USNWR Rankings Released...Seriously Forum

[CanadianWolf]

The magazine release date is April 20, 2010. The internet release date is April 15, 2010.

[Rand M.]

The magazine release date is April 20, 2010. The internet release date is April 15, 2010.

You say this to say what?

[TTT-LS]

.

[toolfan]

100% employed at graduation is pretty ridiculous. The ABA needs to require schools to publish their real employment rates and the types of work their students actually have - I could be wrong and sure I am, but it seems as though law schools have too much control over manipulating their employment statistics. Similarly USN needs to publish much more detailed, accurate, honest employment statistics. I would really like to see some transparency already. ffs

[Rand M.]

100% employed at graduation is pretty ridiculous. The ABA needs to require schools to publish their real employment rates and the types of work their students actually have - I could be wrong and sure I am, but it seems as though law schools have too much control over manipulating their employment statistics. Similarly USN needs to publish much more detailed, accurate, honest employment statistics. I would really like to see some transparency already. ffs

It would be a beautiful day if USNWR released a law school issue where each school got a full page detailing their admissions stuff along with actual detailed employment/outcome data. This will never happen, but one can wish.

[honestabe84]

100% employed at graduation is pretty ridiculous. The ABA needs to require schools to publish their real employment rates and the types of work their students actually have - I could be wrong and sure I am, but it seems as though law schools have too much control over manipulating their employment statistics. Similarly USN needs to publish much more detailed, accurate, honest employment statistics. I would really like to see some transparency already. ffs

It would be a beautiful day if USNWR released a law school issue where each school got a full page detailing their admissions stuff along with actual detailed employment/outcome data. This will never happen, but one can wish.

This would never happen, because MANY schools would completely stop submitting this data.

[wackjickham]

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.

I was fortunate enough to have lunch with a Dean at a T14 at an ASW. He got pretty in depth and asked that we not reveal the specifics of the conversation publicly, but the way he described it is that the rankings are useful for placing schools in "groups". That is to say: These few schools are higher than these few schools, and these 20 schools are definitely better than these 20 schools. The actual, numerical order of the schools means less. I think TLS is pretty good about this. For example: HYS > CCN > MVPB > DN > CG, T14 > T20 > T1, etc. Just my [his/her] two cents.

[honestabe84]

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.

I was fortunate enough to have lunch with a Dean at a T14 at an ASW. He got pretty in depth and asked that we not reveal the specifics of the conversation publicly, but the way he described it is that the rankings are useful for placing schools in "groups". That is to say: These few schools are higher than these few schools, and these 20 schools are definitely better than these 20 schools. The actual, numerical order of the schools means less. I think TLS is pretty good about this. For example: HYS > CCN > MVPB > DN > CG, T14 > T20 > T1, etc. Just my [his/her] two cents.

IMO, schools ranked 40 and up are all about the same to a certain extent. Also, there is a big difference between a school ranked 10 and a school ranked 20, but there is virtually no difference between a school ranked 60 and a school ranked 90.

[msh342]

So Brooklyn got its just punishment? Now it's basically tied with St. Johns.

[mikehoe]

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.

UC Davis is an excellent school. UC Davis is not in the middle of nowhere, its 15min away from the capital buildings. I am glad to see UCD Law rise in the rankings. Kings Hall's building got a new extension:
http://building.law.ucdavis.edu/

[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.

I was fortunate enough to have lunch with a Dean at a T14 at an ASW. He got pretty in depth and asked that we not reveal the specifics of the conversation publicly, but the way he described it is that the rankings are useful for placing schools in "groups". That is to say: These few schools are higher than these few schools, and these 20 schools are definitely better than these 20 schools. The actual, numerical order of the schools means less. I think TLS is pretty good about this. For example: HYS > CCN > MVPB > DN > CG, T14 > T20 > T1, etc. Just my [his/her] two cents.

IMO, schools ranked 40 and up are all about the same to a certain extent. Also, there is a big difference between a school ranked 10 and a school ranked 20, but there is virtually no difference between a school ranked 60 and a school ranked 90.

Very true.

Really, there's the T14 (of which HYS stand out as their own sub-group), there's the next 4 schools (15-18) that have semi-elite status and placement for about the top 50% of their class, there's the T30-40 that have semi-elite placement if you're in the top 10% of your class or so and strong placement if you're in the top 25%. Then there's everything else, wich, barring few exceptions, place only into local markets.

[Grizz]

Great visualization of USNWR tiers

--ImageRemoved--

[holydonkey]

Great visualization of USNWR tiers

Exactly. It's not really T14. It's Y-H--S-C-CN-BPMVDN---CG/Ucla/Texas/Vandy----USC---everyone else. T12 and T17 are better descriptions than T14.

[Ragged]

Great visualization of USNWR tiers

--ImageRemoved--

Yes it is and its been posted several pages back. Although, can't blame you for not reading the whole thread.

[Sauer Grapes]

Great visualization of USNWR tiers

--ImageRemoved--

Yes it is and its been posted several pages back. Although, can't blame you for not reading the whole thread.

If by great, you mean total pro USC trolling, then yes.

USC should be closer to WUSTL, after all, they are only separated by one point now.

[quadsixm]

What the heck happened to Minnesota on this list?

[Special thanks to Nightrunner for the following enlarged list:]

Tier 1:
1. Yale
2. Harvard
3. Stanford
4. Columbia
5. Chicago
6. NYU
7. Cal-Berkeley
7. Penn
8. Michigan
10. Virginia
11. Duke
11. Northwestern
13. Cornell
14. Georgetown
15. UCLA
15. Texas
17. Vanderbilt
18. USC
19. WUSTL
20. GW
21. Illinois
22. BU
22. Emory
22. Notre Dame
25. Iowa
27. Indiana
28. Boston College
28. William & Mary
28. UC-Davis
28. Georgia
28. North Carolina
28. Wisconsin
34. Fordham
34. Ohio State
34. Washington
34. Washington & Lee
38. Arizona State
38. Alabama
37. Colorado - Boulder
38. Wake Forest
42. BYU
42. George Mason
42. Arizona
42. UC-Hastings
42. Utah
47. Florida
48. American
48. SMU
48. Tulane
48. Maryland

[charlesjd]

Question. Does anyone know if the rankings be purchasable at 12:00 AM online?

[honestabe84]

Question. Does anyone know if the rankings be purchasable at 12:00 AM online?

You don't have to buy them. They'll be listed on the website. And I have no idea if it will be a 12 or not.

[09042014]

What the heck happened to Minnesota on this list?

As noted several times throughout the thread, I accidentally omitted Minnesota with my original post. Sadly, that is the one people keep citing and quoting.

Wisconsin trolling.

[charlesjd]

Question. Does anyone know if the rankings be purchasable at 12:00 AM online?

You don't have to buy them. They'll be listed on the website. And I have no idea if it will be a 12 or not.

I want to get all the information in the back that is not listed though, not just the rankings. Thanks, I am assuming it is, I will look at the alleged countdown clock, which I cannot beleive exists... damn you USNWR....

[charlesjd]

I says around 7 hours and 35 minutes... so yeah.

[Rock Chalk]

.

[JCougar]

I says around 7 hours and 35 minutes... so yeah.

Talk about a now anti-climactic countdown.

US News has been foiled again by a rogue newsstand at a NYC train stop and the ultra-gunners and rankings whores of TLS.

[T14_Scholly]

Next year, I'm willing to put in about 5-10 hours of work to create a believable hoax leak.

[honestabe84]

Does anyone else think that the the lawyer/judge rating is more important than the rankings themselves? I mean they're the ones who will be hiring you when you get out of law school.