<p>katliamom-
Great story!! I stayed with a bunch of guys at the Harold Parmington Foundation at Dartmouth in the early/mid 70’s ( it was a former frat house that lost its charter). What a wild place!! Ironically I believe it was an AEPI frat before, not the Frat that Animal House was written about.</p>
<p>As an aside, heres a way to address 2 issues at once-- Here’s a snipit abut a fellow who turned down Stanford, Dartmouth and Penn for a special scholarship at UGA (Puente’s father is a clinical neuropsychologist.)
<p>And some of the Italian universities are truly crappy. I know several academics who could not wait to leave Italy because Italian universities not only were dreadful in the areas they were interested in, but were apparently dens of corruption."</p>
<p>Absolutely. But it doesn’t matter. If you are from that region, you go.</p>
<p>Garland: Didn’t Tarhunt quit after he/she got mad because he thought his rational points regarding the absolute quality differences that might be indicated by stats, etc were being ignored?</p>
<p>I agree that we are kind of stuck. Those who believe that you can rank and those who can’t. Those who believe a certain group of schools merit a certain value and those that think the differences are not so clear,those who struggle to pay, those who do not and everyone in between. But most people believe, it seems ,whatever they did and their kids did or will do is the right choice. That is cool. Lot’s of stories, some very inspiring. I have learend that there are more options for getting merit money at colleges than I had thought a few years agoand that a lot of folks 40 days out from D-day are in the same siutaion as we are, trying to decide what is best for the kid.
I think it was Dstark that put he whole thing in perspective though when he posted that as important as the college decision is, it is only 4 years and as my former student says" remember it is the beginning not the end of learning." Maybe we do let the 5% of life outweigh the other 95%.</p>
<p>The most helpful for me has been the actual war stories from those who have been through it; how they made their decisions and how it has worked out.
And please stop picking on SDSU or I’m going to get mad and leave! lol
but seriously, can’t we just say “Podunk U”??!! :)</p>
<p>Whew! The political threads (where I never go, but so I’ve heard ) have nothing on us. When I peek into them, there is so much beating up on each other. And so many closed minds… I just never see the appeal.</p>
<p>I know what you mean, sort of, garland. I don’t know if anyone is actually changing his or her mind here. But I do think that several people are honestly enjoying seeing how others see the issue, how it looks from different vantage points. There have been some slings and some arrows. But the preponderance of the thread has been fascinating to a lot of us, I gather.</p>
<p><em>and as close to those political slugfests as I ever care to go</em></p>
<p>Does anyone every really change his or her mind here? We write and read because it’s fun. And because we’re losers with no lives. </p>
<p>jym626, for some reason I always thought of Dartmouth as a more conservative, he-man, waspy type place whose graduates went on to run insurance companies and tobacco interests. But now that I know of the Animal House connection – it’s really gone up in my esteem! :)</p>
<p>In response to jmmom’s inquiry about Kirmum’s “we don’t hire from there” statement. I don’t have a clue as to what firm Kirmum works for or where it hires from, but for any parents concerned about the future prospects of law-school bound students, I can assure you that there are plenty of other firms that will hire from wherever it is that Kirmum’s firm won’t. </p>
<p>Any graduate of the more selective in-state public law schools for any given state will have no problem whatsoever getting interviews and jobs in their state. In some cases it will be an advantage – the network of grads from the state public law schools is just bigger than the network of grads from out-of-state schools. This may also apply to many in-state privates – I think that here in Northern California, the network of grads from USF and Santa Clara is pretty significant and influential. </p>
<p>I honestly think Kirmum’s post is a case of tunnel vision and cognitive dissonance. She went to an elite law school; interviewed at a firm that likes to hire from her school; and her career trajectory from there was based on that history. So, sitting in her office it looks like the elite path was pretty good, especially when she knows her firm won’t consider hiring anyone from university X. We don’t know what university X was, but for example let’s assume that the Kirmum firm only hires from Harvard and Yale, and the applicant just graduated from Fordham Law. So to Kirmum’s eyes, there’s nothing she can do to help the poor Fordham grad… and perhaps Kirmum assumes that the applicant’s only options will be to hope to get hired over at legal aid. </p>
<p>Now my guess is that the Fordham law grad has the benefit of an east coast network every bit as good as the USF/Santa Clara network that gets people jobs in San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Many big firms, good jobs, good starting salaries… but maybe not the same firms as the ones that favor Harvard or Yale of Stanford. </p>
<p>I graduated from Cal, and there were some firms that seemed to hire almost exclusively from Cal… – meaning they weren’t going to hire people from Stanford. It had more to do with historic Cal/Stanford rivalry and school loyalty than any perception about the quality of the school. </p>
<p>Also, 7 years out of law school it doesn’t matter any more – the law school only matters for the first job. The majority of the new associates that Kirmum’s firm hires will wash out or quit before they ever make partner, and will be off to a secondary employment market of lateral hires. And in that world, track record and performance counts for everything.</p>
<p>calmom, one of my roommates in college (cal grad here too) went to Stanford for undergraduate and to Cal for grad school. When she interviewed at a major SF company, her prospective boss remarked “I see your taste in schools is improving.” Yes, it’s more about school rivalries and no, a degree from one school vs another is neither a death sentence nor the guarantee of lifetime of secure & lucrative employment.</p>
<p>Calmom, I don’t at all think everyone who didn’t go to a top 5 law school works for legal aid. Give me a little credit. These days, most of the high end, highest paying corporate law firms are international, not regional. With few exceptions this type of firm rarely hires outside of a few top law schools. This is a very small percentage of all lawyers.</p>
<p>Law firms are ranked much in the same way colleges are and new grads compete in the same way for the few jobs at these firms. Yup, it’s just as insane.</p>
<p>Little ole me is not going to change this practice anytime soon.</p>
<p>Oh this thread gets more entertaining-- I just found some newbie (“chipper”) telling Marite that she doesn’t know how something at Harvard works. Thats PRICELESS!</p>
<p>and wecandothis ;)</p>
<p>I would really like someone to highlight the posts that you or Garland or Katliamom said were truly helpful in making this decision. I found the initial topic of this thread intruiging, as this is a tough decision, and I am truly interested in some helpful information. I just cant wade through the thread to separate the wheat from the chaff. And when I started to read a few posts, they were full of inaccurate information about some slightly off-topic stuff. So, if there is useful info here, please, point me to it. (Sorry about folks picking on SDSU-- how about using Bullwinkle J. Moose’s alma mater, Whatsa Matta U, as the example of a “podunk” school?)</p>
<p>As for whoever said a kid in a top tier vs lower school is still the same kid, just in a different environment, I have to disagree. If we don’t think that the academic institution or environment has any efferct on our kids over 4 years, then sheesh, it really doesnt matter where we send them. I feel my undergrad college shaped a lot of who I am, how I think, and where I ended up. IMO it was money well spent… which is why I struggle with this issue with my s’s.
So please, can someone post a “thread highlights”?</p>
<p>calmom- I respectfully disagree. My law school has continued to open doors for me throughout my career. It has helped me get my last three jobs, and I have been practicing for 30 years. I have always practiced in-house, so maybe it is different with firms, but I know my “prestigious” degree has served me really well, which I think is hilarious, since when I came out of the place I couldn’t even find the courthouse! (Chicago- for those of you who don’t know already)</p>
<p>I will also add that there are too many lawyers, and you better be close to the top of the class if you want a decent job UNLESS you are at a well-recognized school.</p>
<p>well, I talked about my s on page 10. PSU vs. Swarthmore, Cornell, Duke.
I know many people here think this is insane but it’s working for him. We could have paid but it would have hurt and we do have 2 kids.</p>
<p>But Kirmum, you are also “ranking” law firms in the same way that people are “ranking” schools – probably using starting salaries in the same way that people use SATs. So it may be very true that the highest starting salaries are over at the firms that hire only from Ivies… but that’s kind of silly in a world where the starting salaries at big firms that hire from Fordham are damn high. </p>
<p>And going for the highest <em>starting</em> salary is not always the best long-term employment plan – because the opportunities for advancement may be much better at a “lower” paying firm. (I put “lower” in quotes because any large firm, private sector firm is going to be paying a salary that will be quite attractive to a 25-year-old getting their first real job as they come out of law school). </p>
<p>Many law school grads are going to opt for lower-paying public sector jobs, in part because if they are motivated more by a sense of power or influence of working for the public good than money, they will know that a position in the D.A.'s or US Attorney’s office may offer better long term prospects, even though salaries are much lower. </p>
<p>It’s also important to keep in mind that those big corporate law firms have ridiculously insane expectations as to hours for new associates; it’s not a job for someone who places high value on their leisure or family time. (I should have added “burn out” to my short list of reasons most will never make partner). </p>
<p>So if we had a new law-job ranking system that added “quality of life” and “prospects for advancement” to the list, there might be a very different view as to what is at the “top”.</p>
<p>Thank you for telling me how Harvard operates. And thanks to jym for bringing this post to my attention. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.</p>
<p>Now if billionnaires and millionnaires were to “gift” the amount of tuition their kids would otherwise pay, they would get a nice tax deduction since this would be considered a charitable contribution. Right now, they’re paying full fare out of after-tax income. But anything to make the rich richer…</p>
) have nothing on us. When I peek into them, there is so much beating up on each other. And so many closed minds… I just never see the appeal.</p>