2014 Rankings Released

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby rad lulz » Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:41 am

jenesaislaw wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Providing less "points" for JD Advantage/ Other Professional unnecessarily plays favorites among schools. Is GULC worse than Texas Tech or LSU? I bet LSU and Tech have better full-time, long-term JD rates than GULC. (by the way, I'm not going to look this up, but even if the schools are close my point is made). There are cultural differences between schools. GULC is a good example, but there are also plenty of lower ranked schools which attract students with varied career goals.


Here is something you should look up. Look at GULC's numbers pre-crash for JD Preferred and Professional jobs.

2009: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=gulc&class=2009
2008: --LinkRemoved--

For fun: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ustry.html

"The JD-Advantaged and Professional jobs appear to be, on balance, less desirable than those requiring bar passage. They increase nearly three times in relative proportion as we move from T14 to Tier 1 to Tier 2. Many are likely compromise jobs—not as good as practicing law, but better than non-professional alternatives."

See also http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/11/jd-other.html

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby 20141023 » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:11 am

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Big Dog » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:17 am

^^^hahahaha, I know that incumbent well.

Yes, Disney is a dream job for many. And any job can be a dream job for many, particularly when graduating from a TT.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby jenesaislaw » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:26 am

kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


But in all seriousness, my job is JD Advantage!

ETA: I'm also happy when I find a quarter on the ground.

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Ti Malice » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:29 am

jenesaislaw wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"


kappycaft1 wrote:"dream jobs"



--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
DaleCooper
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:07 am

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby DaleCooper » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:37 am

I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.

User avatar
RetakeFrenzy
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:41 am

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby RetakeFrenzy » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:39 am

DaleCooper wrote:I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.


+1 :mrgreen:

User avatar
Crowing
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Crowing » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:40 am

DaleCooper wrote:I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.


This is a rankings waiting thread. It's one of the few prompts that can lead to an on-topic megathread (along w/ LSAT score waiting and WUSTL a/d/w apparently).

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby jenesaislaw » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:18 am

Crowing wrote:
DaleCooper wrote:I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.


This is a rankings waiting thread. It's one of the few prompts that can lead to an on-topic megathread (along w/ LSAT score waiting and WUSTL a/d/w apparently).


When are we going to get a "Latest LST Score Reports Waiting Thread"?

User avatar
Crowing
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Crowing » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:21 am

jenesaislaw wrote:
Crowing wrote:
DaleCooper wrote:I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.


This is a rankings waiting thread. It's one of the few prompts that can lead to an on-topic megathread (along w/ LSAT score waiting and WUSTL a/d/w apparently).


When are we going to get a "Latest LST Score Reports Waiting Thread"?


All you need to do is make an announcement in advance and I'm sure we'll find some way, intentionally or not, to drum up plenty of drama and nonsense.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby jenesaislaw » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:43 am

Crowing wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote:
Crowing wrote:
DaleCooper wrote:I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.


This is a rankings waiting thread. It's one of the few prompts that can lead to an on-topic megathread (along w/ LSAT score waiting and WUSTL a/d/w apparently).


When are we going to get a "Latest LST Score Reports Waiting Thread"?


All you need to do is make an announcement in advance and I'm sure we'll find some way, intentionally or not, to drum up plenty of drama and nonsense.


BREAKING: LST will release the new version of the Score Reports as soon as the ABA Section of Legal Education publishes data from the class of 2012 (estimate, early to mid April).

Chaucer1343
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:22 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Chaucer1343 » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:50 am

Last edited by Chaucer1343 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby rad lulz » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:50 am

jenesaislaw wrote:BREAKING: LST will release the new version of the Score Reports as soon as the ABA Section of Legal Education publishes data from the class of 2012 (estimate, early to mid April).

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=204774

User avatar
North
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby North » Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:43 am

Made a contest out of it, if anyone's bored enough to be interested.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204782

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby MikeSpivey » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:19 pm

FYI, I heard from a Dean of a law school last night that this will be the last year US News uses expenditure per students in their rankings.

I am assuming said Dean heard it straight from Morse, which seems like the only reason why they would feel it is accurate enough to share.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby WokeUpInACar » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:20 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:FYI, I heard from a Dean of a law school last night that this will be the last year US News uses expenditure per students in their rankings.

I am assuming said Dean heard it straight from Morse, which seems like the only reason why they would feel it is accurate enough to share.

Any clue which schools that will hurt/help?

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby jenesaislaw » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:26 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:FYI, I heard from a Dean of a law school last night that this will be the last year US News uses expenditure per students in their rankings.

I am assuming said Dean heard it straight from Morse, which seems like the only reason why they would feel it is accurate enough to share.


This is great news. I've been in his ear on this from the beginning and always felt it was a matter of time.
Last edited by jenesaislaw on Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Yukos » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:32 pm

Expenditure per student is one of the worst offenders IMO. Huge incentive for waste and increasing tuitions, plus it disadvantages larger schools who have economies of scale. Good riddance.

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Rahviveh » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:38 pm

Aren't scholarships included in that? Would this discourage schools from handing out scholarships?

User avatar
drmguy
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:43 am

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby drmguy » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:41 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:Aren't scholarships included in that? Would this discourage schools from handing out scholarships?

Large libraries > scholarships

User avatar
HBBJohnStamos
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby HBBJohnStamos » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:41 pm

It's not so much as "discouraging" as it is "removing one small incentive."

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Yukos » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:43 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:Aren't scholarships included in that? Would this discourage schools from handing out scholarships?


Scholarships are gamed really badly anyway. Schools just raise the nominal tuition as much as possible and then give "scholarships" to everyone (or almost everyone) so they look generous and have a more reasonable real tuition.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:08 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Providing less "points" for JD Advantage/ Other Professional unnecessarily plays favorites among schools. Is GULC worse than Texas Tech or LSU? I bet LSU and Tech have better full-time, long-term JD rates than GULC. (by the way, I'm not going to look this up, but even if the schools are close my point is made). There are cultural differences between schools. GULC is a good example, but there are also plenty of lower ranked schools which attract students with varied career goals.


Here is something you should look up. Look at GULC's numbers pre-crash for JD Preferred and Professional jobs.

2009: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=gulc&class=2009
2008: --LinkRemoved--

For fun: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ustry.html

"The JD-Advantaged and Professional jobs appear to be, on balance, less desirable than those requiring bar passage. They increase nearly three times in relative proportion as we move from T14 to Tier 1 to Tier 2. Many are likely compromise jobs—not as good as practicing law, but better than non-professional alternatives."


I'm aware of this data. It fits both your theory and my own, however. I've said that most law school students want JD Required work. You seem to imply that all or nearly all law school students want JD Required work. Either way, the shortage of JD Required work is going to effect your employment score, and your proposal to exclude non JD Required work from the USNEWS employment rate would, aggregately, provide some advantage for the purpose of "ranking" law schools.

My point is two-fold: One, the advantages gained by your proposal to better rank the schools would be real, but would be applied sloppily across the board, resulting in some schools being unfairly bolstered and others unfairly diminished because law schools often have different cultures with students with different career goals. Two, the practical policy result of your proposal will likely be to influence CSO across the country to steer all applicants away from JD Advantage or Other Professional jobs, and I don't think I need to explain why that would be a bad idea in this environment.

While your proposal would be an improvement over what we have, I still think there is a better way forward that is much, much easier. The simplest solution is to influence USNEWS to differentiate between long-term, full-time work and everything else. If they do this, and if they stop counting school funded as long-term, the new rankings formula in regards to employment would become a thousand times better already. This would more fair and less controversial, though arguably would create a (slightly) less precise employment ranking method for USNEWS magazine. But, is that what we really care about anyway?

Also, and this was said by someone else, maybe Spivey, but they should switch how they calculate class medians as well. Think about how law school admissions would be difference if USNEWS stated that medians would be calculated by the formula 25th + 75th / 2. No more Minn. Law with 166 median, 166 75th. These schools might actually admit people with different LSAT scores!
Last edited by Lord Randolph McDuff on Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:42 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:09 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:FYI, I heard from a Dean of a law school last night that this will be the last year US News uses expenditure per students in their rankings.

I am assuming said Dean heard it straight from Morse, which seems like the only reason why they would feel it is accurate enough to share.


That's great news. Thanks for passing this along.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: 2014 Rankings Waiting Thread

Postby jenesaislaw » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:45 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Providing less "points" for JD Advantage/ Other Professional unnecessarily plays favorites among schools. Is GULC worse than Texas Tech or LSU? I bet LSU and Tech have better full-time, long-term JD rates than GULC. (by the way, I'm not going to look this up, but even if the schools are close my point is made). There are cultural differences between schools. GULC is a good example, but there are also plenty of lower ranked schools which attract students with varied career goals.


Here is something you should look up. Look at GULC's numbers pre-crash for JD Preferred and Professional jobs.

2009: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=gulc&class=2009
2008: --LinkRemoved--

For fun: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ustry.html

"The JD-Advantaged and Professional jobs appear to be, on balance, less desirable than those requiring bar passage. They increase nearly three times in relative proportion as we move from T14 to Tier 1 to Tier 2. Many are likely compromise jobs—not as good as practicing law, but better than non-professional alternatives."


I'm aware of this data. It fits both your theory and my own, however. I've said that most law school students want JD Required work. You seem to imply that all or nearly all law school students want JD Required work. Either way, the shortage of JD Required work is going to effect your employment score, and your proposal to exclude non JD Required work from the USNEWS employment rate would, aggregately, provide some advantage for the purpose of "ranking" law schools.

My point is two-fold: One, the advantages gained by your proposal to better rank the schools would be real, but would be applied sloppily across the board, resulting in some schools being unfairly bolstered and others unfairly diminish because law schools often have different cultures with students with different career goals. Two, the practical policy result of your proposal will likely be to influence CSO across the country to steer all applicants away from JD Advantage or Other Professional jobs, and I don't think I need to explain why that would be a bad idea in this environment.

While your proposal would be an improvement over what we have, I still think there is a better way forward that is much, much easier. The simplest solution is to influence USNEWS to differentiate between long-term, full-time work and everything else. If they do this, and if they stop counting school funded as long-term, the new rankings formula in regards to employment would become a thousand times better already. This would more fair and less controversial, though arguably would create a (slightly) less precise employment ranking method for USNEWS magazine. But, is that what we really care about anyway?

Also, and this was said by someone else, maybe Spivey, but they should switch how they calculate class medians as well. Think about how law school admissions would be difference if USNEWS stated that medians would be calculated by the formula 25th + 75th / 2. No more Minn. Law with 166 median, 166 75th. These schools might actually admit people with different LSAT scores!


My point was actually just that people overstate the cultural aspects of Georgetown and many other schools when they say there are droves of people seeking and being happy with the JD Advantage jobs. If somebody is going to cite to Georgetown's numbers in one year, they need to explain why they look so drastically different in the immediately preceding years, or else explain why the school saw a sudden cultural shift.

It very well could be the case that students are just as happy (or close to it) with the JD Advantage jobs. It is more likely that these jobs are less desirable to this body of people because (a) I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever of a cultural shift and (b) of the strong connection between non-BPR jobs and lower rank.

If we're talking about a % to use in the rankings, I think the LT, FT % is a great place to start, fwiw. Also, your median suggestion is actually what the rule used to be. I don't recall why they changed it.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest