H v. T10 for appellate lit Forum

[greentea123]

I was lucky enough to be awarded the Hamilton, but posts like this make me really nervous about accepting it

That's because, just like the OP of this thread, you're desperately looking for any reason to turn down a T14 full ride in favor of Harvard Law.

That's a good reality check, thank you

[BizBro]

I was lucky enough to be awarded the Hamilton, but posts like this make me really nervous about accepting it

That's because, just like the OP of this thread, you're desperately looking for any reason to turn down a T14 full ride in favor of Harvard Law.

That's a good reality check, thank you

I'd still take the full ride t14, especially the hamilton, if I were you, regardless of class rank outcome.

[kaiser]

If it were a Hamilton vs. H at full price, it wouldn't even warrant a TLS poll/thread. THats an incredibly easy choice.

[timbs4339]

Do you need SCOTUS to do appellate lit? Is it such a unicorn goal, or was it OP's plan that made it unicorn?

Absolutely not. You need SCOTUS to work in the appellate group of an extremely prestigious above-market paying DC biglaw firm/litigation boutique. Like I said above, if you really want to do appellate work you apply for a job in the appeals bureau of a DA or PD office, or maybe if you are in a state that hires them the state SG's office.

I get the sense that if most 0Ls that want appellate lit were put to the choice between working as an ADA doing appellate work or working in general biglaw lit and maybe getting to cite check a brief or do some pro bono appeals they'd choose the latter.

[Desert Fox]

Even the scotus clerks at my firm do like 60% shit lit.

[052220152]

Even the scotus clerks at my firm do like 60% shit lit.

do they review prestigious documents too?

[TFALAWL]

Touche. I guess my school has brain-washed me about how great our clerking opportunities are

Along the same lines, here's some friendly advice: don't ever again suggest that your school's moot court competition "is a little more prestigious than other similar schools' internal moot courts." Just don't.

Fair enough. Though, I don't participate in it at all -- I just heard that UVA is super known for it. My point is that each T-14 has at least one "unicorney" thing going for it, and to my knowledge that Lille moot court is somewhat famous, and looks good for clerking.

[TFALAWL]

Do you need SCOTUS to do appellate lit? Is it such a unicorn goal, or was it OP's plan that made it unicorn?

From what my profs have said, 1. SCOTUS = guaranteed D.C. appellate boutique of your choice 2. COA = maybe. Consider the fact that it's incredibly difficult even at HYS to get COA, and you can see just how hard this work is to get

[rpupkin]

Fair enough. Though, I don't participate in it at all -- I just heard that UVA is super known for it. My point is that each T-14 has at least one "unicorney" thing going for it, and to my knowledge that Lille moot court is somewhat famous, and looks good for clerking.

I clerked in DC (and one of my co-clerks was a UVA grad), and I didn't even know that UVA had a moot court competition. I'm sure it's a great competition and all, and I think people who want to do moot court should do it, but I seriously, seriously doubt that UVA's moot court competition is viewed any differently than the moot court competitions at Michigan, Berkeley, NYU, GULC, wherever.

[20160810]

Even the scotus clerks at my firm do like 60% shit lit.

do they review prestigious documents too?

Privilege logs are fucking brilliant

[Desert Fox]

Even the scotus clerks at my firm do like 60% shit lit.

do they review prestigious documents too?

Both are partners but both had to develope general lit skills to do make it. And half the appellate is pro boner work.

[TFALAWL]

Fair enough. Though, I don't participate in it at all -- I just heard that UVA is super known for it. My point is that each T-14 has at least one "unicorney" thing going for it, and to my knowledge that Lille moot court is somewhat famous, and looks good for clerking.

I clerked in DC (and one of my co-clerks was a UVA grad), and I didn't even know that UVA had a moot court competition. I'm sure it's a great competition and all, and I think people who want to do moot court should do it, but I seriously, seriously doubt that UVA's moot court competition is viewed any differently than the moot court competitions at Michigan, Berkeley, NYU, GULC, wherever.

Good point, I'll re-phrase. As far as UVA goes, ( I can't speak for any other schools), if OP goes to UVA and participates in Lille, he/she will have opportunities to network with federal judges. If he makes it to the final, it will be arbitrated by a circuit judge --> arguably a networking gold-mine. If he/she wins, he/she will get cash. I second your point that Moot Court is good to do if you want to do appellate (however remote that chance may be), and perhaps others could weigh in on the moot court opportunities at their school, as I think it is a substantial soft for fringe candidates who strive for appellate lit. Cheers!

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm pretty sure it's extremely common to have the local federal judges judge schools' moot court competitions.

[Cogburn87]

Good point, I'll re-phrase. As far as UVA goes, ( I can't speak for any other schools), if OP goes to UVA and participates in Lille, he/she will have opportunities to network with federal judges. If he makes it to the final, it will be arbitrated by a circuit judge --> arguably a networking gold-mine. If he/she wins, he/she will get cash. I second your point that Moot Court is good to do if you want to do appellate (however remote that chance may be), and perhaps others could weigh in on the moot court opportunities at their school, as I think it is a substantial soft for fringe candidates who strive for appellate lit. Cheers!

You are vastly overestimating the value of moot court participation.

[Pneumonia]

Good point, I'll re-phrase. As far as UVA goes, ( I can't speak for any other schools), if OP goes to UVA and participates in Lille, he/she will have opportunities to network with federal judges. If he makes it to the final, it will be arbitrated by a circuit judge --> arguably a networking gold-mine. If he/she wins, he/she will get cash. I second your point that Moot Court is good to do if you want to do appellate (however remote that chance may be), and perhaps others could weigh in on the moot court opportunities at their school, as I think it is a substantial soft for fringe candidates who strive for appellate lit. Cheers!

You are vastly overestimating the value of moot court participation.

For real. Even ignoring the series of "if-->then's," this moot court sounds thoroughly average. UVA certainly has an amazing moot court experience, but so do other T14's.

[jbagelboy]

I was lucky enough to be awarded the Hamilton, but posts like this make me really nervous about accepting it

That's because, just like the OP of this thread, you're desperately looking for any reason to turn down a T14 full ride in favor of Harvard Law.

That's a good reality check, thank you

Take the hamilton and never look back. Contrary to the post you referenced, Hamilton recipients do very well at cls, and moreover, even if you were at median you'd still get the same great firm job you'd have at another slightly higher ranked school at median.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Take the Hamilton

At every school recipients of a named full scholarship are likely to perform above median

[BizBro]

I think the point is that I would still rather take the Hamilton and be below median at CLS than pay $ to be median at H.

[FlamingDragon]

Saying that you want to do appellate litigation before entering law school, and making decisions based on that assumption, is IDIOTIC. You have no idea what AL entails, and I don't care if you worked in a law firm for the past 90 years. That said, making a decision based on (as people here have poitned out correctly) the 5-10% clerkship chance advantage Harvard gives you would be foolish.

Take Duke, an excellent school, with no debt without a question. HLS will indeed be a higher caliber student, even if just by a bit, allowing you to do better in your class at Duke. Also, you can put on your resume taht you have a named full scholarship and that basically will indicate you were strong enough to get into HYSCCN anyways to employers.

I go to a top 5 school and I cannot emphasize enough how important: (1) not having debt it, (2) doing well in your class, and (3) playing the field in terms of practice area and figuring out what oyu want from experience, not just from some amorphous notion of prestige (which I'm 99% sure is why you want to to app. lit). There is literally a great chance you might join the corporate clinic at Duke and love it, after hating writing your research memo (lit. focused) your first semester.

[bearsfan23]

Take the Hamilton

At every school recipients of a named full scholarship are likely to perform above median

Wtf, do you have any support for this? Stop giving terrible advice

[RSN]

I was lucky enough to be awarded the Hamilton, but posts like this make me really nervous about accepting it

That's because, just like the OP of this thread, you're desperately looking for any reason to turn down a T14 full ride in favor of Harvard Law.

That's a good reality check, thank you

Take the hamilton and never look back. Contrary to the post you referenced, Hamilton recipients do very well at cls, and moreover, even if you were at median you'd still get the same great firm job you'd have at another slightly higher ranked school at median.

Is there any thinking on why this is? It seems like it might be somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that most Hamiltons have extremely high numbers coming in, so are maybe more likely to do somewhat better than their peers for that reason ... although with all of the recent discussion about how random 1L grades are, and how undergrad and LSAT performance is a poor predictor of performance (at least within T14s), I'm not sure how much that hypothesis holds up anyway.

[jbagelboy]

I want to be clear. I am not suggesting a correlation between LSAT score and law school exam performance. This has been disproven as a motivating factor in school selection repeatedly.

A hamilton or rubenstein recipient is not just a set of numbers. Only a couple dozen are handed out each year from a pool of many hundreds of 174+/3.8+ candidates and the selection criteria include additional indicia of high performance and ability beyond how well you padded your college GPA with political science seminars or how many powerscore classes your parents could afford. These won't be enough (although there's no set recipe for that 'something more', it could just be growing up in mississippi for example).

One odd responsibility that comes with the territory of involvement in campus life is that I've seen hundreds of resumes of incoming and current 1L students (who list their merit scholarships rather conspicuously) and they come from great schools, have additional degrees, substantive work experience, consistent leadership, publications, fellowships, ect. And they "do very well" in a more general sense at the school because they can impress and perform academically and otherwise in ways that make substantive differences both to their law school experience and future employment. At a school where you'll get a great job nearly regardless of your grades, career advancement takes different shapes. I'm not talking about raw striverism so much as drawing on prior experiences, expertise, creativity, maturity, or whatever else.

Does all of this combined help "get better grades" too? I would say probably yes, but in an environment where everyone's bright there's no hard and fast rules.

[RSN]

I want to be clear. I am not suggesting a correlation between LSAT score and law school exam performance. This has been disproven as a motivating factor in school selection repeatedly.

A hamilton or rubenstein recipient is not just a set of numbers. Only a couple dozen are handed out each year from a pool of many hundreds of 174+/3.8+ candidates and the selection criteria include additional indicia of high performance and ability beyond how well you padded your college GPA with political science seminars or how many powerscore classes your parents could afford. These won't be enough (although there's no set recipe for that 'something more', it could just be growing up in mississippi for example).

One odd responsibility that comes with the territory of involvement in campus life is that I've seen hundreds of resumes of incoming and current 1L students (who list their merit scholarships rather conspicuously) and they come from great schools, have additional degrees, substantive work experience, consistent leadership, publications, fellowships, ect. And they "do very well" in a more general sense at the school because they can impress and perform academically and otherwise in ways that make substantive differences both to their law school experience and future employment. At a school where you'll get a great job nearly regardless of your grades, career advancement takes different shapes. I'm not talking about raw striverism so much as drawing on prior experiences, expertise, creativity, maturity, or whatever else.

Does all of this combined help "get better grades" too? I would say probably yes, but in an environment where everyone's bright there's no hard and fast rules.

Thanks, this is really helpful. Was confused by your original statement because I've read exactly what you said about LSAT score and exams so many times across TLS, but your longer explanation about what it means to "do very well" beyond just grades clears that up quite a bit.

[DetroitRed]

Would choosing HLS over C/C/Lower T-14 make a significant difference in the post-Biglaw job search? I can imagine the network might help, but how much is that network advantage worth?

[smaug]

Would choosing HLS over C/C/Lower T-14 make a significant difference in the post-Biglaw job search? I can imagine the network might help, but how much is that network advantage worth?

Just go to Harvard. It's the answer you're fishing for.

The direct answer to your question is "whatever it is worth, it is not worth 200k."