Fully from left field... HLS vs Chicago? Forum

[lawlorbust]

Ouch. Sorry OP.

The only thing worse than a prestige whore is someone who can't admit that they are a prestige whore.

You go to Penn. We get it. It's a fine school. Really fine. Don't need to get so worked up.

The facts that you 1) felt compelled to respond to a comment that was not directed at you; 2) took the time to research my post history to find out what school I went to; and 3) feel like the school I go to is a "trump card", all suggest that only you are the one who is "worked up." Hope you feel better tomorrow.

No, seriously, no need to get so defensive. It's many a law student's #1 choice. Perhaps even yours. Even if they got money elsewhere. And no one accuses them of prestige whorery. I'm just saying that your oversensitivity is a bad look, is all.

[Necho2]

Ok I am going to take the bait here and try to engage in good faith. How much effort have you put into that $50k debt at Chicago w/ Ruby figure If you're putting so much effort into information-gathering? And how exactly are you planning on living in law school?

15k a yr + 5k public interest stipend each summer (I know there are interesting positions that will actually pay you beyond the stipend, but none of that's guaranteed so forget it for now)

~15k a year in Stafford loans (assume a 5.5% interest rate but I think it's a little lower for next year)

Tax on 20k a year in income is gonna be roughly 1k- so excluding post-graduation summer, your budget with just that and taking out the full 15k a year is roughly ~$2850 a month. Are you gonna spend that much in grad school? I don't actually live in HP, but it looks like spending somewhere significantly below 1.5k all-in for a 1BR is quite feasible. Do you think you could handle a discretionary budget below $800 a month outside of that?

Basically, my point is that the only way you get $50k in Stafford loans (which presumably are gonna stay around 5.5% interest, and you're factoring that into your payment plan, right?) is if you take out the full loans every year- which isn't exactly necessary if you're truly so worried about debt. If you could handle spending something like $2k per month- I think you'd be able to knock that loan balance down to 30k or even lower, and while I defer to others who've actually lived in HP, I don't think there's any career you'd pursue where that would severely burden you.

[A. Nony Mouse]

My impression has been that Harvard students do a lot more outside the classroom whereas Chicago kids are more engaged in class, but almost do a fault and at the expense of outside the classroom focuses.

I can't contribute to really any other part of this discussion, but re: the above - if that's actually true, that's entirely on the individual student. You will be able to do lots outside the classroom from either school.

[rpupkin]

(1) The number of Rubenstein recipients and their success at attaining clerkships has a statistically insignificant impact on UChicago's clerkship rate, so the appeal to math is erroneous.

(2) you have mischaracterized the Ruby and how students are treated at the school. Rubenstein candidates tend to have strong performance. This strong performance leads to recognition and successful applications. A student who did not receive the Rubenstein who had similarly strong performance would also receive recognition and have the same chances at landing a prestigious career outcome. You have distorted the cause and effect here to make the school seem like a less attractive option relative to your purported alma mater.

(1) is false. Either that, or you have a really strange personal definition of "statistically insignificant."

As for (2), how do you know this? I asked you the same question upthread and you did not respond. I'm not directly familiar with U Chicago's Ruby program, but I have heard--both on TLS and elsewhere--about the considerable institutional support that the school offers Ruby recipients. And it certainly seems plausible to me that such institutional support is a significant contributing factor in the disproportionately successful clerkship outcomes for the Ruby students. Why are you so certain that it's not?

[shadowfax]

Take the Ruby. I didn't and I am very pleased with my outcome. But if I could turn back time the fact I didn't understand was the way the system is tilted in favor of Ruby recipients. It flies in the face of everything I thought I knew about law school. That a small committee of ad-coms could predict with such certainty how a group would do in law school and after based on their performance in the first 3 years of undergrad and their score on the LSAT.

Take the Ruby. For anyone else thinking about Chicago...think twice. Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies.

Why do you say that: "Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies". I decided to go to UChicago over NYU, so your comment concerns me. Can you please elaborate?

I don't feel like doing the math but if you are not a Ruby your odds of clerkship seem abysmal. Not mocking anyone. I have said take the Ruby. It seems the school throws all of its weight behind this group. I have no problem with that. You should just be aware that a lot of the available spots are spoken for before pen ever hits paper or fingers hit keyboards.

(1) The number of Rubenstein recipients and their success at attaining clerkships has a statistically insignificant impact on UChicago's clerkship rate, so the appeal to math is erroneous.

(2) you have mischaracterized the Ruby and how students are treated at the school. Rubenstein candidates tend to have strong performance. This strong performance leads to recognition and successful applications. A student who did not receive the Rubenstein who had similarly strong performance would also receive recognition and have the same chances at landing a prestigious career outcome. You have distorted the cause and effect here to make the school seem like a less attractive option relative to your purported alma mater.

In other words, this whole newfangled argument about the Ruby is ridiculous

Hogwash. The universally accepted principle on this site is that entrance stats have little to no predictive ability on law school success. You have argued this position yourself. Yet you would have us belief that the divination abilities of the Rubenstein committee lays that fundamental tenet low. They and they alone have the capacity to look at certain college juniors and predict with unerring certainty than these people will dramatically outperform their peers. Nonsense. It is an amazing award and should be applauded. And accepted by those fortunate enough to be offered it. Let's not made it something it is not.

[HonestlyThough]

1. I am guessing the only reason Chicago doesn't cover your current job, but Harvard does, is because Chicago requires law related employment. Isn't that a bit disingenuous? Are you planning to go to Harvardor Chicago and not do law related work? Because if so, then don't go at all.
If not and you are planning on law related work, then what is the issue with Chicago.

2. I'm not ignoring your point about the difference you might have to pay. That's because it seems nonsensical to me that anyone would borrow an extra $250,000 just because it might be easier to repay. My brain can't wrap itself around that idea, but clearly you have decided it's a valid financial plan.

3. Once again I will mention that you could change your mind or other life events could happen and you wo t have LIPP but you will have unmanageable debt.

I am going to ask one more time that you not so stubbornly continue to cling to your imagine future as reality and consider that itmight not go that way. You are taking a huge, unnecessary risk that everything will work just the way you have decided it will. People change their minds all the time. You should consider that it could happen.

1. why bother telling me i'm interpretting the situation incorrectly when I have thoroughly read both policies and you clearly have not? Chi only covers 501(c)(3) and government work. Harvard covers both of those, as well as academia and anything in the private sector that is law-related. Chi covers nothing in the private sector and nothing that's not 501(c)(3) in the org world

2. Isn't the east of repayment and the total out of pocket amount more relevant than an amount borrowed?

3. the range of changes under which LIPP would still cover me is HUGE. I could do almost anything even tangentially related to my current goals. And if I decided to go big law, I could pay off my debt myself.

[HonestlyThough]

Take the Ruby. I didn't and I am very pleased with my outcome. But if I could turn back time the fact I didn't understand was the way the system is tilted in favor of Ruby recipients. It flies in the face of everything I thought I knew about law school. That a small committee of ad-coms could predict with such certainty how a group would do in law school and after based on their performance in the first 3 years of undergrad and their score on the LSAT.

Take the Ruby. For anyone else thinking about Chicago...think twice. Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies.

Why do you say that: "Not many plum career slots available for non-Rubies". I decided to go to UChicago over NYU, so your comment concerns me. Can you please elaborate?

I don't feel like doing the math but if you are not a Ruby your odds of clerkship seem abysmal. Not mocking anyone. I have said take the Ruby. It seems the school throws all of its weight behind this group. I have no problem with that. You should just be aware that a lot of the available spots are spoken for before pen ever hits paper or fingers hit keyboards.

(1) The number of Rubenstein recipients and their success at attaining clerkships has a statistically insignificant impact on UChicago's clerkship rate, so the appeal to math is erroneous.

(2) you have mischaracterized the Ruby and how students are treated at the school. Rubenstein candidates tend to have strong performance. This strong performance leads to recognition and successful applications. A student who did not receive the Rubenstein who had similarly strong performance would also receive recognition and have the same chances at landing a prestigious career outcome. You have distorted the cause and effect here to make the school seem like a less attractive option relative to your purported alma mater.

In other words, this whole newfangled argument about the Ruby is ridiculous

1) wholly disagree with this, as Ruby's constitute about 50% of chicago's clerks per class
2) a reasonable argument, but given the programmic support for ruby's, I think someone with equal stats in and out of ruby would have better outcomes in Ruby

[HonestlyThough]

Ok I am going to take the bait here and try to engage in good faith. How much effort have you put into that $50k debt at Chicago w/ Ruby figure If you're putting so much effort into information-gathering? And how exactly are you planning on living in law school?

15k a yr + 5k public interest stipend each summer (I know there are interesting positions that will actually pay you beyond the stipend, but none of that's guaranteed so forget it for now)

~15k a year in Stafford loans (assume a 5.5% interest rate but I think it's a little lower for next year)

Tax on 20k a year in income is gonna be roughly 1k- so excluding post-graduation summer, your budget with just that and taking out the full 15k a year is roughly ~$2850 a month. Are you gonna spend that much in grad school? I don't actually live in HP, but it looks like spending somewhere significantly below 1.5k all-in for a 1BR is quite feasible. Do you think you could handle a discretionary budget below $800 a month outside of that?

Basically, my point is that the only way you get $50k in Stafford loans (which presumably are gonna stay around 5.5% interest, and you're factoring that into your payment plan, right?) is if you take out the full loans every year- which isn't exactly necessary if you're truly so worried about debt. If you could handle spending something like $2k per month- I think you'd be able to knock that loan balance down to 30k or even lower, and while I defer to others who've actually lived in HP, I don't think there's any career you'd pursue where that would severely burden you.

all very valid. I do agree that my debt burden at Chicago would remain manageable whether I qualified for LRAP or not, with varying amounts paid back and lengths of payment, depending on what I do. I also agree that I can reduce it a bit with budgeting.
(side note: $5K for 2L summer stipend is a bit low compared to most schools)

What I disagree with most people here about is how manageable my debt at Harvard will be and how my longterm out of pocket costs for that debt will compare to my debt at Chicago. I maintain that Harvard will likely set me back $20K to $100K more than Chi over the 10 years after I graduate. <-- most likely outcome

[Lavitz]

(1) The number of Rubenstein recipients and their success at attaining clerkships has a statistically insignificant impact on UChicago's clerkship rate, so the appeal to math is erroneous.

(2) you have mischaracterized the Ruby and how students are treated at the school. Rubenstein candidates tend to have strong performance. This strong performance leads to recognition and successful applications. A student who did not receive the Rubenstein who had similarly strong performance would also receive recognition and have the same chances at landing a prestigious career outcome. You have distorted the cause and effect here to make the school seem like a less attractive option relative to your purported alma mater.

(1) is false. Either that, or you have a really strange personal definition of "statistically insignificant."

As for (2), how do you know this? I asked you the same question upthread and you did not respond. I'm not directly familiar with U Chicago's Ruby program, but I have heard--both on TLS and elsewhere--about the considerable institutional support that the school offers Ruby recipients. And it certainly seems plausible to me that such institutional support is a significant contributing factor in the disproportionately successful clerkship outcomes for the Ruby students. Why are you so certain that it's not?

I interpreted (1) to mean that Chicago would have virtually the same clerkship rate even without the Ruby program, which I suppose is possible since Chicago has always had good clerkship placement as far as I know.

Also curious how jb knows about (2). Between two similar candidates, one Ruby and one non-Ruby, the institutional support could definitely tip the scales in favor of the Ruby, so I'm not sure how you can say they have the "same" chances.

[lawlorbust]

(1) The number of Rubenstein recipients and their success at attaining clerkships has a statistically insignificant impact on UChicago's clerkship rate, so the appeal to math is erroneous.

(2) you have mischaracterized the Ruby and how students are treated at the school. Rubenstein candidates tend to have strong performance. This strong performance leads to recognition and successful applications. A student who did not receive the Rubenstein who had similarly strong performance would also receive recognition and have the same chances at landing a prestigious career outcome. You have distorted the cause and effect here to make the school seem like a less attractive option relative to your purported alma mater.

(1) is false. Either that, or you have a really strange personal definition of "statistically insignificant."

As for (2), how do you know this? I asked you the same question upthread and you did not respond. I'm not directly familiar with U Chicago's Ruby program, but I have heard--both on TLS and elsewhere--about the considerable institutional support that the school offers Ruby recipients. And it certainly seems plausible to me that such institutional support is a significant contributing factor in the disproportionately successful clerkship outcomes for the Ruby students. Why are you so certain that it's not?

I interpreted (1) to mean that Chicago would have virtually the same clerkship rate even without the Ruby program, which I suppose is possible since Chicago has always had good clerkship placement as far as I know.

Also curious how jb knows about (2). Between two similar candidates, one Ruby and one non-Ruby, the institutional support could definitely tip the scales in favor of the Ruby, so I'm not sure how you can say they have the "same" chances.

I mean, I just don't know whether the pro-HLS contingent is using the right baseline. At H, and I assume YS, the default is you basically figure things out yourself. Without hearing anything from someone who goes to UChi, which I don't think anyone in this thread attends, I think it's quite unreasonable to assume that the Ruby's promise to hold your hand--e.g., have someone in the office or a professor give you the idiot's guide to clerking--if that's what the program promises to do, is concomitant with closing doors for everyone else. People here seem to be painting a picture of the clerkship office having, say, 10 calls to feeders each year, and reserving 4 of them for Rubies only. It would blow my mind if there's even a grain of truth there.

[shadowfax]

I was going to respond and then noticed that my tv was on the Bloomberg channel and I was watching the David Rubenstein show. They do know all. I withdraw my objections.

[NoThanks]

As someone who received the Ruby and is going to clerk, I'll share my limited experience [maybe the lack of anonymous posting in this thread, or at least my inability to find the function for this thread, makes other Ruby posters shy? or maybe they did receive enormous institutional support].

I did well grade-wise, but I did not find tremendous institutional support for me clerking (which annoys me, more from the seeming lack of support despite my grades, rather than anything to do with my scholarship status, but w/e). That isn't to say that professors were not helpful, but it never seemed like anyone was my advocate because of the Ruby. Now, I'll never know the counter-factual, or whether the administration just doesn't like me, or whether there was behind-the-scenes support, or whether my recommenders even knew I had the scholarship before agreeing to support me.

Nothing about my experience at the law school has felt like I've been treated preferentially over anyone else (other than the occasional Ruby dinners with interesting speakers and, of course, the financial support). If it did, that'd make me feel really uncomfortable so I'm glad it at least isn't so conspicuous. I suspect that professors can easily learn, or know, about my scholarship, but I also suspect that professors try not to know since they are more interested in "merit" than your means of financing your education. It is true that the mentoring component of the program can lead to early connections (e.g., RA's) with certain well-connected professors, thus leading to coveted clerkships, and I have to assume it is also true that there is institutional pressure to support Rubies so as to keep the program going, but I don't think it affected my outcome.

I urge people (Ruby or non-Ruby) to be pro-active if they received good grades from fall and winter quarters to start actively searching for professors who can write a strong letter for you (before this, obviously try to develop connections with the professor). It will be on you to prepare a strong clerkship application, and no scholarship status will make you a special snowflake to the administration.

[Alexandros]

.

[HonestlyThough]

Ok I am going to take the bait here and try to engage in good faith. How much effort have you put into that $50k debt at Chicago w/ Ruby figure If you're putting so much effort into information-gathering? And how exactly are you planning on living in law school?

15k a yr + 5k public interest stipend each summer (I know there are interesting positions that will actually pay you beyond the stipend, but none of that's guaranteed so forget it for now)

~15k a year in Stafford loans (assume a 5.5% interest rate but I think it's a little lower for next year)

Tax on 20k a year in income is gonna be roughly 1k- so excluding post-graduation summer, your budget with just that and taking out the full 15k a year is roughly ~$2850 a month. Are you gonna spend that much in grad school? I don't actually live in HP, but it looks like spending somewhere significantly below 1.5k all-in for a 1BR is quite feasible. Do you think you could handle a discretionary budget below $800 a month outside of that?

Basically, my point is that the only way you get $50k in Stafford loans (which presumably are gonna stay around 5.5% interest, and you're factoring that into your payment plan, right?) is if you take out the full loans every year- which isn't exactly necessary if you're truly so worried about debt. If you could handle spending something like $2k per month- I think you'd be able to knock that loan balance down to 30k or even lower, and while I defer to others who've actually lived in HP, I don't think there's any career you'd pursue where that would severely burden you.

all very valid. I do agree that my debt burden at Chicago would remain manageable whether I qualified for LRAP or not, with varying amounts paid back and lengths of payment, depending on what I do. I also agree that I can reduce it a bit with budgeting.
(side note: $5K for 2L summer stipend is a bit low compared to most schools)

What I disagree with most people here about is how manageable my debt at Harvard will be and how my longterm out of pocket costs for that debt will compare to my debt at Chicago. I maintain that Harvard will likely set me back $20K to $100K more than Chi over the 10 years after I graduate. <-- most likely outcome

Alright. So why take H here? Assuming you are 100% confident in what you want to do and don't change your mind, and have done your math right in the above post, H will cost you $20k-$100k more, restrict your flexibility and freedom for ten years after you graduate (this is worth something even if you don't change your mind), and not offer the Ruby perks, if they exist. All you've really mentioned in H's favor are community and alumni network.

I wouldn't really be any more restricted by H's LIPP than I would out of Chicago paying my small debt. The level of restriction would be about the same, assuming we accept my confidence in what I want to do. At chi, outside of LRAP, my monthly payments would be similar, and in LRAP, my available jobs would be much more limited.

Other than that, I agree with your analysis other than there being more reasons I prefer Harvard.
As mentioned throughout this thread:
-the size, diversity, and intensity of the PI community and student orgs (this is REALLY important to me)
-the size of the student body as a whole
-the much larger faculty and the fact that their expertise covers more areas of interest to me that are on the unique side
-similarly, there are more course offerings in more subjects
-the Kennedy school and the opportunity to take cross-listed courses there and possibly do a joint MPP
-the alumni network, esp. how vast it is. I want to return to CA and it's certainly more extensive here than is Chi's
-Public service venture fund, post-grad fellowships, and H's placement into Skadden and EJW fellowships is much better
-the greater emphasis on out of class activities
-arbitrary, but I was far more impressed by Harvard students
-I felt energized and excited by Harvard. I will enjoy my time there. I visited Chi and gave it the realest chance I could, and I do not feel excited about it and would be simply biding my time until I graduade
-the grading scheme
-the weather is less miserable
-campus is less miserable
-i like the surrounding area a LOT more, including that there's more of a community around the campus and that the housing situation is much better
-My SO is significantly more likely to join my in Boston than in Chicago

I excel when I'm happy and excited, not when I'm drained, annoyed, unhappy, put-off, etc. I truly think I will be a better law student at Havard.

I also put a high premium on happiness (this is a very personal consideration), and I'm willing to pay money to be happier even if there isn't a measurable benefit gained in employment outcomes or whatever


I've noticed that many TLSers recommend people turn down Chicago at sticker for full rides at, say, cornell or some other low ranked t13/14/15.
Many of those same people give the opposite advice if the choice is Havard at sticker vs. a full ride at those low t13s.
Doesn't this suggest most TLSers thing Harvard is worth hundreds of thousands more than Chicago?

[Dcc617]

I'm a current Harvard student. I don't think it's worth hundreds of thousands more than Chicago. I don't think most Harvard students would.

But good luck, and I'll see you here next year I guess.

[Alexandros]

.

[Lavitz]

I've noticed that many TLSers recommend people turn down Chicago at sticker for full rides at, say, cornell or some other low ranked t13/14/15.
Many of those same people give the opposite advice if the choice is Havard at sticker vs. a full ride at those low t13s.
Doesn't this suggest most TLSers thing Harvard is worth hundreds of thousands more than Chicago?

I agree with Alexandros that the premise is flawed because I don't see TLSers advocating Harvard at sticker over T-14 full rides.

But also this statement is logically flawed. Assume there's a thread of full ride at Cornell vs. sticker at Chicago. Maybe the reasoning for advocating full ride at Cornell is "Chicago's not worth 150K more than Cornell, it's only worth 100K more, but you have 150K at Cornell." So the hypothetical brand value of Chicago in this person's mind is 120K over the baseline. Then there's a thread about Harvard at sticker vs. the full ride at Cornell. Maybe this same person flips and says to pick Harvard over Cornell. But maybe that because their rationale is "Harvard is worth 160K more than Cornell, and you have only 150K." So Harvard = 160K and Chicago = 120K. So even though Harvard is worth 160K more than Cornell, it's only worth 40K more than Chicago. Not hundreds of thousands more.

Obviously these numbers are made up and I disagree with these values, but thought I'd point out the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm not going to engage in more substantive discussion on this choice because, frankly, I don't have the time. All I'll say is I think you should just go to Harvard. You'll be happier there and, if your LIPP plan works out, you'll pay about the same.

[Mr. Blackacre]

I wouldn't really be any more restricted by H's LIPP than I would out of Chicago paying my small debt. The level of restriction would be about the same, assuming we accept my confidence in what I want to do. At chi, outside of LRAP, my monthly payments would be similar, and in LRAP, my available jobs would be much more limited.

Other than that, I agree with your analysis other than there being more reasons I prefer Harvard.
As mentioned throughout this thread:
-the size, diversity, and intensity of the PI community and student orgs (this is REALLY important to me)
-the size of the student body as a whole
-the much larger faculty and the fact that their expertise covers more areas of interest to me that are on the unique side
-similarly, there are more course offerings in more subjects
-the Kennedy school and the opportunity to take cross-listed courses there and possibly do a joint MPP
-the alumni network, esp. how vast it is. I want to return to CA and it's certainly more extensive here than is Chi's
-Public service venture fund, post-grad fellowships, and H's placement into Skadden and EJW fellowships is much better
-the greater emphasis on out of class activities
-arbitrary, but I was far more impressed by Harvard students
-I felt energized and excited by Harvard. I will enjoy my time there. I visited Chi and gave it the realest chance I could, and I do not feel excited about it and would be simply biding my time until I graduade
-the grading scheme
-the weather is less miserable
-campus is less miserable
-i like the surrounding area a LOT more, including that there's more of a community around the campus and that the housing situation is much better
-My SO is significantly more likely to join my in Boston than in Chicago

I excel when I'm happy and excited, not when I'm drained, annoyed, unhappy, put-off, etc. I truly think I will be a better law student at Havard.

I also put a high premium on happiness (this is a very personal consideration), and I'm willing to pay money to be happier even if there isn't a measurable benefit gained in employment outcomes or whatever


I've noticed that many TLSers recommend people turn down Chicago at sticker for full rides at, say, cornell or some other low ranked t13/14/15.
Many of those same people give the opposite advice if the choice is Havard at sticker vs. a full ride at those low t13s.
Doesn't this suggest most TLSers thing Harvard is worth hundreds of thousands more than Chicago?

This right here lol. Enjoy Harvard; you're definitely their type.

[jbagelboy]

I've noticed that many TLSers recommend people turn down Chicago at sticker for full rides at, say, cornell or some other low ranked t13/14/15.
Many of those same people give the opposite advice if the choice is Havard at sticker vs. a full ride at those low t13s.
Doesn't this suggest most TLSers thing Harvard is worth hundreds of thousands more than Chicago?

I agree with Alexandros that the premise is flawed because I don't see TLSers advocating Harvard at sticker over T-14 full rides.

But also this statement is logically flawed. Assume there's a thread of full ride at Cornell vs. sticker at Chicago. Maybe the reasoning for advocating full ride at Cornell is "Chicago's not worth 150K more than Cornell, it's only worth 100K more, but you have 150K at Cornell." So the hypothetical brand value of Chicago in this person's mind is 120K over the baseline. Then there's a thread about Harvard at sticker vs. the full ride at Cornell. Maybe this same person flips and says to pick Harvard over Cornell. But maybe that because their rationale is "Harvard is worth 160K more than Cornell, and you have only 150K." So Harvard = 160K and Chicago = 120K. So even though Harvard is worth 160K more than Cornell, it's only worth 40K more than Chicago. Not hundreds of thousands more.

precisely.

[lavarman84]

Other than that, I agree with your analysis other than there being more reasons I prefer Harvard.
As mentioned throughout this thread:
-the size, diversity, and intensity of the PI community and student orgs (this is REALLY important to me)
-the size of the student body as a whole
-the much larger faculty and the fact that their expertise covers more areas of interest to me that are on the unique side
-similarly, there are more course offerings in more subjects
-the Kennedy school and the opportunity to take cross-listed courses there and possibly do a joint MPP
-the alumni network, esp. how vast it is. I want to return to CA and it's certainly more extensive here than is Chi's
-Public service venture fund, post-grad fellowships, and H's placement into Skadden and EJW fellowships is much better
-the greater emphasis on out of class activities
-arbitrary, but I was far more impressed by Harvard students
-I felt energized and excited by Harvard. I will enjoy my time there. I visited Chi and gave it the realest chance I could, and I do not feel excited about it and would be simply biding my time until I graduade
-the grading scheme
-the weather is less miserable
-campus is less miserable
-i like the surrounding area a LOT more, including that there's more of a community around the campus and that the housing situation is much better
-My SO is significantly more likely to join my in Boston than in Chicago

I excel when I'm happy and excited, not when I'm drained, annoyed, unhappy, put-off, etc. I truly think I will be a better law student at Havard.

I also put a high premium on happiness (this is a very personal consideration), and I'm willing to pay money to be happier even if there isn't a measurable benefit gained in employment outcomes or whatever

It's clear what YOU want. You don't need to justify your decision to a bunch of strangers on the internet. Just do what you want to do with your life.

You don't have to make the optimal choice on something like this. You're going to be fine either ways.

[rpupkin]

I've noticed that many TLSers recommend people turn down Chicago at sticker for full rides at, say, cornell or some other low ranked t13/14/15.
Many of those same people give the opposite advice if the choice is Havard at sticker vs. a full ride at those low t13s.
Doesn't this suggest most TLSers thing Harvard is worth hundreds of thousands more than Chicago?

Although I earlier faulted the hive for being harsh, now it's my turn to be mean: How did you break 160 on the LSAT with such poor logical reasoning skills?

[Npret]

I've noticed that many TLSers recommend people turn down Chicago at sticker for full rides at, say, cornell or some other low ranked t13/14/15.
Many of those same people give the opposite advice if the choice is Havard at sticker vs. a full ride at those low t13s.
Doesn't this suggest most TLSers thing Harvard is worth hundreds of thousands more than Chicago?

Although I earlier faulted the hive for being harsh, now it's my turn to be mean: How did you break 160 on the LSAT with such poor logical reasoning skills?

Finally you understand.

Maybe what OP lacks is simple common sense. That, and any true sense of self awareness.

I gave up on OP awhile ago. But maybe this will help others. Or at least be entertaining.

[Veil of Ignorance]

So did the real OP choose Harvard?

[shadowfax]

(1) The number of Rubenstein recipients and their success at attaining clerkships has a statistically insignificant impact on UChicago's clerkship rate, so the appeal to math is erroneous.

(2) you have mischaracterized the Ruby and how students are treated at the school. Rubenstein candidates tend to have strong performance. This strong performance leads to recognition and successful applications. A student who did not receive the Rubenstein who had similarly strong performance would also receive recognition and have the same chances at landing a prestigious career outcome. You have distorted the cause and effect here to make the school seem like a less attractive option relative to your purported alma mater.

(1) is false. Either that, or you have a really strange personal definition of "statistically insignificant."

As for (2), how do you know this? I asked you the same question upthread and you did not respond. I'm not directly familiar with U Chicago's Ruby program, but I have heard--both on TLS and elsewhere--about the considerable institutional support that the school offers Ruby recipients. And it certainly seems plausible to me that such institutional support is a significant contributing factor in the disproportionately successful clerkship outcomes for the Ruby students. Why are you so certain that it's not?

I interpreted (1) to mean that Chicago would have virtually the same clerkship rate even without the Ruby program, which I suppose is possible since Chicago has always had good clerkship placement as far as I know.

Also curious how jb knows about (2). Between two similar candidates, one Ruby and one non-Ruby, the institutional support could definitely tip the scales in favor of the Ruby, so I'm not sure how you can say they have the "same" chances.

I mean, I just don't know whether the pro-HLS contingent is using the right baseline. At H, and I assume YS, the default is you basically figure things out yourself. Without hearing anything from someone who goes to UChi, which I don't think anyone in this thread attends, I think it's quite unreasonable to assume that the Ruby's promise to hold your hand--e.g., have someone in the office or a professor give you the idiot's guide to clerking--if that's what the program promises to do, is concomitant with closing doors for everyone else. People here seem to be painting a picture of the clerkship office having, say, 10 calls to feeders each year, and reserving 4 of them for Rubies only. It would blow my mind if there's even a grain of truth there.

Why would it surprise you? They have a very prestigious and generous donor and they want the program to continue. Showing how well the program is working serves almost everyone's purpose. At the levels of schools and the incoming stats we are discussing here... let's face it we are interchangeable parts. It comes down to an introduction here a recommendation there. How these positions are filled is somewhat amorphous and whoever gets them is by definition highly qualified. If it serves more than one purpose whats wrong with that? Most of the awards I was offered suggested strongly that it be kept quiet. I can think of a lot of good reasons for that approach. I can say without reservation that once in law school what someone was paying never came up.

By the way... Take the Ruby...

[Npret]

So did the real OP choose Harvard?

Of course that OP chose Harvard. We don't need a post from that OP telling us to know that decision.