Top Law Schools

The stereotype is: Yale's focus is theoretical--"What should the law be?"--and Harvard's is practical--"What is it and how can we use it?" Is this true? Can anyone cite specific ways HLS is more "applied" than Yale?

My intent is not to start another "Yale v. Harvard" thread, but to explore this popular perception in particular.

cold_logic wrote:The stereotype is: Yale's focus is theoretical--"What should the law be?"--and Harvard's is practical--"What is it and how can we use it?" Is this true? Can anyone cite specific ways HLS is more "applied" than Yale?

My intent is not to start another "Yale v. Harvard" thread, but to explore this popular perception in particular.

For one, I believe the fields of placement of graduates is the greatest indicator that most who generalize the situation will look at. It certainly is hard to quantify, but it is my belief that because these perceptions have arisen it has influenced applicants who have a predisposition to seeing law in one of those two ways to affect the school they choose to attend. This continually reinforces the perception which in turn hardens it over time and gives us the view we have today.

Could have been articulated better, but I'm tired.

Cmart050 wrote:

cold_logic wrote:The stereotype is: Yale's focus is theoretical--"What should the law be?"--and Harvard's is practical--"What is it and how can we use it?" Is this true? Can anyone cite specific ways HLS is more "applied" than Yale?

My intent is not to start another "Yale v. Harvard" thread, but to explore this popular perception in particular.

For one, I believe the fields of placement of graduates is the greatest indicator that most who generalize the situation will look at. It certainly is hard to quantify, but it is my belief that because these perceptions have arisen it has influenced applicants who have a predisposition to seeing law in one of those two ways to affect the school they choose to attend. This continually reinforces the perception which in turn hardens it over time and gives us the view we have today.

Could have been articulated better, but I'm tired.

Self fulfilling prophecy, basically.

Edit: Not saying I know anything one way or the other, just suggesting an easy way to summarize Cmart050.

cold_logic wrote:The stereotype is: Yale's focus is theoretical--"What should the law be?"--and Harvard's is practical--"What is it and how can we use it?" Is this true? Can anyone cite specific ways HLS is more "applied" than Yale?

My intent is not to start another "Yale v. Harvard" thread, but to explore this popular perception in particular.

What? You do understand that there's a bar exam for a reason, right?

Besides, if you want to go through that angle: Yale places more clerks and those clerks usually have close ties with the judge they clerked for - therefore they're able to get more done in 'the system.' Hence, Yale would be more practical in my opinion.

ResolutePear wrote:

cold_logic wrote:The stereotype is: Yale's focus is theoretical--"What should the law be?"--and Harvard's is practical--"What is it and how can we use it?" Is this true? Can anyone cite specific ways HLS is more "applied" than Yale?

My intent is not to start another "Yale v. Harvard" thread, but to explore this popular perception in particular.

What? You do understand that there's a bar exam for a reason, right?

Besides, if you want to go through that angle: Yale places more clerks and those clerks usually have close ties with the judge they clerked for - therefore they're able to get more done in 'the system.' Hence, Yale would be more practical in my opinion.

The point is choosing a school that aligns with your philosophical approach. We all know that if you want to get ahead, the answer is Yale.

d34dluk3 wrote:

ResolutePear wrote:

cold_logic wrote:The stereotype is: Yale's focus is theoretical--"What should the law be?"--and Harvard's is practical--"What is it and how can we use it?" Is this true? Can anyone cite specific ways HLS is more "applied" than Yale?

My intent is not to start another "Yale v. Harvard" thread, but to explore this popular perception in particular.

What? You do understand that there's a bar exam for a reason, right?

Besides, if you want to go through that angle: Yale places more clerks and those clerks usually have close ties with the judge they clerked for - therefore they're able to get more done in 'the system.' Hence, Yale would be more practical in my opinion.

The point is choosing a school that aligns with your philosophical approach. We all know that if you want to get ahead, the answer is Yale.

Wouldn't it be more practical to "get ahead," anyways? Just trying to wrap this around my head.

ResolutePear wrote:Wouldn't it be more practical to "get ahead," anyways? Just trying to wrap this around my head.

If being trained well in your area of focus is more important to you than just being able to get a job in your area, it makes sense.

d34dluk3 wrote:

ResolutePear wrote:Wouldn't it be more practical to "get ahead," anyways? Just trying to wrap this around my head.

If being trained well in your area of focus is more important to you than just being able to get a job in your area, it makes sense.

DELETED

cold_logic wrote:The stereotype is: Yale's focus is theoretical--"What should the law be?"--and Harvard's is practical--"What is it and how can we use it?" Is this true? Can anyone cite specific ways HLS is more "applied" than Yale?

My intent is not to start another "Yale v. Harvard" thread, but to explore this popular perception in particular.

is this really a common perception? i thought it was more "HLS has more students who want to go into biglaw while Yale has more students who want (or can, however you wish to read it) to go into clerkships post-grad"

but if you want an example of a more practical HLS approach...all 1Ls have a mandatory winter term class called problem solving workshop. you essentially role play in groups and work on various problems, write group memos, present, etc. on various topics and approaches. supposed to inject some practicality into the curriculum. it is a great idea imo, though due to its freshly minted nature, not quite where it needs to be yet in terms of execution.

ResolutePear wrote:

d34dluk3 wrote:

ResolutePear wrote:Wouldn't it be more practical to "get ahead," anyways? Just trying to wrap this around my head.

If being trained well in your area of focus is more important to you than just being able to get a job in your area, it makes sense.

/head explosion gif

thats not a contradictory comment lol. it is like saying learning a subject matter well means more to you than scoring well on the exam. being trained well in an area != having a job in that area.

DoubleChecks wrote:is this really a common perception?

It definitely is. The idea is that Yale students dabble in whatever clinics and philosophies they're interested in while Harvard students get a really thorough black letter education.

DoubleChecks wrote:

ResolutePear wrote:

d34dluk3 wrote:

ResolutePear wrote:Wouldn't it be more practical to "get ahead," anyways? Just trying to wrap this around my head.

If being trained well in your area of focus is more important to you than just being able to get a job in your area, it makes sense.

/head explosion gif

thats not a contradictory comment lol. it is like saying learning a subject matter well means more to you than scoring well on the exam. being trained well in an area != having a job in that area.

That's a point I'm trying to make though - those who are best trained to be employed from what I've asked and researched are those who were able to get a clerkship.

ResolutePear wrote:That's a point I'm trying to make though - those who are best trained to be employed from what I've asked and researched are those who were able to get a clerkship.

Is that "best trained" or "most prestigious and therefore able to get a good job"?

d34dluk3 wrote:

ResolutePear wrote:That's a point I'm trying to make though - those who are best trained to be employed from what I've asked and researched are those who were able to get a clerkship.

Is that "best trained" or "most prestigious and therefore able to get a good job"?

Well, if I had to bet.. I'd say the person who is able to hold a clerkship will come out better trained than one who jumped straight into a firm. I could be off base, but I've always regarded that's the reason why firms would gladly defer you if you did a clerkship.

ResolutePear wrote:Well, if I had to bet.. I'd say the person who is able to hold a clerkship will come out better trained than one who jumped straight into a firm. I could be off base, but I've always regarded that's the reason why firms would gladly defer you if you did a clerkship.

I thought it was a combination of being a gold star for the firm and the fact that the clerks are the best & brightest and can write their own ticket.

ResolutePear wrote: That's a point I'm trying to make though - those who are best trained to be employed from what I've asked and researched are those who were able to get a clerkship.

best trained to be employed sounds like best grades or something...or combination of grades and other factors that get you employed. thats not the same as being best trained in a certain area...which by no means has a near +1 correlation with being able to get a job in that same area

if it were a perfect world, you'd like that to happen -- none of this from my perspective really relates to clerkships, however, just mentioning that being best trained in x area != being able to get a job in that area lol