2014 Rankings Released Forum

[rad lulz]

Providing less "points" for JD Advantage/ Other Professional unnecessarily plays favorites among schools. Is GULC worse than Texas Tech or LSU? I bet LSU and Tech have better full-time, long-term JD rates than GULC. (by the way, I'm not going to look this up, but even if the schools are close my point is made). There are cultural differences between schools. GULC is a good example, but there are also plenty of lower ranked schools which attract students with varied career goals.

Here is something you should look up. Look at GULC's numbers pre-crash for JD Preferred and Professional jobs.

2009: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=gulc&class=2009
2008: --LinkRemoved--

For fun: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ustry.html

"The JD-Advantaged and Professional jobs appear to be, on balance, less desirable than those requiring bar passage. They increase nearly three times in relative proportion as we move from T14 to Tier 1 to Tier 2. Many are likely compromise jobs—not as good as practicing law, but better than non-professional alternatives."

See also http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... other.html

[20141023]

.

[Big Dog]

^^^hahahaha, I know that incumbent well.

Yes, Disney is a dream job for many. And any job can be a dream job for many, particularly when graduating from a TT.

[jenesaislaw]

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

But in all seriousness, my job is JD Advantage!

ETA: I'm also happy when I find a quarter on the ground.

[Ti Malice]

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

"dream jobs"

--ImageRemoved--

[DaleCooper]

I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.

[RetakeFrenzy]

I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.

+1

[Crowing]

I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.

This is a rankings waiting thread. It's one of the few prompts that can lead to an on-topic megathread (along w/ LSAT score waiting and WUSTL a/d/w apparently).

[jenesaislaw]

I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.

This is a rankings waiting thread. It's one of the few prompts that can lead to an on-topic megathread (along w/ LSAT score waiting and WUSTL a/d/w apparently).

When are we going to get a "Latest LST Score Reports Waiting Thread"?

[Crowing]

I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.

This is a rankings waiting thread. It's one of the few prompts that can lead to an on-topic megathread (along w/ LSAT score waiting and WUSTL a/d/w apparently).

When are we going to get a "Latest LST Score Reports Waiting Thread"?

All you need to do is make an announcement in advance and I'm sure we'll find some way, intentionally or not, to drum up plenty of drama and nonsense.

[jenesaislaw]

I am amazed by the way this thread went from joke to serious to joke to me bein srs to So For Serious OMG to LOL @ Disney Girl Who Owns Us All.

This is a rankings waiting thread. It's one of the few prompts that can lead to an on-topic megathread (along w/ LSAT score waiting and WUSTL a/d/w apparently).

When are we going to get a "Latest LST Score Reports Waiting Thread"?

All you need to do is make an announcement in advance and I'm sure we'll find some way, intentionally or not, to drum up plenty of drama and nonsense.

BREAKING: LST will release the new version of the Score Reports as soon as the ABA Section of Legal Education publishes data from the class of 2012 (estimate, early to mid April).

[Chaucer1343]

--ImageRemoved--

[rad lulz]

BREAKING: LST will release the new version of the Score Reports as soon as the ABA Section of Legal Education publishes data from the class of 2012 (estimate, early to mid April).

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=204774

[North]

Made a contest out of it, if anyone's bored enough to be interested.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=204782

[ms9]

FYI, I heard from a Dean of a law school last night that this will be the last year US News uses expenditure per students in their rankings.

I am assuming said Dean heard it straight from Morse, which seems like the only reason why they would feel it is accurate enough to share.

[WokeUpInACar]

FYI, I heard from a Dean of a law school last night that this will be the last year US News uses expenditure per students in their rankings.

I am assuming said Dean heard it straight from Morse, which seems like the only reason why they would feel it is accurate enough to share.

Any clue which schools that will hurt/help?

[jenesaislaw]

FYI, I heard from a Dean of a law school last night that this will be the last year US News uses expenditure per students in their rankings.

I am assuming said Dean heard it straight from Morse, which seems like the only reason why they would feel it is accurate enough to share.

This is great news. I've been in his ear on this from the beginning and always felt it was a matter of time.

[Yukos]

Expenditure per student is one of the worst offenders IMO. Huge incentive for waste and increasing tuitions, plus it disadvantages larger schools who have economies of scale. Good riddance.

[Rahviveh]

Aren't scholarships included in that? Would this discourage schools from handing out scholarships?

[drmguy]

Aren't scholarships included in that? Would this discourage schools from handing out scholarships?

Large libraries > scholarships

[HBBJohnStamos]

It's not so much as "discouraging" as it is "removing one small incentive."

[Yukos]

Aren't scholarships included in that? Would this discourage schools from handing out scholarships?

Scholarships are gamed really badly anyway. Schools just raise the nominal tuition as much as possible and then give "scholarships" to everyone (or almost everyone) so they look generous and have a more reasonable real tuition.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Providing less "points" for JD Advantage/ Other Professional unnecessarily plays favorites among schools. Is GULC worse than Texas Tech or LSU? I bet LSU and Tech have better full-time, long-term JD rates than GULC. (by the way, I'm not going to look this up, but even if the schools are close my point is made). There are cultural differences between schools. GULC is a good example, but there are also plenty of lower ranked schools which attract students with varied career goals.

Here is something you should look up. Look at GULC's numbers pre-crash for JD Preferred and Professional jobs.

2009: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=gulc&class=2009
2008: --LinkRemoved--

For fun: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ustry.html

"The JD-Advantaged and Professional jobs appear to be, on balance, less desirable than those requiring bar passage. They increase nearly three times in relative proportion as we move from T14 to Tier 1 to Tier 2. Many are likely compromise jobs—not as good as practicing law, but better than non-professional alternatives."

I'm aware of this data. It fits both your theory and my own, however. I've said that most law school students want JD Required work. You seem to imply that all or nearly all law school students want JD Required work. Either way, the shortage of JD Required work is going to effect your employment score, and your proposal to exclude non JD Required work from the USNEWS employment rate would, aggregately, provide some advantage for the purpose of "ranking" law schools.

My point is two-fold: One, the advantages gained by your proposal to better rank the schools would be real, but would be applied sloppily across the board, resulting in some schools being unfairly bolstered and others unfairly diminished because law schools often have different cultures with students with different career goals. Two, the practical policy result of your proposal will likely be to influence CSO across the country to steer all applicants away from JD Advantage or Other Professional jobs, and I don't think I need to explain why that would be a bad idea in this environment.

While your proposal would be an improvement over what we have, I still think there is a better way forward that is much, much easier. The simplest solution is to influence USNEWS to differentiate between long-term, full-time work and everything else. If they do this, and if they stop counting school funded as long-term, the new rankings formula in regards to employment would become a thousand times better already. This would more fair and less controversial, though arguably would create a (slightly) less precise employment ranking method for USNEWS magazine. But, is that what we really care about anyway?

Also, and this was said by someone else, maybe Spivey, but they should switch how they calculate class medians as well. Think about how law school admissions would be difference if USNEWS stated that medians would be calculated by the formula 25th + 75th / 2. No more Minn. Law with 166 median, 166 75th. These schools might actually admit people with different LSAT scores!

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

FYI, I heard from a Dean of a law school last night that this will be the last year US News uses expenditure per students in their rankings.

I am assuming said Dean heard it straight from Morse, which seems like the only reason why they would feel it is accurate enough to share.

That's great news. Thanks for passing this along.

[jenesaislaw]

Providing less "points" for JD Advantage/ Other Professional unnecessarily plays favorites among schools. Is GULC worse than Texas Tech or LSU? I bet LSU and Tech have better full-time, long-term JD rates than GULC. (by the way, I'm not going to look this up, but even if the schools are close my point is made). There are cultural differences between schools. GULC is a good example, but there are also plenty of lower ranked schools which attract students with varied career goals.

Here is something you should look up. Look at GULC's numbers pre-crash for JD Preferred and Professional jobs.

2009: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=gulc&class=2009
2008: --LinkRemoved--

For fun: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ustry.html

"The JD-Advantaged and Professional jobs appear to be, on balance, less desirable than those requiring bar passage. They increase nearly three times in relative proportion as we move from T14 to Tier 1 to Tier 2. Many are likely compromise jobs—not as good as practicing law, but better than non-professional alternatives."

I'm aware of this data. It fits both your theory and my own, however. I've said that most law school students want JD Required work. You seem to imply that all or nearly all law school students want JD Required work. Either way, the shortage of JD Required work is going to effect your employment score, and your proposal to exclude non JD Required work from the USNEWS employment rate would, aggregately, provide some advantage for the purpose of "ranking" law schools.

My point is two-fold: One, the advantages gained by your proposal to better rank the schools would be real, but would be applied sloppily across the board, resulting in some schools being unfairly bolstered and others unfairly diminish because law schools often have different cultures with students with different career goals. Two, the practical policy result of your proposal will likely be to influence CSO across the country to steer all applicants away from JD Advantage or Other Professional jobs, and I don't think I need to explain why that would be a bad idea in this environment.

While your proposal would be an improvement over what we have, I still think there is a better way forward that is much, much easier. The simplest solution is to influence USNEWS to differentiate between long-term, full-time work and everything else. If they do this, and if they stop counting school funded as long-term, the new rankings formula in regards to employment would become a thousand times better already. This would more fair and less controversial, though arguably would create a (slightly) less precise employment ranking method for USNEWS magazine. But, is that what we really care about anyway?

Also, and this was said by someone else, maybe Spivey, but they should switch how they calculate class medians as well. Think about how law school admissions would be difference if USNEWS stated that medians would be calculated by the formula 25th + 75th / 2. No more Minn. Law with 166 median, 166 75th. These schools might actually admit people with different LSAT scores!

My point was actually just that people overstate the cultural aspects of Georgetown and many other schools when they say there are droves of people seeking and being happy with the JD Advantage jobs. If somebody is going to cite to Georgetown's numbers in one year, they need to explain why they look so drastically different in the immediately preceding years, or else explain why the school saw a sudden cultural shift.

It very well could be the case that students are just as happy (or close to it) with the JD Advantage jobs. It is more likely that these jobs are less desirable to this body of people because (a) I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever of a cultural shift and (b) of the strong connection between non-BPR jobs and lower rank.

If we're talking about a % to use in the rankings, I think the LT, FT % is a great place to start, fwiw. Also, your median suggestion is actually what the rule used to be. I don't recall why they changed it.