2013 Rankings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
AllDangle
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:30 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby AllDangle » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:48 pm

Emory and UF anyone?

User avatar
Bronck
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Bronck » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:54 pm

Guys, CCN increased their raw score. Does this mean that more employers will be coming to OCI?????

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Big Shrimpin » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:54 pm

Bronck wrote:Guys, CCN increased their raw score. Does this mean that more employers will be coming to OCI?????



In DROVES.

User avatar
westinghouse60
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:27 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby westinghouse60 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:55 pm

I thought WUSTL was on their way to being in the lower end of the UT/UCLA/Vandy/USC group, guess not yet. Seemed like US News had loved them lately though.

User avatar
Bronck
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Bronck » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:02 pm

Big Shrimpin wrote:
Bronck wrote:Guys, CCN increased their raw score. Does this mean that more employers will be coming to OCI?????



In DROVES.


WATCH OUT! Susman gonna increase their SA class sizes to accommodate this increase.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby rad lulz » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:19 pm

Bronck wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:
Bronck wrote:Guys, CCN increased their raw score. Does this mean that more employers will be coming to OCI?????



In DROVES.


WATCH OUT! Susman gonna increase their SA class sizes to accommodate this increase.

DROVES I TELL YOU

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Big Shrimpin » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:28 pm

Best meme evar, rad.

Linsanity
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Linsanity » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:07 pm

Does anyone have a link to the new rankings? I heard Hofstra went way up.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby JusticeHarlan » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:13 pm

Linsanity wrote:Does anyone have a link to the new rankings? I heard Hofstra went way up.

--LinkRemoved--

phonepro
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby phonepro » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:15 pm

Can someone post Brooklyn's #s.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby rad lulz » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:15 pm

Big Shrimpin wrote:Best meme evar, rad.

Thanks bro. I feel this one has sticking power.

User avatar
Jaeger
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Jaeger » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:19 pm

phonepro wrote:Can someone post Brooklyn's #s.



Why? Glutton for punishment?

User avatar
flyingduck
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby flyingduck » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:31 pm

westinghouse60 wrote:I thought WUSTL was on their way to being in the lower end of the UT/UCLA/Vandy/USC group, guess not yet. Seemed like US News had loved them lately though.


From one of the TLS-ers that currently goes to WUSTL,

"For being the only school in our range to report employment data according to new ABA standards. USNWR doesn't give a shit about vetting that process. We knew we were gonna fall, and I'm glad we did for all the right reasons. Our stats may still be inflated a bit, but we are doing the right thing and moving in the right direction. This has zero impact on the school or our hiring, and once the ABA cracks the whip on everyone else we will be back up to where we belong.

The ABA created new rules and no one followed them. Our school did because our dean is like ABA chair elect of the law school division or something, so we're at 80%. Our peers conveniently missed the memo about the new standards and continue to report 95%+. All of our data is the same or better than 2011, but we dropped 5 spots because we followed new protocol."

MarchMadness
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby MarchMadness » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:38 pm

"Several schools rose more than 10 slots, including two programs that previously tied for 30th - with Hofstra University moving into a five-way tie for 13th"

That's what the preview to the article says, but when I look at the rankings, Hofstra is #89. Can anyone explain?

defiance96
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:46 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby defiance96 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:43 pm

flyingduck wrote:
From one of the TLS-ers that currently goes to WUSTL,

"For being the only school in our range to report employment data according to new ABA standards. USNWR doesn't give a shit about vetting that process....

The ABA created new rules and no one followed them. Our school did because our dean is like ABA chair elect of the law school division or something, so we're at 80%. Our peers conveniently missed the memo about the new standards and continue to report 95%+. All of our data is the same or better than 2011, but we dropped 5 spots because we followed new protocol."


What standard is he talking about? Please explain. Why would a new standard lower employment rates?

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:46 pm

tennisking88 wrote:
chimp wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:
The only thing holding UT back is its underpaid faculty


Holding it back from what?


Easy, guys, it was a joke http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/your-tui ... d-at-work/


You do realize that these salaries are low compared to peer private law schools right? They're low compared to even other public schools (compare with michigan: http://data.michigandaily.com/tmdsal?de ... %3E%3D&fte[value]=250%2C000&fte[min]=&fte[max]=&title=&campus=UM_ANN-ARBOR&Year[0]=2011&fname=&lname= ).

Not that I'm saying I think the current situation is a good one, but it's annoying to see UT bashed for high prof salaries when they don't even compare to what law profs at ivies are getting paid.

User avatar
briviere
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:49 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby briviere » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:49 pm

defiance96 wrote:
flyingduck wrote:
From one of the TLS-ers that currently goes to WUSTL,

"For being the only school in our range to report employment data according to new ABA standards. USNWR doesn't give a shit about vetting that process....

The ABA created new rules and no one followed them. Our school did because our dean is like ABA chair elect of the law school division or something, so we're at 80%. Our peers conveniently missed the memo about the new standards and continue to report 95%+. All of our data is the same or better than 2011, but we dropped 5 spots because we followed new protocol."


What standard is he talking about? Please explain. Why would a new standard lower employment rates?


These are the new standards that everyone ignored:
Under the changes, law schools will be required to report how many graduates are employed in jobs requiring a law degree; how many are in jobs in which a law degree is preferred; how many are in another professional or nonprofessional job; and how many are in jobs whose type is unknown.

Law schools also must disclose how many graduates are working in full-time or part-time jobs, whether those jobs are short-term or long-term and how many of them are funded by the school from which the job-holder graduated.

Schools must report how many graduates are unemployed or pursuing a graduate degree, and how many of the unemployed are looking or not looking for a job. They also must identify the top three states in which their graduates are employed, the number of graduates working in each state and the number of graduates working overseas. These and other proposed changes were recommended in June.


also; http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... op+Stories ;
and, http://www.abanow.org/wordpress/wp-cont ... 072711.pdf

The answer to the second question is, 'because the old employment stats are just BS'.

LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby LawIdiot86 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:02 am

MarchMadness wrote:"Several schools rose more than 10 slots, including two programs that previously tied for 30th - with Hofstra University moving into a five-way tie for 13th"

That's what the preview to the article says, but when I look at the rankings, Hofstra is #89. Can anyone explain?


13th in the part-time program ranking which is a specialty ranking that means absolutely nothing.

User avatar
Dale
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:58 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Dale » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:12 am

Some things never change. The T-14 is back to 14 schools. Stanford outing Harvard for #2 is the outlier headline.

Nothing changed in second part of the T-6 world – CCN.

The next level is no longer MVP. I suppose the new designation for the three-way 7th place tie will be PBV ― based on “P” being in 7th place again and both “B/V” jumping from 9th to 7th.

MDNGC rounds out the rest of the T-14.

Some of the notable swings outside of the T-14: Texas dropping to 16th, Washington jumping 10 points (to #20), Arizona State jumping 14 points (to #26th) are a few of the swings. One question I wonder about, did the the Penn State problem that has been in the news have something to do with Penn State dropping 16 points (to #76)?
Last edited by Dale on Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby romothesavior » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:13 am

The USNWR rankings and this thread represent what I hate most about law schools and law students.

MarchMadness
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby MarchMadness » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:18 am

LawIdiot86 wrote:
MarchMadness wrote:"Several schools rose more than 10 slots, including two programs that previously tied for 30th - with Hofstra University moving into a five-way tie for 13th"

That's what the preview to the article says, but when I look at the rankings, Hofstra is #89. Can anyone explain?


13th in the part-time program ranking which is a specialty ranking that means absolutely nothing.


Thanks I was just curious.

User avatar
topannabanana
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:02 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby topannabanana » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:25 am

flyingduck wrote:
srfngdd6 wrote:Law Firms Rank Schools
1. Harvard
2. Stanford
2. Yale
4. Columbia
4. Mich
6. NYU
6. UVA
8. Cornell
8. Duke
8. NW
8. Chicago
13. Gtown
13. Penn
15. Vandy
15. WUSTL
17. Texas
18. Bu
18. Emory
18. Wash and Lee
18. UCLA
18. UMN
18. ND
18. USC
25. BC
25. UNC
25. Iowa
28. Hastings
28. GW
28. Illinois
28. W & M
32. BYU
32. Fordham
32. IUB
32. Arizona.
32. U Wash
32. WIsconsin
38. OSU
38. Tulane
38. WF
41. SMU
41. Utah
43. AMerican
43. Davis
43. ASU
43. UF
43. ALabama
43. Georgia
43. Oklahoma
50. Baylor
50. Pepperdine
50. COlorado
50. Kansas
50. Kentucky
50. Miami
50. Oregon
50. Richmond
58. GMU
58. Gonzaga
58 Loyola-Chi
58. Marquette
58. PSU
58. Houston
58. Maryland
58. Mississippi
58. Mizzou
67. Catholic
67. Depaul
67. Drake
67. IU-Indy
67. Loyola-LA
67. Temple
67. ST Louis
67. Uconn
67. Denver
67 Louisville
67. USD
67. Nova
67. Dozo
81. Brooklyn
81. Case
81. Creighton
81. FSU
81 Hofstra
81. L&C
81. LSU
81. Loyola-NOLA
81. MSU
81. Samford
81. Cincy
81. Seattle
81. Nebraska
81 Pitt
81. SC
96. Chi-Kent
96. Santa Clara
96. Seton HAll
96. Cuse
96. Vermont
96. WVU


Thanks! I vote we stop talking about the "Best Law Schools Ranking" and talk more about this one. Arizona is at 32, so this list looks more accurate. :wink:

Um, Gonzaga above L&C...?
Image

User avatar
Dale
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:58 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Dale » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:27 am

That data is old news.

MarchMadness
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby MarchMadness » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:27 am

topannabanana wrote:
flyingduck wrote:
srfngdd6 wrote:Law Firms Rank Schools
1. Harvard
2. Stanford
2. Yale
4. Columbia
4. Mich
6. NYU
6. UVA
8. Cornell
8. Duke
8. NW
8. Chicago
13. Gtown
13. Penn
15. Vandy
15. WUSTL
17. Texas
18. Bu
18. Emory
18. Wash and Lee
18. UCLA
18. UMN
18. ND
18. USC
25. BC
25. UNC
25. Iowa
28. Hastings
28. GW
28. Illinois
28. W & M
32. BYU
32. Fordham
32. IUB
32. Arizona.
32. U Wash
32. WIsconsin
38. OSU
38. Tulane
38. WF
41. SMU
41. Utah
43. AMerican
43. Davis
43. ASU
43. UF
43. ALabama
43. Georgia
43. Oklahoma
50. Baylor
50. Pepperdine
50. COlorado
50. Kansas
50. Kentucky
50. Miami
50. Oregon
50. Richmond
58. GMU
58. Gonzaga
58 Loyola-Chi
58. Marquette
58. PSU
58. Houston
58. Maryland
58. Mississippi
58. Mizzou
67. Catholic
67. Depaul
67. Drake
67. IU-Indy
67. Loyola-LA
67. Temple
67. ST Louis
67. Uconn
67. Denver
67 Louisville
67. USD
67. Nova
67. Dozo
81. Brooklyn
81. Case
81. Creighton
81. FSU
81 Hofstra
81. L&C
81. LSU
81. Loyola-NOLA
81. MSU
81. Samford
81. Cincy
81. Seattle
81. Nebraska
81 Pitt
81. SC
96. Chi-Kent
96. Santa Clara
96. Seton HAll
96. Cuse
96. Vermont
96. WVU


Thanks! I vote we stop talking about the "Best Law Schools Ranking" and talk more about this one. Arizona is at 32, so this list looks more accurate. :wink:

Um, Gonzaga above L&C...?
Image


Can someone explain this to me? What is this list? And I know Rutgers isn't that great but how is it not even on this list?

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby beachbum » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:28 am

romothesavior wrote:The USNWR rankings and this thread represent what I hate most about law schools and law students.


But if we don't spend 50 pages discussing otherwise meaningless rankings, how are we going to determine which is better between Drake and Gonzaga? The world needs to know!




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigZuck, BruiseWillis, Leliana, lymenheimer, poptart123 and 7 guests