GW Ranked 14, GU 44 Forum

[striker3141]

The National Jurist ranks GW 14th, and GU 44th, under a new ranking system which puts more emphasis on employment opportunities and less on scholarly reputation

[Circlewave]

keep in mind, GW also employs tons of its own graduates (not just law)...currently a GW undergrad, and my thesis advisor is an English Ph.D working for GW Disability Support Services.

[rinkrat19]

The National Jurist ranks GW 14th, and GU 44th, under a new ranking system which puts more emphasis on employment opportunities and less on scholarly reputation

If you're going to share that, it's pretty stupid to not just share the entire list.

[nolongermissing]

probably the wrong forum, but link anyways.

[Ti Malice]

Totally useless. LSU in eleventh place? Texas Tech in ninth? Alabama in fifth? Garbage.

Did they account for the large percentage of GW grads employed by the school at $10 per hour? Doesn't look like it.

Link: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cypress ... ex.php#/26

[dproduct]

Why on earth would you post this in a forum titled: " Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists"???

[hephaestus]

If this ranking was supposed to emphasize job prospects, it looks like everyone on the NJ staff can't use numbers.

[rinkrat19]

Texas Tech, Bama and UNC all ranked higher than Yale. WHO KNEW.

I mean, there's tweaking the rankings to better reflect meaningful outcomes...and then there's inventing an alternate reality, Cooley-style.

[bananasplit19]

I don't know nearly as much as the average TLSer about rankings and how they're compiled. So, assuming my knowledge and prejudices are all tabula rasa, can someone explain why these rankings are so laughable? Someone's already noted that it doesn't account for schools like GW gaming the rankings with school-funded jobs that last nine months and one day, but that doesn't make it worse than the accepted US News rankings, which also falls for such shenanigans.

I'm not trying to defend the National Jurist article, just honestly curious.

[rinkrat19]

I don't know nearly as much as the average TLSer about rankings and how they're compiled. So, assuming my knowledge and prejudices are all tabula rasa, can someone explain why these rankings are so laughable? Someone's already noted that it doesn't account for schools like GW gaming the rankings with school-funded jobs that last nine months and one day, but that doesn't make it worse than the accepted US News rankings, which also falls for such shenanigans.

I'm not trying to defend the National Jurist article, just honestly curious.

Because a good outcome is almost guaranteed from Yale, while half of grads from 'Bama or Texas Tech are fucked. What is hard to understand about that?

[bananasplit19]

I don't know nearly as much as the average TLSer about rankings and how they're compiled. So, assuming my knowledge and prejudices are all tabula rasa, can someone explain why these rankings are so laughable? Someone's already noted that it doesn't account for schools like GW gaming the rankings with school-funded jobs that last nine months and one day, but that doesn't make it worse than the accepted US News rankings, which also falls for such shenanigans.

I'm not trying to defend the National Jurist article, just honestly curious.

Because a good outcome is almost guaranteed from Yale, while half of grads from 'Bama or Texas Tech are fucked. What is hard to understand about that?

Again, pretending I'm tabula rasa, and I don't know if a good outcome is guaranteed from Yale, or from Alabama or Texas Tech. The rankings claim to heavily weigh employment prospects (see employment rate percentage on the rankings table), whereas the Yale almost-guarantee is entirely anecdotal at the moment. More to the point: can someone specifically pick apart where the National Jurist rankings go off the rails? In other words, how did their equation get it wrong?

I don't doubt that there is something fundamentally wrong with the rankings, but it would be educational for me to know why, instead of just going with the TLS zeitgeist.

[rinkrat19]

I don't know nearly as much as the average TLSer about rankings and how they're compiled. So, assuming my knowledge and prejudices are all tabula rasa, can someone explain why these rankings are so laughable? Someone's already noted that it doesn't account for schools like GW gaming the rankings with school-funded jobs that last nine months and one day, but that doesn't make it worse than the accepted US News rankings, which also falls for such shenanigans.

I'm not trying to defend the National Jurist article, just honestly curious.

Because a good outcome is almost guaranteed from Yale, while half of grads from 'Bama or Texas Tech are fucked. What is hard to understand about that?

Again, pretending I'm tabula rasa, and I don't know if a good outcome is guaranteed from Yale, or from Alabama or Texas Tech. The rankings claim to heavily weigh employment prospects (see employment rate percentage on the rankings table), whereas the Yale almost-guarantee is entirely anecdotal at the moment. More to the point: can someone specifically pick apart where the National Jurist rankings go off the rails? In other words, how did their equation get it wrong?

I don't doubt that there is something fundamentally wrong with the rankings, but it would be educational for me to know why, instead of just going with the TLS zeitgeist.

So here's the way they "calculated" employment prospects:

100% Bar passage required, full-time long term
70% Bar passage required, full-time short term (shouldn't be counted for shit)
70% JD preferred, full-time long term (debatable whether this should count, and not 70%)
60% Professional position, full-time long term (probably ok jobs but mostly not the kind you go to law school for)
50% Bar passage required, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
40% JD preferred, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
40% JD preferred, full-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
30% Bar passage required, part-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
30% Professional position, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
10% JD preferred, part-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
10% Non-professional position, full-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)

It's weighing non-ideal outcomes (basically anything besides the top one) way too high. A school with 50% good employment could score higher than Yale with near-100% employment just because it's pretending that part-time or short term work or non JD required work are peachy fine.

Check out lawschooltransparency.com for the best employment data breakdown we have.

[fatduck]

I don't know nearly as much as the average TLSer about rankings and how they're compiled. So, assuming my knowledge and prejudices are all tabula rasa, can someone explain why these rankings are so laughable? Someone's already noted that it doesn't account for schools like GW gaming the rankings with school-funded jobs that last nine months and one day, but that doesn't make it worse than the accepted US News rankings, which also falls for such shenanigans.

I'm not trying to defend the National Jurist article, just honestly curious.

Because a good outcome is almost guaranteed from Yale, while half of grads from 'Bama or Texas Tech are fucked. What is hard to understand about that?

Again, pretending I'm tabula rasa, and I don't know if a good outcome is guaranteed from Yale, or from Alabama or Texas Tech. The rankings claim to heavily weigh employment prospects (see employment rate percentage on the rankings table), whereas the Yale almost-guarantee is entirely anecdotal at the moment. More to the point: can someone specifically pick apart where the National Jurist rankings go off the rails? In other words, how did their equation get it wrong?

I don't doubt that there is something fundamentally wrong with the rankings, but it would be educational for me to know why, instead of just going with the TLS zeitgeist.

US News rankings:
40% peer ranking
25% selectivity
20% employment outcomes
15% bullshit (library size, student/teacher ratio, etc)

National Jurist rankings:
22.5% employment outcomes
77.5% bullshit ("Super Lawyers" mentions, Ratemyprofessor scores, etc)

[rinkrat19]

I don't know nearly as much as the average TLSer about rankings and how they're compiled. So, assuming my knowledge and prejudices are all tabula rasa, can someone explain why these rankings are so laughable? Someone's already noted that it doesn't account for schools like GW gaming the rankings with school-funded jobs that last nine months and one day, but that doesn't make it worse than the accepted US News rankings, which also falls for such shenanigans.

I'm not trying to defend the National Jurist article, just honestly curious.

Because a good outcome is almost guaranteed from Yale, while half of grads from 'Bama or Texas Tech are fucked. What is hard to understand about that?

Again, pretending I'm tabula rasa, and I don't know if a good outcome is guaranteed from Yale, or from Alabama or Texas Tech. The rankings claim to heavily weigh employment prospects (see employment rate percentage on the rankings table), whereas the Yale almost-guarantee is entirely anecdotal at the moment. More to the point: can someone specifically pick apart where the National Jurist rankings go off the rails? In other words, how did their equation get it wrong?

I don't doubt that there is something fundamentally wrong with the rankings, but it would be educational for me to know why, instead of just going with the TLS zeitgeist.

US News rankings:
40% peer ranking
25% selectivity
20% employment outcomes
15% bullshit (library size, student/teacher ratio, etc)

National Jurist rankings:
22.5% employment outcomes
77.5% bullshit ("Super Lawyers" mentions, Ratemyprofessor scores, etc)

And that. (the 22.5% is bullshit too, as mentioned above)

[bananasplit19]

So here's the way they "calculated" employment prospects:

100% Bar passage required, full-time long term
70% Bar passage required, full-time short term (shouldn't be counted for shit)
70% JD preferred, full-time long term (debatable whether this should count, and not 70%)
60% Professional position, full-time long term (probably ok jobs but mostly not the kind you go to law school for)
50% Bar passage required, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
40% JD preferred, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
40% JD preferred, full-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
30% Bar passage required, part-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
30% Professional position, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
10% JD preferred, part-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
10% Non-professional position, full-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)

It's weighing non-ideal outcomes (basically anything besides the top one) way too high. A school with 50% good employment could score higher than Yale with near-100% employment just because it's pretending that part-time or short term work or non JD required work are peachy fine.

Check out lawschooltransparency.com for the best employment data breakdown we have.

US News rankings:
40% peer ranking
25% selectivity
20% employment outcomes
15% bullshit (library size, student/teacher ratio, etc)

National Jurist rankings:
22.5% employment outcomes
77.5% bullshit ("Super Lawyers" mentions, Ratemyprofessor scores, etc)

Muchas gracias to you both

[dr123]

I don't know nearly as much as the average TLSer about rankings and how they're compiled. So, assuming my knowledge and prejudices are all tabula rasa, can someone explain why these rankings are so laughable? Someone's already noted that it doesn't account for schools like GW gaming the rankings with school-funded jobs that last nine months and one day, but that doesn't make it worse than the accepted US News rankings, which also falls for such shenanigans.

I'm not trying to defend the National Jurist article, just honestly curious.

Because a good outcome is almost guaranteed from Yale, while half of grads from 'Bama or Texas Tech are fucked. What is hard to understand about that?

Again, pretending I'm tabula rasa, and I don't know if a good outcome is guaranteed from Yale, or from Alabama or Texas Tech. The rankings claim to heavily weigh employment prospects (see employment rate percentage on the rankings table), whereas the Yale almost-guarantee is entirely anecdotal at the moment. More to the point: can someone specifically pick apart where the National Jurist rankings go off the rails? In other words, how did their equation get it wrong?

I don't doubt that there is something fundamentally wrong with the rankings, but it would be educational for me to know why, instead of just going with the TLS zeitgeist.

So here's the way they "calculated" employment prospects:

100% Bar passage required, full-time long term
70% Bar passage required, full-time short term (shouldn't be counted for shit)
70% JD preferred, full-time long term (debatable whether this should count, and not 70%)
60% Professional position, full-time long term (probably ok jobs but mostly not the kind you go to law school for)
50% Bar passage required, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
40% JD preferred, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
40% JD preferred, full-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
30% Bar passage required, part-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
30% Professional position, part-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)
10% JD preferred, part-time short term (shouldn't count for shit)
10% Non-professional position, full-time long term (shouldn't count for shit)

It's weighing non-ideal outcomes (basically anything besides the top one) way too high. A school with 50% good employment could score higher than Yale with near-100% employment just because it's pretending that part-time or short term work or non JD required work are peachy fine.

Check out lawschooltransparency.com for the best employment data breakdown we have.

But wouldn't full-time, short term include clerkships and fellowships (legit ones like EJW, etc)

[rinkrat19]

But wouldn't full-time, short term include clerkships and fellowships (legit ones like EJW, etc)

I think anything that lasts a year+ (clerkships, etc.) is "long term".

[dr123]

But wouldn't full-time, short term include clerkships and fellowships (legit ones like EJW, etc)

I think anything that lasts a year+ (clerkships, etc.) is "long term".

Really? WTF is short-term then? I always figured short-term meant anything with a specified end date, such as a one yr fellowship, 2 yr clerkship, etc.

[rinkrat19]

But wouldn't full-time, short term include clerkships and fellowships (legit ones like EJW, etc)

I think anything that lasts a year+ (clerkships, etc.) is "long term".

Really? WTF is short-term then? I always figured short-term meant anything with a specified end date, such as a one yr fellowship, 2 yr clerkship, etc.

This is LST's definition, and I think they're using NALP's terms (since they use NALP data)

Long-Term jobs either have a fixed duration of at least one year or have no definite duration.

Short-Term jobs have a fixed duration less than one year.

[mh33]

If this is supposed to emphasize employment, it is seriously flawed. I'm seeing schools with A- or better in every employment category with 20 schools above them all receiving B/B- marks in those categories. It seems the professor ratings included have messed this list up big time. I think it's as arbitrary as USWNR.