Top Law Schools

I think I am going to say no to Stanford (words I never thought I would say).
They told me that I was admitted off the waitlist. They gave me 4.5k a year and said that even this small amount may go away after my younger brother graduates. The loans that they offered me do not have a very good interest rate, and I would need a lot of them.
I am currently enrolled at Berkeley law with an 80% scholarship (40k a year). I also cannot break my lease in Berkeley (for reasons I won't get into here but this is non-negotiable) so I would either commute 2 hours one way to Stanford or pay double rent. My goals involve some sort of public interest environmental law - ideally in environmental conservation or clean energy, but I am also trying to keep my options as open as possible (I do know that I do not want to clerk, be a professor, or do criminal law).
I also have already paid for a semester at Berkeley (5k). In my calculations, the switch/total cost of Stanford is around 280-290k (unless I pay double rent, then its more like 300-315k) plus my mental health as I (most likely) commute 4 hours everyday. The total cost of Berkeley is closer to 105k.
Am I crazy to turn down Stanford? It used to be my dream school, but honestly Berkeley is pretty rad (and so is 200k less in debt).

You can't sublet your apartment?

LawTweet wrote:You can't sublet your apartment?

No, unfortunately, I cannot. That's an absolute.

Berkeley seems to be the obvious choice.

As somebody applying this cycle, I promise you I would take Berkeley ($$$) over Stanford ($) every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I fear debt. I have seen debt change and destroy many a good person. I have watched marriages collapse and divorce proceedings filed because of debt. Maybe this is not an issue to some, but I think it should be an important consideration for everyone.

In my OPINION, you are making no mistake. Based on ABA Employment Statistics, there is not enough of a difference between Stanford and Berkeley in terms of outcomes to justify spending another $200,000. Again though, that might just be my debt aversion speaking.

You're not crazy. That's a ridiculous price difference, and Stanford isn't worth that much compared to Berkeley.

First, CONGRATS on your terrific Berkeley acceptance, and on getting into Stanford! You should justifiably feel very proud of yourself.

Now, Stanford does have an enormous edge over Berkeley. BUT! Based on your articulated goals, Berkeley is perfectly suitable for you. If you were fixated on clerking, or academia, or DoJ Honors, or getting into some kind of tippy-top boutique like Susman or Kellogg or whatnot, then Stanford might be worth it - especially for academia. But you aren't interested in any of that. You want to do public interesty environmental work, which is one of Berkeley's main strengths. Based on the cost differential alone I'd recommend attending Berkeley. For your goals, Stanford isn't worth an additional $300k over Berkeley. (Economically, of course, Stanford would never be worth an additional $300k over Berkeley, but it can be hard to put a price tag on someone's dreams if, say, they were dead-set on clerking and academia.)

Lastly, while your post doesn't provide all the details and this isn't legal advice to you, generally there should never be a situation where one simply "cannot" break their lease. Most leases will have liquidated damages provisions, but even for leases that don't, landlords have a duty to mitigate their losses. Landlords cannot simply sit on their hands and leave an apartment vacant for an entire year and bill their ex-tenant for the whole amount. They must make reasonable efforts to re-rent the apartment. And in a place like Berkeley, with housing as constrained as it is, it seems likely that any vacant apartment would go pretty quickly.

Be really sure you don't want to clerk before turning down Stanford. Considering your career goals, it may be expected or very helpful to have an Article III clerkship.

I took a full-ride at a lower T-14. I still think I made the right choice but saw a huge difference in clerkship opportunities for lower T-14 students vs. Y/S students. Such a difference that it made me second-guess whether I should have gone to HYS at sticker.

I didn’t go to a school as good as either of those, but I am posting to add a viewpoint developed through my own experience.

I went to law school with a litigation-oriented goal in mind (call it public interest, broadly defined). I was lucky enough to swing an a3 fedclerk spot after graduation; I had no qualms about putting that original dream on hold for a year. I had not ever applied to a firm at the time that I graduated.

After that clerkship, i got that (so I thought) dream job and it was great at first, but after a while it got old. I did some soul-searching and decided to double back to go the the biglaw path (which required considerable hustle due to my lack of experience in the private sector to that point). The only reason that this was available to me is because I had lucked into that fed clerkship after graduation; obtaining an a3 would have required less luck if I had gone to hysccn of course.

The takeaway is that you really don’t know what you want to do in the long term, even if you think you do right now. If you took Stanford and put your (right now) dream on hold to do a little more of a traditional single/double fedclerk position followed by a quinn/Latham/Jones day-type clerkship bonus (or double bonus) and did biglaw for a couple years, you can STILL get that dream job and you can pay off that extra debt. Additionally, you could miss some of that biglaw grunt work that first years do.

But most significantly, your resume will shine like gold for the rest of your life. Clerking will be more of a given from S, and academia will continue to be open to you where you could also have an impact in your target arena maybe after you practice for a bit.

Just some food for thought. Both are great options and I’m generally scared of debt also, but hys is something special imo.

Either way, well done. All viewpoints on this thread are super valid, IMO and you really can’t go wrong here.

I get the above perspective, but I think the difference between Stanford and Berkeley is only going to matter on the very margins.

pineapple17 wrote:I think I am going to say no to Stanford (words I never thought I would say).
They told me that I was admitted off the waitlist. They gave me 4.5k a year and said that even this small amount may go away after my younger brother graduates. The loans that they offered me do not have a very good interest rate, and I would need a lot of them.
I am currently enrolled at Berkeley law with an 80% scholarship (40k a year). I also cannot break my lease in Berkeley (for reasons I won't get into here but this is non-negotiable) so I would either commute 2 hours one way to Stanford or pay double rent. My goals involve some sort of public interest environmental law - ideally in environmental conservation or clean energy, but I am also trying to keep my options as open as possible (I do know that I do not want to clerk, be a professor, or do criminal law).
I also have already paid for a semester at Berkeley (5k). In my calculations, the switch/total cost of Stanford is around 280-290k (unless I pay double rent, then its more like 300-315k) plus my mental health as I (most likely) commute 4 hours everyday. The total cost of Berkeley is closer to 105k.
Am I crazy to turn down Stanford? It used to be my dream school, but honestly Berkeley is pretty rad (and so is 200k less in debt).

I think both sides have merit, but the possibility of paying extra rent is such an extremely shortsighted concern it shouldn't factor into your analysis. Even given the lease conditions, there is probably something you can negotiate with the landlord that allows both of you to benefit economically (e.g. he can release the premises and still charge you rent for a few months, and you still wind up paying less rent). Regardless, that's a small enough amount of money to not be a major concern.

objctnyrhnr wrote:I didn’t go to a school as good as either of those, but I am posting to add a viewpoint developed through my own experience.

I went to law school with a litigation-oriented goal in mind (call it public interest, broadly defined). I was lucky enough to swing an a3 fedclerk spot after graduation; I had no qualms about putting that original dream on hold for a year. I had not ever applied to a firm at the time that I graduated.

After that clerkship, i got that (so I thought) dream job and it was great at first, but after a while it got old. I did some soul-searching and decided to double back to go the the biglaw path (which required considerable hustle due to my lack of experience in the private sector to that point). The only reason that this was available to me is because I had lucked into that fed clerkship after graduation; obtaining an a3 would have required less luck if I had gone to hysccn of course.

The takeaway is that you really don’t know what you want to do in the long term, even if you think you do right now. If you took Stanford and put your (right now) dream on hold to do a little more of a traditional single/double fedclerk position followed by a quinn/Latham/Jones day-type clerkship bonus (or double bonus) and did biglaw for a couple years, you can STILL get that dream job and you can pay off that extra debt. Additionally, you could miss some of that biglaw grunt work that first years do.

But most significantly, your resume will shine like gold for the rest of your life. Clerking will be more of a given from S, and academia will continue to be open to you where you could also have an impact in your target arena maybe after you practice for a bit.

Just some food for thought. Both are great options and I’m generally scared of debt also, but hys is something special imo.

Either way, well done. All viewpoints on this thread are super valid, IMO and you really can’t go wrong here.

Just curious: did you go back to biglaw just for the money, or was there some other reason?

SLS is great but as a Berkeley alum I can say I was afraid when I started at Berkeley that unless I was at the top of the class I wouldn’t get to clerk, wouldn’t be able to get a job on the east coast, wouldn’t be able to get into very selective boutiques. I was able to do all of those things without being at the top of my class. SLS definitely has an edge in certain opportunities and there are times I was definitely jealous of that edge, but a decision to pick Berkeley in your situation is totally defensible (as is the opposite) and the important thing is that you not look back and do your best in law school. You’re in a great position.

I'll be in the minority by saying that if it were me, I'd choose Stanford. My perspective may be slightly different given that I paid off my student loans years ago. The amount I borrowed seemed enormous then, but in the rear view mirror it doesn't at all.

While I understand a healthy fear of debt, it's not material compared to the likely lifetime earnings of a Stanford graduate. It's true that either may end up in the same place, but Stanford may offer more possibilities for a future career. There is almost zero risk of a Stanford grad striking out at OCI, but that risk certainly exists at Berkely (even if not terribly high). Don't worry about the rent. It's not even a material consideration.

That said, Berkeley is certainly a very defensible choice.

Veil of Ignorance wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:I didn’t go to a school as good as either of those, but I am posting to add a viewpoint developed through my own experience.

I went to law school with a litigation-oriented goal in mind (call it public interest, broadly defined). I was lucky enough to swing an a3 fedclerk spot after graduation; I had no qualms about putting that original dream on hold for a year. I had not ever applied to a firm at the time that I graduated.

After that clerkship, i got that (so I thought) dream job and it was great at first, but after a while it got old. I did some soul-searching and decided to double back to go the the biglaw path (which required considerable hustle due to my lack of experience in the private sector to that point). The only reason that this was available to me is because I had lucked into that fed clerkship after graduation; obtaining an a3 would have required less luck if I had gone to hysccn of course.

The takeaway is that you really don’t know what you want to do in the long term, even if you think you do right now. If you took Stanford and put your (right now) dream on hold to do a little more of a traditional single/double fedclerk position followed by a quinn/Latham/Jones day-type clerkship bonus (or double bonus) and did biglaw for a couple years, you can STILL get that dream job and you can pay off that extra debt. Additionally, you could miss some of that biglaw grunt work that first years do.

But most significantly, your resume will shine like gold for the rest of your life. Clerking will be more of a given from S, and academia will continue to be open to you where you could also have an impact in your target arena maybe after you practice for a bit.

Just some food for thought. Both are great options and I’m generally scared of debt also, but hys is something special imo.

Either way, well done. All viewpoints on this thread are super valid, IMO and you really can’t go wrong here.

Just curious: did you go back to biglaw just for the money, or was there some other reason?

It had nothing to do with that. Without providing more info about exactly what my non-private-sector job was, the intellectual intensity (call if creativity, call it passion, call it ability to think outside the box, call it work ethic, or call it a combo of all those things) simply was not there amongst my colleagues, supervisors, and employees at the positions I should theoretically have been striving for had I stayed. I love lit and I needed to go somewhere at which my colleagues lived and loved it as much as I do. I have now found that at my v30 biglaw practice. The money was a pretty great cherry on top, though.

I just wanted to add, and I'm sure you already know this from having visited, that SLS is truly very nice, materially speaking. I mean the classrooms and especially the dorms. You will feel as if you were attending an elite private school, and you will feel as if you are getting what you are paying for.

This by itself is a silly reason to pay $300,000 for a degree--I mean, on top of all the excellent points articulated above, if money is at issue.

Wild Card wrote:I just wanted to add, and I'm sure you already know this from having visited, that SLS is truly very nice, materially speaking. I mean the classrooms and especially the dorms. You will feel as if you were attending an elite private school, and you will feel as if you are getting what you are paying for.

This by itself is a silly reason to pay $300,000 for a degree--I mean, on top of all the excellent points articulated above, if money is at issue.

Physically and aesthetically, my local tttt is the nicest school in the area in spite of the t14 and multiple tier 1’s and tier 2’s around (eh maybe the t14 is close). The tttt built this impressive facility on the backs of naive students’ nondischargeable loans withdrawn to finance an education that’s not even worth a fraction of what it costs.

Regardless of whether you’re advocating for hys, a tier 1, a tttt (or even Cooley with what I’ve heard is a very impressive library), this is possibly the worst thing to consider when choosing a law school.

I went to Stanford, and I don't think it's worth $300,000 over Berkeley. (Not sure why OP can't break the lease or sublet the Berkeley apartment though.)

Most people from both schools end up with some version of biglaw. An environmental public interest job is achievable from Berkeley. Many public interest employers tend to care more about demonstrated interest and connections than prestige.

Stanford has an edge in clerking, I'm sure. But OP has said they're not interested in that. And it's not like clerkships are a piece of cake from Stanford either. It's a wacky, frustrating, unpredictable process for everyone.

I in no way think you’re crazy for favoring Berkeley, but if you’re serious about public interest, make sure you’re familiar with the schools’ LRAP programs. Stanford’s is elite, Berkeley’s is fine for a top school but not in standord’s ballpark, and in my recollection, pretty much dependent on PSLF. With Berkeley, it might not be an issue at your debt load. There are situations in which a higher debt load at a school with a better LRAP program can result in less overall payment from the borrower. Not saying that’s you, but it’s worth considering.

we'rebothmenofthelaw wrote:I in no way think you’re crazy for favoring Berkeley, but if you’re serious about public interest, make sure you’re familiar with the schools’ LRAP programs. Stanford’s is elite, Berkeley’s is fine for a top school but not in standord’s ballpark, and in my recollection, pretty much dependent on PSLF. With Berkeley, it might not be an issue at your debt load. There are situations in which a higher debt load at a school with a better LRAP program can result in less overall payment from the borrower. Not saying that’s you, but it’s worth considering.

Stanford's LRAP is baller but it won't help OP deal with the extra $20-30k of red ink from carrying that apartment lease. (Commuting sounds insane.) I might be too skittish about debt in generic "HYS at sticker" situations but OP's effective price is even higher than sticker.

HamlinMcgill wrote:(Not sure why OP can't break the lease or sublet the Berkeley apartment though.)

Sounds like they're rooming with/renting from a relative or romantic partner or something. Maybe they got mom and dad to sign on as guarantors and don't want to put them at financial risk. It's not outrageous that OP might be tied down for at least a year.

nealric wrote:
While I understand a healthy fear of debt, it's not material compared to the likely lifetime earnings of a Stanford graduate. It's true that either may end up in the same place, but Stanford may offer more possibilities for a future career. There is almost zero risk of a Stanford grad striking out at OCI, but that risk certainly exists at Berkely (even if not terribly high). Don't worry about the rent. It's not even a material consideration.

That said, Berkeley is certainly a very defensible choice.

I'd be shocked if the present value of the expected difference in lifetime earnings between a Berkeley Grad and a Stanford Grad were more than 300k, which is what the difference in OP's debt load will be.

dabigchina wrote:

nealric wrote:
While I understand a healthy fear of debt, it's not material compared to the likely lifetime earnings of a Stanford graduate. It's true that either may end up in the same place, but Stanford may offer more possibilities for a future career. There is almost zero risk of a Stanford grad striking out at OCI, but that risk certainly exists at Berkely (even if not terribly high). Don't worry about the rent. It's not even a material consideration.

That said, Berkeley is certainly a very defensible choice.

I'd be shocked if the present value of the expected difference in lifetime earnings between a Berkeley Grad and a Stanford Grad were more than 300k, which is what the difference in OP's debt load will be.

It's not something for which we have good data, but I would not be shocked. I suspect, however, there is a wide difference between average and median. There are probably more SLS zillionaires who had access to unicorn startup by virtue of their connections. But the median SLS grad probably makes the same biglaw salary as the median BLS grad. Even if we had good data, it would be looking back to graduates from a different era. It's anybody's guess what the comparative lifetime earnings will be for someone matriculating in 2019.

Plus, it's more than just dollars- it's breadth of opportunity. I'd rather be a law professor making $200k a year than a biglaw partner making $600k a year.

nealric wrote:

dabigchina wrote:

nealric wrote:
While I understand a healthy fear of debt, it's not material compared to the likely lifetime earnings of a Stanford graduate. It's true that either may end up in the same place, but Stanford may offer more possibilities for a future career. There is almost zero risk of a Stanford grad striking out at OCI, but that risk certainly exists at Berkely (even if not terribly high). Don't worry about the rent. It's not even a material consideration.

That said, Berkeley is certainly a very defensible choice.

I'd be shocked if the present value of the expected difference in lifetime earnings between a Berkeley Grad and a Stanford Grad were more than 300k, which is what the difference in OP's debt load will be.

It's not something for which we have good data, but I would not be shocked. I suspect, however, there is a wide difference between average and median. There are probably more SLS zillionaires who had access to unicorn startup by virtue of their connections. But the median SLS grad probably makes the same biglaw salary as the median BLS grad. Even if we had good data, it would be looking back to graduates from a different era. It's anybody's guess what the comparative lifetime earnings will be for someone matriculating in 2019.

Plus, it's more than just dollars- it's breadth of opportunity. I'd rather be a law professor making $200k a year than a biglaw partner making $600k a year.

That's fair. I guess it's up to OP if that long tail is worth the extra cost. I personally wouldn't, but it's a purely personal preference.