So what makes Alabama a T30 law school? Forum

[gobucks101]

Emory places higher in NYC because more Emory students come from NYC compared to UGA. Over 70% of UGA students come from Georgia. I doubt you could say it was the law school that placed people in the city they came from across the country.

Emory in New York Interview Program (New York, NY). Exclusive to Emory Law students.
http://www.law.emory.edu/career-service ... iting.html
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/care ... _in_NY.pdf

Thanks for playing

[TheSituation]

Bama has become a T-30 by gaming the USNWR rankings. Here's how:

1) They take about 25% of their class straight out of their undergrad without making they take the LSAT. So a quarter of their class has 3.8+ GPA and no LSAT score to hurt the LSAT numbers. This also probably helps them fulfill their in-state residency requirements.

2) About 25% of their class will then consist of people with crappy UGPAs but high (165+) LSATs. They'll even throw good scholarship money at these people to get them to go because it doesn't matter what their GPAs are since they are in the bottom quarter of the class.

3) They will recruit quality candidates like they are 5-star football recruits to get them to come. This apparently has proven quite effective for them.

So if you have a 2.5/170 go to Bama with $$.

Maybe one day there will be a rule where a law school has to have prospective students take the LSAT, but until then Bama will keep crushing the rankings while better schools get shafted.

[jay115]

How do they enforce the rule of no caffeine, tea, alcohol, etc?

I'm not trying to troll, I'm generally curious.

For clarification, they don't have a rule against caffeine. I work at a BYU department and pretty much all of my co-workers grab Mountain Dew for lunch. (Some individuals choose not to drink caffeine because they personally believe it's healthier for them to avoid it.)

As for enforcing rules against tea and alcohol, it's enforced primarily by the Honor Code Office (HCO). The HCO takes reports from any student, faculty, or roommates about students who aren't complying with the Honor Code. If no one ever reports you, then you'd never have any action taken against you (so long as you don't show up on BYU campus half-drunk or with pot on you). If any legal action is taken against you (e.g. DUI) that gets reported to the University, you'd also have action taken.

A few things. Just because someone is reported doesn't mean the HCO necessarily accepts the report as fact. They may ask the student about it, but if there's nothing to back up a claim, they generally dismiss it. Second, even if a student does violate that, the HCO will permit the student to stay, but may have a probationary period. It's definitely WAY more strict than 95% of schools, but it is not an undercover agency trying to destroy students' lives.

reporting on your roommate drinking a can of coke sounds vaguely similar to having russian children reporting on their possibly non-communist parents.

This doesn't make sense. Why would they ban coffee but not caffeinated soda (which is what 7th day Adventists do - some of them even think it's holy to avoid mustard and pepper). What do Mormons think is bad about coffee and tea but not bad about coke? This seems like sophistry. (And I could have sworn that Mormons I've known didn't drink Mountain Dew and coke, so maybe it's just BYU regs?)

As in my original post, it goes back to the fact that our scripture specifically prohibits coffee and tea, but not caffeinated soda.

You probably have met Mormons who didn't drink Mountain Dew and Coke. As I said, some choose not to, others do it in moderation. Stepping away from church doctrine into opinion, I think it probably has to do with teaching restraint and self-guidance. The church sets minimum guidelines meant to help members of the church as a whole. However, past that, members the church have to be able to make decisions for themselves. The church can't give a stamp of approval or condemnation on everything.

Still though, there are people in the church who argue about this exact topic - is caffeine against the word of wisdom or not. Officially, the Church says, "Figure it out for yourself."

In the opinion field, it's likely that the Word of Wisdom (the name of our health code) is to help for a specific period of time. We believe there have been times where alcohol hasn't been specifically forbidden (e.g. Jesus drinking wine) and there have been times when pork has been prohibited (law of Moses), but it is fine right now . Our church believes in continuing revelation - God gives different commandments and different times for different reasons. Some commandments are eternal - e.g. have mercy, help the sick, have faith - but many are time and context specific.

Is it true that the LDS owns like 30% of Coca-cola? I'm sincerely not going on a mormon attack or anything; just curious as to whether that was just a rumor

[marshalltucker]

Bama has become a T-30 by gaming the USNWR rankings. Here's how:

1) They take about 25% of their class straight out of their undergrad without making they take the LSAT. So a quarter of their class has 3.8+ GPA and no LSAT score to hurt the LSAT numbers. This also probably helps them fulfill their in-state residency requirements.

2) About 25% of their class will then consist of people with crappy UGPAs but high (165+) LSATs. They'll even throw good scholarship money at these people to get them to go because it doesn't matter what their GPAs are since they are in the bottom quarter of the class.

3) They will recruit quality candidates like they are 5-star football recruits to get them to come. This apparently has proven quite effective for them.

So if you have a 2.5/170 go to Bama with $$.

Maybe one day there will be a rule where a law school has to have prospective students take the LSAT, but until then Bama will keep crushing the rankings while better schools get shafted.

I've never heard this. Explain. Where'd you hear this info from?

Bama seems to be getting alot better, they may be overrated in the rankings, but they are underrated on TLS.

[thickfreakness]

Bama has become a T-30 by gaming the USNWR rankings. Here's how:

1) They take about 25% of their class straight out of their undergrad without making they take the LSAT. So a quarter of their class has 3.8+ GPA and no LSAT score to hurt the LSAT numbers. This also probably helps them fulfill their in-state residency requirements.

2) About 25% of their class will then consist of people with crappy UGPAs but high (165+) LSATs. They'll even throw good scholarship money at these people to get them to go because it doesn't matter what their GPAs are since they are in the bottom quarter of the class.

3) They will recruit quality candidates like they are 5-star football recruits to get them to come. This apparently has proven quite effective for them.

So if you have a 2.5/170 go to Bama with $$.

Maybe one day there will be a rule where a law school has to have prospective students take the LSAT, but until then Bama will keep crushing the rankings while better schools get shafted.

I've never heard this. Explain. Where'd you hear this info from?

Bama seems to be getting alot better, they may be overrated in the rankings, but they are underrated on TLS.

They have something called the Honors Law Program where they pretty much auto-admit anyone who is an Alabama UG in the Honors College who has a GPA over 3.75, IIRC. No LSAT is required. They can fill up more in-state seats, raise their GPA median, and avoid reporting LSATs for a portion of the class, thereby increasing the competitiveness for the rest of the applicant pool. All the while, most of the Honors Law people probably won't get scholarships because they don't have LSAT scores so the school can target merit aid at over-median candidates.

EDIT: Oh yeah, to be eligible for Honors Law you have to be an Alabama resident. Forgot to mention that, though it was sort of implied.

[danquayle]

Bama has become a T-30 by gaming the USNWR rankings. Here's how:

1) They take about 25% of their class straight out of their undergrad without making they take the LSAT. So a quarter of their class has 3.8+ GPA and no LSAT score to hurt the LSAT numbers. This also probably helps them fulfill their in-state residency requirements.

2) About 25% of their class will then consist of people with crappy UGPAs but high (165+) LSATs. They'll even throw good scholarship money at these people to get them to go because it doesn't matter what their GPAs are since they are in the bottom quarter of the class.

3) They will recruit quality candidates like they are 5-star football recruits to get them to come. This apparently has proven quite effective for them.

So if you have a 2.5/170 go to Bama with $$.

Maybe one day there will be a rule where a law school has to have prospective students take the LSAT, but until then Bama will keep crushing the rankings while better schools get shafted.

I've never heard this. Explain. Where'd you hear this info from?

Bama seems to be getting alot better, they may be overrated in the rankings, but they are underrated on TLS.

The majority of people are reactionary by nature. Even though through objective standards Bama has substantially improved itself, the majority won't accept it because they adhere to some kind of conventional truth. This is in spite of the fact that such conventional truth relies on circular logic. "Bama isn't that good because Bama just isn't that good."

Right.

[thickfreakness]

Bama has become a T-30 by gaming the USNWR rankings. Here's how:

1) They take about 25% of their class straight out of their undergrad without making they take the LSAT. So a quarter of their class has 3.8+ GPA and no LSAT score to hurt the LSAT numbers. This also probably helps them fulfill their in-state residency requirements.

2) About 25% of their class will then consist of people with crappy UGPAs but high (165+) LSATs. They'll even throw good scholarship money at these people to get them to go because it doesn't matter what their GPAs are since they are in the bottom quarter of the class.

3) They will recruit quality candidates like they are 5-star football recruits to get them to come. This apparently has proven quite effective for them.

So if you have a 2.5/170 go to Bama with $$.

Maybe one day there will be a rule where a law school has to have prospective students take the LSAT, but until then Bama will keep crushing the rankings while better schools get shafted.

I've never heard this. Explain. Where'd you hear this info from?

Bama seems to be getting alot better, they may be overrated in the rankings, but they are underrated on TLS.

The majority of people are reactionary by nature. Even though through objective standards Bama has substantially improved itself, the majority won't accept it because they adhere to some kind of conventional truth. This is in spite of the fact that such conventional truth relies on circular logic. "Bama isn't that good because Bama just isn't that good."

Right.

I think this plays into it, but I also think that since Alabama's been on such a meteoric rise by enrolling more qualified students, maintaining large amounts of funding, adding on to the building, etc. its reputation in the legal community is lagging behind. I think that if Alabama can sustain or improve further its current ranking situation that its reputation will only continue to improve in the legal community.

[entrechatsix]

Thanks for playing

hahaha

[marshalltucker]

Bama has become a T-30 by gaming the USNWR rankings. Here's how:

1) They take about 25% of their class straight out of their undergrad without making they take the LSAT. So a quarter of their class has 3.8+ GPA and no LSAT score to hurt the LSAT numbers. This also probably helps them fulfill their in-state residency requirements.

2) About 25% of their class will then consist of people with crappy UGPAs but high (165+) LSATs. They'll even throw good scholarship money at these people to get them to go because it doesn't matter what their GPAs are since they are in the bottom quarter of the class.

3) They will recruit quality candidates like they are 5-star football recruits to get them to come. This apparently has proven quite effective for them.

So if you have a 2.5/170 go to Bama with $$.

Maybe one day there will be a rule where a law school has to have prospective students take the LSAT, but until then Bama will keep crushing the rankings while better schools get shafted.

I've never heard this. Explain. Where'd you hear this info from?

Bama seems to be getting alot better, they may be overrated in the rankings, but they are underrated on TLS.

The majority of people are reactionary by nature. Even though through objective standards Bama has substantially improved itself, the majority won't accept it because they adhere to some kind of conventional truth. This is in spite of the fact that such conventional truth relies on circular logic. "Bama isn't that good because Bama just isn't that good."

Right.

I think this plays into it, but I also think that since Alabama's been on such a meteoric rise by enrolling more qualified students, maintaining large amounts of funding, adding on to the building, etc. its reputation in the legal community is lagging behind. I think that if Alabama can sustain or improve further its current ranking situation that its reputation will only continue to improve in the legal community.

The program is good but I wonder if the stigma of the name "Alabama" alone will ever allow it to be more than a powerhouse in AL/MS/GA.

[thickfreakness]

The program is good but I wonder if the stigma of the name "Alabama" alone will ever allow it to be more than a powerhouse in AL/MS/GA.

Maybe in terms of lay prestige, but the legal community probably won't care so long as its graduates produce well.

[ScaredWorkedBored]

The majority of people are reactionary by nature. Even though through objective standards Bama has substantially improved itself, the majority won't accept it because they adhere to some kind of conventional truth. This is in spite of the fact that such conventional truth relies on circular logic. "Bama isn't that good because Bama just isn't that good."

The reason people won't "accept" it is that it's transparent manipulation and employers don't believe it.

2007-08 OCI (i.e. peak boom scheduling) employer counts for state schools in Alabama's ranking neighborhood:

UNC: 202
Georgia: 163
Ohio State: 126
Wisconsin: 125
Indiana: 118 (yes it belongs here)
.
Alabama: 49

It's the same with Illinois trying to declare itself a T14 numbers-wise. There, they flat out admitted to manipulating rankings in their recruiting (because that was the less serious accusation to come out in that scandal). It turns out they still place more or less like the other Big 10 schools except with the inherent Chicago state edge.

Maybe those schools will earn their target reputations long term, but given the cost of attendance (if you're not from Alabama), it's not your job to help them.

[tarheel87]

The majority of people are reactionary by nature. Even though through objective standards Bama has substantially improved itself, the majority won't accept it because they adhere to some kind of conventional truth. This is in spite of the fact that such conventional truth relies on circular logic. "Bama isn't that good because Bama just isn't that good."

The reason people won't "accept" it is that it's transparent manipulation and employers don't believe it.

2007-08 OCI (i.e. peak boom scheduling) employer counts for state schools in Alabama's ranking neighborhood:

UNC: 202
Georgia: 163
Ohio State: 126
Wisconsin: 125
Indiana: 118 (yes it belongs here)
.
Alabama: 49

It's the same with Illinois trying to declare itself a T14 numbers-wise. There, they flat out admitted to manipulating rankings in their recruiting (because that was the less serious accusation to come out in that scandal). It turns out they still place more or less like the other Big 10 schools except with the inherent Chicago state edge.

Maybe those schools will earn their target reputations long term, but given the cost of attendance (if you're not from Alabama), it's not your job to help them.

I'm considering Bama pretty seriously so I'd like to enter this debate right quick. I would IMAGINE in this economy that most of those other schools have lost firms doing OCI while Alabama due to its insular markets and rising reputation has actually grown in the number of firms doing OCI there (probably not enough to even it out but I'd say it's a trend that will likely continue).

[ScaredWorkedBored]

All of the 30ish schools got absolutely annihilated. As did most of the 20s. The T14 schools got hit hard too, but they had more to give.

Since Alabama never drew the national recruiting scene, your hypo probably has some merit, at least on the "didn't lose much" prong.

[danquayle]

The majority of people are reactionary by nature. Even though through objective standards Bama has substantially improved itself, the majority won't accept it because they adhere to some kind of conventional truth. This is in spite of the fact that such conventional truth relies on circular logic. "Bama isn't that good because Bama just isn't that good."

The reason people won't "accept" it is that it's transparent manipulation and employers don't believe it.

2007-08 OCI (i.e. peak boom scheduling) employer counts for state schools in Alabama's ranking neighborhood:

UNC: 202
Georgia: 163
Ohio State: 126
Wisconsin: 125
Indiana: 118 (yes it belongs here)
.
Alabama: 49

It's the same with Illinois trying to declare itself a T14 numbers-wise. There, they flat out admitted to manipulating rankings in their recruiting (because that was the less serious accusation to come out in that scandal). It turns out they still place more or less like the other Big 10 schools except with the inherent Chicago state edge.

Maybe those schools will earn their target reputations long term, but given the cost of attendance (if you're not from Alabama), it's not your job to help them.

I'm considering Bama pretty seriously so I'd like to enter this debate right quick. I would IMAGINE in this economy that most of those other schools have lost firms doing OCI while Alabama due to its insular markets and rising reputation has actually grown in the number of firms doing OCI there (probably not enough to even it out but I'd say it's a trend that will likely continue).

For the most part, the merit of each law school is directly related to the quality of the student body. Perhaps the school itself adds some of that quality through teaching and career coaching, but for the most part, the quality is a result of the kind of students a school attracts. The primary way we gauge the student quality is through LSAT and GPA. You can say softs have their role, you can say that method is flawed - what you can't say is that it isn't universally used. Every school from Harvard to Cooley relies on that system, and admission statistics bear that out.

Yale is number 1 because it has its choice of students and takes the cream off the top. Same with H/S. Chicago, New York and Columbia are good because they get a high caliber of students in a strong market. The rest of the T-14 is considered elite because they get the rest of the elite students. Should they no longer receive the best students, they should lose their elite status. (Hi, Cornell). Employer's indirectly and consequently rely on the quality of students as well. They good to the elite universities to recruit because they're known for admitting elite students. They essentially push the selection costs off of themselves and onto the universities.

Now I'd be more than comfortable rankings schools based upon career prospects. But 1) that's inherently more different to put a finger on and 2) law schools themselves purposefully obfuscate the issue.

Bottom line: Quality of students = quality of school. When Alabama improves its student body its not 'gaming' the system. Its improving its school in the most direct and meaningful way.

[TheSituation]

Here's a hypo:

Alabama has an incoming 1L class of 100 students.

They accept 75 straight from their UG "honors" program that have GPAs of 3.75 and above. These folks don't have to take the LSAT.

Then they take 25 students that have varying GPAs (mostly really low), but all of these students have LSATs between 168-175.

Alabama's numbers would be at least 3.75 and 168 at the 25th percentile.

Does this mean that they have a T-14 quality student body? Of course not.

This issue here is it is unfair that a school can game the rankings by having high GPA students from their undergrad without having them take the LSAT.

Does anybody know if there is some kind of regulation that a school must have a certain percentage of their incoming class actually take the LSAT?

Thickfreakness, you may be able to add some insight. Thanks for elaborating on this topic.

Also, USNWR rankings are mostly garbage.

[thickfreakness]

Here's a hypo:

Alabama has an incoming 1L class of 100 students.

They accept 75 straight from their UG "honors" program that have GPAs of 3.75 and above. These folks don't have to take the LSAT.

Then they take 25 students that have varying GPAs (mostly really low), but all of these students have LSATs between 168-175.

Alabama's numbers would be at least 3.75 and 168 at the 25th percentile.

Does this mean that they have a T-14 quality student body? Of course not.

This issue here is it is unfair that a school can game the rankings by having high GPA students from their undergrad without having them take the LSAT.

Does anybody know if there is some kind of regulation that a school must have a certain percentage of their incoming class actually take the LSAT?

Thickfreakness, you may be able to add some insight. Thanks for elaborating on this topic.

Also, USNWR rankings are mostly garbage.

I don't think they're ever going to enroll anywhere near that large of a percentage of students from the program. I think they enrolled maybe around 30 or 40 out of ~200 1Ls from that program. Even so, I know for a fact that some of the folks in that group did have LSAT scores that were competitive for Alabama and they were offered merit scholarships. Simply put, there probably aren't enough in-state Honors College seniors with high GPAs that would be interested in law school to fill out a large percentage of their in-state slots. Also, I don't think the program's been going on for very long so its doubtful that UA's ranking rise has much to do with that program. As far as regulations go, I'm not sure that there is one as it pertains to the LSAT. I'm not sure how the program is viewed by USNWR's system, but I'd imagine that they would likely correct for it if it was considered problematic. I don't really have a problem with the program, either. If you're pulling a 3.8+ median taking honors classes, you're pretty smart to begin with and I think those that are interested in law school among those students are plenty qualified to succeed.

[Dany]

I don't really have a problem with the program, either. If you're pulling a 3.8+ median taking honors classes, you're pretty smart to begin with and I think those that are interested in law school among those students are plenty qualified to succeed.

Not really. I'm a junior at Alabama and in two of the three honors programs, and they're really a joke. The hour requirement for honors classes is pretty small, and most are actually easier because instead of being stuck in normal, state-school 200+ person classes, you're in a 20-30 person class. My honors classes have been some of the easiest I've taken. Also, you can write an extra paper in any class and get that class counted for honors credit.

It's not a rigorous honors program - it's a ploy to get good students to come to UA in the first place. But I digress. Point is, honors classes at Alabama are what normal classes are like elsewhere. A 3.8 in the Alabama honors college is nothing exceptional.

[danquayle]

Here's a hypo:

Alabama has an incoming 1L class of 100 students.

They accept 75 straight from their UG "honors" program that have GPAs of 3.75 and above. These folks don't have to take the LSAT.

Then they take 25 students that have varying GPAs (mostly really low), but all of these students have LSATs between 168-175.

Alabama's numbers would be at least 3.75 and 168 at the 25th percentile.

Does this mean that they have a T-14 quality student body? Of course not.

This issue here is it is unfair that a school can game the rankings by having high GPA students from their undergrad without having them take the LSAT.

Does anybody know if there is some kind of regulation that a school must have a certain percentage of their incoming class actually take the LSAT?

Thickfreakness, you may be able to add some insight. Thanks for elaborating on this topic.

Also, USNWR rankings are mostly garbage.

1) Your hypothetical means nothing. Only numbers that demonstrate the honors program vastly inflates the medians would have any worth.

2) So that means Michigan and Illinois also have inflated rankings?

[jcl2]

Here's a hypo:

Alabama has an incoming 1L class of 100 students.

They accept 75 straight from their UG "honors" program that have GPAs of 3.75 and above. These folks don't have to take the LSAT.

Then they take 25 students that have varying GPAs (mostly really low), but all of these students have LSATs between 168-175.

Alabama's numbers would be at least 3.75 and 168 at the 25th percentile.

Does this mean that they have a T-14 quality student body? Of course not.

This issue here is it is unfair that a school can game the rankings by having high GPA students from their undergrad without having them take the LSAT.

Does anybody know if there is some kind of regulation that a school must have a certain percentage of their incoming class actually take the LSAT?

Thickfreakness, you may be able to add some insight. Thanks for elaborating on this topic.

Also, USNWR rankings are mostly garbage.

1) Your hypothetical means nothing. Only numbers that demonstrate the honors program vastly inflates the medians would have any worth.

2) So that means Michigan and Illinois also have inflated rankings?

Yes, well Illinois anyway.

[utb]

For the most part, the merit of each law school is directly related to the quality of the student body. Perhaps the school itself adds some of that quality through teaching and career coaching, but for the most part, the quality is a result of the kind of students a school attracts. The primary way we gauge the student quality is through LSAT and GPA. You can say softs have their role, you can say that method is flawed - what you can't say is that it isn't universally used. Every school from Harvard to Cooley relies on that system, and admission statistics bear that out.

...

Bottom line: Quality of students = quality of school. When Alabama improves its student body its not 'gaming' the system. Its improving its school in the most direct and meaningful way.

+1

And there is a problem within TheSituation's hypo listed above: high-GPA/no-LSAT applicants have little to no bargaining power when it comes to scholarships. As a result, Alabama has the ability to offer significant scholarships to a smaller pool of qualified candidates (if 100 applicants are accepted as suggested in the hypo - and 75 of those applicants are "honors" applicants - Alabama has the opportunity to dedicate all of their scholly funds towards a very small pool of top-tier students).

Top-tier students that may receive 50% scholarships at similarly ranked schools may receive 75%-100% scholarships from Alabama. This provides Alabama with an opportunity to legitimately "sell" their educational value to top-tier students (presumably as a result of the additional $$ offered)...and provides top-tier students with an opportunity to attend a similarly ranked school at a significant discount.

In the end - Alabama has created a model that works. They are recruiting and landing a larger pool of high-quality applicants...leading to higher medians and a dramatic escalation within the rankings. I don't understand why we are penalizing them for finding a way to attract more high-quality applicants.

[bluebonnet21]

Was that so important for you to post that you bumped a months old thread?

[PDaddy]

Alabama is one of the most overrated schools in the entire USNWR rankings. It should be somewhere in the mid '40s. It's in the same league as schools like [strike]UGA, Tulane[/strike], Florida, Colorado, and BYU.

fixed

The USNWR rankings are [strike]totally[/strike] almost irrelevant after you get passed the [strike]top25[/strike] top-20.

/thread

fixed

Alabama is aggressively recruiting a high caliber of students through the use of cheap tuition and scholarship money. Its essentially the Indiana of the South, but in my opinion in a better position, since the South doesn't have nearly as many well regarded law schools and is growing in population.

It's prestige isn't quite Top 30, but prestige is clearly a lagging indicator. If they maintain their class profile and ranking, the prestige will probably begin to accumulate...

So...at least someone has the sense to understand that the rankings are a self-fulfilling prophesy. They cause and result from employment prospects. But my supposition is that the rankings create the perception amongst employers and students that certain schools, and by extension graduates, are inherently better than others.

[PDaddy]

Biglaw isn't everything. But if you think it is, and the rankings went just by percentage in biglaw, Fordham and GW would rise a ton in the rankings. A) Also, GW/Fordham/BC/BU/UIUC/Emory/WUSTL/UT/Vand/UCLA/ND/WM all have almost double the biglaw placement as Tulane and its peer schools (American, RU, etc.), and some have more than triple.

These are all T30ish schools and place significantly better warranting their own little category. Yes, U Minnesota is 20 and it doesn't have a very high biglaw placement, but they feed mostly into their home state where biglaw isn't the only thing going and they are also a more selective school than those ranked higher. B) I agree it becomes more arbitrary the farther you go down the rankings, but to say that Tulane and Vand/BC/UIUC/GW, etc are in the same league is pretty silly.

"A" is only true when looking at lsj 250 firms. When you concentrate on the top-100 firms, Tulane more than holds its own and blows most #20-50 schools off the map. And what do you know about Tulane that would make you such an expert that you can say Tulane is not in the same league as those other schools? The arbitrary nature of the rankings (which you mention at "B") is exactly what allows others to say the opposite. And Tulane is a very well regarded university overall. UG was considered to be a top-30 or so just a few years ago.

What, besides the rankings that you have looked at, allows you to question the inherent qualities of the schools at all? The rankings have caused perception more than resulted from it. I would bet that if USNWR put Tulane at 25, you would see drastic increases in OCI, BigLaw placement, clerkships, citations and everything else related to prestige. The rankings are a game changer(s).

USNWR is biased towards the following:

Northeastern, as opposed to southern, western or midwestern
Urban, as opposed to rural
Private, as opposed to public

[D. H2Oman]

USNWR is biased towards the following:

Northeastern, as opposed to southern, western or midwestern
Urban, as opposed to rural
Private, as opposed to public

hmm, while this is an interesting theory. Does this poster have anything to back up her statement. I am willing to consider what she is saying, but I need some data to back it up these arguments.

[rando]

USNWR is biased towards the following:

Northeastern, as opposed to southern, western or midwestern
Urban, as opposed to rural
Private, as opposed to public

hmm, while this is an interesting theory. Does this poster have anything to back up her statement. I am willing to consider what she is saying, but I need some data to back it up these arguments.

Methinks not. It is an interesting theory, but one that has alternative, and more compelling, arguments.

Northeastern, as opposed to southern, western or midwestern: Not only are the largest cities (i'll get to that) in the northeast, but the oldest (most prestigious) schools are in the northeast (bar UVA). Following U.S. history will show you that. It is unsurprising that the oldest schools with the most prestige, most money, most lay recall, largest alumni networks, are considered the best.

Urban, as opposed to rural: Jobs are in cities. Who wants to go recruit at a podunk school?

Private, as opposed to public: This is just the way the University system has run. Again, look at U.S. History. The oldest and most prestigious schools are private. When states started funding public schools, some of them achieve great recognition because states put a great deal of effort into subsidizing education. UVA, Mich, UCLA, Boalt, UT - all have tremendous resources (UC's used to) and very talented populations to pull from.