Is it smart to trust Chapman's claim of becoming a tier 2? Forum

[princess1]

I heard from my friend who attends Chapman, that the school is expected to become a tier 2 school in the next year. Has anybody heard the same?

[jks289]

I heard from my friend who attends Chapman, that the school is expected to become a tier 2 school in the next year. Has anybody heard the same?

I have heard this again and again from Chapman people. I just don't buy it. So Cal is such a saturated market (UCLA, USC, Loyola, Chapman, USD, and a whole handful of 4th tiers like Western State and Jefferson). Chapman has lots of money, and is trying to build on its conservative reputation. But they just don't have quality students to back up the move. I think they are working as hard as possible to game the USNWR rankings, but that can't be sustained long term.

ETA: Also publicity moves like allowing John Yoo to teach doesn't speak highly of the school's integrity or interest in producing ethical professionals.

[princess1]

That's true. If it were to happen, wouldn't USNews create a future placement for them in the their 100 Top Law Schools list as they have UC Irvine?

At the same time, Chapman's bar passage rate increased significantly this last year . . . which makes me think that they would make it under the tier 2 category over the next few years. So ya. I don't really know what to think about it. I just got accepted there, and I think my chances at UCI are pretty slim, but I do want to practice law in the OC . . .

[Great Satchmo]

Does it really matter if they are T2 vs. T3, at least in the time that you will be a student and then get your first job?

Probably not.

[dcm81]

Probably won't be tier 2 this year, but they will be close. Take any schools promises with a grain of salt because you never know what is going to happen with the USNews rankings. But they will probably move up. Next year is pretty likely though if they can get another .1 or .2 in peer rankings. I already discussed this in another thread about Chapman, but I have already shown they don't need to do much to get into the top 100. When you have New Mexico at 77 with worse students than Chapman, it really goes to show how much those BS peer review ratings work. But like I said, a slight change in their ratings, which have been going up, will go a long way in determining how soon they jump.

Also I disagree with the above post regarding Chapman being super conservative. They used to be but are moderate now. Their dean has left to pursue the, AG position, and Yoo no longer works there. Prof. Darmer and Rosenthal are two prime examples of professors there that lean hard to the left. In fact, most of their professors are liberal and aren't afraid to show it (I know because I live in OC, and have dealt with some of them in CLE seminars). Also, Yoo is actually known to be a good professor, despite how most on the left demonize the hell out of him. In the academic field, I think it is important to have diverse views presented, even that professor has made some very very controversial legal decisions.

[jks289]

Probably won't be tier 2 this year, but they will be close. Take any schools promises with a grain of salt because you never know what is going to happen with the USNews rankings. But they will probably move up. Next year is pretty likely though if they can get another .1 or .2 in peer rankings. I already discussed this in another thread about Chapman, but I have already shown they don't need to do much to get into the top 100. When you have New Mexico at 77 with worse students than Chapman, it really goes to show how much those BS peer review ratings work. But like I said, a slight change in their ratings, which have been going up, will go a long way in determining how soon they jump.

Also I disagree with the above post regarding Chapman being super conservative. They used to be but are moderate now. Their dean has left to pursue the, AG position, and Yoo no longer works there. Prof. Darmer and Rosenthal are two prime examples of professors there that lean hard to the left. In fact, most of their professors are liberal and aren't afraid to show it (I know because I live in OC, and have dealt with some of them in CLE seminars). Also, Yoo is actually known to be a good professor, despite how most on the left demonize the hell out of him. In the academic field, I think it is important to have diverse views presented, even that professor has made some very very controversial legal decisions[/b].

Demonized by the left? John Yoo is a war criminal who facilitated torturing human beings. That he would be allowed to instruct the individuals to whom the basic protection of the United States Constitution is entrusted is an abomination. Period. Should the school be able to shake the stench of Yoo and conservatism in the near future remains to be seen. My point was his employment didn't do Chapman favors in its peer reviews.

Any school that is so open and blatant it it's ranking whoredom should break the lower T2 eventually. At that level it is more about a willingness to outspend than anything.

[Philo38]

Probably won't be tier 2 this year, but they will be close. Take any schools promises with a grain of salt because you never know what is going to happen with the USNews rankings. But they will probably move up. Next year is pretty likely though if they can get another .1 or .2 in peer rankings. I already discussed this in another thread about Chapman, but I have already shown they don't need to do much to get into the top 100. When you have New Mexico at 77 with worse students than Chapman, it really goes to show how much those BS peer review ratings work. But like I said, a slight change in their ratings, which have been going up, will go a long way in determining how soon they jump.

Also I disagree with the above post regarding Chapman being super conservative. They used to be but are moderate now. Their dean has left to pursue the, AG position, and Yoo no longer works there. Prof. Darmer and Rosenthal are two prime examples of professors there that lean hard to the left. In fact, most of their professors are liberal and aren't afraid to show it (I know because I live in OC, and have dealt with some of them in CLE seminars). Also, Yoo is actually known to be a good professor, despite how most on the left demonize the hell out of him. In the academic field, I think it is important to have diverse views presented, even that professor has made some very very controversial legal decisions[/b].

Demonized by the left? John Yoo is a war criminal who facilitated torturing human beings. That he would be allowed to instruct the individuals to whom the basic protection of the United States Constitution is entrusted is an abomination. Period. Should the school be able to shake the stench of Yoo and conservatism in the near future remains to be seen. My point was his employment didn't do Chapman favors in its peer reviews.

Any school that is so open and blatant it it's ranking whoredom should break the lower T2 eventually. At that level it is more about a willingness to outspend than anything.

I can't stand John Yoo, but the guy is brilliant and has an incredibly unique insider perspective. I can hardly think of anybody more valuable for young law students to be exposed to. Again, I found Yoo's OLC opinions to be deplorable, but this is the value of education, being exposed to radical and challanging views which provoke meaningful thought and convictions.

Plus Yoo isn't exactly some brutal authoritarian maniac. The guy has very well thought out legal reasoning for his interpretation of the constitution as promoting the expansion of executive power. Again, I can't stand it, but that's what colleges are for right? If we allow the run of the mill sweater wearing Marxists (who are becoming very boring) to teach in our universities, we should welcome thier opposite. It's only in that discord that the students will really be challanged.

[MorningHood]

I heard from my friend who attends Chapman, that the school is expected to become a tier 2 school in the next year. Has anybody heard the same?

I have heard this again and again from Chapman people. I just don't buy it. So Cal is such a saturated market (UCLA, USC, Loyola, Chapman, USD, and a whole handful of 4th tiers like Western State and Jefferson). Chapman has lots of money, and is trying to build on its conservative reputation. But they just don't have quality students to back up the move. I think they are working as hard as possible to game the USNWR rankings, but that can't be sustained long term.

ETA: Also publicity moves like allowing John Yoo to teach doesn't speak highly of the school's integrity or interest in producing ethical professionals.

+1

[jks289]

Probably won't be tier 2 this year, but they will be close. Take any schools promises with a grain of salt because you never know what is going to happen with the USNews rankings. But they will probably move up. Next year is pretty likely though if they can get another .1 or .2 in peer rankings. I already discussed this in another thread about Chapman, but I have already shown they don't need to do much to get into the top 100. When you have New Mexico at 77 with worse students than Chapman, it really goes to show how much those BS peer review ratings work. But like I said, a slight change in their ratings, which have been going up, will go a long way in determining how soon they jump.

Also I disagree with the above post regarding Chapman being super conservative. They used to be but are moderate now. Their dean has left to pursue the, AG position, and Yoo no longer works there. Prof. Darmer and Rosenthal are two prime examples of professors there that lean hard to the left. In fact, most of their professors are liberal and aren't afraid to show it (I know because I live in OC, and have dealt with some of them in CLE seminars). Also, Yoo is actually known to be a good professor, despite how most on the left demonize the hell out of him. In the academic field, I think it is important to have diverse views presented, even that professor has made some very very controversial legal decisions[/b].

Demonized by the left? John Yoo is a war criminal who facilitated torturing human beings. That he would be allowed to instruct the individuals to whom the basic protection of the United States Constitution is entrusted is an abomination. Period. Should the school be able to shake the stench of Yoo and conservatism in the near future remains to be seen. My point was his employment didn't do Chapman favors in its peer reviews.

Any school that is so open and blatant it it's ranking whoredom should break the lower T2 eventually. At that level it is more about a willingness to outspend than anything.

I can't stand John Yoo, but the guy is brilliant and has an incredibly unique insider perspective. I can hardly think of anybody more valuable for young law students to be exposed to. Again, I found Yoo's OLC opinions to be deplorable, but this is the value of education, being exposed to radical and challanging views which provoke meaningful thought and convictions.

Plus Yoo isn't exactly some brutal authoritarian maniac. The guy has very well thought out legal reasoning for his interpretation of the constitution as promoting the expansion of executive power. Again, I can't stand it, but that's what colleges are for right? If we allow the run of the mill sweater wearing Marxists (who are becoming very boring) to teach in our universities, we should welcome thier opposite. It's only in that discord that the students will really be challanged.

There are plenty of conservatives who would be an asset to a law school and provide the balance you are speaking of (Ted Olson, comes to mind and even Ken Starr, who is vile). John Yoo isn't one of them. He didn't lay out solid legal reasoning; he manipulated a perverse constitutional interpretation and ignored known precedent to justify a clearly illegal act. That is a breach of his duty as an officer of the court, and if we don't hold our law professors to the same ethical standards as practitioners (and this goes for liberals and conservatives) then the future of the legal profession will be a bleak one.

[DukeHopeful]

Probably won't be tier 2 this year, but they will be close. Take any schools promises with a grain of salt because you never know what is going to happen with the USNews rankings. But they will probably move up. Next year is pretty likely though if they can get another .1 or .2 in peer rankings. I already discussed this in another thread about Chapman, but I have already shown they don't need to do much to get into the top 100. When you have New Mexico at 77 with worse students than Chapman, it really goes to show how much those BS peer review ratings work. But like I said, a slight change in their ratings, which have been going up, will go a long way in determining how soon they jump.

Also I disagree with the above post regarding Chapman being super conservative. They used to be but are moderate now. Their dean has left to pursue the, AG position, and Yoo no longer works there. Prof. Darmer and Rosenthal are two prime examples of professors there that lean hard to the left. In fact, most of their professors are liberal and aren't afraid to show it (I know because I live in OC, and have dealt with some of them in CLE seminars). Also, Yoo is actually known to be a good professor, despite how most on the left demonize the hell out of him. In the academic field, I think it is important to have diverse views presented, even that professor has made some very very controversial legal decisions[/b].

Demonized by the left? John Yoo is a war criminal who facilitated torturing human beings. That he would be allowed to instruct the individuals to whom the basic protection of the United States Constitution is entrusted is an abomination. Period. Should the school be able to shake the stench of Yoo and conservatism in the near future remains to be seen. My point was his employment didn't do Chapman favors in its peer reviews.

Any school that is so open and blatant it it's ranking whoredom should break the lower T2 eventually. At that level it is more about a willingness to outspend than anything.

I can't stand John Yoo, but the guy is brilliant and has an incredibly unique insider perspective. I can hardly think of anybody more valuable for young law students to be exposed to. Again, I found Yoo's OLC opinions to be deplorable, but this is the value of education, being exposed to radical and challanging views which provoke meaningful thought and convictions.

Plus Yoo isn't exactly some brutal authoritarian maniac. The guy has very well thought out legal reasoning for his interpretation of the constitution as promoting the expansion of executive power. Again, I can't stand it, but that's what colleges are for right? If we allow the run of the mill sweater wearing Marxists (who are becoming very boring) to teach in our universities, we should welcome thier opposite. It's only in that discord that the students will really be challanged.

There are plenty of conservatives who would be an asset to a law school and provide the balance you are speaking of (Ted Olson, comes to mind and even Ken Starr, who is vile). John Yoo isn't one of them. He didn't lay out solid legal reasoning; he manipulated a perverse constitutional interpretation and ignored known precedent to justify a clearly illegal act. That is a breach of his duty as an officer of the court, and if we don't hold our law professors to the same ethical standards as practitioners (and this goes for liberals and conservatives) then the future of the legal profession will be a bleak one.

You speak of this issue as if it were black and white, and your side is clearly the only right one. However, it obviously is not that cut and dry, as the debate rages on over whether or not "enhanced interrogation techniques" are legally and morally acceptable. His writing the memos that gave the opinion that the executive branch the power to authorize these tactics doesn't even necessarily mean that he condoned the acts themselves. His job was to give a non-biased professional opinion on the interpretation of the boundaries of the law. There will almost certainly be a time in most of our lives as lawyers where we encounter a situation that we may not absolutely agree with, but we owe it to ourselves and our profession to do the job that we are tasked to do.

If Yoo was as obviously guilty of a crime as you claim, then I am sure one the brilliant minds working on the issue would have done something about it by now.

[vanwinkle]

Does it really matter if they are T2 vs. T3, at least in the time that you will be a student and then get your first job?

Probably not.

TITCR. /thread

[dcm81]

Another problem I have with demonizing Chapman about Yoo is that he teaches at Berkeley. So I have a hard time seeing some people are trying to demonize Chapman as a "conservative" school when Yoo is tenured at Berkeley.

[jks289]

Another problem I have with demonizing Chapman about Yoo is that he teaches at Berkeley. So I have a hard time seeing some people are trying to demonize Chapman as a "conservative" school when Yoo is tenured at Berkeley.

Yoo left under pressure from Berkeley and Chapman allowed him to come AFTER the memos were published. It remains to be seen if he returns to Boalt, though students and professor have said they will protest.

My point wasn't really about Yoo. Besides, anyone who refers to "enhanced interrogation methods" has already shown themselves incapable of a reasonable discussion on the issue (I can watch Bill O'Reilly myself, thanks). My point was the perception of the decision to let him come teach and how that will affect the peer reviews of Chapman for USNWR. My guess is unfavorably. But we'll see.

[kings84_wr]

Another problem I have with demonizing Chapman about Yoo is that he teaches at Berkeley. So I have a hard time seeing some people are trying to demonize Chapman as a "conservative" school when Yoo is tenured at Berkeley.

Yoo left under pressure from Berkeley and Chapman allowed him to come AFTER the memos were published. It remains to be seen if he returns to Boalt, though students and professor have said they will protest.

My point wasn't really about Yoo. Besides, anyone who refers to "enhanced interrogation methods" has already shown themselves incapable of a reasonable discussion on the issue (I can watch Bill O'Reilly myself, thanks). My point was the perception of the decision to let him come teach and how that will affect the peer reviews of Chapman for USNWR. My guess is unfavorably. But we'll see.

Chapman isn't gonna get bad peer reviews for having Yoo come as a visiting prof.

and Im like 99 % sure that Yoo taught last fall and currently at Berkeley. The tenure system is a bitch.

[jks289]

Another problem I have with demonizing Chapman about Yoo is that he teaches at Berkeley. So I have a hard time seeing some people are trying to demonize Chapman as a "conservative" school when Yoo is tenured at Berkeley.

Yoo left under pressure from Berkeley and Chapman allowed him to come AFTER the memos were published. It remains to be seen if he returns to Boalt, though students and professor have said they will protest.

My point wasn't really about Yoo. Besides, anyone who refers to "enhanced interrogation methods" has already shown themselves incapable of a reasonable discussion on the issue (I can watch Bill O'Reilly myself, thanks). My point was the perception of the decision to let him come teach and how that will affect the peer reviews of Chapman for USNWR. My guess is unfavorably. But we'll see.

Chapman isn't gonna get bad peer reviews for having Yoo come as a visiting prof.

and Im like 99 % sure that Yoo taught last fall and currently at Berkeley. The tenure system is a bitch.

Possible. I though he was still at some conservative think tank letting the people forget the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibilty ruling against him.

[DukeHopeful]

Do you think it was referred to as "torture" in the memos? "Enhanced interrogation techniques," as far as I know, is the legal term used in the memos. So yes, anyone who uses the proper terminology automatically makes clear their ideological affiliation.

I actually didn't take a side at all on the issue in my post. My point was that as lawyers, I think we have an ethical responsibility to leave our own personal feelings out of the equation and follow the law, whatever that law is. If you want to rewrite the laws, become a congressman, and if you wish make judgments about the law, become a judge. As lawyers, I think our responsibility lies in dealing with the laws as they exist, and the memos Yoo wrote were regarding his educated professional opinion of the law. He wasn't writing new laws, or reinterpreting old ones.

Indications of an inability to have a reasonable discussion include ad hominem attacks about a person's assumed ideological tendencies and a subsequent dismissal, on those grounds alone, of anything said by that person.

Personally, I think it would be incredibly unprofessional for those evaluating Chapman (or any other school) for peer reviews to base their score on the ideological leanings of the faculty. That certainly sounds more like a Cooley-esque ranking meter than something that respectable law faculty would support. For example, if suddenly conservatism became wildly popular among law faculty, should Berkeley's ranking drop for the sole reason of being known as a bastion of liberalism? The idea is absurd.

[kings84_wr]

My Con law book in today's reading cited John Yoo's book on executive power, (written by all left wing profs) so it shows you he still is seen as a major player in academia.

If anything publicity is good for chapman not bad, especially with UCI starting up.

[dcm81]

Peer review scores are backward looking and benefit schools that have been around for a long time. And these scores are notoriously suspect. For example, undergrad Clemson was caught rating their school a 4/5 and other really good rival schools a 2. Same goes with law schools. What incentive does the Loyola dean have in rating Chapman a 3 instead of a 1? Loyola, Pepperdine, and USD all have an incentive to keep Chapman down. I think USNews should publicize the ratings that deans/professors provide to them so that we can all know whats going on and who is gaming the reputation ratings. Chapman happens to be one the most egregious casualties of the ranking games. Because Chapman does not deserve a 1.9 peer reputation score with the kind of caliber of faculty and students they have. They probably should be in the 2.4-2.6 range, but hey im not the one rating schools.

[ruleser]

Does it really matter if they are T2 vs. T3, at least in the time that you will be a student and then get your first job?

Probably not.

TITCR. /thread

+2

[amputatedbrain]

Just to clear one thing up, John Yoo is definitely still faculty at Boalt.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-program ... p#facultyY

[Great Satchmo]

Peer review scores are backward looking and benefit schools that have been around for a long time. And these scores are notoriously suspect. For example, undergrad Clemson was caught rating their school a 4/5 and other really good rival schools a 2. Same goes with law schools. What incentive does the Loyola dean have in rating Chapman a 3 instead of a 1? Loyola, Pepperdine, and USD all have an incentive to keep Chapman down. I think USNews should publicize the ratings that deans/professors provide to them so that we can all know whats going on and who is gaming the reputation ratings. Chapman happens to be one the most egregious casualties of the ranking games. Because Chapman does not deserve a 1.9 peer reputation score with the kind of caliber of faculty and students they have. They probably should be in the 2.4-2.6 range, but hey im not the one rating schools.

I think it's a bit much to attribute Loyola's poor peer ranking to USD, Loyola, and Pepperdine's malice.

It could be that they don't attract the highest caliber students. Or, it could be evil collusion. Either way...

[Great Satchmo]

Does it really matter if they are T2 vs. T3, at least in the time that you will be a student and then get your first job?

Probably not.

TITCR. /thread

+2

I do want to clarify in case there is any stink of elitism in that comment.

I meant that the tier distinction is f'ing meaningless. Does going to a #45-49 school make you better than a #51-55 school? That is tier 1 vs. tier 2. Why would an arbitrary cut-off matter, especially as you get outside of the top 20 or 30 schools, it becomes regional. From what I can tell, and this is an uneducated and lay-opinion, at most points past the top 20-ish, it's about details. If you aren't going to Harvard, go to a school that is in the region you want to live, that has a campus you can enjoy for 3 years, a strong educational support system, maybe offers some money, etc.

I can't pretend that I don't care, I think about going to a T1 vs. a T2 vs. a T3/T4. It's pride. However, I hope that I can ultimately make my decision as to where to attend on a variety of factors, some that correlate with rankings (i.e. general employment data). However, it's important to remember this is YOUR life, and you need to make the decisions that are your own.

So, if a school jumps a few spots and makes it to T2, does it really matter? Likely not for you. It matters how the employers view the school. It matters how happy at the school you'll be. It matters how it fits into your life and career plans.

[twert]

if chapman were to break into the top 100, it would not be displacing anyone that it competes with in southern california. it would bump maine or ganzaga. it would be the same school. they are offering me a generous scholarship and i'm considering it, but their ambitious rankings-gaming is a bit of a turn off. it seems insecure to me.

[dcm81]

they are offering me a generous scholarship and i'm considering it, but their ambitious rankings-gaming is a bit of a turn off. it seems insecure to me.

Nearly all law schools do some sort of "gaming" to improve themselves in the rankings, so I don't know why it would really put you off that Chapman is trying to be a better school. Thats just the way it is. Most people use rankings to determine where they will go, and that puts a ton of pressure for schools to improve themselves to jump other schools. However, I think all the things that Chapman are doing to improve their school, such as adding clinics, more professors, more programs, and improving their bar passage rate (went from 50 something to 81 percent last July), are things that should be celebrated as achievements, and not something that was done just to become a second tier school. As noted many, many times, schools can only control 60 per cent of the rankings, the rest is peer reviewed. And the things that USNews calculates in their rankings besides peer reviews are things that are important to you as a prospective student (LSAT, GPA, employment, bar passage rates, library, faculty/student ratios). About the only thing that a school can really "game" is employment, and in this market, I promise you everyone is pumping up their numbers because the legal market is awful right now. Chapman probably has, and so have most others. Everything else is hard to game, especially now that part time is seperately ranked. I wouldn't worry about schools gaming, I would worry about where you want to practice, live, and how much scholarship money you are going to get.

[Philo38]

Probably won't be tier 2 this year, but they will be close. Take any schools promises with a grain of salt because you never know what is going to happen with the USNews rankings. But they will probably move up. Next year is pretty likely though if they can get another .1 or .2 in peer rankings. I already discussed this in another thread about Chapman, but I have already shown they don't need to do much to get into the top 100. When you have New Mexico at 77 with worse students than Chapman, it really goes to show how much those BS peer review ratings work. But like I said, a slight change in their ratings, which have been going up, will go a long way in determining how soon they jump.

Also I disagree with the above post regarding Chapman being super conservative. They used to be but are moderate now. Their dean has left to pursue the, AG position, and Yoo no longer works there. Prof. Darmer and Rosenthal are two prime examples of professors there that lean hard to the left. In fact, most of their professors are liberal and aren't afraid to show it (I know because I live in OC, and have dealt with some of them in CLE seminars). Also, Yoo is actually known to be a good professor, despite how most on the left demonize the hell out of him. In the academic field, I think it is important to have diverse views presented, even that professor has made some very very controversial legal decisions[/b].

Demonized by the left? John Yoo is a war criminal who facilitated torturing human beings. That he would be allowed to instruct the individuals to whom the basic protection of the United States Constitution is entrusted is an abomination. Period. Should the school be able to shake the stench of Yoo and conservatism in the near future remains to be seen. My point was his employment didn't do Chapman favors in its peer reviews.

Any school that is so open and blatant it it's ranking whoredom should break the lower T2 eventually. At that level it is more about a willingness to outspend than anything.

I can't stand John Yoo, but the guy is brilliant and has an incredibly unique insider perspective. I can hardly think of anybody more valuable for young law students to be exposed to. Again, I found Yoo's OLC opinions to be deplorable, but this is the value of education, being exposed to radical and challanging views which provoke meaningful thought and convictions.

Plus Yoo isn't exactly some brutal authoritarian maniac. The guy has very well thought out legal reasoning for his interpretation of the constitution as promoting the expansion of executive power. Again, I can't stand it, but that's what colleges are for right? If we allow the run of the mill sweater wearing Marxists (who are becoming very boring) to teach in our universities, we should welcome thier opposite. It's only in that discord that the students will really be challanged.

There are plenty of conservatives who would be an asset to a law school and provide the balance you are speaking of (Ted Olson, comes to mind and even Ken Starr, who is vile). John Yoo isn't one of them. He didn't lay out solid legal reasoning; he manipulated a perverse constitutional interpretation and ignored known precedent to justify a clearly illegal act. That is a breach of his duty as an officer of the court, and if we don't hold our law professors to the same ethical standards as practitioners (and this goes for liberals and conservatives) then the future of the legal profession will be a bleak one.

Firstly, is everything that you disagree with perverse? If so, perhaps you would only like to be exposed to those law professors who hold your constitutional views. Even if it is perverse, however, which I am inclined to say that it is, that doesn't take away from his value as a professor in the slightest. He is an incredibly influential legal voice today, he has been an integral part of US foreign policy, and the guy is brilliant.

I say people like you would do well to be exposed to people like Yoo, if for the very reason of showing you that your rock solid confidence in your beliefs is foolish. If students think Yoo's opinions are perverse, I say all the more reason to force them to face him.