Harvard – 8
NYU - 2
Vand. - 1
Case Western – 1 (this candidate also has a tax LLM from NYU)
The nine schools responsible for 28 candidates were included in a study I made of scholarly productivity of faculty found at 4 Law Schools that are at the bottom of top tier of law schools. I compared the productivity of graduates from those elite schools who end up at the bottom of the top tier with productivity of faculty from all other schools. My results indicate that there was no correlation between level of School and scholarship. There was, however, anecdotal evidence that level of school was correlated with high levels of self promotion and resume building for the same of resume building.
I suspect that the list looks a great deal like that at other schools and that it is roughly like the lists for all schools for many years.
At this point in one of my posts I might attempt to explain why legal education needs another elitist educated professor like it needs a lobotomy which is, by the way, what this type of hiring has done for many law schools. But, when you think about it, the burden should be the other way around. In the absence of any evidence that people from these schools make better law professors, why persist.? We know why: they look, talk like, and have experiences like the people hiring them. But I am asking why they would be the exclusive focus of hiring efforts if one had the best interests of the students and stakeholders in mind.
When you think about it, there is a pretty interesting message here. No student taught by these professors or their counterparts at similarly ranked law schools are taught effectively enough or are smart enough or well-versed enough to be permitted to the law teaching profession.