Transfer: Harvard or Yale? (Interested in elected office) Forum

[JamesHowlett]

I was recently accepted as a transfer student to Harvard and Yale from a T10. I know that conventional wisdom says to attend Yale, but I would like to eventually run for elected office.

These are my thoughts:

Harvard: Larger alumni network. Better lay prestige (for voters).

Yale: Better learning experience. Better clerkship opportunities. More prestige amongst lawyers.

Do the benefits that Harvard's lay prestige and alumni network provide to a future politician justify choosing Harvard over Yale?

[ConLawLover]

Yale. Harvard is known as Yale's Waitlist

[vsl89]

I tend to think more prominent politicians come from HLS than YLS (although there are a fair amount on both sides.) Networking, though not limited at either institute, is better at HLS.

[creamedcats]

X-Men go to Yale.

[JamesHowlett]

X-Men go to Yale.

[D-ROCCA]

Yale. Harvard is known as Yale's Waitlist

Pretty sure that joke hasn't made it out of New Haven.

[Cleareyes]

I tend to think more prominent politicians come from HLS than YLS (although there are a fair amount on both sides.) Networking, though not limited at either institute, is better at HLS.

Harvard also has a lot more graduates period, so one would expect a greater number of prominent politicians. Have to adjust for class size.

[prncaspian3]

I know that conventional wisdom says to attend Yale, but I would like to eventually run for elected office

I'm sorry, but neither school has an edge over the other in helping you get elected. But look, this is an AWFUL basis on which to choose between these two law schools, and I truly hope it wouldn't factor at all into your decision.

Frankly, if elected office were the primary consideration, you'd be far better off having gone to a state school. Both H and Y are 'elite' schools that, if anything, are increasingly becoming an electoral liability. That is, if you are elected, it will be in spite of the fact that you went to one of these two schools, not because of. No exaggeration.

Update: Donors and the alumni base is a different story, and certainly Networking (at any good school, but preferably in your area--that's why I mentioned state school) is a huge asset, but you seemed to zero-in on Voters. Voters couldn't give a rats-ass whether you went to H or Y, and like I said, these days it can only hurt--not help--electorally.

[eandy]

What is wrong with you? Yale.

[grobbelski]

I know that conventional wisdom says to attend Yale, but I would like to eventually run for elected office

I'm sorry, but neither school has an edge over the other in helping you get elected. But look, this is an AWFUL basis on which to choose between these two law schools, and I truly hope it wouldn't factor at all into your decision.

Frankly, if elected office were the primary consideration, you'd be far better off having gone to a state school. Both H and Y are 'elite' schools that, if anything, are increasingly becoming an electoral liability. That is, if you are elected, it will be in spite of the fact that you went to one of these two schools, not because of. No exaggeration.

Update: Donors and the alumni base is a different story, and certainly Networking (at any good school, but preferably in your area--that's why I mentioned state school) is a huge asset, but you seemed to zero-in on Voters. Voters couldn't give a rats-ass whether you went to H or Y, and like I said, these days it can only hurt--not help--electorally.

You mean how 4 of the last 4 U.S. Presidents have gone to either Yale or Harvard at some point?

[prncaspian3]

You mean how 4 of the last 4 U.S. Presidents have gone to either Yale or Harvard at some point?

Sure. But how many times did Bubba, while "feeling the pain" of ordinary folks around the country, even mention Yale Law? And Obama was a special case, but we barely even heard Obama mention Harvard Law School on the trail or in his commercials. If you go to H or Y and you are running for office, it's very simple: You don't talk about it.

This question, and the attitude that H/Y would be a boon politically, would be more applicable to a Baby Boomer deciding law schools in 1962 than to someone choosing in 2010.

[mallard]

You mean how 4 of the last 4 U.S. Presidents have gone to either Yale or Harvard at some point?

Sure. But many times did Bubba, while "feeling the pain" of ordinary folks around the country, even mention Yale Law? And Obama was a special case, but we barely even heard Obama mention Harvard Law School on the trail or in his commercials. If you go to H or Y and you are running for office, it's very simple: You don't talk about it.

This question, and the attitude that H/Y would be a boon politically, would be more applicable to a Baby Boomer deciding law schools in 1962 than to someone choosing in 2010.

So your sense is that the only way in which something could be helpful for someone running for office is if they talk about it on the campaign trail or commercials?

[phoenixsoars]

.

[prncaspian3]

So your sense is that the only way in which something could be helpful for someone running for office is if they talk about it on the campaign trail or commercials?

I mentioned networking, which is a big deal (more so, obviously, on the national stage). But if it were helpful to the voters (who the OP appears to be concerned about), then they would have told the voters about it. Yes, we would have heard much more about Yale Law and Harvard Law on the campaign trail and on commercials. Unfortunately, however, these simply aren't the part of the rallying cry for "men of the people."

[mallard]

So your sense is that the only way in which something could be helpful for someone running for office is if they talk about it on the campaign trail or commercials?

I mentioned networking, which is a big deal (more so, obviously, on the national stage). But if it were helpful to the voters (who the OP appears to be concerned about), then they would have told the voters about it. Yes, we would have heard much more about Yale Law and Harvard Law on the campaign trail and on commercials. Unfortunately, however, these simply aren't the part of the rallying cry for "men of the people."

Yeah... I think this is just wrong. Being President of Harvard Law Review was cited over and over again by the media as a sign of Obama's intelligence, leadership, and openness to many views. And it is impossible to overstate the number of opportunities that Obama's connections at Harvard created for him.

[bizen boat]

Overall, in terms of the opportunities Harvard and Yale give, going there is undoubtedly a plus for a career in anything. However, if you've ever ventured out of the big cities of the east coast on into the midwest, you'd know that, at the very least, there is a substantial segment of the population that views "elite" as a bad thing. And it's not just the Sarah Palin crowd, but people from all walks of life, blue collar and white. Obviously, it's not an insurmountable liability. But to claim that Caspian is just wrong for stating that many voters are hostile to ivy leaguers is... just wrong.

None of that is to assert that the net-effect of going to Harvard or Yale is negative. It most assuredly isn't. Voters are dumb and easily distracted, so connections, money, and all the rest are far more important than appealing to salt of the earth types.

[prncaspian3]

Yeah... I think this is just wrong. Being President of Harvard Law Review was cited over and over again by the media as a sign of Obama's intelligence, leadership, and openness to many views.

I did say that Obama was a special case, for a number of reasons. His background, relative inexperience, along with his race, made his being President of Harvard Law Review an important and unique accomplishment signifying all you mention above. But mind you, we're talking President of Harvard Law Review here, not simply Harvard Law--it may be the sort of accomplishment that would be up-front and center for many candidates. "Then, with the goal of being a lawyer, I went to Harvard Law School. . ." is not an aspect of a candidate's biography that receives much emphasis by the candidate (lets isolate the candidate from the media) nowadays. And seriously, "Yale Law" hardly helped Bill Clinton in the voters' eyes, and a good indication of how much something helps you IS how much the candidate talks about it. Bill Clinton never talked about Yale Law.

And it is impossible to overstate the number of opportunities that Obama's connections at Harvard created for him.

This is totally true. But Obama is hardly a case-study for how Harvard would benefit the OP more so than Yale, politically speaking.

[legalease9]

It it going to cost you (in lost schollys) to transfer? If so, don't.

If its the same price either way, go Yale. Yale is a more Government-focused Law school. You may make some interesting connections. As others have said, its probably not going to help you get elected regardless though.

[mallard]

Yeah... I think this is just wrong. Being President of Harvard Law Review was cited over and over again by the media as a sign of Obama's intelligence, leadership, and openness to many views.

I did say that Obama was a special case, for a number of reasons. His background, relative inexperience, along with his race, made his being President of Harvard Law Review an important and unique accomplishment signifying all you mention above. But mind you, we're talking President of Harvard Law Review here, not simply Harvard Law--it may be the sort of accomplishment that would be up-front and center for many candidates. "Then, with the goal of being a lawyer, I went to Harvard Law School. . ." is not an aspect of a candidate's biography that receives much emphasis by the candidate (lets isolate the candidate from the media) nowadays. And seriously, "Yale Law" hardly helped Bill Clinton in the voters' eyes, and a good indication of how much something helps you IS how much the candidate talks about it. Bill Clinton never talked about Yale Law.

Okay, keep writing essays about this.

OP, you should definitely be transferring, and I recommend Harvard based on current representation in the House, Senate, and governorships (not a great guide).

[Veyron]

You mind giving us some idea of your numbers? Would like to know where I would have to be to make this move.

[notanumber]

What you really need be working on is getting involved in local political campaigns. Start networking with the movers and shakers in the city/area where you want to eventually run for office. The saying that "all politics is local" is very true and unless you start to build allegiances with local interest groups then you'll never be able to get political traction. Don't go into politics with dreams of a house seat and the glamor of Washington in your eyes - go into politics with dreams of building effective electoral coalitions, gaining intimate knowledge about local issues, and someday running for city council. If you're successful at that, then you can think about running for higher office.

The is no substantive difference between Harvard and Yale in terms of the connections and skills that they will offer. If you were starting from the beginning there might be a slight nod to Yale, but that would simply be because the course and grading system allows for you to be more flexible with your time (take time off for political activities, prioritize campaigns over studying for torts, etc...). Go to the school where you would be happier.

[prncaspian3]

What you really need be working on is getting involved in local political campaigns. Start networking with the movers and shakers in the city/area where you want to eventually run for office. The saying that "all politics is local" is very true and unless you start to build allegiances with local interest groups then you'll never be able to get political traction. Don't go into politics with dreams of a house seat and the glamor of Washington in your eyes - go into politics with dreams of building effective electoral coalitions, gaining intimate knowledge about local issues, and someday running for city council. If you're successful at that, then you can think about running for higher office.

The is no substantive difference between Harvard and Yale in terms of the connections and skills that they will offer. If you were starting from the beginning there might be a slight nod to Yale, but that would simply be because the course and grading system allows for you to be more flexible with your time (take time off for political activities, prioritize campaigns over studying for torts, etc...). Go to the school where you would be happier.

+1. And said far more artfully than I.

[jdhonest]

I doubt that anyone who voted for Yale can give a good reason why. The posters likely fail to consider that unlike aspiring law students, the general electorate doesn't pour over law school ranking and clerkship placement. Go to whichever place you'll be happier at.

If you're looking for lay prestige, then go to Harvard.

[KMaine]

People who say Yale are just plain wrong here. Harvard is TCR.

[Burger in a can]

OP is transferring from another law school and is concerned about the relative public images of Yale and Harvard? If anyone even cares where you went to law school, the following conversation will take place, regardless of which of these you choose.

"I think I'll vote for JamesHowlett. S/He went to Yarvard Law!"

"yeah, but he had to transfer there from the University of Virgimichipennsylberkenewyorkchicagcolumbistanford. He couldn't get in to Yarvard the first time around."

Because this conversation will take place, it doesn't matter which school you choose.