Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )

Gamers

Duke -1
40
12%
Hawaii +28
59
18%
St. John's +15
8
2%
UC Davis +7
29
9%
Arizona State +17
55
17%
George Washington +8
61
19%
Chapman +7
15
5%
Miami +11
17
5%
Hofstra +14
19
6%
Syracuse +14
21
6%
 
Total votes: 324

jarofsoup
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby jarofsoup » Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:45 am

I have a hard time believing that ASU outpaced university of arizona. And also the major jump Davis took in the ranking and the major dive hastings took.


Its going to make next years cycle super competitive. All of these schools that loss rank are going to try to regain it and all the schools that gained rank are going to try to maintain it.

User avatar
TheBigMediocre
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:53 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby TheBigMediocre » Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:49 am

I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but please tell me someone has mentioned by now that frauded isn't a word?

Fraud can't be a verb.
Last edited by TheBigMediocre on Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby General Tso » Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:50 am

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

cLams
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:43 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby cLams » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 pm

swheat wrote:Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER


Does anyone think its a little weird that ASU is reporting 99.7% employment 9 months after graduation? One of their best numbers EVER, in the midst of a financial crisis. Seems a bit sketch.

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby somewhatwayward » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:19 pm

sapereaude2012 wrote:Do people really think GW 'frauded' the rankings that much? If you look over the years and not just at last year, GW is ALWAYS right around the #20 spot. A double-digit improvement seems much more suspect than a return to your fairly well-cemented position.

Especially considering that GW cut the pt program to a third of its previous size, and the employment #s improved, there seems to be a colorable argument that this is not the result of gaming on the part of the GW administration. Then again, perhaps I am letting my school allegiance get the best of me.


heh, i was about to reply and ask if you went to GW before i read the last sentence....

cutting the PT program to one third its original size is gaming the numbers bc they just started counting PT LSATs and GPAs in the medians for the rankings. cutting the PT program can also improve employment statistics, if the PT program is less strong as a whole.

edit: i don't have a beef with GW; it's a good school

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby honestabe84 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:20 pm

Missouri

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby OperaSoprano » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:22 pm

You guys have hit on the main problem with these numbers: they're self reported, and there is no policing. Furthermore, schools do not have to report the percentage of their students who responded. UC Davis could be basing that number off 80% of the graduating class, for all we know, unless the school website states the percentage who responded. This is the key number to know. My school has close to 99% of graduates reporting their whereabouts, and 93% reporting salary (this rises to around 96% for private sector grads), which means the numbers Fordham submits are reflective of reality. Schools that do this absolutely get penalized, because there is nothing to stop them from not aggressively tracking down graduates whom they know to be un or underemployed.

Last year, BLS got away with simply neglecting to mention its PT program. We need accountability, and we need it badly.

User avatar
TTH
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 am

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby TTH » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:24 pm

That Hofstra is not third tier is criminal.

That UGA and Wisconsin are now ranked higher than Ohio State is also criminal.

User avatar
sanpiero
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:09 am

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby sanpiero » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:29 pm

cLams wrote:
swheat wrote:Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER


Does anyone think its a little weird that ASU is reporting 99.7% employment 9 months after graduation? One of their best numbers EVER, in the midst of a financial crisis. Seems a bit sketch.


It was for the class of 2008, so many of those students likely found jobs pre-ITE. Also, I'm not sure, but I think the figure represents legal and non-legal employment. For instance, 11% of the class of 2007 were reported as being employed in "business." I suspect the majority of those individuals were not employed in-house but in some other business, i.e. non-legal, capacity.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby OperaSoprano » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:31 pm

somewhatwayward wrote:
sapereaude2012 wrote:Do people really think GW 'frauded' the rankings that much? If you look over the years and not just at last year, GW is ALWAYS right around the #20 spot. A double-digit improvement seems much more suspect than a return to your fairly well-cemented position.

Especially considering that GW cut the pt program to a third of its previous size, and the employment #s improved, there seems to be a colorable argument that this is not the result of gaming on the part of the GW administration. Then again, perhaps I am letting my school allegiance get the best of me.


heh, i was about to reply and ask if you went to GW before i read the last sentence....

cutting the PT program to one third its original size is gaming the numbers bc they just started counting PT LSATs and GPAs in the medians for the rankings. cutting the PT program can also improve employment statistics, if the PT program is less strong as a whole.

edit: i don't have a beef with GW; it's a good school


Yes, we know what they did. Fordham may not have a choice about following suit, though I'm glad the school didn't decide to gut the PT program this past year. It is ironic that a change meant to be beneficial to PT applicants has had this effect.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby jmhendri » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:32 pm

Incidentally, although I loved W&L when I visited and it's probably going to be my school... I did hear something troubling which relates to schools that fudge employment numbers. I ran into an '09 grad who was in town for the weekend. He finished with Latin honors and had a great job lined up in new york when the school counted him amongst their employed ranks. A few months after the economy crashed his offer was rescinded and now he is stuck practically unemployed (doing non profit work with no salary) and his loans piling up. The career planning office won't help him because they need to devote their resources to current students. He was pretty pissed at the school...

I wonder how many grads there are out there who had their offers rescinded but who were still counted as employed by the school at the time of graduation.

epyon
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby epyon » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:34 pm

Davis.
Last edited by epyon on Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WhatTheLawSchool
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:04 am

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby WhatTheLawSchool » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:37 pm

OneKnight wrote:I voted Loyola, mostly because of this: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/loyola-law-school-la-retroactively-inflates-grades/

I turned down a huge scholarship from LLS and I would do it again. Every time.



Thanks, I need all the ammo I can get to ensure to myself that I've made the right decision in turning down the LLS scholarship. Ugh. Really, I don't care about rankings. I just want a GOOD job. If the law firms etc. cared about the rankings a great deal, I'd care more. As it is, I don't think a difference of 10 or 20 rankings is going to make much difference if I'm showing that I'm capable of working my tail off. (Provided the difference isn't between top 14 and 30+.)

K, see ya.

P.S. I don't have a tail. Figure of speech.

ram jam
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby ram jam » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:38 pm

South Carolina, they should be audited!

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby Always Credited » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:41 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:
somewhatwayward wrote:
sapereaude2012 wrote:Do people really think GW 'frauded' the rankings that much? If you look over the years and not just at last year, GW is ALWAYS right around the #20 spot. A double-digit improvement seems much more suspect than a return to your fairly well-cemented position.

Especially considering that GW cut the pt program to a third of its previous size, and the employment #s improved, there seems to be a colorable argument that this is not the result of gaming on the part of the GW administration. Then again, perhaps I am letting my school allegiance get the best of me.


heh, i was about to reply and ask if you went to GW before i read the last sentence....

cutting the PT program to one third its original size is gaming the numbers bc they just started counting PT LSATs and GPAs in the medians for the rankings. cutting the PT program can also improve employment statistics, if the PT program is less strong as a whole.

edit: i don't have a beef with GW; it's a good school


Yes, we know what they did. Fordham may not have a choice about following suit, though I'm glad the school didn't decide to gut the PT program this past year. It is ironic that a change meant to be beneficial to PT applicants has had this effect.


IMO counting reactive decisions as "gaming the rankings" is taking it too far; to do so is to consider EVERY action a school takes as "gaming the rankings". The only true "gaming" done is fudged reporting.

Cutting of PT Programs? Not gaming.
Spending of donation money? Not gaming.
Employing students who otherwise wouldn't be employed? Not gaming.

You choose to examine more closely the reported statistics, or you don't. That isn't USNWR's job. That's your job. If you think something looks funky, EXAMINE IT. If Davis employed several students in the library because they wouldn't have had a job otherwise and then reported them as non-legal sector employment...whats the problem? If those students are reported as Private sector Firm jobs making $95,000, don't go to Davis. If the information isn't clearly presented, go to any lengths you have to in order to find the fuck out. If you get your panties in a bundle because you personally expect all reported employment to fall into the same criteria, that's your problem.

C'mon people. Really.

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

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby erniesto » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:45 pm

Oblomov wrote:Yale.


+1

Rampant grade inflation.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby jmhendri » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:46 pm

An action done solely to affect the USNWR is gaming the numbers. Spending donation money and employing students can be considered things that the administration truly believes will improve the quality of the school, but it's difficult to argue that reacting the the new USNWR methodology by gutting a part time program is done to improve student prospects.

User avatar
arhmcpo
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:05 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby arhmcpo » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:50 pm

Any school whose employment rate is ridiculously high, or higher than schools unanimously thought to be their superior (Davis> Boalt)
Since employment numbers are the easiest factor to "game" (I think this is a universally accepted notion) you should look to how realistic the employment stats are to determine how much a school likely fudged their numbers. I think its a crime that schools like Fordham are penalized for being thorough and providing the most accurate numbers possible.

I'm looking at you Davis, ASU, Chapman...
:roll:

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby Always Credited » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:51 pm

jmhendri wrote:An action done solely to affect the USNWR is gaming the numbers. Spending donation money and employing students can be considered things that the administration truly believes will improve the quality of the school, but it's difficult to argue that reacting the the new USNWR methodology by gutting a part time program is done to improve student prospects.


Prove that any action done is done solely to affect the USNWR rankings. Gutting a PT program that you weren't able to properly employ, and thus screwing those students out of potentially $200,000, is saving future students from those problems while at the same time improving your schools reputation.

If you COULD completely employ your entire PT program, it'd be fully beneficial to everyone and therefore there wouldn't be a reason to cut it.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby jmhendri » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:53 pm

Always Credited wrote:
jmhendri wrote:An action done solely to affect the USNWR is gaming the numbers. Spending donation money and employing students can be considered things that the administration truly believes will improve the quality of the school, but it's difficult to argue that reacting the the new USNWR methodology by gutting a part time program is done to improve student prospects.


Prove that any action done is done solely to affect the USNWR rankings. Gutting a PT program that you weren't able to properly employ, and thus screwing those students out of potentially $200,000, is saving future students from those problems while at the same time improving your schools reputation.

If you COULD completely employ your entire PT program, it'd be fully beneficial to everyone and therefore there wouldn't be a reason to cut it.


The fact that this was done the year after they dropped 8 spots specifically due to the factoring in of PT students, in my eyes, makes that reasoning highly unlikely.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby IAFG » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:54 pm

RANKINGS CHANGES DON'T EFFECT YOUR EMPLOYABILITY

User avatar
RonArtest
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:45 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby RonArtest » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:56 pm

superserial wrote:we're most frauded by the rankings.

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

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby erniesto » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:57 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:You guys have hit on the main problem with these numbers: they're self reported, and there is no policing. Furthermore, schools do not have to report the percentage of their students who responded. UC Davis could be basing that number off 80% of the graduating class, for all we know, unless the school website states the percentage who responded. This is the key number to know. My school has close to 99% of graduates reporting their whereabouts, and 93% reporting salary (this rises to around 96% for private sector grads), which means the numbers Fordham submits are reflective of reality. Schools that do this absolutely get penalized, because there is nothing to stop them from not aggressively tracking down graduates whom they know to be un or underemployed.

Last year, BLS got away with simply neglecting to mention its PT program. We need accountability, and we need it badly.


So Fordham says. Until you have independent verification of school employment info I wouldn't believe a single thing any school puts out there right now.

I'm not so certain that Fordham didn't gut their PT program. I'll be interested to see if the total enrollment will be the same for this year, given their PT numbers could easily equal full scholarships for a full time program at other schools.

Regardless, Fordham didn't fall in the rankings, NYC did. Unless BLS gamed the rankings again (and which school doesn't) it looks like their PT program didn't dent their ranking too terribly. And what happened to Cardozo? I thought it was on the up and up. :lol:

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby General Tso » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:01 pm

sanpiero wrote:
cLams wrote:
swheat wrote:Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER


Does anyone think its a little weird that ASU is reporting 99.7% employment 9 months after graduation? One of their best numbers EVER, in the midst of a financial crisis. Seems a bit sketch.


It was for the class of 2008, so many of those students likely found jobs pre-ITE. Also, I'm not sure, but I think the figure represents legal and non-legal employment. For instance, 11% of the class of 2007 were reported as being employed in "business." I suspect the majority of those individuals were not employed in-house but in some other business, i.e. non-legal, capacity.


That's fine, but the economy was already weakening by 2008. At best the economy from 2006-2008 was roughly the same, ie. NOT IMPROVING. So what accounts for the VAST IMPROVEMENT shown by Davis over that time period? Did employers suddenly start shitting their pants for Davis grads for no apparent reason? To claim that Davis grads are employed at higher rates than Boalt is just too big of a stretch to be believed.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Which school do you think most frauded the rankings?

Postby Always Credited » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:03 pm

jmhendri wrote:
Always Credited wrote:
jmhendri wrote:An action done solely to affect the USNWR is gaming the numbers. Spending donation money and employing students can be considered things that the administration truly believes will improve the quality of the school, but it's difficult to argue that reacting the the new USNWR methodology by gutting a part time program is done to improve student prospects.


Prove that any action done is done solely to affect the USNWR rankings. Gutting a PT program that you weren't able to properly employ, and thus screwing those students out of potentially $200,000, is saving future students from those problems while at the same time improving your schools reputation.

If you COULD completely employ your entire PT program, it'd be fully beneficial to everyone and therefore there wouldn't be a reason to cut it.


The fact that this was done the year after they dropped 8 spots specifically due to the factoring in of PT students, in my eyes, makes that reasoning highly unlikely.



"They"? I assume you mean GW, then...which I never mentioned. If you want to irrationally gun after GW, that's your own prerogative. But you've provided nothing other than blanket statements and guesswork to show that changes to a law program = gaming the rankings.

In the case of GW, yeah, the PT change was made as USNWR methodology changed. But the economy was also beginning to change at the same time. If GW's PT program was strong, then it wouldn't have caused a USNWR drop. If the PT program was weak enough for whatever reason to cause a drop, it's weak enough to cut.

Correlation =/= causation.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests