2018 USNWR Rankings Forum

[GOODWORKSTE]

Why does Gonzaga have a law school?

They're just following the Duke formula: Top-tier basketball team + mediocre academic reputation = why not have a law school?

Low tier trolling makes me wonder where you went to law school

J.D., Duke University School of Law, 2012

[Moneytrees]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

[GOODWORKSTE]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

The way I see it is that US News rankings are the only ones that matter because US employers care about them. No employers in the US, at least the ones that matter, care about international rankings.

Internationally, in my experience (and take it with a grain of salt since the region I live in is probably different than most others), employers don't care about rankings at all, in that employers cannot recite the T14 by heart like they do in the US

[KissMyAxe]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

International rankings would be related to what other countries think of our schools. Other countries by definition are not Murr'ca. A lion does not concern itself with the opinions of the sheep. /thread

ITT Pupkin and Bagel doing some 180 trolling, while Berkeley fanboys are living in a world of delusion.

[Moneytrees]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

The way I see it is that US News rankings are the only ones that matter because US employers care about them. No employers in the US, at least the ones that matter, care about international rankings.

Internationally, in my experience (and take it with a grain of salt since the region I live in is probably different than most others), employers don't care about rankings at all, in that employers cannot recite the T14 by heart like they do in the US

Just to clarify, US News publishes both UG rankings and international ("global") rankings.

You seem to be arguing that employers only care about the US News UG rankings, which is probably true, depending on the field. If I had to guess, law partners probably don't really know anything about US News rankings but have a general idea which schools are the best. The T13 is the T13 because those schools have elite employment stats and general name recognition, not because US News says they are the best 13.

[Moneytrees]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

International rankings would be related to what other countries think of our schools. Other countries by definition are not Murr'ca. A lion does not concern itself with the opinions of the sheep. /thread

ITT Pupkin and Bagel doing some 180 trolling, while Berkeley fanboys are living in a world of delusion.

Not sure which rankings you are talking about but I think when people were discussing international rankings, they were referring to the US News Global University ranking. This has nothing to do with with what other countries think of our schools, it's just a different ranking system that places more weight on research output as opposed to UG selectivity and peer assessment scores.

[rpupkin]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

The way I see it is that US News rankings are the only ones that matter because US employers care about them.

What are you talking about? US law firms don't care about the USNWR law school rankings. Aside from folks like me who troll law school boards, practicing lawyers are generally unaware of year-to-year fluctuations in the rankings. The rankings are not a factor in hiring decisions.

[GOODWORKSTE]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

The way I see it is that US News rankings are the only ones that matter because US employers care about them.

What are you talking about? US law firms don't care about the USNWR law school rankings. Aside from folks like me who troll law school boards, practicing lawyers are generally unaware of year-to-year fluctuations in the rankings. The rankings are not a factor in hiring decisions.

Notice that I didn't say fluctuations in US News rankings.. What I meant is firms generally care/know where schools "rank." I dont see how school rank doesn't dictate hiring decisions when the T13 consistently places its students in big law firms in droves whereas the rest of the schools cannot? Is in this a product of the ranking of these schools?

[brinicolec]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

The way I see it is that US News rankings are the only ones that matter because US employers care about them.

What are you talking about? US law firms don't care about the USNWR law school rankings. Aside from folks like me who troll law school boards, practicing lawyers are generally unaware of year-to-year fluctuations in the rankings. The rankings are not a factor in hiring decisions.

Notice that I didn't say fluctuations in US News rankings.. What I meant is firms generally care/know where schools "rank." I dont see how school rank doesn't dictate hiring decisions when the T13 consistently places its students in big law firms in droves whereas the rest of the schools cannot? Is in this a product of the ranking of these schools?

I think firms care. Not in a sense that it's like, "Oh, they went to ___, and it's ranked ___. Let's hire them," but more in a sense that they believe they can rely on top law schools to groom quality (see also: capable/competent) attorneys and therefore, are more inclined to hire graduates from those schools.

[GOODWORKSTE]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

The way I see it is that US News rankings are the only ones that matter because US employers care about them.

What are you talking about? US law firms don't care about the USNWR law school rankings. Aside from folks like me who troll law school boards, practicing lawyers are generally unaware of year-to-year fluctuations in the rankings. The rankings are not a factor in hiring decisions.

Notice that I didn't say fluctuations in US News rankings.. What I meant is firms generally care/know where schools "rank." I dont see how school rank doesn't dictate hiring decisions when the T13 consistently places its students in big law firms in droves whereas the rest of the schools cannot? Is in this a product of the ranking of these schools?

I think firms care. Not in a sense that it's like, "Oh, they went to ___, and it's ranked ___. Let's hire them," but more in a sense that they believe they can rely on top law schools to groom quality (see also: capable/competent) attorneys and therefore, are more inclined to hire graduates from those schools.

I agree, but this bit about the top law schools grooming quality: where does that perception (deserved or undeserved) come from? It's gotta come from the rankings to an extent

[brinicolec]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

The way I see it is that US News rankings are the only ones that matter because US employers care about them.

What are you talking about? US law firms don't care about the USNWR law school rankings. Aside from folks like me who troll law school boards, practicing lawyers are generally unaware of year-to-year fluctuations in the rankings. The rankings are not a factor in hiring decisions.

Notice that I didn't say fluctuations in US News rankings.. What I meant is firms generally care/know where schools "rank." I dont see how school rank doesn't dictate hiring decisions when the T13 consistently places its students in big law firms in droves whereas the rest of the schools cannot? Is in this a product of the ranking of these schools?

I think firms care. Not in a sense that it's like, "Oh, they went to ___, and it's ranked ___. Let's hire them," but more in a sense that they believe they can rely on top law schools to groom quality (see also: capable/competent) attorneys and therefore, are more inclined to hire graduates from those schools.

I agree, but this bit about the top law schools grooming quality: where does that perception (deserved or undeserved) come from? It's gotta come from the rankings to an extent

Meh, I'd say it's more about the students they're known to attract. Presumably, in order to get into a top school, you have to be intelligent and expected to excel in law school. This gets into a kind of "What came first: the chicken or the egg?" kind of thing because one could argue that top schools are top schools due to the students that choose to attend them who are maybe more likely to excel OR one could argue that students who are maybe more likely to excel attend these schools BECAUSE they're top schools.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Are the people bizzarly supporting Duke regulars or Duke ad com? I hear some schools' ad com people scroll through this forum.

Here are the peer assessment results used in the law school rankings for 2018 and several years back. The order of schools is almost always the same, and it ends this whole dumb Duke vs. Berkeley trolling.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... kings.html

They're both great schools. Now move on.

Trying to stay out of this argument, but did you just use peer assessment in a conversation about lay prestige?

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Wow how many pages of the same shittt?

Duke is probably more prestigious than any of the UC's. End of freaking story. Look at UG rankings and shut the fuck up already

That's what I'm saying! Berkeley is ranked better for UG in both the U.S. and globally. It's over. Done. No more discussion about how "that's includes research" (of course it should!) or "well that's just the peer assessment specifically for law school" or other trolling comments.

Duke > Berkley in UG though: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... iversities

Duke > Berkley in LS too: https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-sc ... int=a1d108

Duke > Berkley in big law: https://www.lstreports.com/compare/duke/berkeley/

Berkley > Duke in underemployment rate: https://www.lstreports.com/compare/duke/berkeley/

Lay prestige? Who cares what lay people think about law school. If a person didn't go to law school, I could care less about their opinion about law school prestige.

Global rankings? Another garbage nonsense and a useless metric. I grew up and live "abroad" and I can tell you Harvard is literally the only American school (UG & LS since the name elevates it) that will wow people abroad. It occupies a spot of its own. Not even Yale elicits the same "reaction" that Harvard does. And I know many an international lawyer. To international lawyers in the region I live in (lawyers not educated in the US), there's "Harvard", then there's "everyone else". How ever they rank everyone else is just dependent on their familiarity with the school, anecdotal knowledge, etc., because most of them don't consult US news rankings since they rarely hire American lawyers (British lawyers are more favored here).

Which brings us back to the original argument, I don't think there's doubt that Duke > Berkley in U.S. legal circles & firm hiring circles. Fed Clerkships might give the edge to Berkeley though (according to LST).

The absurd thing is that this debate is strictly about lay prestige, not about the strength of their law programs.

edit: I lived in the bay for a while, and Cal's law program is generally considered far superior to its UG. A lot of my friends from high school went to Berkeley undergrad, and while it's considered a fantastic school, people weren't necessarily awed by it. Boalt is really prestigious in the bay (and Californi generally) though.

If you think that's absurd why take part in the conversation, sorry the concept of a scope of argument is too much

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Why does Gonzaga have a law school?

They're just following the Duke formula: Top-tier basketball team + mediocre academic reputation = why not have a law school?

I bet they crush in March Madness

[mjb447]

I don't think the international rankings should be a factor in measuring lay prestige. However, they are not "garbage" or "dogshit" as some posters have referred to them. They merely take into account factors that are not generally associated with lay prestige, such as grad school strength and research output.

The way I see it is that US News rankings are the only ones that matter because US employers care about them.

What are you talking about? US law firms don't care about the USNWR law school rankings. Aside from folks like me who troll law school boards, practicing lawyers are generally unaware of year-to-year fluctuations in the rankings. The rankings are not a factor in hiring decisions.

Notice that I didn't say fluctuations in US News rankings.. What I meant is firms generally care/know where schools "rank." I dont see how school rank doesn't dictate hiring decisions when the T13 consistently places its students in big law firms in droves whereas the rest of the schools cannot? Is in this a product of the ranking of these schools?

I think firms care. Not in a sense that it's like, "Oh, they went to ___, and it's ranked ___. Let's hire them," but more in a sense that they believe they can rely on top law schools to groom quality (see also: capable/competent) attorneys and therefore, are more inclined to hire graduates from those schools.

I agree, but this bit about the top law schools grooming quality: where does that perception (deserved or undeserved) come from? It's gotta come from the rankings to an extent

Meh, I'd say it's more about the students they're known to attract. Presumably, in order to get into a top school, you have to be intelligent and expected to excel in law school. This gets into a kind of "What came first: the chicken or the egg?" kind of thing because one could argue that top schools are top schools due to the students that choose to attend them who are maybe more likely to excel OR one could argue that students who are maybe more likely to excel attend these schools BECAUSE they're top schools.

Yeah, there was a time before the rankings, and I'm pretty sure Yale, Harvard, etc. did better than most other schools then, too.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Wow how many pages of the same shittt?

Duke is probably more prestigious than any of the UC's. End of freaking story. Look at UG rankings and shut the fuck up already

That's what I'm saying! Berkeley is ranked better for UG in both the U.S. and globally. It's over. Done. No more discussion about how "that's includes research" (of course it should!) or "well that's just the peer assessment specifically for law school" or other trolling comments.

Duke > Berkley in UG though: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... iversities

Duke > Berkley in LS too: https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-sc ... int=a1d108

Duke > Berkley in big law: https://www.lstreports.com/compare/duke/berkeley/

Berkley > Duke in underemployment rate: https://www.lstreports.com/compare/duke/berkeley/

Lay prestige? Who cares what lay people think about law school. If a person didn't go to law school, I could care less about their opinion about law school prestige.

Global rankings? Another garbage nonsense and a useless metric. I grew up and live "abroad" and I can tell you Harvard is literally the only American school (UG & LS since the name elevates it) that will wow people abroad. It occupies a spot of its own. Not even Yale elicits the same "reaction" that Harvard does. And I know many an international lawyer. To international lawyers in the region I live in (lawyers not educated in the US), there's "Harvard", then there's "everyone else". How ever they rank everyone else is just dependent on their familiarity with the school, anecdotal knowledge, etc., because most of them don't consult US news rankings since they rarely hire American lawyers (British lawyers are more favored here).

Which brings us back to the original argument, I don't think there's doubt that Duke > Berkley in U.S. legal circles & firm hiring circles. Fed Clerkships might give the edge to Berkeley though (according to LST).

Berkeley wins in professional prestige. Berkeley > Dukey in peer assessment used in law school rankings for the last 7 years and beyond = what judges, deans, and hiring partners think.

Berkeley wins in quality of undergrad in U.S. and globally. Berkeley > Dukey in Times Higher Education national and global rankings.

Berkeley wins in law school rankings. Berkeley > Dukey in USNWR law school rankings when looked at within the past decade (Berkeley ranging from 6th to 13th but mostly 8th; Dukey ranging 8th to 13th but mostly 11th or so). Berkeley > Dukey consistently in other law school rankings globally, https://www.topuniversities.com/univers ... hools-2016

The few things Dukey wins is USNWR undergrad rankings because they take into account how much money the school has and shit that doesn't necessarily translate into quality school, and basketball. But when you focus on research, grad programs, reputation, etc as other ranking do, Berkeley is on another level.

[Hikikomorist]

Money (both total and per student) and input variables are really the only factors that should be used in ranking UGs.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

These arguments on prestige are getting so lazy and going way outside the original scope of the arguments.

Are we really using average usnwr rankings over x years? Or the peer review assessment (an input to those average rankings) to discuss lay prestige?

Can we all just stop

[LurkerTurnedMember]

These arguments on prestige are getting so lazy and going way outside the original scope of the arguments.

Are we really using average usnwr rankings over x years? Or the peer review assessment (an input to those average rankings) to discuss lay prestige?

Can we all just stop

Yes. Let's stop. I don't even go to Berkeley so I'm tired of defending it and am realizing the pro-Duke people were likely trolling this whole time.

[rpupkin]

Notice that I didn't say fluctuations in US News rankings.. What I meant is firms generally care/know where schools "rank." I dont see how school rank doesn't dictate hiring decisions when the T13 consistently places its students in big law firms in droves whereas the rest of the schools cannot?

Yikes. LSAC could use your posts as material for Logical Reasoning LSAT questions.

[star fox]

Hikko - I was thinking about this and you're my go to guy on these sorts of things. What is the cutoff for what constitutes a prestigious undergrad?

[Moneytrees]

Hikko - I was thinking about this and you're my go to guy on these sorts of things. What is the cutoff for what constitutes a prestigious undergrad?

Also you should tell us where you went for full disclosure.

[goldenbear2020]

Hikko - I was thinking about this and you're my go to guy on these sorts of things. What is the cutoff for what constitutes a prestigious undergrad?

your own undergrad, of course

[Hikikomorist]

Hikko - I was thinking about this and you're my go to guy on these sorts of things. What is the cutoff for what constitutes a prestigious undergrad?

National Universities
Tier 1: PSYCHM
Tier 2: Columbia, Chicago, Duke, Penn, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, Brown, Rice
Tier 3: WUSTL, Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, NYU, Notre Dame, Emory, Berkeley, Tufts, Carnegie Mellon, UVA, Michigan, Boston College, USC, UCLA

Just a rough outline. Order within tiers not super precise. Personal preference would be slightly different in some cases. Open to disagreement/suggestions.

[Rigo]

Where do prestigious LAC's factor into your rankings Hikko?
Nevermind. I don't know why I'm engaging with this topic.