2016 USNWR T25 Prediction Contest (Winners Announced)

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:27 pm

Lol these rankings must have made Zuck's week

bl1nds1ght
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby bl1nds1ght » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:35 pm

Lemurian wrote:
bl1nds1ght wrote:
RustyRyan wrote:Why does the TLS wisdom seem to be that Michigan was due for a drop and that it's been hurting since 08? I've seen it ITT and a few other places.

Not that it matters in the scheme of things, but I'm curious as to what signs people were seeing.

Higher unemployment relative to the rest of the T14.

Unrelated, I don't understand the Davis jump. It just seems like a weaker program based on employment.


Come on mate, it wouldn't be the USNWR if it were based on things like numbers and employment

My ability to forget the main topic of the thread is unrivaled.
I will not make this mistake again.

BigZuck
Posts: 10853
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby BigZuck » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:37 pm

jbagelboy wrote:Lol these rankings must have made Zuck's week

Had to pull myself off the floor to even respond to this post because I was still ROFLing at Michigan

Michigan and Vandy dropping like a rock, NYU solidly out of the T5, and UT right on the verge of a permanent place in the T14.

Hell yeah bros, we did it!!!

8)

eta: Duke dropping to 18 kinda sucks though, I like Duke

RustyRyan
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:09 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby RustyRyan » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:40 pm

Mack.Hambleton wrote:
RustyRyan wrote:Why does the TLS wisdom seem to be that Michigan was due for a drop and that it's been hurting since 08? I've seen it ITT and a few other places.

Not that it matters in the scheme of things, but I'm curious as to what signs people were seeing.


57% BL+FC

12th in the T14


Interesting. I wonder why that is. Oh well. /endmusings.

table3
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby table3 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:53 pm

I'm getting mixed messages on how exactly school-funded positions play in UNSWR's methodology. Can someone offer some clarity?

User avatar
Ex Cearulo
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:51 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby Ex Cearulo » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:00 pm

table3 wrote:I'm getting mixed messages on how exactly school-funded positions play in UNSWR's methodology. Can someone offer some clarity?


http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-law-schools-rankings

eta: US News doesn't go into detail about the specific weights placed on specific sub-categories of jobs. They just say that long term, full time jobs that are JD-required or JD-advantaged get "full weight", and it goes down from there.

eta2: this is last year's methodology, so it could be different for this year.
Last edited by Ex Cearulo on Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chuckbass
Posts: 9957
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby chuckbass » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:03 pm

Ex Cearulo wrote:
table3 wrote:I'm getting mixed messages on how exactly school-funded positions play in UNSWR's methodology. Can someone offer some clarity?


http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-law-schools-rankings

eta: US News doesn't go into detail about the specific weights placed on specific sub-categories of jobs. They just say that long term, full time jobs that are JD-required or JD-advantaged get "full weight", and it goes down from there.

They have to be given a decent amount of weight given Emory's jump last year coinciding with their huge increase in school-funded jobs.

User avatar
Ex Cearulo
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:51 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby Ex Cearulo » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:07 pm

scottidsntknow wrote:
Ex Cearulo wrote:
table3 wrote:I'm getting mixed messages on how exactly school-funded positions play in UNSWR's methodology. Can someone offer some clarity?


http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-law-schools-rankings

eta: US News doesn't go into detail about the specific weights placed on specific sub-categories of jobs. They just say that long term, full time jobs that are JD-required or JD-advantaged get "full weight", and it goes down from there.

They have to be given a decent amount of weight given Emory's jump last year coinciding with their huge increase in school-funded jobs.

Based on US News' criteria, school funded jobs probably get full weight. They don't specifically mention school-funded jobs in their methodology, so theoretically all a school has to claim is that the job is full time and lasts at least one year. Boom, full weight job for the rankings.

User avatar
LawsRUs
Posts: 1970
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:40 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby LawsRUs » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:14 pm

BigZuck wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Lol these rankings must have made Zuck's week

Had to pull myself off the floor to even respond to this post because I was still ROFLing at Michigan

Michigan and Vandy dropping like a rock, NYU solidly out of the T5, and UT right on the verge of a permanent place in the T14.

Hell yeah bros, we did it!!!

8)

eta: Duke dropping to 18 kinda sucks though, I like Duke



hell yeah! you can say that again.
also LOLing at how GW escaped our consciousness already

eta: also -1 for UIUC because UCI came in, i think..
Last edited by LawsRUs on Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lemurian
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 6:20 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby Lemurian » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:38 pm

scottidsntknow wrote:
Ex Cearulo wrote:
table3 wrote:I'm getting mixed messages on how exactly school-funded positions play in UNSWR's methodology. Can someone offer some clarity?


http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-law-schools-rankings

eta: US News doesn't go into detail about the specific weights placed on specific sub-categories of jobs. They just say that long term, full time jobs that are JD-required or JD-advantaged get "full weight", and it goes down from there.

They have to be given a decent amount of weight given Emory's jump last year coinciding with their huge increase in school-funded jobs.


Don't forget William & Mary.

Don't the rankings define long-term is 9+ months? Pretty sure most of those school funded positions run 9 months - 1 year. Not a coincidence.

User avatar
Ex Cearulo
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:51 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby Ex Cearulo » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:47 pm

Lemurian wrote:
scottidsntknow wrote:
Ex Cearulo wrote:
table3 wrote:I'm getting mixed messages on how exactly school-funded positions play in UNSWR's methodology. Can someone offer some clarity?


http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-law-schools-rankings

eta: US News doesn't go into detail about the specific weights placed on specific sub-categories of jobs. They just say that long term, full time jobs that are JD-required or JD-advantaged get "full weight", and it goes down from there.

They have to be given a decent amount of weight given Emory's jump last year coinciding with their huge increase in school-funded jobs.


Don't forget William & Mary.

Don't the rankings define long-term is 9+ months? Pretty sure most of those school funded positions run 9 months - 1 year. Not a coincidence.

If a job is 9 months, it gets less weight. But they don't tell us how much less weight. So yeah school funded jobs could easily help prop up schools like Emory and W&M. The overall lack of weight placed on jobs in general (20%, but really 18% if you don't count the 2% given to bar passage rate) and the lack of transparency regarding how they weight specific types of jobs are two of the biggest reasons the US News rankings are a total joke.

User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby runinthefront » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:53 pm

Ex Cearulo wrote:If a job is 9 months, it gets less weight. But they don't tell us how much less weight. So yeah school funded jobs could easily help prop up schools like Emory and W&M. The overall lack of weight placed on jobs in general (20%, but really 18% if you don't count the 2% given to bar passage rate) and the lack of transparency regarding how they weight specific types of jobs are two of the biggest reasons the US News rankings are a total joke.


Yeah but if the employment outcomes were given more weight, you'd have to take weight away from factors like:

Quality assessment (weighted by 0.40)

"Peer assessment score (0.25): In fall 2013, law school deans, deans of academic affairs, chairs of faculty appointments and the most recently tenured faculty members were asked to rate programs on a scale from marginal (1) to outstanding (5). Those individuals who did not know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know."

-

Why do you think employment outcomes should trump the esteemed opinions of school faculty when it comes to a kid gambling $100-300,000??

table3
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby table3 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:36 pm

runinthefront wrote:
Ex Cearulo wrote:If a job is 9 months, it gets less weight. But they don't tell us how much less weight. So yeah school funded jobs could easily help prop up schools like Emory and W&M. The overall lack of weight placed on jobs in general (20%, but really 18% if you don't count the 2% given to bar passage rate) and the lack of transparency regarding how they weight specific types of jobs are two of the biggest reasons the US News rankings are a total joke.


Yeah but if the employment outcomes were given more weight, you'd have to take weight away from factors like:

Quality assessment (weighted by 0.40)

"Peer assessment score (0.25): In fall 2013, law school deans, deans of academic affairs, chairs of faculty appointments and the most recently tenured faculty members were asked to rate programs on a scale from marginal (1) to outstanding (5). Those individuals who did not know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know."

-

Why do you think employment outcomes should trump the esteemed opinions of school faculty when it comes to a kid gambling $100-300,000??


Because they're so esteemy.

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby Moneytrees » Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:53 pm

So, no more leaks for today?

Username123
Posts: 742
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby Username123 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:59 pm

Moneytrees wrote:So, no more leaks for today?


Just to make sure I have it all... The leaks for today were top 20, GW at 22, Irvine at 30, Davis at 31, and Illinois at 41?

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby MikeSpivey » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:46 pm

Moneytrees wrote:So, no more leaks for today?


Just got them

GW, Bama, Iowa, ND all tied at 22.

Trying to get the rest up on my blog

User avatar
cannibal ox
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby cannibal ox » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:50 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:So, no more leaks for today?


Just got them

GW, Bama, Iowa, ND all tied at 22.

Trying to get the rest up on my blog


GW (-2)

'bama (+1)

Iowa (+5)

ND (+4)

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby 03152016 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:51 pm

ugh no hot sauce/pistachios for me

table3
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby table3 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:09 pm

Based on: https://twitter.com/spiveyconsult

1. Yale
2. Harvard
2. Stanford (+1)
4. Columbia
4. Chicago
6. NYU
7. Penn
8. UVa
8. Berkeley (+1)
8. Duke (+2)
11. Michigan (-1)
12. Northwestern
13. Cornell
14. GULC (-1)
15. Texas
16. UCLA
17. Vanderbilt (-1)
18. Wash U
19. Emory
20. USC
20. Minnesota
22. GW
22. ND
22. Bama
22. Iowa
26. BU
26. ASU
28.
29.
30. UC Irvine
31. UC Davis
32.


User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby MikeSpivey » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:09 pm

While we work to get 21-100 up on our blog.... to contribute to the Spivey Consulting Legal Defense Fund, send $$$ to 551 Bunker Hill, Charlestown MA.

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11942
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby Rigo » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:10 pm

That 22nd place tie. WTF.

table3
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby table3 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:14 pm

Dirigo wrote:That 22nd place tie. WTF.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby rpupkin » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:15 pm

table3 wrote:
Dirigo wrote:That 22nd place tie. WTF.

It is earth shattering. I just can't get my mind around it.

User avatar
tk17
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby tk17 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:16 pm

A full two thirds (33/51) of schools in the top 50 are involved in some sort of tie.

User avatar
LawsRUs
Posts: 1970
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:40 pm

Re: 2016 USNWR T25 Pred. Cont. (CLOSED.)

Postby LawsRUs » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:17 pm

damn this year's rankings went all over the place




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TrynaLaw and 4 guests