Top Law Schools

not that this is a representative sample, and i imagine we could just check yields to cull the same relevant inference, but hell im curious.

edit: the poll question is obviously meant to read: "where would you prefer to study law." apologies.

Casey2889 wrote:not that this is a representative sample, and i imagine we could just check yields to cull the same relevant inference, but hell im curious.

edit: the poll question is obviously meant to read: "where would you prefer to study law." apologies.

Yale.

/thread

I'm always curious, Stanford often seems to beat, or come extremely close to, Harvard in these polls, yet Harvard has the higher yield. Does anyone have any information on yield information exclusively for cross admits (LSN data mining, sure, but an incredibly tiny sample...)

If money were no object, why would you go to New Haven? Clearly, Stanford for the weather or Columbia because having money in NYC would be unbelievably fun.

Zatarra wrote:I'm always curious, Stanford often seems to beat, or come extremely close to, Harvard in these polls, yet Harvard has the higher yield. Does anyone have any information on yield information exclusively for cross admits (LSN data mining, sure, but an incredibly tiny sample...)

Because TLS is extremely insular and circular and everyone tends to see stuff on TLS as actually factual when most of it is, at best, out of context information or, at worst, complete uninformed speculation.

In reality, there is very, very, very little separation between HYS.

tkgrrett wrote:

Zatarra wrote:I'm always curious, Stanford often seems to beat, or come extremely close to, Harvard in these polls, yet Harvard has the higher yield. Does anyone have any information on yield information exclusively for cross admits (LSN data mining, sure, but an incredibly tiny sample...)

Because TLS is extremely insular and circular and everyone tends to see stuff on TLS as actually factual when most of it is, at best, out of context information or, at worst, complete uninformed speculation.

In reality, there is very, very, very little separation between HYS.

I don't have the numbers, but if I recall correctly this is not remotely true for high level clerkships or opportunites in academia. Yale greatly outperforms the others when adjusted for class size.

tkgrrett wrote:

Zatarra wrote:I'm always curious, Stanford often seems to beat, or come extremely close to, Harvard in these polls, yet Harvard has the higher yield. Does anyone have any information on yield information exclusively for cross admits (LSN data mining, sure, but an incredibly tiny sample...)

Because TLS is extremely insular and circular and everyone tends to see stuff on TLS as actually factual when most of it is, at best, out of context information or, at worst, complete uninformed speculation.

In reality, there is very, very, very little separation between HYS.

This might be true in terms of outcomes (though I would much rather be at the bottom of the class at S or Y than H right now). The three places seemed to have dramatically different cultures.

I should add, for me the decision would be Y > S > T14fullride > H. I really didn't enjoy my visit to Harvard. YMMV.

KMaine wrote:

tkgrrett wrote:

Zatarra wrote:I'm always curious, Stanford often seems to beat, or come extremely close to, Harvard in these polls, yet Harvard has the higher yield. Does anyone have any information on yield information exclusively for cross admits (LSN data mining, sure, but an incredibly tiny sample...)

Because TLS is extremely insular and circular and everyone tends to see stuff on TLS as actually factual when most of it is, at best, out of context information or, at worst, complete uninformed speculation.

In reality, there is very, very, very little separation between HYS.

I don't have the numbers, but if I recall correctly this is not remotely true for high level clerkships or opportunites in academia. Yale greatly outperforms the others when adjusted for class size.

http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008 ... hing.shtml
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2006 ... hing.shtml

Yale's edge in academia is probably overstated. The problem is that there is clearly quite a bit of self-selection going on; most people know Yale as the producer of academics, and so those interested in academia head to Yale. Yale also selects far more students with proven academic credentials, whereas Harvard tends to have less students with secondary degrees. At the very least, there are enough complicating factors to make the above data merely a piece of the puzzle. Yale's real advantage is probably smaller class size (important for academic references)/opportunities to publish while at Yale. In any event, I don't think a student wanting academia would be disadvantaged having Harvard, rather than Yale, on their C.V.

Edit: here is this year's data:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... -2010.html

Note that the data is self-reported and not completely representative. It does give a good idea of how looking at placement isn't sufficient; NYU's climb is in part because of the Furman Scholars program, which often recruits students with already impressive C.V.s--going to NYU at sticker isn't going to put you in the same camp as the Furman Scholars gunning for academia.

KMaine wrote:

tkgrrett wrote:

Zatarra wrote:I'm always curious, Stanford often seems to beat, or come extremely close to, Harvard in these polls, yet Harvard has the higher yield. Does anyone have any information on yield information exclusively for cross admits (LSN data mining, sure, but an incredibly tiny sample...)

Because TLS is extremely insular and circular and everyone tends to see stuff on TLS as actually factual when most of it is, at best, out of context information or, at worst, complete uninformed speculation.

In reality, there is very, very, very little separation between HYS.

I don't have the numbers, but if I recall correctly this is not remotely true for high level clerkships or opportunites in academia. Yale greatly outperforms the others when adjusted for class size.

The problem is that Y vs. H is a silly comparison when you do it percentage wise. The class sizes are disparate to a degree that makes strictly percentage wise comparison absolutely silly for positions that are relatively rare. 30% of yales graduating class is like 55-60 students while 20% of Harvard's class is like 115-120 students. This, combined with the factor of self-selection, actually suggests that Harvard is every bit as strong in getting these positions.

notanumber wrote:

tkgrrett wrote:

Zatarra wrote:I'm always curious, Stanford often seems to beat, or come extremely close to, Harvard in these polls, yet Harvard has the higher yield. Does anyone have any information on yield information exclusively for cross admits (LSN data mining, sure, but an incredibly tiny sample...)

Because TLS is extremely insular and circular and everyone tends to see stuff on TLS as actually factual when most of it is, at best, out of context information or, at worst, complete uninformed speculation.

In reality, there is very, very, very little separation between HYS.

This might be true in terms of outcomes (though I would much rather be at the bottom of the class at S or Y than H right now). The three places seemed to have dramatically different cultures.

I should add, for me the decision would be Y > S > T14fullride > H. I really didn't enjoy my visit to Harvard. YMMV.

Yeah this is what I meant.. the difference is in the cultures not the outcomes/opportunities. Its only on TLS where it is suggested so.

interesting poll...anyone know of a thorough description of their cultures? I know TLS has pages for the schools, but I'm thinking more of a thread or something like that..

The yields are deceiving when comparing directly between these top three (HYS) largely because the Harvard class is simply so huge (about 550 students, more than 3X the size of each of SLS and YLS). Therefore, YLS and SLS (each with entering classes of about 175 students) can't possibly offer admission to all the students admitted to HLS (nor, apparently, do they want to), given the sheer size of the entering Harvard class. Therefore, simple mathematics mandates that the number of cross-admits between Harvard and Yale and Harvard and Stanford--on a percentage basis--is not nearly what most would assume it to be (i.e., the overlap is necessarily much smaller).

As a result, Harvard admits a significant portion of their class with students who never received offers from Yale or Stanford. I suspect many on this forum would be surprised at the sheer number of HLS acceptances who were ultimately choosing between HLS and Virginia, or HLS and Michigan, or HLS and Georgetown, or HLS and NYU/Columbia, or HLS and Chicago or Berkeley. Even a fair number end up choosing between HLS and Texas or HLS and Vanderbilt or UCLA. Obviously, these are all great law schools, and, in each case, a fantastic "final two" law schools to be deciding between. But the choice for HLS for many (certainly not all) of those applicants, is therefore an easier proposition. Even then, a fair number choose UVA or Chicago or Michigan or Columbia, sometimes because scholarship $ becomes an important factor. Obviously, there is still H/Y and H/S overlap, but it simply can't be as large on a percentage basis as it is between Y and S (which have almost identical class sizes and frequently are looking for similar outside accomplishments). Therefore, the Harvard yield number, in many ways, is really not directly comparable to YLS or SLS yields--and is artificially inflated upwards (due to its large class size and its more frequent cross admit battles with the rest of the T14 (minus Y and S))--for this reason.

The Yale/Stanford overlap, % wise, is quite high, because both are part of the HYS triumvirate AND have almost identical class sizes (resulting in many students who value the smaller class size focused on both schools), AND both schools tend to look for major accomplishments beyond LSAT and GPA, the two metrics upon which Harvard has long placed the greatest emphasis.

Most of the cross-yield information is pretty tightly guarded among these three. If you talk to students at ASW--or even among your friends from college who applied to HYS--you'll typically find a disproportionate number of HLS admits who were not accepted to Y or S, again, the HLS huge class size being a major factor. (Obviously, there is overlap among the three, but in terms of sheer numbers, and on a percentage basis, given the huge size of the HLS class, HLS has far more "final 2" overlaps with other T14 law schools.) A major percentage of both YLS and SLS enrolees were also accepted to HLS. On a percentage basis, again--given the sheer size of the HLS entering class--the same cannot be said about HLS enroless with respect to YLS and SLS.

Needless to say, most of this is driven by the fact that the class sizes between the Big Three are so distinctly different, with HLS by far being one of the biggest law schools in the Country.

Word is (and because it's word of mouth, it's nothing I can link--so take it for what it's worth) that YLS continues to beat both SLS and HLS fairly comfortably for cross admits (although the # has been declining in recent years for a variety of reasons). Nevertheless, both SLS and HLS take a meaningful number of admits from YLS every year, but YLS is still top among those extremely confident they want to pursue academia. For many years, Yale benefitted in cross-admit battles with S and H due to their perceived relaxed, "no grades" (not exactly accurate) policy; again, this perception and advantage has apparently slowly started to change. SLS and HLS, on the other hand, have--for many decades--historically split their direct cross-admit pool, but apparently SLS has moved ahead over about the past 10 years. And, perhaps not surprisingly, HLS continues to win a disproportionate number of the significant number of HLS vs. other T14 (i.e., not including Y or S) competitions, to fill out its entering class of 550+.

Bottom line: HLS yield will always be artificially inflated upward when compared directly to YLS and SLS because of the sheer size of its entering class (about 550-575 students), a meaningful number of whom simply chose HLS over other T14 members, and didn't have the YLS or SLS option.

[]

Charles5 wrote:The yields are deceiving when comparing directly between these top three (HYS) largely because the Harvard class is simply so huge (about 550 students, more than 3X the size of each of SLS and YLS). Therefore, YLS and SLS (each with entering classes of about 175 students) can't possibly offer admission to all the students admitted to HLS (nor, apparently, do they want to), given the sheer size of the entering Harvard class. Therefore, simple mathematics mandates that the number of cross-admits between Harvard and Yale and Harvard and Stanford--on a percentage basis--is not nearly what most would assume it to be (i.e., the overlap is necessarily much smaller).

As a result, Harvard admits a significant portion of their class with students who never received offers from Yale or Stanford. I suspect many on this forum would be surprised at the sheer number of HLS acceptances who were ultimately choosing between HLS and Virginia, or HLS and Michigan, or HLS and Georgetown, or HLS and NYU/Columbia, or HLS and Chicago or Berkeley. Even a fair number end up choosing between HLS and Texas or HLS and Vanderbilt or UCLA. Obviously, these are all great law schools, and, in each case, a fantastic "final two" law schools to be deciding between. But the choice for HLS for many (certainly not all) of those applicants, is therefore an easier proposition. Even then, a fair number choose UVA or Chicago or Michigan or Columbia, sometimes because scholarship $ becomes an important factor. Obviously, there is still H/Y and H/S overlap, but it simply can't be as large on a percentage basis as it is between Y and S (which have almost identical class sizes and frequently are looking for similar outside accomplishments). Therefore, the Harvard yield number, in many ways, is really not directly comparable to YLS or SLS yields--and is artificially inflated upwards (due to its large class size and its more frequent cross admit battles with the rest of the T14 (minus Y and S))--for this reason.

The Yale/Stanford overlap, % wise, is quite high, because both are part of the HYS triumvirate AND have almost identical class sizes (resulting in many students who value the smaller class size focused on both schools), AND both schools tend to look for major accomplishments beyond LSAT and GPA, the two metrics upon which Harvard has long placed the greatest emphasis.

Most of the cross-yield information is pretty tightly guarded among these three. If you talk to students at ASW--or even among your friends from college who applied to HYS--you'll typically find a disproportionate number of HLS admits who were not accepted to Y or S, again, the HLS huge class size being a major factor. (Obviously, there is overlap among the three, but in terms of sheer numbers, and on a percentage basis, given the huge size of the HLS class, HLS has far more "final 2" overlaps with other T14 law schools.) A major percentage of both YLS and SLS enrolees were also accepted to HLS. On a percentage basis, again--given the sheer size of the HLS entering class--the same cannot be said about HLS enroless with respect to YLS and SLS.

Needless to say, most of this is driven by the fact that the class sizes between the Big Three are so distinctly different, with HLS by far being one of the biggest law schools in the Country.

Word is (and because it's word of mouth, it's nothing I can link--so take it for what it's worth) that YLS continues to beat both SLS and HLS fairly comfortably for cross admits (although the # has been declining in recent years for a variety of reasons). Nevertheless, both SLS and HLS take a meaningful number of admits from YLS every year, but YLS is still top among those extremely confident they want to pursue academia. For many years, Yale benefitted in cross-admit battles with S and H due to their perceived relaxed, "no grades" (not exactly accurate) policy; again, this perception and advantage has apparently slowly started to change. SLS and HLS, on the other hand, have--for many decades--historically split their direct cross-admit pool, but apparently SLS has moved ahead over about the past 10 years. And, perhaps not surprisingly, HLS continues to win a disproportionate number of the significant number of HLS vs. other T14 (i.e., not including Y or S) competitions, to fill out its entering class of 550+.

Bottom line: HLS yield will always be artificially inflated upward when compared directly to YLS and SLS because of the sheer size of its entering class (about 550-575 students), a meaningful number of whom simply chose HLS over other T14 members, and didn't have the YLS or SLS option.

This.

Also, I got bored one night and ran some LSN numbers on cross-admits for the last 3 completed cycles. I only used profiles that clearly showed where the person had decided to enroll, as many were unclear or just not indicated at all.

Among those who got into both H and S in the last three years, 30 chose S and 30 chose H (I know, I couldn't believe that it worked out so perfectly either). And of course, there were a few H+S admits who went elsewhere, but I didn't tally them.

Also, among those who got into Y+S+H (very small numbers) in the last three years, 11 turned down Y to chose S, while 6 turned down Y to chose H. I looked back even further in LSN history, and the trend seemed to be that H and S used to steal roughly equal numbers, with S gaining the upper hand in the most recent cycles.

I realize these are very small numbers that may not be representative. But I think they show that, when facing off head-to-head, Stanford and Harvard are pretty much equally appealing to cross-admits. And, additionally, it seems that Stanford is at least as good, and probably a little better, at stealing cross-admits away from Yale.

I chose HLS because really, who wants to live in New Haven? Also Y's academic culture didn't suit me (I had this silly notion that I wanted to learn law then practice law) and Y's Law and Econ faculty was really weak. S I liked a lot and almost ended up going there, but decided that H would be better because I'd study more (I love out doors and the weather is so nice in the Bay area it'd be too much temptation), it was nearer to our family (which made the wife happy) and S's Law and Econ faculty while of excellent quality was tiny. H ended up being an awesome experience, I got to work closely with some of the best L&E people in the world (including S's leading L&E guy) and got a great job out of school so life is good. I imagine things would have ended up just about as well at S. Don't think I'd have enjoyed Y.

HLS is perfectly fine for folks headed to legal academia as well - I suspect that the primary reason why Y's academic #'s are so high has more to do with self-selection that opportunity. Y does probably have some advantage as there seems to be a more writing-intensive culture and closer student-faculty interaction, but you can write and interact all you want at H - you just won't be forced to. Also visit New Haven first, it really does live down it its reputation

bikepilot wrote:Also Y's academic culture didn't suit me (I had this silly notion that I wanted to learn law then practice law) and Y's Law and Econ faculty was really weak.

This is completely untrue.

The most cited profs in Law & Econ are as follows:

1. Richard Epstein (University of Chicago): 3390 citations, age 64.

2. Eric Posner (University of Chicago): 2020 citations, age 42.

3. Ian Ayres (Yale University): 1600 citations, age 48.

4. William Landes (University of Chicago): 1550 citations, age 68.

5. Steven Shavell (Harvard University): 1490 citations, age 61.

6. Robert Cooter (University of California, Berkeley): 1480 citations, age 62.

7. Louis Kaplow (Harvard University): 1370 citations, age 51.

8. A. Mitchell Polinsky (Stanford University): 1340 citations, age 59.

9. Thomas Ulen (University of Illinois): 990 citations, age 61.

10. George Priest (Yale University): 870 citations, age 60.

Runners-up: Christine Jolls (Yale University), 850 citations; W. Kip Viscusi (Vanderbilt University), 850 citations; Lewis Kornhauser (New York University), 750 citations; Saul Levmore (University of Chicago), 740 citations.

Leiter admits that there isn't really a stark dividing line between Law & Econ and various aspects of business law, so here is that list:

BUSINESS LAW
(including corporate, securities regulation, commercial law, bankruptcy, antitrust)
Because this encompasses a huge range of really quite different topics, we list here the top 20 scholars working in some aspect of this broad area.

1. John Coffee (Columbia University): 2020 citations, age 63.

2. Jonathan Macey (Yale University): 1600 citations, age 52.

3. Robert Scott (Columbia University): 1390 citations, age 63.

4. Lucian Bebchuk (Harvard University): 1140 citations, age 52.

5. Ronald J. Gilson (Columbia University, Stanford University): 1080 citations, age 61.

6. Larry Ribstein (University of Illinois): 950 citations, age 61.

7. Alan Schwartz (Yale University): 930 citations, age 67.

8. Reinier Kraakman (Harvard University): 920 citations, age 58.

8. Donald Langevoort (Georgetown University): 920 citations, age 56.

8. Roberta Romano (Yale University): 920 citations, age 55.

11. Bernard Black (University of Texas): 880 citations, age 54.

12. Douglas Baird (University of Chicago): 850 citations, age 54.

13. Mark Roe (Harvard University), 800 citations, age 56.

14. Stephen Bainbridge (University of California, Los Angeles), 770 citations, age 49.

15. Henry Hansmann (Yale University), 740 citations, age 62.

16. Lynn Stout (University of California, Los Angeles), 730 citations, age 50.

17. Lynn LoPucki (University of California, Los Angeles), 700 citations, age 63.

18. James J. White (University of Michigan), 700 citations, age 73.

19. Elizabeth Warren (Harvard University), 680 citations, age 58.

20. Jay L. Westbrook (University of Texas), 660 citations, age 64.

Runners-up: Marcel Kahan (New York University), 620 citations; James Cox (Duke University), 610 citations; Jill Fisch (Fordham University), 610 citations; William Bratton (Georgetown University), 590 citations; Robert Thompson (Vanderbilt University), 580 citations; Stephen Choi (New York University), 570 citations; David Skeel (University of Pennsylvania), 560 citations; Lisa Bernstein (University of Chicago), 540 citations; Thomas Lee Hazen (University of North Carolina), 530 citations; Jeffrey Gordon (Columbia University), 520 citations; Margaret Blair (Vanderbilt University), 510 citations; Edward Rock (University of Pennsylvania), 500 citations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is also leaving aside the fact that Calabresi, who still teaches basic 1L courses at YLS, basically invented the field of Law & Econ with Posner and Coase back in the day.

Now if you want to argue that UChicago > YLS when it comes to Law & Econ, you might have an argument, but I see little evidence that SLS even comes close, and I've never heard anyone argue otherwise.

interesting results. i imagined yale would lead, didn't expect as great a disparity b/w stanford and harvard. (even though i voted for SLS ha)

CrabDribble202 wrote:

bikepilot wrote:Also Y's academic culture didn't suit me (I had this silly notion that I wanted to learn law then practice law) and Y's Law and Econ faculty was really weak.

This is completely untrue.

The most cited profs in Law & Econ are as follows:

1. Richard Epstein (University of Chicago): 3390 citations, age 64.

2. Eric Posner (University of Chicago): 2020 citations, age 42.

3. Ian Ayres (Yale University): 1600 citations, age 48.

4. William Landes (University of Chicago): 1550 citations, age 68.

5. Steven Shavell (Harvard University): 1490 citations, age 61.

6. Robert Cooter (University of California, Berkeley): 1480 citations, age 62.

7. Louis Kaplow (Harvard University): 1370 citations, age 51.

8. A. Mitchell Polinsky (Stanford University): 1340 citations, age 59.

9. Thomas Ulen (University of Illinois): 990 citations, age 61.

10. George Priest (Yale University): 870 citations, age 60.

Runners-up: Christine Jolls (Yale University), 850 citations; W. Kip Viscusi (Vanderbilt University), 850 citations; Lewis Kornhauser (New York University), 750 citations; Saul Levmore (University of Chicago), 740 citations.

Simply based on this list, Eric Posner is the man.

Not going to vote yet, because I am not sure enough. But will be coming back to this thread.

I am originally from Europe and I can tell you that an average person on the street has no idea what Stanford or Yale is but when they hear "Harvard" they are always impressed. If money is no issue I go to Harvard for vanity.

BarbellDreams wrote:I am originally from Europe and I can tell you that an average person on the street has no idea what Stanford or Yale is but when they hear "Harvard" they are always impressed. If money is no issue I go to Harvard for vanity.

I also live in Europe. I think younger people are increasingly familiar with Yale, Princeton etc. (really any Ivy + some CA schools) from US pop culture (Gilmore Girls, for instance). Plus, where it matters (potential mates, bosses, etc) those people are likely not quite the "average European on the street" and I'd venture to say most would know that Yale and Stanford are also top unis. More Yale than Stanford, probably, partially given East Coast.