What happened to fordham?! Forum

[OperaSoprano]

I am not sure who you think you are, but rest assured I am not one to let go of this.

Systematically trolling for Fordham is one thing, but banning members who take different views in a polite way (and I would like to invite all the mods to look at my posts in the said thread) is utterly unacceptable.

I have banned very few people during my tenure, but you can rest assured that none of them were polite.

[OneKnight]

That makes sense, but how did Gtown maintain its T14 status when it has 450 full-time students and 132 part-time students in each class (22% of each class) versus Fordham's 320/160 (33% of each class)? Shouldn't it have experienced a proportional drop in its score? GULC's PT admissions %iles are also much lower than FT...
I'm not GULC trolling, I seriously just don't get it.

Wondering the same thing. The GULC FT and PT standards are famously disparate.

And you may doubt the impact of a 4-rank drop to Fordham, but no one here would miss the significance of a 1-rank drop for GULC.

Agreed, but that's just it. The T14 is an institution. It would definitely get someone fired if GULC fell to 15. On the other hand, it gets kind of murky in the 25-40 range, especially now that only one point separates 28 and 34

[yogoingtolawschool]

I am not sure who you think you are, but rest assured I am not one to let go of this.

Systematically trolling for Fordham is one thing, but banning members who take different views in a polite way (and I would like to invite all the mods to look at my posts in the said thread) is utterly unacceptable.

I have banned very few people during my tenure, but you can rest assured that none of them were polite.

She now banned my IP (luckily, I have 12 available networks). I really cannot believe this is happening. This is the most severe abuse of discretion I have ever seen on this board. Ken, I urge you to read this thread, the threads where she is alleging inappropriate conduct on my part, and please get back to me. My email address (for purposes of this matter) is naffin.butthetruth@gmail.com

[OperaSoprano]

To your second, we've observed that including PT numbers hasn't stopped some schools from rising. It's still only one factor, but at schools that have very large PT classes relative to their FT classes (Fordham has 160 PT and 320 FT students), a drop in the rankings is more likely, unless the school can raise their PT numbers, or make up for the disparity by raising peer ranking scores. In other words, it isn't impossible for a school with a PT program to rise, as Loyola did. It might indicate that the FT/PT numbers disparity is a lot smaller, or that the school improved measurably in some other category, or even that it gamed the rankings blatantly, the way BLS did last year.

That makes sense, but how did Gtown maintain its T14 status when it has 450 full-time students and 132 part-time students in each class (22% of each class) versus Fordham's 320/160 (33% of each class)? Shouldn't it have experienced a proportional drop in its score? GULC's PT admissions %iles are also much lower than FT...
I'm not GULC trolling, I seriously just don't get it.

That said, I don't think a -4 drop in the rankings means anything. Fordham is, and always will be, number 3 in the Big Apple (and with a fantastic location, mind you).

EDIT: Also, we New Yorkers (and all East Coasters) should probably go to sleep soon ^-^

I'm not sure I have the answer to your riddle either, other than GULC had to have done something to offset 22% of its class having lower numbers. It does seem that GULC FT requires higher numbers for admission than Cornell does, or at the very least, GULC goes after splitters more aggressively. GULC did something right to offset the lower numbers-- someone should compare peer ranking scores for this year, last year, and the year before.

I highly doubt that the drop will effect our placement or career prospects, and this is the metric that actually matters.

And +1 to the going to sleep. Outlining will have to wait for tomorrow.

[flcath]

Stupid question evincing my lack of knowledge of PT programs: against whom are you ranked? If only other PTers, do you think the same work would produce a meaningful difference in rank?

I'm not actually sure of the answer to this. Some people have suggested that it is easier to do well (relatively speaking) if you attend part time and don't work. This makes sense if you consider the extra time to study, but PT students only take one class under a full course load each semester. It's still extremely time consuming, to the point that I advice people not to work full time unless they absolutely must.

This was my main curiosity. It would seem like (and obviously this would cost a fortune at all of the relevant LSs: GULC, GW, and Fordham) if you enrolled PT and didn't work at all, you'd get to compete (and be ranked) against a crowd that's both 1. slightly weaker on the front end, and 2. burdened with having to work a real job.

I am not sure who you think you are, but rest assured I am not one to let go of this.

Systematically trolling for Fordham is one thing, but banning members who take different views in a polite way (and I would like to invite all the mods to look at my posts in the said thread) is utterly unacceptable.

Are you a real person? I'm starting to think you're an OS sock puppet set up to derail this thread.

[General Tso]

It also seems that Loyola and USD's PT programs did not hurt them this year. It could just be that some schools have increased their selectivity for PT.

[Lieut Kaffee]

This is one of the most entertaining meltdowns I have seen.

Oh, and nothing "happened" to Fordham. It maintained its USNWR score of 62/100.

[OperaSoprano]

Stupid question evincing my lack of knowledge of PT programs: against whom are you ranked? If only other PTers, do you think the same work would produce a meaningful difference in rank?

I'm not actually sure of the answer to this. Some people have suggested that it is easier to do well (relatively speaking) if you attend part time and don't work. This makes sense if you consider the extra time to study, but PT students only take one class under a full course load each semester. It's still extremely time consuming, to the point that I advice people not to work full time unless they absolutely must.

This was my main curiosity. It would seem like (and obviously this would cost a fortune at all of the relevant LSs: GULC, GW, and Fordham) if you enrolled PT and didn't work at all, you'd get to compete (and be ranked) against a crowd that's both 1. slightly weaker on the front end, and 2. burdened with having to work a real job.

I am not sure who you think you are, but rest assured I am not one to let go of this.

Systematically trolling for Fordham is one thing, but banning members who take different views in a polite way (and I would like to invite all the mods to look at my posts in the said thread) is utterly unacceptable.

Are you a real person? I'm starting to think you're an OS sock puppet set up to derail this thread.

The issue is that a decent percentage of people are not able to handle both, and they quit their jobs (or at least cut back their hours) if they can. However, not everyone is at liberty to do this. I think it is kind of unfair to people who have to work full time. A part time job or internship, which is what I have, is ideal.

As for the troll, he'll either get tired of this or run through all his IP addresses. If he had a legitimate grievance, I imagine he would take it to Ken instead of posting it here, when Ken is almost certainly asleep.

Also, Kaffee: this is true. Fordham hasn't changed.

[flcath]

It also seems that Loyola and USD's PT programs did not hurt them this year. It could just be that some schools have increased their selectivity for PT.

The lower down a school is in the rankings (well, in selectivity anyway), the easier it is for them to keep the PT standards up with the FT standards. Mostly just 'cause the availability of applicants increases exponentially as you go down in LSAT.

This is one of the most entertaining meltdowns I have seen.

Oh, and nothing "happened" to Fordham. It maintained it's USNWR score of 62/100.

Do you mean the Fordham discussion or the other thing?

I don't have access to the raw scores (the Flickr pages are down, right?), so I hadn't noticed that. I mean... doesn't that pretty much refute any PT-based theory?

[OperaSoprano]

It also seems that Loyola and USD's PT programs did not hurt them this year. It could just be that some schools have increased their selectivity for PT.

The lower down a school is in the rankings (well, in selectivity anyway), the easier it is for them to keep the PT standards up with the FT standards. Mostly just 'cause the availability of applicants increases exponentially as you go down in LSAT.

This is one of the most entertaining meltdowns I have seen.

Oh, and nothing "happened" to Fordham. It maintained it's USNWR score of 62/100.

Do you mean the Fordham discussion or the other thing?

I don't have access to the raw scores (the Flickr pages are down, right?), so I hadn't noticed that. I mean... doesn't that pretty much refute any PT-based theory?

The fall based on PT numbers was last year, from #27 to #30. Fordham didn't change anything this year, which would explain the repeated 62. It appears that other schools ranked in the 30s increased their own scores.

Re: Loyola and USD: true. It could also be the case that the peer rankings or other metrics rose enough to more than compensate for any difference; someone should check this.

[Lieut Kaffee]

This is one of the most entertaining meltdowns I have seen.

Oh, and nothing "happened" to Fordham. It maintained it's USNWR score of 62/100.

Do you mean the Fordham discussion or the other thing?

I don't have access to the raw scores (the Flickr pages are down, right?), so I hadn't noticed that. I mean... doesn't that pretty much refute any PT-based theory?

I meant the whiny guy trying to bait OS. I have the image of page 1 saved, and I went onto the USN site to glance at last year's rankings. 62 both times.

hth

[Tomato Stevens]

Sweet Jesus Soprano is out of her mind.

[OperaSoprano]

Sweet Jesus Soprano is out of her mind.

No, just doing my job, which is technically a volunteer position. People with legitimate complaints about being banned generally send us emails, and if there is a problem, that does the trick. I don't have unlimited power, and if I ever banned someone unjustly, it would be a waste of my time, because that person could be reinstated by another mod. Posting such sentiments in order to derail threads is generally ineffective.

[YCrevolution]

..

[OperaSoprano]

Just so that all of the alts of goingtolawschool don't feel neglected (goingtolawschool, [removed alts]... and there's plenty more):

Even before the Fordham comments, goingtolawschool's posts often exhibited trolling behavior and a disregard for a basic modicum of civility. The fact that goingtolawschool maintained an impressive menagerie of alts also weighed heavily against his/her continued ability to post on TLS.

<3 my dear YCR. I am seriously impressed with your detective work. You make UVA shine more than it already does.

[YCrevolution]

..

[nymets123]

Also, for the record, there is a rumor afoot that Fordham will now have no choice but to cut the PT class, and people say it may begin with this entering class.

Someone posted a supposed conversation with the dean or some other higher up talking about how the overwhelming rate at which FTs are accepting their offers has definately forced them to cut the PT class size. Take that statement as you will but whether its rankings related or not, heresay would point to that PT class size def. shrinking. (Then again it is just heresay)

[romothesavior]

I tremble in fear at the power of the mods.

[OperaSoprano]

Also, for the record, there is a rumor afoot that Fordham will now have no choice but to cut the PT class, and people say it may begin with this entering class.

Someone posted a supposed conversation with the dean or some higher up talking about how the overwhelming rate at which FTs are accepting their offers has definately forced them to cut the PT class size. Take that statement as you will but whether its rankings related or not, heresay would point to that PT class size def. shrinking. (Then again it is just heresay)

I was updated and apprised. I expect that it will shrink, and I absolutely blame USNews for this. I have no reason to believe Fordham would have done it otherwise, as my class was hardly under-enrolled.

[Informative]

I don't think the drop is all that important either. GW fell 9 spots last year and is still going strong in placement stats, BC dropped 6 spots and is still going strong in placement stats, etc. Due to a lot of factors, one of them being location in major markets, these three schools will always be some of the best non-T14 schools to attend. I would venture to say that if you don't get into a T14 but want Biglaw, you should look at BC, GW, Fordham, USC/UCLA and probably Vandy (for Atlanta which does have a few vault100 offices).

[ArthurEdens]

I don't think the drop is all that important either. GW fell 9 spots last year and is still going strong in placement stats, BC dropped 6 spots and is still going strong in placement stats, etc. Due to a lot of factors, one of them being location in major markets, these three schools will always be some of the best non-T14 schools to attend. I would venture to say that if you don't get into a T14 but want Biglaw, you should look at BC, GW, Fordham, USC/UCLA and probably Vandy (for Atlanta which does have a few vault100 offices).

If Atlanta is included, then Emory makes the cut.

[Blindmelon]

I don't think the drop is all that important either. GW fell 9 spots last year and is still going strong in placement stats, BC dropped 6 spots and is still going strong in placement stats, etc. Due to a lot of factors, one of them being location in major markets, these three schools will always be some of the best non-T14 schools to attend. I would venture to say that if you don't get into a T14 but want Biglaw, you should look at BC, GW, Fordham, USC/UCLA and probably Vandy (for Atlanta which does have a few vault100 offices).

BC actually dropped to 28 from 26. As for Fordham/BC etc, other schools are just becoming more competitive at a faster rate - raising their LSAT median without having to take weak splitters.

I'm biased, but I think BC will have a tough time climbing back up given that BU/BCs assessment scores are the same, yet BU is harder to get into. Given BC used to have a slight edge assessment-wise, I wonder if this is going to hurt BC given that invariably the rankings will sway at least a few people to BU over BC. Long story short, you should include BU on that list.

/ Total tangent

[itsfine]

i must admit, i am pretty disappointed with fordham's new ranking. i feel like its extremely under-ranked at its current 34 rank. is it b/c of part-time? how did it get pushed back so far?

Here are my observations, as shared in another thread:

GW dropped eight spots last year, when PT numbers were first included. This year, GW cut the PT class to around 50 people and added more FT seats. Fordham did not allow USNews to shape its policies regarding PT class size. Since evening classes are crucial to working adults, people with families, and people who want/need more scheduling flexibility, I believe Fordham did the right thing by not shrinking its part time class to game the rankings. My PT class is the same size as the one that came before it. There are rumors afoot that Fordham may be forced to change this policy, because people care a lot about the rankings, and deans have been fired if schools slip. I think the evening program is one of Fordham's singular strengths, and I very much hope this doesn't happen because people are obsessed with a news magazine.

Yeah, but they had the same part time program when they were ranked higher, while USNWR looked into part time programs and counted them. They did nothing different, and are now ranked lower. So isn't it a bit foolish to say that their decrease is a result of part time program?? Maybe if this happened a year ago like it did to GW because the policy was different at USNWR, but it hasn't changed this year, and Fordham dropped, so it seems pretty reasonable to assume that the drop was not because of their part time program.

[Informative]

I don't think the drop is all that important either. GW fell 9 spots last year and is still going strong in placement stats, BC dropped 6 spots and is still going strong in placement stats, etc. Due to a lot of factors, one of them being location in major markets, these three schools will always be some of the best non-T14 schools to attend. I would venture to say that if you don't get into a T14 but want Biglaw, you should look at BC, GW, Fordham, USC/UCLA and probably Vandy (for Atlanta which does have a few vault100 offices).

BC actually dropped to 28 from 26. As for Fordham/BC etc, other schools are just becoming more competitive at a faster rate - raising their LSAT median without having to take weak splitters.

I'm biased, but I think BC will have a tough time climbing back up given that BU/BCs assessment scores are the same, yet BU is harder to get into. Given BC used to have a slight edge assessment-wise, I wonder if this is going to hurt BC given that invariably the rankings will sway at least a few people to BU over BC. Long story short, you should include BU on that list.

/ Total tangent

You're on a roll today posting that BU is better than BC. I know you go to BU, but that doesn't necessarily make it place better in BigLaw than BC. But you're right, it should probably be included on the list.

[Blindmelon]

Informative, your trolling is getting funny. You should actually look at the placement numbers BC = BU for biglaw and most other things. To argue one places better than the other is silly. I was talking about US News ranking, which from this Fordham thread especially, we know is devoid from reality.

I never said one school placed better than the other. Good try though.