Washington U in St.Louis


jakes2829

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?

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?
quote

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.

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.
quote
jakes2829

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?

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?
quote

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.

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.
quote
QSWE

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 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.
quote
PUCCA

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.

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.
quote

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.


Although WashU and other law schools would definitely be suitable places to do graduate law studies, let me correct some grossly inaccurate and misleading comments made in an earlier post.

Many Harvard and Yale alumni do not end up employed in the most sought-after institutions because they CHOOSE NOT TO GO THERE. It is precisely their idealism that precludes them from choosing to be employed at these ideal places of employment.

Success means different things to different people. It seems that to some, if you are not employed at a national or international body which the general public is familiar with, or the best universities, the biggest firms or elsewhere, a person cannot be deemed successful. To others, success may be briefly described as material wealth and recognition. If that were the measure of success, then surely the unconventional path of Barack Obama as community organizer and civil rights lawyer would not qualify as a success story when he left Harvard in 1991. Upon graduating with a JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, President-elect Obama accepted low-paying jobs and the unglamorous practice of civil rights law despite the fact that he had many offers to join Wall Street and earn a starting annual salary of about $150,000. Conventional wisdom would suggest that it would have been foolhardy not to have chosen Wall Street. However, he didnt mind what people thought about him; he continued to fight for a cause that he deeply cared about, without regard to compensation or recognition.

My law professor, a Harvard LLM graduate, chose instead to be a pro bono environmental lawyer instead of a corporate practitioner. He has won several landmark cases, two of which are cited by courts around the world as the leading cases in environmental law, specifically involving the principles of inter-generational responsibility and inter-generational justice.

Many Harvard alumni become human rights lawyers who go to the poorest, most depressed nations on earth to fight for people who cannot fight for themselves. In other words, they fight for causes no other lawyer would fight for. Most of these jobs pay the lowest salaries, entail long working hours and little recognition. Oftentimes, they have to create the job themselves, like free legal aid offices and community organizing. Some Harvard lawyers have even died for their cause in remote places which contain hostile communities, and it would be at the height of arrogance to demean the sacrifice of their own lives by merely gliding through the internet looking for famous people, star academicians and celebrity lawyers in the leading universities, law firms or elsewhere.

Yale Law Alumni follow a similar path. However, their circumstances are slightly different. Yale lawyers can rarely be found in the most ideal places of employment because of the small size of a Yale Law School class. YLS has only 150 JDs and 25 LLMs a year. They have the highest rejection rate among U.S. law schools at just over 90%. Most dont end up in high profile positions they end up in academia and government. Yale JDs Bill and Hillary Clinton took up teaching positions at the University of Arkansas Law School before ending up in government and public service.

A glance at the U.S. Supreme Court will find 7 out of 9 Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice, as alumni of Harvard and Yale (Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Breyer attended HLS while Justices Thomas and Alito attended YLS). The two other Justices, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg attended Northwestern and Columbia Law School, respectively.

These alumni would have achieved success regardless of what law school they attended. There was in fact no need for them to attend Harvard or Yale yet they chose to. No doubt, they would have been admitted to a number of other schools. They are who they are because they worked hard to earn their success. They should not be taken to task for CHOOSING low paying or unglamorous jobs or for attending Harvard or Yale, law schools which saw their potential for great success in the first place.

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

Although WashU and other law schools would definitely be suitable places to do graduate law studies, let me correct some grossly inaccurate and misleading comments made in an earlier post.

Many Harvard and Yale alumni do not end up employed in the most sought-after institutions because they CHOOSE NOT TO GO THERE. It is precisely their idealism that precludes them from choosing to be employed at these “ideal” places of employment.

Success means different things to different people. It seems that to some, if you are not employed at a national or international body which the general public is familiar with, or the best universities, the biggest firms or “elsewhere,” a person cannot be deemed successful. To others, success may be briefly described as material wealth and recognition. If that were the measure of success, then surely the unconventional path of Barack Obama as “community organizer” and civil rights lawyer would not qualify as a success story when he left Harvard in 1991. Upon graduating with a JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, President-elect Obama accepted low-paying jobs and the unglamorous practice of civil rights law despite the fact that he had many offers to join Wall Street and earn a starting annual salary of about $150,000. Conventional wisdom would suggest that it would have been foolhardy not to have chosen Wall Street. However, he didn’t mind what people thought about him; he continued to fight for a cause that he deeply cared about, without regard to compensation or recognition.

My law professor, a Harvard LLM graduate, chose instead to be a pro bono environmental lawyer instead of a corporate practitioner. He has won several landmark cases, two of which are cited by courts around the world as the leading cases in environmental law, specifically involving the principles of inter-generational responsibility and inter-generational justice.

Many Harvard alumni become human rights lawyers who go to the poorest, most depressed nations on earth to fight for people who cannot fight for themselves. In other words, they fight for causes no other lawyer would fight for. Most of these jobs pay the lowest salaries, entail long working hours and little recognition. Oftentimes, they have to create the job themselves, like free legal aid offices and “community organizing.” Some Harvard lawyers have even died for their cause in remote places which contain hostile communities, and it would be at the height of arrogance to demean the sacrifice of their own lives by merely gliding through the internet looking for famous people, star academicians and celebrity lawyers in the leading universities, law firms or “elsewhere.”

Yale Law Alumni follow a similar path. However, their circumstances are slightly different. Yale lawyers can rarely be found in the most “ideal” places of employment because of the small size of a Yale Law School class. YLS has only 150 JDs and 25 LLMs a year. They have the highest rejection rate among U.S. law schools at just over 90%. Most don’t end up in high profile positions – they end up in academia and government. Yale JDs Bill and Hillary Clinton took up teaching positions at the University of Arkansas Law School before ending up in government and public service.

A “glance” at the U.S. Supreme Court will find 7 out of 9 Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice, as alumni of Harvard and Yale (Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Breyer attended HLS while Justices Thomas and Alito attended YLS). The two other Justices, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg attended Northwestern and Columbia Law School, respectively.

These alumni would have achieved success regardless of what law school they attended. There was in fact no need for them to attend Harvard or Yale yet they chose to. No doubt, they would have been admitted to a number of other schools. They are who they are because they worked hard to earn their success. They should not be taken to task for CHOOSING low paying or unglamorous jobs or for attending Harvard or Yale, law schools which saw their potential for great success in the first place.
quote
QSWE

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.

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.
quote

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.

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.
quote

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.

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.
quote
QSWE

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.

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.
quote

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.

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.
quote
Iowa

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

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

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.

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.
quote
atkins

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.

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.
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

St. Louis, Missouri 36 Followers 84 Discussions

Other Related Content

Summer Law Programs 2020: Legal English & US Law

News Feb 13, 2020