Law School Discussion

emory, florida, or washington & lee?

...

emory, florida, or washington & lee?
« on: March 19, 2006, 03:20:10 PM »
unless i get into vandy or georgetown (very unlikely), looks like these are my options. notre dame is out for many small reasons that add up to be enough to keep me away (the weather being what's pushed it over the top for good). opinions? i know i've got decent money at w&l; haven't heard from emory or uf yet. i'm not a fl resident. i don't know where i want to end up.

opinions? i'm so confused right now.

Lenny

  • ****
  • 455
    • View Profile
Re: emory, florida, or washington & lee?
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2006, 05:35:10 PM »
Well there's an unsupported, conclusory statement if I've ever heard one. 

Visit both W&L and Emory and then think hard about the top 4 or 5 places you think you may want to end up, then get back to us.

Lenny

  • ****
  • 455
    • View Profile
Re: emory, florida, or washington & lee?
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2006, 05:54:00 PM »
I would love to know where you base you conclusion that Emory clearly has the stronger faculty.  By all accounts, both anecdotal and in published studies, W&L has one of the best faculties in the nation. 

I also think its a mistake to say that one school places better in an area because it places more students there.  I guess I just don't buy your cocnclusions.

Re: emory, florida, or washington & lee?
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2006, 07:14:34 PM »
My first point is that Leiter's studies don't rank faculty interaction with students, which to a lot of students is much much more important than how many articles their professor produced.  Thats true for me personally, while I would rahter have a prof who has a good reputation in the field, I'd probably prefer a slightly less accomplished one who has the time to get to know me.
Also, I would be a little careful with Leiter's study because in the end it seems to rank the reputations of the faculty-which is one measure of how good a faculty is, but not definitive.  For example, just looking at the first ranking linked to, Leiter lists 6 factors that indicate reputation and scholarly impact is based more on reputation than quality of work.  Also, some schools may push real hard for their faculty to publish, even their tenured faculty basing their salary bonuses or something on it in part, whereas another school gives their faculty more discrestion. I have talked to profs before who told me different schools have different faculty atmospsheres, some schools the faculty are in competition with each other, in others they are more cooperative, that could effect scholarly output. Also I think I saw somewhere (Volokh conspiracy I think), that women faculty members publish less, but tend to put more effort into a single piece than men on avg. That would hurt a faculty with lots of women reputation wise because quantity seems to trump quality, though it wouldn't necessarily hurt the overall quality of the faculty.  Anyway, my point here is that rankings are more indications than absolute truths.