Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:48 pm
Emory and UF anyone?
Top Law Schools
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
2013 Rankings Forum
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178748
Page 45 of 52
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:54 pm
Guys, CCN increased their raw score. Does this mean that more employers will be coming to OCI?????
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: 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.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: 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.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:02 pm
WATCH OUT! Susman gonna increase their SA class sizes to accommodate this increase.Big Shrimpin wrote:Bronck wrote:Guys, CCN increased their raw score. Does this mean that more employers will be coming to OCI?????
In DROVES.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:19 pm
DROVES I TELL YOUBronck wrote:WATCH OUT! Susman gonna increase their SA class sizes to accommodate this increase.Big Shrimpin wrote:Bronck wrote:Guys, CCN increased their raw score. Does this mean that more employers will be coming to OCI?????
In DROVES.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:28 pm
Best meme evar, rad.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:07 pm
Does anyone have a link to the new rankings? I heard Hofstra went way up.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:13 pm
--LinkRemoved--Linsanity wrote:Does anyone have a link to the new rankings? I heard Hofstra went way up.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:15 pm
Can someone post Brooklyn's #s.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:15 pm
Thanks bro. I feel this one has sticking power.Big Shrimpin wrote:Best meme evar, rad.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:19 pm
phonepro wrote:Can someone post Brooklyn's #s.
Why? Glutton for punishment?
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:31 pm
From one of the TLS-ers that currently goes to WUSTL,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.
"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."
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: 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?
That's what the preview to the article says, but when I look at the rankings, Hofstra is #89. Can anyone explain?
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:43 pm
[quote="flyingduck"]
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:46 pm
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 ... me=&lname= ).tennisking88 wrote:Easy, guys, it was a joke http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/your-tui ... d-at-work/chimp wrote:Holding it back from what?tennisking88 wrote:
The only thing holding UT back is its underpaid faculty
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.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:49 pm
These are the new standards that everyone ignored:defiance96 wrote:What standard is he talking about? Please explain. Why would a new standard lower employment rates?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."
also; http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... op+Stories ;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.
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'.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:02 am
13th in the part-time program ranking which is a specialty ranking that means absolutely nothing.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?
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: 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)?
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)?
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:13 am
The USNWR rankings and this thread represent what I hate most about law schools and law students.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:18 am
Thanks I was just curious.LawIdiot86 wrote:13th in the part-time program ranking which is a specialty ranking that means absolutely nothing.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?
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:25 am
Um, Gonzaga above L&C...?flyingduck wrote: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.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
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:27 am
That data is old news.
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:27 am
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?topannabanana wrote:Um, Gonzaga above L&C...?flyingduck wrote: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.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
Re: 2013 Rankings
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:28 am
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!romothesavior wrote:The USNWR rankings and this thread represent what I hate most about law schools and law students.