The Lack of Transparency in the LL.M. Application Process

One thing that I find highly ironic about US LL.M. admissions is the real lack of information provided by law schools. The irony is that law schools provide huge amounts of data regarding their J.D. program, but the very same schools provide very little information about acceptance rates and yield (percentage of accepted students who attend) for their LL.M. program(s). Here I focus on LL.M. programs for international students. Thus the very same schools that make it very easy to think about school selection for J.D. applicants, don't make it easy for LL.M. applicants. It is reasonable to say that as result, LL.M. applicants at a huge disadvantage relative to J.D. applicants for purposes of formulating an efficient application strategy.

One example. The typical way an LL.M. program reports its relative level of difficulty is exemplified by the University of Chicago (Chicago actually reports the number of applications, which makes it better than some other schools. I use Chicago simply as an example, but not in an attempt to make it look bad.):
Each year the Law School receives approximately 750 applications for the 50 positions in the LL.M. program

Keep in mind that this only tells you the number of admits, but not the number admitted and not yield, so you don't know what percentage decided to attend. Contrast this with the J.D. applications for 2005 (the most recent on the US News and World Report site):
Acceptance Rate: 15.9%
Number of Applicants: 4818
Number Accepted: 766
Number Enrolled: 192

If J.D. applicants only knew the number enrolled and the number of applicants, they might draw the mistaken conclusion that only approximately 4% of applicants were admitted. Based on that same mistaken impression, 50 out of 750 for the LL.M. program gives us approximately 7%. Now the actually rate of admission for the LL.M. program? Certainly it is easier than the J.D. program, but by how much? Based on what I know about the process as well as my experience with clients who get into Chicago, I bet the actual percentage of admitted students is somewhere between 25% and 30% (I will be happy to be corrected, I sent this post to the Dean of the Law School over two weeks ago and have yet to receive a reply).

Essentially international LL.M. applicants to US programs experience information asymmetry in their school selection, while J.D. candidates have a situation of almost perfect information (they can look at their LSAT & GPA and a clear sense of their relative likelihood of acceptance to any particular program). This is simply unfair and inexcusable. Make no mistake about it, most LL.M. programs engage in a set of practices that, whether intended or not, obfuscate the ability of applicants to determine the real difficulty of admission.

While admissions officers might argue that the LL.M. program is more like graduate programs in other parts of the university, I find this argument unacceptable for two reasons. First, LL.M. programs are part of Law Schools that easily have the means for reporting full information on their admissions decisions. Second, J.D. program admissions results reporting is, generally speaking, the standard by which to measure all other graduate programs and therefore applying the lesser standards generally used in the Arts and Sciences would simply be to engage in bad practice. (Yes, I said that, really only professional schools in Law, Medicine, and Business consistently report good numbers).

So why not report on acceptance rates and yield? Well, as anyone who has actually helped applicants at this for years can tell you, there is- with the exception of the very top programs (Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Northwestern, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, New York University, University of Michigan, and Georgetown)- very little relationship between the difficulty of entering the school's LL.M. and J.D. programs. And even for the schools I mentioned, it is hard to know for sure because of the lack of LL.M. data for most of these programs.

The lack of information that schools provide is further compounded by the lack of information provided elsewhere. Given the relatively small size of the LL.M.applicant market, no one is publishing books on this. At best LL.M.programs get a passing mention. The only decent general LL.M. site, http://www.llm-guide.com/, is forced to show J.D. ranking information because there really is nothing better.

Some may argue that knowing a school's J.D. ranking is enough, but given my experience I don't think so. First of all, the Japanese lawyers (弁護士 Bengoshi), patent lawyers (弁理士 Benrishi), judges, prosecutors, government officials, and legal experts I have worked with, have often had to apply to too many schools because they were uncertain about the actual level of difficulty and the only really good numbers that they really have to look at for J.D. programs. I don't know about the situation in other countries, but LL.M.applicants in Japan tend to apply to more programs than applicants in other fields. It is common for Japanese LL.M. applicants to apply to 8 to 12 schools, as compared to the usual 4 to 6 that most graduate applicants apply to.

In the situation of information asymmetry that LL.M. applicants find themselves in, the only rational thing is apply to as many programs as they can in order to see what the best result is. I can't believe such actions are really in the interest of admissions offices, which get flooded, relatively speaking, with applications from Japan. Japanese represent a very large percentage of LL.M. applicants. Consider that 8 out of 50 in Chicago's 2007-2008 Class are Japanese, three more than the next largest nationality represented. This percentage of Japanese students is quite typical for most programs (Yale and Stanford probably being the exceptions due to their small size and selectivity). Assuming similar behavior from applicants in other countries, one can assume that with the exception of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, these programs must have relatively low yields. Of course, I can't know that for sure. However in the third post in this series, I attempt to answer that question. But before turning to that question, please read the second post where I analyze the impact of American Bar Association reporting requirements on the difference between the way J.D. and LL.M. admissions data is provided.


Questions? Comments? Write comments here or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

コロンビア, ハーバード, シカゴ, スタンフォード, 米国ロースクール、米国大学法学院, 大学院入学, カウンセリング, コンサルティング, 合格対策, 合格率, LLM留学

Hedge Funds and Private Equity: MBA?

Anyone interested in working at a hedge fund or in private equity, should most certainly read Hedge Funds and Private Equity Alter Career Calculus, a recent article in The New York Times. According to many of the industry insiders sited in the article, if you are already working in a hedge fund or private equity and thinking about an MBA, you may want to think again because the value of the MBA may be negligible or worse. On the other hand, if you are international (non-US applicant) or a career changer an MBA may be ideal:

Recruiters at banks say a large number of the students that they are hiring from business schools are from an international background or are changing careers. These students are valuable, they say, but they come in with a different background from someone who has been in finance since age 22.

One thing that is also interesting about this article is that the views of Thomas Caleel, Wharton's director of admissions, are directly contradicted by the other sources cited in the article:

Eventually, these young people may want to raise money and start their own fund, suggests Thomas Caleel, director of admissions at Wharton, and that’s where an M.B.A. and the connections that come with it could help. “If you are trying to raise money for a hedge fund, you will need that network,” he says.

Mr. Talpins of Element said he had no trouble raising money for his hedge fund without an M.B.A. After all, he had a track record from Citi and Goldman Sachs to show to potential investors. In his corner of the world, where math equations are likely to be scrawled on white boards around the office and young people hold the purse strings to millions of dollars in investor money, it seems there is no point in going to business school just to punch a ticket.

Talpins is not the only one who contradicts Caleel. Just read the entire article. Caleel comes across as selling something that at least one particular segment of potential customers does not appear to need.

I have seen numerous clients make the jump into banking post-MBA, so the value for both international and career changers is clear enough to me. As to those already well on their way to making the very large salaries the article cites, unless they are looking for a career change, I don't see the ROI.

Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学

Even Professors Use Resume Editors!

I have been asked on many occasions if it is acceptable to have a professionally produced resume. My answer has always been "yes" because such services are very commonly used by professionals in the US. Even The Chronicle of Higher Education, the premier higher education industry publication in the US, partners with a CV and resume writing service. Professors and others in higher education frequently use the The Chronicle to find employment, so clearly it must be acceptable to use resume and CV rewriting services in higher education. If it is good for faculty, we can safely assume it is also good for applicants.

Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

INSEAD and Chicago GSB Admissions Events

I recently attended two great admissions events. All applicants should try to attend such events as they are great way to learn about a school if you can't visit. They are also a great way of meeting alums in your country of residence. I think it is especially important to meet alums because they are often the best way to judge whether you want to attend a particular MBA program. Given that who you are in class with will really impact your overall educational experience meeting alums is just a great way to see if there is a good fit between you and the program. Of course, you could also learn about the faculty.

If you are interested in INSEAD and can attend one of their seminars with a case study presentation by a faculty member, I can highly recommend it. I attended Professor Jacob Cohen's seminar in Tokyo on September 7th and was very impressed. For more information about INSEAD events.

The Chicago GSB's Rose Martinelli made a great presentation in Tokyo on September 11th. While I have met with Rose before, this was my first opportunity to see her presentation. She was not only very informative about Chicago GSB, but really incredibly helpful in providing great general MBA admissions advice. If you have the chance to see her present, I strongly recommend it. For more information about Chicago GSB events.

Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
MBA留学

Harvard Law School Essays

There are no LL.M. essay books available, so if you want to get a sense of what kind of essays get someone into a top LL.M. program, there is no text to really look to. This is not the case with J.D. In fact, 55 Successful Harvard Law School Application Essays: What Worked for Them Can Help You Get Into the Law School of Your Choice By The Staff of the Harvard Crimson, is a useful guide for seeing the variety of essay topics that J.D. applicants write on.

Keeping in mind that the J.D. application essay is premised on the idea that the applicant may not necessarily know anything about the law, it is clearly quite different from LL.M. An LL.M. applicant should be able to demonstrate their knowledge of the law and be quite specific about what they intend to study. Therefore looking at book of J.D. essays is mostly useful for getting an understanding of (1)the ways in which applicants describe their initial motivation to study the law, (2) the ways in which applicants effectively demonstrate their intelligence through what they write, and (3) how applicants make their essays very personal.

Given that LL.M. applicants will most certainly find that they will need to describe their motivations to study law and demonstrate their intelligence, reviewing 55 Essays will certainly reveal a variety of methods for doing so. Regarding the issue of personality, effectively communicating something about who you are can really make a signficant impact on admissions.

While many LL.M. applicants take a very basic template-like approach to writing their essays, if you are willing to put in the time to really show what motivates you as a legal professional, what kind of legal thinker you are, and who you are as a person, you can really improve your chances for admission. To that end, I would recommend reading 55 Essays.

I do have one major criticism of the book: I found the analysis of the essays by the Harvard Crimson to be relatively inconsistent. I was especially annoyed when I read some of the analysis that was simply negative about essays that did what they were supposed to do: Got the applicant into Harvard Law. I suppose if one ignored the obvious- the essay worked because the applicant got in- it is possible to be critical about these essays, but for what reason?
I think most readers will find that in general it is better to skim or skip the analysis and just read the essays. Given the low cost of 55 Successful Harvard Law School Application Essays: What Worked for Them Can Help You Get Into the Law School of Your Choice and its potential benefit, I feel quite comfortable in recommending to applicants looking to get greater insight into law school admissions essays.

Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
LLM留学