Official 2010 US News Law School Rankings Forum

[danconstan]

I'm sorry US News, but these ranking just seem to validate everyones suspicion that they are not a valid measure of a school's worth and are mostly arbitrary.

There is no way George Washington and Boston College are not top 25 schools.
Indiana U a top 25? Alabama a top 30? These are solid state schools to be sure, but there is no reason they should be ranked where they are based on national recognition and placement.

Ken… or someone smart enough and willing to do it should put together a law school ranking system which reflects national recognition and placement. This is what students want to know when they look at rankings – not (outside of a few) the scholarly productivity of a faculty and the number of volumes in the library. National recognition and placement please. Because looking at this system a student might pick Indiana U over Boston College or George Washington and then be sorely disappointed come time to search for that job in New York or DC.

Aside from this poster is everyone else really that shallow and naive to think that USNews has any F-ng clue what they're talking about?
Do people not realize that one school deciding to spend X amount of money on some arbitrary part of the school can cause that school to drop or increase one or two spots which can in turn cause a completely random school to drop or increase 10 spots. These rankings are RIDICULOUS!!!
Not one school on this list changed in rankings because the professors beame more accessible, or the number of advanced coursed grew, or the tuition became more affordable, or the number of employers that actively recruit grew, or it's students got more clinical training or any of a number of reason that would make a law school great.
Stop feeding in to this bullshit!
Oh my school is now number 17 instead of number 22--So the F What!!! It's the same school it was when you applied and it'll be the same school when you graduate. Is it not clear that if a school can drop 10 spots or increase 20 spots this year the same thing can happen next year. So if you're school is number 20 this year and drops to 30 next year are you going to transfer out? Highly unlikely!
I find in incredibly frustrating and almost unbelievable that a bunch of future lawyers are willing to let a non-legal magazine tell you what the best law school is without ranking any of the actual important data about that school.
This has to be the most futile bit of information I've ever read. I've heard that people can be ranking-whores but Jesus H. Christ seeing it for myself now...I feel sorry for those of you that think US news is helping you to somehow make one of the biggest decisions in your life.

I'm sorry you have the impression that I think US news has any idea what they are doing... because I completely agree with you. But what frustrates me is that people do care about the rankings and most students assume they do reflect something about the quality of a law school.

Law school is an expensive, and an increasingly risky proposition. I think pre-law students deserve some kind of ranking that helps in this decision. The main thing most of us care about is how well our school is known and how well it places. Unfortunatley US news provides almost no help here.

+1...I think it's funny that there is so much excitment over the release of the rankings considering that throughout the year there has been a general consensus on this forum that the USNWR rankings should not be a large factor in picking a law school...Oh well...I guess lets just continue giving USNWR more publicity...

[mithan]

PT #s is not included in the overall ranking.

I see the anti-GULC trolling wasn't warranted......though I am surprised they didn't take at least a slight drop from the inclusion of part time stats. I wonder if they saw this coming and managed PT stats last year to prevent any drop?

[gatorfan787]

Thanks for the clarification...

Sad for UF - Levin, drop from tier 1 to tier 2.

[darkarmour]

Don't you guys like how Elie on ATL fucked up and "broke" old information? Jesus christ, the scans have been up forever, and he goes and posts the black and white one?

[IzziesGal]

Does anyone know how waitlist-to-admits factor into the rankings?? For example, if someone is waitlisted with lower numbers and then gets accepted right before classes start, are their numbers factored in or do they sort of drop off into a black hole of law school numbers somewhere??

Only asking because waitlists seemed to be pretty huge to me....

[jackusay]

"could this [Florida's drop in the rankings] be due to the extreme budget cuts that the state university system is suffering? "

Maybe. It might also be that federal court complaint against the dean and law school that's floating around out there. Whatever you think of that particular set of allegations, UF has had a pretty gnarly history of racial problems....

[kimber1028]

Don't you guys like how Elie on ATL fucked up and "broke" old information? Jesus christ, the scans have been up forever, and he goes and posts the black and white one?

Just read it.

[mrman17]

Thanks for the clarification...

Sad for UF - Levin, drop from tier 1 to tier 2.

Is there really a difference anyway between the the 50th and 51st ranked schools? Or low T vs. high TT in general?

I don't think that the overall quality of Florida has really changed that much over the last 12 months. If anything, it just shows how arbitrary the whole T1 vs. T2 thing really is...at a certain point.

It's interesting to see how fluid these rankings are.

[observationalist]

Does anyone know how waitlist-to-admits factor into the rankings?? For example, if someone is waitlisted with lower numbers and then gets accepted right before classes start, are their numbers factored in or do they sort of drop off into a black hole of law school numbers somewhere??

Only asking because waitlists seemed to be pretty huge to me....

They factor in for reporting. Adcomms call it the "summer melt"... it's when they strive to fill each available spot due to other WL movement without losing too much ground in median numbers. I think most schools account for a certain amount of melt, which if done correctly actually gives them more wiggle room to select people off the WL who they like without paying so much attention to their gpa/lsats. That improves WL-accept chances for people who write the school, visit, establish a rapport with the adcomms, etc. Schools that don't do as good a job managing their incoming class #s risk seeing their medians drop as a result of the summer melt.

[Zeph]

Does anyone know how waitlist-to-admits factor into the rankings?? For example, if someone is waitlisted with lower numbers and then gets accepted right before classes start, are their numbers factored in or do they sort of drop off into a black hole of law school numbers somewhere??

Only asking because waitlists seemed to be pretty huge to me....

They factor in for reporting. Adcomms call it the "summer melt"... it's when they strive to fill each available spot due to other WL movement without losing too much ground in median numbers. I think most schools account for a certain amount of melt, which if done correctly actually gives them more wiggle room to select people off the WL who they like without paying so much attention to their gpa/lsats. That improves WL-accept chances for people who write the school, visit, establish a rapport with the adcomms, etc. Schools that don't do as good a job managing their incoming class #s risk seeing their medians drop as a result of the summer melt.

I too was interested in that answer, thanks for the response

[treple]

Thanks for posting the rankings, it is of course much appreciated.

Berkeley remaining at 6th (tied with Chicago) is impressive. Dean Edley is really doing a great job on continually improving the law school. Berkeley had a lower acceptance rate than Harvard (11% for Berkeley, 12% for Harvard), showing how selective Berkeley is but that they look beyond the numbers.

It could also just be that more people applied to Berkeley than Harvard and that given their respective class sizes Berkeley was allowed to reject more. Also the notion that Berkeley looks beyond the numbers and Harvard doesn't is just silly. Both factor in numbers and softs pretty significantly, there simply is no metric to determine which one factors in 'beyond the numbers' more.

[gk101]

Thanks for posting the rankings, it is of course much appreciated.

Berkeley remaining at 6th (tied with Chicago) is impressive. Dean Edley is really doing a great job on continually improving the law school. Berkeley had a lower acceptance rate than Harvard (11% for Berkeley, 12% for Harvard), showing how selective Berkeley is but that they look beyond the numbers.

It could also just be that more people applied to Berkeley than Harvard and that given their respective class sizes Berkeley was allowed to reject more. Also the notion that Berkeley looks beyond the numbers and Harvard doesn't is just silly. Both factor in numbers and softs pretty significantly, there simply is no metric to determine which one factors in 'beyond the numbers' more.

banned for berk bashing and harvard trolling

[quetzalcoatl]

Im just so glad the median stats didnt shoot through the roof like many posters predicted. Stats are definitely up, but I was worried that I would have to retake to raise my 170 if I wanted to go top 10. Looks like I will be ok for the most part, as long as I dont screw my GPA in the last 2 semesters.

Is anyone planning on changing their apps next cycle in light of the new rankings? Im pretty much forced to go ED at Columbia now (still dont have a chance but its the largest reach im applying to), but no major changes for me.

[youpiiz]

.

[IzziesGal]

Thanks for posting the rankings, it is of course much appreciated.

Berkeley remaining at 6th (tied with Chicago) is impressive. Dean Edley is really doing a great job on continually improving the law school. Berkeley had a lower acceptance rate than Harvard (11% for Berkeley, 12% for Harvard), showing how selective Berkeley is but that they look beyond the numbers.

It could also just be that more people applied to Berkeley than Harvard and that given their respective class sizes Berkeley was allowed to reject more. Also the notion that Berkeley looks beyond the numbers and Harvard doesn't is just silly. Both factor in numbers and softs pretty significantly, there simply is no metric to determine which one factors in 'beyond the numbers' more.

banned for berk bashing and harvard trolling

+1. There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does. I got into Berkeley with my 161 because I have a strong package overall, and Berkeley was willing to look beyond my 161 in order to see that. When I visited the Harvard admissions table at the LSAC forum prior to taking the LSAT, I asked what else I would need to do in order to get in (I explained I had been practicing in the high 160s), and they said (and I quote): "Take the LSAT and get in the 170s." That alone tells me that they couldn't care less about softs.

[gk101]

Thanks for posting the rankings, it is of course much appreciated.

Berkeley remaining at 6th (tied with Chicago) is impressive. Dean Edley is really doing a great job on continually improving the law school. Berkeley had a lower acceptance rate than Harvard (11% for Berkeley, 12% for Harvard), showing how selective Berkeley is but that they look beyond the numbers.

It could also just be that more people applied to Berkeley than Harvard and that given their respective class sizes Berkeley was allowed to reject more. Also the notion that Berkeley looks beyond the numbers and Harvard doesn't is just silly. Both factor in numbers and softs pretty significantly, there simply is no metric to determine which one factors in 'beyond the numbers' more.

banned for berk bashing and harvard trolling

+1. There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does. I got into Berkeley with my 161 because I have a strong package overall, and Berkeley was willing to look beyond my 161 in order to see that. When I visited the Harvard admissions table at the LSAC forum prior to taking the LSAT, I asked what else I would need to do in order to get in (I explained I had been practicing in the high 160s), and they said (and I quote): "Take the LSAT and get in the 170s." That alone tells me that they couldn't care less about softs.

i wish I hadn't used up all my facepalm pics

[rambo de leon]

Sounds good - in any case, Loyola has to be very upset - headed toward the bottom of these rankings, and their PT program below UC San Diego... and some gloating at UC Davis for sure...\

Think your talking about USD. UC San Diego doesn't have a law school but it would be cool if they did. Great location...maybe in a few years they'll do the enticing free ride dance akin to UCI.

[20160810]

Tremendous showing for USD. Almost enough to make me wonder if it will be T1 eventually. That wouldn't shock me: It's the best law school in one of the 10 largest cities in the US (and probably the coolest city in the US at that), so there is plenty of demand for the service they provide.

[cantstop]

Thanks for posting the rankings, it is of course much appreciated.

Berkeley remaining at 6th (tied with Chicago) is impressive. Dean Edley is really doing a great job on continually improving the law school. Berkeley had a lower acceptance rate than Harvard (11% for Berkeley, 12% for Harvard), showing how selective Berkeley is but that they look beyond the numbers.

It could also just be that more people applied to Berkeley than Harvard and that given their respective class sizes Berkeley was allowed to reject more. Also the notion that Berkeley looks beyond the numbers and Harvard doesn't is just silly. Both factor in numbers and softs pretty significantly, there simply is no metric to determine which one factors in 'beyond the numbers' more.

banned for berk bashing and harvard trolling

+1. There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does. I got into Berkeley with my 161 because I have a strong package overall, and Berkeley was willing to look beyond my 161 in order to see that. When I visited the Harvard admissions table at the LSAC forum prior to taking the LSAT, I asked what else I would need to do in order to get in (I explained I had been practicing in the high 160s), and they said (and I quote): "Take the LSAT and get in the 170s." That alone tells me that they couldn't care less about softs.

Uh, not that I don't doubt your particular story, but my guess is for every one of you, there are 100 of me (with a 161, a HIGH GPA, great softs, etc.) who were rejected within weeks of Berkeley receiving my application. Although their rejection letter was definitely the nicest I've received. Ever.

[redskinsgibbs]

Why do people give a damn about these rankings? Miami still owns the south. No 11 point increase in rankings will me a damn. Cardozo according to you rankings experts is close to gutter in NY is now a " T1" It is not going to help them vs Fordham. NYU and the other T14s.

Who gives a damn if the rankings change each year? I really doubt GW is going to struggle placing students in DC.

[IzziesGal]

Uh, not that I don't doubt your particular story, but my guess is for every one of you, there are 100 of me (with a 161, a HIGH GPA, great softs, etc.) who were rejected within weeks of Berkeley receiving my application. Although their rejection letter was definitely the nicest I've received. Ever.

I believe I was fortunate enough to have someone on the adcomm advocate for me pretty passionately. Not all 161s with high GPAs and great softs can be admitted (unfortunately!)...I'm just saying that you are more likely to get into Berkeley than into Harvard with those numbers, just because of its admissions approach. Just sayin'. Sorry about the rejection

[sbalive]

Why do people give a damn about these rankings? Miami still owns the south. No 11 point increase in rankings will me a damn. Cardozo according to you rankings experts is close to gutter in NY is now a " T1" It is not going to help them vs Fordham. NYU and the other T14s.

Who gives a damn if the rankings change each year? I really doubt GW is going to struggle placing students in DC.

Such anger...

[coolkatz321]

Why do people give a damn about these rankings? Miami still owns the south. No 11 point increase in rankings will me a damn. Cardozo according to you rankings experts is close to gutter in NY is now a " T1" It is not going to help them vs Fordham. NYU and the other T14s.

Who gives a damn if the rankings change each year? I really doubt GW is going to struggle placing students in DC.

Miami owns the south? What the hell are you smoking? They own the Miami area, and that's it.

[hopeforthebest]

Why do people give a damn about these rankings? Miami still owns the south. No 11 point increase in rankings will me a damn. Cardozo according to you rankings experts is close to gutter in NY is now a " T1" It is not going to help them vs Fordham. NYU and the other T14s.

Who gives a damn if the rankings change each year? I really doubt GW is going to struggle placing students in DC.

Miami owns the south? What the hell are you smoking? They own the Miami area, and that's it.

How appropriate, considering today's date...

[sbalive]

Why do people give a damn about these rankings? Miami still owns the south. No 11 point increase in rankings will me a damn. Cardozo according to you rankings experts is close to gutter in NY is now a " T1" It is not going to help them vs Fordham. NYU and the other T14s.

Who gives a damn if the rankings change each year? I really doubt GW is going to struggle placing students in DC.

Miami owns the south? What the hell are you smoking? They own the Miami area, and that's it.

How appropriate, considering today's date...

Doesn't seem very mellow though...