2018 USNWR Rankings Forum

[Keilz]

yo can we talk about Rutgers going up THIRTY spots?

[Litt1tUp]

Best thread I have ever read on TLS in my short time here lol.

*immediately starts looking at different career paths*

[rpupkin]

yo can we talk about Rutgers going up THIRTY spots?

Absolutely. It's a game changer. Once a school gets momentum from that kind of jump, it's hard to stop it. Does anyone want to hazard a guess at to Rutgers's new ceiling? T40? T35? Maybe even T30?

[PrezRand]

Best thread I have ever read on TLS in my short time here lol.

*immediately starts looking at different career paths*

Do you own a Get Lit cup?

[Rubbishdump]

Damn, I knew GTown fell below UT, but I overlooked that they tied with UCLA. Someone is probably getting fired

[rpupkin]

Also, if we're going to discuss Rutgers meteoric rise, I think it's only fair to consider this as well:

139) U Maine (-28)

LOL. Why is Maine still a state? We should demote it to territory status until it improves its weather and law-school-admissions standards.

[Litt1tUp]

Best thread I have ever read on TLS in my short time here lol.

*immediately starts looking at different career paths*

Do you own a Get Lit cup?

I'm afraid to answer lol but yes I do!

[Keilz]

yo can we talk about Rutgers going up THIRTY spots?

Absolutely. It's a game changer. Once a school gets momentum from that kind of jump, it's hard to stop it. Does anyone want to hazard a guess at to Rutgers's new ceiling? T40? T35? Maybe even T30?

I wonder if it's due to the fact that they combined resources between Newark and Camden. Lol worst places in the state for livability.

They were like 80 or so 2-3 years back but dropped last year. Don't see them going much higher than where they are.

[rpupkin]

Damn, I knew GTown fell below UT, but I overlooked that they tied with UCLA. Someone is probably getting fired

Here's #10-15 of the original USNWR rankings in 1987:

10. Penn
11. UT
12. Duke
13. GULC
14. UCLA
15. Cornell

UT has been at #14 a couple of other times as well. Very occasionally, the deep state falls asleep and lets UT sneak into the T14. Folks panic and realize that the very concept of legal prestige is meaningless if UT is permitted to be part of an elite group, and the school is then quickly demoted to "regional" status the following year. Remember, you can't spell "university of texas at austin" without "ttt"

[JD_Kingfish]

Georgetown University Law Center

So, that's why it's center instead of school...

[PrezRand]

Best thread I have ever read on TLS in my short time here lol.

*immediately starts looking at different career paths*

Do you own a Get Lit cup?

I'm afraid to answer lol but yes I do!

[Litt1tUp]

Best thread I have ever read on TLS in my short time here lol.

*immediately starts looking at different career paths*

Do you own a Get Lit cup?

I'm afraid to answer lol but yes I do!

[PrezRand]

Best thread I have ever read on TLS in my short time here lol.

*immediately starts looking at different career paths*

Do you own a Get Lit cup?

I'm afraid to answer lol but yes I do!

[hcss11]

I know no one really cares but Rutgers also wins for most improved. +30 spots!

Personally, I think the least surprising thing about this is Berk down 4.

This might be a dumb question but anyone have insight into why HLS dropped below SLS?

This is why:

http://time.com/4696360/harvard-law-school-gre-lsat/

[Kinch08]

My contention is that we should stop emphasizing the importance of rankings. Texas students should not spend a load of money to attend A&M simply because it is "up and coming" in a magazine. It is pretty obvious that the rankings can be gamed (UCI's meteoric rise is the best example of that).

Is spending a ton of money on scholarships to attract good students and a bunch of money on professors to lower class sizes really "gaming the system"? To me, it sounds like they're making their law school better. I think it'd be more of a problem if you couldn't change your ranking by attracting good students and faculty.

[Ferrisjso]

I've been following these rankings for five years and it just seems that this year the changes were just so much more radical than normal. So many meteoric rises and falls.

[canafsa]

.

[mudiverse]

My contention is that we should stop emphasizing the importance of rankings. Texas students should not spend a load of money to attend A&M simply because it is "up and coming" in a magazine. It is pretty obvious that the rankings can be gamed (UCI's meteoric rise is the best example of that).

Is spending a ton of money on scholarships to attract good students and a bunch of money on professors to lower class sizes really "gaming the system"? To me, it sounds like they're making their law school better. I think it'd be more of a problem if you couldn't change your ranking by attracting good students and faculty.

Indeed, rankings utilize metrics that are not perfect, but they are the best proxies we have for measuring performance. People assume "gaming" the rankings is a bad thing, but raising expenditures per student, having higher standards of admission, and higher bar passage rates would never be considered a negative.

Rankings don't capture the depth or detailed information on class profile, but what mechanism could possibly capture all the information for every student? It's decent enough and it's failures are well documented. UCI and Texas are rising because they are doing well and/or their competitors are doing worse period.

[lolRCscrewyou]

Not true. I'm from California, want to practice in California, and chose Duke over Berkeley. It has been easier for me to get jobs than some of my Berkeley friends because firms see the same Berkeley attitudes all day everyday. Going to an East Coast school or mid west school is not the end all, be all rooms people who want to practice in California

TLS logic: If UT had a 70% biglaw placement, but only in Texas, it would still not be t14

I see where you're coming from, but the T14 was always about national reach as well. UT is a fantastic school but it has less national reach.

Personally, I think national reach is overexaggerated. Most t14s self-select into a certain region. It wouldn't make sense to go to Cornell, Michigan, or Duke over Berkeley if you are from Cali or want to work there. Eventually, the resources at the respected school would simply cater to the region students voluntarily select into. If UT wanted to, I believe it could easily focus more on placing students nationally over time. But yes, UT Law has less national reach.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

My contention is that we should stop emphasizing the importance of rankings. Texas students should not spend a load of money to attend A&M simply because it is "up and coming" in a magazine. It is pretty obvious that the rankings can be gamed (UCI's meteoric rise is the best example of that).

Is spending a ton of money on scholarships to attract good students and a bunch of money on professors to lower class sizes really "gaming the system"? To me, it sounds like they're making their law school better. I think it'd be more of a problem if you couldn't change your ranking by attracting good students and faculty.

Indeed, rankings utilize metrics that are not perfect, but they are the best proxies we have for measuring performance. People assume "gaming" the rankings is a bad thing, but raising expenditures per student, having higher standards of admission, and higher bar passage rates would never be considered a negative.

Rankings don't capture the depth or detailed information on class profile, but what mechanism could possibly capture all the information for every student? It's decent enough and it's failures are well documented. UCI and Texas are rising because they are doing well and/or their competitors are doing worse period.

People don't like gaming rankings because when you use the term "gaming" it implies you are doing something other than improving yourself.

The three characteristics you listed are great and should be commended. Offering fee waiver to decrease yield, increasing library size, and offering part time positions at the school to be able to list better employment are not true improvements

[OnlyHumean]

Not true. I'm from California, want to practice in California, and chose Duke over Berkeley. It has been easier for me to get jobs than some of my Berkeley friends because firms see the same Berkeley attitudes all day everyday. Going to an East Coast school or mid west school is not the end all, be all rooms people who want to practice in California

Do you think this holds true for people who aren't from California originally? Presumably that made going back to Califonia much easier than it would have been than for someone from elsewhere who chose Duke over Berkeley.

[Toni V]

yo can we talk about Rutgers going up THIRTY spots?

Have to wonder what impact this could have on their OCI attendance.

[SPerez]

My contention is that we should stop emphasizing the importance of rankings. Texas students should not spend a load of money to attend A&M simply because it is "up and coming" in a magazine. It is pretty obvious that the rankings can be gamed (UCI's meteoric rise is the best example of that).

Is spending a ton of money on scholarships to attract good students and a bunch of money on professors to lower class sizes really "gaming the system"? To me, it sounds like they're making their law school better. I think it'd be more of a problem if you couldn't change your ranking by attracting good students and faculty.

This is a totally valid, and probably under-appreciated point. I used to say the same thing about schools offering their own grads temp legal jobs back when that was still a thing. (Would you rather the school just did nothing at all to help? It wasn't ideal, but it was better than nothing as long as it wasn't answering phones or something like that.)

The question then becomes, though, whether any of those things actually make the education any better. The majority of USNWR rankings are based on inputs, and only in the last 10 years or so have people rightly focused more on outputs. The fact is that the professors teaching at and education being offered by the top schools is not really all that different than at lower ranked schools. There's actually an argument to be made that a higher percentage of professors at lower ranked schools are actually better TEACHERS than at the research-focused schools where hiring and promotion is based almost entirely on publications. There's definitely more of a focus on giving students exposure to practical skills needed to be a lawyer at regional schools, although the ABA is slowly forcing law schools to evolve on this through the accreditation standards.

[PrezRand]

Not true. I'm from California, want to practice in California, and chose Duke over Berkeley. It has been easier for me to get jobs than some of my Berkeley friends because firms see the same Berkeley attitudes all day everyday. Going to an East Coast school or mid west school is not the end all, be all rooms people who want to practice in California

TLS logic: If UT had a 70% biglaw placement, but only in Texas, it would still not be t14

I see where you're coming from, but the T14 was always about national reach as well. UT is a fantastic school but it has less national reach.

Personally, I think national reach is overexaggerated. Most t14s self-select into a certain region. It wouldn't make sense to go to Cornell, Michigan, or Duke over Berkeley if you are from Cali or want to work there. Eventually, the resources at the respected school would simply cater to the region students voluntarily select into. If UT wanted to, I believe it could easily focus more on placing students nationally over time. But yes, UT Law has less national reach.

I don't think it makes sense to pay more for Duke just because some firms in cali prefer duke to berkeley

[Kinch08]

This is a totally valid, and probably under-appreciated point. I used to say the same thing about schools offering their own grads temp legal jobs back when that was still a thing. (Would you rather the school just did nothing at all to help? It wasn't ideal, but it was better than nothing as long as it wasn't answering phones or something like that.)

The question then becomes, though, whether any of those things actually make the education any better. The majority of USNWR rankings are based on inputs, and only in the last 10 years or so have people rightly focused more on outputs. The fact is that the professors teaching at and education being offered by the top schools is not really all that different than at lower ranked schools. There's actually an argument to be made that a higher percentage of professors at lower ranked schools are actually better TEACHERS than at the research-focused schools where hiring and promotion is based almost entirely on publications. There's definitely more of a focus on giving students exposure to practical skills needed to be a lawyer at regional schools, although the ABA is slowly forcing law schools to evolve on this through the accreditation standards.

Personally, I'd rather be taught by a really brilliant legal theorist who was only an okay teacher than by a hard-working guy with a real knack for teaching who hadn't published anything noteworthy. Not because I would necessarily learn more with the one than the other, but just because, I don't know, I have a thing for scholarship, in the abstract. I think a lot of people do. My preferences will probably change once I, you know, actually go to law school, though.