USNWR Rankings Released...Seriously Forum

[General Tso]

Check out Leiter's newest blog post about the rankings -- especially the self-reported employment info.

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... r-not.html

It's nice to know that I am not the only one who thinks Davis shouldn't be outplacing Boalt. (and Yale too, btw)

SW, I totally agree with you. They are bogus and the mishandling of this data has gone too far. Ignoring this fact will render these rankings meaningless amongst those who matter most, and the effect will trickle down. Expect USNWR to do something about it.

Still, you must admit that this has gone from bone-to-pick to all out campaign on your part

Nope still bone-to-pick on my end. The all out campaign is here:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

[quickquestionthanks]

Nope still bone-to-pick on my end. The all out campaign is here:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

Hats off to them. Let 2010 be known as the tipping point.

[danquayle]

Well, its only on the front page of their website...

And its only been what... a weak since the rankings came out.

I'm not saying I fault them for the program. But its silly to think Duke is "beyond" a little gaming.

LOL @ "weak". These rankings are weak. They are meaningless.

Yeah, wrote that at 2 AM after spending 7 hours drafting an amendment... thats painful

[T14_Scholly]

[I'm probably going to Duke next year and...

That's a shock!

I have little trouble believing that Duke would institute such a program to game the rankings even if they only expected a 4% increase in employment. Plenty of schools practice YP even though yield is such a small portion of the ranking formula.

[los blancos]

Well, its only on the front page of their website...

And its only been what... a weak since the rankings came out.

I'm not saying I fault them for the program. But its silly to think Duke is "beyond" a little gaming.

Only as part of the normal 'news' cycle, and perhaps also in part because people are naturally curious about it.

No one is beyond gaming, I just don't think any rational cost/benefit analysis could yield this program solely to advertise a 100% employment rate when it's a statistic no one really cares about and won't significantly alter your rank. They'd probably be better-served using the stipends they're paying as scholarship money. (all clueless 0L speculation)

[los blancos]

[I'm probably going to Duke next year and...

That's a shock!

Now you're just being a douche.

I have little trouble believing that Duke would institute such a program to game the rankings even if they only expected a 4% increase in employment. Plenty of schools practice YP even though yield is such a small portion of the ranking formula.

YP doesn't just help with the yield number, it (far more importantly) makes a school appear more selective by extension since it also lowers the acceptance rate. It's also about being wary of over-enrolling.

[FlightoftheEarls]

I have little trouble believing that Duke would institute such a program to game the rankings even if they only expected a 4% increase in employment. Plenty of schools practice YP even though yield is such a small portion of the ranking formula.

YP doesn't just help with the yield number, it makes a school appear more selective by extension since it also lowers the acceptance rate.

Employment rankings don't just help with the USNews overall score, it makes a school appear to have better employment prospects by extension since it increases the employment rate.

I'm sorry, you were arguing what again?

[los blancos]

I have little trouble believing that Duke would institute such a program to game the rankings even if they only expected a 4% increase in employment. Plenty of schools practice YP even though yield is such a small portion of the ranking formula.

YP doesn't just help with the yield number, it makes a school appear more selective by extension since it also lowers the acceptance rate.

Employment rankings don't just help with the USNews overall score, it makes a school appear to have better employment prospects by extension since it increases the employment rate.

I'm sorry, you were arguing what again?

I'm arguing that no one cares about 96% vs 100%, especially when the numbers are exactly the same 9 months after graduation. I think T14 admits are smarter than that, because all you need to do is look at Yale's number in order to completely discredit the statistic. On the list of factors affecting perception of employment prospects at top schools, this is probably at the very bottom. Perhaps I wrongly have more faith in the intelligence of people considering going to these schools.

(FWIW this debate would be completely different if we were talking schools ranked below 30)

[T14_Scholly]

I have little trouble believing that Duke would institute such a program to game the rankings even if they only expected a 4% increase in employment. Plenty of schools practice YP even though yield is such a small portion of the ranking formula.

YP doesn't just help with the yield number, it makes a school appear more selective by extension since it also lowers the acceptance rate.

Employment rankings don't just help with the USNews overall score, it makes a school appear to have better employment prospects by extension since it increases the employment rate.

I'm sorry, you were arguing what again?

I'm arguing that no one cares about 96% vs 100%, especially when the numbers are exactly the same 9 months after graduation. I think T14 admits are smarter than that, because all you need to do is look at Yale's number in order to completely discredit the statistic. On the list of factors affecting perception of employment prospects at top schools, this is probably at the very bottom.

(FWIW this debate would be completely different if we were talking schools [strike]ranked below 30[/strike] other than Duke)

[los blancos]

Yes, because it's asinine to argue that the difference between 70% and 80% is far more significant than 97% and 100%, especially when the 100% occurs at a school with a significantly smaller class size.

The statistic itself is meaningless without knowing where these employed graduates go.

[fortissimo]

Nope still bone-to-pick on my end. The all out campaign is here:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

Hats off to them. Let 2010 be known as the tipping point.

haha...i've seen this in 10 threads now

Also does anyone know why TLS kept the old rankings on there alongside the ACTUAL, CURRENT RANKINGS? WTF is the point in that?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

Honestly, it just looks weird and makes me suspicious of ulterior motives...especially since the link is titled "2010 law school rankings." What gives?

[danquayle]

Nope still bone-to-pick on my end. The all out campaign is here:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

Hats off to them. Let 2010 be known as the tipping point.

haha...i've seen this in 10 threads now

Also does anyone know why TLS kept the old rankings on there alongside the ACTUAL, CURRENT RANKINGS? WTF is the point in that?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

Honestly, it just looks weird and makes me suspicious of ulterior motives...especially since the link is titled "2010 law school rankings." What gives?

Is this is serious comment?

[fortissimo]

Nope still bone-to-pick on my end. The all out campaign is here:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

Hats off to them. Let 2010 be known as the tipping point.

haha...i've seen this in 10 threads now

Also does anyone know why TLS kept the old rankings on there alongside the ACTUAL, CURRENT RANKINGS? WTF is the point in that?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

Honestly, it just looks weird and makes me suspicious of ulterior motives...especially since the link is titled "2010 law school rankings." What gives?

Is this is serious comment?

Yes, it looks retarded. 2011 (or real 2010) rankings or whatever apply now...basically whenever they are released = new rankings. TLS didn't do this last year, nor the year before...

[danquayle]

haha...i've seen this in 10 threads now

Also does anyone know why TLS kept the old rankings on there alongside the ACTUAL, CURRENT RANKINGS? WTF is the point in that?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

Honestly, it just looks weird and makes me suspicious of ulterior motives...especially since the link is titled "2010 law school rankings." What gives?

Is this is serious comment?

Yes, it looks retarded.

It's always better to have a larger sampling, especially with the US NEWS rankings and its wild fluctuations. I wish they had the last 10 years of rankings. And what possible ulterior motives could there be? To show a school as rising or falling?

[fortissimo]

haha...i've seen this in 10 threads now

Also does anyone know why TLS kept the old rankings on there alongside the ACTUAL, CURRENT RANKINGS? WTF is the point in that?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

Honestly, it just looks weird and makes me suspicious of ulterior motives...especially since the link is titled "2010 law school rankings." What gives?

Is this is serious comment?

Yes, it looks retarded.

It's always better to have a larger sampling, especially with the US NEWS rankings and its wild fluctuations. I wish they had the last 10 years of rankings. And what possible ulterior motives could there be? To show a school as rising or falling?

maybe someone (cough no comment) whose school is falling wants to show it was higher ranked last year...who knows.
I just find it odd that they suddenly decided to do it this year. We have full blown lists with all the usnews rankings, just not normally featured on tls.

[YCrevolution]

..

[danquayle]

maybe someone (cough no comment) whose school is falling wants to show it was higher ranked last year...who knows.
I just find it odd that they suddenly decided to do it this year. We have full blown lists with all the usnews rankings, just not normally featured on tls.

But wouldn't showing a downward trend be worse?

[honestabe84]

Nope still bone-to-pick on my end. The all out campaign is here:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

Hats off to them. Let 2010 be known as the tipping point.

haha...i've seen this in 10 threads now

Also does anyone know why TLS kept the old rankings on there alongside the ACTUAL, CURRENT RANKINGS? WTF is the point in that?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

Honestly, it just looks weird and makes me suspicious of ulterior motives...especially since the link is titled "2010 law school rankings." What gives?

+10000

It's ridiculous. It's also misleading to those that may potentially attend schools at the bottom of the list. It makes it seem as though those schools are actually ranked when in reality they are tier 3s. These schools are also not listed on the page with all the tier 3s.

[flyingpanda]

Nope still bone-to-pick on my end. The all out campaign is here:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

Hats off to them. Let 2010 be known as the tipping point.

haha...i've seen this in 10 threads now

Also does anyone know why TLS kept the old rankings on there alongside the ACTUAL, CURRENT RANKINGS? WTF is the point in that?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

Honestly, it just looks weird and makes me suspicious of ulterior motives...especially since the link is titled "2010 law school rankings." What gives?

+10000

It's ridiculous. It's also misleading to those that may potentially attend schools at the bottom of the list. It makes it seem as though those schools are actually ranked when in reality they are tier 3s. These schools are also not listed on the page with all the tier 3s.

Newsflash, there really isn't any difference between lower t2 and t3.

[honestabe84]

Really? I had no idea.

Here's another newsflash: There's no difference between schools ranked 30+ (within reason).

That wasn't my point, though. Misinformed applicants don't know that, and they will attend a school that is a tier 2 and won't attend a school that is tier 3. I've heard this scenario several times on TLS.

[JCougar]

Newsflash, there really isn't any difference between lower t2 and t3.

That's right. There's only really a dozen or so T2 schools. Everything below the T60 or so is pretty much TTT, with the exception of a smattering of schools. Placement outside of this is pretty much the same on down the line until you get to the joke schools like Cooley and Florida Coastal where a third of the class drops out after 1L.

[T14_Scholly]

Really? I had no idea.

Here's another newsflash: There's no difference between schools ranked 30+ (within reason).

That wasn't my point, though. Misinformed applicants don't know that, and they will attend a school that is a tier 2 and won't attend a school that is tier 3. I've heard this scenario several times on TLS.

...so TLS should properly inform them of which schools are actually T2 (rather than having a list that shows last year's T2s) so that they can still make their stupid mistake of differentiating between lower T2 and T3?

[arhmcpo]

Really? I had no idea.

Here's another newsflash: There's no difference between schools ranked 30+ (within reason).

That wasn't my point, though. Misinformed applicants don't know that, and they will attend a school that is a tier 2 and won't attend a school that is tier 3. I've heard this scenario several times on TLS.

How odd...when i read your argument out loud, my ears started bleeding...thats weirrrrrd

[fortissimo]

maybe someone (cough no comment) whose school is falling wants to show it was higher ranked last year...who knows.
I just find it odd that they suddenly decided to do it this year. We have full blown lists with all the usnews rankings, just not normally featured on tls.

But wouldn't showing a downward trend be worse?

not necessarily..

also TLS hasn't updated the interquartiles either. it's still the old data.

[Son of Cicero]

maybe someone (cough no comment) whose school is falling wants to show it was higher ranked last year...who knows.
I just find it odd that they suddenly decided to do it this year. We have full blown lists with all the usnews rankings, just not normally featured on tls.

But wouldn't showing a downward trend be worse?

not necessarily..

also TLS hasn't updated the interquartiles either. it's still the old data.

--ImageRemoved--


Fortissimo, such a sad poster. Don't you realize that a harsh voice won't make any impression on TLSers? Most posters are apparently unconcerned with something as important as the state of the job market, so why would they heed something as irrelevant as your ridiculously slanted interpretations of everything? Won't you recognize the nullification of your raison d'atre? And please don't bump the federal clerkships thread again.