Top Law Schools

Link to google spreadsheet

So I took the 2014 rankings and input them into a spreadsheet I made comparing the c/o 2011 employment data with the 2013 rankings. It doesn't seem like the 2014 Rankings methodology is much different, but thanks largely to people like those at LST, the leaps in employment data transparency made the data simply better. Even though employment only encompasses 18% of the ranking, you'll see that the schools most whitewashing were the generally the biggest losers, while schools that gained from having more accurate data saw the biggest jumps.

%JDReq is a ranking based exclusively on the school's percentage of graduates employed in full-time, long-term jobs requiring bar passage.
2013 and 2014 are the school's respective USNWR rankings.
Change is the movement from 2013 to 2013 USNWR rankings.
JD FTLT is the number of graduates employed in full-time, long-term jobs requiring bar passage.
Total Graduates is the number of graduates from the school in the c/o 2011 ABA data.
% JD FTLT is the percentage of graduates employed in full-time, long-term jobs requiring bar passage.

Color Key: A while ago I created a spreadsheet to see what schools would rank if the ranking was based exclusively on JDFTLT jobs held at 9 months. That percentage is listed in the far right column, and that "JD ranking" is listed on the far left. Then I colored the schools shades of green and red based on their actual 2013 ranking relative to the c/o 2011 employment data. It was pretty scattered, but when you insert the 2014 rankings, many of those seemingly anomalous (or not-so-anomalous) rises and falls in the rankings can be explained simply by the new, more transparent employment data.

For example, American, which is widely considered a poorly disguised for-profit JD mill, ranks 180th out of 201 ABA-accredited law schools in percentage of graduates in full-time, long-term jobs requiring bar passage. It's actual ranking in 2013, 49, doesn't really bear any relation to the available employment data. (Hence the very dark red highlighting, and I marked this as "two tiers" worse. If schools were ranked according to employment outcomes alone, American would be behind 90% of accredited law schools, and possibly some unaccredited ones.)

(In case you didn't know or realize, the c/o 2010 data was very generalized and not too useful, and last year's employment data was the first that was genuinely insightful. The 2013 rankings are based off the c/o 2010 rankings, while the ones released yesterday are based off last year's more transparent c/o 2011 rankings.)


Without further introduction, here is a list of the biggest winners and losers in the new ranking system, as compared to their 2011 employment data.

Winners - schools deans that move up in these pointless rankings that will now get ignorant 0L's to pay sticker price at a school because OMG THEY WENT UP 8 SPOTS!!!

I don't have the slightest clue what you're doing here

guano wrote:I don't have the slightest clue what you're doing here

Just showing that the large gains and drops by schools are primarily due to the improvements in employment transparency and little else.

And also because I know others are interested to see who moved the most, independent of whether or not they/we/you/I hold much stock in the rankings.

As someone mentioned in the other thread, it's kind of like rooting for your favorite sports teams.

cahwc12 wrote:

guano wrote:I don't have the slightest clue what you're doing here

Just showing that the large gains and drops by schools are primarily due to the improvements in employment transparency and little else.

what do the columns mean? How have you ordered it?

I mean, seriously, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying.

guano wrote:

cahwc12 wrote:

guano wrote:I don't have the slightest clue what you're doing here

Just showing that the large gains and drops by schools are primarily due to the improvements in employment transparency and little else.

what do the columns mean? How have you ordered it?

I mean, seriously, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying.

Sure, I'll edit the OP

"Winners" and "losers." This sounds like ESPN's analysis of the NFL draft.

So wait, why do you have a column for full-time JD req? The new method is full-time, long term, JD req or JD adv.. right?

This isn't as helpful as you think for those of us who are color blind

Also very confused.
How can some of the first column percentages be over 100%?
Why is a school that jumped in the rankings and is T1 highlighted in red? (OSU/Wake/Etc)
Why won't Natalie Portman respond to my tweets?

Why do you have Utah ranked at 100 in last year's USNWR? I'm pretty sure it was ranked around 45.

I also have no idea what the colors are supposed to mean - what is >1 Tier better etc? (This may just be me, but would love an explanation.)

Aroldis105 wrote:Also very confused.
How can some of the first column percentages be over 100%?
Why is a school that jumped in the rankings and is T1 highlighted in red? (OSU/Wake/Etc)
Why won't Natalie Portman respond to my tweets?

For the last question, take the answer to the first two, and substitute your name for OP's

Utah did not jump 59 spots.

It was mid to high 40's before.

mb9113 wrote:Utah did not jump 59 spots.

It was mid to high 40's before.

You're right, thanks. I thought that was highly odd.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Why do you have Utah ranked at 100 in last year's USNWR? I'm pretty sure it was ranked around 45.

I also have no idea what the colors are supposed to mean - what is >1 Tier better etc? (This may just be me, but would love an explanation.)

So a while ago I created a spreadsheet to see what schools would rank if the ranking was based exclusively on JDFTLT jobs held at 9 months. That percentage is listed in the far right column, and that "JD ranking" is listed on the far left. Then I colored the schools shades of green and red based on their actual 2013 ranking relative to the c/o 2011 employment data.

It was pretty scattered, but when you insert the 2014 rankings, many of those seemingly anomalous (or not-so-anomalous) rises and falls in the rankings can be explained simply by the new, more transparent employment data.

(In case you didn't know or realize, the c/o 2010 data was very generalized and not too useful, and last year's employment data was the first that was genuinely insightful. The 2013 rankings are based off the c/o 2010 rankings, while the ones released yesterday are based off last year's more transparent c/o 2011 rankings.

This single metric seems to pretty accurately explain almost every mover on the list (while some of the lower ranked schools moved up or down a few spots simply due to four- and five-way ties).

Can you define your color code a bit more, if possible? Many thanks!

MikeSpivey wrote:Can you define your color code a bit more, if possible? Many thanks!

don't waste your time. the information as presented is of no use to man or beast

guano wrote:

MikeSpivey wrote:Can you define your color code a bit more, if possible? Many thanks!

don't waste your time. the information as presented is of no use to man or beast

Actually I just read the section called "color code" and now that makes sense. That is interesting [if true].

That chart looks pretty fucked.

Looks like USNWR does an okay job ranking the top schools

Aroldis105 wrote:Why won't Natalie Portman respond to my tweets?

This.

But c'mon guys, the chart isn't that bad... just unnecessary.

Now that you've made the changes I actually think this chart is pretty, pretty, pretty okay.
Not to be greedy, but it'd be great if it was then ordered from highest to lowest employment numbers.
UPDATE: Natalie Portman has blocked me on Twitter.

OP forgot to include the prestigious

--ImageRemoved--