Top Law Schools

Kohinoor wrote:I wish Yale, Harvard, and Stanford would just man up and refuse to participate one year. Once they set the precedent, the rest of the T14 would want to be like the cool kids and voila, USNWR hegemony done.

Oh come on. Columbia would be all "USNWR #1 RANKING BITCHES!!!!!" Nobody below them would leave out of hope if they stick around they'll get to do that for a year too.

Kohinoor wrote:I wish Yale, Harvard, and Stanford would just man up and refuse to participate one year. Once they set the precedent, the rest of the T14 would want to be like the cool kids and voila, USNWR hegemony done.

--ImageRemoved--

I agree, but, as long as USNWR says YHS are the holy trinity (forever), there is no benefit for them to do so.
AND, it would need to be the big three. Outliers just get wedged in regardless of whether they want to be:
http://www.reed.edu/apply/news_and_arti ... kings.html
"The college has repeatedly asked U.S. News simply to drop it from the best-colleges issue, yet the magazine continues to include Reed and to harvest data from non-Reed sources."

OneKnight wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:I wish Yale, Harvard, and Stanford would just man up and refuse to participate one year. Once they set the precedent, the rest of the T14 would want to be like the cool kids and voila, USNWR hegemony done.

--ImageRemoved--

I agree, but, as long as USNWR says YHS are the holy trinity (forever), there is no benefit for them to do so.
AND, it would need to be the big three. Outliers just get wedged in regardless of whether they want to be:
http://www.reed.edu/apply/news_and_arti ... kings.html
"The college has repeatedly asked U.S. News simply to drop it from the best-colleges issue, yet the magazine continues to include Reed and to harvest data from non-Reed sources."

I wasn't aware they actively elected to participate or provide information. I think most of the US New metrics are from public information and what has to be reported to the ABA. I remember seeing a letter signed by 100+ Deans including Harvard speaking out against the rankings but google isn't helping me out. Anyone remember what I am talking about?

ETA: Found it: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/letter.htm
I got it when I registered for LSAC.

jks289 wrote:
I wasn't aware they actively elected to participate or provide information. I think most of the US New metrics are from public information and what has to be reported to the ABA. I remember seeing a letter signed by 100+ Deans including Harvard speaking out against the rankings but google isn't helping me out. Anyone remember what I am talking about?

ETA: Found it: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/letter.htm
I got it when I registered for LSAC.

Considering that 50% of the metric is peer ratings, I'm sure that YHS contacting judges and schools and requesting not to be rated or to be rated zero would instantly ruin the rankings.

Overall, though, the consistent data that rankings provide allows for people to make a more informed decision about what they're doing, and the competition between schools to improve their rankings also benefits students. At least, it benefits those with higher LSAT scores and/or higher GPAs, helping make things more of a meritocracy than it used to be. Those who are most qualified to go to law school get to go to the best law schools as a result, which is honestly how it should be.

+1.

Why shouldn't there be rankings?

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... hings.html

Should also point out that the top schools were the top schools long before the USNWR rankings...

BenJ wrote:

irishman86 wrote:http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_ ... 2#14281524

They have already come out... CHICAGO AT 7?!

Chicago was #7 in 2008 (tied with Penn, actually, so 7.5). Those are almost certainly fake, but it wouldn't be surprising.

True...forgot about that. Although I think it's unlikely Chicago will drop. Berkeley probably will.

rayiner wrote:

Overall, though, the consistent data that rankings provide allows for people to make a more informed decision about what they're doing, and the competition between schools to improve their rankings also benefits students. At least, it benefits those with higher LSAT scores and/or higher GPAs, helping make things more of a meritocracy than it used to be. Those who are most qualified to go to law school get to go to the best law schools as a result, which is honestly how it should be.

+1.

Why shouldn't there be rankings?

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... hings.html

Should also point out that the top schools were the top schools long before the USNWR rankings...

I have no issue with there being top schools and not top schools. It's baffling though that 0Ls are so invested in this particular metric, especially when we've identified the biases in it that make it not very useful as a determinant of law school quality from year to year.

Kohinoor wrote: I have no issue with there being top schools and not top schools. It's baffling though that 0Ls are so invested in this particular metric, especially when we've identified the biases in it that make it not very useful as a determinant of law school quality from year to year.

It's because it provides a single numerical list which is simple enough for 0Ls to understand.

Kohinoor wrote:

rayiner wrote:

Overall, though, the consistent data that rankings provide allows for people to make a more informed decision about what they're doing, and the competition between schools to improve their rankings also benefits students. At least, it benefits those with higher LSAT scores and/or higher GPAs, helping make things more of a meritocracy than it used to be. Those who are most qualified to go to law school get to go to the best law schools as a result, which is honestly how it should be.

+1.

Why shouldn't there be rankings?

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... hings.html

Should also point out that the top schools were the top schools long before the USNWR rankings...

I have no issue with there being top schools and not top schools. It's baffling though that 0Ls are so invested in this particular metric, especially when we've identified the biases in it that make it not very useful as a determinant of law school quality from year to year.

Agree with this. Employment prospects, by far the most important factor, only account for a small percentage of USNews rankings and don't completely accord with USNews rankings. A lot of USNews rankings are made up of "bs" metrics, like spending per capita--which favors smaller schools--or even student faculty ratio--which again favors smaller schools--which I don't think is really that important in the grand scheme of things.

irishman86 wrote: Agree with this. Employment prospects, by far the most important factor, only account for a small percentage of USNews rankings and don't completely accord with USNews rankings. A lot of USNews rankings are made up of "bs" metrics, like spending per capita--which favors smaller schools--or even student faculty ratio--which again favors smaller schools--which I don't think is really that important in the grand scheme of things.

Thinking about this makes me wonder if they included those things to ensure Yale's exclusivity was "properly recognized" and it would easily hold onto the #1 spot. After all, Yale's ability to remain #1 is dependent on folks choosing to go there BECAUSE it's #1... Without those metrics Harvard might move up to #1, which would make it easier for them to attract the very top students, especially since it has so many seats to offer. I mean, why go to Yale if Harvard is the #1 school AND is easier to get into since they have so many more seats to fill?