2010-2011 Helmholtz Rankings - Every School Forum

[Boba Fett]

These rankings are useful, but the title isn't catchy enough. I recommend you entitle it the Helmholtz-Morse Law School Evaluative Index.

[tomhobbes]

I suggest you consider calling it the Helmholtz Ordinal Ranking Evaluation.

[anniesaysrelax]

These are great, thanks Helmholtz!

[Lieut Kaffee]

Ugh, Cornell is better than Northwestern?

[Lieut Kaffee]

As for methodology, I think using three years is great. But I also think the peer assessment scores are one of the more shaky aspects of the USNWR formula, and they are weighted most heavily here.

[Panther7]

As for methodology, I think using three years is great. But I also think the peer assessment scores are one of the more shaky aspects of the USNWR formula, and they are weighted most heavily here.

I think they are one of the best. We're rating schools based on which will teach you best and give you best job prospects. Employment data + peer reviews are some of the best ways to do that. Obviously how smart and selective the students are is another major factor.

[Lieut Kaffee]

As for methodology, I think using three years is great. But I also think the peer assessment scores are one of the more shaky aspects of the USNWR formula, and they are weighted most heavily here.

I think they are one of the best. We're rating schools based on which will teach you best and give you best job prospects. Employment data + peer reviews are some of the best ways to do that. Obviously how smart and selective the students are is another major factor.

Agree on employment, and unfortunately it's somewhat difficult to figure out the best way to incorporate that into rankings (as previous discussed). Peer scores are good in theory, but the questionnaire they use is flat-out stupid.

[CanadianWolf]

This ranking result & the rating method is very similiar to USNews' method & results. In my opinion, if you want to work for a top law firm with great pay right out of law school, then Columbia & Northwestern rank at or near the top. For one seeking an academic career or a federal judicial clerkship, then Yale, Stanford, Harvard & Chicago should be the top rated. If seeking a state judicial clerkship, then schools such as Washington & Lee and North Dakota should be highly ranked. If you want to work in Alabama, then the number one law school is clearly the University of Alabama.
The difficulty in rating & ranking law schools is that both USNews & Helmholtz try to use one system for all purposes. Too much of both rating & ranking systems are based on opinion. The only hard data we really have to work with are LSAT scores of matriculated students & employment data such as that revealed in the National Law Journal annual placement survey results. Add in federal judicial clerkships and you have the beginnings of a reasonably verifiable rating & ranking system.

[Slimpee]

Nice work, Helm!

Go Hawkeyes (or Gophers)!

[CanadianWolf]

After rereading the original post, I noticed that Helmholtz deleted a lot of hard data in favor of opinion. Hard data is verifiable, opinion data is not. Also I noticed a lack of purpose for this new rating & ranking system which makes it almost useless for any purpose other than "cocktail chatter". Contrast this with the National Law Journal's annual placement survey to the largest 250 law firms in the country; a clear purpose with verifiable results. Same for federal judicial clerkship placements. Same with LSAT scores of matriculated students, assuming honest & accurate self reporting.

[doomed123]

After rereading the original post, I noticed that Helmholtz deleted a lot of hard data in favor of opinion. Hard data is verifiable, opinion data is not. Also I noticed a lack of purpose for this new rating & ranking system which makes it almost useless for any purpose other than "cocktail chatter". Contrast this with the National Law Journal's annual placement survey to the largest 250 law firms in the country; a clear purpose with verifiable results. Same for federal judicial clerkship placements. Same with LSAT scores of matriculated students, assuming honest & accurate self reporting.

Reputation is important in the legal field, and the peer assessment + lawyer/judge scores, while not perfect, give us a decent way of measuring that. The fact that they remain so consistent over the years shows that they're not completely arbitrary or haphazard. I do think they're more useful toward the higher end of the rankings though, as peers and practitioners are less likely to really be familiar with schools as you go down the rankings.

[Lieut Kaffee]

After rereading the original post, I noticed that Helmholtz deleted a lot of hard data in favor of opinion. Hard data is verifiable, opinion data is not. Also I noticed a lack of purpose for this new rating & ranking system which makes it almost useless for any purpose other than "cocktail chatter". Contrast this with the National Law Journal's annual placement survey to the largest 250 law firms in the country; a clear purpose with verifiable results. Same for federal judicial clerkship placements. Same with LSAT scores of matriculated students, assuming honest & accurate self reporting.

Reputation is important in the legal field, and the peer assessment + lawyer/judge scores, while not perfect, give us a decent way of measuring that. The fact that they remain so consistent over the years shows that they're not completely arbitrary or haphazard. I do think they're more useful toward the higher end of the rankings though, as peers and practitioners are less likely to really be familiar with schools as you go down the rankings.

Disagree somewhat. The reason it stays consistent is because the respondents have no real basis of knowledge to change their opinions. I doubt they spend a significant amount of their careers researching what the other top 15-20 schools are doing to improve the quality of their programs. Say I'm a Yale professor. Can I really speak intelligently as to whether Michigan, Penn, Virginia, or Duke does a better job of teaching the law?

It seems to me the reputation scores are informed by little other than... the reputation scores.

[CanadianWolf]

@doomed123:
I don't agree with your conclusion with respect to the rankings' validity due to their consistency. This is a common problem encountered & often discussed regarding the USNews Best Colleges rating & ranking method which utilizes peer assessment scores. Many asked to rate national universities undergraduate quality are suspected of rating the graduate programs instead.

[CanadianWolf]

The main difficulties of Helmholtz' proposed method of rating & ranking law schools remains the lack of a clearly stated purpose for the rankings & the use of opinion input.
Once a clearly stated reason or objective has been established, then collecting verifiable hard data is the next task. Assigning weight to each category of collected data is probably the next most important factor in creating a reasonable & reliable rating & ranking system.

[09042014]

Is there any way to get clerkship data for T1 schools.

I propose a Desert Fox ranking.

1/4 NLJ250
1/8 clerkship data
1/16 academic placement
1/16 % in PI
1/4 GPA
1/4 LSAT

[Lieut Kaffee]

Is there any way to get clerkship data for T1 schools.

I propose a Desert Fox ranking.

1/4 NLJ250
1/8 clerkship data
1/16 academic placement
1/16 % in PI
1/4 GPA
1/4 LSAT

I think I might like that better. Medians or 75ths or the 25/75 mean?

[doomed123]

After rereading the original post, I noticed that Helmholtz deleted a lot of hard data in favor of opinion. Hard data is verifiable, opinion data is not. Also I noticed a lack of purpose for this new rating & ranking system which makes it almost useless for any purpose other than "cocktail chatter". Contrast this with the National Law Journal's annual placement survey to the largest 250 law firms in the country; a clear purpose with verifiable results. Same for federal judicial clerkship placements. Same with LSAT scores of matriculated students, assuming honest & accurate self reporting.

Reputation is important in the legal field, and the peer assessment + lawyer/judge scores, while not perfect, give us a decent way of measuring that. The fact that they remain so consistent over the years shows that they're not completely arbitrary or haphazard. I do think they're more useful toward the higher end of the rankings though, as peers and practitioners are less likely to really be familiar with schools as you go down the rankings.

Disagree somewhat. The reason it stays consistent is because the respondents have no real basis of knowledge to change their opinions. I doubt they spend a significant amount of their careers researching what the other top 15-20 schools are doing to improve the quality of their programs. Say I'm a Yale professor. Can I really speak intelligently as to whether Michigan, Penn, Virginia, or Duke does a better job of teaching the law?

It seems to me the reputation scores are informed by little other than... the reputation scores.

They may not be able to judge teaching quality, but they should be familiar with the scholarship of the faculty at top schools (of course, the Leiter rankings are another way of measuring this). And while it's true that the reputation scores largely feed off of themselves, isn't that simply the nature of reputation?

[CanadianWolf]

@Desert Fox:
Yes, law schools will provide information on federal law clerk placement.
Desert Fox's proposed methodology is as good as any that I can think of without having a specific purpose in mind.

[smov_operator]

Is there any way to get clerkship data for T1 schools.

I propose a Desert Fox ranking.

1/4 NLJ250
1/8 clerkship data
1/16 academic placement
1/16 % in PI
1/4 GPA
1/4 LSAT

Interesting, though I imagine that most folks could never agree on how much such measures should be weighted. For example, I think NLJ250 and clerkships are more important than GPA.

[CanadianWolf]

Weighting probably relates to the objective of the rating & ranking system. For example, if the purpose is to determine the top law schools for getting a lucrative position immediately upon graduation from law school, then the NLJ survey cuts right to the heart of the matter. But for determining which law schools have the most difficult admissions, then LSAT scores, GPAs, number of applications & yield may all come into play while endowment figures, student:teacher ratio & placement info. is not relevant.

[smov_operator]

Weighting probably relates to the objective of the rating & ranking system.

Definitely can't argue with that. What would be the objective of the Desert Fox Ranking?

[09042014]

Weighting probably relates to the objective of the rating & ranking system.

Definitely can't argue with that. What would be the objective of the Desert Fox Ranking?

Bragging rights.

[CanadianWolf]

Presumably to determine a hierarchy of law schools based on the listed factors. In other words, a basic ranking of law schools that does not rely on any opinion input. In short, let the facts speak for themselves--although the weighting of the factual data determines how loudly each category of data speaks. But, once a rating system reveals its components & its weighting of the components, it can be utilized for other purposes by reweighting or deleting certain categories.

[Lieut Kaffee]

Presumably to determine a hierarchy of law schools based on the listed factors. In other words, a basic ranking of law schools that does not rely on any opinion input. In short, let the facts speak for themselves--although the weighting of the factual data determines how loudly each category of data speaks.

Or simply, an "objective ranking."

[CanadianWolf]

I suspect that you may be a law review editor in the making. Just beware, however, that the English legal system was based upon charging for each word.