Does U.S. News & World Report Rank LLM Programs?


Online One

Does U.S. News & World Report issue a ranking of LLM programs that is separate from its general ranking of law schools?

Does U.S. News & World Report issue a ranking of LLM programs that is separate from its general ranking of law schools?
quote
Russ

No they don't. I bought the complete US News ranking book some time ago and it was not in there.

No they don't. I bought the complete US News ranking book some time ago and it was not in there.
quote
Nail

Unfortunately, no. I suppose one of the reasons is the great diversity of LLM programs (the only required subject is usually Introduction to the American legal system, and not even in all law schools), opposed to the similar course-work required country-wide for the JDs.

Unfortunately, no. I suppose one of the reasons is the great diversity of LLM programs (the only required subject is usually Introduction to the American legal system, and not even in all law schools), opposed to the similar course-work required country-wide for the JDs.
quote
Online One

Thank you both. So I assume then that employers will look to the ranking of the law school to determine how prestigious one's LLM degree is? A Harvard LLM is better than one from a lower ranked law school, all things being equal, right? (I understand some people think the rankings are not important, but assuming you're dealing with an employer who does pay attention to them, the general ranking of the law school will determine how the LLM degree is perceived, I would assume).

Thank you both. So I assume then that employers will look to the ranking of the law school to determine how prestigious one's LLM degree is? A Harvard LLM is better than one from a lower ranked law school, all things being equal, right? (I understand some people think the rankings are not important, but assuming you're dealing with an employer who does pay attention to them, the general ranking of the law school will determine how the LLM degree is perceived, I would assume).
quote
OpinioJuri...

Assuming an employer pays attention to rankings, a prospective applicant who obtained an LLM from a name school (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, etc.) would be at a distinct advantage over one who took an LLM from a law school that is not too well known. The prestige and academic reputation factors come into play in this instance.

Assuming an employer pays attention to rankings, a prospective applicant who obtained an LLM from a name school (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, etc.) would be at a distinct advantage over one who took an LLM from a law school that is not too well known. The prestige and academic reputation factors come into play in this instance.
quote
Online One

Thank you.

Thank you.
quote
QSWE

I believe the person, who says that rankings don't matter is me.

However, the above statement is only intended to mean that patent generalisations implied by vague rankings should be avoided.

If for a split-second, the future employer pays sole attention to the ranking of the institution concerned, then one has to heed the call of the master and rankings would be the determinant.

Still, there is a huge understatement here. There are many blog posts and thread posts here, that suggest that people (foreign students) having less (or no) experience fail to be gainfuly employed at competitive firms, even after doing their LLM at Harvard. It is for this very reason that SLS puts so much stress on 2-years' work-ex, so much so as to make the condition an imperative.

Hence, even if rankings matter and are taken into account, the holistic portfolio of the concerned person does come into play and can make or break the case.

There are many ifs and buts that may be included here, but they would be better left for appropriate occassions.

I believe the person, who says that rankings don't matter is me.

However, the above statement is only intended to mean that patent generalisations implied by vague rankings should be avoided.

If for a split-second, the future employer pays sole attention to the ranking of the institution concerned, then one has to heed the call of the master and rankings would be the determinant.

Still, there is a huge understatement here. There are many blog posts and thread posts here, that suggest that people (foreign students) having less (or no) experience fail to be gainfuly employed at competitive firms, even after doing their LLM at Harvard. It is for this very reason that SLS puts so much stress on 2-years' work-ex, so much so as to make the condition an imperative.

Hence, even if rankings matter and are taken into account, the holistic portfolio of the concerned person does come into play and can make or break the case.

There are many ifs and buts that may be included here, but they would be better left for appropriate occassions.
quote
Nail

Jags,
sorry if I jump in just to add a circumstantiation here...What you say above is generally true, especially if you are concerned about an LLM and an employment prospect in the UK. BUt the US News and World Report does rank law schools in some speciality areas....for example, the report says that if you want to practice IP Law then the best program are Berkeley, Stanford and George Washington. They also have ranking in other areas, such as enviromental law, International law and others I can't remember right now.
Again, this is only the ranking for JDs and only with a good immagination it can be inferred or presumed that the ranking applies equally to LLMs. I assume that employers interested in a specialized area will rather tend to look -as suggested in previous posts-at the work experience of the LLM graduate, and consider the LLM only as a passepartout to enter the US legal world. ..hence they are likely to evaluate more an LLM from a more prestigious school than a specialized LLM from a school very highly respected in that subject area. Do you really think they will hire an LLM graduate from GW instead of an Harvard LLM? I doubt. This is, of course, only my two cent and I am aware that this matter is highly debatable.

Jags,
sorry if I jump in just to add a circumstantiation here...What you say above is generally true, especially if you are concerned about an LLM and an employment prospect in the UK. BUt the US News and World Report does rank law schools in some speciality areas....for example, the report says that if you want to practice IP Law then the best program are Berkeley, Stanford and George Washington. They also have ranking in other areas, such as enviromental law, International law and others I can't remember right now.
Again, this is only the ranking for JDs and only with a good immagination it can be inferred or presumed that the ranking applies equally to LLMs. I assume that employers interested in a specialized area will rather tend to look -as suggested in previous posts-at the work experience of the LLM graduate, and consider the LLM only as a passepartout to enter the US legal world. ..hence they are likely to evaluate more an LLM from a more prestigious school than a specialized LLM from a school very highly respected in that subject area. Do you really think they will hire an LLM graduate from GW instead of an Harvard LLM? I doubt. This is, of course, only my two cent and I am aware that this matter is highly debatable.
quote
QSWE

Nail, what you say is what the majority says and what all say is bound to be the consensus opinion.

Whether it is factually true or not is another question. The fact is that there are many posts, here and elsewhere, that not only suggest but actually prove that wherever, you end up being (that is the law school), there is no assuredness, there is no factual generalisation that you would definitely gain the employment concerned.

There are many aspects:

1) Few people who don't get work don't report, there is a general feeling against reporting failures (they may be subjective).

2) The kind of institution you attend has a proportional effect on your aspirations. That is, if you attend Harvard, SLS, you ought to be a contender for the top posts, or relatively high posts. From regional or lower-ranked institutions, the aspirations are modest and one is no longer that ambitious (at least at the initial stages). Now, if a person does not get job in a relatively prestigious firm, he is bound to be disappointed.

3) I think with most good law schools, it is a general rule that they enrol only experienced people. However, still there is a general sense that people end up being disappointed. This is especially more true in case of universities which have bigger classes like Berkley and NYU.

4) If one equalises the university one gets to attend and his relative future employability, the average would lean in favour of specialised programmes because of the relative satisfaction levels.

At the level of post-graduate education, one is deemed to be at an advanced stage, having weighed and planned all career options. LLMs at Yale and Harvard tend to be oriented towards future academicians and policy makers. This objective is clear to the employers as well. On the other hand specialised LLMs have more market-oriented content, which coupled with practical experience makes a candidate "the choice".

The question simply is this: Firms dont want to spend their resources on people who have already had a start. That objective is fulfilled by employing JDs. The purpose of employing an LLM is both to gain from the person's experience as well as to bring in fresh ideas at an advance stage. Most Firms employ lawyers from Asia, Europe and South America for a period of 2-3 years only to send them back to back-offices in countries of origin. The purpose is to make short-time investments from a longer-prospective. The last objective is better fulfilled by employing professionals with specialist qualifications rather than general practictioners with brand name (no offence).

All in all, I would reiterate my statement that rankings have less (and not 'no') effect if the main concern is to join commercial practice. For reasons of entering academia, public service, diplomacy, policy making, rankings have their due effect and prestige of the university rubs off on the future employability.

Nail, what you say is what the majority says and what all say is bound to be the consensus opinion.

Whether it is factually true or not is another question. The fact is that there are many posts, here and elsewhere, that not only suggest but actually prove that wherever, you end up being (that is the law school), there is no assuredness, there is no factual generalisation that you would definitely gain the employment concerned.

There are many aspects:

1) Few people who don't get work don't report, there is a general feeling against reporting failures (they may be subjective).

2) The kind of institution you attend has a proportional effect on your aspirations. That is, if you attend Harvard, SLS, you ought to be a contender for the top posts, or relatively high posts. From regional or lower-ranked institutions, the aspirations are modest and one is no longer that ambitious (at least at the initial stages). Now, if a person does not get job in a relatively prestigious firm, he is bound to be disappointed.

3) I think with most good law schools, it is a general rule that they enrol only experienced people. However, still there is a general sense that people end up being disappointed. This is especially more true in case of universities which have bigger classes like Berkley and NYU.

4) If one equalises the university one gets to attend and his relative future employability, the average would lean in favour of specialised programmes because of the relative satisfaction levels.

At the level of post-graduate education, one is deemed to be at an advanced stage, having weighed and planned all career options. LLMs at Yale and Harvard tend to be oriented towards future academicians and policy makers. This objective is clear to the employers as well. On the other hand specialised LLMs have more market-oriented content, which coupled with practical experience makes a candidate "the choice".

The question simply is this: Firms don’t want to spend their resources on people who have already had a start. That objective is fulfilled by employing JDs. The purpose of employing an LLM is both to gain from the person's experience as well as to bring in fresh ideas at an advance stage. Most Firms employ lawyers from Asia, Europe and South America for a period of 2-3 years only to send them back to back-offices in countries of origin. The purpose is to make short-time investments from a longer-prospective. The last objective is better fulfilled by employing professionals with specialist qualifications rather than general practictioners with brand name (no offence).

All in all, I would reiterate my statement that rankings have less (and not 'no') effect if the main concern is to join commercial practice. For reasons of entering academia, public service, diplomacy, policy making, rankings have their due effect and prestige of the university rubs off on the future employability.
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

Cambridge, Massachusetts 1154 Followers 882 Discussions
Stanford, California 788 Followers 393 Discussions
New Haven, Connecticut 336 Followers 370 Discussions

Other Related Content

LL.M. Application Deadlines for Fall 2021 - US Law Schools

News Aug 31, 2020

Hot Discussions