Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard Forum
-
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
Do you realize you are citing my own post at LGM? And that the dollar figures in it are in constant 2014 dollars?
-
- Posts: 1986
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
Don’t worry. I have a top degree, did a big law corporate M&A job for 7 years where I did extensive amounts of interviewing of SAs and laterals, and, have a career I love now.Cantabridgian wrote:Interesting comments to my post. If true, then there was no need for this discussion at all. I guess all you 0Ls are just smarter than me. I bow to your experience and judgment.
But my point was, and remains, that Harvard's networking and collegial opportunities outweigh the other considerations. Harvard, more than any other law school, is national and international in scope and has a depth and breadth in its student body that is unmatched anywhere else. Columbia, not so much. If you want to practice Big Law in the Big Apple, then maybe Columbia is close. (Back then the top 5 were Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago and Penn.) But you can't beat Harvard.
If memory serves me, my tuition was around $8800 a year at Harvard (and had been about $1800 a year at UCLA). In today's dollars the Harvard equivalent would be about $55,600. https://www.officialdata.org/1970-dolla ... mount=8800 According to Harvard's website current tuition is $63,800. And, yes, in 1970-1971 I took out student loans.
So I made the 1970-equivalent decision and put my money then where my mouth is now. And will never regret it. And all of you who are pounding me, keep it up. I'm sure the hiring partners in the firms you will apply to will be just as impressed with you as you are.
I do feel sorry that clueless old guys like you are in charge of hiring. Maybe start listening to people who live in the current decade instead of your past.
Also an alleged grown up partner acting vindictive and threatening on a law school forum post is a bad look. Why not put your firm so we can advise the 0Ls?
By the way, I graduated with no debt. Just to be clear - did you graduate with an amount of debt equivalent to buying a first house?
-
- Posts: 1986
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
Professor Campos is a well-known law professor. I believe he went to Michigan if you want to sneer at him with your pals at the Harvard Club.Paul Campos wrote:Do you realize you are citing my own post at LGM? And that the dollar figures in it are in constant 2014 dollars?
I’m sorry I can’t help laughing at how deluded you are and how terrible your advice is- I hope you don’t live in the 70s when advising your clients.
Oh, by the way, your associates feel the same way about useless Boomers as we do here. Obviously you haven’t grasped that yet.
-
- Posts: 4451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
Oh my goodness, how did I miss this post earlier?Cantabridgian wrote:I doubt my daughter will want to teach law school. If she did, then it would be a toss up from my perspective. But the decision is hers. If she is going to practice law, to try cases, then Harvard is the clear choice.QContinuum wrote:There's little that can be added to Npret and nixy's great points, except the observation that, as much as it wouldn't make sense for the lion's share of candidates to choose Harvard at sticker over Columbia with a Butler or Hamilton, it'd make even less sense for almost anyone to choose Harvard over Yale.
Yale places significantly more strongly than Harvard not just into academia, but also into clerkships, boutiques, government, PI, and the most prestigious large law firms. At least in the Harvard vs. Columbia with $ debate, there are legitimate strengths on the H side of the equation (better clerkship placement, for instance). With exceedingly few exceptions, there's nothing H offers that Y doesn't do better.
And since neither Harvard nor Yale award merit aid, COA is likely to be similar (if not lower at Yale given the lower COL in New Haven vs. Cambridge). Basically the only reason I can think of for choosing Harvard over Yale is if an applicant has a spouse who'd be unable to find work in New Haven. For a 20-year-old applicant like the Harvard alum's daughter, choosing H over Y would be an awful move.
While I am a geezer, because I still practice I get to see all the recent admits and I occasionally find myself opposite them. Recent Harvard grads are better prepared to practice law and represent clients than their Yalie counterparts. Most judges have little interest in discussing the intricacies of Robert Cover's Nomos and Narrative. But they appreciate a lawyer who can make a proper objection or a proffer, or authenticate and introduce exhibits and conduct direct examination. (While anecdotal, I'm also thinking about how Kansas SoS Kris Kobach ineptly represented himself earlier this year in the trial of a voter fraud case. He had a Harvard BA, but a Yale Law Degree that seemed to have provided him with no lawerly skills.)
Law schools all offer exactly the same opportunities to learn to object/proffer/authenticate etc, which is to say that students can graduate from any law school in the land and not know how to do any of that. No one is required to learn any of that.
Also Kris Kobach graduated law school in 1995. Any weaknesses he showed in a trial from earlier this year are absolutely not on the law school he graduated from. It does look like he might not be a great litigator, but that’s probably because he doesn’t appear actually to have worked as one particularly consistently before going into politics.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:12 pm
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
Is your "top degree" from Columbia? Just curious since it seems as though some of the posts ITT have hit a sore spot for you. When I see this level of defensiveness, the poster usually attended a school less prestigious than Harvard. My suspicion is that you're continuing the trendNpret wrote:Don’t worry. I have a top degree, did a big law corporate M&A job for 7 years where I did extensive amounts of interviewing of SAs and laterals, and, have a career I love now.Cantabridgian wrote:Interesting comments to my post. If true, then there was no need for this discussion at all. I guess all you 0Ls are just smarter than me. I bow to your experience and judgment.
But my point was, and remains, that Harvard's networking and collegial opportunities outweigh the other considerations. Harvard, more than any other law school, is national and international in scope and has a depth and breadth in its student body that is unmatched anywhere else. Columbia, not so much. If you want to practice Big Law in the Big Apple, then maybe Columbia is close. (Back then the top 5 were Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago and Penn.) But you can't beat Harvard.
If memory serves me, my tuition was around $8800 a year at Harvard (and had been about $1800 a year at UCLA). In today's dollars the Harvard equivalent would be about $55,600. https://www.officialdata.org/1970-dolla ... mount=8800 According to Harvard's website current tuition is $63,800. And, yes, in 1970-1971 I took out student loans.
So I made the 1970-equivalent decision and put my money then where my mouth is now. And will never regret it. And all of you who are pounding me, keep it up. I'm sure the hiring partners in the firms you will apply to will be just as impressed with you as you are.
I do feel sorry that clueless old guys like you are in charge of hiring. Maybe start listening to people who live in the current decade instead of your past.
Also an alleged grown up partner acting vindictive and threatening on a law school forum post is a bad look. Why not put your firm so we can advise the 0Ls?
By the way, I graduated with no debt. Just to be clear - did you graduate with an amount of debt equivalent to buying a first house?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:22 pm
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
No way someone who is in their 70s knows what a 0L is. Flame post.
I really enjoyed reading the narrative though.
I really enjoyed reading the narrative though.
-
- Posts: 1986
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
1995 is recent if you graduated in 1970.nixy wrote:Oh my goodness, how did I miss this post earlier?Cantabridgian wrote:I doubt my daughter will want to teach law school. If she did, then it would be a toss up from my perspective. But the decision is hers. If she is going to practice law, to try cases, then Harvard is the clear choice.QContinuum wrote:There's little that can be added to Npret and nixy's great points, except the observation that, as much as it wouldn't make sense for the lion's share of candidates to choose Harvard at sticker over Columbia with a Butler or Hamilton, it'd make even less sense for almost anyone to choose Harvard over Yale.
Yale places significantly more strongly than Harvard not just into academia, but also into clerkships, boutiques, government, PI, and the most prestigious large law firms. At least in the Harvard vs. Columbia with $ debate, there are legitimate strengths on the H side of the equation (better clerkship placement, for instance). With exceedingly few exceptions, there's nothing H offers that Y doesn't do better.
And since neither Harvard nor Yale award merit aid, COA is likely to be similar (if not lower at Yale given the lower COL in New Haven vs. Cambridge). Basically the only reason I can think of for choosing Harvard over Yale is if an applicant has a spouse who'd be unable to find work in New Haven. For a 20-year-old applicant like the Harvard alum's daughter, choosing H over Y would be an awful move.
While I am a geezer, because I still practice I get to see all the recent admits and I occasionally find myself opposite them. Recent Harvard grads are better prepared to practice law and represent clients than their Yalie counterparts. Most judges have little interest in discussing the intricacies of Robert Cover's Nomos and Narrative. But they appreciate a lawyer who can make a proper objection or a proffer, or authenticate and introduce exhibits and conduct direct examination. (While anecdotal, I'm also thinking about how Kansas SoS Kris Kobach ineptly represented himself earlier this year in the trial of a voter fraud case. He had a Harvard BA, but a Yale Law Degree that seemed to have provided him with no lawerly skills.)
Law schools all offer exactly the same opportunities to learn to object/proffer/authenticate etc, which is to say that students can graduate from any law school in the land and not know how to do any of that. No one is required to learn any of that.
Also Kris Kobach graduated law school in 1995. Any weaknesses he showed in a trial from earlier this year are absolutely not on the law school he graduated from. It does look like he might not be a great litigator, but that’s probably because he doesn’t appear actually to have worked as one particularly consistently before going into politics.
-
- Posts: 1986
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
Mercat wrote:No way someone who is in their 70s knows what a 0L is. Flame post.
I really enjoyed reading the narrative though.
-
- Posts: 1986
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
Hahahahahahelpfulposter215 wrote:Is your "top degree" from Columbia? Just curious since it seems as though some of the posts ITT have hit a sore spot for you. When I see this level of defensiveness, the poster usually attended a school less prestigious than Harvard. My suspicion is that you're continuing the trendNpret wrote:Don’t worry. I have a top degree, did a big law corporate M&A job for 7 years where I did extensive amounts of interviewing of SAs and laterals, and, have a career I love now.Cantabridgian wrote:Interesting comments to my post. If true, then there was no need for this discussion at all. I guess all you 0Ls are just smarter than me. I bow to your experience and judgment.
But my point was, and remains, that Harvard's networking and collegial opportunities outweigh the other considerations. Harvard, more than any other law school, is national and international in scope and has a depth and breadth in its student body that is unmatched anywhere else. Columbia, not so much. If you want to practice Big Law in the Big Apple, then maybe Columbia is close. (Back then the top 5 were Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago and Penn.) But you can't beat Harvard.
If memory serves me, my tuition was around $8800 a year at Harvard (and had been about $1800 a year at UCLA). In today's dollars the Harvard equivalent would be about $55,600. https://www.officialdata.org/1970-dolla ... mount=8800 According to Harvard's website current tuition is $63,800. And, yes, in 1970-1971 I took out student loans.
So I made the 1970-equivalent decision and put my money then where my mouth is now. And will never regret it. And all of you who are pounding me, keep it up. I'm sure the hiring partners in the firms you will apply to will be just as impressed with you as you are.
I do feel sorry that clueless old guys like you are in charge of hiring. Maybe start listening to people who live in the current decade instead of your past.
Also an alleged grown up partner acting vindictive and threatening on a law school forum post is a bad look. Why not put your firm so we can advise the 0Ls?
By the way, I graduated with no debt. Just to be clear - did you graduate with an amount of debt equivalent to buying a first house?
-
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Re: Columbia (Hamilton) vs. Harvard
Oh, don't worry, Npret - Cantabridgian isn't a BigLaw or even midlaw partner. Per his earlier post:Npret wrote:I do feel sorry that clueless old guys like you are in charge of hiring. Maybe start listening to people who live in the current decade instead of your past.Cantabridgian wrote:all of you who are pounding me, keep it up. I'm sure the hiring partners in the firms you will apply to will be just as impressed with you as you are.
Also an alleged grown up partner acting vindictive and threatening on a law school forum post is a bad look. Why not put your firm so we can advise the 0Ls?
He's a classic, small-law/hang-your-own-shingle kind of lawyer. He represents the middle class, not mega-corporations and the top 1%. Which is great, don't get me wrong! The middle class is in dire need of quality, affordable lawyers. But small law is hardly what the legal industry (or the typical Harvard Law grad, for that matter) would consider prestigious. So it's kind of funny that this poster is here bragging about his impressive resume. Almost makes you wonder why Cantabridgian didn't join a V10 or a lit boutique out of Hahvahd. Or the Honors Program or prestigious PI, if he wanted to help ordinary people.Cantabridgian wrote:I worked for a couple of small firms and then started my own firm in 1974. For the past 48 years I've been a trial lawyer, representing ordinary people, and enjoying the hell out of it.
The funniest thing, though, is how, for all his looking down on Yale, Cantabridgian's own posts reveal that Yale is better. On the one hand, he declares:
Yet in the same post, he reveals:Cantabridgian wrote:As a law school and as a resource neither Yale nor Stanford can touch [Harvard].
Notice how, as we go up the law school prestige ladder, Cantabridgian's results go from acceptances to being waitlisted to being flat-out rejected. Funny how Yale, a school he alleges can't even "touch" Harvard, could afford to turn up its nose at him, when Harvard was willing to at least keep him in reserve.Cantabridgian wrote:UCLA and Boalt Hall accepted me. Harvard put me on the waiting list. Yale Law School told me not to bother.
Also funny? On the one hand, Cantabridgian extols the superior quality of Harvard's litigation training. On the other hand, he himself is hardly a shining example of logical reasoning:
Obviously, since we don't agree with him, we must be 0Ls. Brilliant deduction. If I had to choose between Cantabridgian and Kobach to represent me, it'd be a really tough choice.Cantabridgian wrote:I guess all you 0Ls are just smarter than me. I bow to your experience and judgment.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login