Top Law Schools

rayiner wrote:

TaipeiMort wrote:First, whoever said that law and economics has no business application is uninformed. If you are already at a good econ level (where you understand the microeconomics underlying price, marketing strategy, and finance, and the macroeconomics underlying the monetary and banking system), then law and econ at Chicago will add some significant elements to your business education when it comes to macro decision making, especially at leadership, policy, and strategy levels.

This is completely ridiculous. Finance in practice has almost nothing to do with theoretical economics. Its much more closely related to accounting, mixed in with market psychology.

I agree. But, understanding in practice the economics of time, risk, information, etc. on valuation of assets, and how to take this knowledge and thereafter apply multivariable calc (or run an excel function) to correctly price financial instruments and develop investment strategies is great contextual background to then go forward and study market policy and legal regulation. I mean, there are only so many people out there that have both the microeconomic practical knowledge, and the macroeconomic law and admin policy/monetary and banking, etc. combination. I am just pointing out that if you have good macro and micro knowledge as a base, there is a lot that law and econ has to add to your ability to succeed.

bjsesq wrote:ITT: retardmort makes his triumphant return and ignores math to make his points. Please feel free to go away again, Mort.

Math:

Employment: (HLS/Chicago, Numbers then Percentages)
Number of Unemployed: 19/4 (.032/.02)

"Law Firms": 349/138 (.59/.71)

Mean Salary: (119,685/122,796)

Clerkships: (20.1 percent versus 14.1 percent)
Finally something where Harvard has the advantage... wait, the suprising element of that calculation:
Percentage State TTT Clerkships versus A3 Clerkships (Non-prestigous wash-out clerkships versus Real) :

Harvard: 27-percent (32 People)
Chicago: 11-percent (3 People)

So, I guess it may effect the calculus that 32 people at Harvard are working clerkships that T3 and 4 regional kids gun for. I mean, you could argue some are in Delaware, but not many.

Finally, a TOTAL Washout number:
(Went for another Graduate Degree (not a dual degree like a JD/MBA, which isn't included in these numbers), Unemployed, State TTT Clerkships):

Harvard: (13+19+32)= 64 People Screwed, or Roughly 11 Percent of the class.

Chicago: (0+4+3)= 7, or 3.6 Percent of the Class.

To summarize, Harvard graduate 57 more screwed people that Chicago last year.

Also, don't even get me started on underemployed calculations.

Finally, current NLJ250 partners weighted by class size:
Chicago 195 426 2.184615385
Harvard 577 946 1.639514731

Explain the data dude. Math? Teach me some math. Going to Harvard makes getting a job a lot harder because it is huge and the bottom portion/awkward part of the class is screwed. Chicago's OCS and huge partner network is adept at taking the last few folks and getting them jobs.

Sources:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/employmentdata
http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/care ... index.html
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... where.html

Next up: Data on why Harvard's faculty is diluted and made up of young, unproven people, and Chicago's faculty is baller.

Disclaimer: I don't hate Harvard, it is a pimp, pimp school, I just don't like people who throw down based upon lay prestige instead of facts.

I don't go to either. But go to Harvard. The law and Econ focus is not what you think. When you are reading the economic analysis for a preliminary injunction you will know why it it is not applicable to the business world.

Plus there are law and econ folks at every law school in the U.S.

TaipeiMort wrote:Disclaimer: I don't hate Harvard, it is a pimp, pimp school, I just don't like people who throw down based upon lay prestige instead of facts.

You forgot one important number.

Number of Supreme Court Justices historically (current):

Harvard - 18 (6) or 17 (5) if you exclude Ginsburg
Chicago - 0 (0)

This is a totally silly analysis. Everyone knows that opportunities at Chicago and Harvard are different. In some areas Chicago will be better (7th Cir. COA Clerkships). However, opportunities at the top of Harvard's class will almost always be better than the same for Chicago. You can debate whether it's worse to be at the bottom of the class at Chicago or Harvard, but frankly that is a very small number of people who wound up there for one reason or another.

Disclaimer: going to UC next year.

But..isn't it pretty safe to say the top at Harvard does better than the top at UC, but that the data seems to suggest the bottom of Chicago does at least a little better than the bottom of Harvard? Seems like a simple and accurate conclusion to me. please correct me if I'm wrong...with data.

bdubs wrote:

TaipeiMort wrote:Disclaimer: I don't hate Harvard, it is a pimp, pimp school, I just don't like people who throw down based upon lay prestige instead of facts.

You forgot one important number.

Number of Supreme Court Justices historically (current):

Harvard - 18 (6) or 17 (5) if you exclude Ginsburg
Chicago - 0 (0)

This is a totally silly analysis. Everyone knows that opportunities at Chicago and Harvard are different. In some areas Chicago will be better (7th Cir. COA Clerkships). However, opportunities at the top of Harvard's class will almost always be better than the same for Chicago. You can debate whether it's worse to be at the bottom of the class at Chicago or Harvard, but frankly that is a very small number of people who wound up there for one reason or another.

I mean 60 people seems like a lot. I mean, if Chicago had 500 people in its class, they would probably have a harder job placing them like Harvard does. The numbers also seem to suggest that Harvard doesn't place as much outside of DC, Boston, and New York. I think this might be a self-selection to these markets combined with high competition and fewer people with West Coast and Midwest ties at Harvard. It is kind of like how most of the people who I know without biglaw at Chicago focused on Chicago exclusively and faced stiff competition.

I think it would be fair to state that Chicago is better for risk averse people who want biglaw (especially with scholarship), while Harvard is going to be great for those who end up at the top (options are better than anywhere at that point, including Yale).

TaipeiMort wrote:Chicago is better for risk averse people who want biglaw (especially with scholarship), while Harvard is going to be great for those who end up at the top (options are better than anywhere at that point, including Yale).

This is the only thing i will agree with you on. If someone gets a substantially larger amount of scholarship support from Chicago than they get in financial aid from Harvard, it is definitely worth going to Chicago.

Most of the other stuff is self selection. People at Harvard feel the way you do about Chicago, they think it's the best place in the f*cking world and think they deserve to get any job they want after graduation. I would imagine most don't really want to work in a secondary market or for a non-V100 firm, hence the preference for Boston, DC, and New York. Chicago students have a pretty strong preference for work in Chicago, but it doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities elsewhere.

If you want to see Chicago get creamed, put up a poll.

lsatcrazy wrote:If you want to see Chicago get creamed, put up a poll.

Yeah, probably, but that is part of the reason why Harvard's 10x more unemployed are in the situation they are.

Do not ignore the fact that you are in-love with Economics and you strongly believe that it will enhance your academic experience to study law and economics. Economics is my UG and I am totally in-love with it, also planning to incorporate it in my legal studies. Chicago is home to many great Law and Economic scholars, one of them is the renowned Nobel prize winner Ronald Coase, author of the "Coase Theorem," which is one of the foundations of the fields of law and economics and economics and public policy. To sit in his class would be gold. If academic satisfaction is important to you, then go with your heart and not with your pockets. Besides, with a focus on law and economics (and maybe a touch of International Law), you can work on various areas such as business, policy (i.e. government, federal reserve, etc.), and development (i.e. World Bank, IMF, UN, etc.).

sailormoon wrote:Chicago is home to many great Law and Economic scholars, one of them is the renowned Nobel prize winner Ronald Coase, author of the "Coase Theorem," which is one of the foundations of the fields of law and economics and economics and public policy. To sit in his class would be gold.

Coase is 101 years old, i'm pretty sure he's not regularly teaching classes.

MichelFoucault wrote:Would it be silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of Chi's focus on Law and Economics? My interests are much more aligned with business and finance, and I would really like to do a JD/MBA if accepted at the right place.

But after reading more about Chicago's leadership and emphasis on law and economics, I wonder if it would make sense for me to choose them over Harvard.

Can someone with a strong interest in finance and economics get their "fix" as easily at HLS?

Thoughts appreciated.

i know one guy who chose uchicago over harvard for that reason (and a hefty scholarship). He's still regretting it today

bdubs wrote:

sailormoon wrote:Chicago is home to many great Law and Economic scholars, one of them is the renowned Nobel prize winner Ronald Coase, author of the "Coase Theorem," which is one of the foundations of the fields of law and economics and economics and public policy. To sit in his class would be gold.

Coase is 101 years old, i'm pretty sure he's not regularly teaching classes.

No, but he is still publishing and has an office in the law school, which is pretty cool.

Liquox wrote:

MichelFoucault wrote:Would it be silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of Chi's focus on Law and Economics? My interests are much more aligned with business and finance, and I would really like to do a JD/MBA if accepted at the right place.

But after reading more about Chicago's leadership and emphasis on law and economics, I wonder if it would make sense for me to choose them over Harvard.

Can someone with a strong interest in finance and economics get their "fix" as easily at HLS?

Thoughts appreciated.

i know one guy who chose uchicago over harvard for that reason (and a hefty scholarship). He's still regretting it today

Sweet anecdote. I have four friends who chose Chicago over Harvard (no/little money at either). Three out of the four are stoked about the decision in retrospect, I'm not sure about the fourth (he loved his education but got no offered by his firm). I also have a buddy who transfered out to Stanford, but that was more because he hated his wife being degraded by rude poor people who yell crazy crap at you, and having to worry about walking around at night.

As a 0L I definitely can't tell you to pick Harvard or UChicago, but I would just like to warn you that the University of Chicago economics department is not what it once was. Don't get me wrong, it's still up there (Levitt/Posner/Myerson), but Friedman/Coase/Stigler/Scholes/Becker/Fama/Sowell etc etc. are all old or gone. You probably already know that as an econ major, but just a reminder. Also, you should find out if Harvard will let you take econ courses at MIT.

edited

..

acrossthelake wrote:TaipeiMort, you do realize your numbers are also going to become out of date, yeah? Hiring has picked up. A decent chunk of the Harvard 1L class got 1L summer associate positions. I know 1Ls heading off to the likes of SulCrom & Cravath. Our OCI is going to be a decently lot better than those numbers, and who knows how the strikeout ratios will figure for our class.

Anyway, the argument that you love law&econ so you'll do better in UChicago classes and therefore do better in hiring is fallacious since it's not going to affect your 1L courses that much. Civ Pro is Civ Pro. Even if they sprinkle on law & econ policy arguments, you still need to learn the same rules as everywhere else.

First, I think that this point is great. I would say that in a booming economy, the employment advantages that small schools like Yale, Chicago, or Stanford provide over big schools like Harvard, Columbia, and NYU, are somewhate negated. Nevertheless, I'd have to say that even in better years, Chicago's biglaw partner network and small class size makes getting great opportunities a little easier in places like mid-size places like San Diego, Denver, Dallas, Seattle, OC, Penn, St. Louis, Miami, etc. and boutique firms. For example, if Keker, Susman, and Bartlitt Beck only take one Chicago and one Harvard person each, coming from the small school reduces your competition for the spot. The problem for Harvard kids isn't their school, its their classmates.

Second, I never made the law and econ improves your grades argument. I would also agree that a passion for law and econ won't improve your first year GPA much. However, I think there is something to say for students that love the school and education they are receiving and are motivated to attend class and study. That is why people should choose the school within a tier that fits them best. I remember getting great grades in a couple of classes because I loved the law and econ twist put on Civ Pro and Contracts and was motivated to study.

..

lsatcrazy wrote:As a 0L I definitely can't tell you to pick Harvard or UChicago, but I would just like to warn you that the University of Chicago economics department is not what it once was. Don't get me wrong, it's still up there (Levitt/Posner/Myerson), but Friedman/Coase/Stigler/Scholes/Becker/Fama/Sowell etc etc. are all old or gone. You probably already know that as an econ major, but just a reminder. Also, you should find out if Harvard will let you take econ courses at MIT.

Becker is actually surprisingly active in teaching considering his age (in conjunction to normally taking part in at least one seminar course each quarter, he taught a Price Theory course this quarter and will teach a Human Capital course next quarter). Richard Thaler—prominent behavioral economist, somebody often considered one of the most influential economists alive, and regular Kahneman collaborator—teaches on the regular (I think, at the least, he teaches a Decision Making course each quarter, and gets rave reviews from students). Bob Lucas—Nobel laureate and somebody often named as one of the most influential economists ever—while old, still teaches (he taught a Monetary Economics lecture this quarter and will take part in a Money and Banking seminar this quarter). James Heckman—a Nobel Prize winner, and often considered one of the most-cited and influential economist alive—teaches a lot (next quarter, he is taking part in one lecture, two seminars, and one workshop). Myerson is also very active in teaching (and won the Nobel Prize just a few years ago). Even Richard Fogel (another Nobel Prize winner) is still very active at the school (he's teaching two courses and one seminar next quarter).

And who did economists name in a survey conducted by The Economist as the economist to have the "most important ideas in a post-crisis world"? Raghuram G. Rajan, a UChicago prof. Maybe UChicago is past its prime on the econ field, but I certainly think it's not shabby (maybe I'm a little biased since I'm taking a Levitt seminar this quarter and consider him one of the best profs I've ever had).

John List is a young prof (in his early 40s, so I guess young is relative) who is doing some really, really interesting work in the field right now. Forbes named him one of the top seven economists in the world, and both Becker and Levitt have named him as a very strong candidate for the Nobel Prize at some point. Kevin Murphy, who won the John Bates Clark Medal (awarded once every two years to an economist under forty who has made significant contributions to the field), is here as well.

UChicago is also doing a really good job of attracting top talent into its econ department. Its most recent hire is coming off his stint at the Society of Fellows, which he joined after getting an econ PhD from Princeton the year after he graduated undergrad, and the big guns in the econ department thinks he has a lot of promise.

Helmholtz wrote:

lsatcrazy wrote:As a 0L I definitely can't tell you to pick Harvard or UChicago, but I would just like to warn you that the University of Chicago economics department is not what it once was. Don't get me wrong, it's still up there (Levitt/Posner/Myerson), but Friedman/Coase/Stigler/Scholes/Becker/Fama/Sowell etc etc. are all old or gone. You probably already know that as an econ major, but just a reminder. Also, you should find out if Harvard will let you take econ courses at MIT.

Becker is actually surprisingly active in teaching considering his age (in conjunction to normally taking part in at least one seminar course each quarter, he taught a Price Theory course this quarter and will teach a Human Capital course next quarter). Richard Thaler—prominent behavioral economist, somebody often considered one of the most influential economists alive, and regular Kahneman collaborator—teaches on the regular (I think, at the least, he teaches a Decision Making course each quarter, and gets rave reviews from students). Bob Lucas—Nobel laureate and somebody often named as one of the most influential economists ever—while old, still teaches (he taught a Monetary Economics lecture this quarter and will take part in a Money and Banking seminar this quarter). James Heckman—a Nobel Prize winner, and often considered one of the most-cited and influential economist alive—teaches a lot (next quarter, he is taking part in one lecture, two seminars, and one workshop). Myerson is also very active in teaching (and won the Nobel Prize just a few years ago). Even Richard Fogel (another Nobel Prize winner) is still very active at the school (he's teaching two courses and one seminar next quarter).

And who did economists name in a survey conducted by The Economist as the economist to have the "most important ideas in a post-crisis world"? Raghuram G. Rajan, a UChicago prof. Maybe UChicago is past its prime on the econ field, but I certainly think it's not shabby (maybe I'm a little biased since I'm taking a Levitt seminar this quarter and consider him one of the best profs I've ever had).

John List is a young prof (in his early 40s, so I guess young is relative) who is doing some really, really interesting work in the field right now. Forbes named him one of the top seven economists in the world, and both Becker and Levitt have named him as a very strong candidate for the Nobel Prize at some point. Kevin Murphy, who won the John Bates Clark Medal (awarded once every two years to an economist under forty who has made significant contributions to the field), is here as well.

UChicago is also doing a really good job of attracting top talent into its econ department. Its most recent hire is coming off his stint at the Society of Fellows, which he joined after getting an econ PhD from Princeton the year after he graduated undergrad, and the big guns in the econ department thinks he has a lot of promise.

You forgot GLEN WEYL

Transferthrowaway wrote:You forgot GLEN WEYL

LOL

Helmholtz wrote:

lsatcrazy wrote:As a 0L I definitely can't tell you to pick Harvard or UChicago, but I would just like to warn you that the University of Chicago economics department is not what it once was. Don't get me wrong, it's still up there (Levitt/Posner/Myerson), but Friedman/Coase/Stigler/Scholes/Becker/Fama/Sowell etc etc. are all old or gone. You probably already know that as an econ major, but just a reminder. Also, you should find out if Harvard will let you take econ courses at MIT.

Becker is actually surprisingly active in teaching considering his age (in conjunction to normally taking part in at least one seminar course each quarter, he taught a Price Theory course this quarter and will teach a Human Capital course next quarter). Richard Thaler—prominent behavioral economist, somebody often considered one of the most influential economists alive, and regular Kahneman collaborator—teaches on the regular (I think, at the least, he teaches a Decision Making course each quarter, and gets rave reviews from students). Bob Lucas—Nobel laureate and somebody often named as one of the most influential economists ever—while old, still teaches (he taught a Monetary Economics lecture this quarter and will take part in a Money and Banking seminar this quarter). James Heckman—a Nobel Prize winner, and often considered one of the most-cited and influential economist alive—teaches a lot (next quarter, he is taking part in one lecture, two seminars, and one workshop). Myerson is also very active in teaching (and won the Nobel Prize just a few years ago). Even Richard Fogel (another Nobel Prize winner) is still very active at the school (he's teaching two courses and one seminar next quarter).

And who did economists name in a survey conducted by The Economist as the economist to have the "most important ideas in a post-crisis world"? Raghuram G. Rajan, a UChicago prof. Maybe UChicago is past its prime on the econ field, but I certainly think it's not shabby (maybe I'm a little biased since I'm taking a Levitt seminar this quarter and consider him one of the best profs I've ever had).

John List is a young prof (in his early 40s, so I guess young is relative) who is doing some really, really interesting work in the field right now. Forbes named him one of the top seven economists in the world, and both Becker and Levitt have named him as a very strong candidate for the Nobel Prize at some point. Kevin Murphy, who won the John Bates Clark Medal (awarded once every two years to an economist under forty who has made significant contributions to the field), is here as well.

UChicago is also doing a really good job of attracting top talent into its econ department. Its most recent hire is coming off his stint at the Society of Fellows, which he joined after getting an econ PhD from Princeton the year after he graduated undergrad, and the big guns in the econ department thinks he has a lot of promise.

Good to know, I didn't realize they had such a strong young faculty. I definitely didn't know levitt/thaler/heckman taught in the law school. At any rate, I meant that UChi has somewhat lost its "uniqueness" in the Econ department. It was always (and still is) among the top 2 or 3 departments, but it used to have a unique flavor (ie Classic Liberalism) which it now seems to miss. But I digress - it certainly is among the best, and it's integration with the law schools is (good) news to me.

bdubs wrote:

Transferthrowaway wrote:You forgot GLEN WEYL

LOL

Facts about Glen Weyl:
-Glen Weyl regularly plots points that are beyond any given PPF.
-Every action Glen Weyl takes is pareto optimal.
-Glen Weyl's grocery list was recently published in Econometrica.

Transferthrowaway wrote:

bdubs wrote:

Transferthrowaway wrote:You forgot GLEN WEYL

LOL

Facts about Glen Weyl:
-Glen Weyl regularly plots points that are beyond any given PPF.
-Every action Glen Weyl takes is pareto optimal.
-Glen Weyl's grocery list was recently published in Econometrica.

Glen Weyl is frequently referred to as Doogie Howser PhD

and has a mild-moderate case of the burgers