Top Law Schools

On many of these Harvard vs. _____($$$), it seems that if you want to go into politics, many people would advise going to Harvard. Can someone explain this? I understand the name recognition and it definitely makes sense if you want to run for office in New England but when people say "politics," is this understood to be DC political work (DNC/RNC/Hill/WH)or actually running for office in middle-america?

If you're not aiming to become a lawyer, going to law school is not a great idea, Harvard or no.

cotiger wrote:If you're not aiming to become a lawyer, going to law school is not a great idea, Harvard or no.

If you're trying to be a legitimate politician, such as a congressman, then going to law school at HYS is in fact a great idea. Does it guarantee you'll have a good shot at politics? No. But your chance of becoming a senator without a law degree is pretty low judging from the demographics of that body.

Cicero76 wrote:

cotiger wrote:If you're not aiming to become a lawyer, going to law school is not a great idea, Harvard or no.

If you're trying to be a legitimate politician, such as a congressman, then going to law school at HYS is in fact a great idea. Does it guarantee you'll have a good shot at politics? No. But your chance of becoming a senator without a law degree is pretty low judging from the demographics of that body.

If someone's looking to enter politics, what's the value-added of an HLS degree? Like, what jobs or positions that aid in your political career does that degree get you? My instinct is that it's kind of like Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg dropping out of college.. yeah, in some sense dropping out was was helpful to all of them, but it isn't accurate to say that it's a good plan to drop out if you want to be a tech entrepreneur.

Edit: I know that those aren't completely analogous situations, as dropping out of college can leave you SOL if you don't do well, while going to HLS still leaves you sitting in a pretty good position.

cotiger wrote:

Cicero76 wrote:

cotiger wrote:If you're not aiming to become a lawyer, going to law school is not a great idea, Harvard or no.

If you're trying to be a legitimate politician, such as a congressman, then going to law school at HYS is in fact a great idea. Does it guarantee you'll have a good shot at politics? No. But your chance of becoming a senator without a law degree is pretty low judging from the demographics of that body.

If someone's looking to enter politics, what's the value-added of an HLS degree? Like, what jobs or positions that aid in your political career does that degree get you? My instinct is that it's kind of like Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg dropping out of college.. yeah, in some sense dropping out was was helpful to all of them, but it isn't accurate to say that it's a good plan to drop out if you want to be a tech entrepreneur.

Edit: I know that those aren't completely analogous situations, as dropping out of college can leave you SOL if you don't do well, while going to HLS still leaves you sitting in a pretty good position.

Politics requires a pedigree. You need to check the boxes that make your constituents trust you, like putting down roots or going to the flagship state UG, but you also need to check the boxes that make the party interested in you. And a Harvard degree can be a big help in checking that box.

Apart from that, most lawmakers are lawyers anyway. Because they're making laws. So being a lawyer is helpful. Not essential, but a Harvard degree isn't going to hurt. Without a law degree, what are you going to do? Go into some entry level job and run for office by talking about your experience managing retail at Best Buy? HLS would help OP get some structure to the start of his career, and at a high level. That's useful to make people take you seriously.

Cicero76 wrote: Apart from that, most lawmakers are lawyers anyway. Because they're making laws. So being a lawyer is helpful. Not essential, but a Harvard degree isn't going to hurt. Without a law degree, what are you going to do? Go into some entry level job and run for office by talking about your experience managing retail at Best Buy? HLS would help OP get some structure to the start of his career, and at a high level. That's useful to make people take you seriously.

I think this has it backwards. There aren't many BigLaw lawyers who run for Congress and brag about their large firm work (as a matter of fact, it is more likely to be a negative -- Kirsten Gillibrand caught flack for work with Big Tobacco for example).

HYS seem worth it for politics so long as you can nab a prestigious clerkship, DOJ job, or PI gig. Those schools are much better for those jobs than the rest of the T14 but certainly do not guarantee those outcomes.

It seems to me that if elective office is the goal, non-profit work or just getting a job and getting involved in the community are easier routes than pursuing a JD. That, or going to a top regional school (at least debt-free) and going into state or local gov't out of LS.

Cicero76 wrote:

cotiger wrote:

Cicero76 wrote:

cotiger wrote:If you're not aiming to become a lawyer, going to law school is not a great idea, Harvard or no.

If you're trying to be a legitimate politician, such as a congressman, then going to law school at HYS is in fact a great idea. Does it guarantee you'll have a good shot at politics? No. But your chance of becoming a senator without a law degree is pretty low judging from the demographics of that body.

If someone's looking to enter politics, what's the value-added of an HLS degree? Like, what jobs or positions that aid in your political career does that degree get you? My instinct is that it's kind of like Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg dropping out of college.. yeah, in some sense dropping out was was helpful to all of them, but it isn't accurate to say that it's a good plan to drop out if you want to be a tech entrepreneur.

Edit: I know that those aren't completely analogous situations, as dropping out of college can leave you SOL if you don't do well, while going to HLS still leaves you sitting in a pretty good position.

Politics requires a pedigree. You need to check the boxes that make your constituents trust you, like putting down roots or going to the flagship state UG, but you also need to check the boxes that make the party interested in you. And a Harvard degree can be a big help in checking that box.

Apart from that, most lawmakers are lawyers anyway. Because they're making laws. So being a lawyer is helpful. Not essential, but a Harvard degree isn't going to hurt. Without a law degree, what are you going to do? Go into some entry level job and run for office by talking about your experience managing retail at Best Buy? HLS would help OP get some structure to the start of his career, and at a high level. That's useful to make people take you seriously.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Still, I would imagine you'd need a pretty great plan/backstory to make it even close to worth the money for that. Like, if all you can say is that you're interested in politics, that's not going to cut it in terms of making HLS actually worth it for a political career.

I would ascribe to the theory that if you want to be a politican, it makes the most sense to go to the strongest regional school in the area you would want to run in. For example, HLS would be great for New England politicians, but less so for Georgia ones. But if you want to work behind the scenes, HLS can probably provide you with a lot of connections and skills to make that happen.

ETA: 1 GA congressman went to HLS

Sheer numbers - Standard and Yale are relatively small (though obviously very influential) whereas at Harvard you rub elbows with the best and brights 550-600 and your right next to the most influential institution on the planet Harvard Business School which literally runs the world. Think about the alumni network for fundraising it's off the chart there's really no comparison to the Harvard Law network - even though Yale Law is academically superior in every way it can't hold a candle to Harvard Law diaspora.

This thread needs a better definition of "politics."

Strong regionals are going to bring more strength in local and small state races compared with large state and national races. That said, HLS (and YS and most of T-14, for that matter) opens doors more quickly than a strong regional. Bottom line: HLS is going to beat strong regional every time, though HLS is less helpful in smaller races.

Cicero - I'm sure you can ID the flaw in your own logic. Lawyers may be predisposed to enter the governing structures we spend so much time studying and analyzing both as students and in our profession, but this does not make it a necessary condition (or even a positively correlated one) for politics.

This won't do the incredible nuances of our system justice, but here's a helpful basic breakdown of ways to enter national politics:

1) homegrown - many politicians rise to national prominence out of their locality. They study, work, and serve a particular community, and ultimately that community propels them from county to state to DC, starting with school boards and city councils. As far as pedigree is concerned, going to Harvard is not a traditional asset here. Being from one of the "professions" may help - doctors, attorneys, teachers, local business owners, ect. are all likely to be more broadly connected to their communities. As far as law school is concerned, the state powerhouse seems like the best choice.

2) Absurd wealth/family - Extremely wealthy people have an easier "in" with politics. This is just part of our democratic-capitalist structure. This route could be an argument for going to a prestigious law school - CLS as one example can claim more Fortune 500 alumni than any other school - but certainly starting a successful business, or going into capital/asset management out of UG or heading to business school, would be a much better route. As for family connections, well, you're either born with it or you're not.

3) "career" Washington politicians - this is where I think the HLS degree could be most significant. People who spend their lives in DC as part of government apparatus, whether it be legislative aids, DOJ, lobbyists/political consultants, ect., often find their way into positions of political power and influence. Going to Harvard Law helps tremendously with getting a prestigious entry level job in Washington and setting you on this track. But it's not the dominant route (especially with antagonists from both left and right, see Tea Party & Occupy, cursing the "DC insider," and every elected official having to distance themselves from their DC roots).

okay but even Ted Cruz went to HLS

anyriotgirl wrote:okay but even Ted Cruz went to HLS

Ted Cruz is actually brilliant. He's also an ego maniacal lunatic, but there it is.

This thread sucks.

There are also some traditional law to politics routes, such as the USAO, DA, state's attorney, etc. those are easier with a Harvard degree.

Jbagel: yeah, my post had plenty of logical flaws, but this is real life not an LSAT question. I feel like the correlation here is not completely devoid of value even if it's not logically sound. And I feel like saying an HLS degree is unhelpful is silly to say about any career, politics or otherwise.

Cicero is 100% right when he says that certain elite law schools are great launching pads for politics, though it is unclear whether it is a case of causation or correlation. I've recently compiled the statistics on all the graduates of the top 14 law schools (plus UTAustin) who were appointed to the judiciary or elected to certain government positions since 1970. Those statistics are listed below. The bottom line is that for Republicans, Harvard, Georgetown, Michigan, UVA, and UCHI all have produced large numbers of graduates who advance into the judiciary and elected positions, while the rest of the top 14 were weak for the GOP. Yale has notably produced few GOP graduates in government (Joe Miller is a case in point showing the odd GOP products from Yale), while it had the highest numbers for Democrats. For Democrats, Yale, Harvard, UVA, Michigan, and UCHI were strong, Stanford was pretty good for the judiciary, but many schools like Cornell/NYU/Columbia produced relatively few elected officials or federal judges. To get a sense of how powerful each law school is, you can divide the total number of officials by the number of law students enrolled at the school. The schools below are ranked by highest rate of placement in government, with greater emphasis given in the rankings to the most important positions (SCOTUS>COA>District; Gov>Senator>AG). I would say that especially Yale and Harvard do quite well in politics, but that the state law school will many times do better, especially in the South in places like SC/MS/AL.

Number of Federal Judges by Law School (SCOTUS/COA/DISTRICT)
1. Yale (3/24/51) v. 201 students
2. Harvard (9/46/111) v. 569
3. Michigan (0/17/38) v. 314
4. Stanford (2/7/28) v. 179
5. UT Austin (0/11/47) v. 310
6. UVA (0/14/36) v. 331
7. UCHI (0/9/13) v. 196
8. UPENN (0/5/26) v. 251
9. Berkeley (0/5/27) v. 280
10. Columbia (1/6/32) v. 356
11. Georgetown (0/9/37) v. 544
12. Northwestern (1/3/16) v. 228
13. Duke (0/4/9) v. 208
14. NYU (0/6/20) v. 439
15. Cornell (0/1/13) v. 193

Elected Officials (Governors/Senators/Attorney General)
1. Harvard (15/28/16) v. 569
2. UVA (10/12/10) v. 331
3. Yale (2/12/8) v. 201
4. Georgetown (8/8/7) v. 544
5. Northwestern (5/0/1) v. 228
6. UCHi (1/5/3) v. 196
7. Columbia (3/3/2) v. 356
8. Michigan (2/3/1) v. 314
9. Stanford (0/3/3) v. 179
10. Berkeley (2/1/3) v. 280
11. NYU (1/2/2) v. 439
12. UTAustin (0/2/1) v. 310
13. Cornell (0/0/1) v. 193
14*. UPenn (0/0/0) v. 251
14*. Duke (0/0/0) v. 208

The inability to distinguish correlation from causation in this thread is astounding. Good luck to all of the upper middle class 3.9/174 K-JDs on TLS who think their Harvard Law acceptance is their ticket to the elite.

Nelson wrote:The inability to distinguish correlation from causation in this thread is astounding. Good luck to all of the upper middle class 3.9/174 K-JDs on TLS who think their Harvard Law acceptance is their ticket to the elite.

The guy arguing in favor acknowledged the issue, what are you bitching about?

Nelson wrote:The inability to distinguish correlation from causation in this thread is astounding. Good luck to all of the upper middle class 3.9/174 K-JDs on TLS who think their Harvard Law acceptance is their ticket to the elite.

Assuming that correlation can't mean causation is as logically fallacious as its opposite.

Cicero76 wrote:

Nelson wrote:The inability to distinguish correlation from causation in this thread is astounding. Good luck to all of the upper middle class 3.9/174 K-JDs on TLS who think their Harvard Law acceptance is their ticket to the elite.

Assuming that correlation can't mean causation is as logically fallacious as its opposite.

The gauntlet has been thrown -- now it's on!

bjsesq wrote:

Nelson wrote:The inability to distinguish correlation from causation in this thread is astounding. Good luck to all of the upper middle class 3.9/174 K-JDs on TLS who think their Harvard Law acceptance is their ticket to the elite.

The guy arguing in favor acknowledged the issue, what are you bitching about?

We shouldn't encourage 0Ls to think their dreams of being senators are valid reasons for choosing a law school and I'm sick of the "just do HYS for the chance to become a senator bro" argument. If you're posting on TLS about what law school best enables your political career, you probably don't have a political career.

Why would you divide the number of elected officials etc. by the number of students in the school? You said you looked at politicians since 1970. Dividing by class size fails to consider whether class sizes have changed over time, or if representation by school has changed over time. I don't get how that percentage is meaningful.

Also, these "Harvard for politics?" threads are invariably awful.

Phew, this blew up more than I intended. I am in complete agreement that picking a school based on political prospects is silly but that sentiment seems to be thrown around everyday on TLS without anything supporting it (which really surprises me considering how employment #s seem to drive most discussions on here). Just look at all the Ruby/Hamilton/$$$ threads and you'll find a go to H for politics post.

That's about all I've got to say on this. Thanks for the input!

bjsesq wrote:

anyriotgirl wrote:okay but even Ted Cruz went to HLS

Ted Cruz is actually brilliant. He's also an ego maniacal lunatic, but there it is.

I was just citing a high profile wingnut beloved by his wingnut constituents. They don't hold the hahavhd against him, and I imagine it was at least somewhat helpful in his journey to where he is today. I don't disagree that the man is brilliant, I just wish he would use his powers for good.

francisjunderwood wrote:Cicero is 100% right when he says that certain elite law schools are great launching pads for politics, though it is unclear whether it is a case of causation or correlation. I've recently compiled the statistics on all the graduates of the top 14 law schools (plus UTAustin) who were appointed to the judiciary or elected to certain government positions since 1970. Those statistics are listed below. The bottom line is that for Republicans, Harvard, Georgetown, Michigan, UVA, and UCHI all have produced large numbers of graduates who advance into the judiciary and elected positions, while the rest of the top 14 were weak for the GOP. Yale has notably produced few GOP graduates in government (Joe Miller is a case in point showing the odd GOP products from Yale), while it had the highest numbers for Democrats. For Democrats, Yale, Harvard, UVA, Michigan, and UCHI were strong, Stanford was pretty good for the judiciary, but many schools like Cornell/NYU/Columbia produced relatively few elected officials or federal judges. To get a sense of how powerful each law school is, you can divide the total number of officials by the number of law students enrolled at the school. The schools below are ranked by highest rate of placement in government, with greater emphasis given in the rankings to the most important positions (SCOTUS>COA>District; Gov>Senator>AG). I would say that especially Yale and Harvard do quite well in politics, but that the state law school will many times do better, especially in the South in places like SC/MS/AL.

Number of Federal Judges by Law School (SCOTUS/COA/DISTRICT)
1. Yale (3/24/51) v. 201 students
2. Harvard (9/46/111) v. 569
3. Michigan (0/17/38) v. 314
4. Stanford (2/7/28) v. 179
5. UT Austin (0/11/47) v. 310
6. UVA (0/14/36) v. 331
7. UCHI (0/9/13) v. 196
8. UPENN (0/5/26) v. 251
9. Berkeley (0/5/27) v. 280
10. Columbia (1/6/32) v. 356
11. Georgetown (0/9/37) v. 544
12. Northwestern (1/3/16) v. 228
13. Duke (0/4/9) v. 208
14. NYU (0/6/20) v. 439
15. Cornell (0/1/13) v. 193

Elected Officials (Governors/Senators/Attorney General)
1. Harvard (15/28/16) v. 569
2. UVA (10/12/10) v. 331
3. Yale (2/12/8) v. 201
4. Georgetown (8/8/7) v. 544
5. Northwestern (5/0/1) v. 228
6. UCHi (1/5/3) v. 196
7. Columbia (3/3/2) v. 356
8. Michigan (2/3/1) v. 314
9. Stanford (0/3/3) v. 179
10. Berkeley (2/1/3) v. 280
11. NYU (1/2/2) v. 439
12. UTAustin (0/2/1) v. 310
13. Cornell (0/0/1) v. 193
14*. UPenn (0/0/0) v. 251
14*. Duke (0/0/0) v. 208

Why?

This seems incredibly arbitrary, and also somewhat inaccurate. Why Senators and not Reps (or Presidents?)? Why not White house counsel? Or Secretaries of major departments, who wield substantially more authority? Why 1970 as a cut-off? What does this even tell us?

Total supreme court justices historically show how dominating YH are:
Harvard: 19
Yale: 10
Columbia: 7
Everyone else: 3 or less.

Presidents: Yale, Harvard, Columbia: 2
Everyone else: 1 or none

After Yale/Harvard as far as jurisprudential/political influence is concerned it's pretty much a wash. The Vice President attended Syracuse Law. New T15?