Dr.J., let me ask you this questions: would you turn down Harvard or Stanford for Columbia? I am sorry but Harvard is Harvard (the brand name is just too strong) and Stanford is tempting b/c it is like a country club with top notch education.

It is just my opinion but I do think that 200 LLMs (15 LLMs just from my home country) is too much. Columbia used to have a 80 student program but they became greedy. I am sorry but I think the "value" of an LLM with so many people is not the same of going to a 20/30 student LLM program.

Size doesn't affect the "value" of the LLM. Just take NYU's LLM program : they accept a few hundred students (well above 200 students) yet the quality of their LLM is undisputed. Their LLM program is still highly praised and highly looked after.
Harvard also takes well above 100 students, so if you're looking for a program with a small student number, neither Harvard, Columbia, NYU, etc. will do.

I couldn't agree more with Paul. I don't wanna discuss Dr. J's statement, but I know of many people who turned down Columbia for Yale/Harvard/Stanford, yet not the opposite. In terms of selection rate, Yale and Stanford appear to be the toughest ones at the moment. I don't think one could reasonably say that this has no impact on the quality of the program, as in the end a good part of the added value of an LLM program has to do with class interaction. I don't wanna say that a Columbia LLM student is better or worse than a Yale or a Stanford candidate, but on average I think it's fair to draw some implications. Having said that, I don't think I am an outstanding candidate, and would be extremely happy and proud if I got admitted to Columbia.

Dr.J., let me ask you this questions: would you turn down Harvard or Stanford for Columbia? I am sorry but Harvard is Harvard (the brand name is just too strong) and Stanford is tempting b/c it is like a country club with top notch education.

It is just my opinion but I do think that 200 LLMs (15 LLMs just from my home country) is too much. Columbia used to have a 80 student program but they became greedy. I am sorry but I think the "value" of an LLM with so many people is not the same of going to a 20/30 student LLM program.

I honestly think that the reputation of NYU LLM program takes a hit because they accept 400+ students. All my friends that got offers from NYU and another top 5 school, ended up declining the NYU offer. So, I guess it is fair to say that, broadly speakingm, NYU does not get the best students around (exception to tax / international law concentrations). I know some people will come hard on me but I am just talking about credentials, grades, etc..

NYU has historicaly accepted 15 people from my country every year. After 10 years, you have 150 people with very similar resumes. Again, it is just my point of view but one of the my goals is to distinguish myself when I go back to my country.

The discussions on Columbia v Harvard etc is very interesting, esp for me, since i have been accepted by Columbia and am awaiting results from Harvard, Yale and NYU. However, this discussion seems to be very corporate oriented. What is your opinion on courses in Human Rights, Criminal Law and International Criminal Law? Isnt columbia known for its HR programme?

You are right. We are talking about corporate law. If you want to be an expert on international criminal law, human rights, etc, I suggest you focus more on the professors and less on the schools.

I am from Eastern Europe; just out of curiosity where are you from Paul?

I honestly think that the reputation of NYU LLM program takes a hit because they accept 400+ students. All my friends that got offers from NYU and another top 5 school, ended up declining the NYU offer. So, I guess it is fair to say that, broadly speakingm, NYU does not get the best students around (exception to tax / international law concentrations). I know some people will come hard on me but I am just talking about credentials, grades, etc..

NYU has historicaly accepted 15 people from my country every year. After 10 years, you have 150 people with very similar resumes. Again, it is just my point of view but one of the my goals is to distinguish myself when I go back to my country.

Germany.

Paul,

That is actually funny. You said that Columbia had accepted 15 of your countrymen into the LLM. This sounds a bit surprising now that you say that you are from Germany. As far as I know, there are only 5 Germans in the program..

If you want to read about how selective Columbia is when it comes to Germans, you might be interested in reading the following Spiegel article:
http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/jobundberuf/0,1518,398765,00.html

Now, let me just react to the discussion about the size of the program. It is true that 200 LLMs is a pretty large number. However, whether there are 100, 150, or 200 does not really matter. Why? Because there is no LLMs-only class (except the summer introduction course and a special Contracts class). LLMs take classes with the JDs. I think this is great, and I would prefer that a thousand times over having only LLM-only classes.

Now, I don't mean to say that numbers do not matter at all. I think that as long as the size is not too large to be able to know all your fellow LLMs, then it's ok. Columbia actually promotes a lot interaction among LLMs: first, most of them get to know each other through the 3-week introduction course in the summer; second, there are regularly Friday afternoon get-togethers organized by the Graduate Studies Office where all the LLMs are invited. Thus, it is very much possible to know all of your fellow LLMs. Otherwise I definitely wouldn't feel that positive about the size of the program.

Btw, one of the German students mentioned in the Spiegel article turned down Harvard. And he is not the only one at Columbia who did..

DocJ

I will take that. BTW, I have been accepted to Columbia. You know, there is no right or wrong here. As I always say, it is more about gut feeling than anything else. In the end, any top 15 school is a great choice. Columbia is one of the best law schools in the world, what else can I say. I would love to go there!

I do think however (in my particular case) that Harvard and Stanford are better options. Harvard has more reputation worldwide (do you agree?) and Stanford is probably the most selective LLM program in the US (do you agree?) They accept 1 german - if they accept one this year - and receive 40/50 applications). And that ratio applies to almost all countries.

So if your goal is pure "reputation", you should go to Harvard. If you want to be part of a "very selective club", you go to Stanford. Columbia is a good mix though.

First, congratulations on your acceptance to Columbia. As you know by now, the ratio of Germans that are accepted into Columbia's LLM program is really low, so you must have impressive credentials.

I agree that there is no right or wrong. Actually I think that you put the discussion in really good terms: reputation (in favor of Harvard), selectiveness (in favor of Stanford, or Chicago, or Michigan..). What does Columbia stand for?

For sure, there will be more of your countrymen that hold an LLM from Columbia than from Stanford. I agree that this can be very important. I do however think that this alone should not be a decisive factor when you are trying to decide which Law School to go to.

Probably Harvard's LLM still holds a very good reputation in your country. But there is something intrinsically wrong with this, and it can be put in very simple words: when you ask someone why Harvard, they say, well because of its reputation. I do not mean to discredit Harvard here, but then again I don't think that reputation alone will stand for very long. Actually, in the legal profession in Europe there is a growing number of lawyers who are aware of the reputation v. quality of education conflict when it comes to the top Universities. From my own experience, I can only say this:
- one of my former Professors has studied at both Columbia, and Harvard (PhD). He strongly recommended Columbia for its higher quality of legal education, and said that Harvard's only asset is its reputation.
- I met with several European partners from American and English law firms, and they expressed very clearly their feelings about LLMs where you get a very strong legal education as opposed to LLMs where you only carry away a name to put on your resume (in one of the meetings, Harvard was cited as a reputation-only school).

Now should this all be important? I don't know. In the end, I think that those people out there who choose to go to Harvard ONLY because of its reputation are stupid (sorry for putting it this bluntly). If however they choose Harvard because they can get, in terms of legal education (the purpose of the LLM in my humble opinion), something that they cannot get anywhere else, then they are smart.

As I said before, it all depends on your goals. But the day prospective applicants decide to choose their LLM program not based on reputation, but based on the return in terms of legal education that they get for the money that they are investing, some Universities will suffer for sure!

Hakuna Matata,

DocJ

Thanks. I am really happy with Columbia's offer. I do agree that Harvard probably does not deserve the #2 spot and that Harvard's reputation is what makes Harvard special. Finally, I think the LLM admission process in Stanford and Columbia is more focused on credentials (and less focused on family names), whichis how I think it should be. Harvard used to be #1, then it moved to #2 and not long ago, if I am not wrong, Harvard was ranked #3 . But still, how many US Supreme Court Justices went to Harvard? And Columbia?

I think that b/w Harvard and Columbia I will go to Harvard but I am happy with Columbia. What about Stanford? I would actually be more inclined towards Stanford than Harvard and Columbia.

Congratulations Paul, I still haven't heard anything so far. As to the dilemma about who's best, I don't know. I know people (some close friends some just acquaintances) from continental Europe who went to each of Harvard, Columbia and Stanford. All brillliant people. However I have to say that those who have been accepted to Harvard and Stanford all have "something more" as compared those admitted to Columbia or other top law schools, be it absolutely incredible grades (as compared to "only" very good grades) or very solid working experience (e.g. 6-7 years of top law firm experience as opposed to 2-4), other advanced degrees (for instance I know of some Germans with doctorate degrees at Stanford), or even the above combined together. Maybe it's correct to say that Harvard is very much about reputation, but I would not overstress this, I think they still are very selective. Another issue is whether you need connections besides credentials, on which I have no clear ideas.

Thanks. I am really happy with Columbia's offer. I do agree that Harvard probably does not deserve the #2 spot and that Harvard's reputation is what makes Harvard special. Finally, I think the LLM admission process in Stanford and Columbia is more focused on credentials (and less focused on family names), whichis how I think it should be. Harvard used to be #1, then it moved to #2 and not long ago, if I am not wrong, Harvard was ranked #3 . But still, how many US Supreme Court Justices went to Harvard? And Columbia?

I think that b/w Harvard and Columbia I will go to Harvard but I am happy with Columbia. What about Stanford? I would actually be more inclined towards Stanford than Harvard and Columbia.

I agree with you Kius. Columbia is a top law school but I think it is simply not realistic to compare it to HLS/SLS. Going back to Dr. J's post about placement, I've been told that 100% of SLS's LLMs got jobs last year.

Congratulations Paul, I still haven't heard anything so far. As to the dilemma about who's best, I don't know. I know people (some close friends some just acquaintances) from continental Europe who went to each of Harvard, Columbia and Stanford. All brillliant people. However I have to say that those who have been accepted to Harvard and Stanford all have "something more" as compared those admitted to Columbia or other top law schools, be it absolutely incredible grades (as compared to "only" very good grades) or very solid working experience (e.g. 6-7 years of top law firm experience as opposed to 2-4), other advanced degrees (for instance I know of some Germans with doctorate degrees at Stanford), or even the above combined together. Maybe it's correct to say that Harvard is very much about reputation, but I would not overstress this, I think they still are very selective. Another issue is whether you need connections besides credentials, on which I have no clear ideas.

Thanks. I am really happy with Columbia's offer. I do agree that Harvard probably does not deserve the #2 spot and that Harvard's reputation is what makes Harvard special. Finally, I think the LLM admission process in Stanford and Columbia is more focused on credentials (and less focused on family names), whichis how I think it should be. Harvard used to be #1, then it moved to #2 and not long ago, if I am not wrong, Harvard was ranked #3 . But still, how many US Supreme Court Justices went to Harvard? And Columbia?

I think that b/w Harvard and Columbia I will go to Harvard but I am happy with Columbia. What about Stanford? I would actually be more inclined towards Stanford than Harvard and Columbia.

Kius 74: I guess you are right. I have some "issues" with Harvard b/c, as you said, connections are so important there. But you are right, I think that, people who are accepted to Harvard and Stanford have a "plus", maybe they are PHds, maybe they are top 1%/3% of their class, etc. I think it is a fair statement to make. Doc. J will come hard on us but...

Here is a little something to work with (and it might create a bit of a controversy): one of these plus's that could trigger an acceptance to HLS might be prior work experience with Cleary. It might sound surprising, and it is certainly not the rule, but when you count the number of students who have this background in the HLS LLM, you could start wondering. Whether this has anything to do with the fact that Cleary is a major sponsor to HLS is something that I prefer to leave open...

Btw, HLS has about a 10% acceptance rate, the same as CLS. HLS accepts about 40-50 less students. I think that one difference that can be observed is that Harvard puts a lot more weight on grades and class rankings than other schools. That much I agree with. But I think that to make a well rounded student, you need a lot more than just first place coming out of Law School or top 1%.. Maybe Paul wants to translate part of the Spiegel article for us that refers to this?

When it comes to PhD, I cannot completely agree. There are a number of CLS LLMs who hold a PhD.. I think the reason why there are more of these at HLS is that those people are seeking a theoretical, academia-orientated education.

DocJ

P.S.: I don't think that I was hard, was I?

Hum...I may accept the fact that both schools have a 10% acceptance rate but there is one ratio (I am struggling to find it in the net) that is quite interesting. The ratio is: students that accept an offer/students who receive an offer. Of course 1 is the best ratio a school can get. Pursuant to that ratio Yale, Harvard and Stanford rank way better than Columbia. So, I guess that the very best candidates get offers from more than one of these "elite" schools and usually they place Harvard, Stanford or Yale ahead of Columbia. A good way to check that is if you could tell us how many people in your class was also accepted to Harvard or Stanford. I asked one friend who went to Stanford last year and he told me (of course we never know the truth...) that about 50% of the students also received offers from Harvard and almost all students in the corporate LLM got an offer from Columbia. Any thoughts?

Very interesting discussion indeed.

From my personal (German) experiences, the "Harvard" factor counts less the more you come close to people who have won some insight in the US schools (and there are a lot more of them than just a few years ago). In my view, for example Chicago (they just offered admission :)) has a great reputation, which comes at least close to HLS. Especially if you are interested in corporate law and economic analysis of law, many "big names" are not in Harvard. I talked to a lot of lawyers in big international law firms and they all told me, that the most important thing they expect someone to have are language skills and basic knowledge of the US legal system. Therefore, HLS is nice, but you will not have a disadvantage by having pursued your LL.M. studies at CLS, NYU, Chicago, Penn, Cornell or any other school within the top twenty. Thus, I would judge due to personal aims which might bring some other interests into play. In my case, I need to do some research for my PhD thesis with respect to corporate law and economic analysis of law. Because of this, Chicago is definitely one of my top choices.
I think this estimation is not altered if you think in terms of an academic career. Many German professors have not been in Harvard and I don't think they went to Columbia, Chicago or Penn just because their grades and/or c.v. were not sufficient.

I think neither Paul nor I were trying to say that if you go to any of the Top 10/20 law schools you will have a disadvantage. Of course these are all very good choices for professional purposes. All that I meant to argue was that HLS/YLS/SLS carry that particular "plus" that make them in general the most sought-after law schools. Having said that, if you have particular reasons to go to any of the other law schools (in your case for particular academic interests) that's exactly what you should do. But otherwise the general statement made above remains, I think, valid and fair. BTW, I have just been accepted to Columbia, and I would be very happy to go; but should I be accepted to HLS/SLS I would be very happy to turn it down as well.

Very interesting discussion indeed.

From my personal (German) experiences, the "Harvard" factor counts less the more you come close to people who have won some insight in the US schools (and there are a lot more of them than just a few years ago). In my view, for example Chicago (they just offered admission :)) has a great reputation, which comes at least close to HLS. Especially if you are interested in corporate law and economic analysis of law, many "big names" are not in Harvard. I talked to a lot of lawyers in big international law firms and they all told me, that the most important thing they expect someone to have are language skills and basic knowledge of the US legal system. Therefore, HLS is nice, but you will not have a disadvantage by having pursued your LL.M. studies at CLS, NYU, Chicago, Penn, Cornell or any other school within the top twenty. Thus, I would judge due to personal aims which might bring some other interests into play. In my case, I need to do some research for my PhD thesis with respect to corporate law and economic analysis of law. Because of this, Chicago is definitely one of my top choices.
I think this estimation is not altered if you think in terms of an academic career. Many German professors have not been in Harvard and I don't think they went to Columbia, Chicago or Penn just because their grades and/or c.v. were not sufficient.

Hum...I may accept the fact that both schools have a 10% acceptance rate but there is one ratio (I am struggling to find it in the net) that is quite interesting. The ratio is: students that accept an offer/students who receive an offer.

Paul, I believe the ratio you mentioned may be found in the Princeton law review Web site.

Best.