2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings - Every School

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Boba Fett
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Boba Fett » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:14 pm

These rankings are useful, but the title isn't catchy enough. I recommend you entitle it the Helmholtz-Morse Law School Evaluative Index.

User avatar
tomhobbes
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:20 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby tomhobbes » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:17 pm

I suggest you consider calling it the Helmholtz Ordinal Ranking Evaluation.

User avatar
anniesaysrelax
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:04 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby anniesaysrelax » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:19 pm

These are great, thanks Helmholtz!

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:25 pm

Ugh, Cornell is better than Northwestern?

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:27 pm

As for methodology, I think using three years is great. But I also think the peer assessment scores are one of the more shaky aspects of the USNWR formula, and they are weighted most heavily here.

User avatar
Panther7
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Panther7 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:17 am

LieutKaffee wrote:As for methodology, I think using three years is great. But I also think the peer assessment scores are one of the more shaky aspects of the USNWR formula, and they are weighted most heavily here.


I think they are one of the best. We're rating schools based on which will teach you best and give you best job prospects. Employment data + peer reviews are some of the best ways to do that. Obviously how smart and selective the students are is another major factor.

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:22 am

Panther7 wrote:
LieutKaffee wrote:As for methodology, I think using three years is great. But I also think the peer assessment scores are one of the more shaky aspects of the USNWR formula, and they are weighted most heavily here.


I think they are one of the best. We're rating schools based on which will teach you best and give you best job prospects. Employment data + peer reviews are some of the best ways to do that. Obviously how smart and selective the students are is another major factor.


Agree on employment, and unfortunately it's somewhat difficult to figure out the best way to incorporate that into rankings (as previous discussed). Peer scores are good in theory, but the questionnaire they use is flat-out stupid.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:43 am

This ranking result & the rating method is very similiar to USNews' method & results. In my opinion, if you want to work for a top law firm with great pay right out of law school, then Columbia & Northwestern rank at or near the top. For one seeking an academic career or a federal judicial clerkship, then Yale, Stanford, Harvard & Chicago should be the top rated. If seeking a state judicial clerkship, then schools such as Washington & Lee and North Dakota should be highly ranked. If you want to work in Alabama, then the number one law school is clearly the University of Alabama.
The difficulty in rating & ranking law schools is that both USNews & Helmholtz try to use one system for all purposes. Too much of both rating & ranking systems are based on opinion. The only hard data we really have to work with are LSAT scores of matriculated students & employment data such as that revealed in the National Law Journal annual placement survey results. Add in federal judicial clerkships and you have the beginnings of a reasonably verifiable rating & ranking system.

Slimpee
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Slimpee » Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:45 am

Nice work, Helm!

Go Hawkeyes (or Gophers)!

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am

After rereading the original post, I noticed that Helmholtz deleted a lot of hard data in favor of opinion. Hard data is verifiable, opinion data is not. Also I noticed a lack of purpose for this new rating & ranking system which makes it almost useless for any purpose other than "cocktail chatter". Contrast this with the National Law Journal's annual placement survey to the largest 250 law firms in the country; a clear purpose with verifiable results. Same for federal judicial clerkship placements. Same with LSAT scores of matriculated students, assuming honest & accurate self reporting.

doomed123
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:05 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby doomed123 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:52 am

CanadianWolf wrote:After rereading the original post, I noticed that Helmholtz deleted a lot of hard data in favor of opinion. Hard data is verifiable, opinion data is not. Also I noticed a lack of purpose for this new rating & ranking system which makes it almost useless for any purpose other than "cocktail chatter". Contrast this with the National Law Journal's annual placement survey to the largest 250 law firms in the country; a clear purpose with verifiable results. Same for federal judicial clerkship placements. Same with LSAT scores of matriculated students, assuming honest & accurate self reporting.


Reputation is important in the legal field, and the peer assessment + lawyer/judge scores, while not perfect, give us a decent way of measuring that. The fact that they remain so consistent over the years shows that they're not completely arbitrary or haphazard. I do think they're more useful toward the higher end of the rankings though, as peers and practitioners are less likely to really be familiar with schools as you go down the rankings.

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:55 am

doomed123 wrote:
CanadianWolf wrote:After rereading the original post, I noticed that Helmholtz deleted a lot of hard data in favor of opinion. Hard data is verifiable, opinion data is not. Also I noticed a lack of purpose for this new rating & ranking system which makes it almost useless for any purpose other than "cocktail chatter". Contrast this with the National Law Journal's annual placement survey to the largest 250 law firms in the country; a clear purpose with verifiable results. Same for federal judicial clerkship placements. Same with LSAT scores of matriculated students, assuming honest & accurate self reporting.


Reputation is important in the legal field, and the peer assessment + lawyer/judge scores, while not perfect, give us a decent way of measuring that. The fact that they remain so consistent over the years shows that they're not completely arbitrary or haphazard. I do think they're more useful toward the higher end of the rankings though, as peers and practitioners are less likely to really be familiar with schools as you go down the rankings.


Disagree somewhat. The reason it stays consistent is because the respondents have no real basis of knowledge to change their opinions. I doubt they spend a significant amount of their careers researching what the other top 15-20 schools are doing to improve the quality of their programs. Say I'm a Yale professor. Can I really speak intelligently as to whether Michigan, Penn, Virginia, or Duke does a better job of teaching the law?

It seems to me the reputation scores are informed by little other than... the reputation scores.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:58 am

@doomed123:
I don't agree with your conclusion with respect to the rankings' validity due to their consistency. This is a common problem encountered & often discussed regarding the USNews Best Colleges rating & ranking method which utilizes peer assessment scores. Many asked to rate national universities undergraduate quality are suspected of rating the graduate programs instead.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:04 am

The main difficulties of Helmholtz' proposed method of rating & ranking law schools remains the lack of a clearly stated purpose for the rankings & the use of opinion input.
Once a clearly stated reason or objective has been established, then collecting verifiable hard data is the next task. Assigning weight to each category of collected data is probably the next most important factor in creating a reasonable & reliable rating & ranking system.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby 09042014 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:08 am

Is there any way to get clerkship data for T1 schools.

I propose a Desert Fox ranking.

1/4 NLJ250
1/8 clerkship data
1/16 academic placement
1/16 % in PI
1/4 GPA
1/4 LSAT

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:10 am

Desert Fox wrote:Is there any way to get clerkship data for T1 schools.

I propose a Desert Fox ranking.

1/4 NLJ250
1/8 clerkship data
1/16 academic placement
1/16 % in PI
1/4 GPA
1/4 LSAT


I think I might like that better. Medians or 75ths or the 25/75 mean?

doomed123
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:05 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby doomed123 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:10 am

LieutKaffee wrote:
doomed123 wrote:
CanadianWolf wrote:After rereading the original post, I noticed that Helmholtz deleted a lot of hard data in favor of opinion. Hard data is verifiable, opinion data is not. Also I noticed a lack of purpose for this new rating & ranking system which makes it almost useless for any purpose other than "cocktail chatter". Contrast this with the National Law Journal's annual placement survey to the largest 250 law firms in the country; a clear purpose with verifiable results. Same for federal judicial clerkship placements. Same with LSAT scores of matriculated students, assuming honest & accurate self reporting.


Reputation is important in the legal field, and the peer assessment + lawyer/judge scores, while not perfect, give us a decent way of measuring that. The fact that they remain so consistent over the years shows that they're not completely arbitrary or haphazard. I do think they're more useful toward the higher end of the rankings though, as peers and practitioners are less likely to really be familiar with schools as you go down the rankings.


Disagree somewhat. The reason it stays consistent is because the respondents have no real basis of knowledge to change their opinions. I doubt they spend a significant amount of their careers researching what the other top 15-20 schools are doing to improve the quality of their programs. Say I'm a Yale professor. Can I really speak intelligently as to whether Michigan, Penn, Virginia, or Duke does a better job of teaching the law?

It seems to me the reputation scores are informed by little other than... the reputation scores.


They may not be able to judge teaching quality, but they should be familiar with the scholarship of the faculty at top schools (of course, the Leiter rankings are another way of measuring this). And while it's true that the reputation scores largely feed off of themselves, isn't that simply the nature of reputation?

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:11 am

@Desert Fox:
Yes, law schools will provide information on federal law clerk placement.
Desert Fox's proposed methodology is as good as any that I can think of without having a specific purpose in mind.

User avatar
smov_operator
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:45 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby smov_operator » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:13 am

Desert Fox wrote:Is there any way to get clerkship data for T1 schools.

I propose a Desert Fox ranking.

1/4 NLJ250
1/8 clerkship data
1/16 academic placement
1/16 % in PI
1/4 GPA
1/4 LSAT


Interesting, though I imagine that most folks could never agree on how much such measures should be weighted. For example, I think NLJ250 and clerkships are more important than GPA.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:15 am

Weighting probably relates to the objective of the rating & ranking system. For example, if the purpose is to determine the top law schools for getting a lucrative position immediately upon graduation from law school, then the NLJ survey cuts right to the heart of the matter. But for determining which law schools have the most difficult admissions, then LSAT scores, GPAs, number of applications & yield may all come into play while endowment figures, student:teacher ratio & placement info. is not relevant.
Last edited by CanadianWolf on Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
smov_operator
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:45 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby smov_operator » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:17 am

CanadianWolf wrote:Weighting probably relates to the objective of the rating & ranking system.


Definitely can't argue with that. What would be the objective of the Desert Fox Ranking?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby 09042014 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:22 am

smov_operator wrote:
CanadianWolf wrote:Weighting probably relates to the objective of the rating & ranking system.


Definitely can't argue with that. What would be the objective of the Desert Fox Ranking?


Bragging rights.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:23 am

Presumably to determine a hierarchy of law schools based on the listed factors. In other words, a basic ranking of law schools that does not rely on any opinion input. In short, let the facts speak for themselves--although the weighting of the factual data determines how loudly each category of data speaks. But, once a rating system reveals its components & its weighting of the components, it can be utilized for other purposes by reweighting or deleting certain categories.
Last edited by CanadianWolf on Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:24 am

CanadianWolf wrote:Presumably to determine a hierarchy of law schools based on the listed factors. In other words, a basic ranking of law schools that does not rely on any opinion input. In short, let the facts speak for themselves--although the weighting of the factual data determines how loudly each category of data speaks.


Or simply, an "objective ranking."

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:27 am

I suspect that you may be a law review editor in the making. Just beware, however, that the English legal system was based upon charging for each word.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: echonov, smile0751 and 4 guests