advised applicants from TTTs to say in their cover letters whether they got into a better school and why they chose their current one. That is to say, firms valued the acceptance letter of an elite school even if you didn't attend more than the education actually gained at a TTT.

Obviously Chi is much closer to Stanford than a TTT hadn't considered that people in the industry view a Ruby/Hamilton as "got into HYS but went for the money."

Not to burst your bubble but there doesn't seem to be a general consensus as to whether "Rubenstein Scholar" has any impact on your employment outcomes. Every time someone points out that it implies you got into HYS someone else will say that employers won't care. We also have barely any data since its relatively new, and its impossible to isolate outcomes since Ruby scholars are on average more impressive applicants than the rest of the class.