Hamilton (Columbia) vs. Harvard Forum

[jbagelboy]

I turned down the Hamilton to go to one of H/Y/S when I was 22. I graduated with well into six figures of debt. I didn't come from money so I had to pay it all back myself. I clerked, and the year I clerked it was tough financially, but overall I was able to pay back my loans at the end of my fourth year practicing. Overall, I am happy I turned down the Hamilton and would have done so again if I had to make the choice again. I think, however, if I were married, had kids, or older at the time, I probably would've taken the Hamilton. You seem to be a recent graduate and have a long time to practice law, if you desire. I am not telling you what to do and I don't have an opinion on what you should do. I'm just telling you that if you decide to go to Harvard, you'll probably be ok.

you'd be in the exact same place you are now except far wealthier with a fraction of that debt or stress over the years. but of course we all become comfortable with our decisions. I don't see "you'd be 'OK' going to X school" as a ringing endorsement when there's another 'better than OK' option.

[jbagelboy]

1. Very few people care about named scholarships like the Hamilton and those who do don't usually care much. For hiring purposes, it's pretty close to a non-issue, and I wouldn't let it factor into your decision.

2. Think hard about whether you want public interest or politics. Either could be a valid reason to choose H in this situation.

For public interest, if you end up working at a loan repayment-eligible public interest position for ten years, well, you're really talking about Harvard for 0 or Columbia for 0. Harvard will give you a leg up for certain highly desirable public interest positions. If you were pretty sure this is what you wanted to do, I'd probably say H is the right call, although it's a close call. The question is whether the uncertainty of you sticking with public interest or not getting a job times the debt counterbalances the small leg up in hiring H gives you.

For politics, I do get the sense that the Harvard name matters some (even vs YS). And I know the previous poster was joking, but I do think if you're going to be totally cynical and calculating about these things, I also think that being able to show that you're not just totally privileged is helpful for politics (which you will not be able to show if you graduate from undergrad and law school with no debt and >$100k in family money). If you were totally sure about politics, this might be the right (if riskier) path to take.

***

My sense is that you're just vaguely curious about PI or politics. So are most law students. Almost none of them do either, not because PI or politics are impossible or unattractive, but because the biglaw hiring pipeline is hard to avoid and sucks up just about all of the students who are not actively swimming upstream in another direction. If you're not more than vaguely curious about these things, you should probably go to Columbia. It's not worth taking on debt (and spending your savings) for a slight improvement of chances for options you're only somewhat considering that, as a practical matter, you're unlikely to pursue. If after some introspection you decide you actually passionately do want to pursue one of these options 100% from day one, and are going to be one of the students at H or C swimming upstream, this becomes a closer question.

<--I'm a practicing attorney.

jesus christ.

I especially love the bit about how going to harvard law school will make you seem "less privileged" so as to gain brownie points in some theoretical future political career. Just, lol.

That's obviously not what I said.

Also, what about my post do you find objectionable? Do you even disagree with anything that I said, or are you just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk?

There are like a hundred of these threads on TLS. And I knew as soon as you came in here to propose your "weighing the value for these narrow goals where there might actually be some difference" argument, the thread would turn into the 5+ page shitshow it is now. I'm not trying to be a jerk, we just lose patience.

And how is that not what you implied? Read again: "I also think that being able to show that you're not just totally privileged is helpful for politics (which you will not be able to show if you graduate from undergrad and law school with no debt and >$100k in family money)." i.e., taking on some loans to go to X Law School -> "If you were totally sure about politics, this might be the right (if riskier) path to take.", endorsing going to HLS for the optic that it makes you seem less privileged. It's literally what you said. You are smarter than this.

[Bearlyalive]

No. OCI interviewers in NYC are much smarter and better informed than an idiot who would assume a CLS student is not as good as a Harvard.
At such a huge difference in price, Columbia is the obvious choice.
The only time when Harvard was better for a student choosing between a Hanilton and Harvard was when it turned out to be cheaper than Columbia.

Don't disagree that the Hamilton better in 90%+ of cases, but I think that the remaining ~10% is a bit broader than just a strict financial calculus.

As for the OCI interviewers, /shrug, you're probably right. That said, I don't have total faith in anyone, let alone recruiters, and certainly not HR. It may well be in the minority, and maybe even negligible in NY where CLS has such a strong presence, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that there are not a non-significant number of employers and recruiters who are biased towards HLS over CLS students. Worth 180k? Nope, but I already said that. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Your 0L is showing. You need to stop pontificating about this because you clearly have no idea how OCI, law firm hiring, or clerkship hiring works. You are interviewed exclusively by attorneys at OCI. Often, those attorneys went to your law school if you're at a T14.

Well aware with regards to OCI. The HR reference was with regard to mass-mailing, where, from having read a bit of the Vale of Tears Thread, it seems like it is possible for your application to be reviewed by non-attorney staff before being passed on.

But that aside, christ people, it's one thing to tell a 0L that he/she naive or wrong (which can be a useful public service), it's another thing entirely to tell them to shut up (or "stop pontificating"... seriously, I wouldn't normally comment on this, but I'm tired right now and don't care all that much, but was that really the best way to phrase that?). Let's say I didn't know that little tidbit about OCI; if I hadn't posted it, I never would have been corrected, and many of the other 0Ls on this forum (to whom all this advice is aimed) would never hear about it. You're right: most 0Ls don't know about OCI, we don't know about clerkship hiring, and we don't know about the intricacies of legal employment. We're trying to learn. If we're wrong, correct us, but it does not good to anyone whatsoever to point and laugh and say "haha, look at this stupid 0L". Seriously, its rampant on these boards, and if it's not accompanied by actual advice then it's really not helpful.

Your post did not bother to dispute the main point of what I wrote, which was regarding the fact that the people who in hiring positions do not always evaluate candidates rationally and are sometimes biased (a point which was supported earlier in the thread by actual law students/graduates). You chose a nitpicky flaw (which you actually just misinterpreted because you were already assuming I was wrong) and dismissed any valid points in my post because of it. If you think what I was saying was substantively incorrect, I invite you to elaborate.

I've no desire to debate the topic further, so this is the last I'll post about it. I will say, though, that I've gotten a lot of useful information from this thread, and I thank everyone who is willing to share their experiences/knowledge with us. For those of us without a lot of legal acquaintances, these boards can be all we have to rely on when making these very important decisions, and even if they're not perfect, they're still incredibly helpful.

[rpupkin]

Your professors are flatly wrong: there are no judges that "only hire from 'hys'". Every major feeder (the most competitive judges) hire from non-HYS. No one on TLS has ever been able to point to a judge that literally only hires from three schools.

Merrick Garland comes pretty damn close. When he first got on the bench he'd spread it around a bit more, but, ever since he became the top SCOTUS feeder, he basically hires only from HYS.

[rpupkin]

I turned down the Hamilton to go to one of H/Y/S when I was 22. I graduated with well into six figures of debt. I didn't come from money so I had to pay it all back myself. I clerked, and the year I clerked it was tough financially, but overall I was able to pay back my loans at the end of my fourth year practicing. Overall, I am happy I turned down the Hamilton and would have done so again if I had to make the choice again. I think, however, if I were married, had kids, or older at the time, I probably would've taken the Hamilton. You seem to be a recent graduate and have a long time to practice law, if you desire. I am not telling you what to do and I don't have an opinion on what you should do. I'm just telling you that if you decide to go to Harvard, you'll probably be ok.

you'd be in the exact same place you are now except far wealthier with a fraction of that debt or stress over the years. but of course we all become comfortable with our decisions. I don't see "you'd be 'OK' going to X school" as a ringing endorsement when there's another 'better than OK' option.

I'm not sure how you can be so confident of the bolded. Although I think taking CLS with the Hamilton is the easy call here, and although I think folks are generally foolish to turn down $$$ at "lower T14s" for HYS, I'm not sure if I end up in my current job (which I generally like) if I went to CLS instead of where I chose to attend law school. It's one thing to say that lots of extra debt isn't worth a slight updside. It's another thing to say that everything will be EXACTLY THE SAME if you go to CLS.

[jbagelboy]

I turned down the Hamilton to go to one of H/Y/S when I was 22. I graduated with well into six figures of debt. I didn't come from money so I had to pay it all back myself. I clerked, and the year I clerked it was tough financially, but overall I was able to pay back my loans at the end of my fourth year practicing. Overall, I am happy I turned down the Hamilton and would have done so again if I had to make the choice again. I think, however, if I were married, had kids, or older at the time, I probably would've taken the Hamilton. You seem to be a recent graduate and have a long time to practice law, if you desire. I am not telling you what to do and I don't have an opinion on what you should do. I'm just telling you that if you decide to go to Harvard, you'll probably be ok.

you'd be in the exact same place you are now except far wealthier with a fraction of that debt or stress over the years. but of course we all become comfortable with our decisions. I don't see "you'd be 'OK' going to X school" as a ringing endorsement when there's another 'better than OK' option.

I'm not sure how you can be so confident of the bolded. Although I think taking CLS with the Hamilton is the easy call here, and although I think folks are generally foolish to turn down $$$ at "lower T14s" for HYS, I'm not sure if I end up in my current job (which I generally like) if I went to CLS instead of where I chose to attend law school. It's one thing to say that lots of extra debt isn't worth a slight updside. It's another thing to say that everything will be EXACTLY THE SAME if you go to CLS.

I don't think everything will be exactly the same. But 3rd or 4th year associate at a big firm, maybe with a year of clerking between, describes the majority of graduates from both schools. I also don't think CLS would be described as a "lower T14". Outcomes between H and C (both statistically and descriptively) are far more similar than between, say, C and Michigan. I'm not digging anyone's jobs, quite the opposite - these schools do well for their students.

[wons]

How the hell is this still going 5 pages on? This is one of the most straightforward decisions a person can make.

If longterm, you think you're likely to end up at a big firm, you take the Hamilton. It is not even close. Biglaw hiring from HLS and CLS are painfully close, so much so that I think of you adjust for the increased difficulty of placing higher in the HLS class, it's damn near a wash. The only places where that's not the case is quasi-boutiques like W&C or WLRK, which, shrug. If ot really crushes you that you can't signal that you got into HLS, just put your Hamilton on your firm bio (like most of my Hamilton friends have done). Problem solved - everyone knows you could've gone to Harvard.

If you are going to school to be a professor - and I don't mean in a "it would be nice sense", I mean in a concrete, you have a plan sense, then you take the rather substantial gamble and go to Harvard. I don't think a single K-JD would qualify for this but i had friends who already had done graduate work in Econ, had a game plan for publishing and research and fellowships, they properly belonged at Harvard because Columbia closed doors they needed open.

Regardless of all this, grades will matter vastly more than anything else at schools this close in quality. If you do poorly at Harvard you will end up summering at Proskauer; if you do well at Columbia you will end up summering at Cravath. It is way more important to do well in law school than to attend the right law school, and doing well in law school ain't easy. Median students at HLS do not become professors. If you have any substantive reason why one of these schools might be a better fit than the other - family in NY or Boston, a significant other who'd you'd have to do an LTR with - that for me would be dispositive, given that the value of a Harvard degree over a Columbia degree is pretty close to the same as the value of a Hamilton, all other things being equal.

[Tls2016]

I turned down the Hamilton to go to one of H/Y/S when I was 22. I graduated with well into six figures of debt. I didn't come from money so I had to pay it all back myself. I clerked, and the year I clerked it was tough financially, but overall I was able to pay back my loans at the end of my fourth year practicing. Overall, I am happy I turned down the Hamilton and would have done so again if I had to make the choice again. I think, however, if I were married, had kids, or older at the time, I probably would've taken the Hamilton. You seem to be a recent graduate and have a long time to practice law, if you desire. I am not telling you what to do and I don't have an opinion on what you should do. I'm just telling you that if you decide to go to Harvard, you'll probably be ok.

you'd be in the exact same place you are now except far wealthier with a fraction of that debt or stress over the years. but of course we all become comfortable with our decisions. I don't see "you'd be 'OK' going to X school" as a ringing endorsement when there's another 'better than OK' option.

I'm not sure how you can be so confident of the bolded. Although I think taking CLS with the Hamilton is the easy call here, and although I think folks are generally foolish to turn down $$$ at "lower T14s" for HYS, I'm not sure if I end up in my current job (which I generally like) if I went to CLS instead of where I chose to attend law school. It's one thing to say that lots of extra debt isn't worth a slight updside. It's another thing to say that everything will be EXACTLY THE SAME if you go to CLS.

I don't think everything will be exactly the same. But 3rd or 4th year associate at a big firm, maybe with a year of clerking between, describes the majority of graduates from both schools. I also don't think CLS would be described as a "lower T14". Outcomes between H and C (both statistically and descriptively) are far more similar than between, say, C and Michigan. I'm not digging anyone's jobs, quite the opposite - these schools do well for their students.

I'm willing to bet that the prosecutor poster works with CLS grads at the same firm and the same level. It's the most common path.
Also I had no debt and I'm certain I have substantially more assets than the prosecutor poster. I'm going into a completely different field and I don't have to worry about money.

[abl]

Your professors are flatly wrong: there are no judges that "only hire from 'hys'". Every major feeder (the most competitive judges) hire from non-HYS. No one on TLS has ever been able to point to a judge that literally only hires from three schools. Same goes for Bristow, elite firms, academic placement, ect.

That's probably true, but there are several judges that mostly hire from HYS -- e.g., will take ~75% of their clerks from HYS (sometimes + one other favorite school).

[BillClinton Jr]

*looking around* YES! I get to be the first person to tell you to take the Hamilton.

This isn't even close.

+1

[landshoes]

There are judges who wait for their HYS contacts (profs) to call them and tell them who the top people are. Or they call and ask and directly recruit from those schools. This is per our faculty clerkship committee (CCN). That doesn't mean they necessarily only hire HYS, but it's a thing.

Although honestly, being the very top of HYS and having a prof call a judge on your behalf is not something I'd go to HYS assuming will happen.

[abl]

There are like a hundred of these threads on TLS. And I knew as soon as you came in here to propose your "weighing the value for these narrow goals where there might actually be some difference" argument, the thread would turn into the 5+ page shitshow it is now. I'm not trying to be a jerk, we just lose patience.

And how is that not what you implied? Read again: "I also think that being able to show that you're not just totally privileged is helpful for politics (which you will not be able to show if you graduate from undergrad and law school with no debt and >$100k in family money)." i.e., taking on some loans to go to X Law School -> "If you were totally sure about politics, this might be the right (if riskier) path to take.", endorsing going to HLS for the optic that it makes you seem less privileged. It's literally what you said. You are smarter than this.

What I said was that it's hard to "show that you're not just totally privileged" when "you graduate from undergrad and law school with no debt and >$100k in family money." I'm endorsing taking on debt for the optic that you seem less privileged.* The fact that the "debt option" is also the "HLS option" is incidental (and probably counterproductive) for this purpose. I would have thought that was obvious from my comments.

Yea, there are like a hundred of these threads on TLS and still an under representation of the seemingly obvious perspective that balancing debt and career advancement is a subjective personal decision that's going to depend on a prospective student's individual preferences. Incidentally, and not that it matters, I had nothing to do with this thread turning into "the 5+ page shitshow it is now" -- my comments largely went ignored (because I think they're pretty consistent with what others are saying).

*I want to again acknowledge how cynical this is and clarify that I'm not actually proposing this is a good route to take.

[lawlorbust]

Regardless of all this, grades will matter vastly more than anything else at schools this close in quality. If you do poorly at Harvard you will end up summering at Proskauer; if you do well at Columbia you will end up summering at Cravath. It is way more important to do well in law school than to attend the right law school, and doing well in law school ain't easy. Median students at HLS do not become professors. If you have any substantive reason why one of these schools might be a better fit than the other - family in NY or Boston, a significant other who'd you'd have to do an LTR with - that for me would be dispositive, given that the value of a Harvard degree over a Columbia degree is pretty close to the same as the value of a Hamilton, all other things being equal.

I'll go out on a limb and say that not all biglaw is equal, and median at Harvard is still a good shot for Cravath, if that's the sort of thing that you're after; I don't know enough about Columbia's EIP to know if it's the same there. Unicorn jobs aside, HLS is a terrific safety blanket for coming out with a conventionally good outcome no matter where in the class you place (the people who strike out tend to do so for non-grade-related reasons). But if you had the stats to get a Ruby/Hamilton, and biglaw is the goal, then the money far outweighs the risk of underperforming in law school. Take the money.

[fliptrip]

median at Harvard is still a good shot for Cravath

]

Is this really true? Also, isn't Cravath basically the worst place on Earth to work? How much does it mean to have a better shot at the most elite firms? The way I see it, all these various shops pay the same, so who really gives a shit which one you end up with?

[lawlorbust]

median at Harvard is still a good shot for Cravath

]

Is this really true? Also, isn't Cravath basically the worst place on Earth to work? How much does it mean to have a better shot at the most elite firms? The way I see it, all these various shops pay the same, so who really gives a shit which one you end up with?

Is the statement true? Yes, Cravath/DPW/STB regularly go into median (3Hs), at least. Skadden probably goes below median.

Personally, I think that life at Cravath would be miserable and turned my offer down; I was responding directly to the poster before me, who I assume was using Cravath as shorthand for "prestigious, widely desired white-shoe law firm." Feel free to sub in the non-WLRK, non-S&C NY biglaw firm of your choice.

[abl]

median at Harvard is still a good shot for Cravath

]

Is this really true? Also, isn't Cravath basically the worst place on Earth to work? How much does it mean to have a better shot at the most elite firms? The way I see it, all these various shops pay the same, so who really gives a shit which one you end up with?

If you're going into biglaw, it's nice to have a choice. The best ones do pay better when benefits are included, especially on the top end. Also, the best biglaw options are going to give you the best exit options, which is really the path for most biglaw associates (think of biglaw kind of like a really well-paying residency). I'd argue that the "best" biglaw options are NOT necessarily the NYC offices of the top firms. I'd shoot for some place like Jenner DC, personally--e.g., a prestigious office in a non-NY city of an otherwise well-regarded firm.

The real difference, though, is with lit boutiques and unicorn-type jobs. These are the places that every T14 grad should be shooting for. That's not to say that HYS always give you that leg up. I think Chicago's probably the best school to go to if you want to work at Bartlit Beck, for example. Overall, though, and in the aggregate, it really probably does help to be coming from HYS for these jobs (and it helps far more to have a clerkship, for which HYS will help a lot).

So I largely agree with you: it's probably not worth all that much having a small leg up when it comes to biglaw. (But it's worth more than 0.) It is worth having a small leg up when it comes to lit boutiques and unicorn jobs. (But reasonable people can disagree about how much.)

[wons]

Regardless of all this, grades will matter vastly more than anything else at schools this close in quality. If you do poorly at Harvard you will end up summering at Proskauer; if you do well at Columbia you will end up summering at Cravath. It is way more important to do well in law school than to attend the right law school, and doing well in law school ain't easy. Median students at HLS do not become professors. If you have any substantive reason why one of these schools might be a better fit than the other - family in NY or Boston, a significant other who'd you'd have to do an LTR with - that for me would be dispositive, given that the value of a Harvard degree over a Columbia degree is pretty close to the same as the value of a Hamilton, all other things being equal.

I'll go out on a limb and say that not all biglaw is equal, and median at Harvard is still a good shot for Cravath, if that's the sort of thing that you're after; I don't know enough about Columbia's EIP to know if it's the same there. Unicorn jobs aside, HLS is a terrific safety blanket for coming out with a conventionally good outcome no matter where in the class you place (the people who strike out tend to do so for non-grade-related reasons). But if you had the stats to get a Ruby/Hamilton, and biglaw is the goal, then the money far outweighs the risk of underperforming in law school. Take the money.

Of course not all biglaw is equal, and its much more pleasant to work at a top firm than a generic biglaw firm and the second job you get is likely to be much more lucrative, all other things being equal. But you're making my point for me: median at CLS doesn't have a good shot at Cravath but Stone certainly does, and my hunch (having gone to CLS and worked for 6 years with HLS people) is that it is about as difficult to be median at HLS as it is to be Stone at CLS, given that you're competing against a tougher population at HLS. Put differently, firms set their GPA cutoffs for a reason, not just because the name 'Harvard' looks all shiny on your bio page. That's why if you want to do biglaw, you take your Hamilton and basically get a free $150K or whatever that's worth these days and your expected outcome is essentially unchanged. And keep in mind that big law is the ultimate outcome, at least at some point in your early career, for like 85%+ of the students at both these schools.

If you want to be a professor or you want to be working at Barlitt or MTO or some place like that, or as a law professor, then Harvard gives you a clear advantage, and I think it is entirely reasonable to chase that advantage. But folks should keep in mind that even at Harvard that's not an easy goal to achieve.

[lawlorbust]

Of course not all biglaw is equal, and its much more pleasant to work at a top firm than a generic biglaw firm and the second job you get is likely to be much more lucrative, all other things being equal. But you're making my point for me: median at CLS doesn't have a good shot at Cravath but Stone certainly does, and my hunch (having gone to CLS and worked for 6 years with HLS people) is that it is about as difficult to be median at HLS as it is to be Stone at CLS, given that you're competing against a tougher population at HLS. Put differently, firms set their GPA cutoffs for a reason, not just because the name 'Harvard' looks all shiny on your bio page. That's why if you want to do biglaw, you take your Hamilton and basically get a free $150K or whatever that's worth these days and your expected outcome is essentially unchanged. And keep in mind that big law is the ultimate outcome, at least at some point in your early career, for like 85%+ of the students at both these schools.

Interestingly, my hunch is the other way, that being in the top 15% at CLS is probably harder than median at HLS. (Note that grades are structured at HLS to create a very large, undifferentiated "median" category.) But that's me being pedantic, and we don't substantively disagree at all that, if you're probably going to end up in biglaw, you should take the Hamilton and run.

[abl]

Regardless of all this, grades will matter vastly more than anything else at schools this close in quality. If you do poorly at Harvard you will end up summering at Proskauer; if you do well at Columbia you will end up summering at Cravath. It is way more important to do well in law school than to attend the right law school, and doing well in law school ain't easy. Median students at HLS do not become professors. If you have any substantive reason why one of these schools might be a better fit than the other - family in NY or Boston, a significant other who'd you'd have to do an LTR with - that for me would be dispositive, given that the value of a Harvard degree over a Columbia degree is pretty close to the same as the value of a Hamilton, all other things being equal.

I'll go out on a limb and say that not all biglaw is equal, and median at Harvard is still a good shot for Cravath, if that's the sort of thing that you're after; I don't know enough about Columbia's EIP to know if it's the same there. Unicorn jobs aside, HLS is a terrific safety blanket for coming out with a conventionally good outcome no matter where in the class you place (the people who strike out tend to do so for non-grade-related reasons). But if you had the stats to get a Ruby/Hamilton, and biglaw is the goal, then the money far outweighs the risk of underperforming in law school. Take the money.

Of course not all biglaw is equal, and its much more pleasant to work at a top firm than a generic biglaw firm and the second job you get is likely to be much more lucrative, all other things being equal. But you're making my point for me: median at CLS doesn't have a good shot at Cravath but Stone certainly does, and my hunch (having gone to CLS and worked for 6 years with HLS people) is that it is about as difficult to be median at HLS as it is to be Stone at CLS, given that you're competing against a tougher population at HLS. Put differently, firms set their GPA cutoffs for a reason, not just because the name 'Harvard' looks all shiny on your bio page. That's why if you want to do biglaw, you take your Hamilton and basically get a free $150K or whatever that's worth these days and your expected outcome is essentially unchanged. And keep in mind that big law is the ultimate outcome, at least at some point in your early career, for like 85%+ of the students at both these schools.

If you want to be a professor or you want to be working at Barlitt or MTO or some place like that, or as a law professor, then Harvard gives you a clear advantage, and I think it is entirely reasonable to chase that advantage. But folks should keep in mind that even at Harvard that's not an easy goal to achieve.

It's definitely gotta be easier to be median at Harvard than Stone at Columbia.

For one, I doubt the difference in student quality at these schools is all that big. I suspect that the biggest difference between Columbia and Harvard students is in the "softs"--the admission factors around the edges that excite adcoms (as opposed to the admission factors that predict law school success).

Also, I think each of these schools is going to have a core group of gunners killing themselves to be at the top of the class. I doubt that this number is going to be all that different at Columbia than Harvard (and in fact, given the slightly higher stakes at Columbia, it's probably greater there than H rather than vice versa). Being a Stone scholar at Columbia requires either being one of these gunners or competing for whatever few Stone slots "remain" after the gunners grab 'em. Median at Harvard, on the other hand, just requires being a slightly above average non-gunner (or a below average gunner).

Finally, median at Harvard--especially given H's grading system--is a pretty large and mushy expanse. Therefore, even if finishing in the top 45% at H was about as hard as Stone at Columbia, that's not really the question. The question is whether finishing in the top 65% (or wherever reasonably could be called median) at H is as hard as Stone at Columbia. I suspect few would say that it is.

[jbagelboy]

There are judges who wait for their HYS contacts (profs) to call them and tell them who the top people are. Or they call and ask and directly recruit from those schools. This is per our faculty clerkship committee (CCN). That doesn't mean they necessarily only hire HYS, but it's a thing.

Although honestly, being the very top of HYS and having a prof call a judge on your behalf is not something I'd go to HYS assuming will happen.

This is true, but in my experience, it is also true at chicago and columbia and maybe even other schools for their top students. my own clerkship was in part from a judge reaching out to a prof he regularly consults at my school. and there are judges like easterbrook for chicago and katzmann at CLS that have professors at those schools they call to recruit students each year.

[jbagelboy]

Of course not all biglaw is equal, and its much more pleasant to work at a top firm than a generic biglaw firm and the second job you get is likely to be much more lucrative, all other things being equal. But you're making my point for me: median at CLS doesn't have a good shot at Cravath but Stone certainly does, and my hunch (having gone to CLS and worked for 6 years with HLS people) is that it is about as difficult to be median at HLS as it is to be Stone at CLS, given that you're competing against a tougher population at HLS. Put differently, firms set their GPA cutoffs for a reason, not just because the name 'Harvard' looks all shiny on your bio page. That's why if you want to do biglaw, you take your Hamilton and basically get a free $150K or whatever that's worth these days and your expected outcome is essentially unchanged. And keep in mind that big law is the ultimate outcome, at least at some point in your early career, for like 85%+ of the students at both these schools.

Interestingly, my hunch is the other way, that being in the top 15% at CLS is probably harder than median at HLS. (Note that grades are structured at HLS to create a very large, undifferentiated "median" category.) But that's me being pedantic, and we don't substantively disagree at all that, if you're probably going to end up in biglaw, you should take the Hamilton and run.

stone is more like top 35-40%
firms like cravath reach pretty deep at both schools
obviously top 15% at CLS is way "harder" than median at HLS, but median is a fungible concept at both schools.

[Tiago Splitter]

I turned down the Hamilton to go to one of H/Y/S when I was 22. I graduated with well into six figures of debt. I didn't come from money so I had to pay it all back myself. I clerked, and the year I clerked it was tough financially, but overall I was able to pay back my loans at the end of my fourth year practicing. Overall, I am happy I turned down the Hamilton and would have done so again if I had to make the choice again. I think, however, if I were married, had kids, or older at the time, I probably would've taken the Hamilton. You seem to be a recent graduate and have a long time to practice law, if you desire. I am not telling you what to do and I don't have an opinion on what you should do. I'm just telling you that if you decide to go to Harvard, you'll probably be ok.

Tuition at Harvard is gonna be at least 20k a year higher than it was when you started.

[Tls2016]

How the hell is this still going 5 pages on? This is one of the most straightforward decisions a person can make.

If longterm, you think you're likely to end up at a big firm, you take the Hamilton. It is not even close. Biglaw hiring from HLS and CLS are painfully close, so much so that I think of you adjust for the increased difficulty of placing higher in the HLS class, it's damn near a wash. The only places where that's not the case is quasi-boutiques like W&C or WLRK, which, shrug. If ot really crushes you that you can't signal that you got into HLS, just put your Hamilton on your firm bio (like most of my Hamilton friends have done). Problem solved - everyone knows you could've gone to Harvard.

If you are going to school to be a professor - and I don't mean in a "it would be nice sense", I mean in a concrete, you have a plan sense, then you take the rather substantial gamble and go to Harvard. I don't think a single K-JD would qualify for this but i had friends who already had done graduate work in Econ, had a game plan for publishing and research and fellowships, they properly belonged at Harvard because Columbia closed doors they needed open.

Regardless of all this, grades will matter vastly more than anything else at schools this close in quality. If you do poorly at Harvard you will end up summering at Proskauer; if you do well at Columbia you will end up summering at Cravath. It is way more important to do well in law school than to attend the right law school, and doing well in law school ain't easy. Median students at HLS do not become professors. If you have any substantive reason why one of these schools might be a better fit than the other - family in NY or Boston, a significant other who'd you'd have to do an LTR with - that for me would be dispositive, given that the value of a Harvard degree over a Columbia degree is pretty close to the same as the value of a Hamilton, all other things being equal.

Prof Campos shut me down on arguing that Yale was necessary for academia. He felt Columbia was more than enough. I'm sure he would say the same for Harvard not being necessary over Columbia.
That OP had a PHD in something which I think is becoming necessary for academia anyway?
Maybe OP should ask Prof Campos about this point if she wants to be a professor.
People pushing massive debt at high interest for minimal return is what I'm trying to fight against here.

I am hard pressed to think of many jobs available from Harvard but not Columbia. Any unicorn job (which what is that beyond academia?)will require very high grades at both places.

[abl]

How the hell is this still going 5 pages on? This is one of the most straightforward decisions a person can make.

If longterm, you think you're likely to end up at a big firm, you take the Hamilton. It is not even close. Biglaw hiring from HLS and CLS are painfully close, so much so that I think of you adjust for the increased difficulty of placing higher in the HLS class, it's damn near a wash. The only places where that's not the case is quasi-boutiques like W&C or WLRK, which, shrug. If ot really crushes you that you can't signal that you got into HLS, just put your Hamilton on your firm bio (like most of my Hamilton friends have done). Problem solved - everyone knows you could've gone to Harvard.

If you are going to school to be a professor - and I don't mean in a "it would be nice sense", I mean in a concrete, you have a plan sense, then you take the rather substantial gamble and go to Harvard. I don't think a single K-JD would qualify for this but i had friends who already had done graduate work in Econ, had a game plan for publishing and research and fellowships, they properly belonged at Harvard because Columbia closed doors they needed open.

Regardless of all this, grades will matter vastly more than anything else at schools this close in quality. If you do poorly at Harvard you will end up summering at Proskauer; if you do well at Columbia you will end up summering at Cravath. It is way more important to do well in law school than to attend the right law school, and doing well in law school ain't easy. Median students at HLS do not become professors. If you have any substantive reason why one of these schools might be a better fit than the other - family in NY or Boston, a significant other who'd you'd have to do an LTR with - that for me would be dispositive, given that the value of a Harvard degree over a Columbia degree is pretty close to the same as the value of a Hamilton, all other things being equal.

Prof Campos shut me down on arguing that Yale was necessary for academia. He felt Columbia was more than enough. I'm sure he would say the same for Harvard not being necessary over Columbia.
That OP had a PHD in something which I think is becoming necessary for academia anyway?
Maybe OP should ask Prof Campos about this point if she wants to be a professor.
People pushing massive debt at high interest for minimal return is what I'm trying to fight against here.

I am hard pressed to think of many jobs available from Harvard but not Columbia. Any unicorn job (which what is that beyond academia?)will require very high grades at both places.

There are probably no jobs (other than occasional one-off opportunities) that are available from Harvard but not from Columbia. Likewise, Harvard (or Yale or Stanford) are most certainly not necessary for academia. That's a straw man. The question isn't really whether Harvard opens doors that Columbia doesn't. It's how much further Harvard opens doors that are mostly closed to graduates of both schools; and, relatedly, how much $$ that extra inch or two of wiggle room in said "door" is worth.

[Pulsar]

Maybe I'm just way too materialistic but sometimes I feel poor as a clerk even after graduating debt free via the Ruby. I can't fathom how bad doing this while bearing a ton of loans would be. I think the list of people who should turn down these huge scholarships at this point includes 1) people from really rich families that can pay for HYS without blinking much, and . . . nobody else. Whatever special interests a person has probably aren't special enough to justify being poor forever.