Re-Rankings at your law school - normal?

[beastienoise]

And for all the ridiculous hypos being thrown around, the percentiles moved either .02 or .03. There was minor adjustments - the main difference is a few extra students will be able to put top 10% or top 15% on their resumes when before they were just outside of it. This might help a few students get jobs with firms that have cutoffs - specifically, those students who stay at the school. It won't harm transfer students in any way, it won't harm those who asked for certifications and didn't leave (unless they honestly think that a classmate listing a slightly different percentile for the top 15% cutoff will actually effect anything). Sure, if you are #2 or 4 in class and now someone else is also #2 or 4 in the class, or even *gasp* listed one position higher on their resume (Even though employers can still see that you have a better GPA than that person).

This fuss brought to you by the same class who have people that list their class rank and GPA and CALI awards on their linkedin accounts. If it's not harming you in the job or transfer market (spoiler: it's not, it just might slightly help some of your classmates), the only harm is you get to feel like a little bit less superior to your classmates when you brag about your class rank.

(My heart bleeds)

Think it might be worth mentioning that the difference between Top 10% and Top 5% was .04 before reranking, difference between Top 10% and Top 15% is now .04, and difference between Top 25% and Top 20% is .02. For a school that doesn't rank after the top 5%, those "minor adjustments" are pretty significant. Let's say you had a 3.83 and asked for a Dean's Cert, if you end up staying then when you go to OCI your resume says top 15% and everyone who has a 3.82 gets to say top 10%, what's the justification for that? Either let both of them say top 10% if you care about helping your students so much or don't re-rank.

[dr123]

Then stop claiming that its helping anyone. You and IAFG are just taking the opposite sides of the either/or, the point is that you have to concede one of the two being true.

Just because the firms won't care the school weeds out Xfers, doesn't mean having all your students get a higher rank doesn't help. There is a psychological effect of the higher rank. And firms just won't care that it changes a bit because some students xfer.

Not sure you're getting what he's trying to say. He's saying, for example:

#1 student at W&L (example) transfers to NU
You're Top 25% at NU
Former #12 at W&L becomes #1 (completely hypo, of course, but possible)
BigLaw A has two spots left. The NU transfer uses his #1 standing at W&L to snag BigLaw A, and the former #12 at W&L uses his new standing as #1 to snag the same job that would have actually gone to you if he was still ranked #12, leaving you (Top 25% at NU) holding the bag. Is that fair?

Again completely hypo and possibly not extremely likely, but this is what beastlenoise is trying to say and it seems possible. And if firms actually do factor in rank in their hiring decisions, I think it's a fair point.

this is one of the most ridiculous and improbable hypos I have ever read

[TrialLawyer16]

I mean assfucking, as in almost cheating. My point is firms don't even know what 25% is at Northwestern because it's intentionally obscured.

I'm kinda sidetracking here a little, but how do firms differentiate students there for OCI? If they have a bunch of GPAs and can do their own calculations then that's not really changing anything. It could help somewhat, but it's seems like moreso just delaying the inevitable.

They just compare GPAs. It changes things because I'm not competing only competing with someone from my school. And even if I was, it's not just based on a grades. They think 3.6, oh that's good. Someone with a 3.65 isn't always going to get the job over. But if the firm thinks 25% is a good cut off, and I'm 3.6 which is really probably 30%, I still meet their standard because they cannot tell.

It's not much of a help at Kirkland Elis Chicago because they see enough GPAs to kind of figure it out. But a firm in Seattle? They might think all the 3.6's they are see are top 10%. Because they don't see that many students.

If I can't really figure out what % people are, firms can't.

Yeah, this is what I figured. /sidetrackingofthread

[Anonymous User]

OP do you care if I out the school?

OP here...
Do I take it you know which school I am talking about? I'm talking with the school in the next few days, I'll see how that goes.

Yea, I go to the school. As do some other people who have posted in this thread. I guess we'll defer to you, unless you don't care.

Feel free, I did not know who goes to my school on this thread and who does not. Glad to see some others who go to our school think this is messed up too.

I even get the argument that this is not a big deal...once the transfers leave. But before they even transfer out? Before they even have an idea of who is leaving? For a school that claims they want to keep their top students, this is a funny move - to remove them from the rankings and give the rankings to other students while potential transfers are deciding whether to stay or leave. What an interesting message - they have decided to basically punish people for inquiring into transferring. If I was set on transferring, I may not have cared. But I know for a fact that at least 3 people in the top 10 requested dean certs. If hypothetically I am #10, requested a dean cert, and decide to stay, now #13 is ranked the same as me and #12 and #11 can claim higher ranks than me. Let's say #11 and #12 also requested a dean's cert. Now #15 can claim the same rank as me. This can go on and on...it's just ridiculous to think that someone who is 5 spots lower could now claim a rank higher than me.

(Guy who thinks a firm is going to sit there and adjust their impression of top 10% based on the fact that 3% of that class transferred out.)

You aren't done arguing, you are done here.

You're engaging with someone who posed a hypothetical in which 50% of the class transferred out.

I'd be interested in hearing from OP or one of his classmates on how many people in the top 30 requested Dean's Certs, though. Sounds like it would be relatively easy to figure out from the email.

If it helps your students with employment than it hurts similarly situated students at schools that don't rerank.

Who cares? Law schools are in competition with each other.

14

Yep, 14 students in the top 30 (or I am assuming they are all in the top 30 from the email). In a class our size, that's 1/2 of the top 15%, a big deal when you are moving that many people around. That means that a person who was top 15% could now potentially be top 5% (if they were just outside the top 10%).

[Randomnumbers]

Yep, 14 students in the top 30 (or I am assuming they are all in the top 30 from the email). In a class our size, that's 1/2 of the top 15%, a big deal when you are moving that many people around. That means that a person who was top 15% could now potentially be top 5% (if they were just outside the top 10%).

Except we see the percentile cutoffs and know that nothing like that happened. Nobody has moved more then ~3%. Everyone's moved a little bit, but there hasn't been any dramatic movement. We know for a fact that nobody who was outside of the top 15% is now inside the top 10% (and we can assume that maybe ~5 people got moved from outside the top 10% to inside the top 10% - that number is definitely at most 7 people, and even then they just squeaked in it). For the people inside the top 5%, that movement was even less - no more than 4 people were 'removed'. Less than 10 of the people 'removed' (probably ~7-8) were in the top 40, because people who were outside the top 25% before are still outside the top 20%.

This rerank, for example, does not affect grade-on for law review, because law review is using the original rankings.

Your top 15% to top 5% example is, at best, sheer ignorance, and at worst, a gross intentional strawman. No need to lie when we have the numbers in front of us.

[Anonymous User]

Yep, 14 students in the top 30 (or I am assuming they are all in the top 30 from the email). In a class our size, that's 1/2 of the top 15%, a big deal when you are moving that many people around. That means that a person who was top 15% could now potentially be top 5% (if they were just outside the top 10%).

Your top 15% to top 5% example is, at best, sheer ignorance, and at worst, a gross intentional strawman. No need to lie when we have the numbers in front of us.

Um, I'm sorry, why the attack? As I said, "potentially." I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea, it was a hypothetical based on best/worse case scenario (depending on where you stand on this issue).

And you're right, everything shifted slightly, but it did shift. That means people moved to places they did not earn. Sorry, true fact. And the changes are less noticeable at the bottom because the people who applied to transfer are all at the top - and people are all bunched closer together around the 20-33% range than at the top. And 4 people in the top 10...that sounds like 40% of the top 10 to me. That's a lot to replace. Maybe my math is wrong though.

[TheZoid]

I agree with the OP, mostly on principle. It shouldn't have a drastic effect on those looking into transferring, because presumably your grades are strong anyway, but you're being penalized for looking into transferring before deciding whether you will or not. As the OP mentioned, an odd message for a school that wants to keep its top students. I understand the school's point that historically, most people who look into it will leave, but that's far from a foregone conclusion. Also, the fact that you can have number 3 saying they're number 1 when 1 and 2 might end up staying just seems disingenuous. Not that being 1st or 3rd will be the difference in a job- all will get interviews and other factors will decide it, but it just doesn't seem right to me personally. 3 was 3, not 1, and the listed class rank should reflect that. God bless the school for trying to help the students that stay, but it might also penalize students who end up staying just for inquiring into it.

[TrialLawyer16]

By the way.. the school is WUSTL, apparently (per Randomnumbers' post history)

[Nova]

By the way.. the school is WUSTL, apparently

thx. I was wondering

[09042014]

Why the hell is everyone xfering out anyway.

[stillwater]

Why the hell is everyone xfering out anyway.

sinking ship in the midwesTTT

[Birdnals]

I was waiting for somebody else to out before putting in my 2 cents because I am a fairly known wustler

If anybody has a right to be mad, it is me. I was on the bottom of my percentile cutoff, so my percentile stayed the same while people who were below me are now in the same percentile (and I'm not high enough to be individually ranked). And since I have no intention what-so-ever of transferring these are people I am actually interviewing against for the exact same jobs at OCI.

The reason I am not upset, is because at the grade level everybody is complaining from, it isn't going to be your grades that make a difference. All the people in the top 1-15% (and most of 15-25%) are going to get the interviews they want and it will be other things that make the difference. Nobody is going to say "well this out of town guy really rubbed me the wrong way in our interview, but he is ranked 7th and this other guy we liked with ties and a better GPA is ranked 8th, so 7th place guy it is!"


The school knows lots of hiring committees have percentile cut offs, and they are just trying to make sure they can put as many of the kids who are going to be at their school the next 2 years in front of more hiring committee members. So now there are a few more kids who get to list "top 1/3" or "top 25%" on their resume? Good for them.

I also don't see how somebody can post here and say "I just think people should earn their ranks, call me old fashioned" and then a few posts later be like "Well, if they re-ranked after they knew for sure who was transferring so I got the benefit too it would be OK." I think the butthurt is about 70% justified and 30% asshole kid who doesn't want to share his toys.


ETA: Oh, and if I went to a peer school who was competing for similar jobs I would be pretty heated, but I don't expect my school to look out for peer schools' students.

[rad lulz]

It's interesting that they draw the line so early, but I suppose yalls bids are due soon or something?

But in general I'm with the DF/IAFG crowd on this

[Birdnals]

It's interesting that they draw the line so early, but I suppose yalls bids are due soon or something?

But in general I'm with the DF/IAFG crowd on this

Yeah, bids are due in less than a week.

Also, I'm guessing of the 14 at least 1 or 2 are kids dropping out after 1L year, so not all from the top (but I would assume most are).

[rad lulz]

It's interesting that they draw the line so early, but I suppose yalls bids are due soon or something?

But in general I'm with the DF/IAFG crowd on this

Yeah, bids are due in less than a week.

Also, I'm guessing of the 14 at least 1 or 2 are kids dropping out after 1L year, so not all from the top (but I would assume most are).

Yeah this is all starting to make sense

Some of these firms have HARD cutoffs; I know the drill

Might help a few more people get some looks for sure

[TrialLawyer16]

It's interesting that they draw the line so early, but I suppose yalls bids are due soon or something?

But in general I'm with the DF/IAFG crowd on this

Even if bids weren't due soon this is a win/win for WUSTL. They might actually be looking out for the students, no doubt, but it's also possible that the school is taking an opportunity to game the system. What this process also does is push more students into the cutoff percentiles for certain firms and make students more attractive --> increase the school's employment numbers --> students and school profit. They don't wait for students to actually transfer and by doing so if the students stay, they get to keep their rank, while everyone else's rank is wrong since an incorrect class size was used to calculate it - they could end up having 18% of the class in the top 15%. And they can justify it by saying it's the best method they could come up with to help the students. I actually have to give them kudos for creativity in gaming the system here.

ETA: Oh, and if I went to a peer school who was competing for similar jobs I would be pretty heated, but I don't expect my school to look out for peer schools' students.

+1. This may be something that should be looked into by a higher governing body, perhaps?

[SandScale004]

I was waiting for somebody else to out before putting in my 2 cents because I am a fairly known wustler

If anybody has a right to be mad, it is me. I was on the bottom of my percentile cutoff, so my percentile stayed the same while people who were below me are now in the same percentile (and I'm not high enough to be individually ranked). And since I have no intention what-so-ever of transferring these are people I am actually interviewing against for the exact same jobs at OCI.

The reason I am not upset, is because at the grade level everybody is complaining from, it isn't going to be your grades that make a difference. All the people in the top 1-15% (and most of 15-25%) are going to get the interviews they want and it will be other things that make the difference. Nobody is going to say "well this out of town guy really rubbed me the wrong way in our interview, but he is ranked 7th and this other guy we liked with ties and a better GPA is ranked 8th, so 7th place guy it is!"

The school knows lots of hiring committees have percentile cut offs, and they are just trying to make sure they can put as many of the kids who are going to be at their school the next 2 years in front of more hiring committee members. So now there are a few more kids who get to list "top 1/3" or "top 25%" on their resume? Good for them.

I also don't see how somebody can post here and say "I just think people should earn their ranks, call me old fashioned" and then a few posts later be like "Well, if they re-ranked after they knew for sure who was transferring so I got the benefit too it would be OK." I think the butthurt is about 70% justified and 30% asshole kid who doesn't want to share his toys.


ETA: Oh, and if I went to a peer school who was competing for similar jobs I would be pretty heated, but I don't expect my school to look out for peer schools' students.

So you don't care that you are now competing against more people for the same spots?

I get what you are saying here. I think the school shouldn't re-rank at all, but if they are going to, they should not do it until after the people who decide to transfer leave. I realize that this would be too late for OCI deadlines and less people get interviews, but that's how it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, that's the way law school rankings work and the interview process works.

In reference to the bold part, I think OP's point was if he stays, he should have his rank changed too to keep the rankings accurate (and out of fairness). I don't know how anyone could think that it's fair for someone to have to keep his rank while everyone else around him gets a new rank just because he had the audacity to look into transferring. If he ultimately decides to stay, then the rankings should reflect that. I think this point holds true if you are ranked top 5%, or in the top 20%.

[rad lulz]

It's interesting that they draw the line so early, but I suppose yalls bids are due soon or something?

But in general I'm with the DF/IAFG crowd on this

Even if bids weren't due soon this is a win/win for WUSTL. They might actually be looking out for the students, no doubt, but it's also possible that the school is taking an opportunity to game the system. What this process also does is push more students into the cutoff percentiles for certain firms and make students more attractive --> increase the school's employment numbers --> students and school profit. They don't wait for students to actually transfer and by doing so if the students stay, they get to keep their rank, while everyone else's rank is wrong since an incorrect class size was used to calculate it - they could end up having 18% of the class in the top 15%. And they can justify it by saying it's the best method they could come up with to help the students. I actually have to give them kudos for creativity in gaming the system here.

Helping students get legit jobs is a funny definition of "gaming the system"

I wish all schools would game the system by helping students get legit jobs

[TrialLawyer16]

It's interesting that they draw the line so early, but I suppose yalls bids are due soon or something?

But in general I'm with the DF/IAFG crowd on this

Even if bids weren't due soon this is a win/win for WUSTL. They might actually be looking out for the students, no doubt, but it's also possible that the school is taking an opportunity to game the system. What this process also does is push more students into the cutoff percentiles for certain firms and make students more attractive --> increase the school's employment numbers --> students and school profit. They don't wait for students to actually transfer and by doing so if the students stay, they get to keep their rank, while everyone else's rank is wrong since an incorrect class size was used to calculate it - they could end up having 18% of the class in the top 15%. And they can justify it by saying it's the best method they could come up with to help the students. I actually have to give them kudos for creativity in gaming the system here.

Helping students get legit jobs is a funny definition of "gaming the system"

I wish all schools would game the system by helping students get legit jobs

What I mean is that if another school doesn't have the same practices and a firm has a top 15% cutoff - one of WUSTL's peer schools would only have 15% of their students qualify for a position at said firm, whereas WUSTL has created a system where 18% (or more) of their students could this year. I think that qualifies as gaming the system

[rad lulz]

It's interesting that they draw the line so early, but I suppose yalls bids are due soon or something?

But in general I'm with the DF/IAFG crowd on this

Even if bids weren't due soon this is a win/win for WUSTL. They might actually be looking out for the students, no doubt, but it's also possible that the school is taking an opportunity to game the system. What this process also does is push more students into the cutoff percentiles for certain firms and make students more attractive --> increase the school's employment numbers --> students and school profit. They don't wait for students to actually transfer and by doing so if the students stay, they get to keep their rank, while everyone else's rank is wrong since an incorrect class size was used to calculate it - they could end up having 18% of the class in the top 15%. And they can justify it by saying it's the best method they could come up with to help the students. I actually have to give them kudos for creativity in gaming the system here.

Helping students get legit jobs is a funny definition of "gaming the system"

I wish all schools would game the system by helping students get legit jobs

What I mean is that if another school doesn't have the same practices and a firm has a top 15% cutoff - one of WUSTL's peer schools would only have 15% of their students qualify for said job, whereas WUSTL has created a system where 18% (or more) of their students could this year. I think that qualifies as gaming the system

And some schools don't publish rank

And some schools rank by quartile

Etc.

Doesn't matter

[TrialLawyer16]

What I mean is that if another school doesn't have the same practices and a firm has a top 15% cutoff - one of WUSTL's peer schools would only have 15% of their students qualify for said job, whereas WUSTL has created a system where 18% (or more) of their students could this year. I think that qualifies as gaming the system

And some schools don't publish rank

And some schools rank by quartile

Etc.

Doesn't matter

So if a school doesn't publish rank or ranks by quartiles, what does a firm with a hard cutoff of 15% do? Does the school give them a GPA that should approximately equal the 15% cutoff?

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the OP, mostly on principle. It shouldn't have a drastic effect on those looking into transferring, because presumably your grades are strong anyway, but you're being penalized for looking into transferring before deciding whether you will or not. As the OP mentioned, an odd message for a school that wants to keep its top students. I understand the school's point that historically, most people who look into it will leave, but that's far from a foregone conclusion. Also, the fact that you can have number 3 saying they're number 1 when 1 and 2 might end up staying just seems disingenuous. Not that being 1st or 3rd will be the difference in a job- all will get interviews and other factors will decide it, but it just doesn't seem right to me personally. 3 was 3, not 1, and the listed class rank should reflect that. God bless the school for trying to help the students that stay, but it might also penalize students who end up staying just for inquiring into it.

This nicely sums up my sentiments regarding this. Like you said, 1, 3, 10...all are going to get interviews. That's not the point. The point is it's not right or accurate. It's presenting things in a false light. I wouldn't want to be 3rd and get to be 1st by default, especially if 1 and 2 stay. That's embarrassing for the school, but I'm guessing they just don't want to talk about that (or admit this ever happened). I'm sure the school was hoping that all 14 students transferred so they would never have to deal with this issue.

I also get what the school is trying to do - give their students the best opportunities in a competitive legal environment. But it seems underhanded and dishonest, which is not what I expect from my law school. If they were transparent about what they were doing...fine, but they are not.

[rad lulz]

What I mean is that if another school doesn't have the same practices and a firm has a top 15% cutoff - one of WUSTL's peer schools would only have 15% of their students qualify for said job, whereas WUSTL has created a system where 18% (or more) of their students could this year. I think that qualifies as gaming the system

And some schools don't publish rank

And some schools rank by quartile

Etc.

Doesn't matter

So if a school doesn't publish rank or ranks by quartiles, what does a firm with a hard cutoff of 15% do? Does the school give them a GPA that should approximately equal the 15% cutoff?

I went to such a school

The firm guesses or does its best to figure out rank based on the pool of students who apply

[TrialLawyer16]

What I mean is that if another school doesn't have the same practices and a firm has a top 15% cutoff - one of WUSTL's peer schools would only have 15% of their students qualify for said job, whereas WUSTL has created a system where 18% (or more) of their students could this year. I think that qualifies as gaming the system

And some schools don't publish rank

And some schools rank by quartile

Etc.

Doesn't matter

So if a school doesn't publish rank or ranks by quartiles, what does a firm with a hard cutoff of 15% do? Does the school give them a GPA that should approximately equal the 15% cutoff?

I went to such a school

The firm guesses or does its best to figure out rank based on the pool of students who apply

Gotcha.

I definitely see where you're coming from. I guess to me if I ask someone for the top 15%, there's still a difference between someone telling me to figure it out for myself (and me possibly getting it wrong) and someone flat out telling me "here is the top 15%" knowing it's statistically inaccurate. One is a blatant misrepresentation. But I get where you're coming from.

[Birdnals]

So you don't care that you are now competing against more people for the same spots?

Not really. At the rank people are complaining about, we were going to be competing against them for these jobs anyways. I would like to believe when employers are trying to decide who to give call backs to they will look at GPAs (which didn't change), not just the percentile cut offs next to that GPA.

I also would like to believe, outside of hard cut offs for initial interviews, the difference between 2 candidates who are separated by 5 percentage points or less will more likely come down to ties/experience/connections/how much the interviewer likes you/gpa than the rank/percentage next to that GPA.