Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Great Satchmo
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:34 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Great Satchmo » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:50 pm

I hope people are swayed by the rankings so that I can get off the WL.

Maybe that's wrong of me, but I'd love to go to Hastings.

User avatar
aquarium_drinker
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:55 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby aquarium_drinker » Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:20 pm

Not looking forward to all the "poseur" 0L's who are sure to start hanging around King Hall, smoking cigarettes, talking about how they were totes into going to Davis back when it was in the 40's.

And there's actually a lot of truth to OP's super lulzy and original joke - Every aspect of life in Davis does, in fact, revolve around cowshit. Just like everyone who goes to HasTTTings will inevitably get mugged and raped walking out of class.

User avatar
Great Satchmo
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:34 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Great Satchmo » Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:40 pm

aquarium_drinker wrote:Not looking forward to all the "poseur" 0L's who are sure to start hanging around King Hall, smoking cigarettes, talking about how they were totes into going to Davis back when it was in the 40's.

And there's actually a lot of truth to OP's super lulzy and original joke - Every aspect of life in Davis does, in fact, revolve around cowshit. Just like everyone who goes to HasTTTings will inevitably get mugged and raped walking out of class.


You forgot a 'T':

HasTTTTings.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby General Tso » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:22 pm

Not to gloat, but Prof. Leiter has scrutinized Davis along the same lines as myself:
http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... r-not.html
Duke, Northwestern University, University of Iowa, University of Utah, and University of Hawaii are the only law schools in the United States to have reported 100% of their graduates employed nine months after graduating (by then in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depresion)--thus trouncing Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, Cornell, Georgetown, Wash U/St. Louis, and many others.

University of California at Davis reported 97.3% of its graduates employed at graduation, while the University of California at Hastings reported only 69.8% of its graduates employed at graduation.


Arizona State University reported 90.7% of its graduates employed at graduation, while the University of Arizona reported only 77.4%. (ASU also leap-frogged nearly 20 spots in the overall ranking, showing up ahead of U of Arizona. Strangely enough, ASU is part of a university that rewards its leaders for improvements in U.S. News ranking.)


Also interesting is that Leiter notes that any school claiming above 95% employed at graduation is claiming a higher percentage than Yale.

yo!
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:11 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby yo! » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:30 pm

swheat wrote:
KibblesAndVick wrote:The 14 places in the rankings is based on a gap of 4 points (UC-Davis 63, UC-Hastings 59). If you rephrased the questions as "Who really thinks Davis deserves 4 points higher than Hastings" it takes some of the bite out doesn't it?

If my penis is half a centimeter longer than yours it would rank thousands of places higher in the penis length rankings. Which sounds great until you realize you're arguing over who has the bigger dick. Even more so when you realize neither of you has a very impressive penis size...


Brilliant analogy. Only in your example, there are no real world consequences to who has a bigger penis size. It's freaking hard to land a legal job in California right now, and based on some lies and manipulations, my odds might have just dropped a little lower. I wish that employers didn't care about rankings, but unfortunately they do. The legal field is eaten up with concern over prestige. Firms don't even care how talented their employees are; they only want to have a 'prestigious pedigree' to attract prestigious clients. I wish that it wasn't this way, but that's the reality of it. Given the nature of the beast, there needs to be a higher accountability in these rankings. Schools like Hastings should stop being honest and just go ahead and claim 100% employment.


lulz...you are seriously misinformed, my friend :lol:

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby A'nold » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:42 pm

LULZ at the first response to Lieter's quote was a talk about penis size. This site rules.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Borhas » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:44 pm

A'nold wrote:LULZ at the first response to Lieter's quote was a talk about penis size. This site rules.


They happen to be measured in ascending order

sorry yale

User avatar
tommytahoe
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby tommytahoe » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:47 pm

Yeah, I don't know if 14 spaces tells the whole truth... then again, I don't know if it doesn't.
But, I think we can say they're equals only in re: jobs in SF. 14 spaces is a lot of numbers to wipe away with the assertion that they're basically the same, isn't it?

I know, most folks prefer SF to cow-country. But they weren't consulted for UNSWR, and Davis's applications soared by somewhere around 20% this cycle.
I'm on WL at both, so there's no bias here. Davis has been getting an excellent review on faculty for a while now. Perhaps that had something to do with it. Or Hastings' class size??

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby General Tso » Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:14 am

tommytahoe wrote:Yeah, I don't know if 14 spaces tells the whole truth... then again, I don't know if it doesn't.
But, I think we can say they're equals only in re: jobs in SF. 14 spaces is a lot of numbers to wipe away with the assertion that they're basically the same, isn't it?

I know, most folks prefer SF to cow-country. But they weren't consulted for UNSWR, and Davis's applications soared by somewhere around 20% this cycle.
I'm on WL at both, so there's no bias here. Davis has been getting an excellent review on faculty for a while now. Perhaps that had something to do with it. Or Hastings' class size??


Hastings class size and budget problems are also a factor. They accepted an extra 50 students or so in last year's class to make up for the budget shortfall. And they couldnt increase their expenditures so the "expenditures per student" dropped a bit. Also the "students to faculty" ratio went up a bit.

I figured up how each factor is weighted -- 20 of the 100 points are awarded for employment prospects, and 4 out of the total 100 points are awarded based on employment at graduation. By my calculations...if Davis overstated its employed at graduation by 20%, as I expect it has (2008 rankings showed Davis with 78% employment, this year's showed 97%)...then it gained an extra 0.78 points. That's pretty significant when 2 or 3 points can cause differences of 10-15 places in the ranking. In this year's rankings, that would have put Davis at 34 instead of 28 (about where they typically have landed in recent years).

The "Faculty resources" things that include expenditures and faculty to student ratio make up 15 out of the 100 points. 10 of those points are for financial expenditures and student/faculty ratio counts for 2.25 points.

My feeling is that these faculty resources categories are pretty meaningless. Just because a school has more money to spend doesn't necessarily mean it will result in better academic programs or better employment prospects. This kind of illogical thought has plagued K-12 education, and I think at the law school level it only results in skyrocketing tuition.

FWIW Davis is building a new law school, so I bet it's "Expenditures per student" are through the roof.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby PDaddy » Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:13 am

erniesto wrote:Both are overrated. Hastings and Davis would be solid tier 2 schools on the east coast.

Discuss.


No...if Davis and Hastings were on the east coast, they'd be Fordham, BU, BC and/or possibly GWU. In fact, Hastings was once ranked as high as #23 , did you know that?

Rory1987
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Rory1987 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:08 am

PDaddy wrote:
erniesto wrote:Both are overrated. Hastings and Davis would be solid tier 2 schools on the east coast.

Discuss.


No...if Davis and Hastings were on the east coast, they'd be Fordham, BU, BC and/or possibly GWU. In fact, Hastings was once ranked as high as #23 , did you know that?


It actually hit 19 once. It was a legit T25 and even a T20 until they decided not to play USNWR game for a year. They've never recovered.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby PDaddy » Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:57 am

Rory1987 wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
erniesto wrote:Both are overrated. Hastings and Davis would be solid tier 2 schools on the east coast.

Discuss.


No...if Davis and Hastings were on the east coast, they'd be Fordham, BU, BC and/or possibly GWU. In fact, Hastings was once ranked as high as #23 , did you know that?


It actually hit 19 once. It was a legit T25 and even a T20 until they decided not to play USNWR game for a year. They've never recovered.


Even better... :wink: Then there is reason to believe that it might have hit 15 or so if it was on the east coast.

Yes, East Coast Bias (ECB) is alive and well. Private over public, northeastern over southern and western.

fortissimo
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby fortissimo » Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:54 am

Rory1987 wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
erniesto wrote:Both are overrated. Hastings and Davis would be solid tier 2 schools on the east coast.

Discuss.


No...if Davis and Hastings were on the east coast, they'd be Fordham, BU, BC and/or possibly GWU. In fact, Hastings was once ranked as high as #23 , did you know that?


It actually hit 19 once. It was a legit T25 and even a T20 until they decided not to play USNWR game for a year. They've never recovered.


When was that?

Rory1987
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Rory1987 » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:05 am

fortissimo wrote:
Rory1987 wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
erniesto wrote:Both are overrated. Hastings and Davis would be solid tier 2 schools on the east coast.

Discuss.


No...if Davis and Hastings were on the east coast, they'd be Fordham, BU, BC and/or possibly GWU. In fact, Hastings was once ranked as high as #23 , did you know that?


It actually hit 19 once. It was a legit T25 and even a T20 until they decided not to play USNWR game for a year. They've never recovered.


When was that?


1992

stewcaton
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:52 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby stewcaton » Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:39 pm

Even the Justices are discussing UC Hastings!
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_14913472?source=rss

fortissimo
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby fortissimo » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:57 pm

Rory1987 wrote:
fortissimo wrote:
When was that?


1992


Ok, nice. my cousin's husband went to Hastings around that time

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby General Tso » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:02 am

okay guys lets work together on this one. here is Davis' data for the c/o 2008 (same one reported in USWNR 2011 rankings): http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/prospective/ ... stics.html

189 grads, 187 allegedly responded to survey

Category -- # of grads -- % of grads

Private Practice -- 94 -- 53%
Clerkships -- 13 -- 7%
Government -- 17 -- 10%
Military -- 2 -- 1%
Business -- 13 -- 7%
Academic -- 6 -- 3%
Unknown -- 1 -- 1%

53+7+10+7+3+1 = 82% of class reflected in the categorical data
94+13+17+2+13+6+1 = 146 respondents reflected in the categorical data

Where are the other 41 respondents reflected in these data? Keep in mind these are the beyond 9 month figures. I don't see how you can calculate 97% employment at graduation from these data.

Am I missing something here? I have to be, right?

User avatar
ozarkhack
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby ozarkhack » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:20 am

swheat wrote:okay guys lets work together on this one. here is Davis' data for the c/o 2008 (same one reported in USWNR 2011 rankings): http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/prospective/ ... stics.html

189 grads, 187 allegedly responded to survey

Category -- # of grads -- % of grads

Private Practice -- 94 -- 53%
Clerkships -- 13 -- 7%
Government -- 17 -- 10%
Military -- 2 -- 1%
Business -- 13 -- 7%
Academic -- 6 -- 3%
Unknown -- 1 -- 1%

53+7+10+7+3+1 = 82% of class reflected in the categorical data
94+13+17+2+13+6+1 = 146 respondents reflected in the categorical data

Where are the other 41 respondents reflected in these data? Keep in mind these are the beyond 9 month figures. I don't see how you can calculate 97% employment at graduation from these data.

Am I missing something here? I have to be, right?


First: They report that 178 were employed. (another 5 seeking adv. degree, 2 seeking work ... um. the other 2???). And: You forgot the 21 students in PI. (They forgot to bold the line, and it appears that you were working kind of late, so it's easy to overlook.)

But they're still 11 grads short. So ... curious.

Part of the problem may lie in typos? Look at the subcategories under PI. They add up to 22, which is more than 21 noted in the PI category.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Borhas » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:30 am

166 out of 178 supposedly employed individuals fit into either of those categories (edit: forgot PI too)

if you notice, they say that the information is available... but they aren't posting it... I wonder why that is

but yeah I guess 166/187 (or 171 if the grad students don't count as academia) somehow= 0.98
Last edited by Borhas on Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
T14_Scholly
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:46 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby T14_Scholly » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:34 am

Are we really to believe that all these schools are employing 95+% of their graduates? If they're being honest then isn't the conventional wisdom on TLS that the job prospects in this economy are horrible incorrect?

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Borhas » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:36 am

T14_Scholly wrote:Are we really to believe that all these schools are employing 95+% of their graduates? If they're being honest then isn't the conventional wisdom on TLS that the job prospects in this economy are horrible incorrect?


are you seriously implying that prestigious law schools would lie to applicants?

why would they do that? :lol:

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:40 am

Yeah pretty much all of the T1 schools lied about employment at graduation.

It's ridiculous.

I refuse to believe that Hastings, Tulane, and UF were three of the worst schools in the T1 with the % of graduates employed at graduation.

Normally some people would say I'm trolling for Tulane, but I'm honest here.

Let's say all of the other schools are being honest.

Students being employed by the law school or the parent university should not count (unless it's in the university's legal department).

Sadly, I agree with Leiter that the employment statistic should be dropped in its entirety.

User avatar
observationalist
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby observationalist » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:51 am

Borhas wrote:166 out of 178 supposedly employed individuals fit into either of those categories (edit: forgot PI too)

if you notice, they say that the information is available... but they aren't posting it... I wonder why that is

but yeah I guess 166/187 (or 171 if the grad students don't count as academia) somehow= 0.98


If one of you has an acceptance from Davis and you are seriously considering the school, then it is in both yours and the school's best interests for you to ask them to send you the list of employers. Just let them know you're concerned about attending without seeing some more information, and that other schools are releasing full employment lists. You figured since they have that already it would be easy for them to provide it.

I'd be interested in hearing what response they give. It's not worth speculating about what these categories mean until you first ask the schools for something more. Give them the chance to respond first and see what they say... though ozarkhack may be right that these actually are just typos that could be corrected (once someone alerts them to it). There are no sanctions in place for typos, as much as we might all wish schools were more careful in representing their job prospects.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby Borhas » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:53 am

that's a good idea, I'll do that today (but I withdrew from the WL a while ago, I don't know if they'll care)

User avatar
observationalist
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Re: Who really thinks Davis deserves 14 places ahead of Hastings

Postby observationalist » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:08 am

Swheat, just reposting the PM here since I think I hit most of the potential explanations. Anyone care to add may do so; it could help whoever is requesting the information in formulating their request.

Possible reasons for the disparity (other than Typos, which seems legitimate here):

1) People "respond" to the surveys but don't necessarily provide any information. This happens most often with salary (people say they have a job but won't say what their salary is), but it could happen that some graduates just say "look, I've got a job leave me alone" and the school concedes. So they get to count them as a respondent but don't include them in any nice pie slice.

2) Career Services had an inner-office struggle about how to categorize people who are working part-time in nonlaw jobs while they look for real work. For the at-graduation statistic, they might have counted everyone who was able to find some sort of work (e.g. waiting tables, babysitting, teaching the LSAT, etc). But when it came time to putting them in a category, Career Services felt it would be too much of a misrepresentation to count them as employed in Business. That's not to say the Business category doesn't include these people for many law schools, but we can't assume that of Davis until we get a response from them.

3) Graduates may have lied; schools are busy and don't have a real incentive in place to follow up and verify every claim made by every graduate about their employment. This may sound unethical, but the blame here would lie with the individuals who misreported their employment information (not the school).

4) [THIS MAY NOT APPLY TO DAVIS, BUT DOES APPLY TO AT LEAST SOME SCHOOLS.] While part-time work counts as employed for the purposes of the ABA and USNews surveys, schools often don't count people who work parttime in compiling their categories and salary ranges. Not grouping full-time and part-time salaries together makes sense if you assume that the people working part-time may be holding more than one job and therefore earning a higher annual salary than what you get when you just multiply their hourly wage by hours worked. Also, part-time people may see more fluctuation in their salary within the same year, so coming up with an annual salary could end up requiring too much guesswork. The solution for many schools is just to remove the part-time salary anomalies from the total calculation. (One wonders why they couldn't include a separate breakdown of what part-time hourly wages look like, assuming students report that). A similar thing happens with categories: does a person working part-time at a restaurant actually count as employed in Business, when they are actively seeking a job in the Private Practice category? As far as Davis goes, they may not have graduates working part-time, but if they do they would have an incentive under the current reporting standard to remove that information from both the categories.

I would send an email to Career Services asking (politely) for the underlying employment information and some explanation for the differences. If you are thinking about making a $160,000 investment in their degree program, it is entirely reasonable for you to ask them what jobs graduates are getting. We're going to be contacting all ABA-approved law schools in the coming months but we won't begin getting employment lists until after all of you have finished up your cycles and are trudging resolutely through 1L year. G'luck contacting the schools individually and making your decision.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests