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

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 2:04 pm

TheBigMediocre wrote: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.



Haha, nope. You're the first. That IS really annoying though, isn't it?

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 2:08 pm

erniesto wrote:
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:


There really is no way to get numbers independently verified. There were even issues with the percentage of firms in the NLJ250 who reported in this year's survey. Several schools were unhappy about this. Unless I were to accuse my school of outright lying, it's hard to see how employment numbers based on a 99% response rate could be inaccurate. Fordham's numbers are not in the 97% range. They are believable.

I do think Fordham will gut the PT program this year, and I'm not thrilled about it, but I certainly understand the pressure. GW did it last year, and Fordham declined to do so then. This is what happened.

And you are right about NYC falling in the rankings. :| Blame the economy for that one. I should look into what BLS did this year (we all know what they did last year). Cardozo, FTR, is not declining any more than Fordham is. It also has a PT program, and, well, it's in New York. Only CLS is still sitting serene. I know enough people to have some idea of what goes on up there, and they were not completely unscathed by the market, but the damage was slight.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1922
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

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

Postby Stringer Bell » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:11 pm

Yale. No one can be number one forever without some foul play involved.

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 2:13 pm

Always Credited wrote:
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.


No one outside the GW admissions office has proof. It's merely the most likely explanation, unless you can point to something else the school did to bounce back so quickly. I'm not blaming GW. GW is an awesome school, and it looks like Fordham will have to do the same thing. GW's PT program admitted students with lower numbers, if that's what you mean by "not strong," but there is no evidence that they were less likely to be employed. No such employment disparity exists here. PT and FT students have access to the same OCI resources, and if PT students were penalized by many employers, schools likely would have taken action before the rankings change.

Again, I don't think this is GW's fault, and I am not gunning after GW, just stating that they did what they felt they had to do to get their rank back.

climb
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:19 am

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

Postby climb » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:16 pm

GW is cutting the PT program this coming year. Last year they admitted a full PT class and simply gave people the option of going FT. It shouldn't have affected their numbers in this year's rankings.

User avatar
sundevil77
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:34 pm

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

Postby sundevil77 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:17 pm

Seriously, ASU goes from 55 to 38? That doesn't pass the smell test. I find it hard to believe that they report 91% employment at graduation when a school that is not so different from it (Arizona) reports just 77% employment. Employment statistics are without value when the definition could be someone waiting tables, working a part-time legal job, working at the PD's office, or working a Biglaw job.

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 2:23 pm

Always Credited wrote:
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.


I'm sorry my argument wasn't explicit enough for you in terms of assumed details.

That being said... you are right, I can prove nothing about a given school's motives and neither can you.

To my knowledge, the reason GW's PT program caused the drop is because they were letting students in with lower medians. I don't think it had much to do with employment or the economy. And I still think it's reasonable to assume that GW's motive in gutting the program is primarily it's ranking.

That is my assumption and I'm sticking to it :)


Edit: To OperaSoprano, I was under the impression that they had not only shrunk the amount of students they let in this year but also raised the medians of those they did let in. I could be wrong.

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 2:49 pm

sundevil77 wrote:Seriously, ASU goes from 55 to 38? That doesn't pass the smell test. I find it hard to believe that they report 91% employment at graduation when a school that is not so different from it (Arizona) reports just 77% employment. Employment statistics are without value when the definition could be someone waiting tables, working a part-time legal job, working at the PD's office, or working a Biglaw job.


Isn't Arizona a secondary market for the pornography industry?

ASU grads are still getting jobs screwing people, just not in a legal setting.

User avatar
RayFinkle
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:20 pm

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

Postby RayFinkle » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:55 pm

TheBigMediocre wrote:
sundevil77 wrote:Seriously, ASU goes from 55 to 38? That doesn't pass the smell test. I find it hard to believe that they report 91% employment at graduation when a school that is not so different from it (Arizona) reports just 77% employment. Employment statistics are without value when the definition could be someone waiting tables, working a part-time legal job, working at the PD's office, or working a Biglaw job.


Isn't Arizona a secondary market for the pornography industry?

ASU grads are still getting jobs screwing people, just not in a legal setting.



ZING!

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

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

Postby PDaddy » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:04 pm

WhatTheLawSchool wrote:Ugh, this is frustrating to me. I had just sent off a seat deposit to a school that is steadily dropping. (Not dramatically, but steadily.) And, I had all but finally ruled out my last two remaining options, both of which are in this poll! They both dramatically improved their ranking... it makes me wonder if I should reconsider them. Arizona State passed the rank of the school I was choosing, and Loyola is now suddenly a top 60 (yeah, I know, weird to use 60) school that offered me a big scholarship. I hate how much I care about rankings, but it's hard for me to not notice these jumps. But as this topic points out, I should be skeptical. Right?


Would you switch soft drinks (too) if they started ranking those? Do you know Morse or something? You are letting this man control your life. He doesn't even know you and he damn sure doesn't care about you!!! These jumps, which are based on mostly arbitrary metrics with arbitrary weights (who says "reputation" can only be established by sending out surveys to legal professionals, and that it should get 40% weight?), yet you and other people are making life decisions based on them. I look at them and rant about them for fun, but the schools I like are the schools I like. No ranking is going to change that.

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 3:18 pm

WhatTheLawSchool wrote:LOL, I actually picked ASU for the poll, but now I'm considering picking either Syracuse or Syracuse. :)

Disregard the above post by me. I'm back to not really caring about ASU or LLS's jump in the rankings. I bet they both go back down in the next couple years. We'll see.

PDaddy wrote:
WhatTheLawSchool wrote:Ugh, this is frustrating to me. I had just sent off a seat deposit to a school that is steadily dropping. (Not dramatically, but steadily.) And, I had all but finally ruled out my last two remaining options, both of which are in this poll! They both dramatically improved their ranking... it makes me wonder if I should reconsider them. Arizona State passed the rank of the school I was choosing, and Loyola is now suddenly a top 60 (yeah, I know, weird to use 60) school that offered me a big scholarship. I hate how much I care about rankings, but it's hard for me to not notice these jumps. But as this topic points out, I should be skeptical. Right?


Would you switch soft drinks (too) if they started ranking those? Do you know Morse or something? You are letting this man control your life. He doesn't even know you and he damn sure doesn't care about you!!! These jumps, which are based on mostly arbitrary metrics with arbitrary weights (who says "reputation" can only be established by sending out surveys to legal professionals, and that it should get 40% weight?), yet you and other people are making life decisions based on them. I look at them and rant about them for fun, but the schools I like are the schools I like. No ranking is going to change that.



Don't worry. I'm not letting them run my life. It was just the fact that the two schools I had left in consideration aside from my top choice were both ones that made huge jumps. I'm fully skeptical of the rankings, and upon review of what is actually included in them, I'm feeling just fine about my choice that I've made.

EDIT: I would definitely switch soft drinks based upon rankings of them. You gotta be up with the latest and greatest in drinks, man!

yo!
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:11 pm

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

Postby yo! » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:22 pm

Honestly, who fucking cares? The schools are playing the game that was put in front of them. lol @ OS and others claiming that their schools are noble enough to report accurate information. In this process, there is no such thing as accurate information. Do you honestly think that a Northern CA employer will hire a Davis grad over an equal Hastings grad because Davis moved to 28 this year? Arizona State over U Arizona beause of a few spots in the rankings? Give me a break! While long term trends may be worth looking at, this year's changes in the rankings aren't going to mean shit to employers. They only serve as a vehicle for law student prestige whoring. Yeah, it's nice to say that I will be going to a T30 school, but I would easily choose Hastings if I wanted to live in SF. I'm fully aware that Davis could fall to the 40s or 50s within the next few years. Do I give a shit? No. Will it have any affect on employment prospects? Doubt it.

User avatar
SmittenMitten
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:18 pm

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

Postby SmittenMitten » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:27 pm

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



+1

User avatar
whuts4lunch
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:54 pm

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

Postby whuts4lunch » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:36 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.


The GW part-time cut is gaming of the rankings. I can't imagine that rankings gaming wasn't the sole purpose of that cut.

User avatar
Kchuck
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:49 am

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

Postby Kchuck » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:40 pm

Why isn't UGA in the poll?

User avatar
newyorker88
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:32 pm

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

Postby newyorker88 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:44 pm

erniesto wrote:
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.


Then why is St. John's up 15 spots?

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

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

Postby PDaddy » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:48 pm

WhatTheLawSchool wrote:
WhatTheLawSchool wrote:LOL, I actually picked ASU for the poll, but now I'm considering picking either Syracuse or Syracuse. :)

Disregard the above post by me. I'm back to not really caring about ASU or LLS's jump in the rankings. I bet they both go back down in the next couple years. We'll see.

PDaddy wrote:
WhatTheLawSchool wrote:Ugh, this is frustrating to me. I had just sent off a seat deposit to a school that is steadily dropping. (Not dramatically, but steadily.) And, I had all but finally ruled out my last two remaining options, both of which are in this poll! They both dramatically improved their ranking... it makes me wonder if I should reconsider them. Arizona State passed the rank of the school I was choosing, and Loyola is now suddenly a top 60 (yeah, I know, weird to use 60) school that offered me a big scholarship. I hate how much I care about rankings, but it's hard for me to not notice these jumps. But as this topic points out, I should be skeptical. Right?


Would you switch soft drinks (too) if they started ranking those? Do you know Morse or something? You are letting this man control your life. He doesn't even know you and he damn sure doesn't care about you!!! These jumps, which are based on mostly arbitrary metrics with arbitrary weights (who says "reputation" can only be established by sending out surveys to legal professionals, and that it should get 40% weight?), yet you and other people are making life decisions based on them. I look at them and rant about them for fun, but the schools I like are the schools I like. No ranking is going to change that.


Don't worry. I'm not letting them run my life. It was just the fact that the two schools I had left in consideration aside from my top choice were both ones that made huge jumps. I'm fully skeptical of the rankings, and upon review of what is actually included in them, I'm feeling just fine about my choice that I've made.

EDIT: I would definitely switch soft drinks based upon rankings of them. You gotta be up with the latest and greatest in drinks, man!


I was a bit harsh up above, but this system is beginning to annoy me. It seems as though, to some degree, we have all let them run our lives. But It's perilous to change school choices because of the rankings. I wouldn't do that. BTW...Coke is #1 :wink:

On another note, I wonder what schools would do it students changed their grades every year at the last minute...falsely of course.

didionye
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:46 am

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

Postby didionye » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:16 pm

The new ranking actually makes me feel better about choosing loyola.

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 4:24 pm

yo! wrote:Honestly, who fucking cares? The schools are playing the game that was put in front of them. lol @ OS and others claiming that their schools are noble enough to report accurate information. In this process, there is no such thing as accurate information. Do you honestly think that a Northern CA employer will hire a Davis grad over an equal Hastings grad because Davis moved to 28 this year? Arizona State over U Arizona beause of a few spots in the rankings? Give me a break! While long term trends may be worth looking at, this year's changes in the rankings aren't going to mean shit to employers. They only serve as a vehicle for law student prestige whoring. Yeah, it's nice to say that I will be going to a T30 school, but I would easily choose Hastings if I wanted to live in SF. I'm fully aware that Davis could fall to the 40s or 50s within the next few years. Do I give a shit? No. Will it have any affect on employment prospects? Doubt it.


I wouldn't argue that it will have a short-term effect. The difference here is that Hastings has been (unjustifiably) on a downward trend for the last 20 years. As Davis, Chapman and others cheat their way to the top, Hastings slides toward T2-dom. And on what basis? Stupid shit like Teacher/Faculty ratio, expenditures per student, and falsified employment statistics.

When you look at other rankings that remove all the 'noise' (like Helmholtz) you see that Hastings easily deserves to be ranked 10 spots higher. And despite it's "honest" 69% employed at graduation figure, Hastings offers better job prospects than almost all other 30-50 schools. All of that is going to change over time due to these badly flawed USNWR rankings. Soon the school will no longer attract top students or top faculty. That kind of decline in reputation is going to hang over every Hastings grad for the rest of our careers.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1922
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

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

Postby Stringer Bell » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:27 pm

swheat wrote:
yo! wrote:Honestly, who fucking cares? The schools are playing the game that was put in front of them. lol @ OS and others claiming that their schools are noble enough to report accurate information. In this process, there is no such thing as accurate information. Do you honestly think that a Northern CA employer will hire a Davis grad over an equal Hastings grad because Davis moved to 28 this year? Arizona State over U Arizona beause of a few spots in the rankings? Give me a break! While long term trends may be worth looking at, this year's changes in the rankings aren't going to mean shit to employers. They only serve as a vehicle for law student prestige whoring. Yeah, it's nice to say that I will be going to a T30 school, but I would easily choose Hastings if I wanted to live in SF. I'm fully aware that Davis could fall to the 40s or 50s within the next few years. Do I give a shit? No. Will it have any affect on employment prospects? Doubt it.


I wouldn't argue that it will have a short-term effect. The difference here is that Hastings has been (unjustifiably) on a downward trend for the last 20 years. As Davis, Chapman and others cheat their way to the top, Hastings slides toward T2-dom. And on what basis? Stupid shit like Teacher/Faculty ratio, expenditures per student, and falsified employment statistics.

When you look at other rankings that remove all the 'noise' (like Helmholtz) you see that Hastings easily deserves to be ranked 10 spots higher. And despite it's "honest" 69% employed at graduation figure, Hastings offers better job prospects than almost all other 30-50 schools. All of that is going to change over time due to these badly flawed USNWR rankings. Soon the school will no longer attract top students or top faculty. That kind of decline in reputation is going to hang over every Hastings grad for the rest of our careers.


NLJ 250 placment plus federal clerkship data is probably the best ranking metric out there.

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 4:31 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:
swheat wrote:
yo! wrote:Honestly, who fucking cares? The schools are playing the game that was put in front of them. lol @ OS and others claiming that their schools are noble enough to report accurate information. In this process, there is no such thing as accurate information. Do you honestly think that a Northern CA employer will hire a Davis grad over an equal Hastings grad because Davis moved to 28 this year? Arizona State over U Arizona beause of a few spots in the rankings? Give me a break! While long term trends may be worth looking at, this year's changes in the rankings aren't going to mean shit to employers. They only serve as a vehicle for law student prestige whoring. Yeah, it's nice to say that I will be going to a T30 school, but I would easily choose Hastings if I wanted to live in SF. I'm fully aware that Davis could fall to the 40s or 50s within the next few years. Do I give a shit? No. Will it have any affect on employment prospects? Doubt it.


I wouldn't argue that it will have a short-term effect. The difference here is that Hastings has been (unjustifiably) on a downward trend for the last 20 years. As Davis, Chapman and others cheat their way to the top, Hastings slides toward T2-dom. And on what basis? Stupid shit like Teacher/Faculty ratio, expenditures per student, and falsified employment statistics.

When you look at other rankings that remove all the 'noise' (like Helmholtz) you see that Hastings easily deserves to be ranked 10 spots higher. And despite it's "honest" 69% employed at graduation figure, Hastings offers better job prospects than almost all other 30-50 schools. All of that is going to change over time due to these badly flawed USNWR rankings. Soon the school will no longer attract top students or top faculty. That kind of decline in reputation is going to hang over every Hastings grad for the rest of our careers.


NLJ 250 placment plus federal clerkship data is probably the best ranking metric out there.


Thank you. Hastings still does around 15% NLJ 250 and 3.5% clerkships. Last time I checked Davis had 1.0% clerkships.

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 6:55 pm

St. John's rise is inexplicable. Unless it raises the same amount next year, I'd wager they just bullshitted something, especially given their part-time program. Maybe Queens County is more stable than Manhattan and Brooklyn, who knows. As far as NALP is concerned St. John's doesn't traditionally compare with BLS and Cardozo. This could be changing.

This may be the new NYC ranking

Columbia>NYU>>Fordturkey>>Cardozo/BLS/St. John's>>>>>NYDS

I also think BLS has a bad rap as far as ranking is concerned, some of it deserved, but it's alumni network in NYC is just as strong as Cardozo's. Cardozo is given too much credit, it's sitting right where it usually is and perhaps always will be, right in the arm pit of NYC's second tier.

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 6:57 pm

swheat wrote:
Stringer Bell wrote:
swheat wrote:
yo! wrote:Honestly, who fucking cares? The schools are playing the game that was put in front of them. lol @ OS and others claiming that their schools are noble enough to report accurate information. In this process, there is no such thing as accurate information. Do you honestly think that a Northern CA employer will hire a Davis grad over an equal Hastings grad because Davis moved to 28 this year? Arizona State over U Arizona beause of a few spots in the rankings? Give me a break! While long term trends may be worth looking at, this year's changes in the rankings aren't going to mean shit to employers. They only serve as a vehicle for law student prestige whoring. Yeah, it's nice to say that I will be going to a T30 school, but I would easily choose Hastings if I wanted to live in SF. I'm fully aware that Davis could fall to the 40s or 50s within the next few years. Do I give a shit? No. Will it have any affect on employment prospects? Doubt it.


I wouldn't argue that it will have a short-term effect. The difference here is that Hastings has been (unjustifiably) on a downward trend for the last 20 years. As Davis, Chapman and others cheat their way to the top, Hastings slides toward T2-dom. And on what basis? Stupid shit like Teacher/Faculty ratio, expenditures per student, and falsified employment statistics.

When you look at other rankings that remove all the 'noise' (like Helmholtz) you see that Hastings easily deserves to be ranked 10 spots higher. And despite it's "honest" 69% employed at graduation figure, Hastings offers better job prospects than almost all other 30-50 schools. All of that is going to change over time due to these badly flawed USNWR rankings. Soon the school will no longer attract top students or top faculty. That kind of decline in reputation is going to hang over every Hastings grad for the rest of our careers.


NLJ 250 placment plus federal clerkship data is probably the best ranking metric out there.


Thank you. Hastings still does around 15% NLJ 250 and 3.5% clerkships. Last time I checked Davis had 1.0% clerkships.


If only both these schools were not the most expensive public law schools in America. It's pretty clear that Davis did some tea leaf reading for its employment ratings.

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 6:59 pm

erniesto wrote:St. John's rise is inexplicable. Unless it raises the same amount next year, I'd wager they just bullshitted something, especially given their part-time program. Maybe Queens County is more stable than Manhattan and Brooklyn, who knows. As far as NALP is concerned St. John's doesn't traditionally compare with BLS and Cardozo. This could be changing.

This may be the new NYC ranking

Columbia>NYU>>Fordturkey>>Cardozo/BLS/St. John's>>>>>NYDS

I also think BLS has a bad rap as far as ranking is concerned, some of it deserved, but it's alumni network in NYC is just as strong as Cardozo's. Cardozo is given too much credit, it's sitting right where it usually is and perhaps always will be, right in the arm pit of NYC's second tier.


The main problem with St. Johns as I see it is that it's so damn expensive.

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 7:16 pm

honestabe84 wrote:
erniesto wrote:St. John's rise is inexplicable. Unless it raises the same amount next year, I'd wager they just bullshitted something, especially given their part-time program. Maybe Queens County is more stable than Manhattan and Brooklyn, who knows. As far as NALP is concerned St. John's doesn't traditionally compare with BLS and Cardozo. This could be changing.

This may be the new NYC ranking

Columbia>NYU>>Fordturkey>>Cardozo/BLS/St. John's>>>>>NYDS

I also think BLS has a bad rap as far as ranking is concerned, some of it deserved, but it's alumni network in NYC is just as strong as Cardozo's. Cardozo is given too much credit, it's sitting right where it usually is and perhaps always will be, right in the arm pit of NYC's second tier.


The main problem with St. Johns as I see it is that it's so damn expensive.


Welcome to NYC? St. John's is actually pretty generous with scholarships.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw, cocozhang9950 and 2 guests