Top Law Schools

Just curious. It seems like 3-4 years ago they were ranked like #25 or something. Now they're #38.

Poo-T wrote:Just curious. It seems like 3-4 years ago they were ranked like #25 or something. Now they're #38.

The rankings don't matter at all and exist for the deans to game them. This should have negligible to zero impact on your decision to attend.

Because USNWR has to make some changes in the hope of distracting people from the fact that the T-14 never changes/that the rankings are meaningless.

The rankings are meaningless

I didn't apply there in case you were wondering. I'm mostly just curious what makes one school better than another according to these rankings

Poo-T wrote:I didn't apply there in case you were wondering. I'm mostly just curious what makes one school better than another according to these rankings

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... l-rankings

Poo-T wrote:I didn't apply there in case you were wondering. I'm mostly just curious what makes one school better than another according to these rankings

LSAT and GPA of the entering class correlate the best with the rankings.

MJ's affair.

Desert Fox wrote:MJ's affair.

oh

Desert Fox wrote:MJ's affair.

Wrong.




It's because Roy Williams refuses to start PJ Hairston.

Three reasons:

1.)

jenesaislaw wrote:It's because Roy Williams refuses to start PJ Hairston.

That's the main one.

2.) Also, a lot of the other mid-T1 schools have been pretty shameless in gaming the rankings.* It's an arms race, and even just treading water in that large, tightly-packed clump of top-tier regional schools requires a level of commitment to rankings that UNC lacks. UNC Law has never particularly cared what US News thinks (it could be #78 and it'd still be UNC), and to a large extent it maintains an admissions policy that reflects that. People on TLS complain because they're so slow on admissions decisions, but as far as I can tell that's just a side effect of the committees actually reading the applications rather than just admitting applicants by index. It's kind of the anti-WUSTL in a lot of ways.

3.) UNC does relatively poorly in certain things and relatively well in certain things. Its LSAT 25-75s are terrible, thanks to the ludicrous and unjustifiable 18% cap on out-of-state students**. It also does poorly on expenditures per student, but that's a stupid metric that matters about as much as library size. It does much better on things people should care about, like reputation and employment.†

*Ranging from the cute (iTunes gift cards) to the questionable (only caring about GPA/LSAT) to the icky ($10/hour research jobs for the unemployed) to the truly awful (just straight-up lying about employment numbers and incoming class profiles).

**Disclosure: I'm a native North Carolinian, a proud Tar Heel, and I pay taxes in North Carolina. But there is no good reason to require that 82% of a law school class be from in-state. Texas, California, and Virginia (thanks only to D.C.) can get away with it, but we can't.

†Overall employment relative to its peers, not TLS-style employment relative to the T14. Neither UNC nor Wake are going to place more than 10-15% of their class into BigLaw, but that's not really their mission. You can do midlaw or hang a shingle and make a good living, thanks to the reputation of the school, its alumni network, and its low cost for in-state students.

DaleCooper wrote:Two reasons:

1.) A lot of the other mid-T1 schools have been pretty shameless in gaming the rankings.* It's an arms race, and even just treading water in that large, tightly-packed clump of top-tier regional schools requires a level of commitment to rankings that UNC lacks. UNC Law has never particularly cared what US News thinks (it could be #78 and it'd still be UNC), and to a large extent it maintains an admissions policy that reflects that. People on TLS complain because they're so slow on admissions decisions, but as far as I can tell that's just a side effect of the committees actually reading the applications rather than just admitting applicants by index. It's kind of the anti-WUSTL in a lot of ways.

2.) UNC does relatively poorly in certain things and relatively well in certain things. Its LSAT 25-75s are terrible, thanks to the ludicrous and unjustifiable 18% cap on out-of-state students**. It also does poorly on expenditures per student, but that's a stupid metric that matters about as much as library size. It does much better on things people should care about, like reputation and employment.†

*Ranging from the cute (iTunes gift cards) to the questionable (only caring about GPA/LSAT) to the icky ($10/hour research jobs for the unemployed) to the truly awful (just straight-up lying about employment numbers and incoming class profiles).

**Disclosure: I'm a native North Carolinian, a proud Tar Heel, and I pay taxes in North Carolina. But there is no good reason to require that 82% of a law school class be from in-state. Texas, California, and Virginia (thanks only to D.C.) can get away with it, but we can't.

†Overall employment relative to its peers, not TLS-style employment relative to the T14. Neither UNC nor Wake are going to place more than 10-15% of their class into BigLaw, but that's not really their mission. You can do midlaw or hang a shingle and make a good living, thanks to the reputation of the school, its alumni network, and its low cost for in-state students.

welcome to the machine

stillwater wrote:welcome to the machine

Oh, I don't go to UNC Law. I'm a cog in a much bigger machine.

(I should caveat, though, that "can" does not mean "will". Anybody who thinks UNC Law is a models 'n' bottles school, or that their grads aren't just as likely to end up wearing the green apron as at any other mid-T1, is crazy. We're in agreement there.)

[quote="DaleCooper"]
3.) UNC does relatively poorly in certain things and relatively well in certain things. Its LSAT 25-75s are terrible, thanks to the ludicrous and unjustifiable 18% cap on out-of-state students**. It also does poorly on expenditures per student, but that's a stupid metric that matters about as much as library size. It does much better on things people should care about, like reputation and employment.†

UNC is a relatively poor school financially and gets hit for that because as the other poster wrote its student expenditures are low. It actually has pretty weak employment outcomes, though not a lot weaker than other peer schools. North Carolina has Wake Forest, Central, Campbell, Elon, Charlotte (not counting Duke, which sends most of its students out of state) and a weak job market.

Because NC has such a weak job market, UNC has suffered employment-wise. Other schools, such as Arizona State, are better at playing with the numbers they report to game the rankings. But it's untrue that UNC doesn't care about rankings. They're just too poor and poorly situated to do much about them.