Z'Barron wrote:Ryduce wrote:I'm sorry for asking such a seemingly stupid question,but after looking at the rankings of particular schools I don't really understand what the criteria is for taxonimizing a school's tier.
For example:I always thought of Gonzaga as a very respectable law school.It is a tier 3.Meanwhile Stetson,which I've never heard of,is a tier 1.
Very little. to be honest. except for the self-fulfilling prophesy that the rankings have created in employment prospects. for example, I know many of Seattle's top attorneys hail from Gonzaga and Seattle-U...millionaires, mind you. And they don't know anything about the rankings. To them, any Washington college student who doesn't at least consider UW, SU and Gonzaga, whether they have a shot at Harvard or not, is a fool. On the inside, these schoos are not much differnt from each other...and it was once respectable for a 3.9 UW grad with a 95th percentile LSAT score (or no score at all, for those who graduated when it was just an application and essay) to go to Gonzaga or SU. Now? Nobody with such a profile would even consider it.
The rankings arise from, either, a noble attempt to create the best product for consumers, or an elitist attempt to wipe minorities out of the game completely. I haven't made up my mind about it yet. Either way, the rankings have failed, and, thus, ruined graduate education.
And the poster of the year award goes to....