2014 ATL Rankings Forum

[beepboopbeep]

I like Vanderbilt at 14. With UT bringing up the rear call it the new T15.

ETA: also do they list the numerical values of each school according to their metric so we can see how close each school comes to the next?

You could probably reverse engineer them using http://abovethelaw.com/careers/law-scho ... ew=ratings. They list the total score for each but not what each school scores on each input.

Jenesais, how do you feel about this list (http://abovethelaw.com/careers/law-scho ... all+Rating) taking up a full 10% of the ratings inputs? Would you say that's gameable?

Absolutely, but I didn't want to give them any ideas

If I were a law school, I would contact my most happy and most successful (or most generous) alumni, and have them fill out the survey. No need to guide them with what to say; you already have an idea based on you contacting them in the first place.

I'd be shocked if schools weren't doing this already.

As for it taking up 10%, it's tough to know how annoyed to be over that weight without seeing what would happen if you eliminated it. It's a bit unnerving to not know how many survey respondents there are; it's also unnerving to not know what kind of quality control goes on.

Ha, well put.

Yes, I've been wondering about that last question as well. Within the weights, it's hard to know how much adjustment goes on - if this is taking up 10% but every school is scoring between 8-10, that's much less impactful to the overall ranking than quality jobs or employment score where they're (presumably) using a greater range of the 0-30. I would imagine it's having at least some impact else there's not much reason to include it, aside from an arguable appearance of legitimacy.

I went and took the survey to see what sort of questions they're asking and what sort of verification they're employing. You do have to provide an email address for verification, but I can't imagine anyone's hand-checking those against a directory or anything. Most likely it's just to see if you have a valid @university.edu email. Interestingly, they don't ask for a straight-up A+ to F ranking. Instead, you're asked to rank satisfaction with quality of faculty/instruction, training for practice, career counseling, financial aid, and social life; presumably these turn into a letter grade through some alchemy.

[jbagelboy]

I like Vanderbilt at 14. With UT bringing up the rear call it the new T15.

ETA: also do they list the numerical values of each school according to their metric so we can see how close each school comes to the next?

You could probably reverse engineer them using http://abovethelaw.com/careers/law-scho ... ew=ratings. They list the total score for each but not what each school scores on each input.

Jenesais, how do you feel about this list (http://abovethelaw.com/careers/law-scho ... all+Rating) taking up a full 10% of the ratings inputs? Would you say that's gameable?

Absolutely, but I didn't want to give them any ideas

If I were a law school, I would contact my most happy and most successful (or most generous) alumni, and have them fill out the survey. No need to guide them with what to say; you already have an idea based on you contacting them in the first place.

I'd be shocked if schools weren't doing this already.

As for it taking up 10%, it's tough to know how annoyed to be over that weight without seeing what would happen if you eliminated it. It's a bit unnerving to not know how many survey respondents there are; it's also unnerving to not know what kind of quality control goes on.

Ha, well put.

Yes, I've been wondering about that last question as well. Within the weights, it's hard to know how much adjustment goes on - if this is taking up 10% but every school is scoring between 8-10, that's much less impactful to the overall ranking than quality jobs or employment score where they're (presumably) using a greater range of the 0-30. I would imagine it's having at least some impact else there's not much reason to include it, aside from an arguable appearance of legitimacy.

I went and took the survey to see what sort of questions they're asking and what sort of verification they're employing. You do have to provide an email address for verification, but I can't imagine anyone's hand-checking those against a directory or anything. Most likely it's just to see if you have a valid @university.edu email. Interestingly, they don't ask for a straight-up A+ to F ranking. Instead, you're asked to rank satisfaction with quality of faculty/instruction, training for practice, career counseling, financial aid, and social life; presumably these turn into a letter grade through some alchemy.

It's pretty lol, I'm wondering what would happen if you removed the student and alumni surveys %. Chicago and Columbia both have relatively shitty marks in those categories weighing them down pretty hard - I mean, worse than Santa Clara, Northeastern, and a number of other TTT's.

[Big Dog]

We definitely disagree there. I have a big problem with those most likely to succeed subsidizing those least likely to succeed.

With all due respect (to all of your fine work), do you really have any data that shows that someone who scores a couple of extra questions on a 3+ hour test is more likely to succeed in LS?

To me, LS are no different than the vast majority of undergrad colleges that offer merit money to their top students. While greater transparency is always better, full transparency -- and lower sticker -- is probably a pipe dream. Thus, ATL could estimate average net tuition cost, which at least gives credit to those schools that provide more finaid.

[jenesaislaw]

We definitely disagree there. I have a big problem with those most likely to succeed subsidizing those least likely to succeed.

With all due respect (to all of your fine work), do you really have any data that shows that someone who scores a couple of extra questions on a 3+ hour test is more likely to succeed in LS?

The basic argument is that LSAT/GPA (which produces discounts) correlates with grades, especially first-year grades (but I believe 2L and 3L grades too, to a lesser extent), which corresponds to jobs.

[Big Dog]

yes, I get the idea, but I'd love to see if those 1-2 points (questions, really), which can be the difference between median and 75% -- which earns $$ -- really affect 1L success. It's just hard to imagine, given the vagaries of grading/work habits/life styles, etc of 1L's.

I could see where 5 points is probably significant. But 1 or 2? (they are probably within the standard error.)

Then of course, GPA's come in all kinds of sizes and flavors, from STEM majors at Caltech/MIT to "Studies" majors at directional state U.

[Dafaq]

The basic argument is that LSAT/GPA (which produces discounts) correlates with grades, especially first-year grades (but I believe 2L and 3L grades too, to a lesser extent), which corresponds to jobs.

+1. If you have already been offered then 2L/3L grades will likely have no [immediate] effect.

My 2L/3L grades have been A’s (final exam grade still unknown) but all that does is make me feel a bit more comfortable should I have ever have to hit the job market down the road.

[paayter]

yes, I get the idea, but I'd love to see if those 1-2 points (questions, really), which can be the difference between median and 75% -- which earns $$ -- really affect 1L success. It's just hard to imagine, given the vagaries of grading/work habits/life styles, etc of 1L's.

I could see where 5 points is probably significant. But 1 or 2? (they are probably within the standard error.)

Then of course, GPA's come in all kinds of sizes and flavors, from STEM majors at Caltech/MIT to "Studies" majors at directional state U.

I totally agree with you, regarding the whole lsat thing especially when the range is sooo narrow. I got in to a semi reach school, and I sort of thought maybe I shouldn't go...but then I realized my score was maybe like 3 points below the 75th percentile..on my lsat i forgot to bubble in the third question of the test..had I bubbled it, I would have had an extra point, and then from there its like three to four questions. I think the disparity is when you have lsat at 160-162-164....you are competing with people who come in with 170s...and then there are those with 150s.

[jenesaislaw]

That's why it's not good to try to predict how well you will do. You only live once. In the aggregate it's a different story.

[Dafaq]

If the two competing school ranking systems want to differ on the importance of student scores, COL, COA, alumni opinions, etc., it’s not a biggie to me, what is the deal killer is giving weight to fake jobs (now known as SFJ). What I find hard to accept is that both USN and ATL continue to give that obvious sham stat credence.

If you deducted SFJ from UVA and Cornel, Cornel would win the employment stat…on top of that UVA has a 20% PI placement vs Cornel’s 10.4%. Moreover, Cornel has a sizeable BL placement lead over UVA. If securing a good paying position is a fundamental yardstick of how a school should be ranked then both USN and ATL need to revise their broken ranking formulas.

[The Dark Shepard]

SFJ>no job at all and some of our PI lawyers here think they are actually good things if you want to be in that area

[WokeUpInACar]

That's why it's not good to try to predict how well you will do. You only live once. In the aggregate it's a different story.

It's truly astounding that some people don't understand this. Statistics, how do they work???

[lawschool22]

SFJ>no job at all and some of our PI lawyers here think they are actually good things if you want to be in that area

There are a lot of jobs > no job at all. But we still don't consider them good outcomes necessarily. I won't dispute that certain school funded jobs can be helpful for PI students, but the fact is they simply vary too much for us to know which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. Schools clearly can use them to game the rankings - just look at Emory. And as a result, I've seen several threads on this site in which someone decided to go with Emory, on the basis of its new rank. It's dangerous that they can so easily game this stat.

[phillywc]

SFJ>no job at all and some of our PI lawyers here think they are actually good things if you want to be in that area

There are a lot of jobs > no job at all. But we still don't consider them good outcomes necessarily. I won't dispute that certain school funded jobs can be helpful for PI students, but the fact is they simply vary too much for us to know which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. Schools clearly can use them to game the rankings - just look at Emory. And as a result, I've seen several threads on this site in which someone decided to go with Emory, on the basis of its new rank. It's dangerous that they can so easily game this stat.

I have a hard time believing that Yale or NYU, which both have a decent amount of school funded jobs, should be punished for that. I'm a fan of making the SFJ rate readily available and they obviously shouldn't be propping up Emory, GWU and maybe even UVA. It just needs a little case by case analysis, I think.

[bk1]

It's pretty clear that not all school funded positions are bad, but the problem is figuring out which ones are good and which ones are bad. I'm sure that some people at GULC/UVA are getting a good deal out of their school funded position and some people at NYU are not.

Ideally we'd just have 2 years of employment data. Poll people again at 1.75 years out and you'll see how many people were able to convert their school funded job into a legit job, how many clerks were able to go (back) into biglaw, etc.

[lawschool22]

SFJ>no job at all and some of our PI lawyers here think they are actually good things if you want to be in that area

There are a lot of jobs > no job at all. But we still don't consider them good outcomes necessarily. I won't dispute that certain school funded jobs can be helpful for PI students, but the fact is they simply vary too much for us to know which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. Schools clearly can use them to game the rankings - just look at Emory. And as a result, I've seen several threads on this site in which someone decided to go with Emory, on the basis of its new rank. It's dangerous that they can so easily game this stat.

I have a hard time believing that Yale or NYU, which both have a decent amount of school funded jobs, should be punished for that. I'm a fan of making the SFJ rate readily available and they obviously shouldn't be propping up Emory, GWU and maybe even UVA. It just needs a little case by case analysis, I think.

The problem is the rankings people can't decide to include NYU SFJs and ignore Emory, for example. Unless they further disaggregate that category, they have to either include all or none. My problem is just that the schools haven't proven to us that they are good jobs or that they turn into full time jobs. There is a lot of assuming going on as it relates to these jobs. Until we know what students do after these jobs, I am wary of including them.

[The Dark Shepard]

However, we seem fine with keeping firms of 2-10 in overall FTLT employment scores(it's not in the BL+FC, but neither are SFJs, so obviously we consider this category important when we look at employment statistics).

[Dafaq]

SFJ is the poster child for “Catch 22.” The bad; SFJ’s obviously distorts the employment picture (no one goes to LS aiming for a temporary low paying job). This stat purposely misleads the OL who sees an employment score of 90% only to later learn that 20% are SFJ. It is also unfair to the school with 85% employment and 3% SFJ. Although this will never happen, once a school’s employment numbers are enhanced by 5% or more (via SFJ) they should be required to asterisk their employment stat with a bold SFJ disclaimer.

The good; for the 3L with no place to go, at least a SFJ is a life raft of sorts. Keeping in mind that if the school could not benefit by gaming the system through SFJ the school would undoubtedly eliminate SFJ.

[lawschool22]

SFJ is the poster child for “Catch 22.” The bad; SFJ’s obviously distorts the employment picture (no one goes to LS aiming for a temporary low paying job). This stat purposely misleads the OL who sees an employment score of 90% only to later learn that 20% are SFJ. It is also unfair to the school with 85% employment and 3% SFJ. Although this will never happen, once a school’s employment numbers are enhanced by 5% or more (via SFJ) they should be required to asterisk their employment stat with a bold SFJ disclaimer.

The good; for the 3L with no place to go, at least a SFJ is a life raft of sorts. Keeping in mind that if the school could not benefit by gaming the system through SFJ the school would undoubtedly eliminate SFJ.

But if they eliminate it, then the schools employment score suffers, and they will be forced to work to improve the *real* employment rate, by doing things such as reducing class size, which would be good for students.

[iqbalicarus]

I like Vanderbilt at 14. With UT bringing up the rear call it the new T15.

ETA: also do they list the numerical values of each school according to their metric so we can see how close each school comes to the next?

Yeah, totally. Why not, when both of these schools have objectively worse BigFed + BigLaw percentages than Georgetown (without even touching GULC's comparatively very high PI placement/self-selection)?

[Ricky-Bobby]

Sweet necro. You sure showed him.

Good luck at GULC!

[rahulg91]

I like Vanderbilt at 14. With UT bringing up the rear call it the new T15.

ETA: also do they list the numerical values of each school according to their metric so we can see how close each school comes to the next?

Yeah, totally. Why not, when both of these schools have objectively worse BigFed + BigLaw percentages than Georgetown (without even touching GULC's comparatively very high PI placement/self-selection)?

Hold up a sec. http://www.lstscorereports.com/compare/ ... ilt/texas/

Vandy has a lower underemployment score + a higher employment score + lower school funded rate + higher fedclerk rate + lower COL.
LOL.

[jbagelboy]

I like Vanderbilt at 14. With UT bringing up the rear call it the new T15.

ETA: also do they list the numerical values of each school according to their metric so we can see how close each school comes to the next?

Yeah, totally. Why not, when both of these schools have objectively worse BigFed + BigLaw percentages than Georgetown (without even touching GULC's comparatively very high PI placement/self-selection)?

Yea man! Only necro 3-4 more employment threads with inaccurate information about Georgetown to ease your insecurity and you'll finally show 'em!

[03152016]

Yeah, totally. Why not, when both of these schools have objectively worse BigFed + BigLaw percentages than Georgetown (without even touching GULC's comparatively very high PI placement/self-selection)?

LOL this numerical illiteracy based on relegating GULC to the bottom needs to stop. The school numerically closest to Cornell is Berkeley (the only two schools in the T14 with median LSATs below 168), not Georgetown. Georgetown's medians are slightly higher than Michigan's (equal LSAT, somewhat higher GPA) and slightly lower than NU (equal LSAT, somewhat lower GPA). Cornell, on the other hand, has medians on par with Vandy and Berk, without having Berkeley's quirkiness. In fact, Cornell's TOP 25% LSAT, also 167, is below the median student at every other school in the T-14(excepting Berkeley).

i am 100% positive that you are the same poster, sock puppeting
both bumped months old threads for seemingly no reason
both posted within a couple hours of each other
both are shilling for gulc, using similar language
both have user names relate to islam
perhaps mod can confirm?

eta: both posters use two spaces instead of one after periods
doesn't show in threads, but shows in the reply screen (just tested, apparently forum automatically corrects double space to single in threads)
so more proof of sockpuppeting

[jbagelboy]

I like Vanderbilt at 14. With UT bringing up the rear call it the new T15.

ETA: also do they list the numerical values of each school according to their metric so we can see how close each school comes to the next?

Yeah, totally. Why not, when both of these schools have objectively worse BigFed + BigLaw percentages than Georgetown (without even touching GULC's comparatively very high PI placement/self-selection)?

Hold up a sec. http://www.lstscorereports.com/compare/ ... ilt/texas/

Vandy has a lower underemployment score + a higher employment score + lower school funded rate + higher fedclerk rate + lower COL.
LOL.

vanderbilt isn't necessarily a better school, it's just a peer

[Hipster but Athletic]

It's pretty clear that not all school funded positions are bad, but the problem is figuring out which ones are good and which ones are bad. I'm sure that some people at GULC/UVA are getting a good deal out of their school funded position and some people at NYU are not.

Ideally we'd just have 2 years of employment data. Poll people again at 1.75 years out and you'll see how many people were able to convert their school funded job into a legit job, how many clerks were able to go (back) into biglaw, etc.

LOL at your sample data though. Who the fuck fills out polls