Top15-30 2011 US News Predicitons Forum

[notme]

That may be the case with WUSTL and Emory, although I obviously feel that it is a closer call than you do. I doubt however that GW will fully recover this year from last year's debacle. And, if by U of I you mean Illiniois, then I can understand, if not agree with that - if, however, you mean Iowa, that seems unlikely.

[Joga Bonito]

That may be the case with WUSTL and Emory, although I obviously feel that it is a closer call than you do. I doubt however that GW will fully recover this year from last year's debacle. And, if by U of I you mean Illiniois, then I can understand, if not agree with that - if, however, you mean Iowa, that seems unlikely.

I def. don't mean Iowa, I mean UIllinois.

[HerseyChris]

Taking .5*Median LSAT% + .5*Median GPA%:

14 UCLA
15 GWU
16 Georgetown
17 Vandy
18 Texas
19 WUSTL
20 Minnesota
21 BU
21 Indiana
23 Fordham
24 USC
25 UIUC
25 Notre Dame
26 BC
26 Emory
29 WM

Not that this list is anyhow reflective of the actual rankings when they come out.

This is a bit flawed since LSAT is 40-60x bigger than GPA.
I looked at 25 and 75% of LSAT and GPA and standardized them against each other and got this:


Rank School Score
13 Vanderbilt 5.366760211
14 UCLA 5.245808475
15 Georgetown 4.31584304
16 Texas  3.04670574
17 BU  2.280295527
18 Cornell 2.254348612
19 UW 1.876826188
20 USC 1.401861268
21 GWU 1.089390093
22 Notre Dame 0.896158285
23 Minnesota 0.829395187
24 BC 0.563968974
25 Emory  -0.089026548
26 WM -0.682155857
27 Indiana  -1.035326832
28 Georgia -1.084998539
29 UIUC -1.527585194
30 Iowa -1.553371508
31 UC Hastings -1.87683518
32 Fordham  -1.978664721
33 OSU -2.157811751
34 WUSTL -2.215647158
35 Alabama -2.485398463
36 UC Davis -2.663196298
37 UNC -3.148746325
38 W&L -3.225703928
39 Wisconsin -3.442893297



http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... utput=html

Edit: I realize my method is flawed too, I just wanted a different quick and dirty way of doing it.

[td6624]

He also said it had a poor selectivity rating. How does that not indicate that the PT numbers contributed? Until I see actual numbers that indicate poor placement, I'm going to assume that it was mostly the PT program and that the US News dude doesn't want to admit that something so seemingly irrelevant to school quality would drop a school down that far.

I'm willing to take the official US News representative at his word - I mean, they are the ones, afterall, that make the rankings...

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index. ... Employ9Mos - might shed some light on the matter.

#1 is 99.6%. GW at 39 is 97.1%. Georgetown at 27 is 97.8%. How those numbers translate into a precipitous drop is beyond me. By skimming the chart, it looks like their "employed at graduation" number would be around the top 10. These numbers don't show "poor placement."

[sky7]

He also said it had a poor selectivity rating. How does that not indicate that the PT numbers contributed? Until I see actual numbers that indicate poor placement, I'm going to assume that it was mostly the PT program and that the US News dude doesn't want to admit that something so seemingly irrelevant to school quality would drop a school down that far.

I'm willing to take the official US News representative at his word - I mean, they are the ones, afterall, that make the rankings...

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index. ... Employ9Mos - might shed some light on the matter.

#1 is 99.6%. GW at 39 is 97.1%. Georgetown at 27 is 97.8%. How those numbers translate into a precipitous drop is beyond me. By skimming the chart, it looks like their "employed at graduation" number would be around the top 10. These numbers don't show "poor placement."

Georgetown has the LSAT/GPA to offset being so low. GW isn't as high. And yes, that speaks to selectivity as well. The point is that according to people who know, the "silver bullet" isn't slashing the PT program, because they weren't the sole reason for the drop (though it's likely that they contributed to it).

Edit/P.S. - I don't mean to come off anti-GW or anything of the like, because I think it's a great school. I just think the entire situation has been a little misleading.

[jcl2]

Taking .5*Median LSAT% + .5*Median GPA%:

14 UCLA
15 GWU
16 Georgetown
17 Vandy
18 Texas
19 WUSTL
20 Minnesota
21 BU
21 Indiana
23 Fordham
24 USC
25 UIUC
25 Notre Dame
26 BC
26 Emory
29 WM

Not that this list is anyhow reflective of the actual rankings when they come out.

This is a bit flawed since LSAT is 40-60x bigger than GPA.
I looked at 25 and 75% of LSAT and GPA and standardized them against each other and got this:


Rank School Score
13 Vanderbilt 5.366760211
14 UCLA 5.245808475
15 Georgetown 4.31584304
16 Texas  3.04670574
17 BU  2.280295527
18 Cornell 2.254348612
19 UW 1.876826188
20 USC 1.401861268
21 GWU 1.089390093
22 Notre Dame 0.896158285
23 Minnesota 0.829395187
24 BC 0.563968974
25 Emory  -0.089026548
26 WM -0.682155857
27 Indiana  -1.035326832
28 Georgia -1.084998539
29 UIUC -1.527585194
30 Iowa -1.553371508
31 UC Hastings -1.87683518
32 Fordham  -1.978664721
33 OSU -2.157811751
34 WUSTL -2.215647158
35 Alabama -2.485398463
36 UC Davis -2.663196298
37 UNC -3.148746325
38 W&L -3.225703928
39 Wisconsin -3.442893297



http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... utput=html

Edit: I realize my method is flawed too, I just wanted a different quick and dirty way of doing it.

I like that UW is number 19 in this method . Now we just need the other metrics USNWR uses to catch up with selectivity so that we can actually be ranked that high.

[faith2202]

My problems with these numbers is that I don't think ranking should necessarily be about scores. Rankings, IMHO, should be about placement, opportunities, and strength of program/faculty. It happens, for the most part, that schools with students with higher numbers are at the schools with better programs, but it's not a complete correlation. To me, I feel like selectivity (accept%, yield%, even LSAT/GPA) should, at least in "rankings" be weighed less. Also, higher rankings causes better numbers because students want to go there more. But rankings shouldn't be based so much on numbers but on the other factors that I said above, or else it'd just be a paradoxical cycle.

[tram988]

My problems with these numbers is that I don't think ranking should necessarily be about scores. Rankings, IMHO, should be about placement, opportunities, and strength of program/faculty. It happens, for the most part, that schools with students with higher numbers are at the schools with better programs, but it's not a complete correlation. To me, I feel like selectivity (accept%, yield%, even LSAT/GPA) should, at least in "rankings" be weighed less. Also, higher rankings causes better numbers because students want to go there more. But rankings shouldn't be based so much on numbers but on the other factors that I said above, or else it'd just be a paradoxical cycle.

+1

[D. H2Oman]

My problems with these numbers is that I don't think ranking should necessarily be about scores. Rankings, IMHO, should be about placement, opportunities, and strength of program/faculty. It happens, for the most part, that schools with students with higher numbers are at the schools with better programs, but it's not a complete correlation. To me, I feel like selectivity (accept%, yield%, even LSAT/GPA) should, at least in "rankings" be weighed less. Also, higher rankings causes better numbers because students want to go there more. But rankings shouldn't be based so much on numbers but on the other factors that I said above, or else it'd just be a paradoxical cycle.

Selectivity is only 25% as it is, how much lower do you want it to go?

[faith2202]

My problems with these numbers is that I don't think ranking should necessarily be about scores. Rankings, IMHO, should be about placement, opportunities, and strength of program/faculty. It happens, for the most part, that schools with students with higher numbers are at the schools with better programs, but it's not a complete correlation. To me, I feel like selectivity (accept%, yield%, even LSAT/GPA) should, at least in "rankings" be weighed less. Also, higher rankings causes better numbers because students want to go there more. But rankings shouldn't be based so much on numbers but on the other factors that I said above, or else it'd just be a paradoxical cycle.

Selectivity is only 25% as it is, how much lower do you want it to go?

Selectivity should be a result of a high ranking and not a factor. I would think 10% or below would make more sense. I understand it's a measure of "student quality" but as the rankings (based on other factors) for the school rises, the "student quality" would rise correspondingly.

[cherryalamode]

Do people just forget about Washington and Lee?

[notme]

No, I actually like Washington and Lee and would have preferred to go there over some of the schools I ranked higher. If my list went to 31, W & L probably would have been it. I just think they are taking a hit because of the uncertainty of the results of their new third year program, and because of some of the questionable things they did last year during their admissions process.

[faith2202]

What did they do last year in the admissions process?

[notme]

This is year old memory, but I believe there were a couple of things. One was that they made unsolicited scholarship offers to individuals that hadn't even applied, based upon last minute (February ?) LSAT results. Not a big deal to me but it upset a lot of previously accepted applicants and made W & L look desperate. That may not have affected their standing - but I believe there was something else as well. You may find it in last years postings.

[nycparalegal]

I predict that BLS will drop in the rankings due to the integration of their part time program into the ranking calculation.

[TigerBeer]

Rankings should be completely based on employment outcomes. And not that weakass "median salary" or "% employed 9 months after graduating" bullshit, either. I want to see exactly how many students made it into market-paying firms, prestigious clerkships, less prestigious clerkships, etc. And subtract points for low reporting rates.

Nothing else matters when you're looking at a $200k bill.

[LSATfromNC]

Rankings should be completely based on employment outcomes. And not that weakass "median salary" or "% employed 9 months after graduating" bullshit, either. I want to see exactly how many students made it into market-paying firms, prestigious clerkships, less prestigious clerkships, etc. And subtract points for low reporting rates.

Nothing else matters when you're looking at a $200k bill.

What about State schools that cost less than 15k a year, and that push for public interest work?

[TigerBeer]

Rankings should be completely based on employment outcomes. And not that weakass "median salary" or "% employed 9 months after graduating" bullshit, either. I want to see exactly how many students made it into market-paying firms, prestigious clerkships, less prestigious clerkships, etc. And subtract points for low reporting rates.

Nothing else matters when you're looking at a $200k bill.

What about State schools that cost less than 15k a year, and that push for public interest work?

PI jobs are still competitive, and there are levels of pay and prestige within PI. If I was comparing two low-ranked schools with an interest in PI, my only concern (besides location) would still be employment.

I guess what I'm really saying is that rankings are pointless, what we really need is very detailed employment outcome data from every school. Schools have no incentive to provide us this data right now. If rankings were based completely on employment data at a more detailed level than we can see now, schools would have no choice but to make these figures public. If they were also punished for having a low reporting %, they'd also have more of an incentive to track down every student and find out what they're up to.

When I'm using US News to compare schools it really doesn't tell me a whole lot. I don't give a shit about the reputation among lawyers/judges since the employment outcomes will reflect that. And student/faculty ratio or expenditures per student? Who cares? I would sit in a class of 1000 if it got me the job I wanted. Selectivity is arguable, since employers might want to see that data.

For undergrads, the intagibles are a lot more important, so US News makes sense. For a professional school whose sole purpose is to find you employment, it doesn't.

[musicfor18]

That may be the case with WUSTL and Emory, although I obviously feel that it is a closer call than you do. I doubt however that GW will fully recover this year from last year's debacle. And, if by U of I you mean Illiniois, then I can understand, if not agree with that - if, however, you mean Iowa, that seems unlikely.

What was GW's debacle last year?

[huzhongxiaohe]

Why don't we compute mean-squared-errors for each of those predictions and put up some prize for the lowest-MSE guess?

[A'nold]

Rankings should be completely based on employment outcomes. And not that weakass "median salary" or "% employed 9 months after graduating" bullshit, either. I want to see exactly how many students made it into market-paying firms, prestigious clerkships, less prestigious clerkships, etc. And subtract points for low reporting rates.

Nothing else matters when you're looking at a $200k bill.

ORLY?

I'm really glad that law school = a purely financial decision.

[jay115]

Rankings should be completely based on employment outcomes. And not that weakass "median salary" or "% employed 9 months after graduating" bullshit, either. I want to see exactly how many students made it into market-paying firms, prestigious clerkships, less prestigious clerkships, etc. And subtract points for low reporting rates.

Nothing else matters when you're looking at a $200k bill.

ORLY?

I'm really glad that law school = a purely financial decision.

I'm going to be charitable and read this as sarcasm.

[texaspecial88]

What about UC Irvine?

[Blindmelon]

What about UC Irvine?

Its unaccredited - not a real school yet.

[JCougar]

A couple notes:

1) I think it's highly unlikely that WUSTL drops from 19th this year, as many have predicted. The schools aren't just ranked, they are scored (obviously), so distance between ranks isn't exactly equal. Here are the total scores for each of the following schools:

80 Duke
80 Northwestern
80 UVA
78 Cornell
75 Georgetown
74 UCLA
74 Texas
73 Vanderbilt
72 USC
69 WUSTL
66 BU
66 Emory
66 Minnesota
65 Indiana
65 Illinois
65 Notre Dame

There's actually a substantial gap between the scores of the top 18 schools and 20 and below. This gap is actually much larger than the gap between the T14 and everything else. To tie USC, the bottom of this group of schools, Emory would have to add 6 points to its overall score from last cycle or USC would have to drop some. WUSTL is beginning to bridge this gap and creep up to these four schools ranked just outside the T14. They still have some distance to make up, but they are also pulling away from the rest of the pack. And since there's no reason to believe that WUSTL will go down this cycle, we'd have to see any of the schools below it add 4 or more points to surpass it.

Similarly, this just shows how vulnerable Georgetown has actually become. Which brings up my second point: why are people so quick to acknowledge how including PT stats hurt GW while ignoring how they might have negatively affected Georgetown? How much did this change in how the data were processed bring down Georgetown, and how much has Georgetown done to bounce back? If anything, I think Georgetown's numbers will go up this year, rather than down, for the same reason people are expecting GW to bounce back.