2013 Rankings Forum

[Bronck]

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]

What? He should be too busy making bank.

[romothesavior]

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]

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

[chup]

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.

[chup]

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.

[Bronck]

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: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p5309378

NP!

[Big Shrimpin]

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

[FeelTheHeat]

The 50% employment rate of UF is incredible disheartening.

/seriousheat

[moneybagsphd]

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.

[Jaeger]

shennaniganry.

lol.

[jk2011]

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]

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.

[TheIdealist]

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

[joetheplumber]

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

+1.

[Bronck]

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

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p5309223

[debtsucks]

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

[stillwater]

That's all these rankings really are: shenanigans.

Gotta sell magazines.

[traehekat]

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.

[romothesavior]

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]

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

[chup]

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.

[TTRansfer]

The 50% employment rate of UF is incredible disheartening.

/seriousheat

It at least sounds realistic.

[rad lulz]

Dont forget to cop DAT Jos A Bank shwag.

Credited, BROTHER

[TheIdealist]

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

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p5309223

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