Fully from left field... HLS vs Chicago? Forum

[Lavitz]

Pretty sure everyone's just skeptical of the likelihood. I think we've done as much as we can to explain why that might end up not being the case.

But it sounds like you know what the situation is and what you have to do to get rid of the debt: get and stay in a low-paying job, and don't get married for 10 years. So if you're still willing to do that in order to go to Harvard, then go ahead. One more Ruby will go to someone who could use the money.

why might it not end up being the case? Actually, no one has given an explanation as to why it would be reasonably NOT the case, short of me deciding I hate everything I've ever wanted to do and choose instead to open up a sock store after I graduate law school.

You do know there are legal jobs other than the ones you've listed that don't involve opening a sock store, right? Ones that you may discover you want to go into, but which won't qualify for LIPP or which will pay enough for you to end up paying a lot more under LIPP than you would have if you went with the Ruby.

I was referring to comments like this emphasizing that your interest may change:

What happens if you lose your job? What happens if you need to stay home for some reason? What happens if you can't find a qualifying job that you want? I know Harvards definition is broad but maybe you will have time of extended unemployment?

You are relying on LIPP but what if that changes? What if you change your mind? What if you marry someone who's income pushes you out of LIPP?

You are just digging yourself a large and completely unnecessary hole.

But ok, let's try this again. How do you know you want to do "impact litigation," "movement lawyering," or "policy work"? Do you have previous experience in these fields? Interning? Connections with people who work in them? If so, then you may be right that there's very little chance you'll decide to do something else. But you haven't provided us with any context. For all we know, you read about some public interest organization in college and thought, "hey, that sounds cool, I want to do that." That's my story. I came into law school thinking I wanted to do impact litigation. Now I'm not.

Again, you could be different and 100% committed to these three areas. But it seems like you're assuming everyone here should just accept your assertions about your commitment at face value. In response, all we can really say is that your interests may change, so you should take that into consideration. If they do, Ruby saves you money. If they don't, then maybe LIPP gets you to around the same cost.

In addition, it seems like employment outcomes may be better for Rubies than for average Harvard grads, but that's another topic that's already been beaten to death. Don't know what else you want to hear from us at this point.

[UVA2B]

Pretty sure everyone's just skeptical of the likelihood. I think we've done as much as we can to explain why that might end up not being the case.

But it sounds like you know what the situation is and what you have to do to get rid of the debt: get and stay in a low-paying job, and don't get married for 10 years. So if you're still willing to do that in order to go to Harvard, then go ahead. One more Ruby will go to someone who could use the money.

why might it not end up being the case? Actually, no one has given an explanation as to why it would be reasonably NOT the case, short of me deciding I hate everything I've ever wanted to do and choose instead to open up a sock store after I graduate law school.

You do know there are legal jobs other than the ones you've listed that don't involve opening a sock store, right? Ones that you may discover you want to go into, but which won't qualify for LIPP or which will pay enough for you to end up paying a lot more under LIPP than you would have if you went with the Ruby.

I was referring to comments like this emphasizing that your interest may change:

What happens if you lose your job? What happens if you need to stay home for some reason? What happens if you can't find a qualifying job that you want? I know Harvards definition is broad but maybe you will have time of extended unemployment?

You are relying on LIPP but what if that changes? What if you change your mind? What if you marry someone who's income pushes you out of LIPP?

You are just digging yourself a large and completely unnecessary hole.

But ok, let's try this again. How do you know you want to do "impact litigation," "movement lawyering," or "policy work"? Do you have previous experience in these fields? Interning? Connections with people who work in them? If so, then you may be right that there's very little chance you'll decide to do something else. But you haven't provided us with any context. For all we know, you read about some public interest organization in college and thought, "hey, that sounds cool, I want to do that." That's my story. I came into law school thinking I wanted to do impact litigation. Now I'm not.

Again, you could be different and 100% committed to these three areas. But it seems like you're assuming everyone here should just accept your assertions about your commitment at face value. In response, all we can really say is that your interests may change, so you should take that into consideration. If they do, Ruby saves you money. If they don't, then maybe LIPP gets you to around the same cost.

In addition, it seems like employment outcomes may be better for Rubies than for average Harvard grads, but that's another topic that's already been beaten to death. Don't know what else you want to hear from us at this point.

To piggyback off of this in contextualizing your chosen fields: you're assuming Harvard will get you there. Harvard is the type of place that can get you into national impact lit jobs, policy work, and movement lawyering (tbf I don't really know what this is unless you're thinking PI work in political/social movements like BLM or something like that), but it is not a golden ticket to those outcomes like you seem to assume. These are difficult to break into, and while Harvard will definitely help in getting you there, it won't necessarily be sufficient to get you there. It's not like you slap a resume on the desk of the hiring attorney at the ACLU and they start filling out your employment paperwork.

OP2, you're right that none of us can properly assess your commitment to your minimally defined goals (minimally defined here, not that you haven't defined them more precisely) and we have no way of knowing whether LIPP will cover those goals (which we'll assume they are since you've done your research). But you're leaving out so many variables in the rest of your life and in the pursuit of your goals by categorically assuming Harvard will get you where a Ruby @ Chicago could not. Those are big gaps in your argument, which is why people continue to attack your plan of $300k debt on LIPP vs. very minimal debt plus extra resources to get what you want at Chicago. You could be making a well-reasoned choice based on a concrete plan that you are so dead set on that we are just left to assume you're serious about. But we're also people who are objectively weighing things you might not be fully appreciating, like simply deciding you want to do something else, or missing out on the types of jobs you're laser-focused on getting, or marrying someone who makes enough to make LIPP irrelevant, but not rich enough to make your $300k debt repayments comfortable.

You're asking the anonymous masses to just assume you know what you're doing while leaving out swaths of consideration that is absolutely valid.

[HonestlyThough]

Pretty sure everyone's just skeptical of the likelihood. I think we've done as much as we can to explain why that might end up not being the case.

But it sounds like you know what the situation is and what you have to do to get rid of the debt: get and stay in a low-paying job, and don't get married for 10 years. So if you're still willing to do that in order to go to Harvard, then go ahead. One more Ruby will go to someone who could use the money.

why might it not end up being the case? Actually, no one has given an explanation as to why it would be reasonably NOT the case, short of me deciding I hate everything I've ever wanted to do and choose instead to open up a sock store after I graduate law school.

You do know there are legal jobs other than the ones you've listed that don't involve opening a sock store, right? Ones that you may discover you want to go into, but which won't qualify for LIPP or which will pay enough for you to end up paying a lot more under LIPP than you would have if you went with the Ruby.

I was referring to comments like this emphasizing that your interest may change:

What happens if you lose your job? What happens if you need to stay home for some reason? What happens if you can't find a qualifying job that you want? I know Harvards definition is broad but maybe you will have time of extended unemployment?

You are relying on LIPP but what if that changes? What if you change your mind? What if you marry someone who's income pushes you out of LIPP?

You are just digging yourself a large and completely unnecessary hole.

But ok, let's try this again. How do you know you want to do "impact litigation," "movement lawyering," or "policy work"? Do you have previous experience in these fields? Interning? Connections with people who work in them? If so, then you may be right that there's very little chance you'll decide to do something else. But you haven't provided us with any context. For all we know, you read about some public interest organization in college and thought, "hey, that sounds cool, I want to do that." That's my story. I came into law school thinking I wanted to do impact litigation. Now I'm not.

Again, you could be different and 100% committed to these three areas. But it seems like you're assuming everyone here should just accept your assertions about your commitment at face value. In response, all we can really say is that your interests may change, so you should take that into consideration. If they do, Ruby saves you money. If they don't, then maybe LIPP gets you to around the same cost.

In addition, it seems like employment outcomes may be better for Rubies than for average Harvard grads, but that's another topic that's already been beaten to death. Don't know what else you want to hear from us at this point.

To piggyback off of this in contextualizing your chosen fields: you're assuming Harvard will get you there. Harvard is the type of place that can get you into national impact lit jobs, policy work, and movement lawyering (tbf I don't really know what this is unless you're thinking PI work in political/social movements like BLM or something like that), but it is not a golden ticket to those outcomes like you seem to assume. These are difficult to break into, and while Harvard will definitely help in getting you there, it won't necessarily be sufficient to get you there. It's not like you slap a resume on the desk of the hiring attorney at the ACLU and they start filling out your employment paperwork.

OP2, you're right that none of us can properly assess your commitment to your minimally defined goals (minimally defined here, not that you haven't defined them more precisely) and we have no way of knowing whether LIPP will cover those goals (which we'll assume they are since you've done your research). But you're leaving out so many variables in the rest of your life and in the pursuit of your goals by categorically assuming Harvard will get you where a Ruby @ Chicago could not. Those are big gaps in your argument, which is why people continue to attack your plan of $300k debt on LIPP vs. very minimal debt plus extra resources to get what you want at Chicago. You could be making a well-reasoned choice based on a concrete plan that you are so dead set on that we are just left to assume you're serious about. But we're also people who are objectively weighing things you might not be fully appreciating, like simply deciding you want to do something else, or missing out on the types of jobs you're laser-focused on getting, or marrying someone who makes enough to make LIPP irrelevant, but not rich enough to make your $300k debt repayments comfortable.

You're asking the anonymous masses to just assume you know what you're doing while leaving out swaths of consideration that is absolutely valid.

A few things to respond to, as it seems I wasn't very clear on some things:

1) I think there are only a few, narrow things for which Harvard would be a significant advantage over Chicago with a Ruby. Chicago is an excellent school and the Ruby comes with amazing institutional support. I don't dispute any of that. By some measures, that gives Chicago a definite edge in how well it sets up students (with a Ruby) for success. One thing I will note (and which the director of the Ruby agreed with) is that Harvard has a much bigger faculty, meaning there are more likely to be faculty and classes covering niche areas, which appears to be relevant given my interests being a bit more off the beaten path of PI and policy. Another thing of note is the student community. I've dug into this, and the sheer number of students in PI at havard means there's more people pushing for some pretty intense social change stuff. That community doesn't seem to exist to anywhere near the same extent at Chicago due to both its size and the focus of the school and students. That provides opportunities which are of value to me. I had that experience in undergrad (the benefit of that student community), and it was worth a lot.

2) It seems like you guys aren't very clear on what LIPP covers. A majority of jobs touching on policy, etc, in the private sector are eligible. Per LIPP:
"Employment in the private sector is eligible for LIPP so long as the position is law-related. For purposes of LIPP “law-related” is defined as follows:
-The distinctive intellectual skills acquired in a legal education are generally recognized as useful in the job; and
-Of those who hold this position, it is not unusual for them to be members of the legal profession."

I DO feel a near-certainty degree of confidence that the work I want to pursue will fall into that definition. I'm willing to make that gamble.

Re: parental leave, the policy is actually quite reasonable. It's very generous in its treatment of assets. I don't expect my partner to make such a significant amount that marriage would put us in a position of particular disadvantage or financial hardship.

I've really done my research on LIPP.

My conslusion regarding cost is that there's a chance of Havard saving me money (if I choose not to go into PSLF qualifying employment, or don't stay in it for a full 10 years, this is very likely. Harvard covers a very broad range of employment types. Chicago covers a much narrower set. My debt at Chicago will cost me $75-$100K if I don't qualify for PSLF-about what I will likely pay at Havard), but that the most likely outcome is that Harvard would end up costing me somewhere between $20K and $100K more than Chicago depending on how many years of PSLF qualifying employment I do and what my salary is.

The question I should evaluate is if Harvard is worth that to me.

Edit: I've been working a few years in close contact with people who have the types of jobs I'm looking to pursue. I'm not making this career projection without knowledge and experience!

[HonestlyThough]

I wonder if HLS would put OP#2 in touch with some c/o 2015 grads with full debt living on LIPP for the past couple of years to see what they would say...

This is an excellent thought! I should ask

[WinterComing]

OP No. 2, it's pretty clear you've decided to turn down the Ruby to pay for Harvard. That's cool; you do you. So just do it.

What's the point of arguing with the people in this thread? You're clearly not seeking advice at this point, which is sort of the point of this forum. You're not going to convince the TLS hivemind that you're making the right decision, nor is there any reason that you need to do so.

I realize this is sort of meta and not helpful, but I'm genuinely curious why you're doing this?

[HonestlyThough]

OP No. 2, it's pretty clear you've decided to turn down the Ruby to pay for Harvard. That's cool; you do you. So just do it.

What's the point of arguing with the people in this thread? You're clearly not seeking advice at this point, which is sort of the point of this forum. You're not going to convince the TLS hivemind that you're making the right decision, nor is there any reason that you need to do so.

I realize this is sort of meta and not helpful, but I'm genuinely curious why you're doing this?

I'm an external processor. I actually find it really helpful to have people tell me I'm wrong and provide reasons why. Quite a few people I've discussed this with and encountered (although more out of this forum than in) have presented me with challenges to my thinking or considerations I hadn't pondered yet. That's good for me. Every valid argument for Chicago causes me to stop and consider, to research more, and to ask more questions. Perhaps there will eventually be an argument that changes my mind. The fact that I haven't finalized my choice comes from a real place of being open to that.

If no argument causes me to change, at least I'll have the sense of peace and confidence that will come with feeling like I reviewed this decision very carefully and that, with as full of knowledge as possible, I chose the experience I want over the what is more likely to be the better option regarding debt burden.

I value the chance to increase my confidence that I'm not rushing to a conclusion.I value feeling like I've been pushed to consider lots of factors and things that will matter to me 8 years from now.

[rpupkin]

It's people like OP (and all of his/her defenders) who contribute to law school tuition being as high as it is. If everybody who got a full scholarship from T14 and strong regional schools turned down HYS, HYS would have to bring down its price, and all other schools would follow suit. HYS keeps its price at unconscionable levels because they know prestige-chasing suckers will gladly pay for the prestige. It screws up the market for the rest of us.

I don't agree with the bolded. HYS charges a fair price given the value of a JD from one of those schools. It's not HYS's fault that shitty law schools set their tuition levels at comparable levels.

[rpupkin]

I would have likely close to $300,000 in debt at Harvard. I am 100% sure that I will be working in LIPP eligible jobs.

I think folks are generally being too hard on you in this thread, though I do think you need to tone down your 100% confidence in your career path. When I started law school, I'd estimate that roughly half of my classmates had definite plans similar to yours. Perhaps half of them ended up on that path right out of law school, and now—several years later—maybe a third of those are still in LIPP-eligible jobs.

One of my closest friends was 100% sure she would do PI when she started law school. Hell, she was still 100% sure she would do PI when she graduated three years later. She spent approximately six months at a LIPP-eligible job before clerking. After clerking, she went to a market-paying law firm. She's slowly paying off her $200K of debt.

I'm not doubting your subjective certainty, but I suggest maintaining some perspective. There's a not insignificant chance that you'll end up in a non-LIPP eligible job for one reason or another.

[KMart]

harvard adcomms have to read this thread and laugh

[Npret]

OP No. 2, it's pretty clear you've decided to turn down the Ruby to pay for Harvard. That's cool; you do you. So just do it.

What's the point of arguing with the people in this thread? You're clearly not seeking advice at this point, which is sort of the point of this forum. You're not going to convince the TLS hivemind that you're making the right decision, nor is there any reason that you need to do so.

I realize this is sort of meta and not helpful, but I'm genuinely curious why you're doing this?

I'm an external processor. I actually find it really helpful to have people tell me I'm wrong and provide reasons why. Quite a few people I've discussed this with and encountered (although more out of this forum than in) have presented me with challenges to my thinking or considerations I hadn't pondered yet. That's good for me. Every valid argument for Chicago causes me to stop and consider, to research more, and to ask more questions. Perhaps there will eventually be an argument that changes my mind. The fact that I haven't finalized my choice comes from a real place of being open to that.

If no argument causes me to change, at least I'll have the sense of peace and confidence that will come with feeling like I reviewed this decision very carefully and that, with as full of knowledge as possible, I chose the experience I want over the what is more likely to be the better option regarding debt burden.

I value the chance to increase my confidence that I'm not rushing to a conclusion.I value feeling like I've been pushed to consider lots of factors and things that will matter to me 8 years from now.

You seem to be fairly clearly lying to yourself though?

It's ok. Lots of people pay sticker at Harvard because they believe the prestige is necessary. But don't tell yourself it's the better option for debt.

Just go because you want to. Then when you have years of debt repayment you can say "well at least I went to Harvard" and feel great about your decision.

[cavalier1138]

This is starting to play out like a weird reverse game of "St. John's or Cornell". Man, I miss that OP.

[Npret]

I would have likely close to $300,000 in debt at Harvard. I am 100% sure that I will be working in LIPP eligible jobs.

I think folks are generally being too hard on you in this thread, though I do think you need to tone down your 100% confidence in your career path. When I started law school, I'd estimate that roughly half of my classmates had definite plans similar to yours. Perhaps half of them ended up on that path right out of law school, and now—several years later—maybe a third of those are still in LIPP-eligible jobs.

One of my closest friends was 100% sure she would do PI when she started law school. Hell, she was still 100% sure she would do PI when she graduated three years later. She spent approximately six months at a LIPP-eligible job before clerking. After clerking, she went to a market-paying law firm. She's slowly paying off her $200K of debt.

I'm not doubting your subjective certainty, but I suggest maintaining some perspective. There's a not insignificant chance that you'll end up in a non-LIPP eligible job for one reason or another.

Maybe people (or at least I) seem hard on OP because of the transparent mental gymnastics she has to go through to keep this decision alive.

Things like: I want to be fair to other Chicago students (as if they won't have good outcomes), the professor I saw was bad, the building is so ugly, it was cold.

The worst one is watching her struggle to equate $300,000 of debt to $50,000 of debt plus significant assistance. She should walk into any local financial planners office or even an HR block and ask this question. It isn't hard.

This has been more painful than watching the biglaw 0Ls calculate their budgets before they even take a class. At least they are somewhat trying to expand their career options by taking debt at a school they believe will get them to biglaw while OP is limiting her options.

[Npret]

harvard adcomms have to read this thread and laugh

Seriously. This plus all the others along the same line.

The Ruby program must laugh as well. It must be strange to be handing 0Ls a 6 figure gift, prestige and a boost to their career and have them turn it down. If I were in their shoes, my satisfaction would come from knowing those people would be difficult to work with anyway. There are other deserving candidates.

[WinterComing]

OP No. 2, it's pretty clear you've decided to turn down the Ruby to pay for Harvard. That's cool; you do you. So just do it.

What's the point of arguing with the people in this thread? You're clearly not seeking advice at this point, which is sort of the point of this forum. You're not going to convince the TLS hivemind that you're making the right decision, nor is there any reason that you need to do so.

I realize this is sort of meta and not helpful, but I'm genuinely curious why you're doing this?

I'm an external processor. I actually find it really helpful to have people tell me I'm wrong and provide reasons why. Quite a few people I've discussed this with and encountered (although more out of this forum than in) have presented me with challenges to my thinking or considerations I hadn't pondered yet. That's good for me. Every valid argument for Chicago causes me to stop and consider, to research more, and to ask more questions. Perhaps there will eventually be an argument that changes my mind. The fact that I haven't finalized my choice comes from a real place of being open to that.

If no argument causes me to change, at least I'll have the sense of peace and confidence that will come with feeling like I reviewed this decision very carefully and that, with as full of knowledge as possible, I chose the experience I want over the what is more likely to be the better option regarding debt burden.

I value the chance to increase my confidence that I'm not rushing to a conclusion.I value feeling like I've been pushed to consider lots of factors and things that will matter to me 8 years from now.

If you really are still deciding, then I'll pitch in my two cents. TLS is very good at giving financial advice. It's pretty bad at giving public-interest advice, because most people here seem to be big law lawyers. I also think some of the personal attacks against you above are pretty unfair.

I had/have somewhat similar goals to you, and I turned down a Ruby to go to HYS. I don't necessarily regret it, but I'm only a 1L, so there's plenty of time for me to feel crushed by the debt (and I do have a classmate or two who is open about regretting their decision to turn down a full ride).

One thing I wish I'd done more of before law school is looking at specific organizations where I'd like to work and seeing where their employees went to law school and what they did during law school. Unless I missed a more detailed post, you've said that you generally want to do "impact" or "movement" lawyering. You've also said you plan to stay in LIPP eligible employment for 10 years. My impression as someone interested in these kinds of jobs is that employers generally speaking (there are exceptions probably) don't care at all whether you went to Harvard or Chicago. What they care about is whether you've shown dedication to their cause through your student activities, your clinics, and your summer jobs.

Where Harvard might have a bit of an advantage is actually for a different type of career, one where you move between PI and firms and government and do lots of prestigious stuff. In that case, you probably won't stay eligible for LIPP the whole time.

So I guess my overall point is to do more research on the specific career you want and really understand what type of law school credentials are necessary for it.

[Phil Brooks]

OP No. 2, it's pretty clear you've decided to turn down the Ruby to pay for Harvard. That's cool; you do you. So just do it.

What's the point of arguing with the people in this thread? You're clearly not seeking advice at this point, which is sort of the point of this forum. You're not going to convince the TLS hivemind that you're making the right decision, nor is there any reason that you need to do so.

I realize this is sort of meta and not helpful, but I'm genuinely curious why you're doing this?

I'm an external processor. I actually find it really helpful to have people tell me I'm wrong and provide reasons why. Quite a few people I've discussed this with and encountered (although more out of this forum than in) have presented me with challenges to my thinking or considerations I hadn't pondered yet. That's good for me. Every valid argument for Chicago causes me to stop and consider, to research more, and to ask more questions. Perhaps there will eventually be an argument that changes my mind. The fact that I haven't finalized my choice comes from a real place of being open to that.

If no argument causes me to change, at least I'll have the sense of peace and confidence that will come with feeling like I reviewed this decision very carefully and that, with as full of knowledge as possible, I chose the experience I want over the what is more likely to be the better option regarding debt burden.

I value the chance to increase my confidence that I'm not rushing to a conclusion.I value feeling like I've been pushed to consider lots of factors and things that will matter to me 8 years from now.

If you really are still deciding, then I'll pitch in my two cents. TLS is very good at giving financial advice. It's pretty bad at giving public-interest advice, because most people here seem to be big law lawyers. I also think some of the personal attacks against you above are pretty unfair.

I had/have somewhat similar goals to you, and I turned down a Ruby to go to HYS. I don't necessarily regret it, but I'm only a 1L, so there's plenty of time for me to feel crushed by the debt (and I do have a classmate or two who is open about regretting their decision to turn down a full ride).

One thing I wish I'd done more of before law school is looking at specific organizations where I'd like to work and seeing where their employees went to law school and what they did during law school. Unless I missed a more detailed post, you've said that you generally want to do "impact" or "movement" lawyering. You've also said you plan to stay in LIPP eligible employment for 10 years. My impression as someone interested in these kinds of jobs is that employers generally speaking (there are exceptions probably) don't care at all whether you went to Harvard or Chicago. What they care about is whether you've shown dedication to their cause through your student activities, your clinics, and your summer jobs.

Where Harvard might have a bit of an advantage is actually for a different type of career, one where you move between PI and firms and government and do lots of prestigious stuff. In that case, you probably won't stay eligible for LIPP the whole time.

So I guess my overall point is to do more research on the specific career you want and really understand what type of law school credentials are necessary for it.

Ouch. Sorry OP.

The only thing worse than a prestige whore is someone who can't admit that they are a prestige whore.

[TudoBem]

^^

/quote]

Take the Ruby. I didn't and I am very pleased with my outcome. But if I could turn back time the fact I didn't understand was the way the system is tilted in favor of Ruby recipients. It flies in the face of everything I thought I knew about law school. That a small committee of ad-coms could predict with such certainty how a group would do in law school and after based on their performance in the first 3 years of undergrad and their score on the LSAT.

Take the Ruby. For anyone else thinking about Chicago...think twice. Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies.

Why do you say that: "Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies". I decided to go to UChicago over NYU, so your comment concerns me. Can you please elaborate?

[Anon.y.mousse.]

Why do you say that: "Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies". I decided to go to UChicago over NYU, so your comment concerns me. Can you please elaborate?

fairly sure shadox was being sarcastic to mock me/anybody else suggesting that the strong institutional & faculty support you get being a ruby recipient could give you an advantage applying to and securing super competitive jobs.

[guynourmin]

Why do you say that: "Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies". I decided to go to UChicago over NYU, so your comment concerns me. Can you please elaborate?

fairly sure shadox was being sarcastic to mock me/anybody else suggesting that the strong institutional & faculty support you get being a ruby recipient could give you an advantage applying to and securing super competitive jobs.

+1

[HonestlyThough]

OP No. 2, it's pretty clear you've decided to turn down the Ruby to pay for Harvard. That's cool; you do you. So just do it.

What's the point of arguing with the people in this thread? You're clearly not seeking advice at this point, which is sort of the point of this forum. You're not going to convince the TLS hivemind that you're making the right decision, nor is there any reason that you need to do so.

I realize this is sort of meta and not helpful, but I'm genuinely curious why you're doing this?

I'm an external processor. I actually find it really helpful to have people tell me I'm wrong and provide reasons why. Quite a few people I've discussed this with and encountered (although more out of this forum than in) have presented me with challenges to my thinking or considerations I hadn't pondered yet. That's good for me. Every valid argument for Chicago causes me to stop and consider, to research more, and to ask more questions. Perhaps there will eventually be an argument that changes my mind. The fact that I haven't finalized my choice comes from a real place of being open to that.

If no argument causes me to change, at least I'll have the sense of peace and confidence that will come with feeling like I reviewed this decision very carefully and that, with as full of knowledge as possible, I chose the experience I want over the what is more likely to be the better option regarding debt burden.

I value the chance to increase my confidence that I'm not rushing to a conclusion.I value feeling like I've been pushed to consider lots of factors and things that will matter to me 8 years from now.

If you really are still deciding, then I'll pitch in my two cents. TLS is very good at giving financial advice. It's pretty bad at giving public-interest advice, because most people here seem to be big law lawyers. I also think some of the personal attacks against you above are pretty unfair.

I had/have somewhat similar goals to you, and I turned down a Ruby to go to HYS. I don't necessarily regret it, but I'm only a 1L, so there's plenty of time for me to feel crushed by the debt (and I do have a classmate or two who is open about regretting their decision to turn down a full ride).

One thing I wish I'd done more of before law school is looking at specific organizations where I'd like to work and seeing where their employees went to law school and what they did during law school. Unless I missed a more detailed post, you've said that you generally want to do "impact" or "movement" lawyering. You've also said you plan to stay in LIPP eligible employment for 10 years. My impression as someone interested in these kinds of jobs is that employers generally speaking (there are exceptions probably) don't care at all whether you went to Harvard or Chicago. What they care about is whether you've shown dedication to their cause through your student activities, your clinics, and your summer jobs.

Where Harvard might have a bit of an advantage is actually for a different type of career, one where you move between PI and firms and government and do lots of prestigious stuff. In that case, you probably won't stay eligible for LIPP the whole time.

So I guess my overall point is to do more research on the specific career you want and really understand what type of law school credentials are necessary for it.

Thank you for actually providing useful advice and thoughts in response. I do feel that many of those criticizing aren't really reading what I;m saying because they're convinced they know better than I do what factors matter in this decision and how they should be weighed and how confident I am in my opinions and inclinations.

I do recognize that there is a small possibility that my plans could change drastically, in which case I would be hundreds of thousands in the red. However, given that I have substantial work experience in the general field I intend to go into, both through post-grad employment and a variety of internships during school, I do have significant confidence that I won't choose to do biglaw work. My aversion to that lifestyle only furthers that confidence. LIPP is broad, and covers all non-profit and government work, as well as a lot of private practice revolving around legal aid and policy. Regarding specific careers and orgs, I have explored that to a significant extent through my current job.

On that note, I do like that LIPP allows me to move between more of these related fields while retaining coverage. at Chicago, a lot of that movement would leave me with as much or more to pay than I would be paying at Harvard under the same circumstances. I've made this point repeatedly, and it's been ignored repeatedly. I currently work for an org doing amazing work with whom I would be covered under LIPP and not under Chicago's LRAP.

I think you're correct that Harvard and Chicago won't make a huge difference in getting my resume looked at, though I make that comment with 3 caveats: 1) Chicago's Ruby support would be of real assistance; 2) Harvard is better known and respected in the space outside of the narrowly-defined legal market (IE non-profit, public policy, etc world); 3) Harvard's alumni network is far more extensive and better placed

I have a clear sense of the impact I want to have and a pretty good sense of the various orgs and roles with which I would be happy. In law school I have to find out the specifics through practice and trial. My impression has been that Harvard students do a lot more outside the classroom whereas Chicago kids are more engaged in class, but almost do a fault and at the expense of outside the classroom focuses.

[shadowfax]

[q

Take the Ruby. I didn't and I am very pleased with my outcome. But if I could turn back time the fact I didn't understand was the way the system is tilted in favor of Ruby recipients. It flies in the face of everything I thought I knew about law school. That a small committee of ad-coms could predict with such certainty how a group would do in law school and after based on their performance in the first 3 years of undergrad and their score on the LSAT.

Take the Ruby. For anyone else thinking about Chicago...think twice. Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Why do you say that: "Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies". I decided to go to UChicago over NYU, so your comment concerns me. Can you please elaborate?[/quote]

I don't feel like doing the math but if you are not a Ruby your odds of clerkship seem abysmal. Not mocking anyone. I have said take the Ruby. It seems the school throws all of its weight behind this group. I have no problem with that. You should just be aware that a lot of the available spots are spoken for before pen ever hits paper or fingers hit keyboards.

[Npret]

1. I am guessing the only reason Chicago doesn't cover your current job, but Harvard does, is because Chicago requires law related employment. Isn't that a bit disingenuous? Are you planning to go to Harvardor Chicago and not do law related work? Because if so, then don't go at all.
If not and you are planning on law related work, then what is the issue with Chicago.

2. I'm not ignoring your point about the difference you might have to pay. That's because it seems nonsensical to me that anyone would borrow an extra $250,000 just because it might be easier to repay. My brain can't wrap itself around that idea, but clearly you have decided it's a valid financial plan.

3. Once again I will mention that you could change your mind or other life events could happen and you wo t have LIPP but you will have unmanageable debt.

I am going to ask one more time that you not so stubbornly continue to cling to your imagine future as reality and consider that itmight not go that way. You are taking a huge, unnecessary risk that everything will work just the way you have decided it will. People change their minds all the time. You should consider that it could happen.

[lawlorbust]

Ouch. Sorry OP.

The only thing worse than a prestige whore is someone who can't admit that they are a prestige whore.

You go to Penn. We get it. It's a fine school. Really fine. Don't need to get so worked up.

[jbagelboy]

Take the Ruby. I didn't and I am very pleased with my outcome. But if I could turn back time the fact I didn't understand was the way the system is tilted in favor of Ruby recipients. It flies in the face of everything I thought I knew about law school. That a small committee of ad-coms could predict with such certainty how a group would do in law school and after based on their performance in the first 3 years of undergrad and their score on the LSAT.

Take the Ruby. For anyone else thinking about Chicago...think twice. Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies.

Why do you say that: "Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies". I decided to go to UChicago over NYU, so your comment concerns me. Can you please elaborate?

I don't feel like doing the math but if you are not a Ruby your odds of clerkship seem abysmal. Not mocking anyone. I have said take the Ruby. It seems the school throws all of its weight behind this group. I have no problem with that. You should just be aware that a lot of the available spots are spoken for before pen ever hits paper or fingers hit keyboards.

(1) The number of Rubenstein recipients and their success at attaining clerkships has a statistically insignificant impact on UChicago's clerkship rate, so the appeal to math is erroneous.

(2) you have mischaracterized the Ruby and how students are treated at the school. Rubenstein candidates tend to have strong performance. This strong performance leads to recognition and successful applications. A student who did not receive the Rubenstein who had similarly strong performance would also receive recognition and have the same chances at landing a prestigious career outcome. You have distorted the cause and effect here to make the school seem like a less attractive option relative to your purported alma mater.

In other words, this whole newfangled argument about the Ruby is ridiculous

[TudoBem]

Take the Ruby. I didn't and I am very pleased with my outcome. But if I could turn back time the fact I didn't understand was the way the system is tilted in favor of Ruby recipients. It flies in the face of everything I thought I knew about law school. That a small committee of ad-coms could predict with such certainty how a group would do in law school and after based on their performance in the first 3 years of undergrad and their score on the LSAT.

Take the Ruby. For anyone else thinking about Chicago...think twice. Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies.

Why do you say that: "Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies". I decided to go to UChicago over NYU, so your comment concerns me. Can you please elaborate?

I don't feel like doing the math but if you are not a Ruby your odds of clerkship seem abysmal. Not mocking anyone. I have said take the Ruby. It seems the school throws all of its weight behind this group. I have no problem with that. You should just be aware that a lot of the available spots are spoken for before pen ever hits paper or fingers hit keyboards.

(1) The number of Rubenstein recipients and their success at attaining clerkships has a statistically insignificant impact on UChicago's clerkship rate, so the appeal to math is erroneous.

(2) you have mischaracterized the Ruby and how students are treated at the school. Rubenstein candidates tend to have strong performance. This strong performance leads to recognition and successful applications. A student who did not receive the Rubenstein who had similarly strong performance would also receive recognition and have the same chances at landing a prestigious career outcome. You have distorted the cause and effect here to make the school seem like a less attractive option relative to your purported alma mater.

In other words, this whole newfangled argument about the Ruby is ridiculous

THANK YOU jbagelboy for your insight.

[Phil Brooks]

Ouch. Sorry OP.

The only thing worse than a prestige whore is someone who can't admit that they are a prestige whore.

You go to Penn. We get it. It's a fine school. Really fine. Don't need to get so worked up.

The facts that you 1) felt compelled to respond to a comment that was not directed at you; 2) took the time to research my post history to find out what school I went to; and 3) feel like the school I go to is a "trump card", all suggest that only you are the one who is "worked up." Hope you feel better tomorrow.