2013 Rankings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Bronck
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Bronck » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:59 pm

billharford wrote:Detailed stats for WI and Fordham? Many thanks.


Fordham:
Score 66
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 3.2
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 3.7
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.36-3.71
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.53
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 163-167
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 165
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 93.7%

Wisconsin:
Score 64
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 3.4
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 3.7
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.34-3.78
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.67
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 158-165
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 163
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 93.0%

t14fanboy
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:51 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby t14fanboy » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:59 pm

What? He should be too busy making bank.

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

Re: Predicting 2013 Rankings

Postby romothesavior » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:00 am

splittinghairs wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:I love how like almos all schools report 90+% employing at 9 months. Lol, just lol.

This is the thing. 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.

USNWR and the ABA suck. Thankfully this rankings shit is meaningless.


Again, how did WUSTL report, what were the new standards. Right now you've basically offered some conclusion, but im curious as to what exactly your dean meant by the new standards.

This is based on limited knowledge, but my understanding after a personal meeting with the dean is that schools must make a far more comprehensive attempt at gathering data, and any student that is unaccounted foris supposed to be counted as unemployed. So rather than conveniently avoiding follow up with students that may be unemployed, schools must get that info or report as unemployed. According to the dean, he can account for all but a very small handful of alumni in the latest class. We used to be in the 95%+ employed at 9 months crowd, but the new standards just prohibit that kind of claim. If you think other schools in the T20 range can report those kind of stats legitimately, then I have some fine beachfront property in Arizona for you.

Are the numbers still inflated? Yes. That 80% probably represents some free LLMs and some other stuff that isn't totally legit. There is still serious potential for fudging and shennaniganry. But when some schools follow the new data requirements and others don't, it makes for impossible comparisons and subsequently USNWR becomes even more irrelevant than it already is.

splittinghairs
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby splittinghairs » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:00 am

lawyerwannabe wrote:Ya. So. How is Berkeley not out of the top 10 or even 14? They have tied for the lowest peer review and the lowest medians of any of the schools. Do they inefficiently spend tons of money on each student? With their tuition being the highest of all the schools, and the state of CA in general, it would not be entirely surprising.


I think boalt like stanford has a really low acceptance rate

User avatar
chup
Posts: 23645
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby chup » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:01 am

The fact that this thread is in "Choosing a Law School" and not the Lounge tells you everything you need to know about the fucked up state of American legal education.

User avatar
chup
Posts: 23645
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Predicting 2013 Rankings

Postby chup » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:01 am

romothesavior wrote:Are the numbers still inflated? Yes. That 80% probably represents some free LLMs and some other stuff that isn't totally legit. There is still serious potential for fudging and shennaniganry. But when some schools follow the new data requirements and others don't, it makes for impossible comparisons and subsequently USNWR becomes even more irrelevant than it already is.

Fair.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Bronck » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:01 am

Jaeger wrote:Bronck, can you post UMN's info too?

Thanks, if we ever meet (banking on that never happening) I'll buy you a nice bottle of scotch.


Posted it a few pages back: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178748&start=475#p5309378

NP!

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Big Shrimpin » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:02 am

Glad I have nothing better to do tonight. Ffffuuuu daylight savings time.

User avatar
FeelTheHeat
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:32 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby FeelTheHeat » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:02 am

The 50% employment rate of UF is incredible disheartening.

/seriousheat

User avatar
moneybagsphd
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:07 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby moneybagsphd » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:02 am

lawyerwannabe wrote:Ya. So. How is Berkeley not out of the top 10 or even 14? They have tied for the lowest peer review and the lowest medians of any of the schools. Do they inefficiently spend tons of money on each student? With their tuition being the highest of all the schools, and the state of CA in general, it would not be entirely surprising.

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

Re: Predicting 2013 Rankings

Postby Jaeger » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:03 am

romothesavior wrote: shennaniganry.



lol.

User avatar
jk2011
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:29 pm

Re: Predicting 2013 Rankings

Postby jk2011 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:03 am

romothesavior wrote:
splittinghairs wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:I love how like almos all schools report 90+% employing at 9 months. Lol, just lol.

This is the thing. 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.

USNWR and the ABA suck. Thankfully this rankings shit is meaningless.


Again, how did WUSTL report, what were the new standards. Right now you've basically offered some conclusion, but im curious as to what exactly your dean meant by the new standards.

This is based on limited knowledge, but my understanding after a personal meeting with the dean is that schools must make a far more comprehensive attempt at gathering data, and any student that is unaccounted foris supposed to be counted as unemployed. So rather than conveniently avoiding follow up with students that may be unemployed, schools must get that info or report as unemployed. According to the dean, he can account for all but a very small handful of alumni in the latest class. We used to be in the 95%+ employed at 9 months crowd, but the new standards just prohibit that kind of claim. If you think other schools in the T20 range can report those kind of stats legitimately, then I have some fine beachfront property in Arizona for you.

Are the numbers still inflated? Yes. That 80% probably represents some free LLMs and some other stuff that isn't totally legit. There is still serious potential for fudging and shennaniganry. But when some schools follow the new data requirements and others don't, it makes for impossible comparisons and subsequently USNWR becomes even more irrelevant than it already is.



Thanks for explaining that. Knew they changed standards, didn't know exactly how..

splittinghairs
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: Predicting 2013 Rankings

Postby splittinghairs » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:03 am

romothesavior wrote:
splittinghairs wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:I love how like almos all schools report 90+% employing at 9 months. Lol, just lol.

This is the thing. 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.

USNWR and the ABA suck. Thankfully this rankings shit is meaningless.


Again, how did WUSTL report, what were the new standards. Right now you've basically offered some conclusion, but im curious as to what exactly your dean meant by the new standards.

This is based on limited knowledge, but my understanding after a personal meeting with the dean is that schools must make a far more comprehensive attempt at gathering data, and any student that is unaccounted foris supposed to be counted as unemployed. So rather than conveniently avoiding follow up with students that may be unemployed, schools must get that info or report as unemployed. According to the dean, he can account for all but a very small handful of alumni in the latest class. We used to be in the 95%+ employed at 9 months crowd, but the new standards just prohibit that kind of claim. If you think other schools in the T20 range can report those kind of stats legitimately, then I have some fine beachfront property in Arizona for you.

Are the numbers still inflated? Yes. That 80% probably represents some free LLMs and some other stuff that isn't totally legit. There is still serious potential for fudging and shennaniganry. But when some schools follow the new data requirements and others don't, it makes for impossible comparisons and subsequently USNWR becomes even more irrelevant than it already is.


Look I know that others are not 90+, but what you are saying about WUSTL counting those who do not respond as unemployed as the reason for the discrepancy does not make much sense. Supposedly, all schools are supposed to count unknown candidates as unemployed anyways. This is not some change in standards, all schools were supposed to report unknowns as unemployed.

There was a change is standard regarding the reporting of those pursuing a second degree as unemployed last year, that was a change in standard. The counting unknowns as unemployed is not a change in standard this year, because the rules had already said to count unknowns as unemployed.

Now perhaps, other schools fix the employment stats in another way that WUSTL does not do, but i dont think its due to counting unknowns.
Last edited by splittinghairs on Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

TheIdealist
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:29 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby TheIdealist » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:03 am

Would it be possible to see details on UCLA and USC? Thanks! :]

joetheplumber
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:23 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby joetheplumber » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:04 am

TheIdealist wrote:Would it be possible to see details on UCLA and USC? Thanks! :]


+1.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Bronck » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:04 am

TheIdealist wrote:Would it be possible to see details on UCLA and USC? Thanks! :]


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178748&start=375#p5309223

debtsucks
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby debtsucks » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:04 am

so we all agree mich is in decline? this is a good start for the undeserved loved it gets here

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby stillwater » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:04 am

That's all these rankings really are: shenanigans.

Gotta sell magazines.

User avatar
traehekat
Posts: 3195
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: Predicting 2013 Rankings

Postby traehekat » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:05 am

traehekat wrote:Dropping in for the annual "fluctuations in rankings don't matter because employers don't care about them" post.

Although, I am a LITTLE curious to see what happens to Illinois after that whole admissions data scandal.


lol, i was not disappointed.

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

Re: Predicting 2013 Rankings

Postby romothesavior » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:05 am

Antilles Haven wrote:
chup wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:I love how like almos all schools report 90+% employing at 9 months. Lol, just lol.

This is the thing. 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.

USNWR and the ABA suck. Thankfully this rankings shit is meaningless.

TBF even that 80% number is probably shit.

Conveniently the exact same argument Emory used last year.

I agree it is probably shit. It likely counts things that aren't real lawyer jobs. I plan to do more digging and inquiring within the school. But it is less shit than a school like Wisconsin or other T20s claiming 93%+ or whatever in the worst legal recession in history. The new ABA standards suck and I will be the first to criticize them. But they are a step in the right direction, and it is frustrating that schools are punished for moving that direction.

t14fanboy
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:51 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby t14fanboy » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:05 am

chup wrote:The fact that this thread is in "Choosing a Law School" and not the Lounge tells you everything you need to know about the fucked up state of American legal education.


+1

User avatar
chup
Posts: 23645
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby chup » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:05 am

lawyerwannabe wrote:Ya. So. How is Berkeley not out of the top 10 or even 14? They have tied for the lowest peer review and the lowest medians of any of the schools. Do they inefficiently spend tons of money on each student? With their tuition being the highest of all the schools, and the state of CA in general, it would not be entirely surprising.

Because one of the fucked up things about the ranking is they basically reward inefficiency. High tuition = more money to spend = more money "spent on students." See every Paul Campos screed against USNWR in existence.

User avatar
TTRansfer
Posts: 3796
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:08 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby TTRansfer » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:06 am

FeelTheHeat wrote:The 50% employment rate of UF is incredible disheartening.

/seriousheat


It at least sounds realistic.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby rad lulz » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:06 am

Big Shrimpin wrote:Dont forget to cop DAT Jos A Bank shwag.

Credited, BROTHER

TheIdealist
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:29 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby TheIdealist » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:07 am

Bronck wrote:
TheIdealist wrote:Would it be possible to see details on UCLA and USC? Thanks! :]


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178748&start=375#p5309223

Thanks. I don't know how I missed that. Lol.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 5 guests