SoftBoiledLife wrote: swheat wrote:
SoftBoiledLife wrote:Step 1: Obtain any credible evidence that UC Davis fradulently reported anything.
Step 2: Claim that UC Davis has fradulently reported data.
You're doing it backwards.
Just because you have an account on an internet forum for law students and your butthurt spidey sense is tingling doesn't mean that the rankings are invalid.
It is accepted as "truth" on TLS that schools misrepresent their employment (especially - salary) statistics. Who has concrete evidence on this? Likewise, when you see a school that is reporting 20% greater employment rates than it did 3 years ago (when the economy was booming), it doesn't take an intelligent person to start questioning the validity of that.
EDIT: Would you make this same challenge to Prof. Leiter? He wrote a blog post yesterday criticizing Duke for claiming 100% employment.
It is also accepted as "truth" on TLS that Rocketman11 has a penis the size of the Washington Monument. Rumors that circulate on internet forums are probably not the ideal bases for a sound argument. That said, if this practice is commonplace, then you fail to suggest why any one school would gain an advantage over any other by taking part therein. Similarly, you offer no evidence that Hastings didn't do the same thing and still come out behind.
My point is, of course we should take the rankings with a grain of salt, but when you get pissed just because another law school did well (especially when your own school did not fall at all) you come across as a douche. Quite frankly, you ought to be concerned that your constant whining in every TLS thread about UC law schools will convince more people of the old trope that Hastings is full of embittered would-be gunners.
So please, on behalf of everyone at your school who has the decency to be chill about USNews rankings (which, I suspect, is most of them) and on behalf of everyone on TLS who is tired of your bitterness: Just chill.
As hard as it may be, try to restrain yourself from attacking me on the basis of the school I attend and any presumptions you have about my demeanor. Ad hominem much? You have never addressed any of my allegations other than to say "I have no evidence." But I have evidence and you have not addressed it.
"Similarly, you offer no evidence that Hastings didn't do the same thing and still come out behind."
How is this for evidence: Hastings in 2007 claimed 71% employment. In 2010 they claim 69% employment. A 2% decline is maybe slightly lower than you would expect, given the nature of the economy, but even if it is a misrepresentation it is clearly not as egregious as a 20% INCREASE.
Now I have seen you, SBL, many times -- too many times to count perhaps -- tell prospective students that the employment prospects for the 2 schools are identical. That they should only choose based on location - whether they want to attend school in a college town or an urban environment. So would you still say this today in light of these new figures?
I don't understand why everybody is calling me names and resorting to personal attacks. Even people I have had good relationships with, like you SBL...you and I have a long history of good relations. I have never made a personal attack on a single person throughout all of this...I have directed all of my anger towards a particular law school. If you can't separate the two and act civilly towards me, it doesn't speak well of your character.