US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Panther7
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby Panther7 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:15 am

i watched the whole thing and it was interesting.


i was wondering, is there any location that has all of the USnews hard data for each year they published? I remember seeing last years somewhere, someone tried to replicate it. I'm curious if there are any trends anywhere...

SandyC877
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:27 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby SandyC877 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:16 am

shaville wrote:The quality of a school cannot be assessed without some sort of metric that underlies all other constituent qualities. The best way to measure the quality of something is to first determine what it is that thing is supposed to do. The better the thing achieves some result or performs some function, the higher quality it is. To me, law school should help me obtain and retain a good job. Any rankings system should reflect that the overwhelming purpose of law school is to secure employment.
-60% job placement (Biglaw numbers, clerkships)
-40% cost
-I don't care what my classmates LSATS or GPAS were. I want a school that will get me a job above all else. Get rid of "student quality" altogether. That metric is already contained within job placement. That is, the higher quality the student body, the more the graduates will be in demand.


I'll leave it up to you to spot the contradiction.

shaville
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:43 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby shaville » Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:36 am

There's no contradiction. As I said: the quality of the student body, over the long term, is contained within the measurement of employment statistics. There is no question that student quality impacts employment prospects. It is exactly because of the strong correlation between student quality and employment prospects that we can get rid of the use of student quality in calculating ranking. In its place, we should use employment outcomes.

TigerBeer
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:00 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby TigerBeer » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:18 pm

Reputation doesn't matter at all. Job placement is far more relevant. Every aspect about "reputation" that matters is encompassed in job placement.

awesomepossum
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:49 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby awesomepossum » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:20 pm

TigerBeer wrote:Reputation doesn't matter at all. Job placement is far more relevant. Every aspect about "reputation" that matters is encompassed in job placement.



so all jobs are the same to you?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby 09042014 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:22 pm

PDaddy wrote:All I can say is that I wish for a better world, one in which "certain people" do not need to proclaim themselves masters of the universe. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors when these tests are made. And those psychometricians are definitely not blacks. lol.


Black on black racism? Why can't a black person be a psychometrician?

SandyC877
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:27 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby SandyC877 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:24 pm

TigerBeer wrote:Reputation doesn't matter at all. Job placement is far more relevant. Every aspect about "reputation" that matters is encompassed in job placement.


Your point proves that reputation does matter. Reputation will increase as job placement increases. If you survey a market saturated with 90% of GULC students, what do you think their response will be?

TigerBeer
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:00 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby TigerBeer » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:26 pm

awesomepossum wrote:
TigerBeer wrote:Reputation doesn't matter at all. Job placement is far more relevant. Every aspect about "reputation" that matters is encompassed in job placement.



so all jobs are the same to you?


Of course not. Type of job should be accounted for as well. Give points for each biglaw job, clerkship, federal PI, etc. Again, reputation doesn't matter.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby 09042014 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:28 pm

awesomepossum wrote:
TigerBeer wrote:Reputation doesn't matter at all. Job placement is far more relevant. Every aspect about "reputation" that matters is encompassed in job placement.



so all jobs are the same to you?


You can include prestigious firm, govt and PI jobs into rankings. Using raw number of who is employed period would be silly.

TigerBeer
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:00 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby TigerBeer » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:31 pm

SandyC877 wrote:
TigerBeer wrote:Reputation doesn't matter at all. Job placement is far more relevant. Every aspect about "reputation" that matters is encompassed in job placement.


Your point proves that reputation does matter. Reputation will increase as job placement increases. If you survey a market saturated with 90% of GULC students, what do you think their response will be?


So why weigh reputation greater than job placement then? Job placement stats will be more responsive to changes in the economy than reputation would, while reputation takes at least a few classes of graduates to change. Schools that didn't weather the current recession well would take a hit in the rankings, as they should. Ranking based on job placement alone would force schools to take care of each individual student better than they do now.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby 09042014 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:33 pm

TigerBeer wrote:
SandyC877 wrote:
TigerBeer wrote:Reputation doesn't matter at all. Job placement is far more relevant. Every aspect about "reputation" that matters is encompassed in job placement.


Your point proves that reputation does matter. Reputation will increase as job placement increases. If you survey a market saturated with 90% of GULC students, what do you think their response will be?


So why weigh reputation greater than job placement then? Job placement stats will be more responsive to changes in the economy than reputation would, while reputation takes at least a few classes of graduates to change. Schools that didn't weather the current recession well would take a hit in the rankings, as they should. Ranking based on job placement alone would force schools to take care of each individual student better than they do now.


It is hard to create an accurate metric for job placement prospects.

User avatar
jcl2
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby jcl2 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:39 pm

corporatelaw87 wrote:Think about it at Harvard this kid is median, getting only a 3.5 with grade inflation. At a SUNY he'd be one of the "superstars". The quality of student is less (not as naturally smart). If I went to a safety I think I would be naturally smarter then more kids then my real UG. I always put effort in so that wouldn't be the problem. If I am competing against the curve with kids who are not as bright, then I will do better, thus raising my GPA. It's not that complicated, for example i am a big proponent of the fact that the SAT test natural intelligence. People study hundreds of words for verbal but the odds are that one of the words you study are on the test are slim ( I thikn I saw one of the words I studied on an analogy, but that's it). You build your vocab over the years and that's what you use on the SAT. Anyways, I digress, my point is who is naturally smarter the kid with the 1600 or the kid with 1050. If you seriously say they're even then your insane. Now lets say the kid with the 1600 goes to Harvard where a good portion of the kids have 1500+. He's competing with smarter students, thus against a curve he may not stand out all the time. Now let's say that kid with the 1600 goes to SUNY Brockport (avg SAT 1000 something). If you don't think he would smoke pretty much every kid there (maybe there are a couple of outliers) then you sir aren't that bright.


And the average 3.5 Harvard student probably gets a 168, just like they got a 1500 on the SAT, and the average 3.5 SUNY Brockport student gets a 150, so it all works out and where you went to UG doesn't really matter much.

User avatar
GeePee
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby GeePee » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:02 am

corporatelaw87 wrote:Think about it at Harvard this kid is median, getting only a 3.5 with grade inflation. At a SUNY he'd be one of the "superstars". The quality of student is less (not as naturally smart). If I went to a safety I think I would be naturally smarter then more kids then my real UG. I always put effort in so that wouldn't be the problem. If I am competing against the curve with kids who are not as bright, then I will do better, thus raising my GPA. It's not that complicated, for example i am a big proponent of the fact that the SAT test natural intelligence. People study hundreds of words for verbal but the odds are that one of the words you study are on the test are slim ( I thikn I saw one of the words I studied on an analogy, but that's it). You build your vocab over the years and that's what you use on the SAT. Anyways, I digress, my point is who is naturally smarter the kid with the 1600 or the kid with 1050. If you seriously say they're even then your insane. Now lets say the kid with the 1600 goes to Harvard where a good portion of the kids have 1500+. He's competing with smarter students, thus against a curve he may not stand out all the time. Now let's say that kid with the 1600 goes to SUNY Brockport (avg SAT 1000 something). If you don't think he would smoke pretty much every kid there (maybe there are a couple of outliers) then you sir aren't that bright.

Man, that stunning grammar really showed us. You're definitely one of those "naturally smart" types.

Also, for the majority of majors chosen by eventual law school applicants, how hard one works is much more important than how "naturally smart" he is.

User avatar
englawyer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:57 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby englawyer » Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:56 pm

GeePee wrote:
corporatelaw87 wrote:Think about it at Harvard this kid is median, getting only a 3.5 with grade inflation. At a SUNY he'd be one of the "superstars". The quality of student is less (not as naturally smart). If I went to a safety I think I would be naturally smarter then more kids then my real UG. I always put effort in so that wouldn't be the problem. If I am competing against the curve with kids who are not as bright, then I will do better, thus raising my GPA. It's not that complicated, for example i am a big proponent of the fact that the SAT test natural intelligence. People study hundreds of words for verbal but the odds are that one of the words you study are on the test are slim ( I thikn I saw one of the words I studied on an analogy, but that's it). You build your vocab over the years and that's what you use on the SAT. Anyways, I digress, my point is who is naturally smarter the kid with the 1600 or the kid with 1050. If you seriously say they're even then your insane. Now lets say the kid with the 1600 goes to Harvard where a good portion of the kids have 1500+. He's competing with smarter students, thus against a curve he may not stand out all the time. Now let's say that kid with the 1600 goes to SUNY Brockport (avg SAT 1000 something). If you don't think he would smoke pretty much every kid there (maybe there are a couple of outliers) then you sir aren't that bright.

Man, that stunning grammar really showed us. You're definitely one of those "naturally smart" types.

Also, for the majority of majors chosen by eventual law school applicants, how hard one works is much more important than how "naturally smart" he is.


+1 on both accounts

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby 09042014 » Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:06 pm

GeePee wrote:
corporatelaw87 wrote:Think about it at Harvard this kid is median, getting only a 3.5 with grade inflation. At a SUNY he'd be one of the "superstars". The quality of student is less (not as naturally smart). If I went to a safety I think I would be naturally smarter then more kids then my real UG. I always put effort in so that wouldn't be the problem. If I am competing against the curve with kids who are not as bright, then I will do better, thus raising my GPA. It's not that complicated, for example i am a big proponent of the fact that the SAT test natural intelligence. People study hundreds of words for verbal but the odds are that one of the words you study are on the test are slim ( I thikn I saw one of the words I studied on an analogy, but that's it). You build your vocab over the years and that's what you use on the SAT. Anyways, I digress, my point is who is naturally smarter the kid with the 1600 or the kid with 1050. If you seriously say they're even then your insane. Now lets say the kid with the 1600 goes to Harvard where a good portion of the kids have 1500+. He's competing with smarter students, thus against a curve he may not stand out all the time. Now let's say that kid with the 1600 goes to SUNY Brockport (avg SAT 1000 something). If you don't think he would smoke pretty much every kid there (maybe there are a couple of outliers) then you sir aren't that bright.

Man, that stunning grammar really showed us. You're definitely one of those "naturally smart" types.

Also, for the majority of majors chosen by eventual law school applicants, how hard one works is much more important than how "naturally smart" he is.


Even for very rigorous majors effort is a huge component. I studied electrical engineering, and a couple of the people who had the hardest time understand the material compensated with monumental effort and did very well.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby ggocat » Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:22 pm

Baloo wrote:With regard to location, I'd bet schools in major cities such as New York, Boston, L.A., and Chicago receieve some extra "reputation" points.

Professor Seto's study disagrees, at least with regard to non-top law schools in NYC. Anyone interested in the U.S. News rankings should read his article, but one of his conclusions is as follows: "It would appear that good-but-not-top schools located in or near the City suffer seriously by comparison with reputation leaders in the same market. Respondents have heard of them, but judge them adversely in comparison to their better-known competitors." Theodore P. Seto, Understanding the U.S. News Law School Rankings, 60 SMU L. REV. 493, 518 (2007).

For example, three of the top five schools that are "underranked" when comparing LSAT to reputation scores are located in NYC: Brooklyn, Cardozo, and Fordham. Id. at 519.

SandyC877 wrote:But here's what concerns me:

40% of US News Law School Ranking is based on "reputation" of the school. (Survey based on judges, academics, and lawyers)
http://www.usnews.com/articles/educatio ... l?PageNr=1

First, we have no idea how the questions are phrased or if the sample is representative. The response return rate on these surveys is extremely low, at about 30%. (Keep in mind, we dont know the total number, so it could be out of 1000 responses, or 10) This alone seriously raises doubt on validity of the "reputation" system. Furthermore, there are 3 possibly serious flaws.
1) We don't know who gets surveyed and who doesn't. For all we know, they could be asking the same judges year in and year out, producing the same reinforcing outcome for the select few schools (like it is now).
2) The responses could be heavily concentrated to a single area. For example, out of 100 responses, 90 could be from D.C, 8 from New York, and 2 from Los Angeles.

First, let's not get confused: your comments appear to be directed to the judge and lawyer assessment, not the peer assessment (although you lump reputation scores together as 40% of the ranking). Our knowledge about each of these two types of reputation surveys is vastly different.

For peer surveys, we know exactly who gets the surveys every year at each school: the law school dean, dean of academic affairs, chair of faculty appointments, and most recently tenured faculty member at each law school accredited by the American Bar Association. The response rate for peer surveys is much higher than that of the judge and lawyer assessment: 71% for the 2010 edition. Thus, we are able to calculate the exact number of respondents. 0.71 * 4X = Y, where X is the number of ABA approved law schools. Because every law school gets the survey, we also know exactly what questions are asked.

But many of your concerns about the judge and lawyer assessment are valid. Professor Leiter suggests (without attribution) that one-third of practitioners surveyed by U.S. News are from New York City and that U.S. News surveys no practitioners in half of the states in the country. Brian Leiter, How the 2003-04 Results Differ from US News, http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2 ... news.shtml. However, Professor Leiter does not cite any authority for this proposition.

erniesto
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby erniesto » Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:33 pm

Just get rid of the rankings. The ABA isn't doing its job. The Law Schools aren't doing their job. Notice how there are no US News Dental School rankings? If Law Schools boycotted the US News rankings then there wouldn't be such a diversity or number centric admission problem.

Trying to fix a cancer when simply removing it is plausible is stupidity at its best.

User avatar
SilverE2
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby SilverE2 » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:33 pm

Wow what an interesting video. I suggest everyone watch the whole thing.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby PDaddy » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:23 am

shaville wrote:The quality of a school cannot be assessed without some sort of metric that underlies all other constituent qualities. The best way to measure the quality of something is to first determine what it is that thing is supposed to do. The better the thing achieves some result or performs some function, the higher quality it is. To me, law school should help me obtain and retain a good job. Any rankings system should reflect that the overwhelming purpose of law school is to secure employment.
-60% job placement (Biglaw numbers, clerkships)
-40% cost
-I don't care what my classmates LSATS or GPAS were. I want a school that will get me a job above all else. Get rid of "student quality" altogether. That metric is already contained within job placement. That is, the higher quality the student body, the more the graduates will be in demand.


The problem with this proposition is that the jobs schools "get" for students is largely the result of deeply entrenched "reputations" that are built on long held beliefs that may have had little foundation. Self-fulfilling prophesies are powerful. The approach you suggest would do nothing more but perpetuate today's rankings.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby PDaddy » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:32 am

Desert Fox wrote:
PDaddy wrote:All I can say is that I wish for a better world, one in which "certain people" do not need to proclaim themselves masters of the universe. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors when these tests are made. And those psychometricians are definitely not blacks. lol.


Black on black racism? Why can't a black person be a psychometrician?


I suggest that the psychometricians he refers to are not black because I suspect that the results are being manipulated to say exactly what white conservatives want it to say. It's not that blacks cannot be psychometricians. In fact, there are studies showing that black children, when exposed to rigorous mathematics programs early in life, excell in math and science and love it throughout their education. I believe black kids don't get the early stimulation and rigor white kids get, and this comparatively hinders their learning later in life, so that, by the time they are taking the SAT/ACT, much less the LSAT/GMAT/GRE/MCAT, they are playing catch-up.

User avatar
flyingpanda
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:32 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby flyingpanda » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:24 am

PDaddy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
PDaddy wrote:All I can say is that I wish for a better world, one in which "certain people" do not need to proclaim themselves masters of the universe. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors when these tests are made. And those psychometricians are definitely not blacks. lol.


Black on black racism? Why can't a black person be a psychometrician?


I suggest that the psychometricians he refers to are not black because I suspect that the results are being manipulated to say exactly what white conservatives want it to say. It's not that blacks cannot be psychometricians. In fact, there are studies showing that black children, when exposed to rigorous mathematics programs early in life, excell in math and science and love it throughout their education. I believe black kids don't get the early stimulation and rigor white kids get, and this comparatively hinders their learning later in life, so that, by the time they are taking the SAT/ACT, much less the LSAT/GMAT/GRE/MCAT, they are playing catch-up.


Can you elaborate on this...? I don't even understand what your point is. Are you trying to tell us that there is some sort of white conservative group behind all of the standardized tests that is out to prove that African Americans are inferior? The LSAC makes the LSAT. The law schools run the LSAC. Law schools are trying to boost minority admissions through URM boosts. I think they'd rather all groups performed equally so they wouldn't have to use different criteria for different applicants.

Also, you're pushing this early stimulation thing as if it's some sort of radical new theory. but it's one I've heard this idea so many times. The question isn't are there environmental differences between how whites and blacks are raised in America, but rather what should we do to fix this.

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby Danteshek » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:50 am

I suggest a school specific write on competition for law school admission. You can only apply to one law school per year.

shaville
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:43 am

Re: US News Ranking Discussion Amongst deans

Postby shaville » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:41 am

PDaddy wrote:
shaville wrote:The quality of a school cannot be assessed without some sort of metric that underlies all other constituent qualities. The best way to measure the quality of something is to first determine what it is that thing is supposed to do. The better the thing achieves some result or performs some function, the higher quality it is. To me, law school should help me obtain and retain a good job. Any rankings system should reflect that the overwhelming purpose of law school is to secure employment.
-60% job placement (Biglaw numbers, clerkships)
-40% cost
-I don't care what my classmates LSATS or GPAS were. I want a school that will get me a job above all else. Get rid of "student quality" altogether. That metric is already contained within job placement. That is, the higher quality the student body, the more the graduates will be in demand.


The problem with this proposition is that the jobs schools "get" for students is largely the result of deeply entrenched "reputations" that are built on long held beliefs that may have had little foundation. Self-fulfilling prophesies are powerful. The approach you suggest would do nothing more but perpetuate today's rankings.


I don't think using placement and cost would entrench existing rankings. While certainly reputation plays into job placement, it is not wholly determinative of employment outcomes. Further, don't forget that I argued "cost" should be heavily weighted - this isn't determined by reputation at all. Heavily factoring cost would significantly shift the rankings, giving well-subsidized publics a very significant rankings boost and penalizing the most expensive (the T14) Within both of these two categories is a lot of room for movement in the rankings. However, even if it were the case that these two categories perpetuated today's rankings - who cares? If existing rankings reflected the two most important factors (cost and employment) accurately, then I would say the schools are ranked right where they should be.

The underlying idea here, is that we should have the rankings system reflect the actual preferences law students should have. Additionally, it should incentivize schools to make changes that benefit students - not drive up cost. Schools should be in a competition to limit debt and increase job prospects- not increase their LSAT medians or yield rate.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigBear, Not Fred, Pomegranate27 and 6 guests