<p>I have heard that Harvard tends to direct its student to coporate careers and Yale is more academic. Could anyone go into more detail about the different cultures at the three top law schools, Harvard, Yale and Stanford? Thanks.</p>
<p>I have no personal experience with any, but the U.S. News & World Report Ultimate Guide to Law Schools describes the culture at their top 5. Roughly:</p>
<p>Harvard: Much more like an undergrad degree. Some large classes, some impersonal professors, intense competition. The main draw are the big name people you will be studying under, and the huge pool of alumni. Harvard has supposedly been making strides to curtail some of the worse aspects.</p>
<p>Yale: Very academic, seminar-type classes. Smaller secions, much more personal contact with professors. The curriculum is not very formalized, and professors have a great deal of leeway in what they can teach.</p>
<p>Stanford: pparently a much more communal atmosphere, less competition, amazing scenery, much less formal, etc.</p>
<p>Hope that helped.</p>
<p>Thanks, that is helpful. Would you or anyone else know though how Stanford differs from Yale in terms of general atmosphere (and no, I don't mean weather...) Thanks!</p>
<p>I think Yale is more for academics and people wanting to do public interest. A significant number of Yale grads go into public interest, less than 3% of Stanford grads do. I think the culture at Yale is much more political while the culture at stanford is much more business oriented.</p>
<p>The students at Stanford are just as intelligent, but have more venues to release stress. While Yale has the traditional feel of a law school, stanford has more modern state of the art facilities...especially with regards to fitness and recreational.</p>
<p>People at Yale are probably less stressed and able to focus on more things outside of the classroom because of their no grades and no class rank policy, but again Palo Alto is a much much better place to live than new haven.</p>
<p>I think Yale is the superior school, but I do think people who choose S of H each year have no regrets. They are close enough that the loss of prestige won't be detrimental to one's career.</p>
<p>Thanks John, that's very helpful.</p>
<p>Harvard is so large that it's impossible to pigeonhole the culture as corporate vs. academic or whatever. You'll find a critical mass of people with virtually every possible career goal, including everything from poverty law to Wall Street to comedy writing, as well as professors who cater to every point on the spectrum. For those choosing among the three (a very lucky group), HLS makes the most sense for students who put a high premium on having lots of alternatives. If you put a greater premium on intimacy than on the number and variety of menu choices, then Harvard isn't a good choice.</p>
<p>hmm, Thanks Hanna, I had never though of HLS like that. Frankly, I want to hang out with the aspiring comedy writers. Just out of curiosity though, why would Yale or Stanford be more restricting than HLS? Or is it jsut that they are more focused toward a particular set of goals?</p>
<p>It's not that they are more restricting by design -- it's just a tradeoff of being a small school. When there's 550 in a class (plus LLMs), the chances of finding fellow comedy writers or Mormons or animal-rights activists are higher than when there's ~200 in a class. The absolute number of clinicals, journals, professors, clubs etc. is higher at Harvard for this reason alone. That allows you to tailor your experience very finely -- like, if you want to take Corporations as an elective, there are seven professors to choose from, so do you prefer a left or a right wing professor? Socratic or not? Challenging or gut? I greatly value having that kind of control, so it was a huge bonus for me. Plus there's the whole comedy writing thing; I spent most of my time with 50+ other people whose main priority in law school was making fun of the rest of the class: <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/drama/parodyhome.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/drama/parodyhome.htm</a>.</p>
<p>Thanks Hanna, that parody was very entertaining! Good singers at Harvard, too! I'm taking the LSAT next October and I think (assuming I get the necessary LSAT score) I have a shot at HYS - don't worry, I won't put you through a "do you think I have a chance with these credentials" thing.</p>
<p>One aspect of Harvard that concerned me was the competitive nature of the school. That's a big turn-off. In your experience there, have you fel there is a competitive atmosphere and/or have you met a lot of cutthrough students? Do professors try to create a hostile or cooperative class?</p>
<br>
<p>have you fel there is a competitive atmosphere and/or have you met a lot of cutthrough students?</p>
<br>
<p>Not at all -- at least, not in the circles I ran in. It's utterly taboo to talk about grades. I think that if you're going the law review route, that crowd can be pretty competitive with one another as far as who got which clerkship, etc., but I never even saw a hint of anyone hiding library books or refusing to share an outline or anything like that. Unless you're going for the ultimate clerkships, pretty much everyone can get the job of their choice, and the school doesn't rank, so there's no reason to worry about anyone else's grades.</p>
<p>There are certainly psycho individuals who obsess over exams, particularly 1L fall, but they're worrying about themselves, and I just avoided those people. It's easy to do, since they never go out. There are also a few professors who are jerks and like to push students around, but 1L grading is blind, so whatever hissy fits they throw in class don't actually impact anything, and you can just ignore them. For the 5 required 1L classes, every section is deliberately given a mix of softies and harda$$es, and after those 5 classes you just pick the profs you like. I had only one prof I disliked in my 3 years. I should note that the handful of profs who come to my mind as major jerks, including that one, universally have legions of groupies who adore them, so who does or doesn't run a good class is very much open to debate.</p>
<p>I will offer thoughts on small schools:</p>
<p>If you want to take a course, they might offer only one section of it during a semester, which can make scheduling a bit difficult. On the other hand, I'm very lucky in that two of my classes have about 10 people each in them, which is a great experience.</p>
<p>Hanna is completely right. Professors are a huge part of how enjoyable a course is. I picked my courses this semester in part based on the professors - and that was a great choice for me. </p>
<p>If you are hell-bent on doing law review, go to a smaller school. Generally, the same number of students will be selected, whether a larger or small school, because they need the same numbers of people to staff it. </p>
<p>As for other journals and clinics: if you go to a large school that doesn't compensate for its size by increasing the number of offerings, realize that it's going to be that much more competitive to get on. So check the "journal/student" ratio. </p>
<p>Law school can be like high school. If you go to a small school, it's junior high. Just for the social aspects of your three years, avoid the bubble environments (says Aries, who has realized that everyone knows her business better than she does). </p>
<p>1L fall exams... oh yes, there are people who obsess. Sadly, there are some who do that 2L year, but they are easy to avoid. (There's someone here who checked out a copy of a hornbook that is on reserve and covers material in a few classes - in September - and has yet to return it. Someone asked him/her about this, said that a few other students would like to look at it, and the response was, "Buy your own copy; I'm not giving this one back." Hello! Like it would kill you to buy your own if you're going to use it for the semseter! Or to let someone borrow it for a day! But I digress.)</p>
<p>There are a few common elements of competitive schools:
*law review based entirely on grades;
*overly harsh grading curve that forces people to get Cs
*interviewers get to pre-screen students (which is usually done on... grades)
*library books go missing
*grades openly posted
*profs don't give practice exams 1L year to reduce anxiety</p>
<p>Wow, thanks guys. My impression of Harvard was very poor so this helps a lot. It's good to know that you can avoid obsessive jerks and that they do not dominate the law scene. Ariesathena, you mentioned law review - this is something I never realy understood. What, exactly, is this and why do so many people want to do it? From what I can guess, it's just editing an academic journal. Plus, if it was so competitive, why don't they just start more journals so more people can participate?</p>
<br>
<p>From what I can guess, it's just editing an academic journal.</p>
<br>
<p>Mostly. A lot of it is more menial than that (checking footnotes) and some is more substantive (writing a student note). Most schools do have more journals -- Harvard had at least 12 by my last count -- but those secondary journals don't have the same resume firepower as the lead law review. This is a very serious credential; both Barack Obama and Chief Justice Roberts' law review positions literally come up every time they are introduced to any crowd of lawyers (like the Senate). So the people who really care about resume firepower are the ones who gun for law review.</p>
<p>Yeah, I've noticed how those guys had their tenure on law review mentioned, but it seems kind of silly if most of what you do is edit. Also, if students who work on it are selected by grades (which is what I thought was the case) doesn't law review just mean you had good grades? It just seems that unless you are going to contribute an academic article to the journal (does this happen?), then you are just getting kudos for grunt work.</p>
<p>Different schools do it differently. Usually there is a grade component -- either X number of seats are given out based on grades, or some combination of grades and a writing competition is used to award the seats. Yale, atypically, is based solely on an editing exam.</p>
<p>The weight that this credential is given is beyond silly. It's comically out of proportion to the value of the experience for any job besides law professor. Yes, many members get kudos for doing grunt work. But that's how it is, and everyone knows it, so the people who want those kudos suck it up.</p>
<p>Yes, some student work is published, usually notes (short articles), case comments, and book reviews. But the credential carries its weight even if you don't make any written contribution.</p>
<p>Obama being president of the Harvard law review actually deserves the attention it gets IMHO; HLR chooses its officers via a caged death match, and to win the presidency you basically have to persuade a bunch of superstars to give up their own superstar dreams and hand them to you. It speaks to pretty remarkable political skill.</p>
<p>As Hanna said, it depends on the school.</p>
<p>Law journals are professional, academic journals - the amount of grunt work means that the only people who have the time to do them are students. </p>
<p>As Hanna said, the Law Review is usually the most prestigous. It's not specialized, so the articles come from all sorts of different fields. Other law journals are usually specialized - international law, law and public policy, civil rights, death penalty, environmental law, IP, etc. </p>
<p>A lot of things in the legal profession are completely asinine. There's a ton of weight given to grades, where you go to school, law journals, etc - it's a system that basically rewards being a weenie.</p>
<p>Okay, it's good to know that I'm not crazy and that the system really is as deranged as it seems. Good for Obama on HLR, too! Still, it's interesting what you said Hanna about Yale's system. The more I read about Yale, the better it seems. Ah, why must they insist on being so selective? </p>
<p>Thanks for your help guys!</p>