The Truth About Yale Forum

[imbored25]

^uck this shit bro

[slsorhls]

If we are defining "top of the curve" to be the best of the best from the applicant pool, then Yale beats Harvard easily.

This is absolutely incorrect. What you're describing is simply a result of class size, period. By any statistic, each school has essentially equal students (they both draw from the same edge of the curve...because HLS students are already at that edge, it's really impossible for Yale to somehow be even further at the edge--and if Yale were--which they are not--it would be because of class size and nothing else. The smaller your class, the easier it is to not take applicants from the left side of the curve). So it comes down to soft factors. You can believe Yale's professors pick for soft factors that lead to higher caliber students, but you could also just as well think that they select for people like themselves (those who are probably joining academia at some point). It's difficult to argue soft factors one way or another.

I would imagine that the majority of people at Yale also were accepted by Harvard. The same can't be said the other way around.

Just by nature of its much larger class size, what you're saying will always be the case. If Harvard chose to have the same class size at Yale tomorrow, I don't think there's really any doubt that they would quickly surpass Yale in the rankings and probably within a year or two within ridiculous TLS-logic. The rankings are weighted towards smaller schools, and as such, Yale has always had a leg up. Of course, Yale has been dropping with other schools gaining ground since 2009. I guess when you're at the mythical top, there''s no pressure to improve.

Now, when you talk about yield, you have a real point. The problem is that yield isn't necessarily based on reality. I think there are two key things behind Yale's yield: First, the rankings and widespread TLS-logic among 0Ls that Yale is a mythical magic pill, which it's not, and secondly, because Yale does a good job of selecting candidates who are in fact best suited for Yale (i.e. people who are probably headed to academia). Those students choose to in fact enroll at Yale to a high degree because they correctly recognize that Yale is the place for them.

This of course doesn't mean that Yale is superior to Stanford or Harvard; it could just mean that people are swayed based on misleading ideas and/or that Yale does an excellent job of selecting the candidates who are best suited for Yale's style.

The most important point that people should understand is that each of these schools has their own style. A person shouldn't choose Yale, for instance, because of mythical magic pill TLS ideas. They should choose it if they are certain they want to become a law professor, for instance. It will not be the best choice for every person.

This should strike a reasonable person as extremely obvious, but on TLS it creates mad controversy.

[slsorhls]

Right, and in reality probably closer to half of those 44 chose HLS. SLS certainly gets a healthy portion, as well as people with Hamiltons/Rubensteins/Darrows/etc.

The yield rate is because of tls thinking

I really don't think enough people use TLS for it to have a statistically significant effect on yield rates at HLS and YLS. Besides, it's at least plausible to argue that any TLS bias in favor of YLS is more than outweighed by HLS dominating YLS in lay prestige.

I said "TLS thinking," not literally people logging in and reading TLS. I think a lot of people who may never read TLS nevertheless think like a lot of people on TLS do.

[johansantana21]

Bitter Harvard students, seriously?

[BarcaCrossesTheAlps]

I actually read through all six pages..... I need help.

[RedBirds2011]

Me too. It's annoying and somewhat depressing but still entertaining.Plus, I'm on vacation so I have nothing else to do right now but be completely worthless and lounge in TLS.

[Blessedassurance]

First of all, this is the stupidest metric in the world. Second of all: 5 HLS judges and 3 YLS. You're pretty dumb if you don't understand why that favors Yale.

This is admittedly petty, pointless and stupid but in the interest of accuracy, it is perhaps best to characterize it as 5.5 HLS and 3 YLS. Some might even argue we could round it up as 6 HLS and 3 YLS (I wouldn't make that argument myself, but some reasonable people would, for valid reasons).

[slsorhls]

First of all, this is the stupidest metric in the world. Second of all: 5 HLS judges and 3 YLS. You're pretty dumb if you don't understand why that favors Yale.

This is admittedly petty, pointless and stupid but in the interest of accuracy, it is perhaps best to characterize it as 5.5 HLS and 3 YLS. Some might even argue we could round it up as 6 HLS and 3 YLS (I wouldn't make that argument myself, but some reasonable people would, for valid reasons).

When you are looking at something with such limited numbers, the small schools are always going to be overrepresented. It's another statistical thing that TLS people rarely understand. Just get one Yale grad onto a prestigious list of five, and you're set. Meanwhile, relatively bigger pools will always be at a disadvantage. It's really hard for HLS to represent its size when you're talking about a group that small. No one would think HLS is so strong that it's going to overpower every other school and thus fill up that particular prestigious list of 5-10 with the proportionate number of HLS grads, especially when getting just 1-2 is already going to put Yale or Stanford in a potential overrepresented state.

Once you make the size larger of the particular prestigious thing or expand to continue a larger group of things in general, the effect will dwindle. HLS grads will make up space, and Yale/Stanford grads will start to lose their overrepresented status.

I'm sure if you look at prestigious things out there, you'll see less of an overrepresntation for Yale and/or Stanford once you get into bigger numbers. But anything on the small end (especially 5-10) will always overrepresent Yale/Stanford as long as at least someone gets a position.

This logic obviously can be applied to HLS's relatively low clerkship percentage. There are only so many clerkships, especially prestigious ones that HLS grads are often solely focused on. There just aren't enough slots in general for Harvard to raise above the percentages they are typically at (20-30% I think). The only way that would happen is if Harvard truly blew everyone else out of the water. I think the fact the percentages are as good as they are indicates Harvard's strength, but it's clearly relatively equal among HYS.

------------

I do think that Yale is probably the best bet for someone going for a clerkship, though.

[Br3v]

I actually read through all six pages..... I need help.

whats it about? The obvious?

[Blessedassurance]

First of all, this is the stupidest metric in the world. Second of all: 5 HLS judges and 3 YLS. You're pretty dumb if you don't understand why that favors Yale.

This is admittedly petty, pointless and stupid but in the interest of accuracy, it is perhaps best to characterize it as 5.5 HLS and 3 YLS. Some might even argue we could round it up as 6 HLS and 3 YLS (I wouldn't make that argument myself, but some reasonable people would, for valid reasons).

When you are looking at something with such limited numbers, the small schools are always going to be overrepresented. It's another statistical thing that TLS people rarely understand. Just get one Yale grad onto a prestigious list of five, and you're set. Meanwhile, relatively bigger pools will always be at a disadvantage. It's really hard for HLS to represent its size when you're talking about a group that small. No one would think HLS is so strong that it's going to overpower every other school and thus fill up that particular prestigious list of 5-10 with the proportionate number of HLS grads, especially when getting just 1-2 is already going to put Yale or Stanford in a potential overrepresented state.

Once you make the size larger of the particular prestigious thing or expand to continue a larger group of things in general, the effect will dwindle. HLS grads will make up space, and Yale/Stanford grads will start to lose their overrepresented status.

I'm sure if you look at prestigious things out there, you'll see less of an overrepresntation for Yale and/or Stanford once you get into bigger numbers. But anything on the small end (especially 5-10) will always overrepresent Yale/Stanford as long as at least someone gets a position.

This logic obviously can be applied to HLS's relatively low clerkship percentage. There are only so many clerkships, especially prestigious ones that HLS grads are often solely focused on. There just aren't enough slots in general for Harvard to raise above the percentages they are typically at (20-30% I think). The only way that would happen is if Harvard truly blew everyone else out of the water. I think the fact the percentages are as good as they are indicates Harvard's strength, but it's clearly relatively equal among HYS.

------------

I do think that Yale is probably the best bet for someone going for a clerkship, though.

I concur. A poster (from Northwestern, I believe, but I'm not entirely sure) proffered an excellent argument with regards to the limited number of slots vis-a-vis class-sizes and so on. It is a really simple and potent argument. It's not like all the 9 Supreme Court justices can come from Harvard. His/her original argument focused on "prestigious clerkship opportunities" but I believe the underlying rationale is more extrapolative than perhaps, originally intended.

There are other considerations. Since HYS only award need-based aid for the most part, at the highest level of need at least, S>H>Y, I believe, but I stand corrected. H also has - arguably - the best program with regards to LIPP and so on and so forth.

At the very least, the HYS decision is more complicated than TLS makes it seem. There is also of course the wide-spread, objectively-justifiable belief that the preponderant sum of Yale grads simply cannot hack it in the real world. This is not necessarily restricted to Yale. Allan Bloom expounds on these matters (i.e. America's relatively-recent penchant for political correctness in all matters to the point of annoyance, its infatuation with giving everybody a trophy and avoiding every kind of competition) in his essay "The Closing of the American Mind".

[shoeshine]

I don't think Fenwick is ranked high enough to attract a Yale grad.

[1988AndX]

First of all, this is the stupidest metric in the world. Second of all: 5 HLS judges and 3 YLS. You're pretty dumb if you don't understand why that favors Yale.

This is admittedly petty, pointless and stupid but in the interest of accuracy, it is perhaps best to characterize it as 5.5 HLS and 3 YLS. Some might even argue we could round it up as 6 HLS and 3 YLS (I wouldn't make that argument myself, but some reasonable people would, for valid reasons).

When you are looking at something with such limited numbers, the small schools are always going to be overrepresented. It's another statistical thing that TLS people rarely understand. Just get one Yale grad onto a prestigious list of five, and you're set. Meanwhile, relatively bigger pools will always be at a disadvantage. It's really hard for HLS to represent its size when you're talking about a group that small. No one would think HLS is so strong that it's going to overpower every other school and thus fill up that particular prestigious list of 5-10 with the proportionate number of HLS grads, especially when getting just 1-2 is already going to put Yale or Stanford in a potential overrepresented state.

Once you make the size larger of the particular prestigious thing or expand to continue a larger group of things in general, the effect will dwindle. HLS grads will make up space, and Yale/Stanford grads will start to lose their overrepresented status.

I'm sure if you look at prestigious things out there, you'll see less of an overrepresntation for Yale and/or Stanford once you get into bigger numbers. But anything on the small end (especially 5-10) will always overrepresent Yale/Stanford as long as at least someone gets a position.

This logic obviously can be applied to HLS's relatively low clerkship percentage. There are only so many clerkships, especially prestigious ones that HLS grads are often solely focused on. There just aren't enough slots in general for Harvard to raise above the percentages they are typically at (20-30% I think). The only way that would happen is if Harvard truly blew everyone else out of the water. I think the fact the percentages are as good as they are indicates Harvard's strength, but it's clearly relatively equal among HYS.

------------

I do think that Yale is probably the best bet for someone going for a clerkship, though.

I concur. A poster (from Northwestern, I believe, but I'm not entirely sure) proffered an excellent argument with regards to the limited number of slots vis-a-vis class-sizes and so on. It is a really simple and potent argument. It's not like all the 9 Supreme Court justices can come from Harvard. His/her original argument focused on "prestigious clerkship opportunities" but I believe the underlying rationale is more extrapolative than perhaps, originally intended.

There are other considerations. Since HYS only award need-based aid for the most part, at the highest level of need at least, S>H>Y, I believe, but I stand corrected. H also has - arguably - the best program with regards to LIPP and so on and so forth.

At the very least, the HYS decision is more complicated than TLS makes it seem. There is also of course the wide-spread, objectively-justifiable belief that the preponderant sum of Yale grads simply cannot hack it in the real world. This is not necessarily restricted to Yale. Allan Bloom expounds on these matters (i.e. America's relatively-recent penchant for political correctness in all matters to the point of annoyance, its infatuation with giving everybody a trophy and avoiding every kind of competition) in his essay "The Closing of the American Mind".

The offer of need-based aid, according to ABA data, is S (median of $22178) > Y (median of $21410) > H (median of $15490). This may be one of the significant reasons why people choose Yale over Harvard.

[AttaBoy]

There is also of course the wide-spread, objectively-justifiable belief that the preponderant sum of Yale grads simply cannot hack it in the real world.

I don't know why I'm continuing to feed this troll, but I can't help myself. You two (or one?) really have no idea what you're talking about. The most common two employers of Y students before law school (in my class) were the federal government and McKinsey. Eighty percent of the class participated in the "real world" before law school. I guess you could say that the preponderance of Rhodes/Gates/Truman/Fulbright Scholars here don't have "real world" experience, but that'd probably just reinforce the flame that is this thread.

At least everyone else on TLS realizes you're just babbling nonsense, but can we stop this now?

[slsorhls]

I don't know why I'm continuing to feed this troll, but I can't help myself. You two (or one?)

The ideas we're expressing have been a minority view that sometimes seeps through the cracks from the dominant, rankings hysteria, uninformed, -1L dogma that pervades TLS.

There's something else, by the way, that should be pointed out about Yale. There's something wrong with an admissions system where they not only admit, but BRAG about, the fact that they do not review applicants in a fair or even systematic way (after getting into the professor review round). Think about that for a second.

Yale embraces the idea of professors ranking candidates in ANY WAY they see fit. And there's apparently no external or even internal review on that process.

Yale professors and administrators should be intelligent enough to see the problem with such a system. There are opportunities for discrimination (professors could easily reject applicants based on simple political affiliations or other affiliations they don't like). There are opportunities for all kinds of psychological biases to come in to play. There are opportunities that go the other direction--people getting in because of connections/affiliations with the professors (there is no information at all about recusing oneself on certain applicants or anything of that sort).

In what other area would we ever see it as a positive thing to embrace a system that throws out the quantitative in favor of "rank people however you want to"? And yet, Yale BOASTS essentially that their process comes down to just that.

Granted, a lot of people with lower numbers are always going to complain about admissions systems too heavily based on quantitative factors. But I think from an outsider's perspective, it's always better to be more quantitative when you're dealing with something like this. Soft factors are difficult to gauge. Numbers are more reliable. I mean, this is why the LSAT is across the board the most important factor in admissions at any law school--it's the one quantitative factor that you can really use to compare applicants from different colleges with different grading systems.

At Yale, they do seem to have an LSAT cutoff. But once they narrow the class down to essentially the same caliber students H and S are going after, they employ an arbitrary, black box approach.

I think it says something about the institution.

[soj]

I don't know why I'm continuing to feed this troll, but I can't help myself. You two (or one?)

The ideas we're expressing have been a minority view that sometimes seeps through the cracks from the dominant, rankings hysteria, uninformed, -1L dogma that pervades TLS.

There's something else, by the way, that should be pointed out about Yale. There's something wrong with an admissions system where they not only admit, but BRAG about, the fact that they do not review applicants in a fair or even systematic way (after getting into the professor review round). Think about that for a second.

Yale embraces the idea of professors ranking candidates in ANY WAY they see fit. And there's apparently no external or even internal review on that process.

Yale professors and administrators should be intelligent enough to see the problem with such a system. There are opportunities for discrimination (professors could easily reject applicants based on simple political affiliations or other affiliations they don't like). There are opportunities for all kinds of psychological biases to come in to play. There are opportunities that go the other direction--people getting in because of connections/affiliations with the professors (there is no information at all about recusing oneself on certain applicants or anything of that sort).

In what other area would we ever see it as a positive thing to embrace a system that throws out the quantitative in favor of "rank people however you want to"? And yet, Yale BOASTS essentially that their process comes down to just that.

Granted, a lot of people with lower numbers are always going to complain about admissions systems too heavily based on quantitative factors. But I think from an outsider's perspective, it's always better to be more quantitative when you're dealing with something like this. Soft factors are difficult to gauge. Numbers are more reliable. I mean, this is why the LSAT is across the board the most important factor in admissions at any law school--it's the one quantitative factor that you can really use to compare applicants from different colleges with different grading systems.

At Yale, they do seem to have an LSAT cutoff. But once they narrow the class down to essentially the same caliber students H and S are going after, they employ an arbitrary, black box approach.

I think it says something about the institution.

You're getting pretty desperate.

Let's keep this up. I want to see a full meltdown before the end of the week.

[071816]

slsorhls, how would you respond to taipeimort's oft-made claim that Harvard has a "diluted faculty"?

[chasgoose]

I don't know why I'm continuing to feed this troll, but I can't help myself. You two (or one?)

The ideas we're expressing have been a minority view that sometimes seeps through the cracks from the dominant, rankings hysteria, uninformed, -1L dogma that pervades TLS.

There's something else, by the way, that should be pointed out about Yale. There's something wrong with an admissions system where they not only admit, but BRAG about, the fact that they do not review applicants in a fair or even systematic way (after getting into the professor review round). Think about that for a second.

Yale embraces the idea of professors ranking candidates in ANY WAY they see fit. And there's apparently no external or even internal review on that process.

Yale professors and administrators should be intelligent enough to see the problem with such a system. There are opportunities for discrimination (professors could easily reject applicants based on simple political affiliations or other affiliations they don't like). There are opportunities for all kinds of psychological biases to come in to play. There are opportunities that go the other direction--people getting in because of connections/affiliations with the professors (there is no information at all about recusing oneself on certain applicants or anything of that sort).

In what other area would we ever see it as a positive thing to embrace a system that throws out the quantitative in favor of "rank people however you want to"? And yet, Yale BOASTS essentially that their process comes down to just that.

Granted, a lot of people with lower numbers are always going to complain about admissions systems too heavily based on quantitative factors. But I think from an outsider's perspective, it's always better to be more quantitative when you're dealing with something like this. Soft factors are difficult to gauge. Numbers are more reliable. I mean, this is why the LSAT is across the board the most important factor in admissions at any law school--it's the one quantitative factor that you can really use to compare applicants from different colleges with different grading systems.

At Yale, they do seem to have an LSAT cutoff. But once they narrow the class down to essentially the same caliber students H and S are going after, they employ an arbitrary, black box approach.

I think it says something about the institution.

Wait wait wait. This is getting ridiculous now. How is this any different than a typical admissions system? The only difference I can see is that professors have input when at Harvard and Stanford, non-academic admininstrators make all the decision. Why are admissions officers any better equipped to make a decision as to who attends a school than professors? If we see Yale Law as an unparalleled stepping stone to academia like you negatively portray it as, doesn't it make sense that the academy has some say in who gets in? Finally, soft factors are difficult to gauge, but it's not like Yale is a slouch on numbers. They have pretty much equal numbers with Harvard (slightly lower LSAT 25% and GPA 75%, but higher LSAT 75% and GPA 25%) and to argue that Yale is somehow less objective than Stanford based on numbers is laughable. The big difference between Yale and Harvard is that with Harvard you can get in with nothing more than a 4.0 and a 177+ LSAT score. At Yale you most likely will need MORE than that if you want to get in. The faculty review phase isn't a replacement for the more objective numbers based admissions standards of Harvard, but rather an additional admissions hurdle one must cross in order to get in. Once again this demonstrates that Yale doesn't just get the numerically best applicants, but also applicants who have distinguished themselves somehow before law school. Harvard certainly gets some of those too, but they also accept students who are merely numerically distinguished and have nothing else to offer (at least on a law school application).

[slsorhls]

I don't know why I'm continuing to feed this troll, but I can't help myself. You two (or one?)

The ideas we're expressing have been a minority view that sometimes seeps through the cracks from the dominant, rankings hysteria, uninformed, -1L dogma that pervades TLS.

There's something else, by the way, that should be pointed out about Yale. There's something wrong with an admissions system where they not only admit, but BRAG about, the fact that they do not review applicants in a fair or even systematic way (after getting into the professor review round). Think about that for a second.

Yale embraces the idea of professors ranking candidates in ANY WAY they see fit. And there's apparently no external or even internal review on that process.

Yale professors and administrators should be intelligent enough to see the problem with such a system. There are opportunities for discrimination (professors could easily reject applicants based on simple political affiliations or other affiliations they don't like). There are opportunities for all kinds of psychological biases to come in to play. There are opportunities that go the other direction--people getting in because of connections/affiliations with the professors (there is no information at all about recusing oneself on certain applicants or anything of that sort).

In what other area would we ever see it as a positive thing to embrace a system that throws out the quantitative in favor of "rank people however you want to"? And yet, Yale BOASTS essentially that their process comes down to just that.

Granted, a lot of people with lower numbers are always going to complain about admissions systems too heavily based on quantitative factors. But I think from an outsider's perspective, it's always better to be more quantitative when you're dealing with something like this. Soft factors are difficult to gauge. Numbers are more reliable. I mean, this is why the LSAT is across the board the most important factor in admissions at any law school--it's the one quantitative factor that you can really use to compare applicants from different colleges with different grading systems.

At Yale, they do seem to have an LSAT cutoff. But once they narrow the class down to essentially the same caliber students H and S are going after, they employ an arbitrary, black box approach.

I think it says something about the institution.

Wait wait wait. This is getting ridiculous now. How is this any different than a typical admissions system? The only difference I can see is that professors have input when at Harvard and Stanford, non-academic admininstrators make all the decision.

You need to look closer to see my point. The point isn't that people make decisions based on soft factors. The point is that Yale actually boasts that in their system, professors are free to rank based on whatever the hell they want. I don't think there are even any guidelines suggested. Clearly, for most schools, there are policies in place that prevent capricious choices. Also, many schools employ various committee processes to ensure multiple reviews and fairness. Yale apparently eschews all of that in favor of letting professors choose based on whatever they want. While I think multiple professors must rank a particular application highly, there doesn't seem to be any reason why professors couldn't confer with each other about particular candidates.

Why are admissions officers any better equipped to make a decision as to who attends a school than professors? If we see Yale Law as an unparalleled stepping stone to academia like you negatively portray it as, doesn't it make sense that the academy has some say in who gets in?

My point wasn't about professors vs. admissions officers. My point was about the administrative process and about how the professors choose based on any rubric they want. The point would be just as good if Yale had admissions officers instead of professors on this. In fact, if someone complained about an application being turned down for a political reason, for instance, they would have no argument whatsoever in going after the professor who caused it. He could even arguably say that he chose based on politics. The Yale system apparently has no rule to prevent that sort of thing. Their site says professors can choose on any rubric they want.

Finally, soft factors are difficult to gauge, but it's not like Yale is a slouch on numbers. They have pretty much equal numbers with Harvard (slightly lower LSAT 25% and GPA 75%, but higher LSAT 75% and GPA 25%)

I already anticipated this point when I talked about the LSAT cutoff Yale apparently employs. Once you get past that and enter the Harvard/Yale caliber pool, Yale engages in their apparently capricious, non-rubric style process. Harvard apparently just gets at that pool and stays there given their ability to take in more students.

The big difference between Yale and Harvard is that with Harvard you can get in with nothing more than a 4.0 and a 177+ LSAT score. At Yale you most likely will need MORE than that if you want to get in.

I agree to some degree. HLS can and does still reject people they don't like who nevertheless have top scores though. But I agree that Yale requires something "more" and that is subject to a capricious process where professors are encouraged to choose based on whatever they care about.

In fact, they even apparently turn these soft factors into numerical scores. I think that's ridiculous. A game where you rank soft factors is open to misinterpretation and other problems. Should soft factors be part of the process? Yes. But to rank and try to break them down in a quantitative way based on personal statements and resumes is going to naturally lead to problems. There will certainly be personal biases among professors--of course, technically the Yale process seems to even encourage the use of personal biases--you could even argue it's solely based on personal biases given the way they explain it.

The faculty review phase isn't a replacement for the more objective numbers based admissions standards of Harvard, but rather an additional admissions hurdle one must cross in order to get in. Once again this demonstrates that Yale doesn't just get the numerically best applicants, but also applicants who have distinguished themselves somehow before law school.

That's assuming that the professors actually use some sort of rubric that accurately brings forward those who "distinguish themselves" best. More importantly, what distinguishes one person from another in a good way is largely a matter of opinion. For some, it will be academic honors and other academic prestige things that those in academia value (these are in fact the things that Yale admits end up having in my opinion, which certainly reflects professor bias). For others it may be community service or blue collar work.

[Ti Malice]

What a great thread. Thanks OP, I guess your Yale rejection served the greater good.

So true.

[romothesavior]

A riveting thread started by an insightful poster on a groundbreaking, important issue.

[Tom Joad]

A riveting thread started by an insightful poster on a groundbreaking, important issue.

Yeah I withdrew my Yale application after reading this insightful information about that TTT school.

[Geneva]

Yale has students who strike out at OCI. Yale has disenchanted, upset students. I could list a lot more.

Could you? Please do. This is the first I've heard about YLS students that struck out at OCI.

[Blessedassurance]

Yale has students who strike out at OCI. Yale has disenchanted, upset students. I could list a lot more.

Could you? Please do. This is the first I've heard about YLS students that struck out at OCI.

Are you gonna necro every imaginable hys thread (in addition to starting new ones) to settle your inner conflicts? Have you considered divinity school? It's a viable destination for a number of Yalies on account of their documented lack of the tenacity and level-headedness necessary for private enterprise. That and the Federal Government. Take some time off or at least wait to get off the Y waitlist. As is, you're just setting yourself up for discontent at Stanford, you sound like you'd rather be somewhere else. If you're concerned about striking out, Stanford is actually a safer bet, based on employment figures.

http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/cdo ... tstats.htm

http://www.law.stanford.edu/experience/ ... tatistics/

Yale

--LinkRemoved--

Stanford

--LinkRemoved--

Google the rest.

[Geneva]

Yale has students who strike out at OCI. Yale has disenchanted, upset students. I could list a lot more.

Could you? Please do. This is the first I've heard about YLS students that struck out at OCI.

I actually wanted to see if slsorhls could back up his/her claim. Still waiting...

(Am thrilled about SLS, but want to fully examine all the pros and cons of potential schools because law school is a big investment. I want to figure out my personal preferences re:HYS so that I have a decision ready in the event that 1) I get into H, 2) I get off Y's wait list.)

[Mal Reynolds]

Yale has students who strike out at OCI. Yale has disenchanted, upset students. I could list a lot more.

Could you? Please do. This is the first I've heard about YLS students that struck out at OCI.

I actually wanted to see if slsorhls could back up his/her claim. Still waiting...

(Am thrilled about SLS, but want to fully examine all the pros and cons of potential schools because law school is a big investment. I want to figure out my personal preferences re:HYS so that I have a decision ready in the event that 1) I get into H, 2) I get off Y's wait list.)