Top Law Schools

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... eport.html

Because some guy posing as a professor on TLS decided to post weird information, here's actual statistics.

Eight schools had three or more placements:

1. TIE: HARVARD (26), YALE (26)
3. TIE: CALIFORNIA – Berkeley (11), MICHIGAN (11)
5. TIE: COLUMBIA (10), NEW YORK UNIVERSITY (10), STANFORD (10)
8. CHICAGO (6)
9. TIE: GEORGETOWN (3), MINNESOTA (3)

Eight schools had two placements:

CALIFORNIA - Los Angeles
DUKE
GEORGE WASHINGTON
GEORGIA
MCGILL UNIVERSITY
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS
TULANE

26 schools had one placement:

BAR-ILAN, BOSTON COLLEGE, BOSTON UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA - Davis, CHICAGO-KENT, DRAKE, EMORY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, HOWARD, KANSAS, LOYOLA - New Orleans, MISSOURI - Columbia, Nevada - Las Vegas, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTHWESTERN, NOTRE DAME, SETON HALL, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN METHODIST, TEL-AVIV, THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, YESHIVA

*This isn't adjusted for class size, and I'm not sure how many years out these hires were, but it's better than someone posting weird info.*

fortissimo wrote:http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... eport.html

Because some guy posing as a professor on TLS decided to post weird information, here's actual statistics.

Eight schools had three or more placements:

1. TIE: HARVARD (26), YALE (26)
3. TIE: CALIFORNIA – Berkeley (11), MICHIGAN (11)
5. TIE: COLUMBIA (10), NEW YORK UNIVERSITY (10), STANFORD (10)
8. CHICAGO (6)
9. TIE: GEORGETOWN (3), MINNESOTA (3)

Eight schools had two placements:

CALIFORNIA - Los Angeles
DUKE
GEORGE WASHINGTON
GEORGIA
MCGILL UNIVERSITY
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS
TULANE

26 schools had one placement:

BAR-ILAN, BOSTON COLLEGE, BOSTON UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA - Davis, CHICAGO-KENT, DRAKE, EMORY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, HOWARD, KANSAS, LOYOLA - New Orleans, MISSOURI - Columbia, NEVADA - Las Vegas, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTHWESTERN, NOTRE DAME, SETON HALL, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN METHODIST, TEL-AVIV, THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, YESHIVA

*This isn't adjusted for class size, and I'm not sure how many years out these hires were, but it's better than someone posting weird info.*

How is GW listed as having two placements and then as having only one?

Thomas Jefferson wrote: How is GW listed as having two placements and then as having only one?

The blogger probably made a typo. You can click on the link though.

sweet!

Nice link! Thanks.

fortissimo wrote:http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... eport.html

Because some guy posing as a professor on TLS decided to post weird information, here's actual statistics.

Eight schools had three or more placements:

1. TIE: HARVARD (26), YALE (26)
3. TIE: CALIFORNIA – Berkeley (11), MICHIGAN (11)
5. TIE: COLUMBIA (10), NEW YORK UNIVERSITY (10), STANFORD (10)
8. CHICAGO (6)
9. TIE: GEORGETOWN (3), MINNESOTA (3)

Eight schools had two placements:

CALIFORNIA - Los Angeles
DUKE
GEORGE WASHINGTON
GEORGIA
MCGILL UNIVERSITY
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS
TULANE

26 schools had one placement:

BAR-ILAN, BOSTON COLLEGE, BOSTON UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA - Davis, CHICAGO-KENT, DRAKE, EMORY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, HOWARD, KANSAS, LOYOLA - New Orleans, MISSOURI - Columbia, NEVADA - Las Vegas, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTHWESTERN, NOTRE DAME, SETON HALL, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN METHODIST, TEL-AVIV, THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, YESHIVA

*This isn't adjusted for class size, and I'm not sure how many years out these hires were, but it's better than someone posting weird info.*

I really wish they'd release stats on how many from each school sought a position as well. If a school is getting 6 for 6, say, that stat could make a difference.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:How is GW listed as having two placements and then as having only one?

Usually Solum updates his list as news of more placements come in. It's not like they're published somewhere, he gets them from individual emailers. He probably forgot to remove GW from the 1-place list when he got news of the 2nd placement.

damn, UVa got just one. What other schools got outplaced by significantly lower ranked schools?

Kretzy wrote: I really wish they'd release stats on how many from each school sought a position as well. If a school is getting 6 for 6, say, that stat could make a difference.

From what I've heard/read, this actually wouldn't be that helpful. Apparently many of the people who go "on the market" every year aren't seriously qualified: bored practitioners looking for lifestyle change, new grads w/no academic publications, etc. So if, say, 11/35 Michigan grads got jobs, it doesn't tell you much without knowing how many of those 35 were "real" contenders.

bluejayk wrote:damn, UVa got just one. What other schools got outplaced by significantly lower ranked schools?

In 2008 UVA had 3, in 2007 they had 11. I wouldn't worry about the variation unless it persists for 5+ years. The numbers are highly variable year-to-year since they're so low to begin with.

Thanks. This is very useful information.

To put much stock in these numbers, I would really want to know how many of these people had advanced degrees already.

If someone has a PhD before they get their JD, then go on to academia...it may not say as much about the school as much as the experience in academia that the person had.

Isn't this something where having them adjusted on per capita basis would provide better grounds for ranking them? It would seem that with only the raw numbers it would be better to simply report them rather than rank them this way. Thoughts?

I thought Chicago was supposed to be near-HYS for academia... why's it being beaten out by Columbia and NYU?

edit: class size, got it

Rand M. wrote:Isn't this something where having them adjusted on per capita basis would provide better grounds for ranking them? It would seem that with only the raw numbers it would be better to simply report them rather than rank them this way. Thoughts?

Yeah, but it's almost impossible to do it on a per capita basis because all of the hires are at least a couple of years out (clerked) and from different class years from their alma maters. I'm not sure how you would go about calculating the per capita when they are from different years.

kinch wrote:I thought Chicago was supposed to be near-HYS for academia... why's it being beaten out by Columbia and NYU?

edit: class size, got it

Columbia's class size is ~ 2x that of U Chi's and NYU's is ~ 2.25x

--> you need to consider the possible applicants (which is why another poster suggested a per-capita report)

kinch wrote:I thought Chicago was supposed to be near-HYS for academia... why's it being beaten out by Columbia and NYU?

Because those schools are at least twice as big (even bigger than 2x in NYU's case). Basically double Chicago's number and then compare it to those two.

fortissimo wrote:

Rand M. wrote:Isn't this something where having them adjusted on per capita basis would provide better grounds for ranking them? It would seem that with only the raw numbers it would be better to simply report them rather than rank them this way. Thoughts?

Yeah, but it's almost impossible to do it on a per capita basis because all of the hires are at least a couple of years out (clerked) and from different class years from their alma maters. I'm not sure how you would go about calculating the per capita when they are from different years.

It would seem like you could come up with some crude method of averaging class size. Chicago ~200 Columbia ~400 NYU ~450 Stanford ~175 etc.

Good stuff, although there's no need to insinuate that the professor was a fake. He was posting info about his own school's hiring preferences, and in general, not just over the last year.

Mmmkay. Using total off-the-cuff numbers (appx. class size from Leiter's page) , I came up with the vague percentage of each school's graduating class that got an academic job last year:

Yale: 13%
Stanford: 6%
Harvard: 5%
Berkeley: 4%
Chicago: 3%
Michigan: 3%
Columbia: 3%
NYU: 2%
Minnesota: 1%
Georgetown: .5%

Disclaimer: I'm crap with numbers - this is for entertainment purposes only.

notanumber wrote:Mmmkay. Using total off-the-cuff numbers (appx. class size from Leiter's page) , I came up with the vague percentage of each school's graduating class that got an academic job last year:

Yale: 13%
Stanford: 6%
Harvard: 5%
Berkeley: 4%
Chicago: 3%
Michigan: 3%
Columbia: 3%
NYU: 2%
Minnesota: 1%
Georgetown: .5%

Disclaimer: I'm crap with numbers - this is for entertainment purposes only.

This is much more useful than the original raw numbers. Just the fact that Yale and Harvard are listed as TIED means that those numbers are not really worth all that much. Yale is clearly the dominant leader here, so any measure that has any other school in their class isn't all that worthwhile. I appreciate the OP's info and link, but this is probably better (even just roughly pounded out like this).

.

notanumber wrote:Mmmkay. Using total off-the-cuff numbers (appx. class size from Leiter's page) , I came up with the vague percentage of each school's graduating class that got an academic job last year:

Yale: 13%
Stanford: 6%
Harvard: 5%
Berkeley: 4%
Chicago: 3%
Michigan: 3%
Columbia: 3%
NYU: 2%
Minnesota: 1%
Georgetown: .5%

Disclaimer: I'm crap with numbers - this is for entertainment purposes only.

While these numbers are probably useful, it's worth pointing out that the people who got academic jobs are most likely not coming straight out of law school and are from different graduation years.

Rand M. wrote:

notanumber wrote:Mmmkay. Using total off-the-cuff numbers (appx. class size from Leiter's page) , I came up with the vague percentage of each school's graduating class that got an academic job last year:

Yale: 13%
Stanford: 6%
Harvard: 5%
Berkeley: 4%
Chicago: 3%
Michigan: 3%
Columbia: 3%
NYU: 2%
Minnesota: 1%
Georgetown: .5%

Disclaimer: I'm crap with numbers - this is for entertainment purposes only.

This is much more useful than the original raw numbers. Just the fact that Yale and Harvard are listed as TIED means that those numbers are not really worth all that much. Yale is clearly the dominant leader here, so any measure that has any other school in their class isn't all that worthwhile. I appreciate the OP's info and link, but this is probably better (even just roughly pounded out like this).

I'd argue that these numbers are even worse and quite misleading. This would only be more valuable if every single member of each law school was actually looking for an academic job. Moreover, the students getting those jobs could be from different graduating years so there is no way to make a comparison based on current class sizes. At least the original number was a simple list of how many people got jobs in academia from each school - that's all it says, which may not be much, but it is what it is. This number implies that the University of Minnesota places better into academia than Georgetown, UVa, etc when it could well be the case that not as many students are interested in academia from those latter schools. It also penalizes large schools for no reason (since graduating class size this year has little to do with former graduates securing employment in academia).

Didn't Berkeley send this link out to admits like two months ago?

irishman86 wrote:Why do people say Chicago places well into academia when it doesn't?

They say it because it is true.

ravens20 wrote:

Rand M. wrote:

notanumber wrote:Mmmkay. Using total off-the-cuff numbers (appx. class size from Leiter's page) , I came up with the vague percentage of each school's graduating class that got an academic job last year:


Yale: 13%
Stanford: 6%
Harvard: 5%
Berkeley: 4%
Chicago: 3%
Michigan: 3%
Columbia: 3%
NYU: 2%
Minnesota: 1%
Georgetown: .5%

Disclaimer: I'm crap with numbers - this is for entertainment purposes only.

This is much more useful than the original raw numbers. Just the fact that Yale and Harvard are listed as TIED means that those numbers are not really worth all that much. Yale is clearly the dominant leader here, so any measure that has any other school in their class isn't all that worthwhile. I appreciate the OP's info and link, but this is probably better (even just roughly pounded out like this).

I'd argue that these numbers are even worse and quite misleading. This would only be more valuable if every single member of each law school was actually looking for an academic job. Moreover, the students getting those jobs could be from different graduating years so there is no way to make a comparison based on current class sizes. At least the original number was a simple list of how many people got jobs in academia from each school - that's all it says, which may not be much, but it is what it is. This number implies that the University of Minnesota places better into academia than Georgetown, UVa, etc when it could well be the case that not as many students are interested in academia from those latter schools. It also penalizes large schools for no reason (since graduating class size this year has little to do with former graduates securing employment in academia).

Your first point is fair enough. I think intention of a graduating class will always color these sorts of numbers and provide the most effective attack. That said, I don't think it penalizes large schools for "no reason." Clearly if you pump more graduates into the system you are going to have more "potential" (whether they want it or not) candidates for a teaching position. Overall I think that percentages are more useful because class size really does explain a great deal of these sorts of things. Yale=Harvard? Only if you completely ignore the fact that Harvard has 3x as many students, a point that seems pretty significant to just ignore. Just the fact that the numbers represent the clear difference between those to schools is enough to lend credibility to them that the original numbers didn't have. The size would seem to explain Minnesota jumping over Georgetown. I don't really see these sorts of results troubling. Georgetown puts out an extremely large class and should not be able to have those numbers stand in their raw form.

I guess I just feel that if you are going to rank them then you have to make adjustments. Its not like these numbers were just in some sort of alphabetical order in a table or something. These schools were ranked in a straight up contest in which smaller schools were simply disadvantaged.

There are better resources for this:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archi ... iring.html

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... rsion.html

--LinkRemoved--

I don't recall where I read it, but it was clear that Berkeley's placement was due to the students it accepts that already had PhD's coming in, rather than the raw placement power of the JD.