Should BYU Law be ranked No. 2? Forum

[Malcolm8X]

Base it on jobs instead of bullshit and we can talk.

+1

[kublaikahn]

.

[kublaikahn]

You're not very good at this.

You are right. I have a hard time dumbing it down enough to fit in a blog.

How about this? If Albert Puhols played for the yankees instead of the cardinals, would he be a better player? Maybe slightly, bc he would hit in front of someone who could go yard. But he's a superstar either way. I know HYS would be a boost over Penn. But the creme always rises to the top. IMHO

[bk1]

You're not very good at this.

You are right. I have a hard time dumbing it down enough to fit in a blog.

How about this? If Albert Puhols played for the yankees instead of the cardinals, would he be a better player? Maybe slightly, bc he would hit in front of someone who could go yard. But he's a superstar either way. Lawyers are the same way, whether the OCI says it or not. I know HYS would be a boost over Penn. But the creme always rises to the top. IMHO

Let me help you by telling you the fact that you think that "T14" is a meaningful distinction in terms of employment prospects shows people that you don't know what you are talking about.

[kublaikahn]

.

[bk1]

Below the T14 and particularly in a normal economy, USNWR does a weak job of measuring employability. The very reason we have a T14 and not a T25 or whatever is because that is the only range where the predictability is significant.

Here is what I was referring too. You believe that the employability is markedly different when you transition from 14 to 15 (not to mention the fact that the T14 isn't rooted in employability). A more apt term for grouping schools along employment lines would be something like either T12 or T18.

Not to mention the fact that you say "in a normal economy," because honestly who gives a shit how things work in a normal economy? I would if I were in one but I'm not so I couldn't give two shits about whether Georgetown would be the best school to go to in a normal economy because I don't live in the "NYC to 190" fairyland.

[kublaikahn]

.

[flcath]

The constant bitching about how USNews doesn't take into account "value" and in fact rewards schools that spend a lot of money is overplayed.

Plenty of schools crank up tuition but then give the literally the exact equivalent amount back to the students as "scholarships."

Why do they do this?
(a) allows them to boost per capita expenditure category of USNews... gaming the USNews rankings
(b) gives schools leeway to offer big rewards to certain student to make sure they hit the necessary 25%/75% marks for LSAT/GPA... gaming the USNews rankings, part 2

+1 Exactly right. The below median GPA/LSAT students subsidize the above median students. But that doesnt mean value is not important. It just means it must be measured net of scholarship money (real cost of attendance).

Schools suck below median kids in at full sticker who end up becoming fodder in the biglaw gambit. Basically, if you are not qualified for a top school with some sort of scholly (a reach so to speak) you are in no different boat than going to a lesser school with money--because at the higher ranked school your relative ranking will be lower. You are the same person with essentially the same training and many studies show you will end up in the same place careerwise.

A 172/3.8 regardless of going to T6 or Vandy ends up in the same place. (Exception for clerkships). And a 168/3.6 from GWU or ASU ends up in the same place. (Exception for regionality). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but basically research proves it true.

And the final caveat, if no decent schools give you a scholarship, you are not meant to be a lawyer. This is their way of telling you, we will train you, but it will be at your own peril.

You are a good d00d. We think alike.

[98234872348]

A 172/3.8 regardless of going to T6 or Vandy ends up in the same place. (Exception for clerkships). And a 168/3.6 from GWU or ASU ends up in the same place. (Exception for regionality). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but basically research proves it true.

What research are you purporting to cite here? No verifiable data exists that indicates that a person with higher numbers at a lower ranked school will end up doing better or worse than he would have done at a different, more highly ranked school. To suggest otherwise is speculative and masturbatory.

Sure, having a high rank at any school (well, maybe not at a third or fourth tier school) is going to provide you with abundant opportunities. However, law school grades are notoriously unpredictable and it is a much safer bet to go to a school where median students still have a great shot at landing a good job rather than going to a school where median students are fighting for an opportunity to work for 8 dollars an hour for a solo attorney.

[Patriot1208]

A 172/3.8 regardless of going to T6 or Vandy ends up in the same place. (Exception for clerkships). And a 168/3.6 from GWU or ASU ends up in the same place. (Exception for regionality). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but basically research proves it true.

What research are you purporting to cite here? No verifiable data exists that indicates that a person with higher numbers at a lower ranked school will end up doing better or worse than he would have done at a different, more highly ranked school. To suggest otherwise is speculative and masturbatory.

Sure, having a high rank at any school (well, maybe not at a third or fourth tier school) is going to provide you with abundant opportunities. However, law school grades are notoriously unpredictable and it is a much safer bet to go to a school where median students still have a great shot at landing a good job rather than going to a school where median students are fighting for an opportunity to work for 8 dollars an hour for a solo attorney.

It's my experience on tls that the only people who make those statements are 0L's. And, every person who is in or has been through law school will tell them they are wrong. But, they put their hands over their ears and chose not to listen because they want to be able to feel better about decisions they've made or their ability to get into a certain tier of law schools.

[OGR3]

A 172/3.8 regardless of going to T6 or Vandy ends up in the same place. (Exception for clerkships). And a 168/3.6 from GWU or ASU ends up in the same place. (Exception for regionality). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but basically research proves it true.

What research are you purporting to cite here? No verifiable data exists that indicates that a person with higher numbers at a lower ranked school will end up doing better or worse than he would have done at a different, more highly ranked school. To suggest otherwise is speculative and masturbatory.

Sure, having a high rank at any school (well, maybe not at a third or fourth tier school) is going to provide you with abundant opportunities. However, law school grades are notoriously unpredictable and it is a much safer bet to go to a school where median students still have a great shot at landing a good job rather than going to a school where median students are fighting for an opportunity to work for 8 dollars an hour for a solo attorney.

It's my experience on tls that the only people who make those statements are 0L's. And, every person who is in or has been through law school will tell them they are wrong. But, they put their hands over their ears and chose not to listen because they want to be able to feel better about decisions they've made or their ability to get into a certain tier of law schools.

Wait, you're saying 0Ls disregard information they don't want to hear and come up with their own rationalizations for making bad decisions?

[Patriot1208]

A 172/3.8 regardless of going to T6 or Vandy ends up in the same place. (Exception for clerkships). And a 168/3.6 from GWU or ASU ends up in the same place. (Exception for regionality). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but basically research proves it true.

What research are you purporting to cite here? No verifiable data exists that indicates that a person with higher numbers at a lower ranked school will end up doing better or worse than he would have done at a different, more highly ranked school. To suggest otherwise is speculative and masturbatory.

Sure, having a high rank at any school (well, maybe not at a third or fourth tier school) is going to provide you with abundant opportunities. However, law school grades are notoriously unpredictable and it is a much safer bet to go to a school where median students still have a great shot at landing a good job rather than going to a school where median students are fighting for an opportunity to work for 8 dollars an hour for a solo attorney.

It's my experience on tls that the only people who make those statements are 0L's. And, every person who is in or has been through law school will tell them they are wrong. But, they put their hands over their ears and chose not to listen because they want to be able to feel better about decisions they've made or their ability to get into a certain tier of law schools.

Wait, you're saying 0Ls disregard information they don't want to hear and come up with their own rationalizations for making bad decisions?

I'm a regular fucking einstein.

[kublaikahn]

.

[Patriot1208]

A 172/3.8 regardless of going to T6 or Vandy ends up in the same place. (Exception for clerkships). And a 168/3.6 from GWU or ASU ends up in the same place. (Exception for regionality). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but basically research proves it true.

What research are you purporting to cite here? No verifiable data exists that indicates that a person with higher numbers at a lower ranked school will end up doing better or worse than he would have done at a different, more highly ranked school. To suggest otherwise is speculative and masturbatory.

Sure, having a high rank at any school (well, maybe not at a third or fourth tier school) is going to provide you with abundant opportunities. However, law school grades are notoriously unpredictable and it is a much safer bet to go to a school where median students still have a great shot at landing a good job rather than going to a school where median students are fighting for an opportunity to work for 8 dollars an hour for a solo attorney.

The citing above is an abstract. You can pull the data if you choose. There is other research that supports this as well. Much of the affirmative action data says the exact same thing both for minorities and the control group eventhough this question answered here is not their primary focus. Using words like masturbatory is neither cute nor intellectual. Citing studies is the opposite of speculative. Calling arguments speculative without any foundation is well, speculative.

About law school grades, they really are not unpredictable. That is another lie perpetrated by the system. Nor is the ability to write on journals etc. Grades may lack precision, but they are accurate within bands. Granted at schools like HYS, all or most all students master the material, but still grades are generally valid rankers of classes and highly correlated to lsat, ugpa, study time, stress levels, etc.

The facts are the facts. Where are your statistics?

You don't understand how burden of proof works do you?

Also, I enjoy the fact that you tell us that you "cite studies" but don't actually cite any studies. And, when pressed for those studies, you tell us to go figure out what you are talking about.

[kublaikahn]

.

[Patriot1208]

What research are you purporting to cite here? No verifiable data exists that indicates that a person with higher numbers at a lower ranked school will end up doing better or worse than he would have done at a different, more highly ranked school. To suggest otherwise is speculative and masturbatory.

Sure, having a high rank at any school (well, maybe not at a third or fourth tier school) is going to provide you with abundant opportunities. However, law school grades are notoriously unpredictable and it is a much safer bet to go to a school where median students still have a great shot at landing a good job rather than going to a school where median students are fighting for an opportunity to work for 8 dollars an hour for a solo attorney.

The citing above is an abstract. You can pull the data if you choose. There is other research that supports this as well. Much of the affirmative action data says the exact same thing both for minorities and the control group eventhough this question answered here is not their primary focus. Using words like masturbatory is neither cute nor intellectual. Citing studies is the opposite of speculative. Calling arguments speculative without any foundation is well, speculative.

About law school grades, they really are not unpredictable. That is another lie perpetrated by the system. Nor is the ability to write on journals etc. Grades may lack precision, but they are accurate within bands. Granted at schools like HYS, all or most all students master the material, but still grades are generally valid rankers of classes and highly correlated to lsat, ugpa, study time, stress levels, etc.

The facts are the facts. Where are your statistics?

You don't understand how burden of proof works do you?

Also, I enjoy the fact that you tell us that you "cite studies" but don't actually cite any studies. And, when pressed for those studies, you tell us to go figure out what you are talking about.

What burden of proof? Am I on trial? I could care less if you believe this information. Better yet, ignore it and make bad decisions. I thnank you for getting out of the path of progress.

Travel up the thread and you will see the research I cited. Better yet, do your own research. Call a couple LS and ask them. I did. And to my surpise, they told me what I am telling you. They know the score.

Here's the research previously cited:

Richard H. Sander
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

Jane Yakowitz
Brooklyn Law School


July 29, 2010

Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 207
5th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper
UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 10-26

Wait, this was your "statistical proof"? Are you joking? A article that says grades are the best indicator of career success? Jesus, if you can't understand the logical differences in that being the case and "everyone will end up at the same place whether they are at vanderbilt or american" then you are stupid.

So, what you are saying is that all the "statistical proof" you talked about in fact doesn't exist? Because, if you make an argument that says it is based on "statistical proof" you have to be able to provide that proof. Basically, you made claims and arguments that are completely false with no statistical backing. Then, you cited an article that doesn't actually back up what you are saying and acted as if that is proof of your argument. This has literally been one of the worst formulated arguments i've seen made in a long time.

[98234872348]

The facts are the facts. Where are your statistics?

What facts are you referencing? A study that says students brought into schools with substantially lower UGPA/LSAT scores than their peers, on average, do worse than their peers at those schools doesn't translate into a rule or even correlation that students with substantially higher LSAT/UGPA scores will do better than their peers. Even if there was a correlation, which there may be, the risk taken by someone in gambling on a correlation between higher numbers and law school success is a horrible justification for going to a school that may lock you out of a substantial number of opportunities.

I don't have "facts" other than I can tell you I know students with full scholarship who ended up at or near median and students who were "median" in terms of their entrance numbers and ended up being at their top of the class.

[98234872348]

Travel up the thread and you will see the research I cited. Better yet, do your own research. Call a couple LS and ask them. I did. And to my surpise, they told me what I am telling you. They know the score.

You realize that many law schools give out scholarships that require students to maintain top 1/3 of their class to significantly more than 1/3 of their students, right? Here's a fact: it's statistically impossible for all of those students to maintain that scholarship.

And law schools are really well know for honesty and integrity in reporting. I mean, who would question NYLS's self-reported claim (LinkRemoved) that their median starting salary for 45% of students reporting salary information is 160,000 dollars?

[girlonfire]

i think there should be one giant law school for the entire country.

boom. no more rankings.

Excuse me while I pick up all the little pieces of my brain scattered across my room... becuz my fucking mind in blown.
best.idea.ever.

[kublaikahn]

.

[Patriot1208]

Travel up the thread and you will see the research I cited. Better yet, do your own research. Call a couple LS and ask them. I did. And to my surpise, they told me what I am telling you. They know the score.

You realize that many law schools give out scholarships that require students to maintain top 1/3 of their class to significantly more than 1/3 of their students, right? Here's a fact: it's statistically impossible for all of those students to maintain that scholarship.

And law schools are really well know for honesty and integrity in reporting. I mean, who would question NYLS's self-reported claim (LinkRemoved) that their median starting salary for 45% of students reporting salary information is 160,000 dollars?

Irrelevant and irrelevant. Are you rapped around the axle about taking a scholly from a lesser program and then getting hosed? That is a whole different issue.

And it is true. Law Schools are money mills for many universities. They run it like a business. I'm sure bait and switch is one of their tactics. Much like credit card companies using teaser rates.

My point on the scholly was this: if a LS has 100 students and 50 pay $40k and 50 pay $20k. The reality is that half the kids are paying $10k of tuition for the other half. LS are looking at revenue in the aggregate and attempting to maximize it. If the elite status is much less important than we think, wouldnt you always try to get into the group that is being subsidized instead of the one being the subsidizer?

So this argument is about whether the elite status actually has value. And I'm being attacked for saying it does not. (truthfully I think it has some value but that value is way overstated and I also hope it changes) I think the facts support my position. Others want to nit pick my agrument. You should decide for yourself. You should notice that the only evidence those who disagree have presented is ad hominem attacks and their own life experience. Yeah, I am stupid. I don't understand logic. Blah blah blah

/thread

You concede, gotcha.

[romothesavior]

A 172/3.8 regardless of going to T6 or Vandy ends up in the same place. (Exception for clerkships). And a 168/3.6 from GWU or ASU ends up in the same place. (Exception for regionality). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but basically research proves it true.

What research are you purporting to cite here? No verifiable data exists that indicates that a person with higher numbers at a lower ranked school will end up doing better or worse than he would have done at a different, more highly ranked school. To suggest otherwise is speculative and masturbatory.

The use of this word in such a serious and insightful post was just epic, and threw me off guard so much that I lol'd in class.

[98234872348]

I think the facts support my position. Others want to nit pick my agrument. You should decide for yourself. You should notice that the only evidence those who disagree have presented is ad hominem attacks and their own life experience. Yeah, I am stupid. I don't understand logic. Blah blah blah

The facts don't support your position at all... Prestige is of extraordinary importance in the legal profession, anyone with any experience at a large firm can tell you that. More prestigious schools place more individuals into prestigious jobs; an argument that claims the placement of a tier 1 and a T10 are comparable is completely untenable. I am just going to assume you're a flame.

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

The citing above is an abstract. You can pull the data if you choose. There is other research that supports this as well. Much of the affirmative action data says the exact same thing both for minorities and the control group eventhough this question answered here is not their primary focus. Using words like masturbatory is neither cute nor intellectual. Citing studies is the opposite of speculative. Calling arguments speculative without any foundation is well, speculative.

About law school grades, they really are not unpredictable. That is another lie perpetrated by the system. Nor is the ability to write on journals etc. Grades may lack precision, but they are accurate within bands. Granted at schools like HYS, all or most all students master the material, but still grades are generally valid rankers of classes and highly correlated to lsat, ugpa, study time, stress levels, etc.

The facts are the facts. Where are your statistics?

You're really not very good at this.

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

So this argument is about whether the elite status actually has value. And I'm being attacked for saying it does not. (truthfully I think it has some value but that value is way overstated and I also hope it changes) I think the facts support my position. Others want to nit pick my agrument. You should decide for yourself. You should notice that the only evidence those who disagree have presented is ad hominem attacks and their own life experience. Yeah, I am stupid. I don't understand logic. Blah blah blah

/thread

Bro, seriously, you really gotta get better at this.