UC Davis now greater than UC Hastings? Forum

[09042014]

This whole employed upon graduation/within 9 months of graduation should be abolished as a metric. The numbers aren't even reported correctly, and I SINCERELY doubt 97% of students from Davis were employed upon graduation. Just for fun I decided to compare what US news was reporting for employment percentage regarding Emory Law's class of 2008 as opposed to the self reported statistics published by the school. Apparently, while US news thinks 96% of Emory grads are employed at graduation, Emory's career services department (read: the people who are paid to make the school look good by publishing glossy guides promising the potential to make a fortune upon graduation) aren't quite so generous, as they only reported 88% of grads being employed upon graduation for the same year.

My conclusion? None really, I just think it's an absurd metric.

Source:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/care ... f_2008.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/jxGWV.jpg

Leiter made a nice post today regarding Loyola. Last year Loyola tumbled 20+ places just because they changed the school from the familiar "Loyola Law School" to the official "Loyola Marymount University". Now I am not expert on Jesuit private institutions, but there are a TON of "Loyolas" (2 law schools!) and several "Marymounts". So LLS's reputation ranking fell from 2.6 to 2.3 that year just because of the confusion!!

These rankings are silly, and to the extent employers rely on them (there is a strong correlation b/w NLJ250 charts and USNWR), I believe we are all harmed.

USNews doesn't drive NLJ offers. They are both driven by the reputation of the schools.

[General Tso]

It is because I believe that there is no difference between Davis and Hastings, and others are claiming that there IS one (case in point, this thread) that I am on the attack. I don't care about prestige...if I did, I wouldn't have come to Hastings. I only care about getting a job. I think about things in dollars and cents. If a law firm doesn't want to hire me because my school has slipped into some foolish magazine's "disfavored T2" my financial investment has been harmed. I don't like the rankings and would rather see them go away. But in the long term, if they affect my bottom line, then yeah I am going to lash out.

If the situation were reversed and Hastings had lied thereby ending up 14 places ahead of Davis, I would have called bullshit. And I suspect that many of the Davis people attacking me would have done so too.

Who cares what some kid on TLS posts about? The majority of posters here do not believe Hastings and Davis are different.

It's the long term reputation of the school and it's graduates that matter, do you really think that is going to change by a difference in rankings of 1 year?

Not one year. Long term. Check out the correlation I noted above b/w the NLJ250 chart and USNWR. Right now NLJ250 b/w Hastings and Davis is the same. If this trend continues, who knows? (and yes, I know correlation =/= causation, lets not go there)

[General Tso]

USNews doesn't drive NLJ offers. They are both driven by the reputation of the schools.

What drives the reputation of the schools?

[drdolittle]

USNews doesn't drive NLJ offers. They are both driven by the reputation of the schools.

What drives the reputation of the schools?

BS rankings definitely have a role in this, at least in the long run, because they more or less influence student decisions. When I went to the recent Davis ASD, I sensed a real confidence in improving their rank. What's the attitude at Hastings? Surely the administration there could do some things to stop the slide, perceived or actual. Hastings should generally have an advantage over Davis in recruiting students and faculty, at least on paper, for location alone.

[09042014]

USNews doesn't drive NLJ offers. They are both driven by the reputation of the schools.

What drives the reputation of the schools?

Things like reputation of the school in their region, strength of alumni network, famous alumni, quality of students, hiring trends, etc etc.

The t14, though not call it, were known as prestigious law schools well before anyone ever hear of USNWR.

[General Tso]

USNews doesn't drive NLJ offers. They are both driven by the reputation of the schools.

What drives the reputation of the schools?

BS rankings definitely have a role in this, at least in the long run, because they more or less influence student decisions. When I went to the recent Davis ASD, I sensed a real confidence in improving their rank. What's the attitude at Hastings? Surely the administration there could do some things to stop the slide, perceived or actual. Hastings should generally have an advantage over Davis in recruiting students and faculty, at least on paper, for location alone.

I think that it has succeeded in those areas so far. The problem is one of finance. A big reason why Hastings fell (in addition to peer schools overstating employment numbers), is that it's Student-Faculty ratio went way up this year, and Expenditures per Student went down. These are almost meaningless figures and should not have a large bearing on a school's rank. It encourages overspending and drives up tuition costs.

Law school rankings should encompass: Reputation, Incoming Student Quality, and Employment (OBJECTIVELY measured and ACCURATELY reported)...

and that is all.

[drdolittle]

USNews doesn't drive NLJ offers. They are both driven by the reputation of the schools.

What drives the reputation of the schools?

Things like reputation of the school in their region, strength of alumni network, famous alumni, quality of students, hiring trends, etc etc.

The t14, though not call it, were known as prestigious law schools well before anyone ever hear of USNWR.

Yeah, the T14 are not surprisingly also the most dominant undergrad/research institutions in their regions since there's already an inertia build into their grad/professional programs. Being tied to a major university can obviously be a huge asset for law schools, but it's not like there's not another way to gain prominence. I've always thought of Hastings, albeit relatively lower ranked, as similar to UCSF, which of course is only a professional school. In UCSF's case, I think they actually benefit not being anchored to a massive undergrad campus, and I'd hope Hastings can do the same. It must take advantage of its unique strengths to remain competitive.

[eth3n]

I think swheat deserves an admin title for his efforts..."HastingsAvenger"?

[A'nold]

USNews doesn't drive NLJ offers. They are both driven by the reputation of the schools.

What drives the reputation of the schools?

BS rankings definitely have a role in this, at least in the long run, because they more or less influence student decisions. When I went to the recent Davis ASD, I sensed a real confidence in improving their rank. What's the attitude at Hastings? Surely the administration there could do some things to stop the slide, perceived or actual. Hastings should generally have an advantage over Davis in recruiting students and faculty, at least on paper, for location alone.

I think that it has succeeded in those areas so far. The problem is one of finance. A big reason why Hastings fell (in addition to peer schools overstating employment numbers), is that it's Student-Faculty ratio went way up this year, and Expenditures per Student went down. These are almost meaningless figures and should not have a large bearing on a school's rank. It encourages overspending and drives up tuition costs.

Law school rankings should encompass: Reputation, Incoming Student Quality, and Employment (OBJECTIVELY measured and ACCURATELY reported)...

and that is all.

Agreed, except that I don't think incoming student numbers should really matter either. Look at Tulane for example. That school has been unfairly ranked for many years. It has a very good reputation but cannot really attract students the way WUSTL does. I honestly had never even heard of WUSTL before beginning to research law schools. They game the system hardcore.

Anyway, you guys are being WAY too hard on swheat. He should be pissed. Hastings should outrank Davis, not be ranked 14 places lower. Give me a break. If you went to Hastings, you'd be pissed too. Please spare me your "I would be perfectly happy just being at the school regardless of rank" bs.

Would you be happy if you chose U of A (a perennial t1) and ASU randomly leap frogs you in one year? U of A has more prestige, even if slightly, and yet some stupid magazine may screw you over and people may think that ASU is more prestigeous in the future. It's stupid.

[General Tso]

I think swheat deserves an admin title for his efforts..."HastingsAvenger"?

Forwarding this to OperaSoprano I like it (even though I am not actually a Hastings troll in reality)

Thanks for the support A'nold. It's nice to know who your digital friends are (and aren't....I feel betrayed Satchmo...just kiddin ). I really believe if this were turned around where Davis got screwed, SBL, eth3n, et al would be right where I am.

[Great Satchmo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43PBniK0wBc

[Great Satchmo]

I think swheat deserves an admin title for his efforts..."HastingsAvenger"?

Forwarding this to OperaSoprano I like it (even though I am not actually a Hastings troll in reality)

Thanks for the support A'nold. It's nice to know who your digital friends are (and aren't....I feel betrayed Satchmo...just kiddin ). I really believe if this were turned around where Davis got screwed, SBL, eth3n, et al would be right where I am.

I get your being upset, especially with the weight of your education and it's debt.

However, the difference in the rankings, in the next few years until you graduate and find a job, will likely be far eclipsed by your class standing.

Who knows, maybe Hastings will jump back up in a year or two, we really don't know. Living or dying by US news one year seems to be setting yourself up for turmoil.

Looking at the strength and size of the Hastings' reputation and alumni network seems to hold more promise than a rankings drop. You should still be proud and happy to be a Hastings student.

[20160810]

I think swheat deserves an admin title for his efforts..."HastingsAvenger"?

Forwarding this to OperaSoprano I like it (even though I am not actually a Hastings troll in reality)

Thanks for the support A'nold. It's nice to know who your digital friends are (and aren't....I feel betrayed Satchmo...just kiddin ). I really believe if this were turned around where Davis got screwed, SBL, eth3n, et al would be right where I am.

The reason people are telling you to chill out is that Hastings didn't get screwed. Your ranking is basically the same as it was last year. Nothing has changed, except that Davis's ranking improved a bit. So you come across as not being upset that your school's ranking has slipped (because it hasn't slipped, it's right where it's been), but rather as pissing in the soup of people from another school because they did well in the rankings.

Besides which, you should know enough to know that the USNews raw school difference between 28 and 42 is pretty marginal, considering that almost every school in between ours is tied at either 28 or 34.

[ENGINEERD]

Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

You forgot something...

Berkeley>UCLA>UCI>Davis>Hastings

[ENGINEERD]

Is the difference now wide enough to justify choosing one UC over the other?

Berkeley>UCLA>Davis>Hastings

Yes, no?

You forgot something...

Berkeley>UCLA>UCI>Davis>Hastings

[Borhas]

It is because I believe that there is no difference between Davis and Hastings, and others are claiming that there IS one (case in point, this thread) that I am on the attack. I don't care about prestige...if I did, I wouldn't have come to Hastings. I only care about getting a job. I think about things in dollars and cents. If a law firm doesn't want to hire me because my school has slipped into some foolish magazine's "disfavored T2" my financial investment has been harmed. I don't like the rankings and would rather see them go away. But in the long term, if they affect my bottom line, then yeah I am going to lash out.

If the situation were reversed and Hastings had lied thereby ending up 14 places ahead of Davis, I would have called bullshit. And I suspect that many of the Davis people attacking me would have done so too.

Who cares what some kid on TLS posts about? The majority of posters here do not believe Hastings and Davis are different.

It's the long term reputation of the school and it's graduates that matter, do you really think that is going to change by a difference in rankings of 1 year?

+1

I hope you get off the WL

[General Tso]

I think swheat deserves an admin title for his efforts..."HastingsAvenger"?

Forwarding this to OperaSoprano I like it (even though I am not actually a Hastings troll in reality)

Thanks for the support A'nold. It's nice to know who your digital friends are (and aren't....I feel betrayed Satchmo...just kiddin ). I really believe if this were turned around where Davis got screwed, SBL, eth3n, et al would be right where I am.

The reason people are telling you to chill out is that Hastings didn't get screwed. Your ranking is basically the same as it was last year. Nothing has changed, except that Davis's ranking improved a bit. So you come across as not being upset that your school's ranking has slipped (because it hasn't slipped, it's right where it's been), but rather as pissing in the soup of people from another school because they did well in the rankings.

Besides which, you should know enough to know that the USNews raw school difference between 28 and 42 is pretty marginal, considering that almost every school in between ours is tied at either 28 or 34.

So what would be your response if Davis reported its real rate of 78% (2006 figure), Hastings claimed 97%, and the roles were reversed? How would you feel if you were a Red Sox fan and your team was eliminated from the playoffs because the umpire let A-Rod get away with slapping the ball from Arroyo's glove? Of course people will say, 'there's always next year' for the Sox. But in this law school game, there are real consequences for people.

And I will be just as quick to piss in the soup of Duke, Arizona State, and Chapman people.

[General Tso]

The reason people are telling you to chill out is that Hastings didn't get screwed.

Everybody gets screwed when schools misrepresent themselves in this manner. That extends from the schools whose reputations are harmed by others' misrepresentations, to the students of the fraudulent schools themselves who choose that school based on unreasonable expectations.

Do you think many Chapman students will be disappoint to learn that 91% of them will NOT have jobs lined up at graduation? How will they look back on their financial investment? Do you think this is much different than the misleading reporting of salaries?

[Great Satchmo]

So what would be your response if Davis reported its real rate of 78% (2006 figure), Hastings claimed 97%, and the roles were reversed? How would you feel if you were a Red Sox fan and your team was eliminated from the playoffs because the umpire let A-Rod get away with slapping the ball from Arroyo's glove? Of course people will say, 'there's always next year' for the Sox. But in this law school game, there are real consequences for people.

And I will be just as quick to piss in the soup of Duke, Arizona State, and Chapman people.

How much do you think Davis' ranking will actually affect you? As said, Hastings hasn't really slipped, it just didn't jump like Davis. It's more a case of relative deprivation than true loss of anything.

Hastings is still going to have the edge for work in San Francisco since it is located right there, and has all of the connections. Even if Davis is higher ranked, I HIGHLY doubt that any firm sees them as being on a higher level than Hastings.

The employment rate seems fishy, but maybe you should email Davis' career services and ask if they have a breakdown in employment? Hopefully potential students are already weary enough of employment reporting to not have wool pulled over their eyes in general.

[20160810]

Step 1: Obtain any credible evidence that UC Davis fradulently reported anything.
Step 2: Claim that UC Davis has fradulently reported data.

You're doing it backwards.

Just because you have an account on an internet forum for law students and your butthurt spidey sense is tingling doesn't mean that the rankings are invalid.

[General Tso]

Step 1: Obtain any credible evidence that UC Davis fradulently reported anything.
Step 2: Claim that UC Davis has fradulently reported data.

You're doing it backwards.

Just because you have an account on an internet forum for law students and your butthurt spidey sense is tingling doesn't mean that the rankings are invalid.

It is accepted as "truth" on TLS that schools misrepresent their employment (especially - salary) statistics. Who has concrete evidence on this? Likewise, when you see a school that is reporting 20% greater employment rates than it did 3 years ago (when the economy was booming), it doesn't take an intelligent person to start questioning the validity of that.

EDIT: Would you make this same challenge to Prof. Leiter? He wrote a blog post yesterday criticizing Duke for claiming 100% employment.

[Borhas]

Step 1: Obtain any credible evidence that UC Davis fradulently reported anything.
Step 2: Claim that UC Davis has fradulently reported data.

You're doing it backwards.

Just because you have an account on an internet forum for law students and your butthurt spidey sense is tingling doesn't mean that the rankings are invalid.

It is accepted as "truth" on TLS that schools misrepresent their employment (especially - salary) statistics. Who has concrete evidence on this? Likewise, when you see a school that is reporting 20% greater employment rates than it did 3 years ago (when the economy was booming), it doesn't take an intelligent person to start questioning the validity of that.

EDIT: Would you make this same challenge to Prof. Leiter? He wrote a blog post yesterday criticizing Duke for claiming 100% employment.

yes, I would say that the #'s are so extraordinarily odd that burden of proof falls on the side claiming they are legit

[drdolittle]

EDIT: Would you make this same challenge to Prof. Leiter? He wrote a blog post yesterday criticizing Duke for claiming 100% employment.

I think schools should do just this, that is, max out their BS/hard to verify stats. This way, such stats would become meaningless and will get removed from consideration. At least this is what schools should do if they really want to standardize rankings.

[20160810]

Step 1: Obtain any credible evidence that UC Davis fradulently reported anything.
Step 2: Claim that UC Davis has fradulently reported data.

You're doing it backwards.

Just because you have an account on an internet forum for law students and your butthurt spidey sense is tingling doesn't mean that the rankings are invalid.

It is accepted as "truth" on TLS that schools misrepresent their employment (especially - salary) statistics. Who has concrete evidence on this? Likewise, when you see a school that is reporting 20% greater employment rates than it did 3 years ago (when the economy was booming), it doesn't take an intelligent person to start questioning the validity of that.

EDIT: Would you make this same challenge to Prof. Leiter? He wrote a blog post yesterday criticizing Duke for claiming 100% employment.

It is also accepted as "truth" on TLS that Rocketman11 has a penis the size of the Washington Monument. Rumors that circulate on internet forums are probably not the ideal bases for a sound argument. That said, if this practice is commonplace, then you fail to suggest why any one school would gain an advantage over any other by taking part therein. Similarly, you offer no evidence that Hastings didn't do the same thing and still come out behind.

My point is, of course we should take the rankings with a grain of salt, but when you get pissed just because another law school did well (especially when your own school did not fall at all) you come across as a douche. Quite frankly, you ought to be concerned that your constant whining in every TLS thread about UC law schools will convince more people of the old trope that Hastings is full of embittered would-be gunners.

So please, on behalf of everyone at your school who has the decency to be chill about USNews rankings (which, I suspect, is most of them) and on behalf of everyone on TLS who is tired of your bitterness: Just chill.

[General Tso]

Step 1: Obtain any credible evidence that UC Davis fradulently reported anything.
Step 2: Claim that UC Davis has fradulently reported data.

You're doing it backwards.

Just because you have an account on an internet forum for law students and your butthurt spidey sense is tingling doesn't mean that the rankings are invalid.

It is accepted as "truth" on TLS that schools misrepresent their employment (especially - salary) statistics. Who has concrete evidence on this? Likewise, when you see a school that is reporting 20% greater employment rates than it did 3 years ago (when the economy was booming), it doesn't take an intelligent person to start questioning the validity of that.

EDIT: Would you make this same challenge to Prof. Leiter? He wrote a blog post yesterday criticizing Duke for claiming 100% employment.

It is also accepted as "truth" on TLS that Rocketman11 has a penis the size of the Washington Monument. Rumors that circulate on internet forums are probably not the ideal bases for a sound argument. That said, if this practice is commonplace, then you fail to suggest why any one school would gain an advantage over any other by taking part therein. Similarly, you offer no evidence that Hastings didn't do the same thing and still come out behind.

My point is, of course we should take the rankings with a grain of salt, but when you get pissed just because another law school did well (especially when your own school did not fall at all) you come across as a douche. Quite frankly, you ought to be concerned that your constant whining in every TLS thread about UC law schools will convince more people of the old trope that Hastings is full of embittered would-be gunners.

So please, on behalf of everyone at your school who has the decency to be chill about USNews rankings (which, I suspect, is most of them) and on behalf of everyone on TLS who is tired of your bitterness: Just chill.

As hard as it may be, try to restrain yourself from attacking me on the basis of the school I attend and any presumptions you have about my demeanor. Ad hominem much? You have never addressed any of my allegations other than to say "I have no evidence." But I have evidence and you have not addressed it.

"Similarly, you offer no evidence that Hastings didn't do the same thing and still come out behind."

How is this for evidence: Hastings in 2007 claimed 71% employment. In 2010 they claim 69% employment. A 2% decline is maybe slightly lower than you would expect, given the nature of the economy, but even if it is a misrepresentation it is clearly not as egregious as a 20% INCREASE.

Now I have seen you, SBL, many times -- too many times to count perhaps -- tell prospective students that the employment prospects for the 2 schools are identical. That they should only choose based on location - whether they want to attend school in a college town or an urban environment. So would you still say this today in light of these new figures?

I don't understand why everybody is calling me names and resorting to personal attacks. Even people I have had good relationships with, like you SBL...you and I have a long history of good relations. I have never made a personal attack on a single person throughout all of this...I have directed all of my anger towards a particular law school. If you can't separate the two and act civilly towards me, it doesn't speak well of your character.