ATL's Law School Rankings Forum

[romothesavior]

I don't think their goal was "objectivity," but an "outcomes-oriented" method. In that respect, I think they drastically improved on what USNWR does. I still think there are flaws, but it's still an improvement.

[bk1]

Why 7.5%, btw? It certainly appears like the methodology chosen creates a "Tier" among the top 3 schools. Why? Because everyone universally recognizes them as best?

Not looking for an answer to the above. Just pointing out that the percentages chosen happen to create a very distinct set of 3 schools at the top. That, in and of itself, calls them into question in my mind.

That was my point. Subjective rankings will get criticized for not being objective enough. Objective rankings will get criticized for not accounting for self selection that some schools afford their grads (that other schools do not) and that stems from different types of people choosing different schools.

I don't think a purely objective ranking system is better than subjective because there are realities that just cannot be captured in the objective data. Does it assume what it sets out to prove? Of course it does, that doesn't stop it from being a more useful ranking system that is closer to reality and thus more useful for 0Ls to make decisions off of.

[run26.2]

I don't think their goal was "objectivity," but an "outcomes-oriented" method. In that respect, I think they drastically improved on what USNWR does. I still think there are flaws, but it's still an improvement.

An outcomes oriented methodology that has an admitted outsize focus on 1 metric (SCOTUS clerks - we're talking about around 40 people per year), and a questionable reliance on another (judges).

[run26.2]

Why 7.5%, btw? It certainly appears like the methodology chosen creates a "Tier" among the top 3 schools. Why? Because everyone universally recognizes them as best?

Not looking for an answer to the above. Just pointing out that the percentages chosen happen to create a very distinct set of 3 schools at the top. That, in and of itself, calls them into question in my mind.

That was my point. Subjective rankings will get criticized for not being objective enough. Objective rankings will get criticized for not accounting for self selection that some schools afford their grads (that other schools do not) and that stems from different types of people choosing different schools.

I don't think a purely objective ranking system is better than subjective because there are realities that just cannot be captured in the objective data. Does it assume what it sets out to prove? Of course it does, that doesn't stop it from being a more useful ranking system that is closer to reality and thus more useful for 0Ls to make decisions off of.

It may be closer to reality in the sense that everyone thinks it, true. And that is my point. Choosing metrics that apply to very few people and yet reinforce what everyone already thinks is questionable, in my opinion.

[bk1]

It may be closer to reality in the sense that everyone thinks it, true. And that is my point. Choosing metrics that apply to very few people and yet reinforce what everyone already thinks is questionable, in my opinion.

Hiring decisions are based on what people think of schools.

[run26.2]

It may be closer to reality in the sense that everyone thinks it, true. And that is my point. Choosing metrics that apply to very few people and yet reinforce what everyone already thinks is questionable, in my opinion.

Hiring decisions are based on what people think of schools.

Agreed. And to the extent that a new ranking system ossifies what everyone already thinks, I think it is questionable. I'm not sure there's a lot of value in going back and forth on this. I do hope that we would recognize the conservativism that influences thinking about schools, for better or for worse, which seems to exist in this particular ranking.

[Skye]

Average of the two polls (top 10 schools). Looks extremely creditable.

1. Yale
2.5. Harvard – Stanford
4.5 Chicago
6. Penn — Columbia
7. UVA
8. NYU — Berkeley
8.5 Duke

[2014]

Average of the two polls (top 10 schools). Looks extremely creditable.

1. Yale
2.5. Harvard – Stanford
4.5 Chicago
6. Penn — Columbia
7. UVA
8. NYU — Berkeley
8.5 Duke

I support this

[NoodleyOne]

UVA HOLDS STRONG!!!

[Elston Gunn]

It may be closer to reality in the sense that everyone thinks it, true. And that is my point. Choosing metrics that apply to very few people and yet reinforce what everyone already thinks is questionable, in my opinion.

Hiring decisions are based on what people think of schools.

Agreed. And to the extent that a new ranking system ossifies what everyone already thinks, I think it is questionable. I'm not sure there's a lot of value in going back and forth on this. I do hope that we would recognize the conservativism that influences thinking about schools, for better or for worse, which seems to exist in this particular ranking.

I understand and respect the concern about a supposedly objective ranking clearly taking subjective factors into account, but you're wrong to think that the belief that HYS are the top is a product of conservatism. I'm not going to publish my school's OCI data, but I will say this: at a school where probably a higher percentage than anywhere else in the t13 self-selects out of OCI, and where NYC is for the vast majority a fallback, a higher percentage of Yalies were at the V10 last year than UT students went to biglaw at all.* V10 is the fallback. Yale's placement power blows the non-HYS schools' out of the water--you just can't see it in the widely available data.

And yes, I know that the quality of firms HYS students get isn't the same thing as overall placement power, but it's certainly indicative of overall placement power, especially when most students' grades are indistinguishable.

*This is an unfair comparison because I'm not comparing apples and oranges (summers vs. people starting as associates), but it's just to make a point.

[Yukos]

Average of the two polls (top 10 schools). Looks extremely creditable.

1. Yale
2.5. Harvard – Stanford
4.5 Chicago
6. Penn — Columbia
7. UVA
8. NYU — Berkeley
8.5 Duke

Are you averaging USNWR and ATL? Because you're totally wrong if you are. Here's the actual averages:

1 Yale
2 Stanford
2.5 Harvard
4 Chicago
6 Penn/Columbia
7 UVA
8 NYU
8.5 Duke
9 Boalt
10 UM
12 Cornell
12.5 NU
15 GULC

Or if you don't like weird orders:

1 Yale
2 Stanford
3 Harvard
4 Chicago
5 Columbia
5 Penn
7 UVA
8 NYU
9 Duke
10 Boalt
11 UM
12 Cornell
13 NU
14 GULC

Really not a bad list.

[Tiago Splitter]

a higher percentage of Yalies were at the V10 last year than UT students went to biglaw at all.* V10 is the fallback. Yale's placement power blows the non-HYS schools' out of the water--you just can't see it in the widely available data.

The problem is you're citing the widely available data as your evidence. I mean Columbia also placed a higher percentage of 2013 summers into V10 than UT placed BigLaw at all, but I can't then conclude that V10 is the fallback at CLS.

[Skye]

Ok Yukos... my bad. (I used Berkeley's '12 USNWR #7 rank instead of their new lower '13 rank of #9). The world is now at peace with the top 10 law schools... glad to know that we've strengthened a nation.

1. Yale
2.5. Harvard – Stanford
4.5 Chicago
6. Penn — Columbia
7. UVA
8. NYU
8.5 Duke
9. Berkeley

[drmguy]

Why in the world would averaging the two be better? It makes no sense to mock USNWR ranking and then incorporate it into a more objective ranking.

[sinfiery]

a higher percentage of Yalies were at the V10 last year than UT students went to biglaw at all.* V10 is the fallback. Yale's placement power blows the non-HYS schools' out of the water--you just can't see it in the widely available data.

The problem is you're citing the widely available data as your evidence. I mean Columbia also placed a higher percentage of 2013 summers into V10 than UT placed BigLaw at all, but I can't then conclude that V10 is the fallback at CLS.

The actual evidence used to supplement HYS in this ranking is very likely not worth 30% of the decision process to any prospective students. Of course data exists behind closed doors that supplements any question regarding the actual ranking outcomes, but ATL doesn't use this data and so it isn't worth mentioning on defending these specific rankings. You can defend HYS as the three best schools rather easily, but you can't really defend these rankings.

What sucks is that when you see something like this, it screams that the rankings were put together to fit a certain preception and not a certain set of data.


There is a lot of hate on USNWR (and justifiably so) but they attempt to factor in the behind the doors info upfront through the questioning of the perception of those in the know when calculating rankings. Of course, even those sources suck and so you find tons of problems with the USNWR but the questioning of how or why they were put together isn't one whereas here it is and that ruins it for me.



Also my school is ranked worse so that sucks.

[Micdiddy]

Also my school is ranked worse so that sucks.

This. That's all I need to know to call ATL rankings BS

[phillywc]

It's kinda funny that these rankings were rapidly put on the rankings page on TLS but the USNWR took like 2 months to be updated.

[bk1]

It's kinda funny that these rankings were rapidly put on the rankings page on TLS but the USNWR took like 2 months to be updated.

We've just recently spent some time updating the non-forum content on TLS. It just happened to coincide.

[phillywc]

It's kinda funny that these rankings were rapidly put on the rankings page on TLS but the USNWR took like 2 months to be updated.

We've just recently spent some time updating the non-forum content on TLS. It just happened to coincide.

Oh I'm sure, I wasn't taking it to mean anything. Just thought it was a funny coincidence.

[06102016]

..

[Mal Reynolds]

It's kinda funny that these rankings were rapidly put on the rankings page on TLS but the USNWR took like 2 months to be updated.

Good Christ do the mods have a thankless job.

[NoodleyOne]

It's kinda funny that these rankings were rapidly put on the rankings page on TLS but the USNWR took like 2 months to be updated.

Good Christ do the mods have a thankless job.

You've got some brown on your nose.

[run26.2]

It may be closer to reality in the sense that everyone thinks it, true. And that is my point. Choosing metrics that apply to very few people and yet reinforce what everyone already thinks is questionable, in my opinion.

Hiring decisions are based on what people think of schools.

Agreed. And to the extent that a new ranking system ossifies what everyone already thinks, I think it is questionable. I'm not sure there's a lot of value in going back and forth on this. I do hope that we would recognize the conservativism that influences thinking about schools, for better or for worse, which seems to exist in this particular ranking.

I understand and respect the concern about a supposedly objective ranking clearly taking subjective factors into account, but you're wrong to think that the belief that HYS are the top is a product of conservatism. I'm not going to publish my school's OCI data, but I will say this: at a school where probably a higher percentage than anywhere else in the t13 self-selects out of OCI, and where NYC is for the vast majority a fallback, a higher percentage of Yalies were at the V10 last year than UT students went to biglaw at all.* V10 is the fallback. Yale's placement power blows the non-HYS schools' out of the water--you just can't see it in the widely available data.

And yes, I know that the quality of firms HYS students get isn't the same thing as overall placement power, but it's certainly indicative of overall placement power, especially when most students' grades are indistinguishable.

*This is an unfair comparison because I'm not comparing apples and oranges (summers vs. people starting as associates), but it's just to make a point.

I was not arguing that YSH are not the best law schools. I was arguing that these rankings contain what seems to be two arbitrary inputs that seem to produce a result that aligns with the traditional perspective that these are the top 3 schools. Who knows why ATL has chosen to do so? Possibly to lend some legitimacy to their rankings.

I have two points in response to your post.
1. Your statements make my argument. You are defending against the position that an analysis without these two factors (SCOTUS clerks and federal judges) would lead to an unjustifiably lower ranking for Yale. You support this position on the grounds that Yale's placement power does not show up in the rankings. I have no problem agreeing that Yale is a special place, and is unique (and likely "more prestigious"/better/more varied) in having employment outcomes that are difficult to quantify with objective measures. But to argue that this means they should be at the top of an objective rankings system that is meaningful for most schools or most prospective law students is reflective of that conservatism. I think people understand that Yale has an amazing law school, regardless of what the rankings say.

2. Your post is problematic with respect to Stanford and Harvard. You make your argument about Yale and then apply it to S and H as well. Again, this is reflective of the traditional perspective. While I'm willing to grant that self-selection might cause Yale's rank to unjustifiably decline, I'm less convinced that it would affect that of S and H. I don't have data to back this up, so someone is welcome to correct me on this. In any case, without similar data as to S and H, your argument only applies to Y. I think it would be more helpful to rerank the schools without the two inputs mentioned above and see how things come out.

[Blessedassurance]

2. Your post is problematic with respect to Stanford and Harvard. You make your argument about Yale and then apply it to S and H as well. Again, this is reflective of the traditional perspective. While I'm willing to grant that self-selection might cause Yale's rank to unjustifiably decline, I'm less convinced that it would affect that of S and H. I don't have data to back this up, so someone is welcome to correct me on this. In any case, without similar data as to S and H, your argument only applies to Y. I think it would be more helpful to rerank the schools without the two inputs mentioned above and see how things come out.

why are you willing to believe his account of yale but not h or s? because the traditional perspective you passionately criticize says yale is a special place?

[sinfiery]

Because H bombed in NLJ placement in the recession and Y just stayed in their don't give a fuck about biglaw range probably.