Official 2010 US News Law School Rankings Forum

[hieveryone]

I'm in favor of a T20. Just sounds more normal than T14.


(yes, i know the reasoning behind T14)

[observationalist]

Yeah. It's actually pretty astounding how entrenched the T14 is. Assuming Georgetown was hurt by the PT (And I have no idea if they factored it in) they didn't get hurt the same way GW did. They're in the same spot as last year. Looking at Cornell's GPA, assuming it's not a typo..and their LSAT scores it's weird how they stills cored higher in raw points than last year. It's the area outside of T14 that shift like crazy apparently.

I still think pushing rankings that weigh historical reputation so heavily while ignoring current job placement altogether does a disservice to prospective students figuring out where to invest in a JD... it certainly benefits the legal community at large to stick with a status quo, but the rankings are supposed to be a tool for prospectives to use. Right?

And when I mention job placement I'm not talking about how last year's class of '08 did as far as being employed at graduation or 9 months out, which is what USNews looks at. The only relevant information right now is how the 2Ls did for summer placement. That information won't play into the NLJ250 placement charts until two years from now... and they will never be captured by USNews except under the "% employed category," which is basically the same for all top law schools. There's too much variability between class sizes and market preferences among these schools to know which ones have weathered the market retraction the best without seeing the information.

As such, I'm encouraging UT, UCLA, and the rest of the schools to publish employment lists for 2Ls this year. Schools that withhold this information should face a presumption of having something to hide (namely, what the bottom 1/2 of their class is doing for work). We don't know what next year will look like for placement and hopefully schools that didn't do as well this year will adapt to the changed circumstances, but we should still have some way to compare how graduates are faring ITE.

Regards,
Your T17 Troll

You may have answered this somewhere else, but how is Vandy doing this year with concern to summer placements?

See? Now you're on the right track!!

Don't have the full list yet, but lemme email Dean Workman and see when that's going to be available. We had to submit our summer information two weeks ago so at this point it's just a matter of compiling everything. The stats I was given before were that around 65% of the class received offers from OCI and that around 80% were set going into winter break. But, staying true to my relentless rant about disclosure, I'll see about getting the lists to back those up (as well as what the other 40 students ended up going with for this summer).

[Helmholtz]

I'm in favor of a T20. Just sounds more normal than T14.


(yes, i know the reasoning behind T14)

T20 changes too often. There needs to be some consistency. T18 makes more sense.

[de5igual]

I'm in favor of a T20. Just sounds more normal than T14.


(yes, i know the reasoning behind T14)

too much fluctuation for #19 and #20 (as evidenced by GW's "precipitous" drop lol)

i know the argument for T14 is that it's been 14 schools since nearly 20 years ago, but just based on that graph from a few posts up, it looks like 15-18 has remained the same for almost just as long

[hieveryone]

T18 it is, if only to make Observationalist and others happy

[Mr. Matlock]

Yeah. It's actually pretty astounding how entrenched the T14 is. Assuming Georgetown was hurt by the PT (And I have no idea if they factored it in) they didn't get hurt the same way GW did. They're in the same spot as last year. Looking at Cornell's GPA, assuming it's not a typo..and their LSAT scores it's weird how they stills cored higher in raw points than last year. It's the area outside of T14 that shift like crazy apparently.

I still think pushing rankings that weigh historical reputation so heavily while ignoring current job placement altogether does a disservice to prospective students figuring out where to invest in a JD... it certainly benefits the legal community at large to stick with a status quo, but the rankings are supposed to be a tool for prospectives to use. Right?

And when I mention job placement I'm not talking about how last year's class of '08 did as far as being employed at graduation or 9 months out, which is what USNews looks at. The only relevant information right now is how the 2Ls did for summer placement. That information won't play into the NLJ250 placement charts until two years from now... and they will never be captured by USNews except under the "% employed category," which is basically the same for all top law schools. There's too much variability between class sizes and market preferences among these schools to know which ones have weathered the market retraction the best without seeing the information.

As such, I'm encouraging UT, UCLA, and the rest of the schools to publish employment lists for 2Ls this year. Schools that withhold this information should face a presumption of having something to hide (namely, what the bottom 1/2 of their class is doing for work). We don't know what next year will look like for placement and hopefully schools that didn't do as well this year will adapt to the changed circumstances, but we should still have some way to compare how graduates are faring ITE.

Regards,
Your T17 Troll

You may have answered this somewhere else, but how is Vandy doing this year with concern to summer placements?

See? Now you're on the right track!!

Don't have the full list yet, but lemme email Dean Workman and see when that's going to be available. We had to submit our summer information two weeks ago so at this point it's just a matter of compiling everything. The stats I was given before were that around 65% of the class received offers from OCI and that around 80% were set going into winter break. But, staying true to my relentless rant about disclosure, I'll see about getting the lists to back those up (as well as what the other 40 students ended up going with for this summer).

Momma didn't raise no dummy.
Now if we could get underdawg, Sebban, Nesker... and all the other 1 and 2L's to follow suit, the site will continue to reap benefits for all!

[Helmholtz]

T18 it is, if only to make Observationalist and others happy

FTR, I just said T18 makes more sense than T20. I'm still in favor of the T14 distinction.

[rezipsa]

http://www.leveragedsellout.com/2006/08 ... bigschmaw/

[observationalist]

T18 it is, if only to make Observationalist and others happy

Observationalist not happy, observationalist have three unscheduled exams in next two weeks. Observationalist cranky.



Emailed Dean Workman, awaiting response. I also asked for any insight into why our bar passage rate was for NY instead of TN, and how we ended up with one of the worst rates out of the top 100 law schools. My guess is that we only had 20 grads take the NY bar and 4 failed (thus that nice round 80% figure, which is barely better than the state average).

[gk101]

Thanks for posting the rankings, it is of course much appreciated.

Berkeley remaining at 6th (tied with Chicago) is impressive. Dean Edley is really doing a great job on continually improving the law school. Berkeley had a lower acceptance rate than Harvard (11% for Berkeley, 12% for Harvard), showing how selective Berkeley is but that they look beyond the numbers.

It could also just be that more people applied to Berkeley than Harvard and that given their respective class sizes Berkeley was allowed to reject more. Also the notion that Berkeley looks beyond the numbers and Harvard doesn't is just silly. Both factor in numbers and softs pretty significantly, there simply is no metric to determine which one factors in 'beyond the numbers' more.

banned for berk bashing and harvard trolling

+1. There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does. I got into Berkeley with my 161 because I have a strong package overall, and Berkeley was willing to look beyond my 161 in order to see that. When I visited the Harvard admissions table at the LSAC forum prior to taking the LSAT, I asked what else I would need to do in order to get in (I explained I had been practicing in the high 160s), and they said (and I quote): "Take the LSAT and get in the 170s." That alone tells me that they couldn't care less about softs.

I hate digging up old posts for internet arguments but read the bolded part again. I fail to see how you reached the conclusion that you did based on your experience alone. It is just as likely that Harvard paid much more attention to your softs etc. than Berkeley, and then decided not to accept you because there were other more qualified applicants

[CrossingMyFingers]

Although Berkeley claims not to give a rats ass about the rankings, I'm sure everyone at Boalt is pretty happy at retaining the #6 spot.

[IzziesGal]

I hate digging up old posts for internet arguments but read the bolded part again. I fail to see how you reached the conclusion that you did based on your experience alone. It is just as likely that Harvard paid much more attention to your softs etc. than Berkeley, and then decided not to accept you because there were other more qualified applicants

You're correct in saying that I shouldn't have generalized based on my experience alone. However, I never applied to Harvard (if you're going to dig up old posts, please read them correctly). I had a chat with an admissions officer (as I said in my post), who said that all of my softs (military, work experience, academic achievement) wouldn't matter unless I could break 170. If they truly valued looking at applicants holistically, I wouldn't have been given a numbers threshold. I am sure that Harvard does evaluate softs - but it seems to occur after a certain numerical cutoff. Again, this is my experience - so take it for what you will.

[sbalive]

I'm in favor of a T20. Just sounds more normal than T14.


(yes, i know the reasoning behind T14)

too much fluctuation for #19 and #20 (as evidenced by GW's "precipitous" drop lol)

i know the argument for T14 is that it's been 14 schools since nearly 20 years ago, but just based on that graph from a few posts up, it looks like 15-18 has remained the same for almost just as long

Yes, the point is that T14 have historically been a cut above the other schools, and the Group of Three have always been a notch below the T14 but above everyone else, an USC has always been a bit below UCLA but above everyone else... and then it's the Strong State Schools - Minnesota and UNC - and recently the up and coming regional privates, Emory, WashU, along with traditionally strong regional schools like BU, BC, GW, and Fordham, along with the other Midwestern state schools mixed in - Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa.

That's the way it's pretty much been for at least 20 years. The big movers have been WashU, which has muscled into the T25, Hastings, which dropped (coinciding with Davis's rise - making total sense), and NYU which went from lower in the T14 up to the T6. Everything else is bouncing around below that.

[Mr. Matlock]

Anyone know if the released article has all of the associated data with it - such as median salary, etc...?

I'd PM OperaSoprano. I think I read somewhere that she got a copy.

[FlightoftheEarls]

I hate digging up old posts for internet arguments but read the bolded part again. I fail to see how you reached the conclusion that you did based on your experience alone. It is just as likely that Harvard paid much more attention to your softs etc. than Berkeley, and then decided not to accept you because there were other more qualified applicants

You're correct in saying that I shouldn't have generalized based on my experience alone. However, I never applied to Harvard (if you're going to dig up old posts, please read them correctly). I had a chat with an admissions officer (as I said in my post), who said that all of my softs (military, work experience, academic achievement) wouldn't matter unless I could break 170. If they truly valued looking at applicants holistically, I wouldn't have been given a numbers threshold. I am sure that Harvard does evaluate softs - but it seems to occur after a certain numerical cutoff. Again, this is my experience - so take it for what you will.

Your point is taken, but that's like saying that Berkeley doesn't look at their applicants' softs simply because you really need to get at least a 160+ to really have a chance. Just because there is a numerical cutoff doesn't necessarily mean that they look at the whole package less, just that there are other requirements necessary in addition to having softs. Berkeley isn't taking 3.3/147s with great softs - the numerical bar is just a bit higher at Harvard.

With that said, I do tend to agree that Berkeley is exceptionally holistic, I just don't follow the logic in your actual argument.

[gk101]

I hate digging up old posts for internet arguments but read the bolded part again. I fail to see how you reached the conclusion that you did based on your experience alone. It is just as likely that Harvard paid much more attention to your softs etc. than Berkeley, and then decided not to accept you because there were other more qualified applicants

You're correct in saying that I shouldn't have generalized based on my experience alone. However, I never applied to Harvard (if you're going to dig up old posts, please read them correctly). I had a chat with an admissions officer (as I said in my post), who said that all of my softs (military, work experience, academic achievement) wouldn't matter unless I could break 170. If they truly valued looking at applicants holistically, I wouldn't have been given a numbers threshold. I am sure that Harvard does evaluate softs - but it seems to occur after a certain numerical cutoff. Again, this is my experience - so take it for what you will.

I guess I didn't articulate my point well enough. It doesn't matter whether you in particular applied to Harvard or not. The point was that a Harvard rejection with a Berkeley acceptance does not in itself prove or even support the claim that Berkeley cares more about softs than Harvard. It sucks that you had a bad experience with an admissions officer, but there have been people admitted to Harvard with below 170 score and incredible softs. Also, there is no way to tell that the people with 170+ scores and high GPA's also don't have incredible softs of similar caliber to those admitted at Berkeley.

Congrats on the berkeley acceptance though!

[OperaSoprano]

I do have a copy of the magazine, if anyone needs clarification. I'm still feeling a bit guilty that I fed the rankings monster.

[IzziesGal]

I hate digging up old posts for internet arguments but read the bolded part again. I fail to see how you reached the conclusion that you did based on your experience alone. It is just as likely that Harvard paid much more attention to your softs etc. than Berkeley, and then decided not to accept you because there were other more qualified applicants

You're correct in saying that I shouldn't have generalized based on my experience alone. However, I never applied to Harvard (if you're going to dig up old posts, please read them correctly). I had a chat with an admissions officer (as I said in my post), who said that all of my softs (military, work experience, academic achievement) wouldn't matter unless I could break 170. If they truly valued looking at applicants holistically, I wouldn't have been given a numbers threshold. I am sure that Harvard does evaluate softs - but it seems to occur after a certain numerical cutoff. Again, this is my experience - so take it for what you will.

I guess I didn't articulate my point well enough. It doesn't matter whether you in particular applied to Harvard or not. The point was that a Harvard rejection with a Berkeley acceptance does not in itself prove or even support the claim that Berkeley cares more about softs than Harvard. It sucks that you had a bad experience with an admissions officer, but there have been people admitted to Harvard with below 170 score and incredible softs. Also, there is no way to tell that the people with 170+ scores and high GPA's also don't have incredible softs of similar caliber to those admitted at Berkeley.

Congrats on the berkeley acceptance though!

My point is that hearing it straight from an admissions officer's mouth is pretty telling. Being told that you won't even be considered unless you cross an LSAT threshold by an actual admissions officer seems to support the theory that Harvard looks at applicants less holistically than other law schools. Thanks for the congrats on the acceptance lol....

[Mr. Matlock]

I do have a copy of the magazine, if anyone needs clarification. I'm still feeling a bit guilty that I fed the rankings monster.

Guilty??????????

Come on now! YOU ARE LITERALLY AN INTERNET GODDESS!!!!!

Take a few days to bask in the glory! After that, then you can look in your rear-view mirror to see the shit-storm you stirred up.

[kimber1028]

I do have a copy of the magazine, if anyone needs clarification. I'm still feeling a bit guilty that I fed the rankings monster.

Don't feel guilty; you're legendary!

[sbalive]

Well, I'm mostly just impressed that on the basis of my personal statement, resume, and rec letters, Berkeley was able to discover the emptiness of my soul and unworthiness to be a lawyer. A lot of other law schools missed out by not using holistic review practices.

[IzziesGal]

I do have a copy of the magazine, if anyone needs clarification. I'm still feeling a bit guilty that I fed the rankings monster.

Seriously, you will go down in message board history.

[CrossingMyFingers]

Any idea on the longevity of the schools rankings? Which schools have just temporarily shifted and which schools have really improved themselves according to the USNWR methodology?

[FlightoftheEarls]

It's too bad we can't give weight anymore - Opera would be off the charts right now.

What a minx.

[USC2009]

Tremendous showing for USD. Almost enough to make me wonder if it will be T1 eventually. That wouldn't shock me: It's the best law school in one of the 10 largest cities in the US (and probably the coolest city in the US at that), so there is plenty of demand for the service they provide.

I wonder where SD ranks in terms of legal market size though. I love SD and would definitely go there if the job opportunities were right.