The Truth About Yale

[slsorhls]

Fenwick & West
--LinkRemoved--

Anyone notice a school missing from their list? I wouldn't be surprised if other firms like Fenwick & West also skip Yale. I honestly think this one example is enough to debunk the "every employer in the nation will do whatever it takes to hire any Yale graduate" argument.

Sure, they probably accept resumes, and they'll consider them. But if they really cared about getting Yale grads, they would visit. It's that simple.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that any firm anyone can think of visits Harvard. That's the advantage of graduating a larger class with diverse interests (i.e. not narrowly focused on academia).

Anyone who wants to put forward a degree rarity argument here can forget about it, by the way. Listen, Fenwick & West has a ton more associates and partners from Stanford than Harvard and maybe anywhere else, I'm sure. But that's self-selection. They probably have barely anyone from Harvard, and that could work in someone's favor.

Assuming that firms care about having at least 1-2 people from each top law school (as many have suggested on TLS), the same degree rarity argument launched against Harvard could easily go against Stanford here. Why take Stanford applicant A when they already have more than enough Stanford grads. Why not take Harvard applicant A when they barely have anyone from Harvard?

I still haven't seen any real evidence the degree rarity thing truly matters, but it seems like it could go either way if it did.

I think in reality there might be a bias for partners to hire people from their own alma maters.

[kaiser]

Cool

[JusticeHarlan]

Cool

Story

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Cool

Story

Bro!

I did it!

[chiwachiwa]

Fenwick doesn't go to Yale because anyone at Yale has better biglaw options than Fenwick, so none of them go to Fenwick.

[rad lulz]

.

[071816]

I could probably find a bunch of random east coast firms that don't have any Stanford grads. But that would be just about as pointless as what you did here.

[bk1]

I wouldn't be surprised if other firms like Fenwick & West also skip Yale. I honestly think this one example is enough to debunk the "every employer in the nation will do whatever it takes to hire any Yale graduate" argument.

What do you mean "firms like Fenwick"? I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford had an edge over Yale at Fenwick or other SF/SV firms (all other things being equal). I don't think anybody would claim otherwise.

[bk1]

That firm hired Tucker Max, so I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in them.

[slsorhls]

I could probably find a bunch of random east coast firms that don't have any Stanford grads. But that would be just about as pointless as what you did here.

This is about where they choose to do OCI, not about whether they employ Yale grads. I checked and found only one associate from each of Yale and Harvard in their ranks. Their logic is probably simply about numbers. Harvard has a bigger pool, so they go there. This is one advantage of a larger school.

Fenwick doesn't go to Yale because anyone at Yale has better biglaw options than Fenwick, so none of them go to Fenwick.

I think they don't bother visiting because Yale has a small, narrowly focused set of graduates who aren't interested in Fenwick. In other words, I agree with you.

The point is that this goes against the widely heard refrain that Yale is the best for any employment options and anything in the universe, period. I'm beginning to think that if you want to go to a law school with the widest possible employment options (including outside of the more traditional routes), you may want to go to Harvard. If you are set on academia, you should go to Yale, of course. But I think a lot of people aren't set, and with Harvard you get opportunities across the board.

[071816]

I could probably find a bunch of random east coast firms that don't have any Stanford grads. But that would be just about as pointless as what you did here.

This is about where they choose to do OCI, not about whether they employ Yale grads. I checked and found only one associate from each of Yale and Harvard in their ranks. Their logic is probably simply about numbers. Harvard has a bigger pool, so they go there. This is one advantage of a larger school.

Fenwick doesn't go to Yale because anyone at Yale has better biglaw options than Fenwick, so none of them go to Fenwick.

I think they don't bother visiting because Yale has a small, narrowly focused set of graduates who aren't interested in Fenwick. In other words, I agree with you.

The point is that this goes against the widely heard refrain that Yale is the best for any employment options and anything in the universe, period. I'm beginning to think that if you want to go to a law school with the widest possible employment options (including outside of the more traditional routes), you may want to go to Harvard. If you are set on academia, you should go to Yale, of course. But I think a lot of people aren't set, and with Harvard you get opportunities across the board.

Well there are probably a lot of east coast firms that don't do OCI at Stanford. Still, it doesn't really mean anything. I don't even see what you're trying to accomplish with this thread. If a Yale person applied to this firm I'm sure they could get hired. The reason the firm doesn't do OCI at Yale is probably just because they don't think it's worth their time. Pretty much what chiwachiwa said.

[slsorhls]

What do you mean "firms like Fenwick"? I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford had an edge over Yale at Fenwick or other SF/SV firms (all other things being equal). I don't think anybody would claim otherwise.

I've seen a million times on TLS the refrain that Yale is best for anything, period. I guess you and I both disagree with that, then.

I think Stanford grads might have an edge because of hiring partners who went to SLS. Outsiders would have probably the much less powerful, potentially meaningless "degree rarity" advantage. Of course, grads from Harvard might also pick up some points because there are certainly HLS-educated partners at SF/SV firms. That's one of those barely mentioned advantages of a bigger school--alumni all over the place.

[chiwachiwa]

I could probably find a bunch of random east coast firms that don't have any Stanford grads. But that would be just about as pointless as what you did here.

This is about where they choose to do OCI, not about whether they employ Yale grads. I checked and found only one associate from each of Yale and Harvard in their ranks. Their logic is probably simply about numbers. Harvard has a bigger pool, so they go there. This is one advantage of a larger school.

Fenwick doesn't go to Yale because anyone at Yale has better biglaw options than Fenwick, so none of them go to Fenwick.

I think they don't bother visiting because Yale has a small, narrowly focused set of graduates who aren't interested in Fenwick. In other words, I agree with you.

The point is that this goes against the widely heard refrain that Yale is the best for any employment options and anything in the universe, period. I'm beginning to think that if you want to go to a law school with the widest possible employment options (including outside of the more traditional routes), you may want to go to Harvard. If you are set on academia, you should go to Yale, of course. But I think a lot of people aren't set, and with Harvard you get opportunities across the board.

My point is, Fenwick isn't "the best" at anything. Maybe if you want VC in CA, but you also have Wilson, etc., that will all recruit at Yale. And I'm pretty confident that if you resume drop your YLS resume at Fenwick, you're going to get a screener.

[slsorhls]

Well there are probably a lot of east coast firms that don't do OCI at Stanford. Still, it doesn't really mean anything. I don't even see what you're trying to accomplish with this thread. If a Yale person applied to this firm I'm sure they could get hired. The reason the firm doesn't do OCI at Yale is probably just because they don't think it's worth their time. Pretty much what chiwachiwa said.

A Yale person doesn't get the advantage of OCI. They will have to do more work to separately go after Fenwick outside of that. And they will also have to make a case for ties to the area, etc. It's just not going to be as easy as it is for someone who can do it through OCI.

[nkp007]

Fenwick & West
--LinkRemoved--

Anyone notice a school missing from their list? I wouldn't be surprised if other firms like Fenwick & West also skip Yale. I honestly think this one example is enough to debunk the "every employer in the nation will do whatever it takes to hire any Yale graduate" argument.

Sure, they probably accept resumes, and they'll consider them. But if they really cared about getting Yale grads, they would visit. It's that simple.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that any firm anyone can think of visits Harvard. That's the advantage of graduating a larger class with diverse interests (i.e. not narrowly focused on academia).

Anyone who wants to put forward a degree rarity argument here can forget about it, by the way. Listen, Fenwick & West has a ton more associates and partners from Stanford than Harvard and maybe anywhere else, I'm sure. But that's self-selection. They probably have barely anyone from Harvard, and that could work in someone's favor.

Assuming that firms care about having at least 1-2 people from each top law school (as many have suggested on TLS), the same degree rarity argument launched against Harvard could easily go against Stanford here. Why take Stanford applicant A when they already have more than enough Stanford grads. Why not take Harvard applicant A when they barely have anyone from Harvard?

I still haven't seen any real evidence the degree rarity thing truly matters, but it seems like it could go either way if it did.

I think in reality there might be a bias for partners to hire people from their own alma maters.

Retake.

[StarLightSpectre]

Cool

Story

Bro!

I did it!

I can't wait until I get to contribute to one of these!

[071816]

I don't even see what you're trying to accomplish with this thread.

[kaiser]

Cool

Story

Bro!

I did it!

I can't wait until I get to contribute to one of these!

I was about to respond with "cool" but then I realized that it will mean more if you earn it

[slsorhls]

My point is, Fenwick isn't "the best" at anything. Maybe if you want VC in CA, but you also have Wilson, etc., that will all recruit at Yale. And I'm pretty confident that if you resume drop your YLS resume at Fenwick, you're going to get a screener.

The difference between Stanford, Yale, and Harvard here is probably minimal. But the point is that the claim that Yale is the best for anything in the universe is an exaggeration. Obviously, things are more complicated.

If the typical TLS claim about Yale were true, Fenwick would do OCI at Yale. They would go to whatever lengths they could to get those stray 1-2 Yale grads. But the reality is that people know Yale is narrowly focused and small. So they don't spend much time (if any) making connections there or doing OCI, obviously.

So it's going to take more work and effort for a Yale grad to secure certain positions than it would for a Harvard grad, for instance. That's an advantage of a larger school, an advantage consistently overlooked on TLS.

This is most applicable, again, to someone who wants the widest possible employment opportunities (including outside of the mainstream tracks). That kind of person should not listen to nonsense TLS banter about Yale's superiority. The reality is more complex.

There are other points here as well, obviously. Yale has students who strike out at OCI. Yale has disenchanted, upset students. I could list a lot more. It isn't perfect in every category like TLS folks often suggest.

[Tiago Splitter]

I hope Paul Campos exposes this truth on his blog soon.

[bk1]

I know I always start threads about "The Truth" with a single piece of anecdotal evidence.

[Mal Reynolds]

In other news, Michael Jordan is no longer the best basketball player ever. He chose to go to UNC instead of Duke. The truth has been exposed.

[slsorhls]

I know I always start threads about "The Truth" with a single piece of anecdotal evidence.

Looks like you don't know the meaning of "anecdotal."

But it's all good. I think Yale gets way too much of a scot-free ride around here. I think the widely held assumption on TLS that Yale trumps everything is garbage. This is just one tiny piece of that.

All of my posts are about challenging the faulty, widely held assumptions on TLS.

[Tiago Splitter]

[JusticeHarlan]

I know I always start threads about "The Truth" with a single piece of anecdotal evidence.

Looks like you don't know the meaning of "anecdotal."

But it's all good. I think Yale gets way too much of a scot-free ride around here. I think the widely held assumption on TLS that Yale trumps everything is garbage. This is just one tiny piece of that.

All of my posts are about challenging the faulty, widely held assumptions on TLS.

Sorry you didn't get in to Yale, bro.