UChicago Prestige Forum

[ncan360]

Is UChicago's Law School considered at the same level as HLS, SLS, CLS etc? Not so much in terms of the average person's perspective, but within the legal world? How is UChicago perceived?

Thanks

[crazywafflez]

Is UChicago's Law School considered at the same level as HLS, SLS, CLS etc? Not so much in terms of the average person's perspective, but within the legal world? How is UChicago perceived?

Thanks

Yes. Without a doubt Chi is considered a peer of CLS or HLS.
In my opinion the only T14 that truly stands above the rest is Yale. I do think some folks may cut a a line between HYS, CCN, and the rest on down.
But your career prospects at HLS, Chi, or even NYU will be substantially the same. Employers consider Chi to be a phenomenal law school consistently amongst the best.

[Joachim2017]

No. In my experience talking with lawyers, recruiters, employers, and others within the legal world (or who hire lawyers, e.g., in-house GC), Yale/Harvard/Stanford are all a cut above the rest. Then CCN, MVP, and then on down. So no, I don't think even within the legal world, if you consider it broadly, U Chicago is considered "at the same level" as Harvard or Stanford. In any case, it's definitely not "without a doubt" a peer. Of course, as you'll see on TLS, everyone's got an axe to grind.

[nixy]

Of course, as you'll see on TLS, everyone's got an axe to grind.

Case in point.^

OP, it's all relative. Yes, Chicago is a phenomenal law school consistently ranked amongst the best. It's certainly a peer of CLS. If it's not quite a peer of HLS/YLS/SLS, it's a lot closer to them than virtually all the other schools out there. It's perceived as an excellent school, probably better than CLS for clerkships/academia.

Employers who are going to make a material distinction between a Chicago grad and an HLS/YLS/SLS grad based solely on the school they went to (rather than their accomplishments) are probably not none, but are few and far between. Joachim2017 will probably argue that they're the most important, prestigious employers, which may indeed be the case (this is all way more rarefied air than I breathe). For the vast majority of people, the difference between the schools is going to be less important than performance/grades (to the extent you can discern them)/connections/experiences during school (a top Chicago grad is almost certainly going to have better options than a median Harvard grad with nothing to distinguish them). All else equal, the HLS/SLS/YLS grad likely has an edge, but it's not often that all else will be equal.

[replevin123]

Agree with everything nixy said.

Two questions seem like the right ones to ask. One is the opinion of the academy: how do top legal scholars view Chicago and the work of Chi profs? Citations, influence, etc. I’ll leave this for others to answer. The second is what do judges and firms think. For firms, I’m not sure this even matters much. Chi grads do very well. But any rankings or prestige of mostly transactional work is a joke. Fungible. All the debate on here about DPW vs S&C vs Skadden is the product of people realizing that they are fungible and striving to make negligible differences into something bigger to puff themselves up or put others below them. It happens in other aspects of life among people who are similarly situated in their groups. They look for differences.

For clerkships, Chicago is killing it. 9 on SCOTUS this coming term and doing very well on the lower courts. I think this puts chi clearly above Columbia, and probably on par with H. H is a pure numbers game with admission. If Chicago gives you any substantial money compared to H, taking H is silly. You’ll get more meaningful and frequent interaction with chi profs, and the clerkship office does well.

[TTTTorbust]

Agree with everything nixy said.

Two questions seem like the right ones to ask. One is the opinion of the academy: how do top legal scholars view Chicago and the work of Chi profs? Citations, influence, etc. I’ll leave this for others to answer. The second is what do judges and firms think. For firms, I’m not sure this even matters much. Chi grads do very well. But any rankings or prestige of mostly transactional work is a joke. Fungible. All the debate on here about DPW vs S&C vs Skadden is the product of people realizing that they are fungible and striving to make negligible differences into something bigger to puff themselves up or put others below them. It happens in other aspects of life among people who are similarly situated in their groups. They look for differences.

For clerkships, Chicago is killing it. 9 on SCOTUS this coming term and doing very well on the lower courts. I think this puts chi clearly above Columbia, and probably on par with H. H is a pure numbers game with admission. If Chicago gives you any substantial money compared to H, taking H is silly. You’ll get more meaningful and frequent interaction with chi profs, and the clerkship office does well.

Harvard clearly stands ahead of Chicago, both in Academic placement and "unicorn" clerkships. Where Chicago stands apart from its peers (namely Columbia, NYU, but also the rest of the T-14 excluding HY, and yes, even ahead of Stanford) is in academia. You may be right that Chicago is ahead of Harvard in one particular year for SCOTUS clerkship placement, but historically Chicago is behind Harvard. Top Chicago graduates seems to gain professorships at a higher rate than graduates of all other schools except Yale and Harvard. There are still reasons to accept a Harvard admit over Chicago with money, although they are few and far between and rely on considerable luck. There is also the factor of class sizes that throw some of this into doubt. LRAP is also a consideration for some.

[ncan360]

Agree with everything nixy said.

Two questions seem like the right ones to ask. One is the opinion of the academy: how do top legal scholars view Chicago and the work of Chi profs? Citations, influence, etc. I’ll leave this for others to answer. The second is what do judges and firms think. For firms, I’m not sure this even matters much. Chi grads do very well. But any rankings or prestige of mostly transactional work is a joke. Fungible. All the debate on here about DPW vs S&C vs Skadden is the product of people realizing that they are fungible and striving to make negligible differences into something bigger to puff themselves up or put others below them. It happens in other aspects of life among people who are similarly situated in their groups. They look for differences.

For clerkships, Chicago is killing it. 9 on SCOTUS this coming term and doing very well on the lower courts. I think this puts chi clearly above Columbia, and probably on par with H. H is a pure numbers game with admission. If Chicago gives you any substantial money compared to H, taking H is silly. You’ll get more meaningful and frequent interaction with chi profs, and the clerkship office does well.

Harvard clearly stands ahead of Chicago, both in Academic placement and "unicorn" clerkships. Where Chicago stands apart from its peers (namely Columbia, NYU, but also the rest of the T-14 excluding HY, and yes, even ahead of Stanford) is in academia. You may be right that Chicago is ahead of Harvard in one particular year for SCOTUS clerkship placement, but historically Chicago is behind Harvard. Top Chicago graduates seems to gain professorships at a higher rate than graduates of all other schools except Yale and Harvard. There are still reasons to accept a Harvard admit over Chicago with money, although they are few and far between and rely on considerable luck. There is also the factor of class sizes that throw some of this into doubt. LRAP is also a consideration for some.

Do you mean Harvard does better proportionally (ie taking into account Chicago's significantly smaller class size) ?

[TTTTorbust]

Agree with everything nixy said.

Two questions seem like the right ones to ask. One is the opinion of the academy: how do top legal scholars view Chicago and the work of Chi profs? Citations, influence, etc. I’ll leave this for others to answer. The second is what do judges and firms think. For firms, I’m not sure this even matters much. Chi grads do very well. But any rankings or prestige of mostly transactional work is a joke. Fungible. All the debate on here about DPW vs S&C vs Skadden is the product of people realizing that they are fungible and striving to make negligible differences into something bigger to puff themselves up or put others below them. It happens in other aspects of life among people who are similarly situated in their groups. They look for differences.

For clerkships, Chicago is killing it. 9 on SCOTUS this coming term and doing very well on the lower courts. I think this puts chi clearly above Columbia, and probably on par with H. H is a pure numbers game with admission. If Chicago gives you any substantial money compared to H, taking H is silly. You’ll get more meaningful and frequent interaction with chi profs, and the clerkship office does well.

Harvard clearly stands ahead of Chicago, both in Academic placement and "unicorn" clerkships. Where Chicago stands apart from its peers (namely Columbia, NYU, but also the rest of the T-14 excluding HY, and yes, even ahead of Stanford) is in academia. You may be right that Chicago is ahead of Harvard in one particular year for SCOTUS clerkship placement, but historically Chicago is behind Harvard. Top Chicago graduates seems to gain professorships at a higher rate than graduates of all other schools except Yale and Harvard. There are still reasons to accept a Harvard admit over Chicago with money, although they are few and far between and rely on considerable luck. There is also the factor of class sizes that throw some of this into doubt. LRAP is also a consideration for some.

Do you mean Harvard does better proportionally (ie taking into account Chicago's significantly smaller class size) ?

Historically? Yes. And with greater parity across the "political" spectrum, though this article is a few years out of date. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... w-schools/

I would suspect that the graduate of either school who is brilliant/hardworking/lucky enough to clerk for a SCOTUS justice probably achieves that goal from either school, though that is less likely to hold if the applicant clerked for a liberal justice. The average liberal justice is much more elitist when it comes to the institutions that they choose from the than the average conservative, excluding CJ Roberts who is a lot closer to Kagan than he is Thomas in his hiring. Note the bimodal distribution of selections from Y and H as compared to the heavy slant to the right at Chicago and (Even more so) Virginia.

[ksm6969]

Historically? Yes. And with greater parity across the "political" spectrum, though this article is a few years out of date. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... w-schools/

I would suspect, though, that the graduate of either school who is brilliant/hardworking/lucky enough to clerk for a SCOTUS justice probably achieves that goal from either school, though that is less true if the applicant clerked from a liberal justice.

I have no idea about law school prestige or how its measured or interpreted, but I do think it is important to note Chicago's overwhelmingly conservative reputation. Based on a few people I know who went to chicago, if you are a liberal student, there's a high chance you both wont like it there and you might miss out on a lot of the very opportunities that make it prestigious (chance to connect with conservative judges). This is compared to H which is more balanced.

Also, besides just the political aspect, but kind of tied into it, Chicago's reputation is so tied into a singular area (law and economics) that its kind of an interesting case. Law and economics blossomed in like the past few decades, and Chicago benefitted, but it's potentially waning now (or facing a backlash) and I dont know what that means for chicago. Like when Vermuele says something off the wall I dont think people connect it to the core of H, but when Epstein gives an absolute disaster like that coronavirus interview, I do think there's more of a tendency to think "lol Chicago" (I know he also teaches at NYU and whatever the Hoover Institute is but he is clearly connected with Chicago). This probably doesnt actually matter at all in real life though.

[TTTTorbust]

Historically? Yes. And with greater parity across the "political" spectrum, though this article is a few years out of date. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... w-schools/

I would suspect, though, that the graduate of either school who is brilliant/hardworking/lucky enough to clerk for a SCOTUS justice probably achieves that goal from either school, though that is less true if the applicant clerked from a liberal justice.

I have no idea about law school prestige or how its measured or interpreted, but I do think it is important to note Chicago's overwhelmingly conservative reputation. Based on a few people I know who went to chicago, if you are a liberal student, there's a high chance you both wont like it there and you might miss out on a lot of the very opportunities that make it prestigious (chance to connect with conservative judges). This is compared to H which is more balanced.

Also, besides just the political aspect, but kind of tied into it, Chicago's reputation is so tied into a singular area (law and economics) that its kind of an interesting case. Law and economics blossomed in like the past few decades, and Chicago benefitted, but it's potentially waning now (or facing a backlash) and I dont know what that means for chicago. Like when Vermuele says something off the wall I dont think people connect it to the core of H, but when Epstein gives an absolute disaster like that coronavirus interview, I do think there's more of a tendency to think "lol Chicago" (I know he also teaches at NYU and whatever the Hoover Institute is but he is clearly connected with Chicago). This probably doesnt actually matter at all in real life though.

How far left are these couple of students? Were they Maoists of something? Serious question. Even the most far right law schools are going to have more liberals than conservatives, excluding perhaps a half dozen. Even the most conservative T-14 is going to have more liberals than conservatives, both attending and on the faculty. That is a reality of higher education in the United States and in law schools specifically. On your Epstein comment (And though he is a conundrum in and of himself, folks seem to forget that he is among the top five most cited active legal academics, though he obviously had some bad takes on COVID) Berkeley is according to most the furthest left T-14 and yet has John Yoo on its faculty. Stanford has the Hoover Foundation which counts both Yoo and Epstein among its fellows. Every T-14 has some conservative academics. That does not change the fact that those conservatives are outnumbered by liberals. Even among UVA's new hires there are more liberals, and that is despite UVA perhaps having more conservatives on their faculty than any other T-14.

https://www.jdjournal.com/2021/06/24/uv ... y-members/

To call UChicago "overwhelmingly conservative" is hyperbolic even within the context of higher education. Does the institution have a more conservative reputation than most top schools in the country? Sure, but to describe the school as having an "overwhelmingly conservative reputation" seems only to hold among the most far left fringe. I guess if these students feel threatened simply by the existence of someone who doesn't think exactly like them they might just hate UChicago, but I worry they may wither into nothingness the first time they meet opposing counsel in person.

[stupididiot]

Historically? Yes. And with greater parity across the "political" spectrum, though this article is a few years out of date. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... w-schools/

I would suspect, though, that the graduate of either school who is brilliant/hardworking/lucky enough to clerk for a SCOTUS justice probably achieves that goal from either school, though that is less true if the applicant clerked from a liberal justice.

I have no idea about law school prestige or how its measured or interpreted, but I do think it is important to note Chicago's overwhelmingly conservative reputation. Based on a few people I know who went to chicago, if you are a liberal student, there's a high chance you both wont like it there and you might miss out on a lot of the very opportunities that make it prestigious (chance to connect with conservative judges). This is compared to H which is more balanced.

Also, besides just the political aspect, but kind of tied into it, Chicago's reputation is so tied into a singular area (law and economics) that its kind of an interesting case. Law and economics blossomed in like the past few decades, and Chicago benefitted, but it's potentially waning now (or facing a backlash) and I dont know what that means for chicago. Like when Vermuele says something off the wall I dont think people connect it to the core of H, but when Epstein gives an absolute disaster like that coronavirus interview, I do think there's more of a tendency to think "lol Chicago" (I know he also teaches at NYU and whatever the Hoover Institute is but he is clearly connected with Chicago). This probably doesnt actually matter at all in real life though.

On your Epstein comment (And though he is a conundrum in and of himself, folks seem to forget that he is among the top five most cited active legal academics, though he obviously had some bad takes on COVID) Berkeley is according to most the furthest left T-14 and yet has John Yoo on its faculty. Stanford has the Hoover Foundation which counts both Yoo and Epstein among its fellows. Every T-14 has some conservative academics.

Yes, that is my entire point, I even mentioned Vermuele at H. People dont tie Yoo or Vermuele into the core of what Berkeley or H is. People immediately tie Epstein to law and economics to Chicago's kind of core identity. I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying it has a clear identity that is not as diversified as H's, and it has historically benefitted from that as law and econ has boomed, but may suffer from that reputation as there is a seeming backlash against law and econ type stuff (if that actually holds or not, who knows). Everything is becoming starkly political, and UC definitely has a specific identity that H doesnt. I said it probably doesnt matter, but is something to think about.

And Hoover Institute is definitely hurting Stanford's brand.

Otherwise, I only relayed my experience from talking with some big law layers who went to UC. As they are big law lawyers, i dont think they are maoists.

[lavarman84]

How far left are these couple of students? Were they Maoists of something? Serious question. Even the most far right law schools are going to have more liberals than conservatives, excluding perhaps a half dozen. Even the most conservative T-14 is going to have more liberals than conservatives, both attending and on the faculty. That is a reality of higher education in the United States and in law schools specifically. On your Epstein comment (And though he is a conundrum in and of himself, folks seem to forget that he is among the top five most cited active legal academics, though he obviously had some bad takes on COVID) Berkeley is according to most the furthest left T-14 and yet has John Yoo on its faculty. Stanford has the Hoover Foundation which counts both Yoo and Epstein among its fellows. Every T-14 has some conservative academics. That does not change the fact that those conservatives are outnumbered by liberals. Even among UVA's new hires there are more liberals, and that is despite UVA perhaps having more conservatives on their faculty than any other T-14.

https://www.jdjournal.com/2021/06/24/uv ... y-members/

To call UChicago "overwhelmingly conservative" is hyperbolic even within the context of higher education. Does the institution have a more conservative reputation than most top schools in the country? Sure, but to describe the school as having an "overwhelmingly conservative reputation" seems only to hold among the most far left fringe. I guess if these students feel threatened simply by the existence of someone who doesn't think exactly like them they might just hate UChicago, but I worry they may wither into nothingness the first time they meet opposing counsel in person.

Eh, he did make a good point on clerkships. If you're a liberal who wants to clerk for liberal judges/justices, H is going to be a better fit (not that Chicago isn't a good fit and can't get you there). But at the end of the day, UChicago is plenty prestigious and clearly an elite school. Is it in the HYS caliber? No. But you're largely splitting hairs that close to the top unless you are pursuing truly unicorn outcomes. I agree that there are plenty of liberal law students at UChicago.

[tomstp]

Every T-14 has some conservative academics.

Please name the conservative academics at Yale. Thank you.

[Iowahawk]

I would suspect that the graduate of either school who is brilliant/hardworking/lucky enough to clerk for a SCOTUS justice probably achieves that goal from either school, though that is less likely to hold if the applicant clerked for a liberal justice. The average liberal justice is much more elitist when it comes to the institutions that they choose from the than the average conservative, excluding CJ Roberts who is a lot closer to Kagan than he is Thomas in his hiring. Note the bimodal distribution of selections from Y and H as compared to the heavy slant to the right at Chicago and (Even more so) Virginia.

Imo the rest of this comment is much closer to correct than the first sentence. School matters a lot more than you would think it probably does because most of the justices have idiosyncratic hiring preferences by school. E.g. Thomas probably hires more from Chicago than HYS, but Sotomayor has never hired from Chicago.

[Iowahawk]

I have no idea about law school prestige or how its measured or interpreted, but I do think it is important to note Chicago's overwhelmingly conservative reputation. Based on a few people I know who went to chicago, if you are a liberal student, there's a high chance you both wont like it there and you might miss out on a lot of the very opportunities that make it prestigious (chance to connect with conservative judges). This is compared to H which is more balanced.

Also, besides just the political aspect, but kind of tied into it, Chicago's reputation is so tied into a singular area (law and economics) that its kind of an interesting case. Law and economics blossomed in like the past few decades, and Chicago benefitted, but it's potentially waning now (or facing a backlash) and I dont know what that means for chicago. Like when Vermuele says something off the wall I dont think people connect it to the core of H, but when Epstein gives an absolute disaster like that coronavirus interview, I do think there's more of a tendency to think "lol Chicago" (I know he also teaches at NYU and whatever the Hoover Institute is but he is clearly connected with Chicago). This probably doesnt actually matter at all in real life though.

Everything in this comment is absurd 0L BS. Law and economics is not dying out anytime soon, in fact Chicago might not even be the best place for it anymore because it (and closely related "empirical legal studies") have become so central to legal academia that lots of top schools have top faculties in it. And as others have pointed out Chicago, like every other top law school, is nowhere near overwhelmingly conservative. By the standards of most social institutions it is overwhelmingly liberal.

[Iowahawk]

Agree with everything nixy said.

Two questions seem like the right ones to ask. One is the opinion of the academy: how do top legal scholars view Chicago and the work of Chi profs? Citations, influence, etc. I’ll leave this for others to answer. The second is what do judges and firms think. For firms, I’m not sure this even matters much. Chi grads do very well. But any rankings or prestige of mostly transactional work is a joke. Fungible. All the debate on here about DPW vs S&C vs Skadden is the product of people realizing that they are fungible and striving to make negligible differences into something bigger to puff themselves up or put others below them. It happens in other aspects of life among people who are similarly situated in their groups. They look for differences.

For clerkships, Chicago is killing it. 9 on SCOTUS this coming term and doing very well on the lower courts. I think this puts chi clearly above Columbia, and probably on par with H. H is a pure numbers game with admission. If Chicago gives you any substantial money compared to H, taking H is silly. You’ll get more meaningful and frequent interaction with chi profs, and the clerkship office does well.

Harvard clearly stands ahead of Chicago, both in Academic placement and "unicorn" clerkships.

These are statistically measured things and neither are true, unless by "unicorn" clerkships you mean liberal feeders or the liberal justices on SCOTUS. For academia Chicago and Harvard are similar per capita, and Chicago even beat Harvard in absolute numbers, but both are way behind Yale. For academia it might be true that if you're good enough to make it at one you'll probably make it at the other--and it's not clear how much YLS's advantage is really just self-selection due to its academia-heavy/not-practice-focused culture.

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsbla ... -2021.html

[TTTTorbust]

Agree with everything nixy said.

Two questions seem like the right ones to ask. One is the opinion of the academy: how do top legal scholars view Chicago and the work of Chi profs? Citations, influence, etc. I’ll leave this for others to answer. The second is what do judges and firms think. For firms, I’m not sure this even matters much. Chi grads do very well. But any rankings or prestige of mostly transactional work is a joke. Fungible. All the debate on here about DPW vs S&C vs Skadden is the product of people realizing that they are fungible and striving to make negligible differences into something bigger to puff themselves up or put others below them. It happens in other aspects of life among people who are similarly situated in their groups. They look for differences.

For clerkships, Chicago is killing it. 9 on SCOTUS this coming term and doing very well on the lower courts. I think this puts chi clearly above Columbia, and probably on par with H. H is a pure numbers game with admission. If Chicago gives you any substantial money compared to H, taking H is silly. You’ll get more meaningful and frequent interaction with chi profs, and the clerkship office does well.

Harvard clearly stands ahead of Chicago, both in Academic placement and "unicorn" clerkships.

These are statistically measured things and neither are true, unless by "unicorn" clerkships you mean liberal feeders or the liberal justices on SCOTUS. For academia Chicago and Harvard are similar per capita, and Chicago even beat Harvard in absolute numbers, but both are way behind Yale. For academia it might be true that if you're good enough to make it at one you'll probably make it at the other--and it's not clear how much YLS's advantage is really just self-selection due to its academia-heavy/not-practice-focused culture.

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsbla ... -2021.html

Fair point on academic placement per capita, at least during this year. I spoke earlier in the thread about Chicago's prowess in the academic arena compared to its peers, though I have not seen historical data compared to Harvard per capita. As for the clerkship talk, I was mostly referring to SCOTUS, where Harvard substantially outpaces Chicago. The only exception to this rule among active justices is Thomas who has actually accepted more clerks from Chicago than Harvard (And also Yale), as compared to Alito and Roberts, who seem to favor Harvard, 36-6. This is not counting Trump nominees as the sample size is small, though Harvard and Chicago seem to be about even between those three thus far. We don't seem to disagree on placement rates among liberal justices, so no need for further comment there. I assumed similar placement rates with feeders tangentially from SCOTUS clerks, as that data is not as readily available except from those who go on to clerk for SCOTUS justices, and it is safe to say that SCOTUS clerks are a sizable subset of the the population of feeder clerks.

[nealric]

Every T-14 has some conservative academics.

Please name the conservative academics at Yale. Thank you.

I don't know how you define "conservative", but Chua/Rubenfeld seem to have conservative connections (especially with Kavanaugh).