Top Law Schools

Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

I doubt it. The schools have similar job prospects (http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20sc ... page12.pdf) and I think it comes down to where one would rather go to school with some minor other differences. I don't think you can categorically say you should choose Davis over Hastings all the time or even most of the time.

I'm unclear on why there's a question mark at the end of this thread title.

i'd still choose hastings over davis...

SoftBoiledLife wrote:I'm unclear on why there's a question mark at the end of this thread title.

LOL, I love your new Davis owns Hastings schtick.

FreddyBigShot wrote:Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

egregious anti-USC trolling, even if it isn't a UC.

A'nold wrote:

SoftBoiledLife wrote:I'm unclear on why there's a question mark at the end of this thread title.

LOL, I love your new Davis owns Hastings schtick.

TBF, I'm hardly a neutral observer.

Yes

There is a element that no one really takes in account about Hastings. For many years law schools had a mandatory retirement age. So you had professors who were still young and vital and wanting to teach at 65, who were forced out of Harvard and Yale and everywhere else. Hastings had a policy of hiring all those professors (they didn't have a retirement age). Hastings had some great legal minds teaching and really built a reputation on it over the years. Obviously the retirement issue doesn't exist anymore, and as a result the reputation has very slowly declined over the past 25 years or so. It is part of the reason there is such a discrepancy between older practioneers and younger ones in terms of reputation.

jks289 wrote:There is a element that no one really takes in account about Hastings. For many years law schools had a mandatory retirement age. So you had professors who were still young and vital and wanting to teach at 65, who were forced out of Harvard and Yale and everywhere else. Hastings had a policy of hiring all those professors (they didn't have a retirement age). Hastings had some great legal minds teaching and really built a reputation on it over the years. Obviously the retirement issue doesn't exist anymore, and as a result the reputation has very slowly declined over the past 25 years or so. It is part of the reason there is such a discrepancy between older practioneers and younger ones in terms of reputation.

I just opened the Hastings website and went to faculty.

The first few faculty members were JD's from Chicago and Havard, all with extra graduate degrees (i.e. PhD from Harvard, PhD from Berkeley, etc).

Doesn't seem to have a poor quality of instructor...

Great Satchmo wrote:

jks289 wrote:There is a element that no one really takes in account about Hastings. For many years law schools had a mandatory retirement age. So you had professors who were still young and vital and wanting to teach at 65, who were forced out of Harvard and Yale and everywhere else. Hastings had a policy of hiring all those professors (they didn't have a retirement age). Hastings had some great legal minds teaching and really built a reputation on it over the years. Obviously the retirement issue doesn't exist anymore, and as a result the reputation has very slowly declined over the past 25 years or so. It is part of the reason there is such a discrepancy between older practioneers and younger ones in terms of reputation.

I just opened the Hastings website and went to faculty.

The first few faculty members were JD's from Chicago and Havard, all with extra graduate degrees (i.e. PhD from Harvard, PhD from Berkeley, etc).

Doesn't seem to have a poor quality of instructor...

That isn't what I said. Once upon a time they were getting the best established professors from top schools, not professors with JDs from good schools. In large part, the school built an excellent regional reputation on the basis of those professors. Because of the change in age discrimination law, that hasn't been the case for a long time. I was suggesting that was a reason why Hastings may be in decline rankings-wise. I am sure they have excellent professors, almost all first and second tier schools do. But for a long time they had a very unique program and I think the reputation of the school (among older vs younger professionals and judges, who vote for rankings) is beginning to reflect the reality of the change.

jks289 wrote:

Great Satchmo wrote:

jks289 wrote:There is a element that no one really takes in account about Hastings. For many years law schools had a mandatory retirement age. So you had professors who were still young and vital and wanting to teach at 65, who were forced out of Harvard and Yale and everywhere else. Hastings had a policy of hiring all those professors (they didn't have a retirement age). Hastings had some great legal minds teaching and really built a reputation on it over the years. Obviously the retirement issue doesn't exist anymore, and as a result the reputation has very slowly declined over the past 25 years or so. It is part of the reason there is such a discrepancy between older practioneers and younger ones in terms of reputation.

I just opened the Hastings website and went to faculty.

The first few faculty members were JD's from Chicago and Havard, all with extra graduate degrees (i.e. PhD from Harvard, PhD from Berkeley, etc).

Doesn't seem to have a poor quality of instructor...

That isn't what I said. Once upon a time they were getting the best established professors from top schools, not professors with JDs from good schools. In large part, the school built an excellent regional reputation on the basis of those professors. Because of the change in age discrimination law, that hasn't been the case for a long time. I was suggesting that was a reason why Hastings may be in decline rankings-wise. I am sure they have excellent professors, almost all first and second tier schools do. But for a long time they had a very unique program and I think the reputation of the school (among older vs younger professionals and judges, who vote for rankings) is beginning to reflect the reality of the change.

I see your distinction.

However, I wouldn't imagine that it has an appreciable affect on the perceived quality of faculty.

I would think it more has to do with poorer placement, large classes (i.e. student to faculty/resource ratio), and maybe a mix of other financial and general economic woes.

Hastings seems to still be a mainstay in the city, and what has changed is that the economy doesn't support 400+ Hastings graduates looking for $160k starting jobs in San Francisco.

That's my perception, admittedly ill-informed. I would imagine in the next 3-5 years, Hastings will still be in the 30's or 40's.

FreddyBigShot wrote:Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

NO

The correct order is (from USNWR):

Stanford>Davis>UCLA>Berkeley>USC>Chapman>Santa Clara>Pepperdine>Hastings
http://i.imgur.com/jxGWV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5j5tz.jpg

Yes that is correct. Davis is 2nd only to Stanford in employment rate. Translation = next stop T14 for Davis.

swheat wrote:

FreddyBigShot wrote:Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

NO

The correct order is (from USNWR):

Stanford>Davis>UCLA>Berkeley>USC>Chapman>Santa Clara>Pepperdine>Hastings
http://i.imgur.com/jxGWV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5j5tz.jpg

Yes that is correct. Davis is 2nd only to Stanford in employment rate. Translation = next stop T14 for Davis.

You need to take a chill-pill.

Hastings is a great school. The relative change to Davis is immaterial to your future.

Be happy you are going to a school with a solid reputation and placement.

Get over this years rankings because Hastings is Hastings.

FreddyBigShot wrote:Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

It doesn't seem that Hastings and Davis' difference accounts for all that much post-graduation.

It would still stand to reason that the individual student's preference for the size and location of the school, and other intangibles, will make the correct basis for the decision.

Both placed ~16% of their class into NLJ250 firms in 2009.

It is a tie.

Desert Fox wrote:Both placed ~16% of their class into NLJ250 firms in 2009.

It is a tie.

This. I find Davis's employment numbers to be a bit high, though it's certainly a good school. Does anyone know the percentage of grads who reported employment whereabouts at Davis? Reducing this number would be the easiest way to skew the rankings.

Great Satchmo wrote:

swheat wrote:

FreddyBigShot wrote:Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

NO

The correct order is (from USNWR):

Stanford>Davis>UCLA>Berkeley>USC>Chapman>Santa Clara>Pepperdine>Hastings
http://i.imgur.com/jxGWV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5j5tz.jpg

Yes that is correct. Davis is 2nd only to Stanford in employment rate. Translation = next stop T14 for Davis.

You need to take a chill-pill.

Hastings is a great school. The relative change to Davis is immaterial to your future.

Be happy you are going to a school with a solid reputation and placement.

Get over this years rankings because Hastings is Hastings.

You are right...I should chill. There is only one true "T1" in California and neither Hastings nor Davis are in it. The truth is, the rest of us are all in the same boat. I only wish that people realized that and understood that the USNWR is flawed and meaningless outside of the T20. Unfortunately, this disgusting notion of prestige pervades the whole rotten industry.

I should have just resigned myself to T2-dom and taken the money.

swheat wrote:

Great Satchmo wrote:

swheat wrote:

FreddyBigShot wrote:Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

NO

The correct order is (from USNWR):

Stanford>Davis>UCLA>Berkeley>USC>Chapman>Santa Clara>Pepperdine>Hastings
http://i.imgur.com/jxGWV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5j5tz.jpg

Yes that is correct. Davis is 2nd only to Stanford in employment rate. Translation = next stop T14 for Davis.

You need to take a chill-pill.

Hastings is a great school. The relative change to Davis is immaterial to your future.

Be happy you are going to a school with a solid reputation and placement.

Get over this years rankings because Hastings is Hastings.

You are right...I should chill. There is only one true "T1" in California and neither Hastings nor Davis are in it. The truth is, the rest of us are all in the same boat. I only wish that people realized that and understood that the USNWR is flawed and meaningless outside of the T20. Unfortunately, this disgusting notion of prestige pervades the whole rotten industry.

I should have just resigned myself to T2-dom and taken the money.

It's funny, YOU seem to be the person who is completely wrapped up in the rankings and concerned with the prestige. In almost every thread you're posting about this, people either antagonize you or affirm the sense that Hastings and Davis are peer schools.

You need to go back to Hastings' site, read some of the cool program and opportunities, look at the fact that you'll be able to secure employment in San Francisco if you want, and be happy with it.

You are the one making an issue of rankings. Hastings is still Hastings, and the reputation continues to be so.

OperaSoprano wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Both placed ~16% of their class into NLJ250 firms in 2009.

It is a tie.

This. I find Davis's employment numbers to be a bit high, though it's certainly a good school. Does anyone know the percentage of grads who reported employment whereabouts at Davis? Reducing this number would be the easiest way to skew the rankings.

http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/prospective/ ... stics.html

That is the class of 2008 (the one in USNWR) which is purported to have a 97% employed at graduation rate. Here they only mention the 9 month rate, which is 98%. They say that 187/189 reported their employment status, but not how many of them reported salary. I do find it a bit odd that only 53% of their class is going into private practice. Hastings I believe is 64% private practice. A larger percentage of Hastings grads do gov't work, but a larger percentage of Davis people do public interest. So this is practically a wash.

Davis claims 7% judicial clerkships. I assume that includes state as well as federal. Last I checked Hastings was doing about 3.5% of its class in federal clerkships and Davis was doing 1.0%. I am not sure what Hastings' state clerkships % is.

So I don't know what to make of the data. Some people have claimed that Davis' greater focus on Public Interest/Gov't work has caused it to have a greater employed at graduation rate than Hastings, but I don't see how that is supported in the data. Taking those two categories together, Hastings has almost the same percentage of students in those fields as Davis.

This whole employed upon graduation/within 9 months of graduation should be abolished as a metric. The numbers aren't even reported correctly, and I SINCERELY doubt 97% of students from Davis were employed upon graduation. Just for fun I decided to compare what US news was reporting for employment percentage regarding Emory Law's class of 2008 as opposed to the self reported statistics published by the school. Apparently, while US news thinks 96% of Emory grads are employed at graduation, Emory's career services department (read: the people who are paid to make the school look good by publishing glossy guides promising the potential to make a fortune upon graduation) aren't quite so generous, as they only reported 88% of grads being employed upon graduation for the same year.

My conclusion? None really, I just think it's an absurd metric.

Source:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/care ... f_2008.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/jxGWV.jpg

Great Satchmo wrote:

swheat wrote:

Great Satchmo wrote:
You need to take a chill-pill.

Hastings is a great school. The relative change to Davis is immaterial to your future.

Be happy you are going to a school with a solid reputation and placement.

Get over this years rankings because Hastings is Hastings.

You are right...I should chill. There is only one true "T1" in California and neither Hastings nor Davis are in it. The truth is, the rest of us are all in the same boat. I only wish that people realized that and understood that the USNWR is flawed and meaningless outside of the T20. Unfortunately, this disgusting notion of prestige pervades the whole rotten industry.

I should have just resigned myself to T2-dom and taken the money.

It's funny, YOU seem to be the person who is completely wrapped up in the rankings and concerned with the prestige. In almost every thread you're posting about this, people either antagonize you or affirm the sense that Hastings and Davis are peer schools.

You need to go back to Hastings' site, read some of the cool program and opportunities, look at the fact that you'll be able to secure employment in San Francisco if you want, and be happy with it.

You are the one making an issue of rankings. Hastings is still Hastings, and the reputation continues to be so.

It is because I believe that there is no difference between Davis and Hastings, and others are claiming that there IS one (case in point, this thread) that I am on the attack. I don't care about prestige...if I did, I wouldn't have come to Hastings. I only care about getting a job. I think about things in dollars and cents. If a law firm doesn't want to hire me because my school has slipped into some foolish magazine's "disfavored T2" my financial investment has been harmed. I don't like the rankings and would rather see them go away. But in the long term, if they affect my bottom line, then yeah I am going to lash out.

If the situation were reversed and Hastings had lied thereby ending up 14 places ahead of Davis, I would have called bullshit. And I suspect that many of the Davis people attacking me would have done so too.

I think people on TLS freak out way too much about small differences in numbers. Go to the school where you think you'll do the best. The differences between Hastings and Davis are very small and will likely not effect you either way.

mistergoft wrote:This whole employed upon graduation/within 9 months of graduation should be abolished as a metric. The numbers aren't even reported correctly, and I SINCERELY doubt 97% of students from Davis were employed upon graduation. Just for fun I decided to compare what US news was reporting for employment percentage regarding Emory Law's class of 2008 as opposed to the self reported statistics published by the school. Apparently, while US news thinks 96% of Emory grads are employed at graduation, Emory's career services department (read: the people who are paid to make the school look good by publishing glossy guides promising the potential to make a fortune upon graduation) aren't quite so generous, as they only reported 88% of grads being employed upon graduation for the same year.

My conclusion? None really, I just think it's an absurd metric.

Source:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/care ... f_2008.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/jxGWV.jpg

Leiter made a nice post today regarding Loyola. Last year Loyola tumbled 20+ places just because they changed the school's name in the survey from the familiar "Loyola Law School" to the official "Loyola Marymount University". Now I am not expert on Jesuit private institutions, but there are a TON of "Loyolas" (2 law schools!) and several "Marymounts". So LLS's reputation ranking fell from 2.6 to 2.3 that year just because of the confusion!!

These rankings are silly, and to the extent employers rely on them (there is a strong correlation b/w NLJ250 charts and USNWR), I believe we are all harmed.

swheat wrote:It is because I believe that there is no difference between Davis and Hastings, and others are claiming that there IS one (case in point, this thread) that I am on the attack. I don't care about prestige...if I did, I wouldn't have come to Hastings. I only care about getting a job. I think about things in dollars and cents. If a law firm doesn't want to hire me because my school has slipped into some foolish magazine's "disfavored T2" my financial investment has been harmed. I don't like the rankings and would rather see them go away. But in the long term, if they affect my bottom line, then yeah I am going to lash out.

If the situation were reversed and Hastings had lied thereby ending up 14 places ahead of Davis, I would have called bullshit. And I suspect that many of the Davis people attacking me would have done so too.

Who cares what some kid on TLS posts about? The majority of posters here do not believe Hastings and Davis are different.

It's the long term reputation of the school and it's graduates that matter, do you really think that is going to change by a difference in rankings of 1 year?