Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=78101
too skinny - another stephanie rice (or 2)Mr. Matlock wrote:My bad doyleoil! I forgot you were a pool guy. Here.... this one's all yours!
This has to be some sort of record for time elapsed from 0 to SWIMSUIT PICS.doyleoil wrote:wow - for an athlete she's right up there with:
broken_image
In all fairness to those schools -- it probably says as much about the nerds as it does about them.doyleoil wrote:small schools with nerds get hammered in these rankings
Who is that?Mr. Matlock wrote:doyleoil wrote:it's been said before, possibly even tonight, but TTIWWOP
God I'm in love with this woman!
rondemarino wrote:Who is that?Mr. Matlock wrote:celebritysweating.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/allison-stokke-firestart.jpgdoyleoil wrote:it's been said before, possibly even tonight, but TTIWWOP
God I'm in love with this woman!
hahaha +1Helmholtz wrote:My list of the top 14 most desirable schools (not necessarily in this order):
Yale
Harvard
Stanford
Columbia
NYU
Chicago
Berkeley
Penn
Michigan
Virginia
Northwestern
Duke
Cornell
Georgetown
Thanks. I'm clearly an idiot.Helmholtz wrote:rondemarino wrote:Who is that?Mr. Matlock wrote:celebritysweating.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/allison-stokke-firestart.jpgdoyleoil wrote:it's been said before, possibly even tonight, but TTIWWOP
God I'm in love with this woman!
Sorry Helmholtz... take your pick my good man:Helmholtz wrote:Scantily clad women!!
IBTL
That my friend is the beautiful Allison Stokke. I could look at her all day...rondemarino wrote:Who is that?Mr. Matlock wrote:broken_imagedoyleoil wrote:it's been said before, possibly even tonight, but TTIWWOP
God I'm in love with this woman!
Certainly not the one on the right. I don't like all the skin she's revealing with her hands out there. What a trollop!Mr. Matlock wrote:Sorry Helmholtz... take your pick my good man:Helmholtz wrote:Scantily clad women!!
IBTL
Well, if wikipedia can be trusted... http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Stokkerondemarino wrote:Who is that?
Well, keep in mind that giving lots of large grants counts against a school in this ranking. In other words, a large proportion of students receiving > 1/2 tuition grants implies that the school has to "buy" candidates in order to get commitments, at least compared with a school that ranks the same on the other factors but gives out a lot less money.hmlee wrote:This is.... interesting. I commend you for trying to develop such a method of ranking schools, but I have a question about your methodology. Specifically, in the grant area. It seems a bit flawed to me. Granted I'm no statistician, but I wonder how you account for these things:
1. Size of endowment (or other school resources) affecting ability to provide large grants to woo accepted students.
2. Possible preference of giving more people smaller grants rather than fewer people larger grants.
3. School perceived necessity of grants in the first place. Take Yale, for example. I doubt they give many full tuition (or even half tuition) scholarships. Then again, do they really have to? They are ranked the #1 school in the country and have been for some time. While there are people who turn down Yale - usually for one of the other top 5 schools, and sometimes because of money - I doubt that Yale feels as though it needs to give out such grants to accepteds to make them want to come. Most of us, if given the opportunity to attend Yale, would do so in a heartbeat. Regardless of money.
Ah, I missed the "negated" part of that one...snotrocket wrote:Well, keep in mind that giving lots of large grants counts against a school in this ranking. In other words, a large proportion of students receiving > 1/2 tuition grants implies that the school has to "buy" candidates in order to get commitments, at least compared with a school that ranks the same on the other factors but gives out a lot less money.hmlee wrote:This is.... interesting. I commend you for trying to develop such a method of ranking schools, but I have a question about your methodology. Specifically, in the grant area. It seems a bit flawed to me. Granted I'm no statistician, but I wonder how you account for these things:
1. Size of endowment (or other school resources) affecting ability to provide large grants to woo accepted students.
2. Possible preference of giving more people smaller grants rather than fewer people larger grants.
3. School perceived necessity of grants in the first place. Take Yale, for example. I doubt they give many full tuition (or even half tuition) scholarships. Then again, do they really have to? They are ranked the #1 school in the country and have been for some time. While there are people who turn down Yale - usually for one of the other top 5 schools, and sometimes because of money - I doubt that Yale feels as though it needs to give out such grants to accepteds to make them want to come. Most of us, if given the opportunity to attend Yale, would do so in a heartbeat. Regardless of money.
This is the fatal flaw.snotrocket wrote:Unlike Leiter, I used median LSAT and just multiplied by FTE to account for the fact that small schools need less "draw" to land a small number of high scoring candidates compared to a school that enrolls a larger class with the same median.
you are wrong - please see my swimming thread for prooflex talionis wrote:Doylie, that aussie is not that cute.
no thanks.doyleoil wrote:you are wrong - please see my swimming thread for prooflex talionis wrote:Doylie, that aussie is not that cute.
just for you, doll:lex talionis wrote:no thanks.doyleoil wrote:you are wrong - please see my swimming thread for prooflex talionis wrote:Doylie, that aussie is not that cute.
And if I'm fucking a swimmer, it's going to be Ryan Lochte.
