Tls2016 wrote:
My concern was that I read your post as greatly over exaggerating the benefit of just going to Harvard or Yale instead of taking one of the most prestigious scholarships in the country at Columbia.
I was genuinely interested in what employment data led you to that conclusion particularly as you implied dire consequences if below media at Columbia,but no issues from Harvard. I have not seen any employment data suggesting that is the case at all.
My take is that most grads are going to end up in biglaw anyway for the money and for the credentials. So paying more to end up in the same place is foolish.
HLS 1L here; for reference, I took H over a lower T14 full ride--but did receive max need-based aid at H, which really changes the calculus TBF. If I had gotten the Hamy/Ruby, the decision would have been much more difficult at the time. But after being here for a semester and knowing what I know now, I would probably choose H (esp with need aid) over both the Hamy/Ruby (and YS, but for very different reasons). PM me if you want more tailored advice about making this decision wrt your situation and I'll help if I can.
Most of the points re: the Hamy/Ruby v. YHS debate are covered here and in many exhaustive discussions throughout these forums, but since it is decision season I'll add my two cents in the hope that it's helpful to some of you. The main issue is that it's a bit short-sighted to see this as merely a debate between 2 places that are going to give you the same results anyhow. The point above definitely has some merit because it's definitely not obvious to take YHS over a T14 full ride, but the analysis/thinking here needs a bit more nuance to be helpful to anyone actually making this decision (it seems like you were responding to a particular viewpoint earlier that was overstated, so this is less directed at the quoted above and more just advice for people considering the pros and cons of this decision).
Here are a few factors to consider that helped tip the scales for me towards H, some of which people don't usually come out and freely admit on here for fear of backlash, but that I've found to be true:
1. Publicly available employment data is not (always) the best way to compare YHS with CC. First, if you simply just compare LST employment scores and large firm scores, then Yale looks like a TTT compared to Columbia. But that "data" doesn't really tell the true story. A lot of people at Yale (and H & S as well) are trying to do really prestigious and interesting work and have no interest in biglaw (like the one animal rights law NGO position in the world or something). But any Yale student that wants biglaw can get it, and probably at one of the best firms in any market--assuming they aren't the most awkward interviewer of all times or something. Second, just ending up in biglaw isn't the same thing as having your pick of biglaw firms. I think CC and HLS grads with similar class rank might have similar chances at a given firm, but they also may not. There are many people at HLS below median that get V10 offers every year at EIP; not sure if the same can be said for CC students especially to the same degree. Third, for really competitive and smaller/insular markets--DC for the former and ATL for the latter come to mind--HLS has a considerable advantage over CC. If you just want NYC biglaw and don't really care about the level of the firm/prestige and sophistication of the work/etc., then yeah CC is just as good. But if you want to be a fed clerk and work at a lit boutique in DC, then going to CC is not your best play odds-wise over YHS. Once you get into a school there is more internal data re: employment that paints a really different picture as well. For example, there is one particular top-tier firm that will take literally any HLS grad who interviews with a certain grade range that is surprisingly not really that high in the class. The pure face of the 509 reports just don't work when comparing CC with YHS. Pretty much no one that wants NYC biglaw will strike out if they bid correctly during EIP. More people will at CC. The risk is probably minimal for Ruby/Hamy people, but it's not insignificant.
2. On that risk note, the prestige and grading system leaves more room for error at YHS compared to CC (although maybe UChi's weird system has some of this effect--I'm not sure). The thing is, having a strong UGPA and LSAT score does not mean that you will do as well on law school exams. They test related, but highly distinguishable skills. Even simple things like typing speed can really change where you fall in the curve, and that has very little to do with your mental abilities. You can't assume that just because you were smart enough to get a Hamy/Ruby that you will definitely be at the top of the class come exam time. There might have been people who didn't have the ability to get as many A's in college as you because they worked several jobs (yours truly) or couldn't afford a fancy LSAT tutor or take time off to study full time/didn't learn how to study correctly, but that can type 150 WPM and have a natural knack for issue-spotting, legal analysis, and exam writing--and can study for 12 hours a day easily. There are plenty of people that come in to law schools every semester with above either 75th numbers but end up (well) below median and people below 25ths that end up top 5%. I haven't gotten my grades back yet (annoying) but what I can tell you is that I was much more relaxed going into exams knowing that I'm going to have a biglaw job if want it almost no matter what than I would've been at a non-top 3 school. For me, there is significant economic value in that even marginal risk mitigation. Others may not have this concern as much, but something to take into account.
3. There are also some major intangibles that are hard to appreciate as a 0L. For one, your law school classmates are going to make up a lot of your professional network both at the beginning of your career and later on. This networking component is emphasized at H a lot, and I know that some of my classmates are going to be senators, federal judges, etc. These are good people to know and be on good terms with--in addition to just being interesting people to chat with in the halls. The fact is, CC will take pretty much anyone with the requisite numbers--and Hamiltons especially seem numerically driven. But YHS admissions can hand pick out the top ~1000 applicants each cycle and choose people that are not only numerically qualified but who are also more interesting people on average. Obviously there are exceptions, but as a whole you are going to be around smarter, more mature, more accomplished, and dare I say more unique people at YHS--if not just because of self-selection. I'm going to take heat for making that claim, but when you attend ASW's you will see what I mean--it was actually quite striking in my experience. You are buying into the club, network effect, or whatever, and the value of the investment may very well be worth it depending on your goals and may pay off in ways that you can't even appreciate at this stage. This is also (hopefully/likely) the last time you are going to be in school and get your academic brain scratched. I learned a TON from my classmates, and it's an incredible resource to be in that kind of intellectual environment. Sure it's probably great at CC too, but self-selection means you are going to be mingling with truly outstanding minds more consistently at YHS. Sorry but it's true. If you ask the vast majority of CC students if they would take YHS over their current school, they would tell you yes. I asked many students at both schools (and other T14s) and got almost exclusively a "yes." There was even an admissions staff person at one of those two schools that basically admitted to me that they would have taken H over their CC alma mater. All this could have just been my unique experience, but I'm definitely not the only one here who thinks this is the case.
4. Now that I'm in the process of applying to 1L firm jobs, that preftige factor is almost annoyingly there. Firms and attorneys--especially in certain markets, probably not as acute in NYC--treat you differently as a HLS student. I was skeptical about this factor coming in, but the last couple of months has really confirmed it and to a shocking degree. The fact is, if you are at CC people are going to assume that you didn't have the numbers/resume to get into YHS. Sorry but it's true for the vast majority of cases. Some attorneys, recruiters, or HR people may not know what the Hamy/Ruby are, but they have seen Legally Blonde. The legal profession is obsessed with prestige to a fault. The firms want clients to know they have YHS grads (or that clerked for federal appellate judges) representing them, especially certain firms, certain practice areas, and certain markets. Exit ops/lateraling are likely going to be better and easier all else being equal. Also, if you think you might want to teach down the road at all, it's not even close in my opinion.
5. People will scoff at this one I'm sure, but the emotional effect of getting into YHS is something that a lot of posters on this site just can't relate to. You'll notice if you read through some of the Hamy/Ruby v. YHS debates that many of the people calling people idiots for choosing YHS simply didn't have that choice to make themselves, so they really can't know what it is like to make that decision. A lot of the older posters--especially ones that were in LS during and right after the financial crisis/hiring meltdown or that had mediocre or bad employment outcomes--are super cynical and toxic. Just take what they say with a grain (bucket) of salt, especially ones that didn't have to make the decision. For me, I'm first generation college, and for someone in my family to get into Harvard is like a one-in-a-million chance--it was a life-changing event to get the JS2. You really can't quantify or rationalize it and few will publicly admit it, but as soon as you get the JS2 and mull over it for a day or two you will understand what I'm getting at--with rare exceptions. Humans are imperfectly rational, so most people can't just break down this kind of thing as an economic cost-benefit-analysis equation and full stop there.
So yeah, if you have really generic goals and just want NYC biglaw, don't really care what firm, don't really care what practice group, and are just in it for economic gain, then heck yeah take the money and run. But if you want to open up more doors, have a chance of getting some need aid, or want to do something non-generic or super special down the road, then you really want to weigh many more factors than 509 reports, median salary outcomes, and the publicly available hiring data that dominate the discussion on this site.
TLDR: Let's face it, people that have these numbers are often people that are very ambitious and want to do crazy unique things, so they aren't going to be making a decision based solely on return on investment considering average outcomes and average goals. And it's not "foolish" for them to take intangible and non-quantifiable factors into account, especially if their personal goals deviate from the norm or want a little extra job security (which in my opinion is more significant than you think) because their risk tolerance is low.
