GW vs. Hastings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Jumanji
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:25 pm

GW vs. Hastings

Postby Jumanji » Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:46 pm

Interested in the general consensus from other soon-to-be or current law students. The dust has not completely settled on the admission cycle, but it looks like the two schools I will really be considering are Hastings and GW. Both schools are sticker, but I'm a CA resident bringing the price of Hastings down. For full disclosure, I'm in a fortunate position where the cost is not my primary concern. So, here are the variables:

-Family and girlfriend are in San Francisco (actually enjoy all of them :) )
-I ultimately want to end up in CA, preferably the Bay Area
-I live in San Francisco and love it here
-I'm interested in international human rights law and it seems like D.C. would really help in that pursuit
-I've always been interested in obtaining a dual JD/MBA, an option that is most likely off the table at Hastings

Any thoughts would be incredibly appreciated. Does GW's access to the D.C. resources outweigh the obvious benefits Hastings provides given my circumstances.

Thanks all.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby FuManChusco » Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:47 pm

You want to be in cali. Go to hastings. Although, sticker might not be the smartest idea.

Also, international human rights law is basically a running joke on TLS and a JD/MBA is virtually useless. Does that make your decision easier?
Last edited by FuManChusco on Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby fatduck » Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:48 pm

If you want to work in CA, and your gf and family are in CA, I think Hastings is a no-brainer. I would also re-think the necessity of a JD/MBA, in general.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby 20160810 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:10 pm

I made a very similar choice (UCD over GW) due to wanting to be in CA. It comes down ENTIRELY to geography.

Jumanji
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:25 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby Jumanji » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:40 pm

You've shattered my dreams of crusading in Sudan while setting up a small non-profit with the skills I learned from my MBA. All kidding aside, thanks for the responses. Was leaning heavily towards Hastings, but it's always nice to have a bit of confirmation.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby bk1 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:48 pm

You want to be in CA so there is no question it is Hastings. This is especially nice that your cost is being covered considering either of these at sticker are absurdly risky.

User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby patrickd139 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:00 pm

bk1 wrote:You want to be in CA so there is no question it is Hastings.

+1. Add my username to the "Hastings" list.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11746
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby ilovesf » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:03 pm

I also say Hastings (hello future classmate!).

User avatar
sanetruth
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:26 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby sanetruth » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:22 pm

FuManChusco wrote: a JD/MBA is virtually useless. Does that make your decision easier?

I don't understand why everyone says JD/MBAs are useless. Sure, for some tracks it is unnecessary, but for others it can be really valuable. Especially if you ever hope to move in house. Not to mention that a lot of Biglaw gives hiring bonuses to graduates with JD/MBAs. So they obviously don't think it's useless. But I guess TLS knows better.

Sorry to derail the thread.

User avatar
FalafelWaffle
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:07 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby FalafelWaffle » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:40 pm

sanetruth wrote:
FuManChusco wrote: a JD/MBA is virtually useless. Does that make your decision easier?

I don't understand why everyone says JD/MBAs are useless. Sure, for some tracks it is unnecessary, but for others it can be really valuable. Especially if you ever hope to move in house. Not to mention that a lot of Biglaw gives hiring bonuses to graduates with JD/MBAs. So they obviously don't think it's useless. But I guess TLS knows better.

Sorry to derail the thread.


A guy in my frat did a JD/MBA at Chicago. For him it's probably great, otherwise a lot of extra time and money.

User avatar
sanetruth
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:26 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby sanetruth » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:42 pm

FalafelWaffle wrote:
sanetruth wrote:
FuManChusco wrote: a JD/MBA is virtually useless. Does that make your decision easier?

I don't understand why everyone says JD/MBAs are useless. Sure, for some tracks it is unnecessary, but for others it can be really valuable. Especially if you ever hope to move in house. Not to mention that a lot of Biglaw gives hiring bonuses to graduates with JD/MBAs. So they obviously don't think it's useless. But I guess TLS knows better.

Sorry to derail the thread.


A guy in my frat did a JD/MBA at Chicago. For him it's probably great, otherwise a lot of extra time and money.


You're right. For the guy in your frat: great idea. OTHERWISE (i.e. everyone else), not so much.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby FuManChusco » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:46 pm

FalafelWaffle wrote:
sanetruth wrote:
FuManChusco wrote: a JD/MBA is virtually useless. Does that make your decision easier?

I don't understand why everyone says JD/MBAs are useless. Sure, for some tracks it is unnecessary, but for others it can be really valuable. Especially if you ever hope to move in house. Not to mention that a lot of Biglaw gives hiring bonuses to graduates with JD/MBAs. So they obviously don't think it's useless. But I guess TLS knows better.

Sorry to derail the thread.


A guy in my frat did a JD/MBA at Chicago. For him it's probably great, otherwise a lot of extra time and money.


This. Plus, supposedly if you don't go into law right away, people in the field can become wary of the MBA tag and getting hired becomes even more difficult than it already was. There are certainly schools where a JD/MBA might look nice (the very top schools). A JD or MBA from these programs will look just as good though.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby 20160810 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:53 pm

I am taking finance classes through the b school right now, though not pursuing a JD/MBA. I think investing $100,000 in another terminal degree probably isn't worth it for most people, but having knowledge of finance and accounting is incredibly valuable for lawyers.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby FuManChusco » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:57 pm

SBL wrote:I am taking finance classes through the b school right now, though not pursuing a JD/MBA. I think investing $100,000 in another terminal degree probably isn't worth it for most people, but having knowledge of finance and accounting is incredibly valuable for lawyers.


I couldn't agree more. Are you able to take the classes for free?

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby 20160810 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:03 pm

FuManChusco wrote:
SBL wrote:I am taking finance classes through the b school right now, though not pursuing a JD/MBA. I think investing $100,000 in another terminal degree probably isn't worth it for most people, but having knowledge of finance and accounting is incredibly valuable for lawyers.


I couldn't agree more. Are you able to take the classes for free?

They are cross-listed with the law school so it works just like taking a law class.

User avatar
FalafelWaffle
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:07 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby FalafelWaffle » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:59 pm

FuManChusco wrote:
FalafelWaffle wrote:
sanetruth wrote:
FuManChusco wrote: a JD/MBA is virtually useless. Does that make your decision easier?

I don't understand why everyone says JD/MBAs are useless. Sure, for some tracks it is unnecessary, but for others it can be really valuable. Especially if you ever hope to move in house. Not to mention that a lot of Biglaw gives hiring bonuses to graduates with JD/MBAs. So they obviously don't think it's useless. But I guess TLS knows better.

Sorry to derail the thread.


A guy in my frat did a JD/MBA at Chicago. For him it's probably great, otherwise a lot of extra time and money.


This. Plus, supposedly if you don't go into law right away, people in the field can become wary of the MBA tag and getting hired becomes even more difficult than it already was. There are certainly schools where a JD/MBA might look nice (the very top schools). A JD or MBA from these programs will look just as good though.


I think the general idea is show dedication to a narrowized field instead of a throw everything against the wall and see what sticks resume approach, kind of like LS's being suspicious about people from academia applying. A guy I externed with at Citi (through an alumni program) went back and got his MBA after his JD and had no problem finding work with his experience, but I feel like MBA to JD or same time might be more difficult. If you're deadset on business the extra 2 years of schools isn't going to do you as much good. If you're interested in finance/management, from what little I've seen of law firms I think you'd be disappointed. And if you're in house all that shit is contracted out anyway. I'm an overachiever myself, I completely understand the desire to "collect" degrees but...it's an expensive compulsion.

ryanp1000
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:38 am

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby ryanp1000 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:06 am

I am facing the same exact dilemma right now (GW vs. Hastings, wanting to ultimately be in California, fortunate enough to have money covered by the rents) and here is what it comes down to me.


1. Jobs: GW undoubtedly has more potential to land a good job over Hastings. 25% of GW's most recent is now working in the top 250 firms, while only 15% of Hastings class is. I am assuming, but not necessarily sure, that a school with higher biglaw placement would also lead to more placement in mid-small sized firms. Problem is most of this placement is on the East Coast, not in Cali. I would imagine it wouldn't be unreasonable to work a few years in Biglaw in the east and then lateral over to a firm in CA (you'd have to take the bar again in CA, but that hopefully wouldn't be too much trouble)

2. Living in CA- The reputation/rankings difference between Hastings and GW is great enough to make me think that a GW degree would hold about the same weight in CA's job market as a Hasting's degree. So if worst comes to worst and you end up hating DC/East Coast, you would be in the same situation here in CA as if you went to Hastings because the 2 schools would hold the same weight in getting a job out here in Cali. Again, if you are willing to wait it out a few years after law school, maybe working at a big law firm that you get on the east coast because of GW would make the West Coast more doable.

3. Transferring- I don't know if this was your intention at all and may not be mine either, but you never know... Being at the top of your class at GW vs. Hastings is going to open up more opportunities for the t14 (except for maybe Berkeley, Hastings transfers over a decent amount of students to there). Since GW is a higher ranking school with more connections to the t14 it would give you a better shot at getting into those top schools.


Anyways, I haven't visited either school yet and really haven't made up my mind, but my gut is to go with GW. But this is my thought process right now. I'd appreciate if anyone could give me their thoughts on what I've said and whether I am being misguided or not.

BlueDiamond
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby BlueDiamond » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:07 am

GW rejected me.. go to Hastings

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby bk1 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:52 pm

ryanp1000 wrote:Anyways, I haven't visited either school yet and really haven't made up my mind, but my gut is to go with GW. But this is my thought process right now. I'd appreciate if anyone could give me their thoughts on what I've said and whether I am being misguided or not.


You are misguided. The thing is, would your thought process on GW vs Hastings be different if it were GW vs Davis?

You seem to be rankings-whoring like there is no tomorrow and the only actual evidence that really differentiates these two that you posted is the 15% vs 25% 2010NLJ numbers. GW definitely will make it harder to find a job in CA versus Hastings. Your conjecture on transferring is exactly that, conjecture and nothing more.

At equal cost, GW is the better school. However, the difference isn't very large and if you want to work in CA the obvious answer is to go to Hastings.

ryanp1000
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:38 am

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby ryanp1000 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:30 pm

bk1 wrote:
ryanp1000 wrote:Anyways, I haven't visited either school yet and really haven't made up my mind, but my gut is to go with GW. But this is my thought process right now. I'd appreciate if anyone could give me their thoughts on what I've said and whether I am being misguided or not.


You are misguided. The thing is, would your thought process on GW vs Hastings be different if it were GW vs Davis?

You seem to be rankings-whoring like there is no tomorrow and the only actual evidence that really differentiates these two that you posted is the 15% vs 25% 2010NLJ numbers. GW definitely will make it harder to find a job in CA versus Hastings. Your conjecture on transferring is exactly that, conjecture and nothing more.

At equal cost, GW is the better school. However, the difference isn't very large and if you want to work in CA the obvious answer is to go to Hastings.



I am still waiting to hear back from Davis, but I keep hearing that Hastings and Davis are viewed as about equals in terms of reputation, so I don't think my thought process would be that different although I know Davis ranked like 28 right now while Hastings is 42.

I think my conjecture about transferring, although without much evidence, is reasonable. You claim I am ranking whoring, which I am to a certain extent, but when a school like GW has been consistently ranked higher than Hastings and Davis for who knows how many years, I am sure the top schools are going to be more likely to accept a GW top student vs. a Hastings top student.


On this thread I keep seeing that if you want to work in CA, Hastings would be the way to go, but why? I don't see any stats or anything to counter the notion that the higher prestige level of GW would count for something and at the least put GW on the same playing field as Hastings or Davis.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby bk1 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:39 pm

ryanp1000 wrote:I am still waiting to hear back from Davis, but I keep hearing that Hastings and Davis are viewed as about equals in terms of reputation, so I don't think my thought process would be that different although I know Davis ranked like 28 right now while Hastings is 42.

I think my conjecture about transferring, although without much evidence, is reasonable. You claim I am ranking whoring, which I am to a certain extent, but when a school like GW has been consistently ranked higher than Hastings and Davis for who knows how many years, I am sure the top schools are going to be more likely to accept a GW top student vs. a Hastings top student.


On this thread I keep seeing that if you want to work in CA, Hastings would be the way to go, but why? I don't see any stats or anything to counter the notion that the higher prestige level of GW would count for something and at the least put GW on the same playing field as Hastings or Davis.


You realize that GW was ranked the same rank last year that Davis is ranked this year?

The thing is in CA you have several things making Hastings > GW:

1. Hastings alums. They would most likely hire a Hastings grad over a GW grad.

2. More name recognition. GW might be more known nationally but in CA, especially the Bay Area, I'd expect Hastings to have the bigger name reputation.

3. Prestige is in the eye of the beholder which goes back to my last point. Schools are looked at with differing levels of prestige based on who is looking. In CA, Hastings is going to have more prestige. In DC, GW is going to have more prestige. Everywhere else I'd probably give GW the edge but why are you going to one of these schools to work somewhere other than CA or DC?

4. I'd expect Stanford or Berkeley to take a Hastings student over a GW student at equal class rank and I'd expect GULC/UVa/Duke to take a GW student over a Hastings student at equal class rank.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11746
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby ilovesf » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:49 pm

ryanp1000 wrote:I think my conjecture about transferring, although without much evidence, is reasonable. You claim I am ranking whoring, which I am to a certain extent, but when a school like GW has been consistently ranked higher than Hastings and Davis for who knows how many years, I am sure the top schools are going to be more likely to accept a GW top student vs. a Hastings top student.

On this thread I keep seeing that if you want to work in CA, Hastings would be the way to go, but why? I don't see any stats or anything to counter the notion that the higher prestige level of GW would count for something and at the least put GW on the same playing field as Hastings or Davis.


Going into school thinking of transferring is a pretty awful idea. To transfer to a much better school, you have to be top 10%. Even if you think "oh, I got into better schools, this one should be easy," a lot of people go to schools because of significant scholarships they received. Going to a school because you have a better chance of transferring to a higher ranked school is just crazy to me. There is no way you can guarantee a high level of success in law school, even if you study your ass off (because everyone else will be too).

Hastings is the way to go if you want to stay in CA because you'll develop longterm meaningful contacts while you're in school through your professors, your summer gigs, Hastings alums are more likely to hire other Hastings alums, etc. Connections and having ties to a place can significantly help you get a job, and other people looking for jobs who stayed in the bay area will certainly have an advantage over you.

Finally, on rankings - they change every year. They may matter to some degree, but if they are only a couple of spots away from each other, it isn't as if one school is dramatically better than the other.

User avatar
FalafelWaffle
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:07 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby FalafelWaffle » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:57 pm

bk1 wrote:I'd expect Stanford or Berkeley to take a Hastings student over a GW student at equal class rank and I'd expect GULC/UVa/Duke to take a GW student over a Hastings student at equal class rank.


Groundless claim, makes no sense. I don't see how proximity to a region would have any bearing on transfer. Between a top 10% Hastings and top 10% GW transfer, the GW student would likely have the edge (all else being equal) due to the better national reputation, but it makes no sense to say that Stanford would take the Hastings student because it's a California school. Your reasoning in this case, particularly in light of your otherwise lucid reasoning, boggles my mind.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby bk1 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:17 pm

FalafelWaffle wrote:
bk1 wrote:I'd expect Stanford or Berkeley to take a Hastings student over a GW student at equal class rank and I'd expect GULC/UVa/Duke to take a GW student over a Hastings student at equal class rank.


Groundless claim, makes no sense. I don't see how proximity to a region would have any bearing on transfer. Between a top 10% Hastings and top 10% GW transfer, the GW student would likely have the edge (all else being equal) due to the better national reputation, but it makes no sense to say that Stanford would take the Hastings student because it's a California school. Your reasoning in this case, particularly in light of your otherwise lucid reasoning, boggles my mind.


I am only speaking of what others have said but transfer students have noticed that top schools like to cherrypick the best students from the lower schools in the same area.

I have no proof of this other than what people on the TLS transfer forum have said. People have given reasons such as undermining the competition, but who knows.

User avatar
tea_drinker
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:44 am

Re: GW vs. Hastings

Postby tea_drinker » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:31 pm

Jumanji wrote:
-Family and girlfriend are in San Francisco (actually enjoy all of them :) ) +1 for Hastings
-I ultimately want to end up in CA, preferably the Bay Area +1 for Hastings
-I live in San Francisco and love it here +1 for Hastings
-I'm interested in international human rights law and it seems like D.C. would really help in that pursuit +1 for GW
-I've always been interested in obtaining a dual JD/MBA, an option that is most likely off the table at Hastings (You can do a joint degree at Hass)

Does GW's access to the D.C. resources outweigh the obvious benefits Hastings provides given my circumstances.
Final Score Hastings:3 - GW: 1. Welcome to Hastings!





Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DoYouEvenTLS, MarkinKansasCity, SunDevil14 and 4 guests