USNWR Rankings Released...Seriously Forum

[Belili]

This ranking is as phony as a three dollar bill...

It'd be easier to fake a bunch of European passports than fake these rankings. No way, no how.

I know

I'm with PDiddy...not because I believe he is correct but because I hope he is correct.

--ImageRemoved--

Done. Proof this is all fake.

[lawschool5523]

so south carolina dropped to T3?

[SAOJD10]

so south carolina dropped to T3?

yeah i wonder what happened to make the school drop 13+ spots

[chitown825]

The EU passports are all maroon now

[brandolphsmith]

so south carolina dropped to T3?

yeah i wonder what happened to make the school drop 13+ spots

Still on the WL there. I wonder how it will change things for people looking to go. It is still the only accredited school in S. Carolina, but it fell at least 16 places since it went from 87 and T3 began at #103.

Going from the expanded T1 last year to T3 and unranked is a swift kick.

[chitown825]

How about a list of schools that fell out of the top 100?

[thechecker]

so south carolina dropped to T3?

yeah i wonder what happened to make the school drop 13+ spots

Still on the WL there. I wonder how it will change things for people looking to go. It is still the only accredited school in S. Carolina, but it fell at least 16 places since it went from 87 and T3 began at #103.

Going from the expanded T1 last year to T3 and unranked is a swift kick.

I withdrew from SC, OOS even the 17k still made it too pricey. So that should open a spot for you.

[thechecker]

How about a list of schools that fell out of the top 100?

Dropped out of Top 100 into Tier 3
- Buffalo, SUNY (85)
- Marquette (87)
- South Carolina (87)
- St. Louis (94)
- Louisville (98)
- Gonzaga (100)
- Maine (100)

from lawschoolpredictor.

Some movement into T3 from T4 for some schools also.

[danquayle]

Someone comment on Penn State please...

who cares about a new building?

and it should keep going up because it has a good name? hasn't it always had the same name? why would that make a year to year difference, if it even mattered?

i think people might've been being nice by not responding...

Penn State rose a lot in the rankings last year, so I think it is a bit surprising that it dropped so much this year.

Not really, everything is relative. The raw numbers are so tight, that a school can have exactly the same scores and still lose relative strength.

Look at IU, same raw score as last year, but a 4 spot decrease. ND actually increased its score but lost a few spots. The tightness in the raw scores means that most changes in placement should chalked up to mere yearly variation. The only thing that USNEWS is good for, or ever has been for, is tracking trends.

[T14_Scholly]

Now, for schools that fell substantially (4 spots and up) like Fordham (-4), Alabama (-8, Yikes!), Maryland (-5), do you think this could screw up their entering class this fall because some admits into these schools who are numbers conscious, could decide to withdraw and go to other schools and just wait 'til next year to apply to other schools? 'Cause I'm thinking there are probably some people who were on the fence waiting on the rankings to come out. So, now some of this schools might not even have a full class come August!

That would actually be good for the schools, because it would weed out the idiots who are only concerned with prestige.

[chitown825]

How about a list of schools that fell out of the top 100?

Dropped out of Top 100 into Tier 3
- Buffalo, SUNY (85)
- Marquette (87)
- South Carolina (87)
- St. Louis (94)
- Louisville (98)
- Gonzaga (100)
- Maine (100)

from lawschoolpredictor.

Some movement into T3 from T4 for some schools also.

Appreciate this. I almost went to SLU and Marquette.

[YCrevolution]

..

[mavsman88]

What?!? No props for starting the thread??? I know I had nothing to do with the actual leak, but a little shout out would've been nice

i figured we were doing you a favor by not fully appropriating the OP spot. You could have given the thread a title that didn't suggest that you were delivering the goods, but you were in it for the glory. Take what you can get, man. I mean, I even did something useful like made all of the links pretty and compile everything in one spot, and I don't ask for "props." If it were not for countless such acts of ego-immolation on the altar of Ken, TLS's flame couldn't burn this brightly.

Let that knowledge be your reward as you go forth and selflessly do good things (or as you STFU).

My sarcasm has yet again gone unnoticed, and I am hardly in it for the "fame". The rankings were released, I had contacted USNWR who confirmed this. I didnt title it here are the rankings, or 2011 rankings leaked, just that they had been released and i was searching for someone to track them down. Also, the STFU comment was just out of line and immature. Consider me disheartened.

Actually, I happened to read your post when my aspie coach was still here, and I consequently learned that your subtle technique of punctuating questions concerning insignificant matters with "?!?" and "???" meant that you were not being straightforward. However, (1) since you hadn't been officially reproached for using an attention-grabbing title to get people to click on a thread in which you supplied nothing of substance, and (2) as I hadn't yet posted my customary announcement that I had put out any effort at site management, I decided to make a post which, through the manifest insincerity of its ultimate message, would create a context of levity in which I could achieve both objectives without the drawbacks of a more sober approach (i.e., exposure to the risks of coming across as assholishly censorious or self-serving). I figured this lack of sincerity would be obvious in a post that represented the mods as self-righteous and mentally cracked (what other kind of person advocates "ego-immolation" at all, let alone when the greater cause is...this (see the past 37 pages)), but I guess I should have added more superfluous punctuation so that the masters of sarcasm would know not to take things at full face value.

Apology accepted!@!@!

[TheBigMediocre]

What?!? No props for starting the thread??? I know I had nothing to do with the actual leak, but a little shout out would've been nice

i figured we were doing you a favor by not fully appropriating the OP spot. You could have given the thread a title that didn't suggest that you were delivering the goods, but you were in it for the glory. Take what you can get, man. I mean, I even did something useful like made all of the links pretty and compile everything in one spot, and I don't ask for "props." If it were not for countless such acts of ego-immolation on the altar of Ken, TLS's flame couldn't burn this brightly.

Let that knowledge be your reward as you go forth and selflessly do good things (or as you STFU).

My sarcasm has yet again gone unnoticed, and I am hardly in it for the "fame". The rankings were released, I had contacted USNWR who confirmed this. I didnt title it here are the rankings, or 2011 rankings leaked, just that they had been released and i was searching for someone to track them down. Also, the STFU comment was just out of line and immature. Consider me disheartened.

Actually, I happened to read your post when my aspie coach was still here, and I consequently learned that your subtle technique of punctuating questions concerning insignificant matters with "?!?" and "???" meant that you were not being straightforward. However, (1) since you hadn't been officially reproached for using an attention-grabbing title to get people to click on a thread in which you supplied nothing of substance, and (2) as I hadn't yet posted my customary announcement that I had put out any effort at site management, I decided to make a post which, through the manifest insincerity of its ultimate message, would create a context of levity in which I could achieve both objectives without the drawbacks of a more sober approach (i.e., exposure to the risks of coming across as assholishly censorious or self-serving). I figured this lack of sincerity would be obvious in a post that represented the mods as self-righteous and mentally cracked (what other kind of person advocates "ego-immolation" at all, let alone when the greater cause is...this (see the past 37 pages)), but I guess I should have added more superfluous punctuation so that the masters of sarcasm would know not to take things at full face value.

Don't call me buddy, pal.

[General Tso]

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

[chitown825]

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

You do realize this number can be manipulated so so easily

[eth3n]

It is fun watching you undertake this anti-davis crusade

[holybartender]

Davis is a miserable place that should be razed to the ground. The most exciting part of the town is that they have a Ben and Jerry's.

[eth3n]

o

[General Tso]

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

You do realize this number can be manipulated so so easily

That is the POINT. How can an "above average" school like Davis in the middle of nowhere legitimately raise its employment rate by 20% in a span of 3 years amidst the worst economic crisis in 80 years?

By hiring them to work in the library, that's how.

[JCougar]

ITT: Nervous law students overreact to statistical noise in a partially arbitrary formula that ranks 200 law schools.

I do think the rankings have value, but once you get down past the T20, many of the jumps in ranking can probably be attributed to statistical noise, especially if it's only 5-10 spots. As other posters have already pointed out, the rankings formula spits out a raw number from 1-100, this number is rounded to the nearest whole number, and schools that round to the same whole number are "tied." If a school's formula outcome was 45.51 in 2009, and due to noise in expenditure per student stats dropped to 45.49, the school would have lost a point in the outcome formula and dropped from 46 to 45. And if last year there was a five way tie between the schools that rounded to 46 and a four way tie with schools that rounded to 45, and some of the 45 and 44 schools marginally increased random stats, a school could drop 9-10 ranking spots without anything really changing.

[hwstewart]

I just want to know who dropped the ball with reporting Alabama's % employed at graduation. I feel like that single handedly dealt the -8 drop. I'm pissed. Real pissed.

[Rawlsian]

I just want to know who dropped the ball with reporting Alabama's % employed at graduation. I feel like that single handedly dealt the -8 drop. I'm pissed. Real pissed.

Perhaps they're one of the few schools actually being honest about it. Regardless of rank, everyone knows UA is up and coming.

[missinglink]

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

You do realize this number can be manipulated so so easily

That is the POINT. How can an "above average" school like Davis in the middle of nowhere legitimately raise its employment rate by 20% in a span of 3 years amidst the worst economic crisis in 80 years?

By hiring them to work in the library, that's how.

It's a smaller overall class, so it's easier to see variation in the employment figure from year to year. Of course the numbers could be fudged with non-legal employment, but because of the size of the graduating class, I wouldn't be surprised to see the employment data vary.

[Sauer Grapes]

Well, not that there was any doubt in these being legit, but Hudson News near me also had a copy so I picked it up. $10 is a stinking lot of money for this magazine.

Anyway, I never doubted her, and she (obviously) was telling the truth.