u act like WUSTL places way more into biglaw than UMN for c/o it was 13% to 11% not much of a diffminnbills wrote:Vanderbilt feeds into multiple markets- I never understood how WUSTL's placement panned out though. Chicago I guess?Jaeger wrote: I'd believe that except Vanderbilt, WUSTL and a few others have better NLJ250 placement and they are not in biglaw markets either.
2013 Rankings Forum
-
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:56 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
-
- Posts: 3311
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
Obviously if you're biglaw of bust.TLS_noobie wrote:
Does any of it really matter? Numbers are numbers. The location of the school is no excuse because in the end, if a student wants a biglaw job they shouldn't go to a school that has craptastic numbers --be it in NYC or in north dakota.
- TTRansfer
- Posts: 3796
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:08 am
Re: 2013 Rankings
I am pretty sure they flubbed their LSAT and admission numbers. So it'd be being dishonest.BK201 wrote:Didn't their scandal start because they decided to be honest though?TTRansfer wrote:I assume Nova's scandal hurts them worse than "honest placement stats."acirilli1722 wrote:Anybody have the stats for Nova and Drexel. I think the honest placement stats hurt both of them
- Richie Tenenbaum
- Posts: 2118
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am
Re: 2013 Rankings
No-- http://www.prelawhandbook.com/law_schoo ... _1987_1999swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?
- chup
- Posts: 22942
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- traehekat
- Posts: 3188
- Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
lol @ the idea of any of this being a "REALLY big deal."swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?
-
- Posts: 3311
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
Well I don't know WUSTL's stats that well... I think NLJ 250 % is a bad metric anyways as not all market paying (or near market paying) firms are NLJ 250 anyways.splittinghairs wrote:u act like WUSTL places way more into biglaw than UMN for c/o it was 13% to 11% not much of a diffminnbills wrote:Vanderbilt feeds into multiple markets- I never understood how WUSTL's placement panned out though. Chicago I guess?Jaeger wrote: I'd believe that except Vanderbilt, WUSTL and a few others have better NLJ250 placement and they are not in biglaw markets either.
-
- Posts: 3311
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.aschup wrote:BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?
- TTRansfer
- Posts: 3796
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:08 am
Re: 2013 Rankings
Dude, USWNR does this because they feel that the people need these rankings. Not to make money. God. They are a charitable organization. We should praise our overlords.aschup wrote:BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?
- chup
- Posts: 22942
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.minnbills wrote:Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.aschup wrote:BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?
-
- Posts: 3311
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
Good for them.aschup wrote: Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.
- Dany
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
aschup wrote:BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?

- dproduct
- Posts: 4078
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:58 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
deadRawlberto wrote:I went to ASU for UG. It's not a real school.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- chup
- Posts: 22942
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
I MUST KNOW BRIAN LEITER'S THOUGHTS ON ALL THIS.Dany wrote:aschup wrote:BECAUSE IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT USNEWS HAS EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THE RANKINGS CRITERIA IN AN EFFORT TO GIN UP CONTROVERSY AND SELL MORE OF THEIR INCONSEQUENTIAL MAGAZINES.swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?
- Dany
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
mmhmmaschup wrote:Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.minnbills wrote:Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.
- Jaeger
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:30 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
Into a saturated market with a school (GWU) a few places down that also graduates a stupidly big class.moneybagsphd wrote:I mean, they still graduate a ridiculously huge class into a saturated market. So not really.swtlilsoni wrote:isn't it a REALLY big deal that GULC placed 13? Isn't this the FIRST time they have EVER been anything other than 14?
- UnamSanctam
- Posts: 7342
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:17 am
Re: 2013 Rankings
Michigan dropping to #10 would be a shittier birthday present if these rankings mattered.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Samara
- Posts: 3238
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
HEATHEN!UnamSanctam wrote:Michigan dropping to #10 would be a shittier birthday present if these rankings mattered.
- chup
- Posts: 22942
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
Two listserv emails ≠ "going crazy."Dany wrote:mmhmmaschup wrote:Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.minnbills wrote:Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.
- dproduct
- Posts: 4078
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:58 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
http://www.snagajob.com/jobs?j=server&c ... ll+and+barlalala21 wrote:can someone post or pm me utah stats? thanks!!
- BK201
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:16 am
Re: 2013 Rankings
Right but most schools do that and Villanova decided to self report it. So it's both I guess?TTRansfer wrote:I am pretty sure they flubbed their LSAT and admission numbers. So it'd be being dishonest.BK201 wrote:Didn't their scandal start because they decided to be honest though?TTRansfer wrote:I assume Nova's scandal hurts them worse than "honest placement stats."acirilli1722 wrote:Anybody have the stats for Nova and Drexel. I think the honest placement stats hurt both of them
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Dany
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
I meant the retarded pink post.aschup wrote:Two listserv emails ≠ "going crazy."Dany wrote:mmhmmaschup wrote:Because nobody here really gives a shit, to their great credit.minnbills wrote:Why are you still in here? You should be partying with the rest of your compatriots and dean.
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: 2013 Rankings
This has gotten out of handSamara wrote:HEATHEN!UnamSanctam wrote:Michigan dropping to #10 would be a shittier birthday present if these rankings mattered.
-
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:44 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
Given how closely packed the 2-6 are, I was wondering if there are structural reasons (due to the arbitrary nature of the rankings/criteria) that might prevent Chicago/Columbia from overtaking, say, Harvard/Stanford. Seeing a new top 3 after two decades would be kinda funny.
Also, I can't believe Harvard's median LSAT is higher than Stanford's 75th.
Also, I can't believe Harvard's median LSAT is higher than Stanford's 75th.
-
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 8:08 pm
Re: 2013 Rankings
When dey switching on the TLS ranking payge?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login