EDIT: Even more info;;;EDIT: New Info;;;Just got off Stanford Waitlist, is it crazy to consider it? Forum

[WheninLaw]

The idea of there being an "objectively right" decision in this situation is idiotic.

Would "rational" make you happier?

"Rational" is based on individual preferences. And there are a slough of reasonable (and likely) combinations of individual preferences that would lead one to rationally choose Stanford over Chicago at this (and greater) COA differences.

Good luck with your choice, OP.

[Danger Zone]

The idea of there being an "objectively right" decision in this situation is idiotic.

Would "rational" make you happier?

"Rational" is based on individual preferences. And there are a slough of reasonable (and likely) combinations of individual preferences that would lead one to rationally choose Stanford over Chicago at this (and greater) COA differences.

No

[jbagelboy]

The idea of there being an "objectively right" decision in this situation is idiotic.

Would "rational" make you happier?

"Rational" is based on individual preferences. And there are a slough of reasonable (and likely) combinations of individual preferences that would lead one to rationally choose Stanford over Chicago at this (and greater) COA differences.

The first sentence is erroneous. What you're describing is a subjective set of values or considerations that overweight certain factors, leading to an irrational choice. You can't internalize the subjectivity of a personal choice into an analytic decisional process and call it rational. That's redefining rational.

Whether "rational" applies to what is, in many ways, a personal/subjective choice is a different matter.

[Instinctive]

The idea of there being an "objectively right" decision in this situation is idiotic.

Would "rational" make you happier?

"Rational" is based on individual preferences. And there are a slough of reasonable (and likely) combinations of individual preferences that would lead one to rationally choose Stanford over Chicago at this (and greater) COA differences.

The first sentence is erroneous. What you're describing is a subjective set of values or considerations that overweight certain factors, leading to an irrational choice. You can't internalize the subjectivity of a personal choice into an analytic decisional process and call it rational. That's redefining rational.

Whether "rational" applies to what is, in many ways, a personal/subjective choice is a different matter.

It's been a little while since I had econ, but "rational" means you make the decision that provides the highest utility. Pretty sure that's exactly how abl is using the term throughout these posts. If so, he's dead on correct.

[abl]

The idea of there being an "objectively right" decision in this situation is idiotic.

Would "rational" make you happier?

"Rational" is based on individual preferences. And there are a slough of reasonable (and likely) combinations of individual preferences that would lead one to rationally choose Stanford over Chicago at this (and greater) COA differences.

The first sentence is erroneous. What you're describing is a subjective set of values or considerations that overweight certain factors, leading to an irrational choice. You can't internalize the subjectivity of a personal choice into an analytic decisional process and call it rational. That's redefining rational.

Whether "rational" applies to what is, in many ways, a personal/subjective choice is a different matter.

It's been a little while since I had econ, but "rational" means you make the decision that provides the highest utility. Pretty sure that's exactly how abl is using the term throughout these posts. If so, he's dead on correct.

This; thanks.

[jbagelboy]

That's only consistent if you allow the inputs to your utility function to variate up to some idiosyncratic value outside any objective range. For example, abl mentioned school prestige; if you consider your different utility variables for a decision like this (cost, location, employment prospects, commercial magazine surveys, ect.), sure, you can imagine a situation where an individual weighs one of those so heavily, or another so marginally, that it leads to a decision outside the objective consensus.

But that's not why someone should create a choosing thread on TLS. We don't seek to cater to every idiosyncratic, subjective preference. That's why Wheninlaw said "objective". We're trying to give objectively good advise. So no, fuck that, we don't let someone inflate one variable (for example, the us news survey) so far over the norm. Otherwise, in this philosophy of utility, every time some k-jd made a thread with a 161 LSAT, 3.9 GPA saying "I can't take a year off," we'd say, sure, you're weighing not taking a year off to an "irrational" degree (the same way someone might weigh 'prestige'/commercial surveys, or weather, to an "irrational" degree) and so your utility function produces a "rational" output to go to george washington at sticker. We'd say, sure, you're allowed to place such an undue emphasis on not taking time off because that creates this perceived utility for you. No, we don't do it that way. It's not "rational" with regard to group consensus on a choosing thread to internalize the irrational assignment or weighting of variables.

Everyone will make a subjective choice for themselves. But it's irresponsible to cater to that in this forum.

[jbagelboy]

my point is not that stanford is wrong; it's that it's lazy on-topic posting to say hey, consider factors x,y,z, weigh them as you wish, and anything goes. that's the philosophy to justify any decision and it seems to defeat the purpose of this exercise.

ETA: in this instance, there probably is no wrong choice.

[abl]

That's only consistent if you allow the inputs to your utility function to variate up to some idiosyncratic value outside any objective range. For example, abl mentioned school prestige; if you consider your different utility variables for a decision like this (cost, location, employment prospects, commercial magazine surveys, ect.), sure, you can imagine a situation where an individual weighs one of those so heavily, or another so marginally, that it leads to a decision outside the objective consensus.

But that's not why someone should create a choosing thread on TLS. We don't seek to cater to every idiosyncratic, subjective preference. That's why Wheninlaw said "objective". We're trying to give objectively good advise. So no, fuck that, we don't let someone inflate one variable (for example, the us news survey) so far over the norm. Otherwise, in this philosophy of utility, every time some k-jd made a thread with a 161 LSAT, 3.9 GPA saying "I can't take a year off," we'd say, sure, you're weighing not taking a year off to an "irrational" degree (the same way someone might weigh 'prestige'/commercial surveys, or weather, to an "irrational" degree) and so your utility function produces a "rational" output to go to george washington at sticker. We'd say, sure, you're allowed to place such an undue emphasis on not taking time off because that creates this perceived utility for you. No, we don't do it that way. It's not "rational" with regard to group consensus on a choosing thread to internalize the irrational assignment or weighting of variables.

Everyone will make a subjective choice for themselves. But it's irresponsible to cater to that in this forum.

There are a lot of reasons why a prospective student makes a post like this -- to talk through her decision with other people, to get a sense for the relevant variables that she could consider, to gain some understanding of how to measure those variables, etc. I don't think that most people just want to be told what to do. (And I stand by saying that the concept of there being an "objective" correct answer is nonsensical in this context.)

I think our primary role here is helping folks make their own decisions--primarily by helping people understand how the variables that they care about stack up. So, for example, if a poster primarily cares about prestige, it's not particularly helpful for us to tell her she's dumb and that actually all she should care about is biglaw placement. We should tell her that her uncle who is a lawyer down the street is a pretty bad measure of prestige, that princetonreview isn't much better, and that US News isn't perfect, but it's at least one of the better metrics.

And sure, there's a place within all of these choosing threads to argue that prestige shouldn't matter that much. Part of what I've been consistently pushing back on in these threads is the notion that debt is universally horrible. My point isn't that we should be taking folks' seemingly odd preferences totally at face value without question. What I'm pushing back against is the string of "you're wrong, there is only one good answer" that crop up in threads like this (especially posts that end there, without any real thought or discussion) And I think we can agree that "duh dont be a dumb" posts are particularly out of place in this thread, where there plainly isn't a bad outcome or wrong choice for the OP.

[koalacity]

I just replied to your post in the Stanford c/o '18 thread, but one thing worth adding is that if you're balking at the price of a studio in Munger, you should not go to Stanford (because you're probably not going to get back into Munger next year, and you're going to be looking at $2500-3000+ for a studio off campus). The CoL difference between UChicago and SLS is much bigger than the estimates make it seem.

Another thing I would add is that orientation started today for the 1Ls at SLS, and classes start Monday. If you pick Stanford, you will be behind from the very beginning. You'll have to try to move in during orientation/the weekend before classes start (and while there's a little free time during orientation, there's not a ton if you want to be social, and you should be social). 1L fall at SLS (unlike at Chicago, where they ease you in) is intense: 4 doctrinals plus LRW. If you're behind at the beginning of the quarter, it's going to be hard to catch up.

I'm a rising 2L at SLS, and I think you should go to Chicago. As others have pointed out, between the enormous CoL difference and the fact that you'll lose a lot of that aid if you go to a firm for one/both summers, Chicago is the much better option here. On a personal note, I read all of the posts on TLS about how limiting debt feels, and I knew taking on a bunch of debt (though I had no full rides, unlike you) would be burdensome, but I really didn't understand how trapped it would make me feel. Not everyone feels this way, but a lot of people do.

[bearsfan23]

That's only consistent if you allow the inputs to your utility function to variate up to some idiosyncratic value outside any objective range. For example, abl mentioned school prestige; if you consider your different utility variables for a decision like this (cost, location, employment prospects, commercial magazine surveys, ect.), sure, you can imagine a situation where an individual weighs one of those so heavily, or another so marginally, that it leads to a decision outside the objective consensus.

But that's not why someone should create a choosing thread on TLS. We don't seek to cater to every idiosyncratic, subjective preference. That's why Wheninlaw said "objective". We're trying to give objectively good advise. So no, fuck that, we don't let someone inflate one variable (for example, the us news survey) so far over the norm. Otherwise, in this philosophy of utility, every time some k-jd made a thread with a 161 LSAT, 3.9 GPA saying "I can't take a year off," we'd say, sure, you're weighing not taking a year off to an "irrational" degree (the same way someone might weigh 'prestige'/commercial surveys, or weather, to an "irrational" degree) and so your utility function produces a "rational" output to go to george washington at sticker. We'd say, sure, you're allowed to place such an undue emphasis on not taking time off because that creates this perceived utility for you. No, we don't do it that way. It's not "rational" with regard to group consensus on a choosing thread to internalize the irrational assignment or weighting of variables.

Everyone will make a subjective choice for themselves. But it's irresponsible to cater to that in this forum.

There are a lot of reasons why a prospective student makes a post like this -- to talk through her decision with other people, to get a sense for the relevant variables that she could consider, to gain some understanding of how to measure those variables, etc. I don't think that most people just want to be told what to do. (And I stand by saying that the concept of there being an "objective" correct answer is nonsensical in this context.)

I think our primary role here is helping folks make their own decisions--primarily by helping people understand how the variables that they care about stack up. So, for example, if a poster primarily cares about prestige, it's not particularly helpful for us to tell her she's dumb and that actually all she should care about is biglaw placement. We should tell her that her uncle who is a lawyer down the street is a pretty bad measure of prestige, that princetonreview isn't much better, and that US News isn't perfect, but it's at least one of the better metrics.

And sure, there's a place within all of these choosing threads to argue that prestige shouldn't matter that much. Part of what I've been consistently pushing back on in these threads is the notion that debt is universally horrible. My point isn't that we should be taking folks' seemingly odd preferences totally at face value without question. What I'm pushing back against is the string of "you're wrong, there is only one good answer" that crop up in threads like this (especially posts that end there, without any real thought or discussion) And I think we can agree that "duh dont be a dumb" posts are particularly out of place in this thread, where there plainly isn't a bad outcome or wrong choice for the OP.

OP definitely has two great choices, YOUR advice is what is particularly dumb and unhelpful.

Plenty of people have given OP solid advice, you just either (1) really hate Chicago, (2) know nothing about the legal profession, or (3) are an especially dedicated troll. I'm guessing it's some combination of all 3

[krads153]

Now it's a no brainer to me - Chicago. YOu'll probably still graduate with like 250k+ debt from Stanford. No degree is worth that amount of money.