US News Recruiter Rankings

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
paulinaporizkova
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby paulinaporizkova » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:03 pm

mths wrote:
ExpectLess wrote:Actually, Yale, Chicago, Penn, Berkeley all underperformed their ranking, and they all have relatively small class sizes. All this survey did was regurgitate USNews rankings with a tilt toward large class sizes.

Cornell has a class of 190

i loled.

but Chicago's class is small......?

gens1tb
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:36 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby gens1tb » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:11 pm

Based on these rankings I think I might consider applying to Harvard now

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby bigben » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:35 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:This is just the opinions of those 750 hiring partners at law firms who returned the survey form.

nice

User avatar
LLB2JD
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby LLB2JD » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:53 pm

Northwestern twitted this info out already. Talk about efficiency

http://twitter.com/#!/nulawadmissions

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby FiveSermon » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:05 pm

LLB2JD wrote:Northwestern twitted this info out already. Talk about efficiency

http://twitter.com/#!/nulawadmissions


Are you serious LOL

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby danquayle » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:09 pm

LLB2JD wrote:Northwestern twitted this info out already. Talk about efficiency

http://twitter.com/#!/nulawadmissions


still unclear on "twit" versus tweet".

sarahlawg
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby sarahlawg » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:43 pm

another problem with this survey is making it out of 5. I wonder why they chose that.

User avatar
LLB2JD
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby LLB2JD » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:00 pm

danquayle wrote:
LLB2JD wrote:Northwestern twitted this info out already. Talk about efficiency

http://twitter.com/#!/nulawadmissions


still unclear on "twit" versus tweet".



:?

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby prezidentv8 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:04 pm

These rankings = herp derp

User avatar
mths
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby mths » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:07 pm

sarahlawg wrote:another problem with this survey is making it out of 5. I wonder why they chose that.

you're right, that's a huge flaw

User avatar
rman1201
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby rman1201 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:07 pm

sarahlawg wrote:another problem with this survey is making it out of 5. I wonder why they chose that.


Because they use 5 for all the other rankings (Peer rankings, judge/lawyer rankings)

dc1s
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:54 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby dc1s » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:11 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:The logic is sound, but the question is simply whether or not this is an editorial oversight &/or poor fact checking. If the logic is not sound, then why leave out Virginia, Duke & Northwestern from the line noting Cornell & Michigan's superior rankings over their overall USNews rankings ?

P.S. Regardless, whether it is an editorial error or not, we'll all know on March 15th when the new USNews overall rankings are released.


You are denying the sufficient (there are remarks about Cornell and Michigan, therefore this represents actual rankings), but there are no remarks about Northwestern or whatever school you said, therefore this doesn't represent actual rankings. The logic is not sound.

EDIT to acknowledge how awful my sentence is. I hope you get my point.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby rayiner » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:12 pm

sarahlawg wrote:another problem with this survey is making it out of 5. I wonder why they chose that.


Because any larger number of gradations would be total artificial precision?

sarahlawg
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby sarahlawg » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:15 pm

rman1201 wrote:
sarahlawg wrote:another problem with this survey is making it out of 5. I wonder why they chose that.


Because they use 5 for all the other rankings (Peer rankings, judge/lawyer rankings)


I see. Thanks. :?

rayiner wrote:
Because any larger number of gradations would be total artificial precision?


Eh, disagree. Unless of course the argument is that the schools are close enough anyway that they don't need to be more precise to be meaningful. I could see that.

User avatar
buckilaw
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:27 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby buckilaw » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:19 pm

rayiner wrote:
sarahlawg wrote:another problem with this survey is making it out of 5. I wonder why they chose that.


Because any larger number of gradations would be total artificial precision?


I think what sarah is trying to say is that having a wider set of numbers to rank from, say 1-100, makes it easier to see variation between schools. But, I wouldn't call using a 1-5 scale a problem. Regardless of scale the variance between schools should remain constant.

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

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby 09042014 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:22 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:These rankings = herp derp

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby Big Shrimpin » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:39 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
prezidentv8 wrote:These rankings = herp derp

sarahlawg
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby sarahlawg » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:43 pm

buckilaw wrote:
rayiner wrote:
sarahlawg wrote:another problem with this survey is making it out of 5. I wonder why they chose that.


Because any larger number of gradations would be total artificial precision?


I think what sarah is trying to say is that having a wider set of numbers to rank from, say 1-100, makes it easier to see variation between schools. But, I wouldn't call using a 1-5 scale a problem. Regardless of scale the variance between schools should remain constant.


well, 1-100 would be excessive. it may be possible to break up the ties with 1-9 or 1-7 even.

Regardless:
Desert Fox wrote:
prezidentv8 wrote:These rankings = herp derp

User avatar
calvmpv
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:54 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby calvmpv » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:10 pm

LLB2JD wrote:Northwestern twitted this info out already. Talk about efficiency

http://twitter.com/#!/nulawadmissions


For once, I didn't find out the "news" through TLS. HLS tweeted about coming in first in these rankings about 3 hours before Northwestern did. :roll:

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby FiveSermon » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:12 pm

Who the fuck checks law school twitters? That's the real question.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby rayiner » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:18 pm

sarahlawg wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Because any larger number of gradations would be total artificial precision?


Eh, disagree. Unless of course the argument is that the schools are close enough anyway that they don't need to be more precise to be meaningful. I could see that.


It's not a matter of being more precise, it's a matter of not being able to be more precise. If the scale were, say, 1-100, what would be the difference between a 97 and a 98?

If you've got a ruler with only 1" markings, can you measure your penis and say it's 3.76" long? No --- your measuring device is not precise enough for you to honestly report a result with that much precision.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby rayiner » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:21 pm

buckilaw wrote:
rayiner wrote:
sarahlawg wrote:another problem with this survey is making it out of 5. I wonder why they chose that.


Because any larger number of gradations would be total artificial precision?


I think what sarah is trying to say is that having a wider set of numbers to rank from, say 1-100, makes it easier to see variation between schools. But, I wouldn't call using a 1-5 scale a problem. Regardless of scale the variance between schools should remain constant.


There is no point in making it easier to see finer variations when your measurement method can't measure finer variations. If you asked people to guestimate their height they would report it as 5-6" or 5-11". It would be scientifically dishonest of you to then report or results as 5.500', 5.9267', etc.

To put things more simply the fact that there is a big tie at 8th isn't from the reporting method, but from the measurement method. It simply reflects the underlying fact that hiring partners can't readily distinguish between these schools.

User avatar
existenz
Posts: 927
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:06 am

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby existenz » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:52 pm

Michigan #4? Hell yeah!

/Fist pumps

sarahlawg
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby sarahlawg » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:10 pm

rayiner wrote:
To put things more simply the fact that there is a big tie at 8th isn't from the reporting method, but from the measurement method. It simply reflects the underlying fact that hiring partners can't readily distinguish between these schools.


In those exact words, that's what I thought your argument was.

User avatar
rman1201
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: US News Recruiter Rankings

Postby rman1201 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:47 pm

I dont see the reason for the negative reactions to these rankings. I think its safe to assume these will be factored into the 2012 US News Rankings along with the peer school / lawyer & judge ratings which already exist, however recruiter ratings actually mean something since these are the people who will employ you.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger and 4 guests