USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
fakemoney
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:07 am

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby fakemoney » Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:52 am

Hey, does anyone know which were the 74 schools that didn't report at-graduation employment data?

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2662
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby androstan » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:45 am

FalafelWaffle wrote:I have a hyperthesis.


Is that where you state your position after a triple shot of espresso and a snort of cocaine?

User avatar
Justathought
Posts: 977
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:16 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby Justathought » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:16 am

fakemoney wrote:Hey, does anyone know which were the 74 schools that didn't report at-graduation employment data?


Plenty of T2s on the list. Only Alabama from the first tier, and that was due to a mistake.


13 T2 schools to be exact.
Last edited by Justathought on Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fred_McGriff
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby Fred_McGriff » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:31 am

rad law wrote:I have a thought. Chill out for 5 days until the rankings come out.



Agreed. Listening to tons of chillwave here, and I suggest you do the same. Getting super chillzy to Com Truise...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOz5dNtAJd0

User avatar
Fred_McGriff
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby Fred_McGriff » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:36 am


fakemoney
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:07 am

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby fakemoney » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:46 am

Plenty of T2s on the list. Only Alabama from the first tier, and that was due to a mistake.

http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/20 ... -large.jpg

13 T2 schools to be exact.



Cool, thanks. These schools might get hit in the next rankings -- unless the deans decide to try to "game" the rankings by actually helping students get jobs.

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby TheTopBloke » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:51 am

bigmonster110 wrote:I believe educated guesses about 2012 rankings can be made based on the recent letter from USNWR. Note the following language: "Specifically, employment after graduation is relevant data that prospective students and other consumers should be entitled to. ... [W]e have changed the way we compute employment rates for the rankings due out March 15." http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/c ... yment-data.

Employment at graduation ("M0"), which currently accounts for 4% of a school's raw score, will likely see an increase in weight. And employment after 9 months ("M9"), currently 14%, will decrease in weight. http://www.usnews.com/education/article ... ethodology.

The magnitude of any changes is impossible to know, but we can make generalizations about what schools might go up or down based on this hypothesis. What schools have a relatively high M0? And what schools have a relatively low M0? http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/20 ... -large.jpg. These schools are likely to increase, or decrease, respectively. What schools would see the biggest change? The top 5 in each category are below, with raw score delta if the M0/M9 distribution is inverted:

Positive Change
Emory +.14
Duke +0
Stanford -.01
NYU -.02
Columbia -.07

Negative change
UNC -1.99
UWM -1.75
Iowa -1.51
UMN -1.27
UIUC & BC -1.14

Let's assume Stanford and Columbia aren't going to move, and remove them. (Stanford would have to leapfrog Harvard, which is unlikely to change by this measure, and Columbia would have to beat one of HYS, which seems unlikely.) Then, the top 5 gainers would be:

Emory +.14
Duke +0
NYU -.02
UCD -.08
UT-Austin -.14

Note: I only did this analysis through Fordham, #34.

The weights might not be altered drastically (or at all--heh), in which case the effect would be minor. USNWR could increase the total employment percentage from its current 18% (4% M0 + 14% M9). While this would make no change by itself, any effect of altering the M0/M9 distribution would be magnified. Ultimately, the relative performance of each school is what counts, and we can test that if we assume some change in the M0/M9 distribution is made, no matter how large it is.

Thoughts?


I'm amazed that you have this much time to waste.

bigmonster111
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby bigmonster111 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:26 pm

OP here. I just got a message that my username was banned because of "proxy use." Not even sure what that means, or what rule I broke. Is this in the wrong forum? Maybe a mod can help me out here. Just registered another one to answer some questions. If I'm doing something untoward please just let me know what it is...

HugitOut wrote:
bigmonster110 wrote:
Cade McNown wrote:3 Year Old Data + 1st ever TLS post = Emory Troll

It's my understanding that 2008 graduation data is the most recent data available to USNWR, and is what is reflected in the 2010 rankings. If I'm mistaken, please point me to the updated data and I'll use that instead. And for what it's worth, not an Emory troll at all. I actually go to one of the schools in the middle of the pack, with little expected change.


Did you not just say in your previous post you are at one of those schools that you outlined should be moving?

Sorry, what I meant was that I attend one of the schools for which I ran this analysis. So, #1-#34. Not one of the 10+ that happened to turn out at the top or bottom of the analysis.

Justathought wrote:There has been some hate, but there isn't much good stuff here in my opinion. I think the OP is ignoring the fundamental flaw in the way USNWR deals with employment data.

So I'll bump my own post and ask for the OP's thoughts on this statement.

I too think patience is required. However, I'll bite and say if this is in fact the methodology they chose to use, it would be just as useless. Who cares what the numbers are at graduation or at 9 months after graduation? Both of these numbers are supplied by the schools and often leave a vast amount of graduates in statistical limbo. For example, Emory, with its lofty 95% employment statistic 9 months after graduation, only reports salary for approximately 64% of its graduates. This is where the problem lies, and its why schools like Hofstra have a median salary of $160,000.

We have no idea what the people who do not report are making. Doc review can count as employed in private practice, right? I'm hoping USNWR went another route, because they did say they agree with the efforts of lawschooltransparency. Punish schools that only manage to report meager amounts of detailed salary data, reward those who audit thoroughly.
There are plenty of normative arguments about why the ranking system the USNWR uses is flawed, perhaps fundamentally. I'm not endorsing USNWR's methodology, I'm just attempting to make a positive observation about how a possible change in methodology would affect the next set of rankings. Some of your points are quite valid, as are those that others have mentioned, but they don't really apply here.

TheTopBloke wrote:I'm amazed that you have this much time to waste.
To be fair, it only took about 30 minutes. I'm sure most people spend much more than 30 minutes per day doing wasteful things, and I rather enjoyed doing it.

User avatar
enron123
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:45 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby enron123 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:23 pm

Anyone have a strong feeling about GW's movement one way or another? Weirdly volatile for T30

User avatar
kwais
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby kwais » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:01 pm

dr123 wrote:why do people give so much of fuck about this nonsense


I think the better question is, why do people get so angry about someone spending an hour or so crunching some numbers. For all of you who get you panties in a wad about it, are you saying you haven't watched an hour of tv this week, or read TLS for an hour this week, because those are not more productive. This is site called Top Law Schools, so people discussing which schools will retain/lose/gain spots is not a big deal. Is it OP that really needs to chill? I don't think so.

User avatar
FalafelWaffle
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:07 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby FalafelWaffle » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:10 pm

enron123 wrote:Anyone have a strong feeling about GW's movement one way or another? Weirdly volatile for T30


What data are you referring to?

User avatar
tttlllsss
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby tttlllsss » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:06 am

FalafelWaffle wrote:
enron123 wrote:Anyone have a strong feeling about GW's movement one way or another? Weirdly volatile for T30


What data are you referring to?


GWU

2009: 20
2010: 28
2011: 20

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby keg411 » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:37 am

Justathought wrote:
fakemoney wrote:Hey, does anyone know which were the 74 schools that didn't report at-graduation employment data?


Plenty of T2s on the list. Only Alabama from the first tier, and that was due to a mistake.


13 T2 schools to be exact.


Any chance you can re-post the link?

User avatar
FalafelWaffle
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:07 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby FalafelWaffle » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:42 am

tttlllsss wrote:
FalafelWaffle wrote:
enron123 wrote:Anyone have a strong feeling about GW's movement one way or another? Weirdly volatile for T30


What data are you referring to?


GWU

2009: 20
2010: 28
2011: 20


How is that volatile at all? The year GW was 28 was the anomaly.

User avatar
MattThiessen
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby MattThiessen » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:51 am

ResolutePear wrote:--ImageRemoved--

Wow, Pear, I want to thank you for sharing that... I showed it to my wife and she is still laughing.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:07 pm

MattThiessen wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:--ImageRemoved--

Wow, Pear, I want to thank you for sharing that... I showed it to my wife and she is still laughing.


:lol:

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby JamMasterJ » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:10 am

FalafelWaffle wrote:
tttlllsss wrote:
FalafelWaffle wrote:
enron123 wrote:Anyone have a strong feeling about GW's movement one way or another? Weirdly volatile for T30


What data are you referring to?


GWU

2009: 20
2010: 28
2011: 20


How is that volatile at all? The year GW was 28 was the anomaly.

It was also almost entirely due to the fact that USNWR started using PT and FT LSAT/GPA's in calculating medians

spets
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:44 pm

Re: USNWR 2012 Hypothesis

Postby spets » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:44 am

:|




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests