From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Harvard (Was: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court)
Date: 7 Nov 92 15:19:06 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Restricting this to misc.legal:

In article <1992Nov7.113828.19658@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Perhaps appropos in the charged Harvard Law atmosphere (Reason #579 not to
>>go there), but won't look good out of context.  Nor will much of his talk
>
>Is there any reason *to* go to Harvard, other than their reputation, which
>should help in the job market?

Well, there is occasionally a good professor there.  It's a good place to
learn critical legal studies, if you're into that sort of thing.  If you're
into ideological warfare, it's a veritable Beirut.  It's in my favorite 
neighborhood in the world. And one shouldn't estimate the importance 
of "should help in the job market," especially if you're interested in
working in Boston, which is a tough market to crack even when times are
good.

>Just how much difference is there really between law schools in, say, the
>top 10, and, say, the next 20.  

Wait, I thought we were talking about Harvard. :)

I can only speak about the law schools I know first-hand, but I think
there's a great difference between a Chicago and a #25 law school.
At Chicago, there's first-hand interaction with the professors, all
of whom are just about at the top of their field.  Maybe the only
result is that I get to name-drop chatting takings with Richard Epstein
over lunch at the Med, running down cites for Richard Posner's latest
book, or arguing contract philosophy with Doug Baird, but I'd like to
pretend that there was also an educational experience there.

The legal-writing program here is handled by six full-time faculty members
whose only job is to teach one legal-writing class.  I would even argue
that the end results differentiate Chicago from some other schools in the
top ten, despite the counter-evidence of the postings I make.

Let's go back to the job market: there are also second-order effects
from being in a school with good placement.  I know people at schools
where only the top ten percent or so have a good shot at the job market,
and these schools aren't so far down from the top twenty, if not actually
in it.  Law school is hellish and competitive enough -- I can't imagine
how distasteful it would have been if students are afraid to talk to or 
help each other because of the fear that the other student might do better.
I didn't have to put up with that first year, and it's even carried over
to this year now that we're looking for clerkships.  And the first-order
effects are fairly important also.  One's presumably in law school so they
can practice law later.  There are simply opportunities open to me as
a U of C law student that aren't open to friends of mine at the tops of
their classes in other law schools.

(Actually, I don't believe a lot of this applies to Harvard, where the
class size is humongous enough that there are fewer opportunities to
work with professors and there's more competition for jobs/law review
spots/etc.)

Between #10 and #11?  Probably none.  Between #4 and #25?  I'd say a great
great deal.

>For that matter, how much real difference
>is there between the top 10 and the bottom 20 of ABA-approved schools?

I've seen law schools that are essentially three-year-long bar review
courses.  I'd say there's a great deal of difference.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky misc.legal:19777 us.legal:1