But seriously... Why Harvard? Forum

[rgndvo]

As I am an AA male who is 95% sure he comfortably cleared the 170's in Oct, you are flat wrong. However, what's more important is that your point is irrelevant, and this thread's obsession with my particular particulars just betrays an inability of people to defend sticker at H over scholarship lower at T-14.

[DoubleChecks]

As I am an AA male who is 95% sure he comfortably cleared the 170's in Oct, you are flat wrong. However, what's more important is that your point is irrelevant, and this thread's obsession with my particular particulars just betrays an inability of people to defend sticker at H over scholarship lower at T-14.

to be fair, there were plenty of people who gave answers that were NOT the type you said you were not interested in (re: lay prestige), but you seem to focus on the others ones. yes, not ALL answers were on point (relatively-speaking), but focusing only on those as evidence of no one being able to articulate other reasons is rather disingenuous.

and it is a bit hypocritical to be upset that no one seems to be able to articulate good reasons when you yourself are rather bad at articulating your own (in fact, I am still a bit unsure EXACTLY what it is you are looking for -- though I tend to assume it is what vulpixie explained). if it is what I think it is, then my concerns with that perspective were also ignored by you.

[vanwinkle]

As I am an AA male who is 95% sure he comfortably cleared the 170's in Oct, you are flat wrong. However, what's more important is that your point is irrelevant, and this thread's obsession with my particular particulars just betrays an inability of people to defend sticker at H over scholarship lower at T-14.

Some valid points were made. Maybe not well, but they were. You dismissed them with remarks that ignored them entirely.

For example, the prestige and reputation of HLS isn't brought up for "vanity" or to permit "making friends with self-satisfied douchebags" or to help you "get laid". I'm sure the other poster wasn't giving you advice on going to law school just to make friends or get laid, and I'm not either. By dismissing these things for the wrong reasons, you willfully ignore the valid reasons you're being given.

This may sound controversial, but here goes: Prestige and reputation matter largely because they're the only way to separate law students.

There is little to no real gap between HLS students and those at the lower T14. Knowing plenty of people at both, I can assure you that T14s are full of students just as competent as HLS students (which is especially true when you consider how many kids at T14s got into HLS and turned it down for a scholarship elsewhere). There are so many people going to law school each now that there are enough brilliant people to fill the entire T14. In the aggregate, the HLS student body is measurably slightly better, a couple of LSAT points, a tenth of a GPA or so, a couple more awards on their resumes, but individually there are numerous brilliant future lawyers in each T14 class that could rival their HLS peers.

The education you can get at HLS is practically the same, too, in terms of courses. There's no magic to learning torts or contracts at HLS, from what I can understand. You get the same teaching method and cover the same amount of material in the same amount of time. They often even teach from the same books. At least one HLS professor teaches Federal Courts using a textbook written by two UVA professors.

If there are students just as brilliant and capable either place, and there's roughly the same level of education either place, what's left to differentiate people in the marketplace? In truth, very little. Logically it seems that you would then go to the next tiebreaker, grades, to separate students out, but that's not how things actually work. Someone who's median (or even lower) at Harvard might win a job over someone who's median or higher at a lower T14.

What explains that? One big thing is prestige and reputation. The dark secret of the legal industry is that lawyers are fungible, and that means law students are especially fungible. You can learn the same law at a lower T14 you would at HLS, and you can even learn the same law at a lower T1. I've known people who came from lower T1 schools and transferred to HLS and just kept kicking ass here. They wouldn't be able to do that if they were handicapped by a poor 1L education at their old school, if they were deficient in some capacity. The truth is that once you can excel in law school, you can do it nearly anywhere. But still, employers will often treat even a median student at HLS far better than a top-third student at lower T14 or even someone near the top of their class at a lower T1. It's because the HLS degree itself is valuable, the HLS name is valuable, and that becomes a tiebreaker or even a plus in the hiring market.

And that's not even counting networking. The Harvard alumni network is strong, and they'll often help their own out when they can. You can use that to reach out to people, and people at HLS are often near the top of wherever they are.

HLS is valuable because HLS grads are at the top. HLS grads are at the top because HLS is valuable. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and you can't expect it to make logical sense because it's not based on logic, it's based on an emotional value. It's based on reputation, and in the legal industry, where there may be 500 interviews and 50 callbacks for 5 positions, reputation can be a huge plus in your pocket.

It has nothing to do with making friends, or trying to get laid, or with people being aspies with no social skills. It has everything to do with hiring and the legal market and the way employers treat school reputation. Law school is a professional school, people (should) go there to get a job. If that's what you're focused on, then HLS gives you an advantage that's visible to anyone actually paying attention to the market right now.

[rgndvo]

You guys are both swiping at straw men. In the post to which you are responding, I explicitly acknowledged that some serious reasons were offered on this thread in defense of H. I simply expressed disdain for those who invoked vanity-based arguments -- in a context unrelated to employment prospects, and often related to making friends or getting laid --, which were usually paired with ad hominem attacks, or attempts to impute a motive on me which no one can know for sure. Given that VW (and, I think, pineapple) is a Harvard student, if I wanted to be a snarky douche, I could impute a bias onto him as well.

I understand your argument, VW, and expect that it is true to some extent. Thing is, neither of us have firsthand knowledge of how true it is (i.e. whether employers usually favor H students over lesser T-14 students with significantly better grades), given that we are law students (in some cases, just prospective 0L's). I am not sure whether it compensates for going 200k in debt.

One thing on which we can (I hope) agree is that this thread needs to die? In any case, I am out of here -- for good. Weirdly addicting as it is, TLS isn't a fun (or efficient) use of my time.

[vanwinkle]

I understand your argument, VW, and expect that it is true to some extent. Thing is, neither of us have firsthand knowledge of how true it is (i.e. whether employers usually favor H students over lesser T-14 students with significantly better grades), given that we are law students (in some cases, just prospective 0L's).

Firsthand knowledge? No. But as a transfer student I have an enormous amount of secondhand knowledge, including seeking out and asking practicing attorneys about my transfer decision before I made it. As a 3L with friends attending a range of schools, I've also been able to watch what happens at different schools, and I learn from that as well. I keep learning because of my personal interest in how the legal industry works and a desire to understand it. It's something I have studied and will keep studying.

You can say that I have no firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't mean I have no knowledge at all. I know how true what I said is. I know it from observations, research, and personal experiences in the legal hiring market. Your attempt to equate what we know, to claim we both know as much and "neither of us" know anything, is either willful ignorance or intentionally misleading. I know a lot more on this subject than you do, because I've spent much more time on it.

One thing on which we can (I hope) agree is that this thread needs to die? In any case, I am out of here -- for good. Weirdly addicting as it is, TLS isn't a fun (or efficient) use of my time.

Ah, yes, the clever attempt to declare victory and run away. That's incredibly original. It also paints you into a corner; do you respond to being once again thrashed (and prove you were bluffing) or just ignore this (and let a final dismantling of your illogical arguments stand)?

[ResolutePear]

I understand your argument, VW, and expect that it is true to some extent. Thing is, neither of us have firsthand knowledge of how true it is (i.e. whether employers usually favor H students over lesser T-14 students with significantly better grades), given that we are law students (in some cases, just prospective 0L's).

Firsthand knowledge? No. But as a transfer student I have an enormous amount of secondhand knowledge, including seeking out and asking practicing attorneys about my transfer decision before I made it. As a 3L with friends attending a range of schools, I've also been able to watch what happens at different schools, and I learn from that as well. I keep learning because of my personal interest in how the legal industry works and a desire to understand it. It's something I have studied and will keep studying.

You can say that I have no firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't mean I have no knowledge at all. I know how true what I said is. I know it from observations, research, and personal experiences in the legal hiring market. Your attempt to equate what we know, to claim we both know as much and "neither of us" know anything, is either willful ignorance or intentionally misleading. I know a lot more on this subject than you do, because I've spent much more time on it.

One thing on which we can (I hope) agree is that this thread needs to die? In any case, I am out of here -- for good. Weirdly addicting as it is, TLS isn't a fun (or efficient) use of my time.

Ah, yes, the clever attempt to declare victory and run away. That's incredibly original. It also paints you into a corner; do you respond to being once again thrashed (and prove you were bluffing) or just ignore this (and let a final dismantling of your illogical arguments stand)?

Ah yes, but why Harvard?

[vanwinkle]

Ah yes, but why Harvard?

I lol'd.

[DoubleChecks]

You guys are both swiping at straw men. In the post to which you are responding, I explicitly acknowledged that some serious reasons were offered on this thread in defense of H. I simply expressed disdain for those who invoked vanity-based arguments -- in a context unrelated to employment prospects, and often related to making friends or getting laid --, which were usually paired with ad hominem attacks, or attempts to impute a motive on me which no one can know for sure. Given that VW (and, I think, pineapple) is a Harvard student, if I wanted to be a snarky douche, I could impute a bias onto him as well.

I understand your argument, VW, and expect that it is true to some extent. Thing is, neither of us have firsthand knowledge of how true it is (i.e. whether employers usually favor H students over lesser T-14 students with significantly better grades), given that we are law students (in some cases, just prospective 0L's). I am not sure whether it compensates for going 200k in debt.

One thing on which we can (I hope) agree is that this thread needs to die? In any case, I am out of here -- for good. Weirdly addicting as it is, TLS isn't a fun (or efficient) use of my time.

Wait, this is now sounding like, "is HLS sticker better than a lower T14 with a hefty/full scholarship?" Now that is a much more legitimate question -- but one that, if you reread your beginning posts in your thread, was not the one you asked...you are sort of moving the target lol.

[snailio]

OP, I hope you won't be too disappointed with your LSAT score.

Indeed, there are HLS students here and they gave you reasonable advice, your denigration serves no purpose.

[Kimberly]

VW posted such a cogent argument; it is totally consistent with the advice/experiences I have gotten from several mentors who have (and have not) achieved law degrees from Harvard. The Harvard JD grads admit that they have to work much less hard to get desirable positions even than their Stanford colleagues. The non-Harvard JDs admit they have to work harder if competing against a Harvard JD and some resent that tremendously. It just is what it is. Not to mention that a much greater percentage of your classmates at Harvard will go on to be very powerful people and it would be very nice to be on a first-name-basis with them in the future merely because you were classmates. This happens not infrequently. Now, the better question is, are those ephemeral benefits worth the cost? It is if you want prestigious positions, if you don't know for certain you can achieve top of your T-14 class, or if you want to relax a bit more during your legal education and job search. Priorities, priorities. No one can decide your priorities for you.

[juzam_djinn]

I know it's not meant to serve this purpose...but this thread has been one of the most entertaining things I've read in quite some time. OP is like a celebrity that keeps making embarrassing mistakes (e.g. nip slip, Kanye at the VMAs), and I am now TMZ or some other tabloid/paparazzo following him.

Thank you to all who contribute, especially OP. You are awesome.

[AttaBoy]

VW posted such a cogent argument; it is totally consistent with the advice/experiences I have gotten from several mentors who have (and have not) achieved law degrees from Harvard. The Harvard JD grads admit that they have to work much less hard to get desirable positions even than their Stanford colleagues. The non-Harvard JDs admit they have to work harder if competing against a Harvard JD and some resent that tremendously. It just is what it is. Not to mention that a much greater percentage of your classmates at Harvard will go on to be very powerful people and it would be very nice to be on a first-name-basis with them in the future merely because you were classmates. This happens not infrequently. Now, the better question is, are those ephemeral benefits worth the cost? It is if you want prestigious positions, if you don't know for certain you can achieve top of your T-14 class, or if you want to relax a bit more during your legal education and job search. Priorities, priorities. No one can decide your priorities for you.

I generally don't butt in, but this warrants. VW had a cogent argument because he compared the disparity between Harvard and lower T14s generally. Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture. (I'm guessing this is an exercise in attempting to toot your own horn.) SLSers probably have an easier time finding most desirable positions than HLSers, assuming you're not talking about, say, being on the Supreme Court. And aren't you forgetting about another non-Harvard JD that outplaces HLS in virtually everything per capita, including being on the Supreme Court?

The Harvard name goes far, but it doesn't go that far.

[Bodhi_mind]

Harvard Law School is Harvard Law School. If you say that to anyone in the legal world or elsewhere, you don't have to explain anything. Saying "I went to another T14 because of scholarship money" or "I could've gone to Harvard but chose elsewhere" takes a lot longer to explain.

[AttaBoy]

Edit: Nevermind.

[Kimberly]

VW posted such a cogent argument; it is totally consistent with the advice/experiences I have gotten from several mentors who have (and have not) achieved law degrees from Harvard. The Harvard JD grads admit that they have to work much less hard to get desirable positions even than their Stanford colleagues. The non-Harvard JDs admit they have to work harder if competing against a Harvard JD and some resent that tremendously. It just is what it is. Not to mention that a much greater percentage of your classmates at Harvard will go on to be very powerful people and it would be very nice to be on a first-name-basis with them in the future merely because you were classmates. This happens not infrequently. Now, the better question is, are those ephemeral benefits worth the cost? It is if you want prestigious positions, if you don't know for certain you can achieve top of your T-14 class, or if you want to relax a bit more during your legal education and job search. Priorities, priorities. No one can decide your priorities for you.

I generally don't butt in, but this warrants. VW had a cogent argument because he compared the disparity between Harvard and lower T14s generally. Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture. (I'm guessing this is an exercise in attempting to toot your own horn.) SLSers probably have an easier time finding most desirable positions than HLSers, assuming you're not talking about, say, being on the Supreme Court. And aren't you forgetting about another non-Harvard JD that outplaces HLS in virtually everything per capita, including being on the Supreme Court?

The Harvard name goes far, but it doesn't go that far.

Who could forget Yale? I just didn't mention it because it didn't serve my argument Also, I could only wish I had been tooting my own horn... I should be so lucky. Finally, it was not conjecture- anecdotal perhaps, but not conjecture. Point being, the Harvard name goes far compared to other/most T14 schools (with the exception of Yale) and not for merit based reasons. End of story.

[AttaBoy]

VW posted such a cogent argument; it is totally consistent with the advice/experiences I have gotten from several mentors who have (and have not) achieved law degrees from Harvard. The Harvard JD grads admit that they have to work much less hard to get desirable positions even than their Stanford colleagues. The non-Harvard JDs admit they have to work harder if competing against a Harvard JD and some resent that tremendously. It just is what it is. Not to mention that a much greater percentage of your classmates at Harvard will go on to be very powerful people and it would be very nice to be on a first-name-basis with them in the future merely because you were classmates. This happens not infrequently. Now, the better question is, are those ephemeral benefits worth the cost? It is if you want prestigious positions, if you don't know for certain you can achieve top of your T-14 class, or if you want to relax a bit more during your legal education and job search. Priorities, priorities. No one can decide your priorities for you.

I generally don't butt in, but this warrants. VW had a cogent argument because he compared the disparity between Harvard and lower T14s generally. Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture. (I'm guessing this is an exercise in attempting to toot your own horn.) SLSers probably have an easier time finding most desirable positions than HLSers, assuming you're not talking about, say, being on the Supreme Court. And aren't you forgetting about another non-Harvard JD that outplaces HLS in virtually everything per capita, including being on the Supreme Court?

The Harvard name goes far, but it doesn't go that far.

Who could forget Yale? I just didn't mention it because it didn't serve my argument Also, I could only wish I had been tooting my own horn... I should be so lucky. Finally, it was not conjecture- anecdotal perhaps, but not conjecture. Point being, the Harvard name goes far compared to other/most T14 schools (with the exception of Yale) and not for merit based reasons. End of story.

Fair enough.

[Veyron]

Harvard. Terrible school. Wouldn't send my maid's bastard child there.

[ResolutePear]

Harvard. Terrible school. Wouldn't send my maid's bastard child there.

Seriously. It isn't even accredited.

Who the fuck wants that?

[mrloblaw]

As a CCN student, I was already beginning to resent the uphill battle I was going to have my entire career against Harvard brats. Good to see that OP has demonstratively proven that I face no such obstacle.

O wait.

[bjsesq]

I generally don't butt in, but this warrants. VW had a cogent argument because he compared the disparity between Harvard and lower T14s generally. Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture. (I'm guessing this is an exercise in attempting to toot your own horn.) SLSers probably have an easier time finding most desirable positions than HLSers, assuming you're not talking about, say, being on the Supreme Court. And aren't you forgetting about another non-Harvard JD that outplaces HLS in virtually everything per capita, including being on the Supreme Court?

The Harvard name goes far, but it doesn't go that far.

Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture.

farcical conjecture.

--ImageRemoved--

[Kimberly]

I generally don't butt in, but this warrants. VW had a cogent argument because he compared the disparity between Harvard and lower T14s generally. Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture. (I'm guessing this is an exercise in attempting to toot your own horn.) SLSers probably have an easier time finding most desirable positions than HLSers, assuming you're not talking about, say, being on the Supreme Court. And aren't you forgetting about another non-Harvard JD that outplaces HLS in virtually everything per capita, including being on the Supreme Court?

The Harvard name goes far, but it doesn't go that far.

Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture.

farcical conjecture.

--ImageRemoved--

Such an artistic argument, bj. The fact that you make the words bigger makes your argument much more strong. I applaud you.

[bjsesq]

I generally don't butt in, but this warrants. VW had a cogent argument because he compared the disparity between Harvard and lower T14s generally. Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture. (I'm guessing this is an exercise in attempting to toot your own horn.) SLSers probably have an easier time finding most desirable positions than HLSers, assuming you're not talking about, say, being on the Supreme Court. And aren't you forgetting about another non-Harvard JD that outplaces HLS in virtually everything per capita, including being on the Supreme Court?

The Harvard name goes far, but it doesn't go that far.

Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture.

farcical conjecture.

--ImageRemoved--

Such an artistic argument, bj. The fact that you make the words bigger makes your argument much more strong. I applaud you.

I wasn't aware I was making an argument, cupcake. I thought I was making fun of a silly choice of words.

[Kimberly]

I generally don't butt in, but this warrants. VW had a cogent argument because he compared the disparity between Harvard and lower T14s generally. Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture. (I'm guessing this is an exercise in attempting to toot your own horn.) SLSers probably have an easier time finding most desirable positions than HLSers, assuming you're not talking about, say, being on the Supreme Court. And aren't you forgetting about another non-Harvard JD that outplaces HLS in virtually everything per capita, including being on the Supreme Court?

The Harvard name goes far, but it doesn't go that far.

Saying that HLSers have to work "much less hard" than SLSers to get desirable positions is farcical conjecture.

farcical conjecture.

--ImageRemoved--

Such an artistic argument, bj. The fact that you make the words bigger makes your argument much more strong. I applaud you.

I wasn't aware I was making an argument, cupcake. I thought I was making fun of a silly choice of words.

I like when you call me cupcake. That's cute. I apparently misinterpreted your post. Thought you were agreeing with the "farcical conjecture" comment. My bad, sweetie muffin.

[bjsesq]

I like when you call me cupcake. That's cute. I apparently misinterpreted your post. Thought you were agreeing with the "farcical conjecture" comment. My bad, sweetie muffin.

Who agrees with anyone calling anything a "farcical conjecture?" No stress here, snookums. Glad we are on the same page.

[AttaBoy]

I like when you call me cupcake. That's cute. I apparently misinterpreted your post. Thought you were agreeing with the "farcical conjecture" comment. My bad, sweetie muffin.

Who agrees with anyone calling anything a "farcical conjecture?" No stress here, snookums. Glad we are on the same page.

I figured using an outrageous phrase to describe an outrageous claim would be appropriate.

"Stupid opinion" better?