Harvard vs. Columbia ($) Forum

[McMooch]

Have you already committed?

If not, I'll echo what others have said. Even if you did in fact have your application reviewed and edited by professionals, you need to reapply. There must be something wrong with your application (and it can't be just YP) if you were waitlisted in all those places and reserved first at Columbia.

Do you have some C&F issue?

Nah zilch. Unless you ask my middle school teachers.

[LHS17]

Would this change if I told you that I'm getting 0 aid from Harvard and that my long term career goals are in secondary markets?

Secondary markets are normally way more ties-centric and Columbia doesn't close doors so I fail to see how this really changes things, but I'll let someone with a more intimate knowledge of secondary market (wherever it is) hiring weigh in more definitively here.

I can't speak for Columbia, but you should get every interview you sign up for with secondary market firms who come to Harvard. Having spoken to recent alumni and 3Ls in the secondary market I'm targeting, nobody was asked about grades, only ties. Prevailing view has been that a majority of Passes should be fine.

Because Columbia has a different grading system, I'd advise getting an anecdotal perspective from recent alums in your target market. I agree that Columbia shouldn't close doors, but worth verifying whether interview dynamics are different.

You haven't even started law school yet. As I recall you have been pushing for Harvard because of your own wasteful decision and some mythical belief about the Harvard name.
You haven't started school or been through Harvard OCI, so why are you commenting?
OP these are the people voting for Harvard.

Your characterizarions are inaccurate. I was commenting on the narrow issue of secondary markets, which is one of many factors in a very personal decision. The only thing I have advocated is an additional area of diligence.

[cdotson2]

Just to add a counterbalance to what everyone is saying TLS is notorious for thinking that LS admissions is 100% predictable, and it might have been at some point. However, last cycle when I applied I was wait-listed from duke up to columbia, was rejected from michigan and then got into Stanford and Harvard. I have also talked to numerous other students at HLS (and on TLS) who had odd cycles last year, with more than one person being rejected from one of the bottom t14. People like to say it's yield protect, but that doesn't explain why people would be rejected from lower schools. Scholarships are much harder to predict than admission outcomes, and admissions outcomes are not as black and white as TLS thinks they are. I got 150K from cornell, 0 from Georgetown, 65K from duke, and I didn't get a full ride to the T30 regional school I applied to. Especially for named scholarship's that you have to interview for (like the Mordecai), it is unlikely that just submitting the same app will help at all.

[UVA2B]

Just to add a counterbalance to what everyone is saying TLS is notorious for thinking that LS admissions is 100% predictable, and it might have been at some point. However, last cycle when I applied I was wait-listed from duke up to columbia, was rejected from michigan and then got into Stanford and Harvard. I have also talked to numerous other students at HLS (and on TLS) who had odd cycles last year, with more than one person being rejected from one of the bottom t14. People like to say it's yield protect, but that doesn't explain why people would be rejected from lower schools. Scholarships are much harder to predict than admission outcomes, and admissions outcomes are not as black and white as TLS thinks they are. I got 150K from cornell, 0 from Georgetown, 65K from duke, and I didn't get a full ride to the T30 regional school I applied to. Especially for named scholarship's that you have to interview for (like the Mordecai), it is unlikely that just submitting the same app will help at all.

No one has said anything about submitting the same application though. They've said the OP should scrub their application vigorously to detect any weak points and submit stronger apps in the fall. The only part people are saying leave alone, very counter to typical TLS wisdom, are the LSAT/GPA. The objective parts are in the wheelhouse for being competitive for named scholarships (which you're right are in no way guaranteed, but there are additional non-named scholarships that at least approach similar amounts like a Dean's scholly at UVA for $150k), so what must be askew is some weakness in the rest of the applications. It could be an unimpressive resume (like OP mentioned with lower-ranked UG), it could be weak essays, it could be YP because didn't write persuasive "Why X" essays, or it could be any number of other reasons. So while I agree a full ride isn't a guaranteed outcome, with the right application tailored properly, the OP should have better options for their very generic goals.

ETA: OP, do you have any counter argument to my post on the previous page? Can you provide a financially rational reason or even an actual professional reason why waiting and reapplying wouldn't make sense for you beyond not wanting to wait?

[Dcc617]

You should be going to law school for free with those stats

Wanna sponsor?

No but something is wrong and you are going to be wasting at least $100,000, maybe more than $200,000. You will regret it later.

I have no reason to believe that the fatal flaw in my application is from the materials I sent in (that were edited by professionals) or the timing of my application (November). So another roll of the dice doesn't seem reasonable. My earning potential with current UG is peanuts, and even the schools that should've expected me to come (Columbia NYU Penn) all wait-listed me. Full scholarship​ wasn't even a thought.

You're dumb then.

Maybe that's what it is. They sensed my poor executive decision skills and decided to stay far away. Fatal flaw

Yeah, you're well above the 75ths of every single school in a numbers based admissions regime. People with your numbers usually get full rides and acceptances at YHS. You did something wrong.

[McMooch]

Just to add a counterbalance to what everyone is saying TLS is notorious for thinking that LS admissions is 100% predictable, and it might have been at some point. However, last cycle when I applied I was wait-listed from duke up to columbia, was rejected from michigan and then got into Stanford and Harvard. I have also talked to numerous other students at HLS (and on TLS) who had odd cycles last year, with more than one person being rejected from one of the bottom t14. People like to say it's yield protect, but that doesn't explain why people would be rejected from lower schools. Scholarships are much harder to predict than admission outcomes, and admissions outcomes are not as black and white as TLS thinks they are. I got 150K from cornell, 0 from Georgetown, 65K from duke, and I didn't get a full ride to the T30 regional school I applied to. Especially for named scholarship's that you have to interview for (like the Mordecai), it is unlikely that just submitting the same app will help at all.

No one has said anything about submitting the same application though. They've said the OP should scrub their application vigorously to detect any weak points and submit stronger apps in the fall. The only part people are saying leave alone, very counter to typical TLS wisdom, are the LSAT/GPA. The objective parts are in the wheelhouse for being competitive for named scholarships (which you're right are in no way guaranteed, but there are additional non-named scholarships that at least approach similar amounts like a Dean's scholly at UVA for $150k), so what must be askew is some weakness in the rest of the applications. It could be an unimpressive resume (like OP mentioned with lower-ranked UG), it could be weak essays, it could be YP because didn't write persuasive "Why X" essays, or it could be any number of other reasons. So while I agree a full ride isn't a guaranteed outcome, with the right application tailored properly, the OP should have better options for their very generic goals.

ETA: OP, do you have any counter argument to my post on the previous page? Can you provide a financially rational reason or even an actual professional reason why waiting and reapplying wouldn't make sense for you beyond not wanting to wait?

Reapplying means one less year in the workforce. I'll take the liberty of assuming that the average salary for an additional year working is higher than most of the outcomes I can expect for next cycle, even with whatever money I'd make working with my UG next year. Only place it would make a difference is full scholarship, and the risk of not getting that doesn't seem​ to justify waiting .

[Dcc617]

Just to add a counterbalance to what everyone is saying TLS is notorious for thinking that LS admissions is 100% predictable, and it might have been at some point. However, last cycle when I applied I was wait-listed from duke up to columbia, was rejected from michigan and then got into Stanford and Harvard. I have also talked to numerous other students at HLS (and on TLS) who had odd cycles last year, with more than one person being rejected from one of the bottom t14. People like to say it's yield protect, but that doesn't explain why people would be rejected from lower schools. Scholarships are much harder to predict than admission outcomes, and admissions outcomes are not as black and white as TLS thinks they are. I got 150K from cornell, 0 from Georgetown, 65K from duke, and I didn't get a full ride to the T30 regional school I applied to. Especially for named scholarship's that you have to interview for (like the Mordecai), it is unlikely that just submitting the same app will help at all.

No one has said anything about submitting the same application though. They've said the OP should scrub their application vigorously to detect any weak points and submit stronger apps in the fall. The only part people are saying leave alone, very counter to typical TLS wisdom, are the LSAT/GPA. The objective parts are in the wheelhouse for being competitive for named scholarships (which you're right are in no way guaranteed, but there are additional non-named scholarships that at least approach similar amounts like a Dean's scholly at UVA for $150k), so what must be askew is some weakness in the rest of the applications. It could be an unimpressive resume (like OP mentioned with lower-ranked UG), it could be weak essays, it could be YP because didn't write persuasive "Why X" essays, or it could be any number of other reasons. So while I agree a full ride isn't a guaranteed outcome, with the right application tailored properly, the OP should have better options for their very generic goals.

ETA: OP, do you have any counter argument to my post on the previous page? Can you provide a financially rational reason or even an actual professional reason why waiting and reapplying wouldn't make sense for you beyond not wanting to wait?

Reapplying means one less year in the workforce. I'll take the liberty of assuming that the average salary for an additional year working is higher than most of the outcomes I can expect for next cycle, even with whatever money I'd make working with my UG next year. Only place it would make a difference is full scholarship, and the risk of not getting that doesn't seem​ to justify waiting .

Well then you know better than everyone here. Good luck.

[McMooch]

You should be going to law school for free with those stats

Wanna sponsor?

No but something is wrong and you are going to be wasting at least $100,000, maybe more than $200,000. You will regret it later.

I have no reason to believe that the fatal flaw in my application is from the materials I sent in (that were edited by professionals) or the timing of my application (November). So another roll of the dice doesn't seem reasonable. My earning potential with current UG is peanuts, and even the schools that should've expected me to come (Columbia NYU Penn) all wait-listed me. Full scholarship​ wasn't even a thought.

You're dumb then.

Maybe that's what it is. They sensed my poor executive decision skills and decided to stay far away. Fatal flaw

Yeah, you're well above the 75ths of every single school in a numbers based admissions regime. People with your numbers usually get full rides and acceptances at YHS. You did something wrong.

I was rejected at Yale and wait-listed at Stanford. Those are clearly not YP and bad Why x essays, but highlight a weakness in my application. Could it be my personal statement and lors? Possible. Lors won't change because I won't be doing other schooling this year, and personal statement is a toss up. Rather, my UG degree and transcript (pm me if you want more details) are probably the weakness. That kinda stuff doesn't change over a year. I may have done something wrong, but reapplying will likely not change that.

[UVA2B]

Just to add a counterbalance to what everyone is saying TLS is notorious for thinking that LS admissions is 100% predictable, and it might have been at some point. However, last cycle when I applied I was wait-listed from duke up to columbia, was rejected from michigan and then got into Stanford and Harvard. I have also talked to numerous other students at HLS (and on TLS) who had odd cycles last year, with more than one person being rejected from one of the bottom t14. People like to say it's yield protect, but that doesn't explain why people would be rejected from lower schools. Scholarships are much harder to predict than admission outcomes, and admissions outcomes are not as black and white as TLS thinks they are. I got 150K from cornell, 0 from Georgetown, 65K from duke, and I didn't get a full ride to the T30 regional school I applied to. Especially for named scholarship's that you have to interview for (like the Mordecai), it is unlikely that just submitting the same app will help at all.

No one has said anything about submitting the same application though. They've said the OP should scrub their application vigorously to detect any weak points and submit stronger apps in the fall. The only part people are saying leave alone, very counter to typical TLS wisdom, are the LSAT/GPA. The objective parts are in the wheelhouse for being competitive for named scholarships (which you're right are in no way guaranteed, but there are additional non-named scholarships that at least approach similar amounts like a Dean's scholly at UVA for $150k), so what must be askew is some weakness in the rest of the applications. It could be an unimpressive resume (like OP mentioned with lower-ranked UG), it could be weak essays, it could be YP because didn't write persuasive "Why X" essays, or it could be any number of other reasons. So while I agree a full ride isn't a guaranteed outcome, with the right application tailored properly, the OP should have better options for their very generic goals.

ETA: OP, do you have any counter argument to my post on the previous page? Can you provide a financially rational reason or even an actual professional reason why waiting and reapplying wouldn't make sense for you beyond not wanting to wait?

Reapplying means one less year in the workforce. I'll take the liberty of assuming that the average salary for an additional year working is higher than most of the outcomes I can expect for next cycle, even with whatever money I'd make working with my UG next year. Only place it would make a difference is full scholarship, and the risk of not getting that doesn't seem​ to justify waiting .

Ok, well you know better than all of the current law students telling you reapplying is worth your time and present value of your options. Go do you and please come back if/when you realize spending an extra $80k+ for going RIGHT NOW wasn't worth it so you can warn others about how you hastily pressured yourself into going when you could've waited a year while reapplying and saving huge sums of money. Columbia is the better choice.

[jbagelboy]

I don't think the OP needs to reapply. They could have gotten something better, yes, like a T13 full ride, but the two options on the table are both excellent. I do not know if bringing Columbia COL down another $40k or so is worth a year of waiting. Realistically there's no way to guarantee a Rubenstein or Hamilton, which are the two options which would fully justify another round of applications in my view (unless OP was going to phase out of his parents income and could get high need based aid and admission to Yale, which also is completely uncertain).

Focusing on the two options here, I commented earlier and stand by that comment. I would say one thing about the 'secondary market' conversation though. There's no purpose to choosing a law school because of secondary markets "generally speaking." It's not really in dispute that in some markets there's an advantage at EIP to coming from Harvard. But no one has *no* idea where they want to live. If you really really want to break into a very exclusive market like Seattle or Miami, it would justify this cost difference to go to HLS. If you're looking at larger primary markets like New York, Texas, LA, London, or Chicago, both schools are well known and send plenty of graduates into those markets each year, and the distinction between going through one schools recruiting or the other becomes much less clear.

[McMooch]

Just to add a counterbalance to what everyone is saying TLS is notorious for thinking that LS admissions is 100% predictable, and it might have been at some point. However, last cycle when I applied I was wait-listed from duke up to columbia, was rejected from michigan and then got into Stanford and Harvard. I have also talked to numerous other students at HLS (and on TLS) who had odd cycles last year, with more than one person being rejected from one of the bottom t14. People like to say it's yield protect, but that doesn't explain why people would be rejected from lower schools. Scholarships are much harder to predict than admission outcomes, and admissions outcomes are not as black and white as TLS thinks they are. I got 150K from cornell, 0 from Georgetown, 65K from duke, and I didn't get a full ride to the T30 regional school I applied to. Especially for named scholarship's that you have to interview for (like the Mordecai), it is unlikely that just submitting the same app will help at all.

No one has said anything about submitting the same application though. They've said the OP should scrub their application vigorously to detect any weak points and submit stronger apps in the fall. The only part people are saying leave alone, very counter to typical TLS wisdom, are the LSAT/GPA. The objective parts are in the wheelhouse for being competitive for named scholarships (which you're right are in no way guaranteed, but there are additional non-named scholarships that at least approach similar amounts like a Dean's scholly at UVA for $150k), so what must be askew is some weakness in the rest of the applications. It could be an unimpressive resume (like OP mentioned with lower-ranked UG), it could be weak essays, it could be YP because didn't write persuasive "Why X" essays, or it could be any number of other reasons. So while I agree a full ride isn't a guaranteed outcome, with the right application tailored properly, the OP should have better options for their very generic goals.

ETA: OP, do you have any counter argument to my post on the previous page? Can you provide a financially rational reason or even an actual professional reason why waiting and reapplying wouldn't make sense for you beyond not wanting to wait?

Reapplying means one less year in the workforce. I'll take the liberty of assuming that the average salary for an additional year working is higher than most of the outcomes I can expect for next cycle, even with whatever money I'd make working with my UG next year. Only place it would make a difference is full scholarship, and the risk of not getting that doesn't seem​ to justify waiting .

Well then you know better than everyone here. Good luck.

Please don't shut down on me. I meant to end that with "What do you think?" But my itchy trigger finger got the best of me

[McMooch]

Just to add a counterbalance to what everyone is saying TLS is notorious for thinking that LS admissions is 100% predictable, and it might have been at some point. However, last cycle when I applied I was wait-listed from duke up to columbia, was rejected from michigan and then got into Stanford and Harvard. I have also talked to numerous other students at HLS (and on TLS) who had odd cycles last year, with more than one person being rejected from one of the bottom t14. People like to say it's yield protect, but that doesn't explain why people would be rejected from lower schools. Scholarships are much harder to predict than admission outcomes, and admissions outcomes are not as black and white as TLS thinks they are. I got 150K from cornell, 0 from Georgetown, 65K from duke, and I didn't get a full ride to the T30 regional school I applied to. Especially for named scholarship's that you have to interview for (like the Mordecai), it is unlikely that just submitting the same app will help at all.

No one has said anything about submitting the same application though. They've said the OP should scrub their application vigorously to detect any weak points and submit stronger apps in the fall. The only part people are saying leave alone, very counter to typical TLS wisdom, are the LSAT/GPA. The objective parts are in the wheelhouse for being competitive for named scholarships (which you're right are in no way guaranteed, but there are additional non-named scholarships that at least approach similar amounts like a Dean's scholly at UVA for $150k), so what must be askew is some weakness in the rest of the applications. It could be an unimpressive resume (like OP mentioned with lower-ranked UG), it could be weak essays, it could be YP because didn't write persuasive "Why X" essays, or it could be any number of other reasons. So while I agree a full ride isn't a guaranteed outcome, with the right application tailored properly, the OP should have better options for their very generic goals.

ETA: OP, do you have any counter argument to my post on the previous page? Can you provide a financially rational reason or even an actual professional reason why waiting and reapplying wouldn't make sense for you beyond not wanting to wait?

Reapplying means one less year in the workforce. I'll take the liberty of assuming that the average salary for an additional year working is higher than most of the outcomes I can expect for next cycle, even with whatever money I'd make working with my UG next year. Only place it would make a difference is full scholarship, and the risk of not getting that doesn't seem​ to justify waiting .

Ok, well you know better than all of the current law students telling you reapplying is worth your time and present value of your options. Go do you and please come back if/when you realize spending an extra $80k+ for going RIGHT NOW wasn't worth it so you can warn others about how you hastily pressured yourself into going when you could've waited a year while reapplying and saving huge sums of money. Columbia is the better choice.

Thanks. What am I missing about the immediate cost of 80k vs. future year's salary of more?

[McMooch]

Would this change if I told you that I'm getting 0 aid from Harvard and that my long term career goals are in secondary markets?

Secondary markets are normally way more ties-centric and Columbia doesn't close doors so I fail to see how this really changes things, but I'll let someone with a more intimate knowledge of secondary market (wherever it is) hiring weigh in more definitively here.

What are your thoughts on reapplying?

[Dcc617]

So I disagree with jbagelboy that your options are so good that they don't need to be second guessed. They're not bad outcomes, but you'll probably be substantially overpaying for your goals (which, as I understand, are generic biglaw). Any T13 full ride is probably better than 140K at Columbia.

I don't know what's wrong with your applications. You can rework your personal statement. You can get a job and bolster your resume. You can ask your peeps about letters of rec.

Like, you said you went to a good school, but not an elite one. That's certainly not holding you back. I don't know what on your transcript could ding you, because that basically never happens. I also think you could seriously help your cause by submitting Why X essays to every school. I think you have a great chance at big money at everywhere.

I also don't think you understand how much debt that is. That's why people are frustrated. You seem to wave it off by saying stuff about biglaw pay, but most people don't stay in biglaw and why would you want to take out a bunch of debt just to have to work for a few years to get back to zero net worth? I don't think you lose anything by waiting, and you will likely gain.

You seem young too. It's never bad to get some real world experience for a year or two before jumping into law school. I worked for about 4 years before going back, and it gave me a lot of perspective.

[UVA2B]

I don't think the OP needs to reapply. They could have gotten something better, yes, like a T13 full ride, but the two options on the table are both excellent. I do not know if bringing Columbia COL down another $40k or so is worth a year of waiting. Realistically there's no way to guarantee a Rubenstein or Hamilton, which are the two options which would fully justify another round of applications in my view (unless OP was going to phase out of his parents income and could get high need based aid and admission to Yale, which also is completely uncertain).

Focusing on the two options here, I commented earlier and stand by that comment. I would say one thing about the 'secondary market' conversation though. There's no purpose to choosing a law school because of secondary markets "generally speaking." It's not really in dispute that in some markets there's an advantage at EIP to coming from Harvard. But no one has *no* idea where they want to live. If you really really want to break into a very exclusive market like Seattle or Miami, it would justify this cost difference to go to HLS. If you're looking at larger primary markets like New York, Texas, LA, London, or Chicago, both schools are well known and send plenty of graduates into those markets each year, and the distinction between going through one schools recruiting or the other becomes much less clear.

The OP doesn't need to reapply, but there are more options than Hamilton or Rubenstein that would be better for the OP's goals. Darrow, Mordecai, Dillard, non-named full rides at all T13 would be better than the current options when the OP wants generic biglaw. And while those outcomes aren't guaranteed per se, with the right application tailored properly, it's pretty likely they could get at least one T13 to bite at/near full ride. And if you really think saving $80k to go to UVA or Cornell next year wanting generic biglaw doesn't justify waiting a year, then I'm just confused about your rationale.

[UVA2B]

Just to add a counterbalance to what everyone is saying TLS is notorious for thinking that LS admissions is 100% predictable, and it might have been at some point. However, last cycle when I applied I was wait-listed from duke up to columbia, was rejected from michigan and then got into Stanford and Harvard. I have also talked to numerous other students at HLS (and on TLS) who had odd cycles last year, with more than one person being rejected from one of the bottom t14. People like to say it's yield protect, but that doesn't explain why people would be rejected from lower schools. Scholarships are much harder to predict than admission outcomes, and admissions outcomes are not as black and white as TLS thinks they are. I got 150K from cornell, 0 from Georgetown, 65K from duke, and I didn't get a full ride to the T30 regional school I applied to. Especially for named scholarship's that you have to interview for (like the Mordecai), it is unlikely that just submitting the same app will help at all.

No one has said anything about submitting the same application though. They've said the OP should scrub their application vigorously to detect any weak points and submit stronger apps in the fall. The only part people are saying leave alone, very counter to typical TLS wisdom, are the LSAT/GPA. The objective parts are in the wheelhouse for being competitive for named scholarships (which you're right are in no way guaranteed, but there are additional non-named scholarships that at least approach similar amounts like a Dean's scholly at UVA for $150k), so what must be askew is some weakness in the rest of the applications. It could be an unimpressive resume (like OP mentioned with lower-ranked UG), it could be weak essays, it could be YP because didn't write persuasive "Why X" essays, or it could be any number of other reasons. So while I agree a full ride isn't a guaranteed outcome, with the right application tailored properly, the OP should have better options for their very generic goals.

ETA: OP, do you have any counter argument to my post on the previous page? Can you provide a financially rational reason or even an actual professional reason why waiting and reapplying wouldn't make sense for you beyond not wanting to wait?

Reapplying means one less year in the workforce. I'll take the liberty of assuming that the average salary for an additional year working is higher than most of the outcomes I can expect for next cycle, even with whatever money I'd make working with my UG next year. Only place it would make a difference is full scholarship, and the risk of not getting that doesn't seem​ to justify waiting .

Ok, well you know better than all of the current law students telling you reapplying is worth your time and present value of your options. Go do you and please come back if/when you realize spending an extra $80k+ for going RIGHT NOW wasn't worth it so you can warn others about how you hastily pressured yourself into going when you could've waited a year while reapplying and saving huge sums of money. Columbia is the better choice.

Thanks. What am I missing about the immediate cost of 80k vs. future year's salary of more?

DCC covered this, but you're assuming a lengthy career in Biglaw, which is statistically unlikely considering law firms work mostly on heavily leveraged business models that necessarily requires attrition. So you could be the Biglaw associate coming from Penn with $60k debt a year later who will more likely than not get pushed out for a number of reasons after 3-5 years, or you could be a Columbia grad with $140k debt that gets pushed out a year earlier.

That might not end up being you and you might become a shiny, really expensive partner at your biglaw firm, but statistics will tell you that's unlikely to happen. So you're really looking at getting back to zero net worth and then moving on to a lower paying gig sooner.

[McMooch]

Does anyone who voted Harvard, which now seems to be higher want to explain their rationale? So far I've heard articulate positions about reapplying and Columbia, but I would like to know why people think Harvard.

[Dcc617]

Does anyone who voted Harvard, which now seems to be higher want to explain their rationale? So far I've heard articulate positions about reapplying and Columbia, but I would like to know why people think Harvard.

Seriously, they're probably 0Ls who would just pick the higher ranking in any scenario.

[UVA2B]

Does anyone who voted Harvard, which now seems to be higher want to explain their rationale? So far I've heard articulate positions about reapplying and Columbia, but I would like to know why people think Harvard.

Seriously, they're probably 0Ls who would just pick the higher ranking in any scenario.

Or silent observers obsessed with the Harvard name/grandiose ideas of prestige that are lost when you enter...you know, reality.

[Alive97]

.

[SmokeytheBear]

Kid, every thing you've said on this thread, from your original post (something like "clerkship or litigation, but I don't know much about either") to each of your replies scares the bejesus out of me.

You are about to saddle yourself with a ton of debt and you literally don't know what kind of job you want or what those jobs take. Assume you take on all this debt, and further assume you get a big law job--what then when you become one of the numerous people on here who complain about how horrible their life is but they can't quit because of a similar amount to debt that you're about to blithely walk into?

You're doing the same "I have decent stats so I may as well go to law school" dance that so many people did pre recession and led to so many people being unhappy.

Despite the "this is an odd cycle" anecdotal stuff said previously, every cycle is odd. There is a website that has collected numbers of applicants from previous cycles that give you odds on your chances. You should be getting money from lower t13s which better accommodate your situation (no sense of what you want to do or what it takes so offering you the ability to walk stupidly into a profession debt free).

I'm disappointed in your decision making and that someone with a 4.0 would make such a numbskull decision as you are.

I apologize for the typos, as I'm so agitated that I couldn't be bothered to proofread.

Don't go to law school this year. Think about what

[shadowfax]

If Harvard is your choice then attend this year and congrats. If not reapply next cycle and hope for the outcome your numbers should dictate.

[McMooch]

Does anyone who voted Harvard, which now seems to be higher want to explain their rationale? So far I've heard articulate positions about reapplying and Columbia, but I would like to know why people think Harvard.

Seriously, they're probably 0Ls who would just pick the higher ranking in any scenario.

Or silent observers obsessed with the Harvard name/grandiose ideas of prestige that are lost when you enter...you know, reality.

Wow this seems to be the year of the silent majority.

[UVA2B]

If Harvard is your choice then attend this year and congrats. If not reapply next cycle and hope for the outcome your numbers should dictate.

Continuing to give shoddy advice when it comes to picking Harvard. Can you explain a single reason Harvard is worth $200k for generic Biglaw, but otherwise reapplying is the best decision?

[UVA2B]

Does anyone who voted Harvard, which now seems to be higher want to explain their rationale? So far I've heard articulate positions about reapplying and Columbia, but I would like to know why people think Harvard.

Seriously, they're probably 0Ls who would just pick the higher ranking in any scenario.

Or silent observers obsessed with the Harvard name/grandiose ideas of prestige that are lost when you enter...you know, reality.

Wow this seems to be the year of the silent majority.

You want to know why people aren't articulating good reasons to pick Harvard here for your goals? There aren't any that should/would be at all persuasive. Hell, you have Dcc, a current HLS 1L, telling you that you have better options. How is that not persuasive to you?