Top Law Schools

PDaddy wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

PDaddy wrote:1. They can't go back and change their false reports to the ABA and USNWR, etc. 2. They can't change their published brochures, either.

1. Well, the school specifically stated these numbers weren't reported to the ABA. And the USNWR hasn't reported anything regarding this year's number either. So, um, what?

2. Report this year's class numbers to this year's class for recruiting purposes? It sounds like they caught it before it led to the shit you are concerned about here.

You assume this hasn't been going on in past years. In which case, inflated numbers have been reported to any and every publisher and use of the info. How much money would you bet that this wasn't an ongoing pattern? I know what I would be willing to bet to the contrary...and it's quite a bit.

Yeah, I think it's best to just assume that. Facts are fun when you pull them out of your ass.

.

Chupavida wrote:

Thirteen wrote:

Bildungsroman wrote:This from the same school that charges $250 for a letter of good academic standing for students wanting to transfer out.

They didn't charge me a dime.

Dean Pless is a great guy, so it really kills me to see this happen to him . I might have a grudge against the school, but I only have great things to say about Pless and Dean Vermillion.

Towards the end of the cycle they stopped charging the fee and refunded fees that had already been charged.

Probably a little thanks to Above the Law.

.

I am really outraged by this latest scandal at U of I. Where can I find out accurate information about the incoming LSAT and GPA of the students?

MrAnon wrote:I am really outraged by this latest scandal at U of I. Where can I find out accurate information about the incoming LSAT and GPA of the students?

Your trolling sucks.

IB rush to judgment.

Oops, too late.

We don't know nearly enough about the fact to justify all of these wild speculations. This could be an over-reaction to a simple error from an understandably cautious ethics committee or it could be something more disturbing. I certainly can't tell which is the case based upon the information released. Given my personal interactions with Dean Pless, I am inclined to wait until I am more certain of his guilt before assassinating his character online.

Also, the last admissions scandal was only a scandal because it involved a public school, and there were suggestions that admissions to UIUC were used as favors to be traded by the famously corrupt Illinois politicians. The scandalous part was not that under qualified applicants were granted admission because of their parents' connections. Everybody expects this to happen at most selective schools. Private schools openly and unapologetically admit less qualified applicants from the families of big donors, politicians, and alumni. What UIUC did was unfair, but it is no less unfair when private schools do it. Nobody in this thread is calling for the Dean of Admissions for Yale to resign in protest of this practice. It is unfair to suggest Pless should have done anything more than object to the practice in the most effective way he could. Who are we to say he didn't?

Arguably, it is not unfair for private schools o admit the children of wealthy or powerful alums, donors, etc. Just FYI.

Agree with Grizz that private schools are not relevant to this matter.

Grizz wrote:Arguably, it is not unfair for private schools o admit the children of wealthy or powerful alums, donors, etc. Just FYI.

Well, this doesn't really change the point. It is either unfair to accept under qualified applicants because of their parents' accomplishments or it is not. The funding status of the accepting institution doesn't alter this. It is not fair for private schools yet unfair for public schools.

masochist wrote:

Grizz wrote:Arguably, it is not unfair for private schools o admit the children of wealthy or powerful alums, donors, etc. Just FYI.

Well, this doesn't really change the point. It is either unfair to accept under qualified applicants because of their parents' accomplishments or it is not. The funding status of the accepting institution doesn't alter this. It is not fair for private schools yet unfair for public schools.

It absolutely changes the point.

Public funding is a very significant factor.

I was always a little suspicious of UoI's fast rankings rise.

romothesavior wrote:

masochist wrote:

Grizz wrote:Arguably, it is not unfair for private schools o admit the children of wealthy or powerful alums, donors, etc. Just FYI.

Well, this doesn't really change the point. It is either unfair to accept under qualified applicants because of their parents' accomplishments or it is not. The funding status of the accepting institution doesn't alter this. It is not fair for private schools yet unfair for public schools.

It absolutely changes the point.

How? It may change whether or not it is legal or the degree of moral outrage we are justified in feeling in response to the unfair practice, but how does public funding make the practice more unfair?

masochist wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

masochist wrote:

Grizz wrote:Arguably, it is not unfair for private schools o admit the children of wealthy or powerful alums, donors, etc. Just FYI.

Well, this doesn't really change the point. It is either unfair to accept under qualified applicants because of their parents' accomplishments or it is not. The funding status of the accepting institution doesn't alter this. It is not fair for private schools yet unfair for public schools.

It absolutely changes the point.

How? It may change whether or not it is legal or the degree of moral outrage we are justified in feeling in response to the unfair practice, but how does public funding make the practice more unfair?

lol

Every university, public or private, at every level, undergraduate or graduate, admits some people on the basis of their parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles/etc.

It's life. Is it unfair? There is a reasonably argument for each side.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's life.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Every university, public or private, at every level, undergraduate or graduate, admits some people on the basis of their parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles/etc.

It's life. Is it unfair? There is a reasonably argument for each side.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's life.

Thanks for the valuable contribution.

masochist wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

masochist wrote:

Grizz wrote:Arguably, it is not unfair for private schools o admit the children of wealthy or powerful alums, donors, etc. Just FYI.

Well, this doesn't really change the point. It is either unfair to accept under qualified applicants because of their parents' accomplishments or it is not. The funding status of the accepting institution doesn't alter this. It is not fair for private schools yet unfair for public schools.

It absolutely changes the point.

How? It may change whether or not it is legal or the degree of moral outrage we are justified in feeling in response to the unfair practice, but how does public funding make the practice more unfair?

It makes the practice more unfair because when private universities accept under qualified applicants over higher qualified applicants strictly because of family connections they are not shirking a public responsibility or using a publicly funded institution for indirect/direct personal gain. When a Public university, underscoring public ie: taxpayer funded, does not have basic equality (forget about URM, AA policies can be construed as substantive equality) in admissions practices they are violating a public duty. It is more unfair because those applicants being rejected in favor of well connected, unqualified applicants at Public universities have literally given money to the very institution that valued politics over qualification.

nucky thompson wrote: It makes the practice more unfair because when private universities accept under qualified applicants over higher qualified applicants strictly because of family connections they are not shirking a public responsibility or using a publicly funded institution for indirect/direct personal gain. When a Public university, underscoring public ie: taxpayer funded, does not have basic equality (forget about URM, AA policies can be construed as substantive equality) in admissions practices they are violating a public duty. It is more unfair because those applicants being rejected in favor of well connected, unqualified applicants at Public universities have literally given money to the very institution that valued politics over qualification.

that sums it up about right.

Okay we are getting way way way off point. Before this thread was officially hijacked we were discussing the fudging of the numbers. Does anyone know what the actual incoming class numbers are? Or do you care to speculate?

MrAnon wrote:Okay we are getting way way way off point. Before this thread was officially hijacked we were discussing the fudging of the numbers. Does anyone know what the actual incoming class numbers are? Or do you care to speculate?

An investigation is underway. Part of their task is to unearth the actual numbers and make them public. So as of now, we don't know the actual numbers for the class of 2014...

Here's the latest DI article on it:
http://www.dailyillini.com/index.php/ar ... estigation

I'm in a situation where I feel I absolutely have to withhold judgment until the results of the investigation are in. If it turns out this has been happening for a while, then I'll be pretty abjectly outraged. If it's only this year's class, and it was intentional, I'll be angry, but that'll be tempered a bit because the numbers weren't sent to the ABA, and were only publicly available for 9 days. If it was just this year and unintentional, well, I'll be simply dumbfounded. How friggin' hard would it be for someone who knows how to use excel - or a pocket calculator - to check the numbers? I have my guess as to which of these it is. I can't say I'm regretting my decision, but, perhaps, once Winter roles around, I'll start browsing one or two other forum topics on this site...

UIUCCoL has announced (as they should have and had to) that, if anything at all turns up from this investigation, they're going to investigate the hell out of all of the numbers from the past bunch of years.

By the way, a clarification, because I can't tell what people do and don't know about the Clout Scandal: the entire university was involved. The Law School was part of it, definitely, but it wasn't the only player in this enormous university caught up in that. Of some 800 students involved, about 15 were Law Students. Not saying it's right, or even any better, but it was an entire-organization problem, not just a Law School problem.

Bildungsroman wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Every university, public or private, at every level, undergraduate or graduate, admits some people on the basis of their parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles/etc.

It's life. Is it unfair? There is a reasonably argument for each side.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's life.

Thanks for the valuable contribution.

I right. It took me all of like 10-15 seconds to write it. It was worth every millisecond.

nucky thompson wrote:

masochist wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

masochist wrote:
Well, this doesn't really change the point. It is either unfair to accept under qualified applicants because of their parents' accomplishments or it is not. The funding status of the accepting institution doesn't alter this. It is not fair for private schools yet unfair for public schools.

It absolutely changes the point.

How? It may change whether or not it is legal or the degree of moral outrage we are justified in feeling in response to the unfair practice, but how does public funding make the practice more unfair?

It makes the practice more unfair because when private universities accept under qualified applicants over higher qualified applicants strictly because of family connections they are not shirking a public responsibility or using a publicly funded institution for indirect/direct personal gain. When a Public university, underscoring public ie: taxpayer funded, does not have basic equality (forget about URM, AA policies can be construed as substantive equality) in admissions practices they are violating a public duty. It is more unfair because those applicants being rejected in favor of well connected, unqualified applicants at Public universities have literally given money to the very institution that valued politics over qualification.

Public law schools and private law schools likely get around the same amount of money from tax benefits thereby destroying this argument in relation to the law school only.

I am also curious how this became known so quickly. Besides the admissions office no one would have access to this information.

00