2013 Rankings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
splittinghairs
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby splittinghairs » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:33 am

minnbills wrote:
Jaeger wrote:I'd believe that except Vanderbilt, WUSTL and a few others have better NLJ250 placement and they are not in biglaw markets either.


Vanderbilt feeds into multiple markets- I never understood how WUSTL's placement panned out though. Chicago I guess?


u act like WUSTL places way more into biglaw than UMN for c/o it was 13% to 11% not much of a diff

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby minnbills » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:34 am

TLS_noobie wrote:
Does any of it really matter? Numbers are numbers. The location of the school is no excuse because in the end, if a student wants a biglaw job they shouldn't go to a school that has craptastic numbers --be it in NYC or in north dakota.


Obviously if you're biglaw of bust.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby TTRansfer » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:34 am

BK201 wrote:
TTRansfer wrote:
acirilli1722 wrote:Anybody have the stats for Nova and Drexel. I think the honest placement stats hurt both of them


I assume Nova's scandal hurts them worse than "honest placement stats."


Didn't their scandal start because they decided to be honest though?


I am pretty sure they flubbed their LSAT and admission numbers. So it'd be being dishonest.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:34 am

swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?


No-- http://www.prelawhandbook.com/law_schoo ... _1987_1999

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby chup » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:35 am

swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?

BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby traehekat » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:36 am

swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?


lol @ the idea of any of this being a "REALLY big deal."

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby minnbills » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:36 am

splittinghairs wrote:
minnbills wrote:
Jaeger wrote:I'd believe that except Vanderbilt, WUSTL and a few others have better NLJ250 placement and they are not in biglaw markets either.


Vanderbilt feeds into multiple markets- I never understood how WUSTL's placement panned out though. Chicago I guess?


u act like WUSTL places way more into biglaw than UMN for c/o it was 13% to 11% not much of a diff


Well I don't know WUSTL's stats that well... I think NLJ 250 % is a bad metric anyways as not all market paying (or near market paying) firms are NLJ 250 anyways.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby minnbills » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:36 am

chup wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?

BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.


Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby TTRansfer » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:36 am

chup wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?

BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.


Dude, USWNR does this because they feel that the people need these rankings. Not to make money. God. They are a charitable organization. We should praise our overlords.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby chup » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:37 am

minnbills wrote:
chup wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?

BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.


Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.

Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby minnbills » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:37 am

chup wrote:Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.


Good for them.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Dany » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:38 am

chup wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?

BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.

Image

User avatar
dproduct
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:58 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby dproduct » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:38 am

Rawlberto wrote:I went to ASU for UG. It's not a real school.


dead

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby chup » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:39 am

Dany wrote:
chup wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?

BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.

Image

I MUST KNOW BRIAN LEITER'S THOUGHTS ON ALL THIS.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Dany » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:39 am

chup wrote:
minnbills wrote:Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.

Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.

mmhmm

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Jaeger » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:39 am

moneybagsphd wrote:
swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?

I mean, they still graduate a ridiculously huge class into a saturated market. So not really.


Into a saturated market with a school (GWU) a few places down that also graduates a stupidly big class.

User avatar
UnamSanctam
Posts: 7167
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:17 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby UnamSanctam » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:40 am

Michigan dropping to #10 would be a shittier birthday present if these rankings mattered.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Samara » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:40 am

UnamSanctam wrote:Michigan dropping to #10 would be a shittier birthday present if these rankings mattered.

HEATHEN!

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby chup » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:41 am

Dany wrote:
chup wrote:
minnbills wrote:Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.

Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.

mmhmm

Two listserv emails ≠ "going crazy."

User avatar
dproduct
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:58 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby dproduct » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:41 am

lalala21 wrote:can someone post or pm me utah stats? thanks!!


http://www.snagajob.com/jobs?j=server&c ... ll+and+bar

User avatar
BK201
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:16 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby BK201 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:41 am

TTRansfer wrote:
BK201 wrote:
TTRansfer wrote:
acirilli1722 wrote:Anybody have the stats for Nova and Drexel. I think the honest placement stats hurt both of them


I assume Nova's scandal hurts them worse than "honest placement stats."


Didn't their scandal start because they decided to be honest though?


I am pretty sure they flubbed their LSAT and admission numbers. So it'd be being dishonest.


Right but most schools do that and Villanova decided to self report it. So it's both I guess?

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Dany » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:42 am

chup wrote:
Dany wrote:
chup wrote:
minnbills wrote:Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.

Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.

mmhmm

Two listserv emails ≠ "going crazy."

I meant the retarded pink post.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15475
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:42 am

Samara wrote:
UnamSanctam wrote:Michigan dropping to #10 would be a shittier birthday present if these rankings mattered.

HEATHEN!


This has gotten out of hand

SpoonForkSpork
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:44 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby SpoonForkSpork » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:42 am

Given how closely packed the 2-6 are, I was wondering if there are structural reasons (due to the arbitrary nature of the rankings/criteria) that might prevent Chicago/Columbia from overtaking, say, Harvard/Stanford. Seeing a new top 3 after two decades would be kinda funny.

Also, I can't believe Harvard's median LSAT is higher than Stanford's 75th.

lsatcrazy
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 8:08 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby lsatcrazy » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:43 am

When dey switching on the TLS ranking payge?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], SunDevil14 and 3 guests