LLM Environmental Law: Stanford vs Berkeley Forum

[jpduran]

Hi everyone, I got admitted in both programs and I do not know which one to go.

Any suggestions?

[twenty]

Since the only way you could have gotten in is by being an international lawyer with at least two years of work experience, why are you doing either one?

[jpduran]

I want to get further knowledge in environmental subjects. I believe Berkeley is better ranked at Environmental Law, but Stanford is Stanford so I do not know what to do.

[malleus discentium]

What do you intend to do with this LLM?

[jpduran]

I pretend to go after a PhD in Environmental Law. I am really confused so any help will be useful!

[Clyde Frog]

What about Space Law?!? Space Law is the future!

[michlaw]

Stanford for sure. As a credential it is a much better school. The value of a LL.M. is kind of hard for an American crowd to comment on. Generally you would only get one after a U.S. JD if you wanted to teach. When in doubt you can't go wrong with Yale Harvard or Stanford. Environmental law is one of Stanford's specialties.

[croissantlover]

Stanford for sure. Forget about the specialty ranking, especially when you can attend a T3.

[BiglawAssociate]

Stanford for sure. As a credential it is a much better school. The value of a LL.M. is kind of hard for an American crowd to comment on. Generally you would only get one after a U.S. JD if you wanted to teach. When in doubt you can't go wrong with Yale Harvard or Stanford. Environmental law is one of Stanford's specialties.

I think the general American consensus of LLMs is that they are bullshit/money making schemes, unless from a top tier tax program.

I also know some really, really stupid Columbia LLMs, so that might color my thinking, and I'm pretty sure LLMs don't have to even take the LSAT.

That said, if you have money to blow, why not do it? I'd probably go to Stanford because non-tax LLMs are generally bullshit anyway, so just go to the better university.

[Clyde Frog]

[michlaw]

Stanford for sure. As a credential it is a much better school. The value of a LL.M. is kind of hard for an American crowd to comment on. Generally you would only get one after a U.S. JD if you wanted to teach. When in doubt you can't go wrong with Yale Harvard or Stanford. Environmental law is one of Stanford's specialties.

I think the general American consensus of LLMs is that they are bullshit/money making schemes, unless from a top tier tax program.

I also know some really, really stupid Columbia LLMs, so that might color my thinking, and I'm pretty sure LLMs don't have to even take the LSAT.

That said, if you have money to blow, why not do it? I'd probably go to Stanford because non-tax LLMs are generally bullshit anyway, so just go to the better university.

Kind of xenophobic are you not? Over 99% of LL.M. students at YHS are foreign nationals who already have law degrees. They also have careers like judges, diplomats, and professors. A quick glance at the first couple of pages listing Columbia Law School professors shows 5 who have LL.M.'s. I certainly hope those aren't the stupid ones you were referring to.

You seem to ascribe some kind of accomplishment to taking the LSAT. The only requirement to sit for that exam is a pulse.

Bullshit money making scheme? Not a nice thing to say about your school. You do know Columbia has an LL.M. class of 260 each year that brags of an acceptance rate of under 10%. Then again there are those who believe that any law school that isn't HYS is really just a thinly veiled bullshit money making scheme.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Stanford for sure. As a credential it is a much better school. The value of a LL.M. is kind of hard for an American crowd to comment on. Generally you would only get one after a U.S. JD if you wanted to teach. When in doubt you can't go wrong with Yale Harvard or Stanford. Environmental law is one of Stanford's specialties.

I think the general American consensus of LLMs is that they are bullshit/money making schemes, unless from a top tier tax program.

I also know some really, really stupid Columbia LLMs, so that might color my thinking, and I'm pretty sure LLMs don't have to even take the LSAT.

That said, if you have money to blow, why not do it? I'd probably go to Stanford because non-tax LLMs are generally bullshit anyway, so just go to the better university.

Kind of xenophobic are you not? Over 99% of LL.M. students at YHS are foreign nationals who already have law degrees. They also have careers like judges, diplomats, and professors. A quick glance at the first couple of pages listing Columbia Law School professors shows 5 who have LL.M.'s. I certainly hope those aren't the stupid ones you were referring to.

You seem to ascribe some kind of accomplishment to taking the LSAT. The only requirement to sit for that exam is a pulse.

Bullshit money making scheme? Not a nice thing to say about your school. You do know Columbia has an LL.M. class of 260 each year that brags of an acceptance rate of under 10%. Then again there are those who believe that any law school that isn't HYS is really just a thinly veiled bullshit money making scheme.

Oh come on, BiglawAssociate hit the nail on the head. LLMs are a complete joke in the U.S but are definitely much more useful overseas.

Pretty much all of the LLMs at my school treat it like a vacation and party even harder than the 3Ls.

[Desert Fox]

Foreign LLMs are different from JD LLMs. One is probably a scam to rip off foreigners, but the later is definitely a scam.

[Mal Reynolds]

Foreign LLMs are different from JD LLMs. One is probably a scam to rip off foreigners, but the later is definitely a scam.

I just thought it was a one to two year study abroad program for rich kids.

[Desert Fox]

DF Thread