Underrated programs

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Underrated programs

Postby rayiner » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:56 pm

tinman wrote:I think Northwestern is by far the most underrated school in the T14. People know it's a solid school, but it often gets ignored. I think it school be rated top ten.


I think the school is rated properly, but for the wrong reasons. It's peer reputation is a unrealistically low indicator of it's placement ability, but that's offset by it's CCN-like overhead/student, which seems bogus.

Michigan is probably somewhat overrated. Their numbers are on track for second lowest in the T14, and their peer reputation can only keep them afloat for so long. Virginia is clearly underrated at 10, because ofthe overhead/student measure.

User avatar
fulkersonr1
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby fulkersonr1 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:26 pm

jeeptiger09 wrote:
fulkersonr1 wrote:I am in no way a UK supporter or proponent but as a Kentuckian find it hard to believe it is overrated. UK is the best school for those that want to work in KY. Outside KY a UK degree does not mean a whole lot. UK is not extremely well rated right now so I would say its rated close to correctly.


It's probably close to where it should be, but you got it absolutely right: outside of the commonwealth, UK doesn't mean a lot. Same could be said for most state schools on par. But consider the fact that outside of Louisville and Lex, there really isn't anything as far as markets for biglaw. UT has Nashville, Memphis (albeit a very small placement), Chattanooga (also lower placement) and Knoxville. UF and FSU have Tallahassee, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville.

Also, have you ever been to UK's law school? Facilities are bad, and that's an understatement. I don't think UK is way overrated, but I don't think it is on par with UT and UF.


I'll agree UF>UK but do not think same is true for Tenn. Sure Tennessee has a few more centers of employment. It also has Vandy. Prob not many Vandy grads stay in TN, but I still think best school in your state (UK) is better than being the very distant second best school in your state (UT).

Edit: I have never visited UK Law and know nothing of the facilities. In general Im not a big fan of the campus or Lexington for that matter.

User avatar
anthonyc350
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:22 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby anthonyc350 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:31 pm

chadwick218 wrote:
anthonyc350 wrote:overrated: Iowa, Indiana, American, Cardozo, Connecticut

underrated: USD, FSU, Florida, tOSU, Missouri, Nebraska, UNC


As much as I want to agree with you having grown up in Missouri and having Tiger Roots, Missour's placement statistics are [strike]honestly abysmal[/strike]honest!

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Underrated programs

Postby PDaddy » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:36 pm

We can define a "rating" as a tangible series of metrics that is used to form some value judgment. We can also define it as "lay prestige", which is a deeply rooted perception that results from some combination of historical performance and "reputation". Either way, some bias is incorporated into the ratings.

A ranking is, ideally, based on ratings. But some people confuse ratings with rankings, and that's where we get into trouble. To say a school is "underranked", one must question the entire ratings process and be able to explain what about the incorporated ratings (tangible metrics or lay prestige) skews perception or misinforms the consumer. To say that a school is "underrated" obviously means questioning, for example, the segment that is most vulnerable to criticism: the lay prestige, and, by extension, "reputation".

And that would mean making some form of argument about how public perception has been manipulated, regardless of metrics. But it would also mean questioning the weights given to the metrics themselves, as the weights are highly debatable.

For instance, "reputation" gets more weight than it should, and the Ivy leadue schools benefit greatly from that. The other problem with reputational surveys is that those querried often rate schools they know little to nothing about. To that end, the ratings of all top schools can be argued as inflated. Yet, some schools (both higher and lower ranked) might perform at or beyond their more objective metrics, for example in employment stats.

Once we examine from the inside out, the metrics used to evaluate and "rate" schools, we can determine what schools might be underrated and, thus, underranked. But we can't make the jump without doing so.

What I see happening is that posters are confusing the two terms. OP asks about "rating".

So, which schools defy their metrics? Which schools unfairly suffer from metrics that get the wrong weights? Do we feel that any metrics get too much weight. How about not enough? Our answers about underrating are in there.
Last edited by PDaddy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:34 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
chadwick218
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby chadwick218 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:38 pm

anthonyc350 wrote:
chadwick218 wrote:
anthonyc350 wrote:overrated: Iowa, Indiana, American, Cardozo, Connecticut

underrated: USD, FSU, Florida, tOSU, Missouri, Nebraska, UNC


As much as I want to agree with you having grown up in Missouri and having Tiger Roots, Missour's placement statistics are [strike]honestly abysmal[/strike]honest!


I have to agree with you here though ... Missouri is one school that I don't believe inflates career placement numbers (unlike both SLU and WUSTL).

User avatar
najumobi
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby najumobi » Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:24 pm

chadwick218 wrote:
anthonyc350 wrote:
chadwick218 wrote:
anthonyc350 wrote:overrated: Iowa, Indiana, American, Cardozo, Connecticut

underrated: USD, FSU, Florida, tOSU, Missouri, Nebraska, UNC


As much as I want to agree with you having grown up in Missouri and having Tiger Roots, Missour's placement statistics are [strike]honestly abysmal[/strike]honest!


I have to agree with you here though ... Missouri is one school that I don't believe inflates career placement numbers (unlike both SLU and WUSTL).

i don't but that wustl inflates their numbers? they seem realistic to me...all the data they report to usnews points to 1/3 of their class getting biglaw in cities like chicago and nyc (pre-ite). this is consistent with how the majority of people probably views job prospects coming out of wustl.

User avatar
chadwick218
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby chadwick218 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:11 am

najumobi wrote:i don't bu[y] that wustl inflates their numbers? they seem realistic to me...all the data they report to usnews points to 1/3 of their class getting biglaw in cities like chicago and nyc (pre-ite). this is consistent with how the majority of people probably views job prospects coming out of wustl.


It seems as though this year they are reporting that the 75th percentile is $160,000, but in prior years, they reported that the median was $160,000. I've always found this hard to believe given that no firm in St. Louis (not even Bryan Cave) pays $160,000.

User avatar
najumobi
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby najumobi » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:35 am

chadwick218 wrote:
najumobi wrote:i don't bu[y] that wustl inflates their numbers? they seem realistic to me...all the data they report to usnews points to 1/3 of their class getting biglaw in cities like chicago and nyc (pre-ite). this is consistent with how the majority of people probably views job prospects coming out of wustl.


It seems as though this year they are reporting that the 75th percentile is $160,000, but in prior years, they reported that the median was $160,000. I've always found this hard to believe given that no firm in St. Louis (not even Bryan Cave) pays $160,000.

oh ok ic what you're saying....i was just going off what they reported april 2009 to usnews about their 2007 graduates. i only go off of usnews data because on it they actually tell you what percentage of grads responded to the salary survey. on their own website they don't disclose this. i hate that many of these schools seem to fight transparency, tooth and nail.

User avatar
chadwick218
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby chadwick218 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:39 am

najumobi wrote:
chadwick218 wrote:
najumobi wrote:i don't bu[y] that wustl inflates their numbers? they seem realistic to me...all the data they report to usnews points to 1/3 of their class getting biglaw in cities like chicago and nyc (pre-ite). this is consistent with how the majority of people probably views job prospects coming out of wustl.


It seems as though this year they are reporting that the 75th percentile is $160,000, but in prior years, they reported that the median was $160,000. I've always found this hard to believe given that no firm in St. Louis (not even Bryan Cave) pays $160,000.

oh ok ic what you're saying....i was just going off what they reported april 2009 to usnews about their 2007 graduates. i only go off of usnews data because on it they actually tell you what percentage of grads responded to the salary survey. on their own website they don't disclose this. i hate that many of these schools seem to fight transparency, tooth and nail.


Exactly ... I also remember that the reporting rate was less than 50%!

User avatar
anthonyc350
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:22 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby anthonyc350 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:30 am

Im biased cause I'm probably going to go to mizzou, but I bet most schools outside the top-30 would have similar numbers to mu if they reported them accurately

User avatar
najumobi
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby najumobi » Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:58 am

anthonyc350 wrote:Im biased cause I'm probably going to go to mizzou, but I bet most schools outside the top-30 would have similar numbers to mu if they reported them accurately

how do you know mizzou doesn't fudge numbers also?

User avatar
chadwick218
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby chadwick218 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:22 am

najumobi wrote:
anthonyc350 wrote:Im biased cause I'm probably going to go to mizzou, but I bet most schools outside the top-30 would have similar numbers to mu if they reported them accurately

how do you know mizzou doesn't fudge numbers also?


have you looked at their #'s? if they are fudging, they could do a much better job

Killacam18
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:11 am

Re: Underrated programs

Postby Killacam18 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:36 am

Hey guys OP here. First off thanks for all your input and discussion. It was more of an open-ended question on my part but if I had to narrow down what I was looking for it would be this; what schools place better, have better reputational scores with judges/firms, etc...than their rank would suggest? For instance those schools that dropped because of the inclusion of part-time programs but have traditionally been higher. Thanks.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby JusticeHarlan » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:43 am

Killacam18 wrote:Hey guys OP here. First off thanks for all your input and discussion. It was more of an open-ended question on my part but if I had to narrow down what I was looking for it would be this; what schools place better, have better reputational scores with judges/firms, etc...than their rank would suggest? For instance those schools that dropped because of the inclusion of part-time programs but have traditionally been higher. Thanks.

I think George Washington is considered a poster child for the "dropped because of the inclusion of part-time programs but have traditionally been higher." They dropped about 8 spots or so, I think.

User avatar
klussy
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:19 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby klussy » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:55 am

JusticeHarlan wrote:
Killacam18 wrote:Hey guys OP here. First off thanks for all your input and discussion. It was more of an open-ended question on my part but if I had to narrow down what I was looking for it would be this; what schools place better, have better reputational scores with judges/firms, etc...than their rank would suggest? For instance those schools that dropped because of the inclusion of part-time programs but have traditionally been higher. Thanks.

I think George Washington is considered a poster child for the "dropped because of the inclusion of part-time programs but have traditionally been higher." They dropped about 8 spots or so, I think.


and rightfully so. it was just a way to try to game the system. I don't know why PT was ever excluded

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Underrated programs

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:07 am

rayiner wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:Every day the CDO adds a few more employers to the list with the current total being 21 with a total projected turn out of 40. While 40 may not be much, it beats UF's 1 (a 1L mentioned it in a thread) and Fordham's 8 (also mentioned in a thread). Of course Fordham students will be attending NYU's job fair, but that is almost like Loyola-New Orleans students attending a Tulane job fair.


That beats a lot of T14's from what I can tell. CLS has like a dozen according to XOXO.


Really? That is really surprising. I would have figured that many of the T14's would have had more than 12 or so employers show up.

You go to Northwestern, right? How are they doing?


Our Spring OCI has 8 employers at the moment. I think all the T14 (besides maybe HYS) are pretty bad. Then again, even in previous years I don't think there were more than 15 or so employers at spring OCI, and at that time something like 1/4 of our class got 1L jobs at NALP firms.


That's really not bad for 25% of 1L's to have a NALP firm jobs. I'm honestly not sure what percentage of Tulane 1L's received it in the past. However by looking at the "preferred" ranks by the firms coming to campus, I would say probably about the same. I am a little surprised that more firms don't historically show up at Northwestern - but then again, many private employers outside the south don't really hire 1L's.
Last edited by Aberzombie1892 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
najumobi
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby najumobi » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:46 am

chadwick218 wrote:
najumobi wrote:
anthonyc350 wrote:Im biased cause I'm probably going to go to mizzou, but I bet most schools outside the top-30 would have similar numbers to mu if they reported them accurately

how do you know mizzou doesn't fudge numbers also?


have you looked at their #'s? if they are fudging, they could do a much better job

lol....
honestly i don't think it's a matter of schools fudging. i think that on their websites they just omit certain data, like the % reporting salary (like we were talking about previously) while emphasizing others. you just have to look in the right places (i.e. not law school's own website). if you use usnews, i think you can get a good picture of a school's job prospects. i'll use 2007 brooklyn grads as an example (pre-ite).

top 14% making +160k/yr
top 27% making +107k/yr
top 40% making +65k/yr
bottom 60% making under 65k/yr (either in private sector or public sector)
30% are unemployed at graduation

so if i was thinking of attending this school i would realize that i would be more likely to land a job paying under 65k/yr than over and that i have about a 1/3 chance of graduating with no job. this information is quite valuable.

User avatar
observationalist
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby observationalist » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:38 am

najumobi wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:True those markets are small (but at least it's something).

I can imagine most schools outside the T14 were in bad shape - especially schools with little to no home market (i.e. Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Washington U).

i have actually been reading on TSL that vandy outperformed cornell and georgetown in 2L SA placement. i think this is probably due to the fact that vandy is more connected to secondary and tertiary markets throughout the south, while georgetown and cornell concentrates heavily on NYC.


I actually think we've been outplacing GULC for a few years, but it's hard to substantiate that without seeing their own stats. This year they are definitely hurting from the enormous class size and the lack of geographic diversity in where people want to go... I wish I could say we're doing great but unfortunately we've still seen a retraction in how many people got 2L SA offers. Two years ago it was about 78%; my class was just about 66%; this year it's just around half.

One thing I think the schools could be doing to improve their placement is to continue shrinking class sizes. It's one thing to do it if the motive is to boost LSAT/gpa medians, but I do support the idea that as fewer firms are capable of taking large summer classes, the law schools that typically feed into those firms also aren't as capable. Cutting class size is the easy fix; recruiting students who all want to work in different markets is a lot more difficult, especially for schools with a strong feeder reputation for one or two large markets.

I think in both respects Vandy's getting a lot more love than you'll find elsewhere, but again if I were a prospective I'd be asking for more information on current job placement before deciding whether to pay sticker here or anywhere else. Leverage those acceptances people.. it's the only way the schools are going to figure out the value in being open about how the job prospects are looking.

User avatar
Panther7
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Underrated programs

Postby Panther7 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:05 am

PDaddy wrote:We can define a "rating" as a tangible series of metrics that is used to form some value judgment. We can also define it as "lay prestige", which is a deeply rooted perception that results from some combination of historical performance and "reputation". Either way, some bias is incorporated into the ratings.

A ranking is, ideally, based on ratings. But some people confuse ratings with rankings, and that's where we get into trouble. To say a school is "underranked", one must question the entire ratings process and be able to explain what about the incorporated ratings (tangible metrics or lay prestige) skews perception or misinforms the consumer. To say that a school is "underrated" obviously means questioning, for starters, the segment of them that is most vulnerable to criticism: the lay prestige, and, by extension, "reputation".

And that would mean making some form of argument about how public perception has been manipulated, regardless of metrics. But it would also mean questioning the weights given to the metrics themselves, as the weights are highly debatable.

For instance, "reputation" gets more weight than it should, and the Ivy leadue schools benefit hjeavily from that. The other problem with reputational surveys is that those querried often rate schools they know little to nothing about. To that end, the ratings of all top schools can be argued as inflated. Yet, some schools (both higher and lower ranked) might perform at or beyond their more objective metrics, for example in employment stats.

Once we examine from the inside out, the metrics used to evaluate and "rate" schools, we can determine what schools might be underrated and, thus, underranked. But we can't make the jump without doing so.

What I see happening is that posters are confusing the two terms. OP asks about "rating".

So, which schools defy their metrics? Which schools unfairly suffer from metrics that get the wrong weights? Do we feel that any metrics get too much weight. How about not enough? Our answers about underrating are in there.


When an unranked team kicks the crap out of Duke, do they chant "OV-ER RAN-KED" or "OV-ER RAT-ED"?

/case

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Underrated programs

Postby PDaddy » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:14 am

quetzalcoatl wrote:
anthonyc350 wrote:overrated: Iowa, Indiana, American, Cardozo, Connecticut

underrated: USD, FSU, Florida, tOSU, Missouri, Nebraska, UNC


Nebraska is sure to move into the t-2's pretty soon. I think them and Texas Tech are the top schools that are still t-3.


Don't forget Howard, Syracuse, Wayne State, and Suffolk. They are all underrated and underranked.
Last edited by PDaddy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lomax
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Underrated programs

Postby Lomax » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:25 am

najumobi wrote:you just have to look in the right places (i.e. not law school's own website). if you use usnews, i think you can get a good picture of a school's job prospects. i'll use 2007 brooklyn grads as an example (pre-ite).

top 14% making +160k/yr
top 27% making +107k/yr
top 40% making +65k/yr
bottom 60% making under 65k/yr (either in private sector or public sector)
30% are unemployed at graduation

so if i was thinking of attending this school i would realize that i would be more likely to land a job paying under 65k/yr than over and that i have about a 1/3 chance of graduating with no job. this information is quite valuable.


That does seem like valuable information. Where did you get it from? If from US News, then from which of their publications?

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Underrated programs

Postby PDaddy » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:51 am

Panther7 wrote:When an unranked team kicks the crap out of Duke, do they chant "OV-ER RAN-KED" or "OV-ER RAT-ED"?
/case


But that's the exact point I am raising. When we talk about rating, we are talking about the weights given to certain metrics vs. performance. For example, a school like UH, which doesn't send students anywhere but Houston (or maybe San-A or Dallas), will ultimately suffer from rankings that give so much weight to "reputation". Because UH has such a strong hold on its own market (and we can assume that its BigLaw placement would be stronger if there were simply more Biglaw firms in Houston) UH's performance, all else held equal, would outperform its ratings and, by extension, its ranking if the weight for reputation was different. Reputation is, for most schools, primarily location-driven. Thus, UH suffers unfairly because it doesn't send or need to send its graduates outside of Houston, and certainly not outside of Texas. It out performs its rating and, thus, its ranking by extension.

If we say that a team is overranked, again, the ultimate questions are going to depend on the metrics that make up the ratings that lead to the rankings: previous year's record, previous years titles, returning seniors, all-conference players, injuries, previous year's shooting percentages, blue chip recruits (and who they play behind and at what positions), current and previous year's strength of schedule, etc, etc.

But there would also be too many intangibles: strength of non-conference schedule, preseason tournaments, point guard's year of school/age, coach's age, tv schedule, travel schedule, etc, etc. The rankings are controlled by all of those factors. What weights do they get? The system is almost always going to contain errors because you can always argue the weights. The crowd should be yelling overrated. I know they yell that at individual players.

And btw, quit talking about my team! :lol:




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anrf1225, canafsa, Giro423, Google Adsense [Bot], jjcorvino, jtn123, Majestic-12 [Bot], mm2368, Nickel94, Sawtooth, Smc1994, TakeItToTrial, texteach, ThorB and 22 guests