Wisconsin v. WUSTL...thoughts? Forum

[transplantedbuckeye]

It's coming down to decision time, and I am really torn between the two. Recently visited both schools. I love Madison and UW's law school. I also really liked WUSTL and the surrounding area in St. Louis. The goal is to work in the Midwest/Northeast/DC, possibly do a clerkship, and eventually teach.

[emorystud2010]

.

[bwv812]

.

[beachbum]

WUSTL. Better placement, particularly in the midwest. Better chance at landing DC (new clinical program is helping the cause). Some chance at winding up in the northeast (connections help). Beautiful campus. Seems to have some momentum (and a huge endowment), if that counts for anything.

As a previous poster said: you're not going to land in academia from either of these schools. But for what you want, WUSTL seems like the more attractive option. And St. Louis is a decent place to spend 3 years- plus it functions as a secondary market if your plans fall through.

[A'nold]

Yeah.....all you "no academiaz 4 u from WUSTL OR WISCONSINZ" peeps need to at least clarify what you mean by academia. If you are talking about teaching at a school ranked above WUSTL, yeah, it's probably not going to happen. But if you are talking about teaching at most ABA acreditted schools, then you are full of crap. Many and maybe even most professors aren't from top 10 kind of schools in the t3 and 4 range, at least from the sample I've seen. It's just what you do after graduation that makes the difference.

[Total Litigator]

At least 95% of all law professors come from T6 schools.

I have absolutely no proof for that statistic, except for the fact that the vast majority of Thomas M. Cooley School of Law faculty hail from Harvard or Yale. Can't get ranked much lower than Wisconsin than Cooley. (Not counting Brennan's rankings).

[270910]

Yeah.....all you "no academiaz 4 u from WUSTL OR WISCONSINZ" peeps need to at least clarify what you mean by academia. If you are talking about teaching at a school ranked above WUSTL, yeah, it's probably not going to happen. But if you are talking about teaching at most ABA acreditted schools, then you are full of crap. Many and maybe even most professors aren't from top 10 kind of schools in the t3 and 4 range, at least from the sample I've seen. It's just what you do after graduation that makes the difference.

Not really, A'nold. Outside of the T10, schools might produce one law professor per year. Actually, 1 per year would be an amazing number. HYS professors often wind up teaching at T4-T2 schools because the academic market is uber competitive.

For example, this chart that shows in 3 years, 10 people from WUSTL entered the meat market (the once per year legal conference hiring where the overwhelming majority of law profs get hired) and not a single one got picked up: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archi ... iring.html

Think about that: 0 profs out of 3 years of graduating classes.

[Thomas Jefferson]

Yeah.....all you "no academiaz 4 u from WUSTL OR WISCONSINZ" peeps need to at least clarify what you mean by academia. If you are talking about teaching at a school ranked above WUSTL, yeah, it's probably not going to happen. But if you are talking about teaching at most ABA acreditted schools, then you are full of crap. Many and maybe even most professors aren't from top 10 kind of schools in the t3 and 4 range, at least from the sample I've seen. It's just what you do after graduation that makes the difference.

Depends what you mean by "teach." Getting a tenure track position from WUSTL or UW, while not technically impossible, is going to be near-impossible at any ABA school. See http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2009 ... hing.shtml and http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008 ... hing.shtml . If you mean adjuncts etc., then yeah maybe (and I realize all you offered was your own anecdotal experience), but I don't have any data for that. Let's call it what it is for tenure-track though: astronomically unlikely. OP wouldn't be wrong to consider the fact that WUSTL doesn't even place on that list, unlike UW, but it shouldn't be given any more than the tiniest possible sliver of weight. Anything more would be irrational.

[A'nold]

Yeah.....all you "no academiaz 4 u from WUSTL OR WISCONSINZ" peeps need to at least clarify what you mean by academia. If you are talking about teaching at a school ranked above WUSTL, yeah, it's probably not going to happen. But if you are talking about teaching at most ABA acreditted schools, then you are full of crap. Many and maybe even most professors aren't from top 10 kind of schools in the t3 and 4 range, at least from the sample I've seen. It's just what you do after graduation that makes the difference.

Depends what you mean by "teach." Getting a tenure track position from WUSTL or UW, while not technically impossible, is going to be near-impossible at any ABA school. See http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2009 ... hing.shtml and http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008 ... hing.shtml . If you mean adjuncts etc., then yeah maybe (and I realize all you offered was your own anecdotal experience), but I don't have any data for that. Let's call it what it is for tenure-track though: astronomically unlikely. OP wouldn't be wrong to consider the fact that WUSTL doesn't even place on that list, unlike UW, but it shouldn't be given any more than the tiniest possible sliver of weight. Anything more would be irrational.

Yeah, this could be it, but my first year professors went something like this:

Oregon/Lewis and Clark/McGeorge range
Home school
Temple/Villanova/Chicago-Kent range
Colorado/Wisco/Arizona range
t4 (minority hire)
t2

Another section:
t2
MVP
t1
DN
t1 Arizonaish

At another law school I observed, it was similar with their most prominent professor being from Hastings.

Maybe I've just been involved w/ like the only two schools in the nation that it is this way.

[Thomas Jefferson]

A'nold, do you know if most of those professors were adjuncts? If so, perhaps there is a greater reliance on adjuncts and non-tenured faculty at T3 - T4 schools?

[A'nold]

A'nold, do you know if most of those professors were adjuncts? If so, perhaps there is a greater reliance on adjuncts and non-tenured faculty at T3 - T4 schools?

Well, about half of them are tenured, but they have been teaching at the school for 10+ years. The others are all associate professors, working on getting tenure.

[Thomas Jefferson]

A'nold, do you know if most of those professors were adjuncts? If so, perhaps there is a greater reliance on adjuncts and non-tenured faculty at T3 - T4 schools?

Well, about half of them are tenured, but they have been teaching at the school for 10+ years. The others are all associate professors, working on getting tenure.

Hmm, that's really interesting. I wonder if the data on this is lacking or if your experience really is that far out of the norm.

[270910]

A'nold, do you know if most of those professors were adjuncts? If so, perhaps there is a greater reliance on adjuncts and non-tenured faculty at T3 - T4 schools?

Well, about half of them are tenured, but they have been teaching at the school for 10+ years. The others are all associate professors, working on getting tenure.

Hmm, that's really interesting. I wonder if the data on this is lacking or if your experience really is that far out of the norm.

Every school publishes faculty lists. Poke around. Some schools have much broader JD bases for their faculty than others. But YS + H + T10 dominate just about everywhere.

At my school, 50% of my 1L profs were Yale JDs.

[A'nold]

A'nold, do you know if most of those professors were adjuncts? If so, perhaps there is a greater reliance on adjuncts and non-tenured faculty at T3 - T4 schools?

Well, about half of them are tenured, but they have been teaching at the school for 10+ years. The others are all associate professors, working on getting tenure.

Hmm, that's really interesting. I wonder if the data on this is lacking or if your experience really is that far out of the norm.

Every school publishes faculty lists. Poke around. Some schools have much broader JD bases for their faculty than others. But YS + H + T10 dominate just about everywhere.

At my school, 50% of my 1L profs were Yale JDs.

Duh!

[Total Litigator]

I took a sampling of the tenured faculty at the school I go to (which is ranked in the 50's). The results were interesting... The tenured professors had:

JD from Harvard or Yale: 21%

JD from a T10: 69%

JD from T14: 76%

JD from T20: 83% (all had either amazing work experience or an undergraduate degree from Harvard or Yale, most had the H/Y undergrad degree)

JD from a T50: 100%

That means that 17% of the tenured faculty had JD's from T20 -T50 schools. However, about half of those professors had received their JD from the same institution they were teaching at and the other half had undergraduate degrees from Harvard or Yale, (although one had an ugrad degree from a T10 undergraduate institution). The faculty with the JD from the same institution they were teaching at all taught legal writing classes.

Making the assumpting that my school is fairly typical of T2's (which it may not be) the results show that:
1) If you have a JD from a T10 institution, you have a decent shot at teaching at a T2.
2) If you're from a T20 institution, you have a small chance at landing a professor position as long as you have great work experience or an undergraduate degree from Harvard or Yale.
3) If you're from a T50, you better have an undergraduate degree from Harvard or Yale, or have a T10 undergraduate degree and be a prolific legal author.
4) If you're not from a T50, your only shot is teaching legal writing at the school you received your JD from.

[bwv812]

.

[Total Litigator]

This is like saying that since all US presidents have been male, you have a decent shot at being president if you're male.

Oh go take a hike down a busy interstate. I bet you're the kid blurting out random insights in class yet adding absolutely nothing to the class discussion. Here's some insight for ya. You know when the whole class groans everytime you open your mouth? Yeah, there's your sign.

I'm sorry for not spelling it out for you though.

And yes, if you are otherwise qualified you have a much higher relative chance of becoming president if your male. And yes you could rebuttal that with the argument that past performance does not equate to future performance. But the legal field most likely won't change its prestige/legal heiarchy conscious ways anytime soon.

[bwv812]

.

[interalia]

It's coming down to decision time, and I am really torn between the two. Recently visited both schools. I love Madison and UW's law school. I also really liked WUSTL and the surrounding area in St. Louis. The goal is to work in the Midwest/Northeast/DC, possibly do a clerkship, and eventually teach.

This is going to come off as negative even though i really don´t mean it to come off as such.

The idea that someone who transfers into WUSTL or UW is going to go to academia at any halfway-decent law school is pretty far removed from reality. (Think Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction:¨I´m pretty fucken far from okay.¨).

Go to WUSTL. It may not get you to the northeast, but UW will assuredly not get you there.

[shortporch]

It's coming down to decision time, and I am really torn between the two. Recently visited both schools. I love Madison and UW's law school. I also really liked WUSTL and the surrounding area in St. Louis. The goal is to work in the Midwest/Northeast/DC, possibly do a clerkship, and eventually teach.

Without making any comments on the ability of these two schools to place you in particular legal markets or clerkships, it will be virtually impossible to teach out of either school unless you end up with truly remarkable credentials. But those credentials will occur in spite of, not because of, the school, and for that reason I would make your decision based on other factors apart from potential future placement in academia.

[romothesavior]

WUSTL. IMO, the main reasons someone should take Wisconsin over WUSTL are money and/or a desire to practice in Wisconsin. You're going to be paying sticker at either school, so I'd take the better school.

Also, +1 to the "don't plan on teaching" crowd. A pipe-dream worth pursuing if the opportunity arises? Sure. But don't plan on it.

[BobDole34]

Wisconsin. Cheaper. Better town. Faculty is stronger. Probably easier to be at the top of the class. I don't think for one second WUSTL's "prestige" is inherently better than Wisconsin's. And most importantly: almost identical employment prospects. Unlikely at either unless at the top of the class for things like clerkships and NYC. That said, NLJ 250 numbers place WUSTL and Wisconsin at basically the same % of the class in those firms. One might make the argument that the top few WUSTL students are in a better position, but for 90%+ of the class, there won't be much difference.

[transplantedbuckeye]

Just to back up A'nold, I believe these forums' views of law faculty are a bit skewed. The faculty at my current (old) school are most definitely not from Harvard, Yale, or all those schools. I think I could count the Yale grads on 1 finger, and I don't know that Harvard would get any fingers. And no, they aren't mostly adjuncts.

[shortporch]

Just to back up A'nold, I believe these forums' views of law faculty are a bit skewed. The faculty at my current (old) school are most definitely not from Harvard, Yale, or all those schools. I think I could count the Yale grads on 1 finger, and I don't know that Harvard would get any fingers. And no, they aren't mostly adjuncts.

The academic hiring market is far, far more competitive than it was 10 years ago. I imagine most of your professors don't have PhDs, either. But just look at your non-tenured faculty compard to tenured faculty. I'll just draw from a couple of the recent lists compiled by Larry Solum (which, admittedly, are self-reported data):

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... -2010.html

--LinkRemoved--

2010 hiring (reported to date): Yale 18, Harvard 17, NYU 8, Columbia 5, Virginia 5, Berkeley 4, Penn 4
2009 hiring: Harvard 26, Yale 26, Berkeley 11, Michigan 11, Columbia 10, NYU 10, Stanford 10, Chicago 6 [36 candidates with PhDs, 35 candidates with LLMs, 6 candidates with SJDs or PhDs in law]
2008 hiring: Yale 30, Harvard 25, Stanford 12, Columbia 9, Michigan 9, NYU 5, Berkeley 5, Chicago 5

[Total Litigator]

This is very anecdotal, but from what I've seen, this seems to be how schools match up with professors schools:

US News 1-30: Majority of professors have excellent experience and from HY

US News 31 - 85: Majority of professors have excellent experience, but from a variety of top schools

US News 85+: Majority of professors are from HY, but not necessarily very experienced.

Anybody else notice something similar to this?