2013 Rankings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
chup
Posts: 23645
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

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

Dany wrote:
chup wrote:Two listserv emails ≠ "going crazy."

I meant the retarded pink post.

Ok, so one loud-mouth gives a shit.

User avatar
JoeFish
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:43 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

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

Meh... 35... Could've been worse. I think I put the over/under at 36.5, so a little better than maybe I thought. Still, we're all pretty annoyed here in UC.

Not that we haven't been expecting this and trying to figure out what the hell it's going to mean for us. Meh. Only thing I'm afraid of is that it's gonna be a little tougher to transfer out for anyone who wants to, in part because of the rankings drop and in other part because every single person in the top 25% is going to be sending out transfer apps now. Ugh. At least the administration will be able to charge their exorbitant fees for letters of good standing and the like and make some free money to get them back on the right track.

:x :evil: sigh :cry: :roll:

JamesChapman23
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby JamesChapman23 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:44 am

How did a cess pool like Arizona St. end up at 26? Did they buy a bunch of library volumes or something? We know that rankings are disconnected completely from any real employment data or outcomes.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Dany » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:45 am

f7 wrote:
Dany wrote:I meant the retarded pink post.

TBF, that poster is an obscene gunner.

What an annoying law school project.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby YCrevolution » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:45 am

..

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Tanicius » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:45 am

JoeFish wrote:Meh... 35... Could've been worse. I think I put the over/under at 36.5, so a little better than maybe I thought. Still, we're all pretty annoyed here in UC.

Not that we haven't been expecting this and trying to figure out what the hell it's going to mean for us. Meh. Only thing I'm afraid of is that it's gonna be a little tougher to transfer out for anyone who wants to, in part because of the rankings drop and in other part because every single person in the top 25% is going to be sending out transfer apps now. Ugh. At least the administration will be able to charge their exorbitant fees for letters of good standing and the like and make some free money to get them back on the right track.

:x :evil: sigh :cry: :roll:



Dude, you want your best competition to transfer out. That's only a good thing. What matters is (1) you're not going to see fewer firms showing up, and (2) public interest orgs aren't going to give a rat's ass about USWNR.
Last edited by Tanicius on Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby dproduct » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:45 am

f7 wrote:
Dany wrote:I meant the retarded pink post.

TBF, that poster is an obscene gunner.


That is the most ridiculous profile I've ever seen... and I've spent hours reading Grindr profiles.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby splittinghairs » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:46 am

JamesChapman23 wrote:How did a cess pool like Arizona St. end up at 26? Did they buy a bunch of library volumes or something? We know that rankings are disconnected completely from any real employment data or outcomes.


I think its their employment after 9 months, it magically shot way up compared to last year

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby t14fanboy » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:46 am

SpoonForkSpork wrote: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.


STOP. Does not compute.

User avatar
JoeFish
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:43 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby JoeFish » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:47 am

Tanicius wrote:
JoeFish wrote:Meh... 35... Could've been worse. I think I put the over/under at 36.5, so a little better than maybe I thought. Still, we're all pretty annoyed here in UC.

Not that we haven't been expecting this and trying to figure out what the hell it's going to mean for us. Meh. Only thing I'm afraid of is that it's gonna be a little tougher to transfer out for anyone who wants to, in part because of the rankings drop and in other part because every single person in the top 25% is going to be sending out transfer apps now. Ugh. At least the administration will be able to charge their exorbitant fees for letters of good standing and the like and make some free money to get them back on the right track.

:x :evil: sigh :cry: :roll:



Dude, you want your best competition to transfer out. That's only a good thing. You're not going to see fewer firms showing up, and that's what matters.


Was trying to be a little less straightforward outside the transfer forum, but wth, it's no secret: It will be tougher for me to transfer out.

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby UnamSanctam » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:47 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
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


Plus, Lenten self-ban is Lounge only.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13563
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Flips88 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:47 am

Dany wrote:
f7 wrote:
Dany wrote:I meant the retarded pink post.

TBF, that poster is an obscene gunner.

What an annoying law school project.

I remember that asshat from the admission cycle last year. "Oh, there's nothing special about me. I just have sub-median numbers at all the T-14, but I turned down a RTK at NYU for a shit load of aid at Stanford."

User avatar
jeeptiger09
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby jeeptiger09 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:47 am

Can someone post UTK please? #69 Thanks!

JamesChapman23
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby JamesChapman23 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:48 am

splittinghairs wrote:
JamesChapman23 wrote:How did a cess pool like Arizona St. end up at 26? Did they buy a bunch of library volumes or something? We know that rankings are disconnected completely from any real employment data or outcomes.


I think its their employment after 9 months, it magically shot way up compared to last year


People at ASU law I talk to seem to be convinced nobody has a job. Maybe there are lucrative starbucks jobs popping up in Arizona or perhaps the school just employs them.

User avatar
JoeFish
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:43 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby JoeFish » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:48 am

But yeah, in general, you're right. People in the Top 10% or even Top 20% shouldn't be too affected re OCI and careers.

User avatar
abbottsbar
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby abbottsbar » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:49 am

Sweet baby Jesus, Richmond's employment numbers are abysmal!

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Jaeger » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:49 am

JoeFish wrote:
Tanicius wrote:
JoeFish wrote:Meh... 35... Could've been worse. I think I put the over/under at 36.5, so a little better than maybe I thought. Still, we're all pretty annoyed here in UC.

Not that we haven't been expecting this and trying to figure out what the hell it's going to mean for us. Meh. Only thing I'm afraid of is that it's gonna be a little tougher to transfer out for anyone who wants to, in part because of the rankings drop and in other part because every single person in the top 25% is going to be sending out transfer apps now. Ugh. At least the administration will be able to charge their exorbitant fees for letters of good standing and the like and make some free money to get them back on the right track.

:x :evil: sigh :cry: :roll:



Dude, you want your best competition to transfer out. That's only a good thing. You're not going to see fewer firms showing up, and that's what matters.


Was trying to be a little less straightforward outside the transfer forum, but wth, it's no secret: It will be tougher for me to transfer out.



With a 177, why the hell did you not apply or ED to T14?

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby minnbills » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:50 am

dproduct wrote:TBF, that poster is an obscene gunner.


what on earth

horrorbusiness
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:49 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby horrorbusiness » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:50 am

anyone know why uc irvine remains unranked? i thought their usnwr debut was this year.

User avatar
JoeFish
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:43 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby JoeFish » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:51 am

Jaeger wrote:With a 177, why the hell did you not apply or ED to T14?


Long story, been discussed before, let's not get into it here.

Suffice to say, can't change it now.

JamesChapman23
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby JamesChapman23 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:51 am

abbottsbar wrote:Sweet baby Jesus, Richmond's employment numbers are abysmal!


Guess they couldn't even commit fraud correctly. Reflects poorly on their career services staff. Next year they might want to hire Pless as a consultant.

Also, can anyone explain to me how Washington and Lee ends up 23? They are about the 4th best law school in a massively over-saturated state....

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby YCrevolution » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:52 am

..

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

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby Jaeger » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:52 am

JoeFish wrote:
Jaeger wrote:With a 177, why the hell did you not apply or ED to T14?


Long story, been discussed before, let's not get into it here.

Suffice to say, can't change it now.



k. sorry for your troubles/pless.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby YCrevolution » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:53 am

..

User avatar
abbottsbar
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: 2013 Rankings

Postby abbottsbar » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:54 am

JamesChapman23 wrote:
abbottsbar wrote:Sweet baby Jesus, Richmond's employment numbers are abysmal!


Guess they couldn't even commit fraud correctly. Reflects poorly on their career services staff.

Also, can anyone explain to me how Washington and Lee ends up 23? They are about the 4th best law school in a massively over-saturated state....


I have no clue how they jumped William & Mary. I'd probably rank Virginia schools with UVA at the top, followed by W&M, and then W&L and GMU lumped together, with Richmond close to those.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: freekick, Sushi and 3 guests