Harvard and Politics Forum

[anyriotgirl]

After Yale/Harvard as far as jurisprudential/political influence is concerned it's pretty much a wash. The Vice President attended Syracuse Law. New T15?

SU is SO proud of that too, they mention it in all of their spam.

[star fox]

You and probably 10 of your HLS classmates are all dreaming of being a senator. Obviously you were smart enough to get into Harvard but you're still basically counting on being a special snowflake. Best of luck.

[sah]

There are two necessary steps for launching a national political career -

1. Be rich
2. Don't be non-rich

Harvard's a great school, but I'd say taking out $300k for the privilege of going there is going to directly undermine these crucial two steps...

[francisjunderwood]

First off, I posted here simply to show that there is evidence that certain elite law schools are more correlated with high political offices than others. I didn’t intend to lay down the final word on the relationship between politics and the legal profession, but it is ignorant to pretend that there is no evidence that some schools fare better than others in politics. Had I had the time, I would include other important positions like US Reps, Lt. Govs, cabinet members, etc. The sheer size of the US House, at 435 members, means that it would take considerably longer to log the information on the House than it would to examine attorney generals or governors. For presidents, including them would only increase the dominance of schools like HLS and YLS, but go ahead if you feel like it. As to VPs, I’m unimpressed (see Joe Biden).

The reason 1970 is a good starting point for examination is that it is a rational starting point for looking at judges/politicians who graduated from law schools after the introduction of the LSAT. The LSAT fundamentally changed the type of person who graduated from the top schools, as the student bodies contained more ambitious meritocratic types as opposed to the wellborn, and so it is the beginning of the time period that is comparable to our own. With the LSAT instituted in 1948, we see “modern” law school graduates by the early 1950s. If we assume that these graduates were in their mid-20s at graduation, and that they started their political careers around the age of 40, we can start tracking these graduates around the late 60s or early 70s, so I arbitrarily chose 1970. I will admit that not every person elected/appointed after 1970 graduated from a law school post-1948, but the vast majority of those I examined were from after that time.

One should divide the number of elected/appointed officials by the size of the class for the same reason that those who examine placement rates in SCOTUS clerkships divide the # of clerks from a school by the average class size of the law school. The rate of placement tells us more about the school than does the absolute number of graduates in the target position. Georgetown and Harvard have huge class sizes and so should be expected to produce more of a certain examined category simply by force of numbers, while smaller schools like Stanford and Yale would be expected to yield lower absolute numbers due to their small classes. The rate tells us the “odds” that any particular student will succeed at that pursuit. As to class sizes from 1970, I have absolutely no idea how one could get that data without a lot more effort than I’m willing to put in, as I’m willing to use current numbers as an approximation of the past.

Lastly, I think as much as it is interesting to look into which schools produce more politicians, a 0L would be making a terrible decision in selecting a law school based off of distant prospects of becoming a politician.

[radikal_eyes]

There are two necessary steps for launching a national political career -

1. Be rich
2. Don't be non-rich

Harvard's a great school, but I'd say taking out $300k for the privilege of going there is going to directly undermine these crucial two steps...

While I agree with the fact that the electoral process is increasingly being monopolized by oligarchic plutocrats, there's an argument to be made for making a 300K investment to build one's social capital re: networking.

[star fox]

Sheer numbers - Standard and Yale are relatively small (though obviously very influential) whereas at Harvard you rub elbows with the best and brights 550-600 and your right next to the most influential institution on the planet Harvard Business School which literally runs the world. Think about the alumni network for fundraising it's off the chart there's really no comparison to the Harvard Law network - even though Yale Law is academically superior in every way it can't hold a candle to Harvard Law diaspora.

Harvard having bigger classes is why you're also likely to notice so many successes from there. A lot of survivorship bias there.

[cotiger]

While I agree with the fact that the electoral process is increasingly being monopolized by oligarchic plutocrats, there's an argument to be made for making a 300K investment to build one's social capital re: networking.

Oh my.