New US News Rankings 2023-2024 Forum

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

If Y/S had zero funded positions you’d be like “Y/S not having funded positions is indicative of quality students who don’t need these loser funded positions.”

Lawyers, famously bad at math, need to realize that the student quality distribution overlaps across at least the top 100 schools.

The best student at the 100th “worst” school is going to be better than the worst student at Yale.

The 75th percentile student at Cornell will be better than the 40th percentile student at Stanford.

The 50th percentile student at UVA will be interchangeable with the 50th percentile student at NYU.

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

[Anonymous User]

Northwestern has school funded positions but they are almost exclusively for unemployed kids. There's not that many of them because there's not that many unemployed. It's not something you pick when you have an alternative. If more people need them, I'm sure the school can find the funding for more.

This makes it seem like these are for people who couldn’t get a job, but that’s totally not true. It’s 100% for public interest students, not just for some bottom-of-the-class person who struck out in biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

Northwestern has school funded positions but they are almost exclusively for unemployed kids. There's not that many of them because there's not that many unemployed. It's not something you pick when you have an alternative. If more people need them, I'm sure the school can find the funding for more.

This makes it seem like these are for people who couldn’t get a job, but that’s totally not true. It’s 100% for public interest students, not just for some bottom-of-the-class person who struck out in biglaw.

I graduated jobless and it was absolutely in the conversation to set me up with one of these fake jobs just so I wouldn't be unemployed. (I got a real job after the bar fwiw). Maybe there are people who use them for legit fellowships but they are available for people who couldn't get jobs.

[Anonymous User]

The best student at the 100th “worst” school is going to be better than the worst student at Yale.

The 75th percentile student at Cornell will be better than the 40th percentile student at Stanford.

The first is only accurate because there are long tails of bad students. I had one professor (at Y/S) say "if you've gotten at least one H, you can't even imagine what the worst P exams look like". Apparently she got one entirely in Korean once, and another that used an aggressive amount of emojis.

As for the second... maybe? 40th percentile at SLS would be what, 2-3Hs after 1L? I'm not convinced 75th at Cornell would necessarily get the same but I wouldn't be entirely surprised.

[Anonymous User]

I would literally pay money for a picture of what some of you look like. You guys are the physical embodiment of the ackchyually meme

[Anonymous User]

I would literally pay money for a picture of what some of you look like. You guys are the physical embodiment of the ackchyually meme

I'll have you know that, actually, I and many of my fellow obnoxious former classmates from my top law school are perfectly normal looking

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

[Anonymous User]

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Yes and if you'd like to clerk or do anything that isn't transactional biglaw, don't go to HLS over yale or stanford and maybe chicago

[Letmein7]

You'll probably be fine career-wise regardless of whether you choose Harvard or Stanford. You should pick based on important things like school architecture. Sure, Stanford is overall more glitzy, but it feels somewhat manufactured. Also, the Law School's architecture is more boring than other parts of the Stanford. Harvard Law School itself has some nice construction. But both are great choices!

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Depending how you define "well", this could be the entire T14. HYS all place very well nationwide, with mild regional differences due to networks (yes if you want Boston HLS is better, if you want California SLS is better, if you want DC YLS is better, etc). All place well in markets they're nowhere near (FL, TX, Chi, etc). There is certainly some exoticism to a Y/S grad because of how much fewer there are compared to HLS that helps on the margins, but the HLS network does push the other way slightly.

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Are you claiming that Stanford doesn’t place well in literally every elite market around the United States?

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Are you claiming that Stanford doesn’t place well in literally every elite market around the United States?

Yep. Its grads are completely unknown on the East Coast. If you're into California, it's a great choice over HLS though.

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Are you claiming that Stanford doesn’t place well in literally every elite market around the United States?

Yep. Its grads are completely unknown on the East Coast. If you're into California, it's a great choice over HLS though.

Wow I hope this is sarcasm.

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Are you claiming that Stanford doesn’t place well in literally every elite market around the United States?

Yep. Its grads are completely unknown on the East Coast. If you're into California, it's a great choice over HLS though.

Wow I hope this is sarcasm.

I’m sure an SLS grad would get a special look in the resume pile.

But, if you want to work on the east coast, why go to a school where 80% of your peers and friends will work six hours away?

Why go to a school that is not likely to populate your current east coast firm with alums?

This might seem like a minor concern but law firm life is rough for transplants and having friends to share the journey really smooths the path. The SLS to east coast pipeline is just not substantial.

[Anonymous User]

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Are you claiming that Stanford doesn’t place well in literally every elite market around the United States?

Yep. Its grads are completely unknown on the East Coast. If you're into California, it's a great choice over HLS though.

Wow I hope this is sarcasm.

I’m sure an SLS grad would get a special look in the resume pile.

But, if you want to work on the east coast, why go to a school where 80% of your peers and friends will work six hours away?

Why go to a school that is not likely to populate your current east coast firm with alums?

This might seem like a minor concern but law firm life is rough for transplants and having friends to share the journey really smooths the path. The SLS to east coast pipeline is just not substantial.

You’re moving the goalposts. Whether people will be happy going to the east coast from Stanford is completely different from suggesting that Stanford doesn’t place well in the east coast. Come on.

Also I’ve never seen anyone suggest that you should pick a school so you can have friends to smooth your path at a biglaw firm, I mean what even (plus not everyone who goes to Stanford and works on the east coast is a transplant?).

[Anonymous User]

the corporate culture at schools below Y and S generally indicates that at schools like Harvard and Columbia, the students more often went to law school to earn money. Few people are passionate about biglaw, especially transactional. That's why the Y and S biglaw rates are the lowest in the t-14 at like 35%. Contrast this with H in the 60s% and columbia in the 80s.

The people who go to Yale and Stanford are much more likely to actually like the law and to not have a desire to earn as much money as possible. Many more folks come from more lucrative fields and MBB to yale and stanford where they consciously decide to choose a path that is less lucrative. By contrast, folks that go to HLS and lower t14s by and large did not have more lucrative options and just go biglaw, many transactional, not out of passion but out of necessity/desire to earn more/didn't know what to do with their undergrad degree

This is wrong - HLS and Chicago both have a similar percentage of prestige undergrads to YS. I get distinguishing schools based on their outcomes, but the whole a "qualitatively different sort of student" goes to Yale or Stanford thing is kinda weird nonsense.

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

LOL cute. If you want to join the army of legal TikTokers or impress your Midwest uncle, grandma, or high school crush, you should pick the degree mill that takes anyone with a pulse and free rides on their parent school's prestige. Hint: it's not Yale or Stanford

[Anonymous User]

I do think there's some self-selection at play, in that YS are more attractive to students who want non-biglaw/less traditional options (except maybe politics, all the politico wannabes want to go to H, it seems). The zeitgeist around YS is that the adcomms select for this as well, whereas H is more about the numbers, though I don't have any personal experience with that. I don't want to exaggerate those differences, though, and I very much disagree that there's a neat correlation between those differences in culture and socioeconomic background.

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Are you claiming that Stanford doesn’t place well in literally every elite market around the United States?

Yep. Its grads are completely unknown on the East Coast. If you're into California, it's a great choice over HLS though.

Wow I hope this is sarcasm.

I’m sure an SLS grad would get a special look in the resume pile.

But, if you want to work on the east coast, why go to a school where 80% of your peers and friends will work six hours away?

Why go to a school that is not likely to populate your current east coast firm with alums?

This might seem like a minor concern but law firm life is rough for transplants and having friends to share the journey really smooths the path. The SLS to east coast pipeline is just not substantial.

You’re moving the goalposts. Whether people will be happy going to the east coast from Stanford is completely different from suggesting that Stanford doesn’t place well in the east coast. Come on.

Also I’ve never seen anyone suggest that you should pick a school so you can have friends to smooth your path at a biglaw firm, I mean what even (plus not everyone who goes to Stanford and works on the east coast is a transplant?).

I’m not sure where you’d pull the numbers from, but at least my SLS experience was mostly east-coast dominated. Anyone who wanted California could get it, but DC and NY probably got at least half the class between them for 2L SAs and after clerking.

[Anonymous User]

Fwiw, I clerked in one of SDNY/EDNY/DDC and CA2/CADC and HLS grads were a dime a dozen and SLS and YLS definitely piqued our and our judge's interest more in both cases.

[Moneytrees]

The ongoing attempt to revise HYS by some ppl on TLS is so strange. If you're a law student who doesn't want to practice in California, you should pick the school that places well in literally every elite market around the United States, including California. Hint: it's not Stanford.

Are you claiming that Stanford doesn’t place well in literally every elite market around the United States?

Yep. Its grads are completely unknown on the East Coast. If you're into California, it's a great choice over HLS though.

Wow I hope this is sarcasm.

I’m sure an SLS grad would get a special look in the resume pile.

But, if you want to work on the east coast, why go to a school where 80% of your peers and friends will work six hours away?

Why go to a school that is not likely to populate your current east coast firm with alums?

This might seem like a minor concern but law firm life is rough for transplants and having friends to share the journey really smooths the path. The SLS to east coast pipeline is just not substantial.

You’re moving the goalposts. Whether people will be happy going to the east coast from Stanford is completely different from suggesting that Stanford doesn’t place well in the east coast. Come on.

Also I’ve never seen anyone suggest that you should pick a school so you can have friends to smooth your path at a biglaw firm, I mean what even (plus not everyone who goes to Stanford and works on the east coast is a transplant?).

I’m not sure where you’d pull the numbers from, but at least my SLS experience was mostly east-coast dominated. Anyone who wanted California could get it, but DC and NY probably got at least half the class between them for 2L SAs and after clerking.

Anecdotal, but I've never come across any grads from Stanford in NYC Biglaw. Perhaps its not prestigious enough.

[Anonymous User]

I’m not sure where you’d pull the numbers from, but at least my SLS experience was mostly east-coast dominated. Anyone who wanted California could get it, but DC and NY probably got at least half the class between them for 2L SAs and after clerking.

Anecdotal, but I've never come across any grads from Stanford in NYC Biglaw. Perhaps its not prestigious enough.

SLS on the east coast is just not that common. They send about ~25 to DC and ~25 to NYC post-grad, and maybe another 10 per location post-clerkship.

SLS can’t be all things to all people. Each school has relative strengths and weaknesses regardless of ranking.

[Anonymous User]

Anecdotal, but I've never come across any grads from Stanford in NYC Biglaw. Perhaps its not prestigious enough.

biggest market stanford sends to is SF, followed very closely by DC. New york is a distant third, and LA is further down at fourth.

the friend thing in new york is real. They also are just all scattered throughout the country their first few years generally due to fellowships and clerkships, and there are fewer of them in total, so there will be fewer of them in any city particularly their first few years out

A lot of the west coast folks and formerly clerking folks make their way to New York and DC though once they start getting into their 30s and a few years out of law school

[Moneytrees]

Anecdotal, but I've never come across any grads from Stanford in NYC Biglaw. Perhaps its not prestigious enough.

biggest market stanford sends to is SF, followed very closely by DC. New york is a distant third, and LA is further down at fourth.

the friend thing in new york is real. They also are just all scattered throughout the country their first few years generally due to fellowships and clerkships, and there are fewer of them in total, so there will be fewer of them in any city particularly their first few years out

A lot of the west coast folks and formerly clerking folks make their way to New York and DC though once they start getting into their 30s and a few years out of law school

For sure. I think S grads could easily get NYC Biglaw but just don't think there many of them land here for whatever reason, to the extent having a large network matters to people.

[Anonymous User]

Fwiw, I clerked in one of SDNY/EDNY/DDC and CA2/CADC and HLS grads were a dime a dozen and SLS and YLS definitely piqued our and our judge's interest more in both cases.

Where do other schools stand (Chicago, CN, Penn etc)

[Anonymous User]

Fwiw, I clerked in one of SDNY/EDNY/DDC and CA2/CADC and HLS grads were a dime a dozen and SLS and YLS definitely piqued our and our judge's interest more in both cases.

"FWIW there are more graduates from bigger schools than smaller schools" thanks for the great insight. (like yes, the downside of H is its big so there are a lot of H grads, the upside of H is its big and has a big network)