Top Law Schools

kaiser wrote:Cool

JusticeHarlan wrote:

kaiser wrote:Cool

Story

slsorhls wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if other firms like Fenwick & West also skip Yale. I honestly think this one example is enough to debunk the "every employer in the nation will do whatever it takes to hire any Yale graduate" argument.

rad lulz wrote:That firm hired Tucker Max, so I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in them.

I could probably find a bunch of random east coast firms that don't have any Stanford grads. But that would be just about as pointless as what you did here.

Fenwick doesn't go to Yale because anyone at Yale has better biglaw options than Fenwick, so none of them go to Fenwick.

slsorhls wrote:

I could probably find a bunch of random east coast firms that don't have any Stanford grads. But that would be just about as pointless as what you did here.

This is about where they choose to do OCI, not about whether they employ Yale grads. I checked and found only one associate from each of Yale and Harvard in their ranks. Their logic is probably simply about numbers. Harvard has a bigger pool, so they go there. This is one advantage of a larger school.

Fenwick doesn't go to Yale because anyone at Yale has better biglaw options than Fenwick, so none of them go to Fenwick.

I think they don't bother visiting because Yale has a small, narrowly focused set of graduates who aren't interested in Fenwick. In other words, I agree with you.

The point is that this goes against the widely heard refrain that Yale is the best for any employment options and anything in the universe, period. I'm beginning to think that if you want to go to a law school with the widest possible employment options (including outside of the more traditional routes), you may want to go to Harvard. If you are set on academia, you should go to Yale, of course. But I think a lot of people aren't set, and with Harvard you get opportunities across the board.

What do you mean "firms like Fenwick"? I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford had an edge over Yale at Fenwick or other SF/SV firms (all other things being equal). I don't think anybody would claim otherwise.

slsorhls wrote:

I could probably find a bunch of random east coast firms that don't have any Stanford grads. But that would be just about as pointless as what you did here.

This is about where they choose to do OCI, not about whether they employ Yale grads. I checked and found only one associate from each of Yale and Harvard in their ranks. Their logic is probably simply about numbers. Harvard has a bigger pool, so they go there. This is one advantage of a larger school.

Fenwick doesn't go to Yale because anyone at Yale has better biglaw options than Fenwick, so none of them go to Fenwick.

I think they don't bother visiting because Yale has a small, narrowly focused set of graduates who aren't interested in Fenwick. In other words, I agree with you.

The point is that this goes against the widely heard refrain that Yale is the best for any employment options and anything in the universe, period. I'm beginning to think that if you want to go to a law school with the widest possible employment options (including outside of the more traditional routes), you may want to go to Harvard. If you are set on academia, you should go to Yale, of course. But I think a lot of people aren't set, and with Harvard you get opportunities across the board.

Well there are probably a lot of east coast firms that don't do OCI at Stanford. Still, it doesn't really mean anything. I don't even see what you're trying to accomplish with this thread. If a Yale person applied to this firm I'm sure they could get hired. The reason the firm doesn't do OCI at Yale is probably just because they don't think it's worth their time. Pretty much what chiwachiwa said.

slsorhls wrote:Fenwick & West
--LinkRemoved--

Anyone notice a school missing from their list? I wouldn't be surprised if other firms like Fenwick & West also skip Yale. I honestly think this one example is enough to debunk the "every employer in the nation will do whatever it takes to hire any Yale graduate" argument.

Sure, they probably accept resumes, and they'll consider them. But if they really cared about getting Yale grads, they would visit. It's that simple.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that any firm anyone can think of visits Harvard. That's the advantage of graduating a larger class with diverse interests (i.e. not narrowly focused on academia).

Anyone who wants to put forward a degree rarity argument here can forget about it, by the way. Listen, Fenwick & West has a ton more associates and partners from Stanford than Harvard and maybe anywhere else, I'm sure. But that's self-selection. They probably have barely anyone from Harvard, and that could work in someone's favor.

Assuming that firms care about having at least 1-2 people from each top law school (as many have suggested on TLS), the same degree rarity argument launched against Harvard could easily go against Stanford here. Why take Stanford applicant A when they already have more than enough Stanford grads. Why not take Harvard applicant A when they barely have anyone from Harvard?

I still haven't seen any real evidence the degree rarity thing truly matters, but it seems like it could go either way if it did.

I think in reality there might be a bias for partners to hire people from their own alma maters.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

JusticeHarlan wrote:

kaiser wrote:Cool

Story

Bro!

I did it!

chimp wrote:I don't even see what you're trying to accomplish with this thread.

StarLightSpectre wrote:

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

JusticeHarlan wrote:

kaiser wrote:Cool

Story

Bro!

I did it!

I can't wait until I get to contribute to one of these!

My point is, Fenwick isn't "the best" at anything. Maybe if you want VC in CA, but you also have Wilson, etc., that will all recruit at Yale. And I'm pretty confident that if you resume drop your YLS resume at Fenwick, you're going to get a screener.

I know I always start threads about "The Truth" with a single piece of anecdotal evidence.

slsorhls wrote:

I know I always start threads about "The Truth" with a single piece of anecdotal evidence.

Looks like you don't know the meaning of "anecdotal."

But it's all good. I think Yale gets way too much of a scot-free ride around here. I think the widely held assumption on TLS that Yale trumps everything is garbage. This is just one tiny piece of that.

All of my posts are about challenging the faulty, widely held assumptions on TLS.