Top Law Schools

OcanadaO wrote:Whats up with Northwestern's continued drop in peer assessment score?!

I wonder if the switch to a two-year program from the traditional three-year system has something to do with it? Just guessing.

redskinsgibbs wrote:

kimber1028 wrote:

redskinsgibbs wrote:

jetlagz28 wrote:GW's position in the DC market still the same?

For the most part people who post on here have no social life.

And you have 450 posts because....?

I just figured it out.

So you're not a hypocrite, just a little slow on the uptake?

Ken wrote: Davis +9 (also did well and now looking more attractive than Hastings)

Maybe this will be motivation enough to update Davis' TLS article? The thing is totally outdated. Still claims that classes are a full year long and lists tuition at a little over half the current tuition... not so helpful anymore.

Mr. Guppy wrote:

OcanadaO wrote:Whats up with Northwestern's continued drop in peer assessment score?!

I wonder if the switch to a two-year program from the traditional three-year system has something to do with it? Just guessing.

Or it could be the fact that only about 31% of the people that received the peer assessment questionnaire actually returned it. Down from about 47% last year, 60% the year before and about 70% 5 years ago.

The people they give the peer assessments to think USN is retarded so they stop answering the questions. But US News will continue to tell you this ranking hold significant value.

dapoetic1 wrote:

Mr. Guppy wrote:

OcanadaO wrote:Whats up with Northwestern's continued drop in peer assessment score?!

I wonder if the switch to a two-year program from the traditional three-year system has something to do with it? Just guessing.

Or it could be the fact that only about 31% of the people that received the peer assessment questionnaire actually returned it. Down from about 47% last year, 60% the year before and about 70% 5 years ago.

The people they give the peer assessments to think USN is retarded so they stop answering the questions. But US News will continue to tell you this ranking hold significant value.

To be fair, it's the Lawyers and Judges who had the abysmal rate; the Peers had 71%. But, then again many of those peers are secretaries and RAs who the profs give the forms to, and a lot of them base their assessment off of last year's US News rankings anyway. Leiter make come off as a bit of a crank sometimes, but he's on the right track about how to do a better peer assessment. The problem is that it would take a lot of time, still have certain biases associated with it, and at a certain point we already know what the best law schools are, their rough positions in terms of reputation, and we can look up their recent scholarly output in certain areas of interest if we actually care about them.

HYS, CCN, MBVP, DNCG is pretty much the way it is - though you could argue now it's more like YHS, CNC, BM, PV, DN, CG, but really, it's not rocket science. And then after that, some combination of Texas / UCLA / Vandy, after that USC, and then after that it's all regional.

The reason why people respect US News rankings is because they preserve that ordering. If they disrupt that ordering, it wouldn't be credible, and they'd have to adjust their methodology. Then, after that they can screw around with impunity.

Yeah. It's actually pretty astounding how entrenched the T14 is. Assuming Georgetown was hurt by the PT (And I have no idea if they factored it in) they didn't get hurt the same way GW did. They're in the same spot as last year. Looking at Cornell's GPA, assuming it's not a typo..and their LSAT scores it's weird how they stills cored higher in raw points than last year. It's the area outside of T14 that shift like crazy apparently.

?

so haha to GW wait listing me. haha to Fordham for not even getting back to me. And this is why I am going to Emory!!!!!!

There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does.

Thank you for that clearly unsubstantiated statement. If this were really true, it would be saying that combine all the softs of students at Berkeley and they would put Harvard students softs to shame. There's absolutely no metric to this. Berkeley rejects people with a 150 LSAT too because they don't fit the numbers profile. Harvard has a higher numbers profile but it is ludicrous to think that they don't look at the overall package of individuals. Just look at some of the people who have high numbers that were waitlisted as well as those with low numbers who are also on the waitlist. Furthermore, meet some students from these schools and you'll see that they're impressive in so many ways, at BOTH schools.

Also gk, good luck with your running around face palming people in law school. /fail.

Kind of cool rankings since 1990, with new 2010's added... Im personally a fan of the colors
--ImageRemoved--

royal34 wrote:so haha to GW wait listing me. haha to Fordham for not even getting back to me. And this is why I am going to Emory!!!!!!

+1!
although Fordham Wl me....

Hmmmmmmmmmm

FAIL. Off to emory I go!

that chart is freaking nuts. awesome...but nuts. now do all of tier 1, just to see if it will induce a seizure

rdt854 wrote:Kind of cool rankings since 1990, with new 2010's added... Im personally a fan of the colors
--ImageRemoved--

Duke and Cal are certainly on roller-coaster rides!

Yea. That's sweet.

ZakD wrote:Yea. That's sweet.

Excellent...

treple wrote:

There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does.

Thank you for that clearly unsubstantiated statement. If this were really true, it would be saying that combine all the softs of students at Berkeley and they would put Harvard students softs to shame. There's absolutely no metric to this. Berkeley rejects people with a 150 LSAT too because they don't fit the numbers profile. Harvard has a higher numbers profile but it is ludicrous to think that they don't look at the overall package of individuals. Just look at some of the people who have high numbers that were waitlisted as well as those with low numbers who are also on the waitlist. Furthermore, meet some students from these schools and you'll see that they're impressive in so many ways, at BOTH schools.

Also gk, good luck with your running around face palming people in law school. /fail.

I was actually mocking Izziesgal for the incredibly stupid post (I had to point the stupidity out on page 8 again). I just didn't feel like writing out a long response. Also, why do posters on this board assume people talk the same way irl as they do on an internet message board. In any case I have no intention of face palming anyone or saying "TITCR" in law school.

Mr. Matlock wrote:

rdt854 wrote:Kind of cool rankings since 1990, with new 2010's added... Im personally a fan of the colors
--ImageRemoved--

Duke and Cal are certainly on roller-coaster rides!

im wondering about UVA from 8 to 14 in 1994... then back up to 7 the following year?

gk101 wrote:

treple wrote:

There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does.

Thank you for that clearly unsubstantiated statement. If this were really true, it would be saying that combine all the softs of students at Berkeley and they would put Harvard students softs to shame. There's absolutely no metric to this. Berkeley rejects people with a 150 LSAT too because they don't fit the numbers profile. Harvard has a higher numbers profile but it is ludicrous to think that they don't look at the overall package of individuals. Just look at some of the people who have high numbers that were waitlisted as well as those with low numbers who are also on the waitlist. Furthermore, meet some students from these schools and you'll see that they're impressive in so many ways, at BOTH schools.

Also gk, good luck with your running around face palming people in law school. /fail.

I was actually mocking Izziesgal for the incredibly stupid post (I had to point the stupidity out on page 8 again). I just didn't feel like writing out a long response. Also, why do posters on this board assume people talk the same way irl as they do on an internet message board. In any case I have no intention of face palming anyone or saying "TITCR" in law school.

I feel I'll use TLDR.

How great would it be if a professor wrote "TITCR" next to an exam question next fall?

ZakD wrote:How great would it be if a professor wrote "TITCR" next to an exam question next fall?

Maybe in 10-15 years when the TLS-generation becomes professors at law schools.

rdt854 wrote: im wondering about UVA from 8 to 14 in 1994... then back up to 7 the following year?

Looks like an anomaly followed by a correction.

Mr. Matlock wrote:

gk101 wrote:

treple wrote:

There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does.

Thank you for that clearly unsubstantiated statement. If this were really true, it would be saying that combine all the softs of students at Berkeley and they would put Harvard students softs to shame. There's absolutely no metric to this. Berkeley rejects people with a 150 LSAT too because they don't fit the numbers profile. Harvard has a higher numbers profile but it is ludicrous to think that they don't look at the overall package of individuals. Just look at some of the people who have high numbers that were waitlisted as well as those with low numbers who are also on the waitlist. Furthermore, meet some students from these schools and you'll see that they're impressive in so many ways, at BOTH schools.

Also gk, good luck with your running around face palming people in law school. /fail.

I was actually mocking Izziesgal for the incredibly stupid post (I had to point the stupidity out on page 8 again). I just didn't feel like writing out a long response. Also, why do posters on this board assume people talk the same way irl as they do on an internet message board. In any case I have no intention of face palming anyone or saying "TITCR" in law school.

I feel I'll use TLDR.

yeah maybe on the rare (more likely often) occasion when I don't get a chance to finish the assigned reading and the professor calls on me, TLDR would be appropriate

hieveryone wrote:Yeah. It's actually pretty astounding how entrenched the T14 is. Assuming Georgetown was hurt by the PT (And I have no idea if they factored it in) they didn't get hurt the same way GW did. They're in the same spot as last year. Looking at Cornell's GPA, assuming it's not a typo..and their LSAT scores it's weird how they stills cored higher in raw points than last year. It's the area outside of T14 that shift like crazy apparently.

I still think pushing rankings that weigh historical reputation so heavily while ignoring current job placement altogether does a disservice to prospective students figuring out where to invest in a JD... it certainly benefits the legal community at large to stick with a status quo, but the rankings are supposed to be a tool for prospectives to use. Right?

And when I mention job placement I'm not talking about how last year's class of '08 did as far as being employed at graduation or 9 months out, which is what USNews looks at. The only relevant information right now is how the 2Ls did for summer placement. That information won't play into the NLJ250 placement charts until two years from now... and they will never be captured by USNews except under the "% employed category," which is basically the same for all top law schools. There's too much variability between class sizes and market preferences among these schools to know which ones have weathered the market retraction the best without seeing the information.

As such, I'm encouraging UT, UCLA, and the rest of the schools to publish employment lists for 2Ls this year. Schools that withhold this information should face a presumption of having something to hide (namely, what the bottom 1/2 of their class is doing for work). We don't know what next year will look like for placement and hopefully schools that didn't do as well this year will adapt to the changed circumstances, but we should still have some way to compare how graduates (Edit: I mean soon-to-be gradutes) are faring ITE.

Regards,
Your T17 Troll

gk101 wrote:

treple wrote:

There's no way that Harvard looks at whole applicants just as much as Berkeley does.

Thank you for that clearly unsubstantiated statement. If this were really true, it would be saying that combine all the softs of students at Berkeley and they would put Harvard students softs to shame. There's absolutely no metric to this. Berkeley rejects people with a 150 LSAT too because they don't fit the numbers profile. Harvard has a higher numbers profile but it is ludicrous to think that they don't look at the overall package of individuals. Just look at some of the people who have high numbers that were waitlisted as well as those with low numbers who are also on the waitlist. Furthermore, meet some students from these schools and you'll see that they're impressive in so many ways, at BOTH schools.

Also gk, good luck with your running around face palming people in law school. /fail.

I was actually mocking Izziesgal for the incredibly stupid post (I had to point the stupidity out on page 8 again). I just didn't feel like writing out a long response. Also, why do posters on this board assume people talk the same way irl as they do on an internet message board. In any case I have no intention of face palming anyone or saying "TITCR" in law school.

I apologize on behalf of Harvard Admissions for the incredibly stupid statement they made that led to my stupid experience which resulted in my stupid post.

Sorry that we all can't be all-knowing, brilliant people like you.

I was sharing MY EXPERIENCE with Harvard vs. Berkeley. But, thanks, again.

observationalist wrote:

hieveryone wrote:Yeah. It's actually pretty astounding how entrenched the T14 is. Assuming Georgetown was hurt by the PT (And I have no idea if they factored it in) they didn't get hurt the same way GW did. They're in the same spot as last year. Looking at Cornell's GPA, assuming it's not a typo..and their LSAT scores it's weird how they stills cored higher in raw points than last year. It's the area outside of T14 that shift like crazy apparently.

I still think pushing rankings that weigh historical reputation so heavily while ignoring current job placement altogether does a disservice to prospective students figuring out where to invest in a JD... it certainly benefits the legal community at large to stick with a status quo, but the rankings are supposed to be a tool for prospectives to use. Right?

And when I mention job placement I'm not talking about how last year's class of '08 did as far as being employed at graduation or 9 months out, which is what USNews looks at. The only relevant information right now is how the 2Ls did for summer placement. That information won't play into the NLJ250 placement charts until two years from now... and they will never be captured by USNews except under the "% employed category," which is basically the same for all top law schools. There's too much variability between class sizes and market preferences among these schools to know which ones have weathered the market retraction the best without seeing the information.

As such, I'm encouraging UT, UCLA, and the rest of the schools to publish employment lists for 2Ls this year. Schools that withhold this information should face a presumption of having something to hide (namely, what the bottom 1/2 of their class is doing for work). We don't know what next year will look like for placement and hopefully schools that didn't do as well this year will adapt to the changed circumstances, but we should still have some way to compare how graduates are faring ITE.

Regards,
Your T17 Troll

You may have answered this somewhere else, but how is Vandy doing this year with concern to summer placements?