Top15-30 2011 US News Predicitons Forum

[3ThrowAway99]

..

[SHARK WEEK!]

1 Yale
2 Harvard
3 Stanford
4 Columbia
5 Chicago
6 Berkeley
7 New York
8 UPENN
9 Michigan
10 Northwestern
11 Virginia
12 Georgetown
13 Duke
14 Cornell
15 Texas
16 Vanderbilt
17 UCLA
18 Minnesota
19 USC
20 GW
21 Emory
22 BU
23 BC
24 Notre Dame
25 Washington U. St. Louis
26 Fordham
27 U of Washington
28 U Illinois
29 U Indiana
30 U of Iowa


I know it's biased, but aren't we all? My guess if there is a lot of movement.

Yeah.. I included T14 just for the heck of it. I'm sure it will get some people riled up.

Red region = LOLZ.

[stratocophic]

1 Yale
2 Harvard
3 Stanford
4 Columbia
5 Chicago
6 Berkeley
7 New York
8 UPENN
9 Michigan
10 Northwestern
11 Virginia
12 Georgetown
13 Duke
14 Cornell
15 Texas
16 Vanderbilt
17 UCLA
18 Minnesota
19 USC
20 GW
21 Emory
22 BU
23 BC
24 Notre Dame
25 Washington U. St. Louis
26 Fordham
27 U of Washington
28 U Illinois
29 U Indiana
30 U of Iowa



I know it's biased, but aren't we all? My guess if there is a lot of movement.

Yeah.. I included T14 just for the heck of it. I'm sure it will get some people riled up.

Red region = LOLZ.

ftfy

@seanrr: lolwut

[pleasethinkfirst]

Terrible comment. Indy legal market was never overheated, and is doing quite well in this economy in a relative sense.

Economy.

Schools like BC/BU/Fordham, that are in markets that can still more or less guarantee 100k+ salaries will hold their rank. Schools like Iowa, UIUC, Indiana that can't will fall.

[pleasethinkfirst]

Doesn't seem to hold back Duke.

Random question: Why isn't UNC-Chapel Hill ranked higher than mid 30s?

Ever hear of NC big law? That's your answer.

[09042014]

Doesn't seem to hold back Duke.

Random question: Why isn't UNC-Chapel Hill ranked higher than mid 30s?

Ever hear of NC big law? That's your answer.

Because Duke is actually a good school.

HTH

[pleasethinkfirst]

So it is the quality of the school that counts, not the presence or absence of NC biglaw.

Doesn't seem to hold back Duke.

Random question: Why isn't UNC-Chapel Hill ranked higher than mid 30s?

Ever hear of NC big law? That's your answer.

Because Duke is actually a good school.

HTH

[09042014]

So it is the quality of the school that counts, not the presence or absence of NC biglaw.

No. Duke is good enough to place nationally. A Duke grad can get jobs in CA, Chicago, or New York. UNC places locally and locally sucks in NC.

[Borhas]

Doesn't seem to hold back Duke.

Random question: Why isn't UNC-Chapel Hill ranked higher than mid 30s?

Ever hear of NC big law? That's your answer.

Because Duke is actually a good school.

HTH

INSIPID anti UNC trolling

[outlaw08]

1. Yale
2. Harvard
3. Stanford
4. Columbia
4. Chicago
6. NYU
7. Berkeley
8. Michigan
9. UPenn
9. UVA
11. Northwestern
11. Duke
13. Cornell
14. Gtown
14. Texas
16. UCLA
16. Vandy
18. USC
19. BU
20. WUSTL
21. Minnesota
21. Indiana
21. ND
24. GWU
25. Emory
26. BC
27. W&M
28. Iowa
28. UWash
30. Fordham
30. W&L
30. UGA

[sky7]

15 Vandy
16 Texas
17 UCLA
18 USC
19 Emory
20 Washington U
21 U Minnesota-Twin Cities
22 Notre Dame
22 George Washington
24 Boston U
25 Boston College
25 Washington and Lee
27 Illinois
28 Indiana
29 UNC
30 W&M

Here's the only thing that worries me. The common misconception on TLS is that GW went down because of PT numbers. The truth of the matter is that late last year there was a firestorm on campus sparked by the GW newspaper about how the PT program was being thrown under the bus by Dean Maggs, but it was actually poor placement stats (not the PT numbers) that caused the fall in rankings. Remember, Georgetown and Fordham didn't have the dramatic drop (if any at all) that GW did. --LinkRemoved--

Perhaps slashing the PT class was the only way to react, and I anticipate that we'll get a bit of a bump. The problem is that we're not dealing directly with the cause of the drop (perhaps spend more money in career services?) and instead are trying to find an easy excuse.

[faith2202]

anyone know when the rankings will come out?

+1

[mavsman88]

I called USNWR and rankings wont be out till mid april.

On another less repetitive note, does anyone think Emory will actually go up this year. Its gone up just about every year for the past 10 yrs. Anyone think this trend will continue?

[td6624]

15 Vandy
16 Texas
17 UCLA
18 USC
19 Emory
20 Washington U
21 U Minnesota-Twin Cities
22 Notre Dame
22 George Washington
24 Boston U
25 Boston College
25 Washington and Lee
27 Illinois
28 Indiana
29 UNC
30 W&M

Here's the only thing that worries me. The common misconception on TLS is that GW went down because of PT numbers. The truth of the matter is that late last year there was a firestorm on campus sparked by the GW newspaper about how the PT program was being thrown under the bus by Dean Maggs, but it was actually poor placement stats (not the PT numbers) that caused the fall in rankings. Remember, Georgetown and Fordham didn't have the dramatic drop (if any at all) that GW did. --LinkRemoved--

Perhaps slashing the PT class was the only way to react, and I anticipate that we'll get a bit of a bump. The problem is that we're not dealing directly with the cause of the drop (perhaps spend more money in career services?) and instead are trying to find an easy excuse.

I have yet to see bad placement numbers from GW though. Someone got a link?

[Onion]

A poor economy will make all state-schools rise. When people do not get into T14-T30, they will want that cheep instate rate. Just my opinion, probably not worth much.

[sky7]

The change Lawrence referred to was a new ranking procedure that, for the first time, included part-time students in the evaluations. In previous years, part-time students had not been evaluated at all.

But Robert Morse, director of data research for U.S. News, called Lawrence's claim "incorrect."

"That is not the full reason," he said. "U.S. News has done calculations that say GW would have fallen in the rankings because of relatively weak placement data. It was a culmination of factors."

Morse said what hurt GW the most were poor showings in the selectivity and job placement categories.

Morse justified the decision to include part-time students, saying that some schools are "gaming the system" by shuttling less impressive students into part-time programs. He said he did not think GW had been guilty of this.

"GW has a long-standing part-time program that's been around a long time," he said. "That comment relates to programs that have been started recently."

I don't know exactly what data USNWR uses, but you can see Morse's quote as clearly as I can. I can't imagine they use NLJ250 stats, because GW is T20 on that chart. Must be something else.

[td6624]

The change Lawrence referred to was a new ranking procedure that, for the first time, included part-time students in the evaluations. In previous years, part-time students had not been evaluated at all.

But Robert Morse, director of data research for U.S. News, called Lawrence's claim "incorrect."

"That is not the full reason," he said. "U.S. News has done calculations that say GW would have fallen in the rankings because of relatively weak placement data. It was a culmination of factors."

Morse said what hurt GW the most were poor showings in the selectivity and job placement categories.

Morse justified the decision to include part-time students, saying that some schools are "gaming the system" by shuttling less impressive students into part-time programs. He said he did not think GW had been guilty of this.

"GW has a long-standing part-time program that's been around a long time," he said. "That comment relates to programs that have been started recently."

I don't know exactly what data USNWR uses, but you can see Morse's quote as clearly as I can. I can't imagine they use NLJ250 stats, because GW is T20 on that chart. Must be something else.

He also said it had a poor selectivity rating. How does that not indicate that the PT numbers contributed? Until I see actual numbers that indicate poor placement, I'm going to assume that it was mostly the PT program and that the US News dude doesn't want to admit that something so seemingly irrelevant to school quality would drop a school down that far.

[09042014]

The change Lawrence referred to was a new ranking procedure that, for the first time, included part-time students in the evaluations. In previous years, part-time students had not been evaluated at all.

But Robert Morse, director of data research for U.S. News, called Lawrence's claim "incorrect."

"That is not the full reason," he said. "U.S. News has done calculations that say GW would have fallen in the rankings because of relatively weak placement data. It was a culmination of factors."

Morse said what hurt GW the most were poor showings in the selectivity and job placement categories.

Morse justified the decision to include part-time students, saying that some schools are "gaming the system" by shuttling less impressive students into part-time programs. He said he did not think GW had been guilty of this.

"GW has a long-standing part-time program that's been around a long time," he said. "That comment relates to programs that have been started recently."

I don't know exactly what data USNWR uses, but you can see Morse's quote as clearly as I can. I can't imagine they use NLJ250 stats, because GW is T20 on that chart. Must be something else.

He also said it had a poor selectivity rating. How does that not indicate that the PT numbers contributed? Until I see actual numbers that indicate poor placement, I'm going to assume that it was mostly the PT program and that the US News dude doesn't want to admit that something so seemingly irrelevant to school quality would drop a school down that far.

I don't think the PT inclusion is seemingly irrelevant. Why should schools with part time students be allowed to let in whomever they want, while other schools get penalized for taking students below median.

[Vincent Vega]

So it is the quality of the school that counts, not the presence or absence of NC biglaw.

No. Duke is good enough to place nationally. A Duke grad can get jobs in CA, Chicago, or New York. UNC places locally and locally sucks in NC.

Pre-ITE, top grads from UNC fared extremely well for a regional school. The banking industry in Charlotte fed some very fat cats in that legal market. I imagine those days are over, at least for quite a while, though.

[td6624]

I don't think the PT inclusion is seemingly irrelevant. Why should schools with part time students be allowed to let in whomever they want, while other schools get penalized for taking students below median.

I just think that US News would want to avoid the assumption that their rankings can be altered so drastically by including PT numbers. It makes it seem like selectivity is the only important stat, and that doesn't have much bearing on the quality of the education or placement potential.

Did GW become a worse school because US News changed its methodology? No. So they want to imply that there were other factors. But until I see what the other factors actually are, I don't know that I believe them.

But selectivity should matter, I suppose. So I don't know what I'm talking about.

[sdv]

I called USNWR and rankings wont be out till mid april.

On another less repetitive note, does anyone think Emory will actually go up this year. Its gone up just about every year for the past 10 yrs. Anyone think this trend will continue?

No.

2 reasons:

Until they stop lowballing applicants with numbers appreciably higher than their mean, their upward trend has a self-imposed, finite limit.

It's a regional school, and pretty much anything above #18 or so (basically anything above USC) has a national reach (with the possible exception of UT, though to be fair that seems to be more due to the preferences of the students than anything else)


Also, anyone else find it ironic that such an important person in determining US News rankings shares a name with an actor best known for his starring role in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying? (Robert Morse)

[sky7]

He also said it had a poor selectivity rating. How does that not indicate that the PT numbers contributed? Until I see actual numbers that indicate poor placement, I'm going to assume that it was mostly the PT program and that the US News dude doesn't want to admit that something so seemingly irrelevant to school quality would drop a school down that far.

I'm willing to take the official US News representative at his word - I mean, they are the ones, afterall, that make the rankings...

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index. ... Employ9Mos - might shed some light on the matter.

[stratocophic]

The change Lawrence referred to was a new ranking procedure that, for the first time, included part-time students in the evaluations. In previous years, part-time students had not been evaluated at all.

But Robert Morse, director of data research for U.S. News, called Lawrence's claim "incorrect."

"That is not the full reason," he said. "U.S. News has done calculations that say GW would have fallen in the rankings because of relatively weak placement data. It was a culmination of factors."

Morse said what hurt GW the most were poor showings in the selectivity and job placement categories.

Morse justified the decision to include part-time students, saying that some schools are "gaming the system" by shuttling less impressive students into part-time programs. He said he did not think GW had been guilty of this.

"GW has a long-standing part-time program that's been around a long time," he said. "That comment relates to programs that have been started recently."

I don't know exactly what data USNWR uses, but you can see Morse's quote as clearly as I can. I can't imagine they use NLJ250 stats, because GW is T20 on that chart. Must be something else.

IIRC, they use employed at graduation and 9 months after graduation stats in the USNWR. NLJ 250 doesn't have anything to do with it, and justifiably so. Yale has what would be a shockingly low number on the NLJ 250 placement, but that's because they own clerkships. PI would also skew the results.

[notme]

14. UCLA/Georgtown
16. Texas
17. Vandy
18. USC
19. ND
20. BU
21. Minnesota
22. WUSTL
23. Illinois/Emory
25. BC
26. GW
27. Fordham
28. Indiana/Iowa/W&M

This is how I feel about the schools after having looked into them and following this group for the past year. I've visited a number of them but not all. But it is still only my list, with my bias. The actual list is up to Robert Morse and his cronies, and they have their own preferences.

While most of the schools are very close, if not the same, in the quality of education they offer, there are real differences in the experience, and but for USNWR, students could make a choice based upon those differences and all be much happier for it. Hopefully this whole charade will crumble shortly, as USNWR tries ranking law firms and really pisses off some influential people. The arbitrary nature of the rankings will become even more apparent, and hopefully someone will finally do something about this.

[Joga Bonito]

14. UCLA/Georgtown
16. Texas
17. Vandy
18. USC
19. ND
20. BU
21. Minnesota
22. WUSTL
23. Illinois/Emory
25. BC
26. GW
27. Fordham
28. Indiana/Iowa/W&M

This is how I feel about the schools after having looked into them and following this group for the past year. I've visited a number of them but not all. But it is still only my list, with my bias. The actual list is up to Robert Morse and his cronies, and they have their own preferences.

While most of the schools are very close, if not the same, in the quality of education they offer, there are real differences in the experience, and but for USNWR, students could make a choice based upon those differences and all be much happier for it. Hopefully this whole charade will crumble shortly, as USNWR tries ranking law firms and really pisses off some influential people. The arbitrary nature of the rankings will become even more apparent, and hopefully someone will finally do something about this.

Wustl and Emory, are def better than UMinn. GW and Uof I too for that matter.