Mich Darrow vs HLS Forum

[JoshAllenFan]

I'm mulling over this decision at the moment and am new to this site so please give me some grace if I don't provide all details expected.

Essentially, I'm down to the Darrow at UMichigan ($$$$+) or HLS. When it comes down to it, I'm looking at taking on loans for additional living expenses at Michigan (~50K) or some steep loans for Harvard (~200K). I ended up getting some grant aid for Harvard so this is my best estimate.

I am interested in a relatively standard start to my career (possible FC > big law) but am likely going to head in a slightly different direction thereafter. I come from a science background and am interested in working in the healthcare space. After a jumpstart to my legal career, I'm interested in likely shifting into more of a policy role. This may come in the form of a government position or a think tank for the back end of my career.

I would like a school with national appeal as I have some places I'd like to work on both coasts. Though Michigan may seem like an obvious choice initially, I wonder what opportunities Harvard could open up specifically with their deep connections in government and DC. Is a difference of 150K in debt worth the possible upside of Harvard (considering my broader goals)?

[talons2250]

Michigan and it's not close. A law degree from Michigan has national appeal, and to the extent Harvard is more prestigious (which it definitely is), whatever benefits you receive from that additional prestige don't make giving up the money worth it.

The Dean of Yale Law School is a former Darrow Scholarship recipient and Michigan Law alum: https://law.yale.edu/heather-gerken.

[Rule23andMe]

I too would vote Mich with the info you shared but don't think it'd be crazy to choose HLS if you're more risk-averse when it comes to getting elite DC-type opportunities and less risk-averse when it comes to money. And perhaps you'd find over the course of law school you want to go into gov or something earlier on, in which case HLS may get another half point and you could consider an LRAP-eligible job. Those are going to be personal considerations that you yourself have to consider and weigh, because indeed that's a lot of money and chances are good you'd have all the same opportunities from Mich anyway (esp. if you know you want to go to a firm for a while).

Realizing I'm not of much help but this is a great problem to have and I'm sure you'll be fine either way!

[Anon-e-miss]

I was in a similar position with multiple mid/lower-T13 full scholarships vs. close to sticker at HLS and a Butler at CLS. I chose the full-ride, mostly because I was set on PI at the time and would rather have a debt I could pay off (mind you, I had savings and intermittent parental support to keep my debt closer to 10-20k) without LRAP and avoid the financial pressure to do biglaw.

I graduate this semester and currently feel confident that I made the right choice. Once you get into law school, financial pressures become much more tangible. Do you really want to pay 150k more for a degree? Have you ever in fact paid 150k for anything in your life up this point? I haven't, and I'm glad to be graduating with miniscule debt that will allow me to afford a decent apartment and lifestyle on a non-big law salary without worrying about LRAP or having to do big law for a few years. One might suggest that my experience is survivorship bias, but I think that's a dramatic term to describe getting a good outcome by taking a full-ride to a top law school where the vast majority of students get good outcomes.

Fwiw, do I ever think about what my life would be if I went to HLS instead? I think it crossed my mind once during 1L but other than that, no, because I am not a weirdo.

Please take the Darrow.

[anymouseqwerty]

150k is not that much. Given that you are open to biglaw you can likely pay off enough of the loans early on to prevent feeling like you are drowning. If we were talking 300k, when compound interest really starts to pummel you, maybe a different story. Regarding your goals, take a hard look at the location and employment outcomes of U Mich and HLS grads. If you see HLS clustering in DC or in think tank positions, take note that this is not just a potential outcome for you, but also for your law school friends. Policy jobs are likely more about who knows you than other legal jobs. It’d be unfortunate to roll into town and have no one to help you get a foot in the door.

[Joachim2017]

Choose HLS to maximize long-term flexibility and marginal opportunities that you may end up desiring later in your career/life.

[Dcc617]

Later in your career/life nobody gives a shit where you went to law school.

[trebekismyhero]

150k is not that much. Given that you are open to biglaw you can likely pay off enough of the loans early on to prevent feeling like you are drowning. If we were talking 300k, when compound interest really starts to pummel you, maybe a different story. Regarding your goals, take a hard look at the location and employment outcomes of U Mich and HLS grads. If you see HLS clustering in DC or in think tank positions, take note that this is not just a potential outcome for you, but also for your law school friends. Policy jobs are likely more about who knows you than other legal jobs. It’d be unfortunate to roll into town and have no one to help you get a foot in the door.

This such a bad take. $150k is a lot of money, especially when you add interest on top over several years. I took a full ride and my lifestyle would be noticeably worse if I had added $150k of debt to it, even with going to big law. Also, the floor at HLS is higher than at Michigan, but there are almost no jobs that are open to HLS students and not to Michigan students.

[rasberryberet]

It's ultimately about what kind of lawyer you want to be.

From a law school experience perspective, as former HLS, I'd say I would have been a happier person at UMich. However, everyone told me I would be an idiot not to go to HLS, and now as a clerk who has been a part of multiple screening processes, that's held true for me...initially! I think a couple years down the road it matters a lot less, but at least initially, even being a pretty average HLS grad has given me a lot of clout which is a bit ridiculous.

When it comes to your aspirations--do you want to BigLaw? If so UMich with less debt is fine, probably doesn't really matter if you end up going to HLS either. If you have any interest in plaintiffs work, or government work, or public interest/nonlegal world stuff, UMich with money will give you greater flexibility than LIPP. Particularly if you are an older student, HLS's LIPP program is specifically tailored to 22-year-olds who don't have to think about retirement for another 10 years (and if you are an older student, HLS will factor ANY existing retirement into your aid which...is pretty gross imo). So if your graduating in your 30s and want to make the world better, go to UMich. Otherwise, if you just want a lot less stress about grades and a bigger, wealthier, and more connected alumni network, HLS is the obvious choice.

The other thing to consider is if you have a particular passion area which school has strengths and weaknesses. HLS has more people, so they have more specialties and classes and professors. But its a lot harder to get into those classes than the school projects to 0Ls and incredibly easy to get lost in the crowd. UMich has fewer students, more individualized attention, but perhaps fewer options. I can only really tell you the international human rights angle--both have really good programs and ties, but it depends on what you want to do. HLS's HRC is pretty hard to get into but the work is very impressive, while UMich's study abroad with the ICJ is appealing if...you think the UN is still useful in that area.

It's not really fair for you to have to make these choices before you even do any law school, but a lot of people have a fairly good idea of what they want from a law career by spring, so good luck and either way, great options!

[Joachim2017]

All these people who didn't/couldn't get into HLS/YLS/SLS always come into these threads hot, trying to make themselves believe "no one will care where you went to school a few years in" or "there's no jobs you can get from HLS that you can't get from Michinga." LOL ... y'all telling on yourselves.

[Dcc617]

I went to HLS and graduated a few years ago. Dummy.

[nixy]

All these people who didn't/couldn't get into HLS/YLS/SLS always come into these threads hot, trying to make themselves believe "no one will care where you went to school a few years in" or "there's no jobs you can get from HLS that you can't get from Michinga." LOL ... y'all telling on yourselves.

So would you provide examples of jobs people from HLS get that people from Michigan couldn’t get? And could you account for selection bias as you do do?

[rasberryberet]

With the think tank life in mind, HLS will help. UMich won't be looked down upon and you will absolutely still be an attractive candidate, but HLS will have the connections and their Health Law and Policy Clinic is relatively easy to get in to, is well respected and will afford you a lot of connections down the road. (People there are also nice which is rarer than you might think, though they do a v bad job at integrating social work into the ecosystem of care--you will find that lawyers usually give undue deference to prestige jobs such as CEOs of hospitals, docs, and insurance CSuite over other health providers and less qualitative views of health generally). Remember though that all law schools and especially prestigious ones have vested interests in not rocking the boat on policy, so if you want to look for more radical change you will have to make those connections a few years out.

I can't speak to UMich's because I don't know it. I do know the DC think tank policy scene though--both UMich and HLS will get you an interview, but H/Y/S grads get priority with extreme consistency, to the point that think tanks are starting to assess how mission driven their own hiring methods are. So by the time you want to transition the landscape may have changed, but...this is what it is atm.

[Joachim2017]

All these people who didn't/couldn't get into HLS/YLS/SLS always come into these threads hot, trying to make themselves believe "no one will care where you went to school a few years in" or "there's no jobs you can get from HLS that you can't get from Michinga." LOL ... y'all telling on yourselves.

So would you provide examples of jobs people from HLS get that people from Michigan couldn’t get? And could you account for selection bias as you do do?

Super elite boutiques (with HUGE above market bonuses), academia, government jobs in tony DC circles, international legal counsel positions, etc. Of course it's technically *possible* to get these types from UMich too, but it's harder, rarer, and hass less cushion for error. This is your life, no need to short-change it on the front end if you have the competence/mental fortitude to live with some debt for a while. Long term is much longer term.

[nixy]

All these people who didn't/couldn't get into HLS/YLS/SLS always come into these threads hot, trying to make themselves believe "no one will care where you went to school a few years in" or "there's no jobs you can get from HLS that you can't get from Michinga." LOL ... y'all telling on yourselves.

So would you provide examples of jobs people from HLS get that people from Michigan couldn’t get? And could you account for selection bias as you do do?

Super elite boutiques (with HUGE above market bonuses), academia, government jobs in tony DC circles, international legal counsel positions, etc. Of course it's technically *possible* to get these types from UMich too, but it's harder, rarer, and hass less cushion for error. This is your life, no need to short-change it on the front end if you have the competence/mental fortitude to live with some debt for a while. Long term is much longer term.

How much do you think 1) self-selection and 2) what you do after graduation plays a part in these gigs? If you want to go into academia, I’d argue that publications matter more than Harvard v Michigan; if you want an international legal counsel position, you need to speak other languages; if you want a tony government gig connections matter more; etc.

[Pneumonia]

To give one example, about 10% of federal judges went to Harvard. The number for Michigan is 3.7%. When you equalize for class sizes, your chances of becoming a federal judge are roughly double from Harvard. And even that number overstates things in Michigan's favor given that Michigan was once ranked in the top 3. A better comparison now would be Virginia and Penn, against which Harvard produces roughly triple the federal judges when you equalize for class size. I don't think "selection bias" is the explanation here. My source is the article titled "The New Diversity Crisis in the Federal Judiciary."

This effect persists at all levels of the legal profession, which is obsessed with prestige.

That doesn't mean the effect is worth 150k. But insisting that it does not exist isn't doing anyone any favors.

[nixy]

To give one example, about 10% of federal judges went to Harvard. The number for Michigan is 3.7%. When you equalize for class sizes, your chances of becoming a federal judge are roughly double from Harvard. And even that number overstates things in Michigan's favor given that Michigan was once ranked in the top 3. A better comparison now would be Virginia and Penn, against which Harvard produces roughly triple the federal judges when you equalize for class size. I don't think "selection bias" is the explanation here. My source is the article titled "The New Diversity Crisis in the Federal Judiciary."

This effect persists at all levels of the legal profession, which is obsessed with prestige.

That doesn't mean the effect is worth 150k. But insisting that it does not exist isn't doing anyone any favors.

I'm not saying that selection bias is the only explanation, but I think it's part of the picture. The more you tell people who have aspirations at the highest level that they have to go to Harvard to achieve them, the more those people go to Harvard.

[talons2250]

To give one example, about 10% of federal judges went to Harvard. The number for Michigan is 3.7%. When you equalize for class sizes, your chances of becoming a federal judge are roughly double from Harvard. And even that number overstates things in Michigan's favor given that Michigan was once ranked in the top 3. A better comparison now would be Virginia and Penn, against which Harvard produces roughly triple the federal judges when you equalize for class size. I don't think "selection bias" is the explanation here. My source is the article titled "The New Diversity Crisis in the Federal Judiciary."

This effect persists at all levels of the legal profession, which is obsessed with prestige.

That doesn't mean the effect is worth 150k. But insisting that it does not exist isn't doing anyone any favors.

Why would "equalizing for class sizes" increase your chances of becoming a federal judge from Harvard? Isn't the Harvard class size significantly larger than the Michigan class size? Shouldn't equalizing for class size reduce the Harvard percentage relative to the percentage based on absolute number?

[Pneumonia]

To give one example, about 10% of federal judges went to Harvard. The number for Michigan is 3.7%. When you equalize for class sizes, your chances of becoming a federal judge are roughly double from Harvard. And even that number overstates things in Michigan's favor given that Michigan was once ranked in the top 3. A better comparison now would be Virginia and Penn, against which Harvard produces roughly triple the federal judges when you equalize for class size. I don't think "selection bias" is the explanation here. My source is the article titled "The New Diversity Crisis in the Federal Judiciary."

This effect persists at all levels of the legal profession, which is obsessed with prestige.

That doesn't mean the effect is worth 150k. But insisting that it does not exist isn't doing anyone any favors.

Why would "equalizing for class sizes" increase your chances of becoming a federal judge from Harvard? Isn't the Harvard class size significantly larger than the Michigan class size? Shouldn't equalizing for class size reduce the Harvard percentage relative to the percentage based on absolute number?

Is this not exactly what I said? The chart says 2% of judges are from Penn, whereas roughly 10% from Harvard. Which would make you thinks that Harvard produces 5x the judges, but when you equalize for class size you see thta the effect is actually closer to 3x (not 5x). So yeah, equalizing for class size does reduce the Harvard percentage, but even the reduced number is pretty significant. No doubt the actual math wouldn't produce nice clean round numbers, but I also don't think it would elminiate the effect I am describing here...

[crazywafflez]

I can't speak to too many of these points (again, I'd take Mich), however, I can speak to academia. H won't get you substantially further than Mich. It really comes down to publications. The only school that I know that gives you a boost is Y- I think self selection plays a role to an extent with that as well. Otherwise, I do think generally publications determine much of that.

[talons2250]

To give one example, about 10% of federal judges went to Harvard. The number for Michigan is 3.7%. When you equalize for class sizes, your chances of becoming a federal judge are roughly double from Harvard. And even that number overstates things in Michigan's favor given that Michigan was once ranked in the top 3. A better comparison now would be Virginia and Penn, against which Harvard produces roughly triple the federal judges when you equalize for class size. I don't think "selection bias" is the explanation here. My source is the article titled "The New Diversity Crisis in the Federal Judiciary."

This effect persists at all levels of the legal profession, which is obsessed with prestige.

That doesn't mean the effect is worth 150k. But insisting that it does not exist isn't doing anyone any favors.

Why would "equalizing for class sizes" increase your chances of becoming a federal judge from Harvard? Isn't the Harvard class size significantly larger than the Michigan class size? Shouldn't equalizing for class size reduce the Harvard percentage relative to the percentage based on absolute number?

Is this not exactly what I said? The chart says 2% of judges are from Penn, whereas roughly 10% from Harvard. Which would make you thinks that Harvard produces 5x the judges, but when you equalize for class size you see thta the effect is actually closer to 3x (not 5x). So yeah, equalizing for class size does reduce the Harvard percentage, but even the reduced number is pretty significant. No doubt the actual math wouldn't produce nice clean round numbers, but I also don't think it would elminiate the effect I am describing here...

Oops, my bad. I somehow interpreted you as saying that once you equalize for class size, your chances of becoming a judge from Harvard double relative to your chances based on absolute number.

[Rule23andMe]

To give one example, about 10% of federal judges went to Harvard. The number for Michigan is 3.7%. When you equalize for class sizes, your chances of becoming a federal judge are roughly double from Harvard. And even that number overstates things in Michigan's favor given that Michigan was once ranked in the top 3. A better comparison now would be Virginia and Penn, against which Harvard produces roughly triple the federal judges when you equalize for class size. I don't think "selection bias" is the explanation here. My source is the article titled "The New Diversity Crisis in the Federal Judiciary."

This effect persists at all levels of the legal profession, which is obsessed with prestige.

That doesn't mean the effect is worth 150k. But insisting that it does not exist isn't doing anyone any favors.

Why would "equalizing for class sizes" increase your chances of becoming a federal judge from Harvard? Isn't the Harvard class size significantly larger than the Michigan class size? Shouldn't equalizing for class size reduce the Harvard percentage relative to the percentage based on absolute number?

Is this not exactly what I said? The chart says 2% of judges are from Penn, whereas roughly 10% from Harvard. Which would make you thinks that Harvard produces 5x the judges, but when you equalize for class size you see thta the effect is actually closer to 3x (not 5x). So yeah, equalizing for class size does reduce the Harvard percentage, but even the reduced number is pretty significant. No doubt the actual math wouldn't produce nice clean round numbers, but I also don't think it would elminiate the effect I am describing here...

Oops, my bad. I somehow interpreted you as saying that once you equalize for class size, your chances of becoming a judge from Harvard double relative to your chances based on absolute number.

This argument seems barely helpful anyway - the relevant group of alums to analyze is those who got into both UMich and HLS, or went to Mich and were equally capable (however you define that) as those at HLS. I don't think anyone disputes that HLS has better outcomes on average, so I'm having trouble understanding how this whole line of reasoning comparing percentages speaks at all to the question posed.

[Joachim2017]

Yes the "better outcome on average" is the best way to look at it from OP's pov. At Michigan you'd need to be *the best* in your class to get some of the outcomes you can get at Harvard without needing to be the best. There's a reason WLRK did OCI at HLS and not at Michigan, and it wasn't the difference in travel to/from Cambridge v. AA. [And before anyone says "that's just one firm, low chance of going there, whole idea here is to maximize chances of tail-outcomes. otherwise OP is gucci anyway]

[Pneumonia]

This argument seems barely helpful anyway - the relevant group of alums to analyze is those who got into both UMich and HLS, or went to Mich and were equally capable (however you define that) as those at HLS. I don't think anyone disputes that HLS has better outcomes on average, so I'm having trouble understanding how this whole line of reasoning comparing percentages speaks at all to the question posed.

Is this trolling?

[gotCentred]

One thing to consider is that you can put the Darrow on your resume, and the people who know enough to really care about distinctions between Harvard and Michigan will know what that is, i.e., that you could have gone to Harvard. People hiring are just trying to determine whether you are smart, and the quality of the education at the different schools (very similar) matters alot less than the fact of getting in, or being able to get in.