Stanford 32k/year v Rubenstein Forum

[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"?

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."

As an actual law student, I would advise against placing much stock in this line of reasoning. And the TTT resume advice is frankly ludicrous. The Stanford alumni network doesn't operate on the basis of letters of admission when supporting/evaluating candidates, it values a degree from that school. Yale profs who can call in for feeder clerks aren't giving any favors for admits who took ruby's instead. I often press that opportunity differences between CC and S (especially H) are slim at best in most areas and none in Chi/NY, respectively, but don't mischaracterize what named scholarships are signalling or offering vis a vis degrees from another school.

[gottago]

edit

[jbagelboy]

yea no one said Chicago + Ruby = YLS

I just said that insofar as you want to benefit from the effect of signaling that you were good enough get into HYS, a Ruby does tell people that (maybe Hamilton/RTK are better examples because they've been around for longer).

Reread your post. That's not all you said. And we are disputing the significance of that "benefit" alone.

[Micdiddy]

I think the disagreement on this thread shows how enviable and very, very close your decision is. Personally, I would take Stanford. But really both choices are phenomenal. Congrats!

[Captain Rodeo]

Stanford. Congratulations!

[cron1834]

Trade LSACs with me. That way you won't have to handle this stress.