Richest Students Forum

[hoogs23]

OP is a gold digger. HTH

who isnt?

[scruffy556]

OP is a gold digger. HTH

who isnt?

I'm not. I'm slumming, rich girls don't do the weird stuff.

[dingbat]

I'm gonna go with NYLS: the vast majority of the student body has no problem pissing $50k/year down the toilet, so they got to be rich

I can't tell if you're joking or not

He's not joking. NYLS students got bling bling. It's actually ranked #0 on USNWR, but you have to pay $300,000 to access those rankings. Only rich people know it's the best.

I think you misunderstand. You pay $300,000 and then end up with zero

[TripTrip]

I'm gonna go with NYLS: the vast majority of the student body has no problem pissing $50k/year down the toilet, so they got to be rich

I can't tell if you're joking or not

He's not joking. NYLS students got bling bling. It's actually ranked #0 on USNWR, but you have to pay $300,000 to access those rankings. Only rich people know it's the best.

I think you misunderstand. You pay $300,000 and then end up with zero

Nah man. There's a secret rich people law society where NYLS graduates practice.

[B90]

Wouldn't it be Yale? I mean, Harvard has such a large class that they can afford to admit a few poors. I heard Yale admits one token poor per year.

[dingbat]

Wouldn't it be Yale? I heard Yale admits one token poor per year.

I really want to edit this quote, but it'd be banworthy

[TripTrip]

Wouldn't it be Yale? I mean, Harvard has such a large class that they can afford to admit a few poors. I heard Yale admits one token poor per year.

I don't remember family income being a part of the Yale application.

[YYZ]

SMU

[B90]

Wouldn't it be Yale? I mean, Harvard has such a large class that they can afford to admit a few poors. I heard Yale admits one token poor per year.

I don't remember family income being a part of the Yale application.

Very subtle humblebrag. Well done.

[TrialLawyer16]

At the elite universities, only 8% of all students come from the bottom 50% of the socio-economic class in the U.S. Nobel Laureate economist, Joseph Stiglitz, discusses this, along with other issues relating to economic inequality in the U.S., in this brief clip/chat (about his new book, The Price of Inequality):

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 38674.html

Stiglitz argues that there's a myth of socio-economic mobility in the U.S. Rather than being the great land of opportunity, he argues, the U.S. has a more rigid class structure than even old Europe. By and large, the class you are born into in the U.S. is the one you will remain in.

As for law school inequality, I think that while merit may play a greater role in law school entrance than in undergraduate admissions, it may still be difficult to completely decouple "merit" from family wealth.

The types of resources available to the wealthy can give them advantages throughout life and throughout the "merit" building process (of attaining grades and entrance exam scores). Access to private tutors and better schools throughout secondary school, for example, may have contributed signficantly to the building up a stronger set of skills that were used to attain better grades in UG. Likewise, access to expensive LSAT prep courses may have given a wealthy student an advantage over someone without the means to pay for that type of help (I do know that people attempt the LSAT without such private tutoring and training). Perhaps the most valuable asset provided by wealth is simply the time available to study that working students may not have as much of.

There are a number of things that wealth may provide that contributes to the success of a student, so that I think it's still difficult to completely decouple wealth from merit in law school admissions.

This post should be framed. Extremely well put.

While I don't agree with Stiglitz's seemingly pessimistic idea that "the U.S. has a more rigid structure than even Old Europe", this book is speaking directly about thoughts I've been formulating for the last few years. I've seen and lived exactly what you're referring to when you wrote about the problems of decoupling meritocracy and familial wealth, and although I've had the success he says doesn't happen often, I can't deny that I'm a severe outlier. The concepts he's speaking of are a great discussion to have and I think, if taken seriously, can have a great impact on the direction this country's headed in the future. I'd never heard of this book before, but I'm going to buy it. Thanks for sharing.

[2014]

I'm going to go with Harvard. No question that, in aggregate, it's got the richest students of any law school.

By aggregate do you mean that you're including alumni? If not, what's the rationale?

It's one of the largest top law schools with over 550 students per class. Those students generally came from top undergrads and did extremely well there which is generally correlated with having wealthy parents.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I have a couple of thoughts. The first is that there is a question of whether we are discussing the median or the total. If it's the total, then I agree that the large class size and likely outliers probably puts Harvard squarely in first place. If it's the median, I wonder if the meritocracy works against it. As a student at one of HSCNCP who grew up far from rich, I know that there are a lot of people like me at my school. Wealth might help, but you really have to bust your ass to get into a school like that, and a lot of people both rich and poor don't have what it takes. The average Harvard undergrad only gets about a 165 LSAT, which isn't even close to good enough to get into HLS.

Schools with more reasonable GPA and LSAT medians have fatter sections of the curve from which to choose, and some of those schools have reputations as rich kid havens (USC, Vanderbilt, and SMU come to mind). I wonder if rich kids who aren't T-14 material (including Ivy undergrads) tend to flock to those schools over their peers, inflating the median income level. No way to know, but it would be interesting to see.

Anyway, I guess this is just a long way of saying that I'm guessing and can't offer anything of real value.

wtf is HSCNCP

[toothbrush]

wtf is HSCNCP

harvard stanford columbia nyu chic penn

maybe

[hohenheim]

wtf is HSCNCP

trolling hard for penn

[2014]

How dare he put NYU in front of Chicago. He MUST have meant Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, NYU, Columbia, Penn.

Maybe he meant Howard, Samford, Cooley, Northeastern, Charlotte, Pacific

That would make a lot more sense imo.

[BerkeleyBear]

"HSCNCP"
Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Cornell, Penn

Thats my guess.

[sinfiery]

"HSCNCP"
Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Cornell, Penn

Thats my guess.

Considering I believe he goes to Chicago, awesome.

[moneybagsphd]

Although I went to SMU UG and experienced the richness thereof, I have to say the students here on the East Coast probably have more money than those Southern Princes and Princesses do.

Seriously, only TTTT rich people live in the south.

[moneybagsphd]

I'm going to go with Harvard. No question that, in aggregate, it's got the richest students of any law school.

By aggregate do you mean that you're including alumni? If not, what's the rationale?

It's one of the largest top law schools with over 550 students per class. Those students generally came from top undergrads and did extremely well there which is generally correlated with having wealthy parents.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I have a couple of thoughts. The first is that there is a question of whether we are discussing the median or the total. If it's the total, then I agree that the large class size and likely outliers probably puts Harvard squarely in first place. If it's the median, I wonder if the meritocracy works against it. As a student at one of HSCNCP who grew up far from rich, I know that there are a lot of people like me at my school. Wealth might help, but you really have to bust your ass to get into a school like that, and a lot of people both rich and poor don't have what it takes. The average Harvard undergrad only gets about a 165 LSAT, which isn't even close to good enough to get into HLS.

Schools with more reasonable GPA and LSAT medians have fatter sections of the curve from which to choose, and some of those schools have reputations as rich kid havens (USC, Vanderbilt, and SMU come to mind). I wonder if rich kids who aren't T-14 material (including Ivy undergrads) tend to flock to those schools over their peers, inflating the median income level. No way to know, but it would be interesting to see.

Anyway, I guess this is just a long way of saying that I'm guessing and can't offer anything of real value.

I can only speak for USC, but it seems to me that the UG population is where most of the wealth is concentrated. It seems that a lot of the class chose USC over T14 for the $$$.

[howlery]

OP is a gold digger. HTH

who isnt?

And isn't marriage among law students fairly common? OP might be on to something.

[bowser]

Someone told me they used to call the reading room at the Michigan Law Library the "Breeding Room," 'cause girls would hang out there hoping to hook up with a future law grad.

As a current law student I find this impossible to believe.

[bluepenguin]

Someone told me they used to call the reading room at the Michigan Law Library the "Breeding Room," 'cause girls would hang out there hoping to hook up with a future law grad.

As a current law student I find this impossible to believe.

That was back when lawyers got jobs that paid money.

[2014]

"HSCNCP"
Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Cornell, Penn

Thats my guess.

You are dead to me

[JamMasterJ]

How dare he put NYU in front of Chicago. He MUST have meant Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, NYU, Columbia, Penn.

Maybe he meant Howard, Samford, Cooley, Northeastern, Charlotte, Pacific

That would make a lot more sense imo.

dem new rankings brah

[sopranorleone]

Undoubtedly, it's People's College of Law

--ImageRemoved--

[Borg]

wtf is HSCNCP

I meant Harvard Stanford Columbia NYU Chicago or Penn.