Which school do you think most frauded the rankings? Forum

[jarofsoup]

I have a hard time believing that ASU outpaced university of arizona. And also the major jump Davis took in the ranking and the major dive hastings took.


Its going to make next years cycle super competitive. All of these schools that loss rank are going to try to regain it and all the schools that gained rank are going to try to maintain it.

[TheBigMediocre]

I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but please tell me someone has mentioned by now that frauded isn't a word?

Fraud can't be a verb.

[General Tso]

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

[cLams]

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

Does anyone think its a little weird that ASU is reporting 99.7% employment 9 months after graduation? One of their best numbers EVER, in the midst of a financial crisis. Seems a bit sketch.

[somewhatwayward]

Do people really think GW 'frauded' the rankings that much? If you look over the years and not just at last year, GW is ALWAYS right around the #20 spot. A double-digit improvement seems much more suspect than a return to your fairly well-cemented position.

Especially considering that GW cut the pt program to a third of its previous size, and the employment #s improved, there seems to be a colorable argument that this is not the result of gaming on the part of the GW administration. Then again, perhaps I am letting my school allegiance get the best of me.

heh, i was about to reply and ask if you went to GW before i read the last sentence....

cutting the PT program to one third its original size is gaming the numbers bc they just started counting PT LSATs and GPAs in the medians for the rankings. cutting the PT program can also improve employment statistics, if the PT program is less strong as a whole.

edit: i don't have a beef with GW; it's a good school

[honestabe84]

Missouri

[OperaSoprano]

You guys have hit on the main problem with these numbers: they're self reported, and there is no policing. Furthermore, schools do not have to report the percentage of their students who responded. UC Davis could be basing that number off 80% of the graduating class, for all we know, unless the school website states the percentage who responded. This is the key number to know. My school has close to 99% of graduates reporting their whereabouts, and 93% reporting salary (this rises to around 96% for private sector grads), which means the numbers Fordham submits are reflective of reality. Schools that do this absolutely get penalized, because there is nothing to stop them from not aggressively tracking down graduates whom they know to be un or underemployed.

Last year, BLS got away with simply neglecting to mention its PT program. We need accountability, and we need it badly.

[TTH]

That Hofstra is not third tier is criminal.

That UGA and Wisconsin are now ranked higher than Ohio State is also criminal.

[sanpiero]

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

Does anyone think its a little weird that ASU is reporting 99.7% employment 9 months after graduation? One of their best numbers EVER, in the midst of a financial crisis. Seems a bit sketch.

It was for the class of 2008, so many of those students likely found jobs pre-ITE. Also, I'm not sure, but I think the figure represents legal and non-legal employment. For instance, 11% of the class of 2007 were reported as being employed in "business." I suspect the majority of those individuals were not employed in-house but in some other business, i.e. non-legal, capacity.

[OperaSoprano]

Do people really think GW 'frauded' the rankings that much? If you look over the years and not just at last year, GW is ALWAYS right around the #20 spot. A double-digit improvement seems much more suspect than a return to your fairly well-cemented position.

Especially considering that GW cut the pt program to a third of its previous size, and the employment #s improved, there seems to be a colorable argument that this is not the result of gaming on the part of the GW administration. Then again, perhaps I am letting my school allegiance get the best of me.

heh, i was about to reply and ask if you went to GW before i read the last sentence....

cutting the PT program to one third its original size is gaming the numbers bc they just started counting PT LSATs and GPAs in the medians for the rankings. cutting the PT program can also improve employment statistics, if the PT program is less strong as a whole.

edit: i don't have a beef with GW; it's a good school

Yes, we know what they did. Fordham may not have a choice about following suit, though I'm glad the school didn't decide to gut the PT program this past year. It is ironic that a change meant to be beneficial to PT applicants has had this effect.

[jmhendri]

Incidentally, although I loved W&L when I visited and it's probably going to be my school... I did hear something troubling which relates to schools that fudge employment numbers. I ran into an '09 grad who was in town for the weekend. He finished with Latin honors and had a great job lined up in new york when the school counted him amongst their employed ranks. A few months after the economy crashed his offer was rescinded and now he is stuck practically unemployed (doing non profit work with no salary) and his loans piling up. The career planning office won't help him because they need to devote their resources to current students. He was pretty pissed at the school...

I wonder how many grads there are out there who had their offers rescinded but who were still counted as employed by the school at the time of graduation.

[epyon]

Davis.

[WhatTheLawSchool]

I voted Loyola, mostly because of this: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/loyola-l ... es-grades/

I turned down a huge scholarship from LLS and I would do it again. Every time.

Thanks, I need all the ammo I can get to ensure to myself that I've made the right decision in turning down the LLS scholarship. Ugh. Really, I don't care about rankings. I just want a GOOD job. If the law firms etc. cared about the rankings a great deal, I'd care more. As it is, I don't think a difference of 10 or 20 rankings is going to make much difference if I'm showing that I'm capable of working my tail off. (Provided the difference isn't between top 14 and 30+.)

K, see ya.

P.S. I don't have a tail. Figure of speech.

[ram jam]

South Carolina, they should be audited!

[Always Credited]

Do people really think GW 'frauded' the rankings that much? If you look over the years and not just at last year, GW is ALWAYS right around the #20 spot. A double-digit improvement seems much more suspect than a return to your fairly well-cemented position.

Especially considering that GW cut the pt program to a third of its previous size, and the employment #s improved, there seems to be a colorable argument that this is not the result of gaming on the part of the GW administration. Then again, perhaps I am letting my school allegiance get the best of me.

heh, i was about to reply and ask if you went to GW before i read the last sentence....

cutting the PT program to one third its original size is gaming the numbers bc they just started counting PT LSATs and GPAs in the medians for the rankings. cutting the PT program can also improve employment statistics, if the PT program is less strong as a whole.

edit: i don't have a beef with GW; it's a good school

Yes, we know what they did. Fordham may not have a choice about following suit, though I'm glad the school didn't decide to gut the PT program this past year. It is ironic that a change meant to be beneficial to PT applicants has had this effect.

IMO counting reactive decisions as "gaming the rankings" is taking it too far; to do so is to consider EVERY action a school takes as "gaming the rankings". The only true "gaming" done is fudged reporting.

Cutting of PT Programs? Not gaming.
Spending of donation money? Not gaming.
Employing students who otherwise wouldn't be employed? Not gaming.

You choose to examine more closely the reported statistics, or you don't. That isn't USNWR's job. That's your job. If you think something looks funky, EXAMINE IT. If Davis employed several students in the library because they wouldn't have had a job otherwise and then reported them as non-legal sector employment...whats the problem? If those students are reported as Private sector Firm jobs making $95,000, don't go to Davis. If the information isn't clearly presented, go to any lengths you have to in order to find the fuck out. If you get your panties in a bundle because you personally expect all reported employment to fall into the same criteria, that's your problem.

C'mon people. Really.

[erniesto]

Yale.

+1

Rampant grade inflation.

[jmhendri]

An action done solely to affect the USNWR is gaming the numbers. Spending donation money and employing students can be considered things that the administration truly believes will improve the quality of the school, but it's difficult to argue that reacting the the new USNWR methodology by gutting a part time program is done to improve student prospects.

[arhmcpo]

Any school whose employment rate is ridiculously high, or higher than schools unanimously thought to be their superior (Davis> Boalt)
Since employment numbers are the easiest factor to "game" (I think this is a universally accepted notion) you should look to how realistic the employment stats are to determine how much a school likely fudged their numbers. I think its a crime that schools like Fordham are penalized for being thorough and providing the most accurate numbers possible.

I'm looking at you Davis, ASU, Chapman...

[Always Credited]

An action done solely to affect the USNWR is gaming the numbers. Spending donation money and employing students can be considered things that the administration truly believes will improve the quality of the school, but it's difficult to argue that reacting the the new USNWR methodology by gutting a part time program is done to improve student prospects.

Prove that any action done is done solely to affect the USNWR rankings. Gutting a PT program that you weren't able to properly employ, and thus screwing those students out of potentially $200,000, is saving future students from those problems while at the same time improving your schools reputation.

If you COULD completely employ your entire PT program, it'd be fully beneficial to everyone and therefore there wouldn't be a reason to cut it.

[jmhendri]

An action done solely to affect the USNWR is gaming the numbers. Spending donation money and employing students can be considered things that the administration truly believes will improve the quality of the school, but it's difficult to argue that reacting the the new USNWR methodology by gutting a part time program is done to improve student prospects.

Prove that any action done is done solely to affect the USNWR rankings. Gutting a PT program that you weren't able to properly employ, and thus screwing those students out of potentially $200,000, is saving future students from those problems while at the same time improving your schools reputation.

If you COULD completely employ your entire PT program, it'd be fully beneficial to everyone and therefore there wouldn't be a reason to cut it.

The fact that this was done the year after they dropped 8 spots specifically due to the factoring in of PT students, in my eyes, makes that reasoning highly unlikely.

[IAFG]

RANKINGS CHANGES DON'T EFFECT YOUR EMPLOYABILITY

[RonArtest]

we're most frauded by the rankings.

[erniesto]

You guys have hit on the main problem with these numbers: they're self reported, and there is no policing. Furthermore, schools do not have to report the percentage of their students who responded. UC Davis could be basing that number off 80% of the graduating class, for all we know, unless the school website states the percentage who responded. This is the key number to know. My school has close to 99% of graduates reporting their whereabouts, and 93% reporting salary (this rises to around 96% for private sector grads), which means the numbers Fordham submits are reflective of reality. Schools that do this absolutely get penalized, because there is nothing to stop them from not aggressively tracking down graduates whom they know to be un or underemployed.

Last year, BLS got away with simply neglecting to mention its PT program. We need accountability, and we need it badly.

So Fordham says. Until you have independent verification of school employment info I wouldn't believe a single thing any school puts out there right now.

I'm not so certain that Fordham didn't gut their PT program. I'll be interested to see if the total enrollment will be the same for this year, given their PT numbers could easily equal full scholarships for a full time program at other schools.

Regardless, Fordham didn't fall in the rankings, NYC did. Unless BLS gamed the rankings again (and which school doesn't) it looks like their PT program didn't dent their ranking too terribly. And what happened to Cardozo? I thought it was on the up and up.

[General Tso]

Davis' 2010 rankings employed at graduation = 97%
Davis' 2009 rankings employed at graduation = 86%
Davis' 2007 rankings employed at graduation = 78%

So as the economy gets worse, DAVIS GETS BETTER

Does anyone think its a little weird that ASU is reporting 99.7% employment 9 months after graduation? One of their best numbers EVER, in the midst of a financial crisis. Seems a bit sketch.

It was for the class of 2008, so many of those students likely found jobs pre-ITE. Also, I'm not sure, but I think the figure represents legal and non-legal employment. For instance, 11% of the class of 2007 were reported as being employed in "business." I suspect the majority of those individuals were not employed in-house but in some other business, i.e. non-legal, capacity.

That's fine, but the economy was already weakening by 2008. At best the economy from 2006-2008 was roughly the same, ie. NOT IMPROVING. So what accounts for the VAST IMPROVEMENT shown by Davis over that time period? Did employers suddenly start shitting their pants for Davis grads for no apparent reason? To claim that Davis grads are employed at higher rates than Boalt is just too big of a stretch to be believed.

[Always Credited]

An action done solely to affect the USNWR is gaming the numbers. Spending donation money and employing students can be considered things that the administration truly believes will improve the quality of the school, but it's difficult to argue that reacting the the new USNWR methodology by gutting a part time program is done to improve student prospects.

Prove that any action done is done solely to affect the USNWR rankings. Gutting a PT program that you weren't able to properly employ, and thus screwing those students out of potentially $200,000, is saving future students from those problems while at the same time improving your schools reputation.

If you COULD completely employ your entire PT program, it'd be fully beneficial to everyone and therefore there wouldn't be a reason to cut it.

The fact that this was done the year after they dropped 8 spots specifically due to the factoring in of PT students, in my eyes, makes that reasoning highly unlikely.

"They"? I assume you mean GW, then...which I never mentioned. If you want to irrationally gun after GW, that's your own prerogative. But you've provided nothing other than blanket statements and guesswork to show that changes to a law program = gaming the rankings.

In the case of GW, yeah, the PT change was made as USNWR methodology changed. But the economy was also beginning to change at the same time. If GW's PT program was strong, then it wouldn't have caused a USNWR drop. If the PT program was weak enough for whatever reason to cause a drop, it's weak enough to cut.

Correlation =/= causation.