Top Law Schools

Doritos wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:Why exactly do schools even care about rankings? If they go up or down, they don't stand to make much more money, so what's the point? Is it just for prestige or what?

Have you been reading the thread? A lot of people obsess over the rankings and choose to pay lots of money to go to these schools based largely on their ranking. Also, Alex Johnson over at UVa said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c) that deans have been fired over the rankings. Higher rank = higher prestige = higher number of $$$ people are willing to pay. It doesn't mean it's a better school but more people are willing to pay more money to attend if you are higher ranked

sporkdevil wrote:

charlesjd wrote:
IU-B is a public TTT. We all knew they were going to drop. The only reason they had that was the donation by Maurer. Tulane has been falling and you can thank hurricane katrina for that, even though it did not affect Tulane. Chicago KenTTTTTTT, they were and are even more of a TTT now. Temple, they still own philly so who cares.

Not to question your general intelligence, but I am more concerned with your ability to read and compare graphs so simple a Cooley admit can understand it. IU-B received the exact same overall grade as they did last year, but had a few schools leap frog them. That's not really dropping. Even if you consider dropping 4 this year, they are still up 9 spots the last two years.

Damn shame the LSAT doesn't test basic reading. Also a shame they can't test for pricks.

Son of Cicero wrote:

mavsman88 wrote:What?!? No props for starting the thread??? I know I had nothing to do with the actual leak, but a little shout out would've been nice

i figured we were doing you a favor by not fully appropriating the OP spot. You could have given the thread a title that didn't suggest that you were delivering the goods, but you were in it for the glory. Take what you can get, man. I mean, I even did something useful like made all of the links pretty and compile everything in one spot, and I don't ask for "props." If it were not for countless such acts of ego-immolation on the altar of Ken, TLS's flame couldn't burn this brightly.

Let that knowledge be your reward as you go forth and selflessly do good things (or as you STFU).

ruleser wrote: [strike]A school like Washington and Lee it can be massively important - with its remote location, small size, lots of competition in the market, if it's a T25 it still can draw lots of interest from around the country. As it slips toward 40ish, I'd bet fewer people give it a look/ap[/strike].

TTT-LS wrote:Also, I'm a 3L who has taken copyright, in case that matters. Taking one class doesn't come close to making me an expert, of course. Anyhow, factually this is pretty similar to Harper & Row, so that's strike one for fair use. The fact that this is online and H&R was offline is probably immaterial for most of the fair use analysis. As for the sec. 107 factors, they're close but in the aggregate seem to militate for a lack of fair use. Here's why:

1. The copying here on TLS is at least partially commercial (the site hosts, ads & gets revenue per page view, right?), and the use involved (straight copying w/o parody, etc.) is non-transformative. On the other hand, one could argue that TLS has copied the material for the purpose of news commentary of a sort. Seems like this factor is a wash.

2. While one could argue that the USNWR rankings are more factual than expressive in nature (given emphasis on employment stats, library square footage, etc.), there is a clear element of expression embedded therein, so factor 2 is probably also a wash.

3. Factor 3 involves a framing issue. If we characterize the law school rankings as their own, separate copyrightable work, then TLS has taken 100% of the work, which would work against fair use. If the relevant work is the whole USNWR rankings issue, then the LS rankings constitute only a medium % on a quantitative basis, but may still be the "heart of the work," since the LS rankings contribute much of the magazine issue's dollar value. See Harper & Row. In either case, this factor clearly cuts against fair use.

4. Factor 4 seems to be what you were really arguing, QQT. Yes, some people might never buy the newsstand rankings issue. But USNWR still charges for some of the online content, IIRC, and the fact that some people would normallyt just go and get the copyrighted content online (perhaps via other sources guilty of infringement) is no defense to the fact that the rankings copied onto TLS are more or less a substitute for those on sale by USNWR. QQT's argument that the copying here will benefit the (c) owner has been raised in several cases and rejected in each. See Harper & Row; Castle Rock v. Carol Publishing; A&M Records v. Napster. Factor 4 thus points strongly against fair use as well.

But that's just my take.

D. H2Oman wrote:I am a friendless deustchbag who got rejected from every school I've heard from, and who has no friends, so plays with fonts all alone in my little VT place. PS I want someone to come up here and roll me.

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:wait doesn't usnews move schools down one whole place for letting kids take the lsat four times?

h20man, thoughts?

honestabe84 wrote:

Doritos wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:Why exactly do schools even care about rankings? If they go up or down, they don't stand to make much more money, so what's the point? Is it just for prestige or what?

Have you been reading the thread? A lot of people obsess over the rankings and choose to pay lots of money to go to these schools based largely on their ranking. Also, Alex Johnson over at UVa said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c) that deans have been fired over the rankings. Higher rank = higher prestige = higher number of $$$ people are willing to pay. It doesn't mean it's a better school but more people are willing to pay more money to attend if you are higher ranked

But there are a bunch of TTTs and TTTTs that are expensive as hell, while other higher ranked schools (i.e. Alabama - 9k/yr) aren't that expensive. Also, schools don't seem to decrease there tuition one bit when they slip in the rankings. Otherwise, we would expect Missouri's tuition to decrease by a couple thousand, and IU's to increase a couple thousand (at least after last year's rankings).

Except for the top 14, there does not seem to be a VERY strong correlation between rank and tuition.

D. H2Oman wrote:

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:wait doesn't usnews move schools down one whole place for letting kids take the lsat four times?

h20man, thoughts?

This is indeed true. Think about it, a school letting in a rereretaker?! Only a festering cesspool of a school would resort to that kind of gaming of the rankings.

agentcom wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:

Doritos wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:Why exactly do schools even care about rankings? If they go up or down, they don't stand to make much more money, so what's the point? Is it just for prestige or what?

Have you been reading the thread? A lot of people obsess over the rankings and choose to pay lots of money to go to these schools based largely on their ranking. Also, Alex Johnson over at UVa said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c) that deans have been fired over the rankings. Higher rank = higher prestige = higher number of $$$ people are willing to pay. It doesn't mean it's a better school but more people are willing to pay more money to attend if you are higher ranked

But there are a bunch of TTTs and TTTTs that are expensive as hell, while other higher ranked schools (i.e. Alabama - 9k/yr) aren't that expensive. Also, schools don't seem to decrease there tuition one bit when they slip in the rankings. Otherwise, we would expect Missouri's tuition to decrease by a couple thousand, and IU's to increase a couple thousand (at least after last year's rankings).

Except for the top 14, there does not seem to be a VERY strong correlation between rank and tuition.

Umm ... IU's tuition did increase by (more than) a couple thousand.

Nightrunner wrote:

ruleser wrote:

D. H2Oman wrote:I am a friendless deustchbag who got rejected from every school I've heard from, and who has no friends, so plays with fonts all alone in my little VT place. PS I want someone to come up here and roll me.

Fixed

honestabe84 wrote:

agentcom wrote:

honestabe84 wrote:

Doritos wrote:
Have you been reading the thread? A lot of people obsess over the rankings and choose to pay lots of money to go to these schools based largely on their ranking. Also, Alex Johnson over at UVa said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c) that deans have been fired over the rankings. Higher rank = higher prestige = higher number of $$$ people are willing to pay. It doesn't mean it's a better school but more people are willing to pay more money to attend if you are higher ranked

But there are a bunch of TTTs and TTTTs that are expensive as hell, while other higher ranked schools (i.e. Alabama - 9k/yr) aren't that expensive. Also, schools don't seem to decrease there tuition one bit when they slip in the rankings. Otherwise, we would expect Missouri's tuition to decrease by a couple thousand, and IU's to increase a couple thousand (at least after last year's rankings).

Except for the top 14, there does not seem to be a VERY strong correlation between rank and tuition.

Umm ... IU's tuition did increase by (more than) a couple thousand.

touche. I did not know that. However, I still say that there is not a STRONG correlation between rank and tuition.

ruleser wrote:[strike]EDITED because quoted poster thought better of comment and deleted. Small victory for adulthood.[/strike]

YCrevolution wrote:

D. H2Oman wrote:Ruleser is fat, he told me via PM, also "roll me" what does that mean. Gay innuendo I assume so he is apparently gay as well

Children, please behave.

ruleser wrote:

YCrevolution wrote:

D. H2Oman wrote:Ruleser is fat, he told me via PM, also "roll me" what does that mean. Gay innuendo I assume so he is apparently gay as well

Children, please behave.

YC, this ddddd has been doing this to every post I put for a week now - don't know who the loser is, but would appreciate if you helped him grow up a bit/or just shut him up.

BTW/ not fat, it's called muscle weight. And roll is obviously not a sexual thing, as you are aware... ok, enough with the children stuff, some mod please help him grow up

agentcom wrote:Wow, this thread has been epic.

Still 200 people here. Wow.

... and now it slowly fades into, well whatever the hell is going on between waterman and ruleser.

ruleser wrote:

YCrevolution wrote:

D. H2Oman wrote:Ruleser is fat, he told me via PM, also "roll me" what does that mean. Gay innuendo I assume so he is apparently gay as well

Children, please behave.

[strike]YC, this ddddd has been doing this to every post I put for a week now - don't know who the loser is, but would appreciate if you helped him grow up a bit/or just shut him up.

BTW/ not fat, it's called muscle weight. And roll is obviously not a sexual thing, as you are aware... ok, enough with the children stuff, some mod please help him grow up[/strike]