U Chicago LLM - 2019-2020 Applicants


ayarish
admitted!
admitted!
quote
zemeckis07
Are all e-mails already out, guys? Or just admissions and waitlists?
Are all e-mails already out, guys? Or just admissions and waitlists?
quote
Also admitted.
Also admitted.
quote
Admitted!
Admitted!
quote
wizardruei
Admitted!!
Admitted!!
quote
SS86
Admitted as well:)
Admitted as well:)
quote
djskitz0
Waitlisted!
Waitlisted!
quote
ss09
Waitlisted too!
Waitlisted too!
quote
Admitted :)
Admitted :)
quote
Freh
Admitted too
Admitted too
quote
mj14
Admitted as well! Congrats to all those admitted! :)
Admitted as well! Congrats to all those admitted! :)
quote
As I have stated in a prior year, I find it useful to monitor the comments on LLM Guide to get an impression of what applicants are asking about. We then use this information to adjust the information we place on our webpage for prospective applicants.

I am posting at this time to remind people to be skeptical of assertions about specific law schools from people who have not attended those schools. Don't be afraid to ask someone on what basis he or she "knows" something about a school or the admissions process. Also, do not accept someone's claim that he or she has been accepted at a particular school. Obviously, I am in a position to know who has been offered admission to Chicago and I often see that our admission decisions do not match the self described credentials of people who may post here.

Richard Badger
Associate Dean
University of Chicago Law School
As I have stated in a prior year, I find it useful to monitor the comments on LLM Guide to get an impression of what applicants are asking about. We then use this information to adjust the information we place on our webpage for prospective applicants.

I am posting at this time to remind people to be skeptical of assertions about specific law schools from people who have not attended those schools. Don't be afraid to ask someone on what basis he or she "knows" something about a school or the admissions process. Also, do not accept someone's claim that he or she has been accepted at a particular school. Obviously, I am in a position to know who has been offered admission to Chicago and I often see that our admission decisions do not match the self described credentials of people who may post here.

Richard Badger
Associate Dean
University of Chicago Law School
quote
ArAr
My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list.

[Edited by ArAr on Mar 09, 2019]

My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list.
quote
Sorran Pec...
My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list.


I think it depends how you look at it. Cambridge LLM also has an admission rate of 31% (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400859/response/976754/attach/2/FOI%202017%20190%20Johnson%20response%20letter%20and%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). Same goes for Oxford's BCL (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bcl_admission_statistics), and same for the Mjur depending on the year (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mjur_admission_statistics).

The stats for top Americans schools are not public but I think it's reasonable to assume that they are roughly similar. The situation probably looks something like that: every year there is a number of strong candidates, who apply to many or all of the top schools. I suppose one could get an idea of how big that group is by adding up the number of LLM students enrolled every year into the top LLM programs. A candidate who is admitted to a top school is likely to also have been admitted to other top schools. Schools know that and therefore offer admission to many candidates that they identify as being part of that "strong" pool.

It doesn't mean that schools are less selective than they appear. It simply means that they are competing for the applicants in that particular group.

It is true that acceptance rates are lower for JDs than for LLMs (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/law-schools-that-are-hardest-to-get-into). But I don't think it's safe to conclude based on these data that it's easier to get into a LLM than a JD, or that LLMs are weaker than JDs. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the pool of LLM applicants is on average stronger than the pool of JD applicants. More LLM students have prior work experience than JD students: most LLM students are actually practicing lawyers when they apply. If someone is already pursuing their desired career path, it's costlier for them to take a year off and pursue a LLM. Those who choose to do it are therefore likely to be those who think that pursuing a LLM will make a big difference in their career - that is, those who are likely to be admitted into a top school. In other words, there is probably a higher degree of self selection within the LLM applicants pool than within the JD applicants pool. As to the relative academic strength of JDs and LLMs, I think it is an easy question to solve. One would simply have to ask a current or former LLM student how LLMs tend to perform relative to JDs in that particular program.

As for the yield (proportion of admitted students who enroll), it's in line with the JD stats (https://7sage.com/top-law-school-admissions/). But I would be careful here, because yield is probably not a great measure of the quality of a school: the decision whether to enroll is usually influenced by many other factors than simply the quality of the education.

For example, Chicago is ranked 4th in the USNWR ranking, 3rd in terms of scholarly impact (https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html) and 1st for "elite employment outcomes" (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-takes-top-spot-lawcoms-elite-jobs-list), but it has the lowest yield of the top 10.

There could be many explanations: the school has the reputation of being a highly intellectual and challenging environment, so students may feel like it's going to be harder to compete with their classmates and therefore to obtain top grades. Some people might also prefer to live somewhere sunnier than Chicago, or to be in the North-East corridor. Some people might not be attracted to the "law&econ" bend of the school. Financial aid decisions/overall cost of attendance may also play a part.

[Edited by Sorran Pechird on Mar 10, 2019]

[quote]My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list. [/quote]

I think it depends how you look at it. Cambridge LLM also has an admission rate of 31% (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400859/response/976754/attach/2/FOI%202017%20190%20Johnson%20response%20letter%20and%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). Same goes for Oxford's BCL (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bcl_admission_statistics), and same for the Mjur depending on the year (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mjur_admission_statistics).

The stats for top Americans schools are not public but I think it's reasonable to assume that they are roughly similar. The situation probably looks something like that: every year there is a number of strong candidates, who apply to many or all of the top schools. I suppose one could get an idea of how big that group is by adding up the number of LLM students enrolled every year into the top LLM programs. A candidate who is admitted to a top school is likely to also have been admitted to other top schools. Schools know that and therefore offer admission to many candidates that they identify as being part of that "strong" pool.

It doesn't mean that schools are less selective than they appear. It simply means that they are competing for the applicants in that particular group.

It is true that acceptance rates are lower for JDs than for LLMs (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/law-schools-that-are-hardest-to-get-into). But I don't think it's safe to conclude based on these data that it's easier to get into a LLM than a JD, or that LLMs are weaker than JDs. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the pool of LLM applicants is on average stronger than the pool of JD applicants. More LLM students have prior work experience than JD students: most LLM students are actually practicing lawyers when they apply. If someone is already pursuing their desired career path, it's costlier for them to take a year off and pursue a LLM. Those who choose to do it are therefore likely to be those who think that pursuing a LLM will make a big difference in their career - that is, those who are likely to be admitted into a top school. In other words, there is probably a higher degree of self selection within the LLM applicants pool than within the JD applicants pool. As to the relative academic strength of JDs and LLMs, I think it is an easy question to solve. One would simply have to ask a current or former LLM student how LLMs tend to perform relative to JDs in that particular program.

As for the yield (proportion of admitted students who enroll), it's in line with the JD stats (https://7sage.com/top-law-school-admissions/). But I would be careful here, because yield is probably not a great measure of the quality of a school: the decision whether to enroll is usually influenced by many other factors than simply the quality of the education.

For example, Chicago is ranked 4th in the USNWR ranking, 3rd in terms of scholarly impact (https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html) and 1st for "elite employment outcomes" (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-takes-top-spot-lawcoms-elite-jobs-list), but it has the lowest yield of the top 10.

There could be many explanations: the school has the reputation of being a highly intellectual and challenging environment, so students may feel like it's going to be harder to compete with their classmates and therefore to obtain top grades. Some people might also prefer to live somewhere sunnier than Chicago, or to be in the North-East corridor. Some people might not be attracted to the "law&econ" bend of the school. Financial aid decisions/overall cost of attendance may also play a part.
quote
ArAr
My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list.


I think it depends how you look at it. Cambridge LLM also has an admission rate of 31% (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400859/response/976754/attach/2/FOI%202017%20190%20Johnson%20response%20letter%20and%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). Same goes for Oxford's BCL (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bcl_admission_statistics), and same for the Mjur depending on the year (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mjur_admission_statistics).

The stats for top Americans schools are not public but I think it's reasonable to assume that they are roughly similar. The situation probably looks something like that: every year there is a number of strong candidates, who apply to many or all of the top schools. I suppose one could get an idea of how big that group is by adding up the number of LLM students enrolled every year into the top LLM programs. A candidate who is admitted to a top school is likely to also have been admitted to other top schools. Schools know that and therefore offer admission to many candidates that they identify as being part of that "strong" pool.

It doesn't mean that schools are less selective than they appear. It simply means that they are competing for the applicants in that particular group.

It is true that acceptance rates are lower for JDs than for LLMs (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/law-schools-that-are-hardest-to-get-into). But I don't think it's safe to conclude based on these data that it's easier to get into a LLM than a JD, or that LLMs are weaker than JDs. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the pool of LLM applicants is on average stronger than the pool of JD applicants. More LLM students have prior work experience than JD students: most LLM students are actually practicing lawyers when they apply. If someone is already pursuing their desired career path, it's costlier for them to take a year off and pursue a LLM. Those who choose to do it are therefore likely to be those who think that pursuing a LLM will make a big difference in their career - that is, those who are likely to be admitted into a top school. In other words, there is probably a higher degree of self selection within the LLM applicants pool than within the JD applicants pool. As to the relative academic strength of JDs and LLMs, I think it is an easy question to solve. One would simply have to ask a current or former LLM student how LLMs tend to perform relative to JDs in that particular program.

As for the yield (proportion of admitted students who enroll), it's in line with the JD stats (https://7sage.com/top-law-school-admissions/). But I would be careful here, because yield is probably not a great measure of the quality of a school: the decision whether to enroll is usually influenced by many other factors than simply the quality of the education.

For example, Chicago is ranked 4th in the USNWR ranking, 3rd in terms of scholarly impact (https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html) and 1st for "elite employment outcomes" (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-takes-top-spot-lawcoms-elite-jobs-list), but it has the lowest yield of the top 10.

There could be many explanations: the school has the reputation of being a highly intellectual and challenging environment, so students may feel like it's going to be harder to compete with their classmates and therefore to obtain top grades. Some people might also prefer to live somewhere sunnier than Chicago, or to be in the North-East corridor. Some people might not be attracted to the "law&econ" bend of the school. Financial aid decisions/overall cost of attendance may also play a part.


I fully agree with you. Chicago is great university and I do not want to diminish it in any way. But Chicago, at least on this message board, is usually perceived to be as selective as Harvard (due to the smaller class size), and I doubt that HLS issues offer to every third applicant (or 533 offers for 180 places). Of course this does not affect the academic quality of Chicago LLM program, but it appears that they are not as selective (has lower yield) as generally perceived.
It does not make Chicago better or worse per se, but it still maters. Law schools usually do not publish its statistics for LLM programs and when any information transpires it allows potential and actual applicants to make more informed decision on where to apply or whether to attend, and for most applicants higher selectiveness makes law school more prestigious.

Yield may not measure the quality of the school, but it certainly measures students' desire to attend particular university. Higher yield means that the program is more sought for, lower yield means that applicants consider the university to be freely interchangeable with others. Of course we do not know yield and applications/offers proportion from other top US universities, and thus cannot not compare them correctly, but it is now obvious that Chicago selectiveness has been overrated. No more, no less.

I do not think that it is correct to use JD statistics and rankings for LLM programs, as LLM programs unlike JD are usually specialized (I do think that there are many,if any, Yale LLM applicants who want to study corporate finance or to work in biglaw, unlike JDs) and use completely different pool of applicants. Also most subjects that are usually assessed to determine the academic quality of JD program (e.g. constitutional law or civil procedure) are useless for most LLM.
Especially such statistics is inapplicable for employment opportunities, as market for LLM is completely different.
[quote][quote]My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list. [/quote]

I think it depends how you look at it. Cambridge LLM also has an admission rate of 31% (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400859/response/976754/attach/2/FOI%202017%20190%20Johnson%20response%20letter%20and%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). Same goes for Oxford's BCL (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bcl_admission_statistics), and same for the Mjur depending on the year (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mjur_admission_statistics).

The stats for top Americans schools are not public but I think it's reasonable to assume that they are roughly similar. The situation probably looks something like that: every year there is a number of strong candidates, who apply to many or all of the top schools. I suppose one could get an idea of how big that group is by adding up the number of LLM students enrolled every year into the top LLM programs. A candidate who is admitted to a top school is likely to also have been admitted to other top schools. Schools know that and therefore offer admission to many candidates that they identify as being part of that "strong" pool.

It doesn't mean that schools are less selective than they appear. It simply means that they are competing for the applicants in that particular group.

It is true that acceptance rates are lower for JDs than for LLMs (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/law-schools-that-are-hardest-to-get-into). But I don't think it's safe to conclude based on these data that it's easier to get into a LLM than a JD, or that LLMs are weaker than JDs. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the pool of LLM applicants is on average stronger than the pool of JD applicants. More LLM students have prior work experience than JD students: most LLM students are actually practicing lawyers when they apply. If someone is already pursuing their desired career path, it's costlier for them to take a year off and pursue a LLM. Those who choose to do it are therefore likely to be those who think that pursuing a LLM will make a big difference in their career - that is, those who are likely to be admitted into a top school. In other words, there is probably a higher degree of self selection within the LLM applicants pool than within the JD applicants pool. As to the relative academic strength of JDs and LLMs, I think it is an easy question to solve. One would simply have to ask a current or former LLM student how LLMs tend to perform relative to JDs in that particular program.

As for the yield (proportion of admitted students who enroll), it's in line with the JD stats (https://7sage.com/top-law-school-admissions/). But I would be careful here, because yield is probably not a great measure of the quality of a school: the decision whether to enroll is usually influenced by many other factors than simply the quality of the education.

For example, Chicago is ranked 4th in the USNWR ranking, 3rd in terms of scholarly impact (https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html) and 1st for "elite employment outcomes" (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-takes-top-spot-lawcoms-elite-jobs-list), but it has the lowest yield of the top 10.

There could be many explanations: the school has the reputation of being a highly intellectual and challenging environment, so students may feel like it's going to be harder to compete with their classmates and therefore to obtain top grades. Some people might also prefer to live somewhere sunnier than Chicago, or to be in the North-East corridor. Some people might not be attracted to the "law&econ" bend of the school. Financial aid decisions/overall cost of attendance may also play a part.[/quote]

I fully agree with you. Chicago is great university and I do not want to diminish it in any way. But Chicago, at least on this message board, is usually perceived to be as selective as Harvard (due to the smaller class size), and I doubt that HLS issues offer to every third applicant (or 533 offers for 180 places). Of course this does not affect the academic quality of Chicago LLM program, but it appears that they are not as selective (has lower yield) as generally perceived.
It does not make Chicago better or worse per se, but it still maters. Law schools usually do not publish its statistics for LLM programs and when any information transpires it allows potential and actual applicants to make more informed decision on where to apply or whether to attend, and for most applicants higher selectiveness makes law school more prestigious.

Yield may not measure the quality of the school, but it certainly measures students' desire to attend particular university. Higher yield means that the program is more sought for, lower yield means that applicants consider the university to be freely interchangeable with others. Of course we do not know yield and applications/offers proportion from other top US universities, and thus cannot not compare them correctly, but it is now obvious that Chicago selectiveness has been overrated. No more, no less.

I do not think that it is correct to use JD statistics and rankings for LLM programs, as LLM programs unlike JD are usually specialized (I do think that there are many,if any, Yale LLM applicants who want to study corporate finance or to work in biglaw, unlike JDs) and use completely different pool of applicants. Also most subjects that are usually assessed to determine the academic quality of JD program (e.g. constitutional law or civil procedure) are useless for most LLM.
Especially such statistics is inapplicable for employment opportunities, as market for LLM is completely different.
quote
Sorran Pec...
My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list.


I think it depends how you look at it. Cambridge LLM also has an admission rate of 31% (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400859/response/976754/attach/2/FOI%202017%20190%20Johnson%20response%20letter%20and%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). Same goes for Oxford's BCL (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bcl_admission_statistics), and same for the Mjur depending on the year (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mjur_admission_statistics).

The stats for top Americans schools are not public but I think it's reasonable to assume that they are roughly similar. The situation probably looks something like that: every year there is a number of strong candidates, who apply to many or all of the top schools. I suppose one could get an idea of how big that group is by adding up the number of LLM students enrolled every year into the top LLM programs. A candidate who is admitted to a top school is likely to also have been admitted to other top schools. Schools know that and therefore offer admission to many candidates that they identify as being part of that "strong" pool.

It doesn't mean that schools are less selective than they appear. It simply means that they are competing for the applicants in that particular group.

It is true that acceptance rates are lower for JDs than for LLMs (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/law-schools-that-are-hardest-to-get-into). But I don't think it's safe to conclude based on these data that it's easier to get into a LLM than a JD, or that LLMs are weaker than JDs. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the pool of LLM applicants is on average stronger than the pool of JD applicants. More LLM students have prior work experience than JD students: most LLM students are actually practicing lawyers when they apply. If someone is already pursuing their desired career path, it's costlier for them to take a year off and pursue a LLM. Those who choose to do it are therefore likely to be those who think that pursuing a LLM will make a big difference in their career - that is, those who are likely to be admitted into a top school. In other words, there is probably a higher degree of self selection within the LLM applicants pool than within the JD applicants pool. As to the relative academic strength of JDs and LLMs, I think it is an easy question to solve. One would simply have to ask a current or former LLM student how LLMs tend to perform relative to JDs in that particular program.

As for the yield (proportion of admitted students who enroll), it's in line with the JD stats (https://7sage.com/top-law-school-admissions/). But I would be careful here, because yield is probably not a great measure of the quality of a school: the decision whether to enroll is usually influenced by many other factors than simply the quality of the education.

For example, Chicago is ranked 4th in the USNWR ranking, 3rd in terms of scholarly impact (https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html) and 1st for "elite employment outcomes" (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-takes-top-spot-lawcoms-elite-jobs-list), but it has the lowest yield of the top 10.

There could be many explanations: the school has the reputation of being a highly intellectual and challenging environment, so students may feel like it's going to be harder to compete with their classmates and therefore to obtain top grades. Some people might also prefer to live somewhere sunnier than Chicago, or to be in the North-East corridor. Some people might not be attracted to the "law&econ" bend of the school. Financial aid decisions/overall cost of attendance may also play a part.


I fully agree with you. Chicago is great university and I do not want to diminish it in any way. But Chicago, at least on this message board, is usually perceived to be as selective as Harvard (due to the smaller class size), and I doubt that HLS issues offer to every third applicant (or 533 offers for 180 places). Of course this does not affect the academic quality of Chicago LLM program, but it appears that they are not as selective (has lower yield) as generally perceived.
It does not make Chicago better or worse per se, but it still maters. Law schools usually do not publish its statistics for LLM programs and when any information transpires it allows potential and actual applicants to make more informed decision on where to apply or whether to attend, and for most applicants higher selectiveness makes law school more prestigious.

Yield may not measure the quality of the school, but it certainly measures students' desire to attend particular university. Higher yield means that the program is more sought for, lower yield means that applicants consider the university to be freely interchangeable with others. Of course we do not know yield and applications/offers proportion from other top US universities, and thus cannot not compare them correctly, but it is now obvious that Chicago selectiveness has been overrated. No more, no less.

I do not think that it is correct to use JD statistics and rankings for LLM programs, as LLM programs unlike JD are usually specialized (I do think that there are many,if any, Yale LLM applicants who want to study corporate finance or to work in biglaw, unlike JDs) and use completely different pool of applicants. Also most subjects that are usually assessed to determine the academic quality of JD program (e.g. constitutional law or civil procedure) are useless for most LLM.
Especially such statistics is inapplicable for employment opportunities, as market for LLM is completely different.


I think "prestige" is a tricky metric because it is in part subjective. Prestige basically refers to how "the public" perceives a particular school. Generally, it is linked to how this particular school is associated with things like knowledge, power or wealth. Probably selectivity plays some role in it but I don't think it's the main factor.

Here's why I think this: the best measures of "prestige" for a particular school are probably its "academic peer reputation" score in the US News Ranking (https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2018/03/2019-us-news-law-school-peer-reputation-rankings-and-overall-rankings.html) as well as its assessment by lawyers and judges" score (sorry, I could only find the data for 2015 https://tippingthescales.com/2014/04/how-lawyers-rank-law-schools/2/). If you look at how schools fare on the peer reputation metric, you'll see that Chicago is still fourth (tied with Columbia and NYU), while Chicago is third (tied with Columbia and Yale) on the professional assessment metric, even though its yield for the JD program is lower than other top schools (see the link in my previous message). This leads me to believe that the reason why Chicago has a lower yield than other top schools is not linked to its perceived "prestige". This is also consistent with the high "prestige" of schools like Oxford and Cambridge, despite their acceptance rate above 30%.

As far as Chicago is concerned, I can think of a few reasons why it may have a lower yield. One would be that it is ranked just below Y/H/S, which means that many students who are accepted at Chicago are probably also accepted at one of these three schools, and decide to enroll at either Y/H/S rather than at Chicago (this is consistent with the "revealed preferences" ranking: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=188070086031107073066088003095110110004011091052061061010086120126026068086007103119037011125063116000098101025073083107029105020075007033072002094112083114071004057018067116071009089072072112065083094113107101100123009126011119093108071103119020073&EXT=pdf). I easily see how this factor could also play out in Chicago's perceived low LLM yield (and again, we do not have data for other top US schools). There is also the intensity/intellectual environment factor. Another reason is that Chicago is in... well, Chicago, which some students might dislike either because of the weather or because of its remoteness to more important legal markets.

However, I would disagree with you concerning the relevance of rankings and metrics based on the JD program for LLM students.

LLMs and JDs mostly take the same classes. Many LLMs take basic "black letter" law classes because many are interested in taking the NY bar exam which requires as a pre-requisite a minimum number of such classes. As far as less doctrinal classes are concerned, these classes are usually offered to JDs and LLMs alike, and I don't think it's easy to conclude that JDs tend to take them less than LLMs.

In addition, JD also choose which school to attend based on the school's perceived strength in one or more subject. Readers of Above the Law are familiar with that: prospective JDs asking questions as to which school is better in X or Y legal area. This fact also seems to be reflected in the employment of graduates of particular schools: Yale people are significantly less likely to go to large law firms than graduates from Columbia and so on.

Also, as per the methodology used by the main rankings, I don't think it is possible to conclude that they only take into account classes such as Con Law or CivPro.

[Edited by Sorran Pechird on Mar 11, 2019]

[quote][quote][quote]My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list. [/quote]

I think it depends how you look at it. Cambridge LLM also has an admission rate of 31% (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400859/response/976754/attach/2/FOI%202017%20190%20Johnson%20response%20letter%20and%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). Same goes for Oxford's BCL (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bcl_admission_statistics), and same for the Mjur depending on the year (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mjur_admission_statistics).

The stats for top Americans schools are not public but I think it's reasonable to assume that they are roughly similar. The situation probably looks something like that: every year there is a number of strong candidates, who apply to many or all of the top schools. I suppose one could get an idea of how big that group is by adding up the number of LLM students enrolled every year into the top LLM programs. A candidate who is admitted to a top school is likely to also have been admitted to other top schools. Schools know that and therefore offer admission to many candidates that they identify as being part of that "strong" pool.

It doesn't mean that schools are less selective than they appear. It simply means that they are competing for the applicants in that particular group.

It is true that acceptance rates are lower for JDs than for LLMs (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/law-schools-that-are-hardest-to-get-into). But I don't think it's safe to conclude based on these data that it's easier to get into a LLM than a JD, or that LLMs are weaker than JDs. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the pool of LLM applicants is on average stronger than the pool of JD applicants. More LLM students have prior work experience than JD students: most LLM students are actually practicing lawyers when they apply. If someone is already pursuing their desired career path, it's costlier for them to take a year off and pursue a LLM. Those who choose to do it are therefore likely to be those who think that pursuing a LLM will make a big difference in their career - that is, those who are likely to be admitted into a top school. In other words, there is probably a higher degree of self selection within the LLM applicants pool than within the JD applicants pool. As to the relative academic strength of JDs and LLMs, I think it is an easy question to solve. One would simply have to ask a current or former LLM student how LLMs tend to perform relative to JDs in that particular program.

As for the yield (proportion of admitted students who enroll), it's in line with the JD stats (https://7sage.com/top-law-school-admissions/). But I would be careful here, because yield is probably not a great measure of the quality of a school: the decision whether to enroll is usually influenced by many other factors than simply the quality of the education.

For example, Chicago is ranked 4th in the USNWR ranking, 3rd in terms of scholarly impact (https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html) and 1st for "elite employment outcomes" (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-takes-top-spot-lawcoms-elite-jobs-list), but it has the lowest yield of the top 10.

There could be many explanations: the school has the reputation of being a highly intellectual and challenging environment, so students may feel like it's going to be harder to compete with their classmates and therefore to obtain top grades. Some people might also prefer to live somewhere sunnier than Chicago, or to be in the North-East corridor. Some people might not be attracted to the "law&econ" bend of the school. Financial aid decisions/overall cost of attendance may also play a part.[/quote]

I fully agree with you. Chicago is great university and I do not want to diminish it in any way. But Chicago, at least on this message board, is usually perceived to be as selective as Harvard (due to the smaller class size), and I doubt that HLS issues offer to every third applicant (or 533 offers for 180 places). Of course this does not affect the academic quality of Chicago LLM program, but it appears that they are not as selective (has lower yield) as generally perceived.
It does not make Chicago better or worse per se, but it still maters. Law schools usually do not publish its statistics for LLM programs and when any information transpires it allows potential and actual applicants to make more informed decision on where to apply or whether to attend, and for most applicants higher selectiveness makes law school more prestigious.

Yield may not measure the quality of the school, but it certainly measures students' desire to attend particular university. Higher yield means that the program is more sought for, lower yield means that applicants consider the university to be freely interchangeable with others. Of course we do not know yield and applications/offers proportion from other top US universities, and thus cannot not compare them correctly, but it is now obvious that Chicago selectiveness has been overrated. No more, no less.

I do not think that it is correct to use JD statistics and rankings for LLM programs, as LLM programs unlike JD are usually specialized (I do think that there are many,if any, Yale LLM applicants who want to study corporate finance or to work in biglaw, unlike JDs) and use completely different pool of applicants. Also most subjects that are usually assessed to determine the academic quality of JD program (e.g. constitutional law or civil procedure) are useless for most LLM.
Especially such statistics is inapplicable for employment opportunities, as market for LLM is completely different.
[/quote]

I think "prestige" is a tricky metric because it is in part subjective. Prestige basically refers to how "the public" perceives a particular school. Generally, it is linked to how this particular school is associated with things like knowledge, power or wealth. Probably selectivity plays some role in it but I don't think it's the main factor.

Here's why I think this: the best measures of "prestige" for a particular school are probably its "academic peer reputation" score in the US News Ranking (https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2018/03/2019-us-news-law-school-peer-reputation-rankings-and-overall-rankings.html) as well as its assessment by lawyers and judges" score (sorry, I could only find the data for 2015 https://tippingthescales.com/2014/04/how-lawyers-rank-law-schools/2/). If you look at how schools fare on the peer reputation metric, you'll see that Chicago is still fourth (tied with Columbia and NYU), while Chicago is third (tied with Columbia and Yale) on the professional assessment metric, even though its yield for the JD program is lower than other top schools (see the link in my previous message). This leads me to believe that the reason why Chicago has a lower yield than other top schools is not linked to its perceived "prestige". This is also consistent with the high "prestige" of schools like Oxford and Cambridge, despite their acceptance rate above 30%.

As far as Chicago is concerned, I can think of a few reasons why it may have a lower yield. One would be that it is ranked just below Y/H/S, which means that many students who are accepted at Chicago are probably also accepted at one of these three schools, and decide to enroll at either Y/H/S rather than at Chicago (this is consistent with the "revealed preferences" ranking: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=188070086031107073066088003095110110004011091052061061010086120126026068086007103119037011125063116000098101025073083107029105020075007033072002094112083114071004057018067116071009089072072112065083094113107101100123009126011119093108071103119020073&EXT=pdf). I easily see how this factor could also play out in Chicago's perceived low LLM yield (and again, we do not have data for other top US schools). There is also the intensity/intellectual environment factor. Another reason is that Chicago is in... well, Chicago, which some students might dislike either because of the weather or because of its remoteness to more important legal markets.

However, I would disagree with you concerning the relevance of rankings and metrics based on the JD program for LLM students.

LLMs and JDs mostly take the same classes. Many LLMs take basic "black letter" law classes because many are interested in taking the NY bar exam which requires as a pre-requisite a minimum number of such classes. As far as less doctrinal classes are concerned, these classes are usually offered to JDs and LLMs alike, and I don't think it's easy to conclude that JDs tend to take them less than LLMs.

In addition, JD also choose which school to attend based on the school's perceived strength in one or more subject. Readers of Above the Law are familiar with that: prospective JDs asking questions as to which school is better in X or Y legal area. This fact also seems to be reflected in the employment of graduates of particular schools: Yale people are significantly less likely to go to large law firms than graduates from Columbia and so on.

Also, as per the methodology used by the main rankings, I don't think it is possible to conclude that they only take into account classes such as Con Law or CivPro.
quote
ArAr


I think it depends how you look at it. Cambridge LLM also has an admission rate of 31% (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400859/response/976754/attach/2/FOI%202017%20190%20Johnson%20response%20letter%20and%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). Same goes for Oxford's BCL (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bcl_admission_statistics), and same for the Mjur depending on the year (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mjur_admission_statistics).

The stats for top Americans schools are not public but I think it's reasonable to assume that they are roughly similar. The situation probably looks something like that: every year there is a number of strong candidates, who apply to many or all of the top schools. I suppose one could get an idea of how big that group is by adding up the number of LLM students enrolled every year into the top LLM programs. A candidate who is admitted to a top school is likely to also have been admitted to other top schools. Schools know that and therefore offer admission to many candidates that they identify as being part of that "strong" pool.

It doesn't mean that schools are less selective than they appear. It simply means that they are competing for the applicants in that particular group.

It is true that acceptance rates are lower for JDs than for LLMs (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/law-schools-that-are-hardest-to-get-into). But I don't think it's safe to conclude based on these data that it's easier to get into a LLM than a JD, or that LLMs are weaker than JDs. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the pool of LLM applicants is on average stronger than the pool of JD applicants. More LLM students have prior work experience than JD students: most LLM students are actually practicing lawyers when they apply. If someone is already pursuing their desired career path, it's costlier for them to take a year off and pursue a LLM. Those who choose to do it are therefore likely to be those who think that pursuing a LLM will make a big difference in their career - that is, those who are likely to be admitted into a top school. In other words, there is probably a higher degree of self selection within the LLM applicants pool than within the JD applicants pool. As to the relative academic strength of JDs and LLMs, I think it is an easy question to solve. One would simply have to ask a current or former LLM student how LLMs tend to perform relative to JDs in that particular program.

As for the yield (proportion of admitted students who enroll), it's in line with the JD stats (https://7sage.com/top-law-school-admissions/). But I would be careful here, because yield is probably not a great measure of the quality of a school: the decision whether to enroll is usually influenced by many other factors than simply the quality of the education.

For example, Chicago is ranked 4th in the USNWR ranking, 3rd in terms of scholarly impact (https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html) and 1st for "elite employment outcomes" (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-takes-top-spot-lawcoms-elite-jobs-list), but it has the lowest yield of the top 10.

There could be many explanations: the school has the reputation of being a highly intellectual and challenging environment, so students may feel like it's going to be harder to compete with their classmates and therefore to obtain top grades. Some people might also prefer to live somewhere sunnier than Chicago, or to be in the North-East corridor. Some people might not be attracted to the "law&econ" bend of the school. Financial aid decisions/overall cost of attendance may also play a part.


I fully agree with you. Chicago is great university and I do not want to diminish it in any way. But Chicago, at least on this message board, is usually perceived to be as selective as Harvard (due to the smaller class size), and I doubt that HLS issues offer to every third applicant (or 533 offers for 180 places). Of course this does not affect the academic quality of Chicago LLM program, but it appears that they are not as selective (has lower yield) as generally perceived.
It does not make Chicago better or worse per se, but it still maters. Law schools usually do not publish its statistics for LLM programs and when any information transpires it allows potential and actual applicants to make more informed decision on where to apply or whether to attend, and for most applicants higher selectiveness makes law school more prestigious.

Yield may not measure the quality of the school, but it certainly measures students' desire to attend particular university. Higher yield means that the program is more sought for, lower yield means that applicants consider the university to be freely interchangeable with others. Of course we do not know yield and applications/offers proportion from other top US universities, and thus cannot not compare them correctly, but it is now obvious that Chicago selectiveness has been overrated. No more, no less.

I do not think that it is correct to use JD statistics and rankings for LLM programs, as LLM programs unlike JD are usually specialized (I do think that there are many,if any, Yale LLM applicants who want to study corporate finance or to work in biglaw, unlike JDs) and use completely different pool of applicants. Also most subjects that are usually assessed to determine the academic quality of JD program (e.g. constitutional law or civil procedure) are useless for most LLM.
Especially such statistics is inapplicable for employment opportunities, as market for LLM is completely different.


I think "prestige" is a tricky metric because it is in part subjective. Prestige basically refers to how "the public" perceives a particular school. Generally, it is linked to how this particular school is associated with things like knowledge, power or wealth. Probably selectivity plays some role in it but I don't think it's the main factor.

Here's why I think this: the best measures of "prestige" for a particular school are probably its "academic peer reputation" score in the US News Ranking (https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2018/03/2019-us-news-law-school-peer-reputation-rankings-and-overall-rankings.html) as well as its assessment by lawyers and judges" score (sorry, I could only find the data for 2015 https://tippingthescales.com/2014/04/how-lawyers-rank-law-schools/2/). If you look at how schools fare on the peer reputation metric, you'll see that Chicago is still fourth (tied with Columbia and NYU), while Chicago is third (tied with Columbia and Yale) on the professional assessment metric, even though its yield for the JD program is lower than other top schools (see the link in my previous message). This leads me to believe that the reason why Chicago has a lower yield than other top schools is not linked to its perceived "prestige". This is also consistent with the high "prestige" of schools like Oxford and Cambridge, despite their acceptance rate above 30%.

As far as Chicago is concerned, I can think of a few reasons why it may have a lower yield. One would be that it is ranked just below Y/H/S, which means that many students who are accepted at Chicago are probably also accepted at one of these three schools, and decide to enroll at either Y/H/S rather than at Chicago (this is consistent with the "revealed preferences" ranking: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=188070086031107073066088003095110110004011091052061061010086120126026068086007103119037011125063116000098101025073083107029105020075007033072002094112083114071004057018067116071009089072072112065083094113107101100123009126011119093108071103119020073&EXT=pdf). I easily see how this factor could also play out in Chicago's perceived low LLM yield (and again, we do not have data for other top US schools). There is also the intensity/intellectual environment factor. Another reason is that Chicago is in... well, Chicago, which some students might dislike either because of the weather or because of its remoteness to more important legal markets.

However, I would disagree with you concerning the relevance of rankings and metrics based on the JD program for LLM students.

LLMs and JDs mostly take the same classes. Many LLMs take basic "black letter" law classes because many are interested in taking the NY bar exam which requires as a pre-requisite a minimum number of such classes. As far as less doctrinal classes are concerned, these classes are usually offered to JDs and LLMs alike, and I don't think it's easy to conclude that JDs tend to take them less than LLMs.

In addition, JD also choose which school to attend based on the school's perceived strength in one or more subject. Readers of Above the Law are familiar with that: prospective JDs asking questions as to which school is better in X or Y legal area. This fact also seems to be reflected in the employment of graduates of particular schools: Yale people are significantly less likely to go to large law firms than graduates from Columbia and so on.

Also, as per the methodology used by the main rankings, I don't think it is possible to conclude that they only take into account classes such as Con Law or CivPro.


Of course prestige is a subjective matter. But it still matters, because if you attend prestigious school you will receive some share of its reputation with their degree. And reputation can further your career and help you in other ways. And reputation depends on how public (employers, academic in your country, etc.) perceives particular university. In general reputation is an assets that not less important (and sometimes more) than quality of teaching.

There is no necessity to persuade me that Chicago is the great school, I know it) My point was completely different. But I should mention that most US metrics are often irrelevant for the non-US employers and academics. And may (if not the most) LLM students will return to their countries.

Regarding yield rate. Of course many (but I doubt that the most) students admitted to Chicago will also be admitted to HYS. But not all applicants who are admitted to HYS applied to Chicago. I do not think, for example, that people interested in PIL would apply to Chicago, they will apply to NYU, and these interested in corporate will apply to Columbia. Moreover, large number of applicants would apply to Oxbridge/HYS without even considering lower ranking US universities. Unfortunately all available statistics, including provided by you, is about JD (US citizens), will have different preferences than LLM.

The number of offers in HYS (I doubt that it will exceed 300 in total) and the fact that the significant part of HYS applicants do not apply to Chicago at all, make it obvious that large part of admitted students view Chicago just as another UNSWR highly ranked school and choose to attend Columbia and NUY (and may be in some circumstances Penn and Berkley) depending on other facts, which you described.
It does not means that Chicago is a bad school, Chicago is great, one of the greatest law schools in the world! But it means that LLM applicants, in large, view it just as another highly ranked generic law school fully interchangeable with its competitors. And that is completely incompatible with the perception that dominates on this message board.
I think that it is because Chicago has nothing specific to offer, apart from L&E of course where Chicago is in the league of its own. As consequence number of really committed applicants is low, which in turn causes huge amount of offers. It in no ways diminish the quality of Chicago academic instruction or its faculty, or quality of its research.

As far as I know, and it can be observed via Apptracker, it is harder to get into NYU(for certain programs)/Columbia/Chicago and, of course HYS, that into Oxbridge. Most applicants admitted into Oxbridge are not admitted into HYS and often have rejections from other US top schools.

You are right, many LLM students take US law classes to be able to pass the bar, but they take very specialized classes. For example, those who are interested in corporate/M&A practice, as me, take corporate/contracts and related classes, but pay no attention to constitutional law, civil and criminal procedure and related issues. These who want to work in the PIL field, usually take bare minimum to be eligible for bar and dedicate all their time to specialized courses. That why for these who are interested in PIL NUY is the first choice (and second is usually Georgetown), but not Chicago or Stanford, despite their superiority in ordinary JD subjects compared to NYU or let alone Georgetown. The bar exam, of course, covers more issues and fields of law than you will take to be eligible for it, but most LLM students prepare for the bar themselves, or in particular courses.
Otherwise entire LLM will cover only US law and still wont be enough due to the number of courses you van take in a single year.

As far as I know from my friends who graduated from top 5 US LLM a couple years ago, JDs have a possibility to choose non black letter law courses on 2nd (several courses) and 3rd (the most of courses) courses. But by this time they are more interested in acquiring lucrative employment and grades, than in such courses.

JDs also pays attention to the particular area of law, but I am sure that most JD student do not know in what fields they want to practice when applying, and just choose the best. Like ordinary law students in every country of the world.

I did not mean that rankings take only these classes into account) But they, obviously, have their share. Also, as far as I know, in US some classes are considered to be more important (contracts, property, con law, etc.) and some less important (like law and race, feminist legal theory, etc.). And I am sure that more important subjects, that almost entirely consist of doctrinal black letter law, have more impact on ranking than less important ones.
[quote][quote][quote][quote]My God! Judging from the thread about leaked personal information, Chicago issued 297 offers of acceptance for the program of class size about 70. And, as mentioned in the dean’s email, this year they had 901 application, that means that almost every third applicant is accepted.
This means that they have a quite low yield (more than 200 admitted reject their offers in the end, or approx. 76,5%), and this is not as selective as generally perceived.
But almost 300 offers for just 70 places! It means that there is no real chance to get out of the waiting list. [/quote]

I think it depends how you look at it. Cambridge LLM also has an admission rate of 31% (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400859/response/976754/attach/2/FOI%202017%20190%20Johnson%20response%20letter%20and%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). Same goes for Oxford's BCL (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bcl_admission_statistics), and same for the Mjur depending on the year (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mjur_admission_statistics).

The stats for top Americans schools are not public but I think it's reasonable to assume that they are roughly similar. The situation probably looks something like that: every year there is a number of strong candidates, who apply to many or all of the top schools. I suppose one could get an idea of how big that group is by adding up the number of LLM students enrolled every year into the top LLM programs. A candidate who is admitted to a top school is likely to also have been admitted to other top schools. Schools know that and therefore offer admission to many candidates that they identify as being part of that "strong" pool.

It doesn't mean that schools are less selective than they appear. It simply means that they are competing for the applicants in that particular group.

It is true that acceptance rates are lower for JDs than for LLMs (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/law-schools-that-are-hardest-to-get-into). But I don't think it's safe to conclude based on these data that it's easier to get into a LLM than a JD, or that LLMs are weaker than JDs. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the pool of LLM applicants is on average stronger than the pool of JD applicants. More LLM students have prior work experience than JD students: most LLM students are actually practicing lawyers when they apply. If someone is already pursuing their desired career path, it's costlier for them to take a year off and pursue a LLM. Those who choose to do it are therefore likely to be those who think that pursuing a LLM will make a big difference in their career - that is, those who are likely to be admitted into a top school. In other words, there is probably a higher degree of self selection within the LLM applicants pool than within the JD applicants pool. As to the relative academic strength of JDs and LLMs, I think it is an easy question to solve. One would simply have to ask a current or former LLM student how LLMs tend to perform relative to JDs in that particular program.

As for the yield (proportion of admitted students who enroll), it's in line with the JD stats (https://7sage.com/top-law-school-admissions/). But I would be careful here, because yield is probably not a great measure of the quality of a school: the decision whether to enroll is usually influenced by many other factors than simply the quality of the education.

For example, Chicago is ranked 4th in the USNWR ranking, 3rd in terms of scholarly impact (https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html) and 1st for "elite employment outcomes" (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-takes-top-spot-lawcoms-elite-jobs-list), but it has the lowest yield of the top 10.

There could be many explanations: the school has the reputation of being a highly intellectual and challenging environment, so students may feel like it's going to be harder to compete with their classmates and therefore to obtain top grades. Some people might also prefer to live somewhere sunnier than Chicago, or to be in the North-East corridor. Some people might not be attracted to the "law&econ" bend of the school. Financial aid decisions/overall cost of attendance may also play a part.[/quote]

I fully agree with you. Chicago is great university and I do not want to diminish it in any way. But Chicago, at least on this message board, is usually perceived to be as selective as Harvard (due to the smaller class size), and I doubt that HLS issues offer to every third applicant (or 533 offers for 180 places). Of course this does not affect the academic quality of Chicago LLM program, but it appears that they are not as selective (has lower yield) as generally perceived.
It does not make Chicago better or worse per se, but it still maters. Law schools usually do not publish its statistics for LLM programs and when any information transpires it allows potential and actual applicants to make more informed decision on where to apply or whether to attend, and for most applicants higher selectiveness makes law school more prestigious.

Yield may not measure the quality of the school, but it certainly measures students' desire to attend particular university. Higher yield means that the program is more sought for, lower yield means that applicants consider the university to be freely interchangeable with others. Of course we do not know yield and applications/offers proportion from other top US universities, and thus cannot not compare them correctly, but it is now obvious that Chicago selectiveness has been overrated. No more, no less.

I do not think that it is correct to use JD statistics and rankings for LLM programs, as LLM programs unlike JD are usually specialized (I do think that there are many,if any, Yale LLM applicants who want to study corporate finance or to work in biglaw, unlike JDs) and use completely different pool of applicants. Also most subjects that are usually assessed to determine the academic quality of JD program (e.g. constitutional law or civil procedure) are useless for most LLM.
Especially such statistics is inapplicable for employment opportunities, as market for LLM is completely different.
[/quote]

I think "prestige" is a tricky metric because it is in part subjective. Prestige basically refers to how "the public" perceives a particular school. Generally, it is linked to how this particular school is associated with things like knowledge, power or wealth. Probably selectivity plays some role in it but I don't think it's the main factor.

Here's why I think this: the best measures of "prestige" for a particular school are probably its "academic peer reputation" score in the US News Ranking (https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2018/03/2019-us-news-law-school-peer-reputation-rankings-and-overall-rankings.html) as well as its assessment by lawyers and judges" score (sorry, I could only find the data for 2015 https://tippingthescales.com/2014/04/how-lawyers-rank-law-schools/2/). If you look at how schools fare on the peer reputation metric, you'll see that Chicago is still fourth (tied with Columbia and NYU), while Chicago is third (tied with Columbia and Yale) on the professional assessment metric, even though its yield for the JD program is lower than other top schools (see the link in my previous message). This leads me to believe that the reason why Chicago has a lower yield than other top schools is not linked to its perceived "prestige". This is also consistent with the high "prestige" of schools like Oxford and Cambridge, despite their acceptance rate above 30%.

As far as Chicago is concerned, I can think of a few reasons why it may have a lower yield. One would be that it is ranked just below Y/H/S, which means that many students who are accepted at Chicago are probably also accepted at one of these three schools, and decide to enroll at either Y/H/S rather than at Chicago (this is consistent with the "revealed preferences" ranking: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=188070086031107073066088003095110110004011091052061061010086120126026068086007103119037011125063116000098101025073083107029105020075007033072002094112083114071004057018067116071009089072072112065083094113107101100123009126011119093108071103119020073&EXT=pdf). I easily see how this factor could also play out in Chicago's perceived low LLM yield (and again, we do not have data for other top US schools). There is also the intensity/intellectual environment factor. Another reason is that Chicago is in... well, Chicago, which some students might dislike either because of the weather or because of its remoteness to more important legal markets.

However, I would disagree with you concerning the relevance of rankings and metrics based on the JD program for LLM students.

LLMs and JDs mostly take the same classes. Many LLMs take basic "black letter" law classes because many are interested in taking the NY bar exam which requires as a pre-requisite a minimum number of such classes. As far as less doctrinal classes are concerned, these classes are usually offered to JDs and LLMs alike, and I don't think it's easy to conclude that JDs tend to take them less than LLMs.

In addition, JD also choose which school to attend based on the school's perceived strength in one or more subject. Readers of Above the Law are familiar with that: prospective JDs asking questions as to which school is better in X or Y legal area. This fact also seems to be reflected in the employment of graduates of particular schools: Yale people are significantly less likely to go to large law firms than graduates from Columbia and so on.

Also, as per the methodology used by the main rankings, I don't think it is possible to conclude that they only take into account classes such as Con Law or CivPro.[/quote]

Of course prestige is a subjective matter. But it still matters, because if you attend prestigious school you will receive some share of its reputation with their degree. And reputation can further your career and help you in other ways. And reputation depends on how public (employers, academic in your country, etc.) perceives particular university. In general reputation is an assets that not less important (and sometimes more) than quality of teaching.

There is no necessity to persuade me that Chicago is the great school, I know it) My point was completely different. But I should mention that most US metrics are often irrelevant for the non-US employers and academics. And may (if not the most) LLM students will return to their countries.

Regarding yield rate. Of course many (but I doubt that the most) students admitted to Chicago will also be admitted to HYS. But not all applicants who are admitted to HYS applied to Chicago. I do not think, for example, that people interested in PIL would apply to Chicago, they will apply to NYU, and these interested in corporate will apply to Columbia. Moreover, large number of applicants would apply to Oxbridge/HYS without even considering lower ranking US universities. Unfortunately all available statistics, including provided by you, is about JD (US citizens), will have different preferences than LLM.

The number of offers in HYS (I doubt that it will exceed 300 in total) and the fact that the significant part of HYS applicants do not apply to Chicago at all, make it obvious that large part of admitted students view Chicago just as another UNSWR highly ranked school and choose to attend Columbia and NUY (and may be in some circumstances Penn and Berkley) depending on other facts, which you described.
It does not means that Chicago is a bad school, Chicago is great, one of the greatest law schools in the world! But it means that LLM applicants, in large, view it just as another highly ranked generic law school fully interchangeable with its competitors. And that is completely incompatible with the perception that dominates on this message board.
I think that it is because Chicago has nothing specific to offer, apart from L&E of course where Chicago is in the league of its own. As consequence number of really committed applicants is low, which in turn causes huge amount of offers. It in no ways diminish the quality of Chicago academic instruction or its faculty, or quality of its research.

As far as I know, and it can be observed via Apptracker, it is harder to get into NYU(for certain programs)/Columbia/Chicago and, of course HYS, that into Oxbridge. Most applicants admitted into Oxbridge are not admitted into HYS and often have rejections from other US top schools.

You are right, many LLM students take US law classes to be able to pass the bar, but they take very specialized classes. For example, those who are interested in corporate/M&A practice, as me, take corporate/contracts and related classes, but pay no attention to constitutional law, civil and criminal procedure and related issues. These who want to work in the PIL field, usually take bare minimum to be eligible for bar and dedicate all their time to specialized courses. That why for these who are interested in PIL NUY is the first choice (and second is usually Georgetown), but not Chicago or Stanford, despite their superiority in ordinary JD subjects compared to NYU or let alone Georgetown. The bar exam, of course, covers more issues and fields of law than you will take to be eligible for it, but most LLM students prepare for the bar themselves, or in particular courses.
Otherwise entire LLM will cover only US law and still wont be enough due to the number of courses you van take in a single year.

As far as I know from my friends who graduated from top 5 US LLM a couple years ago, JDs have a possibility to choose non black letter law courses on 2nd (several courses) and 3rd (the most of courses) courses. But by this time they are more interested in acquiring lucrative employment and grades, than in such courses.

JDs also pays attention to the particular area of law, but I am sure that most JD student do not know in what fields they want to practice when applying, and just choose the best. Like ordinary law students in every country of the world.

I did not mean that rankings take only these classes into account) But they, obviously, have their share. Also, as far as I know, in US some classes are considered to be more important (contracts, property, con law, etc.) and some less important (like law and race, feminist legal theory, etc.). And I am sure that more important subjects, that almost entirely consist of doctrinal black letter law, have more impact on ranking than less important ones.
quote
Covfefe
Any news on scholarships? Do we get an email if we didn’t get anything too?

[Edited by Covfefe on Mar 15, 2019]

Any news on scholarships? Do we get an email if we didn’t get anything too?
quote
I have no idea. But based on Chicago's general approach I suspect they will send an email to everyone who applied for financial aid.
I have no idea. But based on Chicago's general approach I suspect they will send an email to everyone who applied for financial aid.
quote
Just got my email.
Just got my email.
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

Chicago, Illinois 491 Followers 306 Discussions