Top Law Schools

.

Frankly, having a bunch of grad degrees just makes you look indecisive and insecure. Law firms want good lawyers, not social scientists. Plus, spending that much time in school really isn't practical or necessary. It's way overkill.

Anyways, I would go to NU with no debt. It isn't going to lock you out of academia, and I'm sure it will reach to Boston.

I like NU with no debt, though I might consider CCN based purely on the fact that the NU program is 6 years.

.

Oh, that changes things a little bit. Frankly, I don't know enough about the Boston legal market to give you any really helpful advice, but I think having no debt helps a lot. If you strike out in Boston for some reason, it won't be a tragedy. You'll be in a position to build your resume and try again.

.

Balliol2012 wrote:Do people think that the PhD is a NEGATIVE, or just irrelevant for a firm job?

I can't attest to this, but shouldn't the 3 year of lost income factor into this as well for the PhD (even though it is technically free)?

Balliol2012 wrote:So you think that i would be able to land a firm job in boston with a JD/PhD from N.U if I was near median? sounds optimistic.

Yea, you're right that too many grad degrees is no good - I'm aware of that. The plus side is that I only spent 2 years in college. So I got the first two master's degrees plus my b.a within the normal undergrad time frame.

No. Median NU will likely not get you Boston Biglaw. There are outlies, but without solid connections you won't have a shot.

.

.

.

Balliol2012 wrote:Is Boston Biglaw less/more competetive than other cities like NY, Chicago, Philly, DC, LA, SF? I really don't know much about the biglaw scene.

More than NY, likely less than DC, Chicago. Its not like Boston firms are more prestigious, its just that their summer classes are generally very small and you have BC/BU swallowing up a lot of the positions.

Balliol2012 wrote: but I could never universalize that maxim, and so it would be the wrong thing to do!

lol, so your BA is in Philosophy?

Anyway, how did you get the full ride from NU? Do you have good LS #s, or were you just super competitive for the PhD program?

.

.

.

If you don't do well enough at NU to get Boston biglaw, you probably wouldn't do well enough at CCN to get it either, though there is a bit more room for error obviously (as well as perhaps a more competive class)

If you don't mind 6 years I would definitely do NU.
If you feel like the PhD would hurt you, do you even have to list it on your applications to firms?

I would think the answer that it provided you with a free education would be enough to satisfy the law firms curiosity anyways.

PhD is irrelevant for both legal academia and firm jobs.

Isn't there some kind of academia requirement if you do the JD/PHD?

Renzo wrote:PhD is irrelevant for both legal academia and firm jobs.

Wrong. I am interested in legal academia too and have done some research on it. The OCS here has recently created a new position that caters solely to students who want legal academia. Last week we had a rather comprehensive seminar on the subject and based on all the research and data presented there, almost all of the new tenure track hires here either have work experience or a Ph.D. The guy said those are the two best bets to get jobs in legal academia in the top 10 schools, followed distantly by people with just a JD+ clerkship+ published material. He specifically mentioned that a Ph.D. used to be icing on the cake but has become more and more important in the past 6-7 years or so.

.

.

Balliol2012 wrote:

Hattori Hanzo wrote:

Renzo wrote:PhD is irrelevant for both legal academia and firm jobs.

Wrong. I am interested in legal academia too and have done some research on it. The OCS here has recently created a new position that caters solely to students who want legal academia. Last week we had a rather comprehensive seminar on the subject and based on all the research and data presented there, almost all of the new tenure track hires here either have work experience or a Ph.D. The guy said those are the two best bets to get jobs in legal academia in the top 10 schools, followed distantly by people with just a JD+ clerkship+ published material. He specifically mentioned that a Ph.D. used to be icing on the cake but has become more and more important in the past 6-7 years or so.

Exactly. And for some specialties, there is absolutely no way you are getting hired without the relevant PhD. Example: jurisprudence teaching positions require a PhD in philosophy.

One of you academic-oriented types do some research: pick a law school at random, go through the faculty bios, and count the proportion of professors with PhD's. I bet it's in the single digits. Browsing the professors at NYU who I know have joined the faculty in the past 5 years turned up zero PhDs.

And the idea that teaching jurisprudence "requires" a PhD would surprise this lady, this guy, this guy... I'll grant that in that narrow field, a PhD is a much bigger deal than in general legal academia, but lets not overstate things.

Balliol2012 wrote:

Hattori Hanzo wrote:

Renzo wrote:PhD is irrelevant for both legal academia and firm jobs.

Wrong. I am interested in legal academia too and have done some research on it. The OCS here has recently created a new position that caters solely to students who want legal academia. Last week we had a rather comprehensive seminar on the subject and based on all the research and data presented there, almost all of the new tenure track hires here either have work experience or a Ph.D. The guy said those are the two best bets to get jobs in legal academia in the top 10 schools, followed distantly by people with just a JD+ clerkship+ published material. He specifically mentioned that a Ph.D. used to be icing on the cake but has become more and more important in the past 6-7 years or so.

Exactly. And for some specialties, there is absolutely no way you are getting hired without the relevant PhD. Example: jurisprudence teaching positions require a PhD in philosophy.

Jurisprudence does not require a PHD. Examples - Frederick Schauer, AE Dick Howard.

Renzo wrote:

Balliol2012 wrote:

Hattori Hanzo wrote:

Renzo wrote:PhD is irrelevant for both legal academia and firm jobs.

Wrong. I am interested in legal academia too and have done some research on it. The OCS here has recently created a new position that caters solely to students who want legal academia. Last week we had a rather comprehensive seminar on the subject and based on all the research and data presented there, almost all of the new tenure track hires here either have work experience or a Ph.D. The guy said those are the two best bets to get jobs in legal academia in the top 10 schools, followed distantly by people with just a JD+ clerkship+ published material. He specifically mentioned that a Ph.D. used to be icing on the cake but has become more and more important in the past 6-7 years or so.

Exactly. And for some specialties, there is absolutely no way you are getting hired without the relevant PhD. Example: jurisprudence teaching positions require a PhD in philosophy.

One of you academic-oriented types do some research: pick a law school at random, go through the faculty bios, and count the proportion of professors with PhD's. I bet it's in the single digits. Browsing the professors at NYU who I know have joined the faculty in the past 5 years turned up zero PhDs.

And the idea that teaching jurisprudence "requires" a PhD would surprise this lady, this guy, this guy... I'll grant that in that narrow field, a PhD is a much bigger deal than in general legal academia, but lets not overstate things.

As I mentioned, what I said applies to the new trend of hiring. I looked up HLS faculty directory and of the 22 professors and assistant professors who had their first appointment @ HLS in the past 10 years, 10 have Ph.Ds and IIRC 2 have SJDs. Faculty directory is here if anyone wants to take a look: --LinkRemoved--

I did it while in class so feel free to verify the info.