2015 USNWR T25 Prediction Contest (Winners Announced) Forum

[johnnyquest]

Employment statistics are from 2012.

[lhanvt13]

Whoops replied to the wrong post

[johnnyquest]

^ w&l as well. Please

W&L:
Total number of graduates 130
Employed at graduation 2 34.6%
Employed 9 months after graduation 2 56.9%

[BankruptMe]

^ w&l as well. Please

W&L:
Total number of graduates 130
Employed at graduation 2 34.6%
Employed 9 months after graduation 2 56.9%

Jesus, and that is just employment, or full time legal employment?

[evanwilliamsgreen]

I thought they used class of 2013 employments stats for these rankings? WUSTL's are from 2012.

[Tiago Splitter]

I thought they used class of 2013 employments stats for these rankings? WUSTL's are from 2012.

2013 employment stats aren't out yet

[cron1834]

By "my subscription ran out" I mean the guy that gave me his account info on TLS for last years rankings needs to renew his subscription (whoever you are).

[evanwilliamsgreen]

I thought they used class of 2013 employments stats for these rankings? WUSTL's are from 2012.

2013 employment stats aren't out yet

Yeah I know that. I figured us news had access to them and used them in the most recent rankings since people were asking for them. Anyone can goto LST and get class of 2012 stats now for free.

Another huge flaw these rankings. They should just wait another month to release them to give a more accurate snapshot of the schools at this moment. (to the extent that these rankings are accurate at all)

[lhanvt13]

^ w&l as well. Please

W&L:
Total number of graduates 130
Employed at graduation 2 34.6%
Employed 9 months after graduation 2 56.9%

Jesus, and that is just employment, or full time legal employment?

Ah sweet if this is 2012, should a bit better according to administration's damage control email

[minnbills]

32% employed at graduation is actually pretty good. 52% nine months out is atrocious though.

[lhanvt13]

32% employed at graduation is actually pretty good. 52% nine months out is atrocious though.

Eh, I think both are atrocious. Hopefully April 1st has a better showing

[Hipster but Athletic]

So I think I probably won this contest.

[BankruptMe]

32% employed at graduation is actually pretty good. 52% nine months out is atrocious though.

Eh, I think both are atrocious. Hopefully April 1st has a better showing

Look to your left, look to your right....only one of you will be employed at graduation.

At ASW, when you are all in a room, you can say wow. only half of us will have a job 9 months after graduation.

Let the throat cutting begin!

[HorseThief]

For those interested, I've put a few charts together. I wanted to link them, but the images are huge and I can't get the bbcode to resize them. So I only have links to offer

Here are graphs showing ranking movement over the last 6 years.

Here's a googledoc with all of the data, as well as a visualization of this year's movement (similar to what I did before with GPA/LSAT movement).

[lawschool22]

For those interested, I've put a few charts together. I wanted to link them, but the images are huge and I can't get the bbcode to resize them. So I only have links to offer

Here are graphs showing ranking movement over the last 6 years.

Here's a googledoc with all of the data, as well as a visualization of this year's movement (similar to what I did before with GPA/LSAT movement).

And that should show people why rankings outside the T14 (other than a few cases like Vandy, UT, etc) have absolutely no correlation to really anything. School 30 and school 50 tells you nothing. Those graphs are all over the place!

[04102014]

For those interested, I've put a few charts together. I wanted to link them, but the images are huge and I can't get the bbcode to resize them. So I only have links to offer

Here are graphs showing ranking movement over the last 6 years.

Here's a googledoc with all of the data, as well as a visualization of this year's movement (similar to what I did before with GPA/LSAT movement).

And that should show people why rankings outside the T14 (other than a few cases like Vandyke, UT, etc) have absolutely no correlation to really anything. School 30 and school 50 tells you nothing. Those graphs are all over the place!

It's amazing how consistent the T14s seem comparatively.

[esrom55]

For those interested, I've put a few charts together. I wanted to link them, but the images are huge and I can't get the bbcode to resize them. So I only have links to offer

Here are graphs showing ranking movement over the last 6 years.

Here's a googledoc with all of the data, as well as a visualization of this year's movement (similar to what I did before with GPA/LSAT movement).

And that should show people why rankings outside the T14 (other than a few cases like Vandy, UT, etc) have absolutely no correlation to really anything. School 30 and school 50 tells you nothing. Those graphs are all over the place!

I certainly don't want to come across as defending the US News rankings, and I think there's certainly an argument about the utility and proper way to use the rankings. But I'm not sure I agree with your point about what the rankings tell us. I'd argue that the rankings are possibly more representative of actual conditions outside the T14 than in it, and that the high variability lower in the rankings is more likely to reflect actual changes from the law school.

Based on my limited knowledge of the rankings, the major components that are taken into account include school reputation (40%; judged by surveys from peers and judges), selectivity data (25%; lsat and gpa), and employment outcomes (20%). Obviously theres a bunch of stupid things in there like library metrics, etc., but I'll discount those for now (5% of total rankings).

The key here is I'd be surprised if the year-to -year variability of any schools' reputation changes that substantially. Obviously, over the long term, this is something that can change, but not wildly between 2012 and 2013 for example. So the reputation score is essentially acting as a year-to-year smoothing effect. The magnitude of the reputation increases how much smoothing it will have. So, unless there is an unlikely substantial shift in the reputation of a T14, it is inherently buffered against wild swings.

As you move further down the rankings, the degree of this buffer differs. If you have a reputation score near the bottom, you have no buffer. So the proportional importance of the other factors becomes more important. Which is why these wild swings are more evident lower down. Year-to-year variability in selectivity data (a 1 or 2 point jump on LSAT?) and certainly in employment data are going to factor more into the impact it has on a school's rankings.

The opposite of this could also be argued, that a move within the T14 is actually more impressive because an increase in these selectivity and outcome factors had to outweigh the buffering provided by the reputation score. But for the lower ranked schools, I think the jumps are actually more representative of the true measurables identified in the rankings. Furthermore, looking at what might be driving those changes could be indicative of underlying positive or negative drivers.

[bjsesq]

I think we can all agree that the latest US News rankings for law schools CHANGES EVERYTHING.

[yossarian]

For those interested, I've put a few charts together. I wanted to link them, but the images are huge and I can't get the bbcode to resize them. So I only have links to offer

Here are graphs showing ranking movement over the last 6 years.

Here's a googledoc with all of the data, as well as a visualization of this year's movement (similar to what I did before with GPA/LSAT movement).

And that should show people why rankings outside the T14 (other than a few cases like Vandy, UT, etc) have absolutely no correlation to really anything. School 30 and school 50 tells you nothing. Those graphs are all over the place!

I certainly don't want to come across as defending the US News rankings, and I think there's certainly an argument about the utility and proper way to use the rankings. But I'm not sure I agree with your point about what the rankings tell us. I'd argue that the rankings are possibly more representative of actual conditions outside the T14 than in it, and that the high variability lower in the rankings is more likely to reflect actual changes from the law school.

Based on my limited knowledge of the rankings, the major components that are taken into account include school reputation (40%; judged by surveys from peers and judges), selectivity data (25%; lsat and gpa), and employment outcomes (20%). Obviously theres a bunch of stupid things in there like library metrics, etc., but I'll discount those for now (5% of total rankings).

The key here is I'd be surprised if the year-to -year variability of any schools' reputation changes that substantially. Obviously, over the long term, this is something that can change, but not wildly between 2012 and 2013 for example. So the reputation score is essentially acting as a year-to-year smoothing effect. The magnitude of the reputation increases how much smoothing it will have. So, unless there is an unlikely substantial shift in the reputation of a T14, it is inherently buffered against wild swings.

As you move further down the rankings, the degree of this buffer differs. If you have a reputation score near the bottom, you have no buffer. So the proportional importance of the other factors becomes more important. Which is why these wild swings are more evident lower down. Year-to-year variability in selectivity data (a 1 or 2 point jump on LSAT?) and certainly in employment data are going to factor more into the impact it has on a school's rankings.

The opposite of this could also be argued, that a move within the T14 is actually more impressive because an increase in these selectivity and outcome factors had to outweigh the buffering provided by the reputation score. But for the lower ranked schools, I think the jumps are actually more representative of the true measurables identified in the rankings. Furthermore, looking at what might be driving those changes could be indicative of underlying positive or negative drivers.

I think this analysis is interesting and generally correctish, but...

Even with reputation as smoothing, employment is only 20% while other factors (selectivity/$ per student/library/etc) account for 40%. So, the ups and downs aren't representative of employment changes necessarily.

Because all these schools are regionals, employment is unlikely to change much due to rankings. So, even if you're right in the USNWR reflecting actual changes in schools, it probably does not reflect actual changes in outcomes/indebtedness making them generally useless.

[lawschool22]

For those interested, I've put a few charts together. I wanted to link them, but the images are huge and I can't get the bbcode to resize them. So I only have links to offer

Here are graphs showing ranking movement over the last 6 years.

Here's a googledoc with all of the data, as well as a visualization of this year's movement (similar to what I did before with GPA/LSAT movement).

And that should show people why rankings outside the T14 (other than a few cases like Vandy, UT, etc) have absolutely no correlation to really anything. School 30 and school 50 tells you nothing. Those graphs are all over the place!

I certainly don't want to come across as defending the US News rankings, and I think there's certainly an argument about the utility and proper way to use the rankings. But I'm not sure I agree with your point about what the rankings tell us. I'd argue that the rankings are possibly more representative of actual conditions outside the T14 than in it, and that the high variability lower in the rankings is more likely to reflect actual changes from the law school.

Based on my limited knowledge of the rankings, the major components that are taken into account include school reputation (40%; judged by surveys from peers and judges), selectivity data (25%; lsat and gpa), and employment outcomes (20%). Obviously theres a bunch of stupid things in there like library metrics, etc., but I'll discount those for now (5% of total rankings).

The key here is I'd be surprised if the year-to -year variability of any schools' reputation changes that substantially. Obviously, over the long term, this is something that can change, but not wildly between 2012 and 2013 for example. So the reputation score is essentially acting as a year-to-year smoothing effect. The magnitude of the reputation increases how much smoothing it will have. So, unless there is an unlikely substantial shift in the reputation of a T14, it is inherently buffered against wild swings.

As you move further down the rankings, the degree of this buffer differs. If you have a reputation score near the bottom, you have no buffer. So the proportional importance of the other factors becomes more important. Which is why these wild swings are more evident lower down. Year-to-year variability in selectivity data (a 1 or 2 point jump on LSAT?) and certainly in employment data are going to factor more into the impact it has on a school's rankings.

The opposite of this could also be argued, that a move within the T14 is actually more impressive because an increase in these selectivity and outcome factors had to outweigh the buffering provided by the reputation score. But for the lower ranked schools, I think the jumps are actually more representative of the true measurables identified in the rankings. Furthermore, looking at what might be driving those changes could be indicative of underlying positive or negative drivers.

Well I don't think selectivity data should matter in where you choose to go to school. The only thing really is "will this school give me a reasonable shot at getting a job where I want to practice." My main point is that outside the T14 you're looking at regional schools, and so one shouldn't choose a school that's at 20 over the school that's ranked 35, on the basis of those rankings. This has always been the case, and my point is that these graphs show an additional reason why this would be stupid. Because you may choose school #20 over #35, but by the time you graduate your school could be #45. It just shows that outside the T14 rankings are merely a snapshot (and a somewhat useless snapshot at that), and putting too much stock it them is dangerous.

[Lebrarian_Booker]

Are median LSATs/GPAs out?

[jk148706]

Are median LSATs/GPAs out?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv? ... erpage=250

[Dafaq]

It's amazing how consistent the T14s seem comparatively.

Perhaps it’s mostly about sticking with the same methodology. If so then the new ATL ranking will look similar to last year.

Then there is the Forbes methodology which obviously differs, but in the end, their result just moves the usual suspects around more than the other polls. Forbes....
Columbia
Chicago
Penn
Harvard
NYU
Berkeley

[minnbills]

Harvard should really be number one. Lay prestige should be a factor.

[Lebrarian_Booker]

Harvard should really be number one. Lay prestige Le Preftige should be a factor.