Top Law Schools

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05/the-2016 ... eat-again/

1. Yale (+4)
2. Stanford (0)
3. Chicago (0)
4. Penn (0)
5. Harvard (-4)
6. UVA (0)
7. Duke (0)
8. Northwestern (+5)
9. Cornell (0)
10. Berkeley (+1)
11. Columbia (-3)
12. U. Texas (+2)
13. U. Mich (-1)
14. Vanderbilt (+1)
15. NYU (-5)
16. BC (0)
17. BU (+4)
18. Iowa (-1)
19. UCLA (0)
20. Notre Dame (+3)
21. Georgetown (-1)
22. WUSTL (+3)
23. Georgia (+4) (tie)
23. W&M (+1) (tie)
25. W&L (+5)
26. U. Alabama (+6)
27. Ohio St. (+2) (tie)
27. UNC (-1) (tie)
29. SMU (+8)
30. U. Florida (+5)

Too lazy to type more.

.

Glad to see my school made the biggest improvement from last years rankings in the top 30.

Columbia 10 NYU 15. T6 more like TTTTTT

GTttown indeed.

Jesus, these are worse than the USNWR rankings. They move schools up/down five places at a time without a single explanation for what changed so drastically.

This list practically reads like clickbait instead of any kind of honest ranking system.

cavalier1138 wrote:Jesus, these are worse than the USNWR rankings. They move schools up/down five places at a time without a single explanation for what changed so drastically.

This list practically reads like clickbait instead of any kind of honest ranking system.

To be fair, US News also has wild swings in schools too.

cavalier1138 wrote:Jesus, these are worse than the USNWR rankings. They move schools up/down five places at a time without a single explanation for what changed so drastically.

This list practically reads like clickbait instead of any kind of honest ranking system.

Well, they do list the criteria they judge by and the ratio of each to the overall value. However, I agree they should make it more explicit how each of those factors has changed from a prior to the current year.

if i could go back in time and choose a law school all over again i would definitely rely upon this list

Can't argue with any of these rankings, frankly.

grand inquisitor wrote:if i could go back in time and choose a law school all over again i would definitely rely upon this list

Extrapolating Baylor, my advice would be to sit a cycle out and the unicorn world will be yours.

UT is FIRMLY in the T12, above Michigan and GULC

Who came up with this list, me?

NYU as a T15 seems appropriate tho

BigZuck wrote:NYU as a T15 seems appropriate tho

Out of morbid curiosity, why?

The Columbia and NYU rankings make the least sense out of the top grouping.

BigZuck wrote:UT is FIRMLY in the T12, above Michigan and GULC

Who came up with this list, me?

Of the rankings criteria

15% is education cost
5% is debt per job
5% is salary to debt ratio


25% of the criteria is solely or largely about how much the school costs. Obviously debt is a big part of the equation but isnt this a tad redundant.

Actually, now that I have some time to read it right... are they completely ignoring LRAP in order to make schools with higher PI numbers and high tuition costs seem like they're somehow worse investments?

I know that any ranking list is basically bullshit, but if I'm reading that correctly, this one is objectively idiotic.

cavalier1138 wrote:Actually, now that I have some time to read it right... are they completely ignoring LRAP in order to make schools with higher PI numbers and high tuition costs seem like they're somehow worse investments?

I know that any ranking list is basically bullshit, but if I'm reading that correctly, this one is objectively idiotic.

Yeah they are...the 30% criteria for "quality jobs" only applies to BL+FC. Their rationale is that those are the only jobs that allow you to pay off debt.

.

jnwa wrote:Of the rankings criteria

15% is education cost
5% is debt per job
5% is salary to debt ratio


25% of the criteria is solely or largely about how much the school costs. Obviously debt is a big part of the equation but isnt this a tad redundant.

It's also really dumb from a helping-prospective-students perspective, because no one cares about how much debt their average classmate is incurring.

jnwa wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:Actually, now that I have some time to read it right... are they completely ignoring LRAP in order to make schools with higher PI numbers and high tuition costs seem like they're somehow worse investments?

I know that any ranking list is basically bullshit, but if I'm reading that correctly, this one is objectively idiotic.

Yeah they are...the 30% criteria for "quality jobs" only applies to BL+FC. Their rationale is that those are the only jobs that allow you to pay off debt.

The level of stupid in that line of reasoning is making my head hurt.

cavalier1138 wrote:

BigZuck wrote:NYU as a T15 seems appropriate tho

Out of morbid curiosity, why?

The Columbia and NYU rankings make the least sense out of the top grouping.

I think the prohibition on callout posts applies even if the poster has retired. Tread carefully friend.

RIP brut

cavalier1138 wrote:Actually, now that I have some time to read it right... are they completely ignoring LRAP in order to make schools with higher PI numbers and high tuition costs seem like they're somehow worse investments?

I know that any ranking list is basically bullshit, but if I'm reading that correctly, this one is objectively idiotic.

That's how I read it as well, which means that Yale (with a great loan assistance program and high average cost proportionately borne more by students who can afford it) is penalized vs BYU (without much of a loan assistance program and a lower average cost borne more evenly by everyone). This is a pretty minor point, though, as most law schools have pretty similar costs. (Also, I'm not sure the data's available to incorporate things like LRAP and PI and even how aid gets distributed into a ranking.) It's also a pretty minor point because average debt is meaningless as debt at graduation is pretty much the only factor that you can individually evaluate with a high degree of certainty.

There are lots of nonsensical things in ATL's rankings, though. I highly doubt that anyone at ATL thinks that this is a particularly valid measure of anything at all. I suspect that this is ATL's attempt to create a methodology that results in a ranking that's similar enough to USNWR to look legit but different enough to generate page views / discussion. My guess is that the first dozen or so ranking methodologies that they tried either resulted in lists that were basically the same as USNWR or were too different to be taken seriously by anyone (e.g., didn't have HYS in the top 10, had a totally random school at 4, etc).

They seem to address the HYS glitch by giving 5% to federal judges and 5% to SCOTUS clerks.

Tiago Splitter wrote:They seem to address the HYS glitch by giving 5% to federal judges and 5% to SCOTUS clerks.

Yep--both of which are totally ridiculous bases for a ranking. (I think fed clerkships would probably be a factor in an ideal law school ranking. I can't think of any advantages--and I can think of many disadvantages--of using just SCOTUS clerks.)