Dignan wrote: APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
Dignan wrote:I'm not so sure about that. Just two years ago, SLS was ranked 2nd and HLS 3rd. Over the last 20 years, HLS and SLS have shifted back and forth between 2nd and 3rd in the USWNR rankings, with SLS being ahead of HLS more often than not. I wouldn't be surprised to see them flip again this year or next.
In any case, I agree that SLS does not seem concerned with boosting its LSAT median.
i'm just conjecturing here, but i'd imagine that sls surpassing hls had much more to do with the toxic atmosphere at harvard than any fundamental difference in the two schools. during the 90s and parts of this decade, harvard lost out on lots of faculty hires and perspective students because of a poor reputation for divisiveness, cut-throat competitiveness and discord.
given the work that dean kagan did while in cambridge, however, such movement within the top 3 is probably less likely than it was in the past.
Maybe. Dean Kagan definitely improved things at Harvard. On the other hand, SLS and HLS kept swapping spots during her tenure, with SLS rising to 2nd (and HLS dropping to third) during Kagan's third and fourth years there. Anyway, all this stuff is trivial. I don't think anyone should judge or choose a school based on a one-spot difference in a magazine's ranking system.
Actually the reason Stanford can come close to Harvard is that the USNWR rankings are heavily skewed in favor of small schools. Just take a look Leiter's opinion in http://www.leiterrankings.com/usnews/guide.shtml
"9.75% of the overall score is average per capita expenditures for this year and the prior year for instruction, library, and supporting services. Highly Manipulable. This is the figure that is adjusted for differences in cost of living. Once again, schools self-report the data. This criterion, along with (3) and (5), gives a huge boost to small schools, since per capita measures penalize for economies of scale. This explains how, in many years (including 2003), Harvard can have higher reputation scores than Yale, yet Yale will come out 1st and Harvard 3rd. Harvard is three times the size, and that makes all the difference."
"it would have been too obvious how this irrelevant expenditures category had skewed the rankings. (Of course, it still skews them, in favor of small schools like Yale and against large schools like Harvard, but more on that shortly.)"
"12.5% of the overall score is based on the median LSAT score. Highly Manipulable. This criterion is one of many that favors small schools. Consider: a school that enrolls 180 students each year, only needs to recruit 90 with an LSAT of, say, at least 164 in order to have a strong median LSAT. A school that enrolls 450 each year, by contrast, will need to recruit 225 students (more than twice as many) with that LSAT to report the very same median."
But Dignan I think you are right. There can be good rankings with regards to groups, but it is not so clear-cut within those groups how the schools compare. So YHS, then CCN...etc. Either way, Top 10 is great.