sinfiery wrote:Signaling indicators are for consumers not experts.
Maybe... but I'm not sure you can be an expert at ranking schools the same way you can be at rating wine. In the latter, you can try the whole lot.
Anyways then the question becomes, do we want to rank shit based on a school's ability to achieve the same good outcomes with less resources, or do we prefer to rank a school higher because they might have more resources?
If you're deciding between two schools with exactly identical outcomes, a public and private one, both cost YOU $50k total, but that's sticker at the public one and that's a $150k scholarship at the private, I think you go private. The private school's gonna have more resources and might actually be better off in the future even if they're currently not putting them to good use.
Agreed, but instead of using the price, one could take out much of the uncertainty and quantify the actual resources. From library size to journal reach or whatever it is law school resources entail.
Using cost is a huge shortcut for this step. And this is especially harmful given what we know about how law schools abuse what you alluded to. The perceived value of going to a school that costs 50k but I am getting a 30k scholarship so Cooley for me really has some value versus UT instate.
At the very least, they should have used the data already available as Mylsn.info does to calculate what the actual cost/revenue generated.by the schools are. Can't think of any reason they why they didn't other than laziness.
As for your broader point, I actually agree but because price is so individualized, rank the schools without taking.cost into account and then let the individuals use their specific cost to decide where to attend.