Top Law Schools

I disagree with the verbiage here, I would call this "intellectually appreciated" and not "rated". Still, the disparity of peer assessment rankings as they relate to LSAT scores is interesting. Any theories why some underachieve and other overachieve the peer rankings versus inputs?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... most-.html

What a useless exercise.
I doubt even people in legal academia give a shit

Edit: no offense intended, but at most this'll get a "hmm. Interesting" reaction before being promptly forgotten by most readers

i didn't even find it interesting.

How is Penn not on there?

.

guano wrote:What a useless exercise.

+1


The words "overrated" and "underrated" could be reversed if we were talking about applicants.

guano wrote:What a useless exercise.
I doubt even people in legal academia give a shit

Edit: no offense intended, but at most this'll get a "hmm. Interesting" reaction before being promptly forgotten by most readers

I certainly don't take offense. I am interested why some peer assessments would seem to not align with input metrics, as many faculty members place a high emphasis on this. When you go to faculty conferences and you work in admissions you get a ton of "what is your median LSAT going to be this year?" and none or very few "what is your median gpa?"

I think the 40 are pretty much meaningless though, yes. Note that regent produced the initial list.

TripTrip wrote:

guano wrote:What a useless exercise.

+1


The words "overrated" and "underrated" could be reversed if we were talking about applicants.

Waiting for someone to come on TLS to say "I should totally go to Florida Intl. it's underrated per this random list from some dude at Regent."

I see a guy from Regent gave them the spread sheet. I also see it happens to be one of the most underrated schools on the list based on this pretty much pointless comparison of LSAT to Peer score. I feel he may have done this to try to show Regent should be ranked better or something. Anyhow, I found it interesting California had 5 "underrated schools" and all besides Pepperdine were TTT/TTTT. I wanted to see underrated and overrated with schools actually in the top 50, that would have been much more exciting in my opinion.

edit: Scooped

Fck yeah, Texas Tech killing it!

MikeSpivey wrote:When you go to faculty conferences and you work in admissions you get a ton of "what is your median LSAT going to be this year?" and none or very few "what is your median gpa?"

Isn't that because virtually any law school could have a ridiculous GPA median if they were willing to sacrifice everything else? Whereas not every law school could have an LSAT median over 170, because it would be impossible to attract enough candidates with scores that high.

TripTrip wrote:

MikeSpivey wrote:When you go to faculty conferences and you work in admissions you get a ton of "what is your median LSAT going to be this year?" and none or very few "what is your median gpa?"

Isn't that because virtually any law school could have a ridiculous GPA median if they were willing to sacrifice everything else? Whereas not every law school could have an LSAT median over 170, because it would be impossible to attract enough candidates with scores that high.

That and faculty often put a fine-point on intellectualism over motivation and some personality traits. Also LSAT scores come from the same baseline whereas gpa comes from thousands.

FWIW, I can definitely see some overlap.

If people see the words "Regent" or "Liberty" any objective type of measurement goes out the window and it's like all they can see is a scene from The Shining with "TTT" painted in Falwell's blood.

It's rough that those contemplating a profession whose gate-keeping test requires critical thinking and rudimentary logic can't see past ideological leanings with which they disagree. Genetic fallacy anyone?

Also, I think Chapman is a lot better school than its ranking deserves. It's pure gold in Orange County, which happens to be a little bit of heaven on earth.

But take my opinion with a grain of salt; I wouldn't attend any of those schools even with a full scholarship. Well, maybe Regent since they've got Ashcroft.

mustached wrote:FWIW, I can definitely see some overlap.

If people see the words "Regent" or "Liberty" any objective type of measurement goes out the window and it's like all they can see is a scene from The Shining with "TTT" painted in Falwell's blood.

It's rough that those contemplating a profession whose gate-keeping test requires critical thinking and rudimentary logic can't see past ideological leanings with which they disagree. Genetic fallacy anyone?

Also, I think Chapman is a lot better school than its ranking deserves. It's pure gold in Orange County, which happens to be a little bit of heaven on earth.

But take my opinion with a grain of salt; I wouldn't attend any of those schools even with a full scholarship. Well, maybe Regent since they've got Ashcroft.

i loled

If a school was ranked 90 instead of 190 it wouldn't matter. All that matters is employment prospects and "national reach," and only 14 schools have any amount of the latter. Legal academics and administrators EDIT: and dumb applicants need to stop obsessing over shit that doesn't matter.

MikeSpivey wrote:

guano wrote:What a useless exercise.
I doubt even people in legal academia give a shit

Edit: no offense intended, but at most this'll get a "hmm. Interesting" reaction before being promptly forgotten by most readers

I certainly don't take offense. I am interested why some peer assessments would seem to not align with input metrics, as many faculty members place a high emphasis on this. When you go to faculty conferences and you work in admissions you get a ton of "what is your median LSAT going to be this year?" and none or very few "what is your median gpa?"

I think the 40 are pretty much meaningless though, yes. Note that regent produced the initial list.

its your job to care.

A quick answer might be to look at ideological or geographic reasons why a professor might choose a lesser school. After that, some schools might prefer having a handful of superstars and the rest of the profs be cheap, while other schools might want a more balanced faculty. But again, this just seems like its taking one barely relevant piece of data and using it as a metric to obtain a desired result (see eg library square footage and the Brennan report)

I'd rather see a comparison of quality employment and COA vs peer assessment

Article links to a depressing video. Apparently US News isn't responsible for anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... FM5vxapE#!

jas1503 wrote:Article links to a depressing video. Apparently US News isn't responsible for anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... FM5vxapE#!

I watched that entire thing on March 11th. It was almost as hard to sit through as the "Boom goes the dynamite" video.

MikeSpivey wrote:

jas1503 wrote:Article links to a depressing video. Apparently US News isn't responsible for anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... FM5vxapE#!

I watched that entire thing on March 11th. It was almost as hard to sit through as the "Boom goes the dynamite" video.

It's strange to think that guy is essentially a God to some people in the law school community.

OOF that interview was brutal.

lawl at Liberty being underrated.

jas1503 wrote:Article links to a depressing video. Apparently US News isn't responsible for anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... FM5vxapE#!

God this guy is boring.