Hi,

I'm intersted in an LLm in the US or EU. Unfourtanitly there is no way I can afford it without scholarship.
It looks like I have a real shot at getting a full scholarship and living expenses at washington U in st. louis, starting fall 2009. I've missed the deadlines for most other schools, so to go to a diifferent and perhaps higher ranked school would mean waiting another year which I'm not crazy about.
What do you think? I believe I have an exellent chance of getting in to IV league schools, but not so sure about getting a scholarship, so Wash u aounds good. can someone reccomend thier llm?

Columbia, Cornell, Penn in the Ivy League, or Northwestern, Berkeley (Boalt Hall), UVA, and University of Texas would present good alternatives. If you are a resident of any of the 50 states (especially California, Virginia or Texas), you can try a state university (Berkeley, UVA Law and the University of Texas Law School being among the top state law schools in the U.S.) and perhaps qualify for a scholarship in addition to in-state resident status. For scholarships, the earlier you apply, the better. Sorry don't know much about WashU Law, but you may wish to explore its in-state rival, the University of Missouri Law School. I heard from an alumnus-friend that they have a good program on alternative dispute resolution. Best of luck.

I'm not a us resident.
The question is, is studying for an llm in a top 10 law school, worth waiting another year and the living costs and probably at least part of the tuition as opposed to going to Wash U in St. louis with full living stipend and no tuition?

It may be worth waiting another year to study at a U.S. Top 10 law school. However, if you are decided on WashU and would not like to postpone your study year, perhaps you can proceed with applying and make the final decision on whether to attend in September 2009 once you receive your offer of admission. Sorry don't know enough about WashU at the graduate level to advice you. All I can say is the top law programs in the U.S., especially those I mentioned in my previous post (needless to say, Yale, Harvard and Stanford will likewise be on anyone's list) may be worth competing for if you feel you have the proper credentials.

I know many academicians of excellent standing who have not read at the top 10 or top 20 (nor did they bother to apply). Rather they went for institutions having specialist recognition and which offered them full scholarships. The reason behind this is simple. It makes an unmatchable impression on a person's C.V. that he has recieved scholarships in the past. Plus at the end of it all, more than the tag, it is one's performance that counts. It is better to be a topper at a lesser place than "also rans" at the best. At the post-graduate level, it is one's own discipline and perseverence that goes to make a successful performance.

Hence, if it is the academia (or policy formulation) that you view as the ultimate aim of your further studies, it does not matter where you study (of course, higher the better , subject to monetary constraints and computations) but it is your performance that does.

A glance through profiles of various leading academia (whether at leading universities or otherwise) and various highly placed policy makers (within both International and National bodies), would show that there is no bias in favour of a particular group of institutions. You might be interested to note (and you would know that for a fact already) that all Harvard and Yale alumni do not end being employed at the best universities or in the biggest firms or elsewhere.

In the end, it is who you are and what your achievements are that count and not the tag that you carry. If you can achieve the same kind of future employment fortunes without shelling out those extra pennies, it is only you who stands to gain and no one else.

I think u should give it a try. A very very close friend of mine went there to do his LLM (2007/2008) and he seems very pleased and doesnt regret at all going there. As the other colleage said i think it depend more on your performance than the institution and furthermore, this university its still on the world ranking and scored very high in my opinion.

A glance through profiles of various leading academia (whether at leading universities or otherwise) and various highly placed policy makers (within both International and National bodies), would show that there is no bias in favour of a particular group of institutions. You might be interested to note (and you would know that for a fact already) that all Harvard and Yale alumni do not end being employed at the best universities or in the biggest firms or elsewhere.

One would not wish to be drawn into a debate where credentials of unquestionable achievers become centres of controversy, or for that matter, where unparalleled achievements of historically acclaimed stars (whether or not they are painted so by publicity-mongers or informative pages) are taken support of, to present a view, which is highly misdirected and irrelevant to the original question.

Sailing adrift of highly elitist organisational structures (where creatures bred and nourished at particular places are given higher weightage enroute their path to success), the whole point of the posts was how going to a relatively lesser known and low ranked institution fares in comparison to chart-busters, when the former is ready to provide a full grant.

And the simple answer was that in consonance with personal aims and ambitions (which vary with each individual), if a year is only to be used en-route to higher academic achievement and when it forms only a short stop in a long journey, it might ordain the call of wisdom to disregard the rush of popular opinion and take a balanced decision based on individual needs.

The names mentioned by the worthy jurist in support of his hypothesis (which might develop into a highly contentious theory over the years) only go to show that celebrity-like success is only an exception and the crowd tends to go back and mix with the rest. The suggestion as to the parameters of success opined previously in these columns was not meant to limit the vast span of the infinite term to a particular stream or to particular posts. The suggestion was that at the end of the day, every alumnus does not end up playing an equally coveted role (whether quantified, edified, qualified or not) and that individual striving and struggle make or break the course of events.

Probably it is worth mentioning, the reference to alumni of highly revered institutions mentioned above as holding positions of high esteem, is subject to quantification. It is worth questioning as to the level at which the education was received. For under-graduate education in law is taken in multiples of hundreds and the above-numerated (taking it as a sample and not as the whole) would only peg the rate of achievement (if the term is not again seen as offensive) at 2-3%. Surely, a better enumeration of the numbers and qualification of each portfolio is called for.

Their classmates and colleagues usually work for their administrations, and organisations as well. To them, it is one way of avoiding being lonely at the top.

As a general rule, a U.S. legal education in an ABA-recognized law school would provide a postgraduate student with valuable training in a specialized field of law. What counts is how a lawyer uses that expertise to improve the quality of his or her legal work.

And one may sin to add here, that, all things being equal, or the delicate balance of micros not being too lopsided, at post-graduate level, it is more a question forging strong workable relations, both at academic and professional levels, with the ultimate objective of generating pioneering works of general and special interest. Rather than being disappointed at the lack of workable insightful and practically useful inputs from the concerned quarters at busy places of ever-vouched public excllence, one might rather lean in favour of cooperative, progress-inducing work culture at a more human level.

In terms of academic reputation and geographical location, WashU and University of Missouri have the same prestige as regional law schools situated within the State of Missouri.

I think Wash U is much higher on the prestige ladder than U Missouri.

Iowa, what do you think of Rutgers Law School? In terms of prestige, would the State University of New Jersey hold its own? A friend recommends the 2 year JD Program.

Although I did not attend the school, I have knowledge of Washington U ("Wash U") in St. Louis. Wash U's law school has some wonderful professors. The university has a large endowment and spends money generously on scholarships. The law school facilities are among the best in the nation.

I have practiced law with and against numerous Wash U grads, and they are top-notch lawyers, equal to or better than the practitioners I've encountered from schools with purportedly better reputations. Wash U lawyers can actually practice law, not simply postulate about law.

Clearly, Wash U's LLM program lacks the cache of the Ivy League. However, I suspect that Wash U's law programming is just as strong, if not better. If you are looking solely for prestige and reputation, then Wash U may not be your best choice. However, if you are looking for a great law program with a lack of cutthroat competition, Wash U would be a fine choice.