US News 2017 Forum

[Cochran]

Yeah, but Berkeley isn't the only school that does that. Many other schools will reject numbers for qualities like work experience and other soft factors. Berkeley is a great school, but all of the T-14s are great schools. There is nothing that Berkeley, UVA or Michigan has accomplished within the last 5 years that makes me think they're even marginally better than Cornell, NU or Duke. I think the rankings are just numerical toss ups with very little value, that's why it sucks that they play such a prominent role to prospective students and in the industry.

Other schools reject applicants with high LSATs as well, but I think the data we have available show that Berkeley values the LSAT less than its peer schools.

I agree that the rankings can be a numerical toss up. Which is why I had a hard time with the other poster's statement that "Berkeley should improve it's median LSAT," basically implying that every school should only cater to the US News rankings and nothing else.

You're right, if Berkeley continues to churn out quality lawyers in great jobs, why the hell should a median LSAT score drop their rank? What I really don't understand is why schools, prospective students, and those within the field of law have allowed USNWR's trivial ranking to pinpoint a school's value.

Because students (and people in general) have a hard time making decisions when they must weigh several conflicting factors. The fact that a "reputable" publisher has ranked schools in an ordinal fashion assuages some of the anxiety felt by students. It's literally how humans think.

True, but there are many rankings out there that take more meaningful aspects into account. I feel it's the result of a pervasive "it's always been like that, why do something else" ideology, where it just can't be wrong. Kind of like the U.S. constitution.

[Tls2016]

I bet Berkeley drops...considering its average LSAT is now a 166.....

Berkeley is not dropping any time in the near future. It has amazing clerkship placement, and it has a great PI program as well. Also, just so you know, Berkeley's median (50th percentile) LSAT score is 166. Most law schools don't publish the average (mean) LSAT score because it isn't very valuable to prospective students.

Berkeley is a great school, but it certainly has its weaknesses. In addition to being stingy as hell, some of what you said is either misleading or also applicable to other schools. Berkeley's clerkship placement last year was great, but if you look at recent history it is, at best, on par with its peer schools and sometimes lagged behind them. One year does not a pattern make. And yes, it places well in PI, but so does Michigan, if slightly less so.

I also think that a 166 median is objectively low for a top-ten school. Berkeley can (and should) get in range with its peers.

Haha no, you clearly don't understand Berkeley.

Berkeley is one of the only schools that actually cares about factors other than numbers, and the data shows. Berkeley easily could make their median LSAT higher, but they choose not to. You can't be a rich white kid with a private tutor and just assume you'll be admitted to Berkeley. You actually have to build your resume and do things outside the classroom, in addition to having the numbers.

Most law schools will do anything to improve their USNWR rankings. Berkeley is one of the only schools that says "We'll admit the students we want to, and we don't care if we're #10 instead of #6." Saying that Berkeley should improve its LSAT median just to cater to Robert Morse is, I think, silly.

I matriculated at Berkeley and was on the student admissions committee. I think it's safe to assume I understand Berkeley better than you do. And I stand by my statement that a 166 LSAT median is unacceptably low for a top-ten school.

For one, this distinction of a "top-ten" school is pointless. Duke didn't get worse and Michigan didn't get better, they are as they have always been: part of a group of top law schools.

Secondly, how important do you think LSAT scores should be when assessing a law school's value? I get the correlation that schools with lower LSAT medians bring in lower quality students. But If the school provides the same level of elite results regarding employment, why would an LSAT median factor into their ranking?

Hasnt LSAT median always been a factor? I don't think US News is at all designed to be ranking of "elite results regarding employment." Employment is only one factor.

[pterodactyls]

True, but there are many rankings out there that take more meaningful aspects into account. I feel it's the result of a pervasive "it's always been like that, why do something else" ideology, where it just can't be wrong. Kind of like the U.S. constitution.

But if you google "best law schools" or "law school rankings" the US News rankings are the first ones to pop up. And sadly that is the most research that some people do.

[SLS_AMG]

I bet Berkeley drops...considering its average LSAT is now a 166.....

Berkeley is not dropping any time in the near future. It has amazing clerkship placement, and it has a great PI program as well. Also, just so you know, Berkeley's median (50th percentile) LSAT score is 166. Most law schools don't publish the average (mean) LSAT score because it isn't very valuable to prospective students.

Berkeley is a great school, but it certainly has its weaknesses. In addition to being stingy as hell, some of what you said is either misleading or also applicable to other schools. Berkeley's clerkship placement last year was great, but if you look at recent history it is, at best, on par with its peer schools and sometimes lagged behind them. One year does not a pattern make. And yes, it places well in PI, but so does Michigan, if slightly less so.

I also think that a 166 median is objectively low for a top-ten school. Berkeley can (and should) get in range with its peers.

Haha no, you clearly don't understand Berkeley.

Berkeley is one of the only schools that actually cares about factors other than numbers, and the data shows. Berkeley easily could make their median LSAT higher, but they choose not to. You can't be a rich white kid with a private tutor and just assume you'll be admitted to Berkeley. You actually have to build your resume and do things outside the classroom, in addition to having the numbers.

Most law schools will do anything to improve their USNWR rankings. Berkeley is one of the only schools that says "We'll admit the students we want to, and we don't care if we're #10 instead of #6." Saying that Berkeley should improve its LSAT median just to cater to Robert Morse is, I think, silly.

I matriculated at Berkeley and was on the student admissions committee. I think it's safe to assume I understand Berkeley better than you do. And I stand by my statement that a 166 LSAT median is unacceptably low for a top-ten school.

For one, this distinction of a "top-ten" school is pointless. Duke didn't get worse and Michigan didn't get better, they are as they have always been: part of a group of top law schools.

Secondly, how important do you think LSAT scores should be when assessing a law school's value? I get the correlation that schools with lower LSAT medians bring in lower quality students. But If the school provides the same level of elite results regarding employment, why would an LSAT median factor into their ranking?

Not really pointless at all. Year over year changes make no difference, but they do make a difference over longer stretches of time. Thirty years ago Michigan was in the same league as Harvard and Yale. That's hardly the case now. There's a certain feedback loop with law school rankings and over time the perception in the legal community comes to reflect the rankings, fairly or not. (While I suppose one could argue that the rankings are reflecting a change in perception, I think it's a bit hard to argue that lawyers and judges are in tune with faculty hires, admissions rates, etc.--the things that factor into law school rankings).

I don't think the LSAT should be a be-all, end-all factor in a school's ranking. But I do think there is, at least perceptually, a floor that a supposed top school should avoid falling below. What if, for example, Berkeley fell to a 160 median next year and continued with that median into the foreseeable future, all the while maintaining its employment statistics? Should that be totally irrelevant?

[pterodactyls]

I don't think the LSAT should be a be-all, end-all factor in a school's ranking. But I do think there is, at least perceptually, a floor that a supposed top school should avoid falling below. What if, for example, Berkeley fell to a 160 median next year and continued with that median into the foreseeable future, all the while maintaining its employment statistics? Should that be totally irrelevant?

I don't understand your point. Each factor is given a specific weight. LSAT is weighted 0.125. Given each law school's outcomes, and the weight given to each factor, Berkeley was ranked #8. You're saying they should improve their median. So either you disagree with the Dean of Admissions at Berkeley in his admit decisions, or you disagree with Rob Morse at US News in the way he chooses to weight the LSAT.

If Berkeley dropped to 160, they would probably drop in rankings. But with a 166, they are ranked #8.

[KiltedKicker]

So, does anyone know when the new ABA disclosures will be released for classes of 2015? That's what I care about, not USNWR

[Nagster5]

So, does anyone know when the new ABA disclosures will be released for classes of 2015? That's what I care about, not USNWR

Or how long it takes LST to update their site to reflect 2015 #s after the ABA releases?

[baal hadad]

So, does anyone know when the new ABA disclosures will be released for classes of 2015? That's what I care about, not USNWR

Someone doesn't understand that big law employers literally show their clients usnwr rankings of where their associates went to school to justify the billing rates

[woodchuck78]

So, does anyone know when the new ABA disclosures will be released for classes of 2015? That's what I care about, not USNWR

Or how long it takes LST to update their site to reflect 2015 #s after the ABA releases?

I was actually on a school visit recently and their career development office said that the cutoff date for those disclosures is, if I remember correctly, March 15. Idk how much time after that it takes for them to get published though

[KiltedKicker]

So, does anyone know when the new ABA disclosures will be released for classes of 2015? That's what I care about, not USNWR

Someone doesn't understand that big law employers literally show their clients usnwr rankings of where their associates went to school to justify the billing rates

1. Where are you getting that?
2. If that is true (in more than one or two instances), it should be reflected in the employment stats you get from ABA disclosures. If it isn't, then I don't really give a shit what they do to justify their billing rates.

I'm not saying that USNWR rankings are meaningless, but rather that they do not change drastically from year to year. The ABA disclosures give you a ton of very specific, quantifiable metrics that I consider much more helpful than new rankings from USNWR telling us that basically nothing has changed

[baal hadad]

So, does anyone know when the new ABA disclosures will be released for classes of 2015? That's what I care about, not USNWR

Someone doesn't understand that big law employers literally show their clients usnwr rankings of where their associates went to school to justify the billing rates

1. Where are you getting that?
2. If that is true (in more than one or two instances), it should be reflected in the employment stats you get from ABA disclosures. If it isn't, then I don't really give a shit what they do to justify their billing rates.

I'm not saying that USNWR rankings are meaningless, but rather that they do not change drastically from year to year. The ABA disclosures give you a ton of very specific, quantifiable metrics that I consider much more helpful than new rankings from USNWR telling us that basically nothing has changed

I thought that was an obvious joke

[HmmmOkay]

On the topic of Berkeley Deans, how has the Dean not been fired or left yet? Yikes. Can they really afford to keep him on in any capacity without trashing their reputation?

[KiltedKicker]

So, does anyone know when the new ABA disclosures will be released for classes of 2015? That's what I care about, not USNWR

Someone doesn't understand that big law employers literally show their clients usnwr rankings of where their associates went to school to justify the billing rates

I thought that was an obvious joke

In retrospect I appreciate it. But it's TLS, someone would totally say that

[KiltedKicker]

On the topic of Berkeley Deans, how has the Dean not been fired or left yet? Yikes. Can they really afford to keep him on in any capacity without trashing their reputation?

No they cannot. I'd guess it happens very soon

[mcmand]

...

[zeglo]

.

[rpupkin]

So is Michigan, for example, suddenly going to get more applications?

Of course. Based on the current trajectory, Michigan will be ranked #2 by Spring 2018, when current applicants are 2Ls.

[zeglo]

.

[jbagelboy]

So is Michigan, for example, suddenly going to get more applications?

Of course. Based on the current trajectory, Michigan will be ranked #2 by Spring 2018, when current applicants are 2Ls.

Who are you?

What rpupkin is conveniently omitting is that the following year, along that same trajectory, Michigan will turn all the way back to #204. It will be tied to YLS from September-December of 2018.

[yenisey]

So is Michigan, for example, suddenly going to get more applications?

Of course. Based on the current trajectory, Michigan will be ranked #2 by Spring 2018, when current applicants are 2Ls.

Who are you?

Apparently he's Optimus Prime, or Megatron?

[NoDayButToday]

.

[Dawg57]

Anyone notice any weird discrepancies in the leak that are hard to explain - for example - one I just noticed. Georgia State (normally around 50ish and ranked the past few years by ATL Top 50) is literally no where in this leaked top 100. Seems like a note impossible but unlikely drop...

[Cochran]

I bet Berkeley drops...considering its average LSAT is now a 166.....

Berkeley is not dropping any time in the near future. It has amazing clerkship placement, and it has a great PI program as well. Also, just so you know, Berkeley's median (50th percentile) LSAT score is 166. Most law schools don't publish the average (mean) LSAT score because it isn't very valuable to prospective students.

Berkeley is a great school, but it certainly has its weaknesses. In addition to being stingy as hell, some of what you said is either misleading or also applicable to other schools. Berkeley's clerkship placement last year was great, but if you look at recent history it is, at best, on par with its peer schools and sometimes lagged behind them. One year does not a pattern make. And yes, it places well in PI, but so does Michigan, if slightly less so.

I also think that a 166 median is objectively low for a top-ten school. Berkeley can (and should) get in range with its peers.

Haha no, you clearly don't understand Berkeley.

Berkeley is one of the only schools that actually cares about factors other than numbers, and the data shows. Berkeley easily could make their median LSAT higher, but they choose not to. You can't be a rich white kid with a private tutor and just assume you'll be admitted to Berkeley. You actually have to build your resume and do things outside the classroom, in addition to having the numbers.

Most law schools will do anything to improve their USNWR rankings. Berkeley is one of the only schools that says "We'll admit the students we want to, and we don't care if we're #10 instead of #6." Saying that Berkeley should improve its LSAT median just to cater to Robert Morse is, I think, silly.

I matriculated at Berkeley and was on the student admissions committee. I think it's safe to assume I understand Berkeley better than you do. And I stand by my statement that a 166 LSAT median is unacceptably low for a top-ten school.

For one, this distinction of a "top-ten" school is pointless. Duke didn't get worse and Michigan didn't get better, they are as they have always been: part of a group of top law schools.

Secondly, how important do you think LSAT scores should be when assessing a law school's value? I get the correlation that schools with lower LSAT medians bring in lower quality students. But If the school provides the same level of elite results regarding employment, why would an LSAT median factor into their ranking?

Not really pointless at all. Year over year changes make no difference, but they do make a difference over longer stretches of time. Thirty years ago Michigan was in the same league as Harvard and Yale. That's hardly the case now. There's a certain feedback loop with law school rankings and over time the perception in the legal community comes to reflect the rankings, fairly or not. (While I suppose one could argue that the rankings are reflecting a change in perception, I think it's a bit hard to argue that lawyers and judges are in tune with faculty hires, admissions rates, etc.--the things that factor into law school rankings).

I don't think the LSAT should be a be-all, end-all factor in a school's ranking. But I do think there is, at least perceptually, a floor that a supposed top school should avoid falling below. What if, for example, Berkeley fell to a 160 median next year and continued with that median into the foreseeable future, all the while maintaining its employment statistics? Should that be totally irrelevant?

But that's my point though, we can see how a school is perceived more accurately through employment data than we can through rankings that factor silly things like libraries into their ranking system. If a school is killing it at top firms, elite clerking/PI, bristows, ect., then they obviously have a better comparative reputation over a school who doesn't perform as well. If people used employment data properly to evaluate a school's merit/reputation, then yes, the rankings would be useless. I think USNWR does get it right with the T-14, as there is a solid drop off in employment opportunities after G. But within the T-14, their methodology seems flawed.

In the impossible scenario of Berkeley having medians drop to 160 and maintaining their employment statistics, no, I don't believe they should drop in rank. IMO, A law school's merit rests solely behind its ability to provide their students with elite employment opportunities. If Berkeley maintains their reputation among elite firms, judges, lawyers, ect. then why should they drop in ranking? However, this is a completely unrealistic situation, as the drop to 160 would likely cause a reduction in the quality of its students, in turn lowering their reputation and employment opportunities.

[gator_guy93]

Anyone notice any weird discrepancies in the leak that are hard to explain - for example - one I just noticed. Georgia State (normally around 50ish and ranked the past few years by ATL Top 50) is literally no where in this leaked top 100. Seems like a note impossible but unlikely drop...

GSU is #57 in the leaked rankings
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/usnwr- ... last-year/

[Dawg57]

Anyone notice any weird discrepancies in the leak that are hard to explain - for example - one I just noticed. Georgia State (normally around 50ish and ranked the past few years by ATL Top 50) is literally no where in this leaked top 100. Seems like a note impossible but unlikely drop...

GSU is #57 in the leaked rankings
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/usnwr- ... last-year/

Yeah, thanks, just got confirmed from him that there was an error in the original release omitting GSU and it is now fixed