Hastings Forum

[kapital98]

It's not really the success rate (full time JD required employment) that is killer, but the debt...

+1

[bk1]

I think it would be a mistake to say Hastings did not have good placement before the recession.

Well this goes to what Borhas said regarding debt. Did Hastings have decent placement? Sure, but it didn't have decent placement relative to the sticker price of the school.

[drdolittle]

I think it would be a mistake to say Hastings did not have good placement before the recession.

Well this goes to what Borhas said regarding debt. Did Hastings have decent placement? Sure, but it didn't have decent placement relative to the sticker price of the school.

It'd think it's placement/value was fine when it cost like $15-20K in-state while ranked around #20. Boy things have changed...

[kapital98]

I think it would be a mistake to say Hastings did not have good placement before the recession.

Well this goes to what Borhas said regarding debt. Did Hastings have decent placement? Sure, but it didn't have decent placement relative to the sticker price of the school.

And now we've come full circle. This is a cost-benefit analysis. If you have no preference towards CA's geography, culture, etc you should not choose Hastings. It's market is saturated, debt is overwhelming, and taxes are insane. You are clearly paying a premium to live in CA over other states like Texas.

However, if you like the geography, culture, etc of CA then you must factor that into your cost-benefit analysis. Most of the people applying to Hastings know their job placement is extremely likely to be confined to CA.

Right now you are only looking at one side of the equation in isolation. A proper cost-benefit analysis will look at both the quantitative and qualitative costs/benefits.

The more expensive Hastings the more you have to want to work in CA.

*There's a really good article in an old Economist about why people prefer to live in California even if it decreases their wealth. It's written in their politics section so it's very straightforward. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it on their website...

[bk1]

It'd think it's placement/value was fine when it cost like $15-20K in-state while ranked around #20. Boy things have changed...

That's a good point. I retract my statement about it being that bad in 2005. I forgot how quickly UC tuition has jumped since then (doubled pretty much across the board).

[Bitey]

I think it would be a mistake to say Hastings did not have good placement before the recession.

Well this goes to what Borhas said regarding debt. Did Hastings have decent placement? Sure, but it didn't have decent placement relative to the sticker price of the school.

It'd think it's placement/value was fine when it cost like $15-20K in-state while ranked around #20. Boy things have changed...

How about UC Davis (a filthy hippy university)? I will bet you anything they place worse than Hastings despite that number 23 ranking (even I admit despite being a hastings troll). Costs are about the same: UC Davis leads in pot distribution per student, Hastings leads in hobos per capita.

[bk1]

And now we've come full circle. This is a cost-benefit analysis. If you have no preference towards CA's geography, culture, etc you should not choose Hastings. It's market is saturated, debt is overwhelming, and taxes are insane. You are clearly paying a premium to live in CA over other states like Texas.

However, if you like the geography, culture, etc of CA then you must factor that into your cost-benefit analysis. Most of the people applying to Hastings know their job placement is extremely likely to be confined to CA.

Right now you are only looking at one side of the equation in isolation. A proper cost-benefit analysis will look at both the quantitative and qualitative costs/benefits.

The more expensive Hastings the more you have to want to work in CA.

I agree. I think people tend to overvalue their geographical preference (which makes sense for younger people, especially those who haven't lived in many places) and aren't really open to working in other places in situations where they should be entertaining it.

[bk1]

UC Davis leads in pot distribution per student, Hastings leads in hobos per capita.

I lol'ed.

[kapital98]

It'd think it's placement/value was fine when it cost like $15-20K in-state while ranked around #20. Boy things have changed...

That's a good point. I retract my statement about it being that bad in 2005. I forgot how quickly UC tuition has jumped since then (doubled pretty much across the board).

The tuition hike is ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if this hurts their incoming student's #'s in the near future and decreases their rankings. How much this will effect future employment for the school is unclear.

[vanwinkle]

Has anyone really ascertained the reason why Indiana shot up some 13 places from 36 to 23? Was it a matter of the generous scholarship allotment (I just got a full ride for numbers not far above median) toward higher scoring students, thereby pushing up incoming class scores for the News&Review?

Bitey joined August. 25, 2008. BiteyTLS joined Sept. 18, 2008.

The coincidence of "Bitey" and the time (especially 3 years ago) is far too great for this to be random.

I'm guessing Bitey did poorly in 1L and now just wants to hate on others with his shadow account. Look at the number of posts of Bitey vs. BiteyTLS. 231 vs. 14 (and that's counting this thread.) Is it really surprising the most cynical people are 0L's and poorly performed 2/3L's?

If Bitey does not stop trolling I will be forced to report him.

This is great conspiracy theory in action.

I got one too- are you really Karl Marx? After all your account is called "kapital", likely named after his great volume! If invert 98 to 89 you have the fall of the soviet union!!! Bible code skills.

But please, report me for the crime of cognitive dissonance.

Banned for trolling and alting.

At least, I assume it's an alt. It'd be a heck of a coincidence otherwise, since "Bitey" is posting from IU-B...

[kapital98]

And now we've come full circle. This is a cost-benefit analysis. If you have no preference towards CA's geography, culture, etc you should not choose Hastings. It's market is saturated, debt is overwhelming, and taxes are insane. You are clearly paying a premium to live in CA over other states like Texas.

However, if you like the geography, culture, etc of CA then you must factor that into your cost-benefit analysis. Most of the people applying to Hastings know their job placement is extremely likely to be confined to CA.

Right now you are only looking at one side of the equation in isolation. A proper cost-benefit analysis will look at both the quantitative and qualitative costs/benefits.

The more expensive Hastings the more you have to want to work in CA.

I agree. I think people tend to overvalue their geographical preference (which makes sense for younger people, especially those who haven't lived in many places) and aren't really open to working in other places in situations where they should be entertaining it.

Now we're reaching agreement!!!

I think the sky is falling

[071816]

How the hell is Davis ranked in the 20s? I don't get it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their placement on par with a lower T1, upper T2? Are they really doing that much of a better job of gaming the rankings than Hastings?

[drdolittle]

UC Davis leads in pot distribution per student, Hastings leads in hobos per capita

At least we're leading in something (besides useless mock ct). Davis must be self-reporting those pot distribution numbers.

[kapital98]

UC Davis leads in pot distribution per student, Hastings leads in hobos per capita

At least we're leading in something (besides useless mock ct). Davis must be self-reporting those pot distribution numbers.

For the record: I didn't report Bitey. Someone beat me to it!

[bk1]

How the hell is Davis ranked in the 20s? I don't get it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their placement on par with a lower T1, upper T2? Are they really doing that much of a better job of gaming the rankings than Hastings?

USNWR rankings don't perfectly mirror job placement.

[drdolittle]

For the record: I didn't report Bitey. Someone beat me to it!

What the?!

[kapital98]

For the record: I didn't report Bitey. Someone beat me to it!

What the?!

I pressed the "report" button next to his name and it said (paraphrased): "This user has already been reported"

[071816]

How the hell is Davis ranked in the 20s? I don't get it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their placement on par with a lower T1, upper T2? Are they really doing that much of a better job of gaming the rankings than Hastings?

USNWR rankings don't perfectly mirror job placement.

Which is why I am asking why the rankings of the two schools are so differet when the schools seem so similar. Can someone please enlighten me? I'm not being sarcastic.

[kapital98]

How the hell is Davis ranked in the 20s? I don't get it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their placement on par with a lower T1, upper T2? Are they really doing that much of a better job of gaming the rankings than Hastings?

USNWR rankings don't perfectly mirror job placement.

Which is why I am asking why the rankings of the two schools are so differet when the schools seem so similar. Can someone please enlighten me? I'm not being sarcastic.

Don't know. I'm interested in that also.

Maybe their new law school building helped?

[bk1]

How the hell is Davis ranked in the 20s? I don't get it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their placement on par with a lower T1, upper T2? Are they really doing that much of a better job of gaming the rankings than Hastings?

USNWR rankings don't perfectly mirror job placement.

Which is why I am asking why the rankings of the two schools are so differet when the schools seem so similar. Can someone please enlighten me? I'm not being sarcastic.

Their LSAT/GPA/barpassage all seem about the same.

I think people cite that Davis reported 95%+ employment (which is 0.20 for USNWR methodology) which people believe is in no way possibly true. Also Hastings was unranked one year in the early aughts (I believe because they failed to report employment data) and since that year the Davis/Hastings gap has grown significantly. I'd speculate that not being ranked for 1 year might have hurt their reputation scores in the USNWR methodology. Also maybe the recent renovation at Davis has increased the expenditures per student in comparison to Hastings.

[drdolittle]

How the hell is Davis ranked in the 20s? I don't get it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their placement on par with a lower T1, upper T2? Are they really doing that much of a better job of gaming the rankings than Hastings?

USNWR rankings don't perfectly mirror job placement.

Which is why I am asking why the rankings of the two schools are so differet when the schools seem so similar. Can someone please enlighten me? I'm not being sarcastic.

Don't know. I'm interested in that also.

Maybe their new law school building helped?

I don't know the details of USNWR's methodology nearly as well as others, but my understanding is that outside the top 14 or so (and even within it), even relatively small factors can have a significant effect on ranking. Hence all those changes year-to-year in the bottom 2/3 of T1. Thus I'm not at all surprised that Davis' new building, better employment claims, and probably most importantly, a concerted attention to the details relevant to ranking drove its rise. When I was there last year during ASD, the dean and the entire admin seemed to really emphasize the school's ranking. The dean routinely referred to Davis as a top 20 school when it was still top 30 (and around top 40 the year before then). I didn't find this off-putting though b/c at least it showed the admin had ambition for the place and believed in it. The new Hastings dean is a bit similar. I guess we'll see what happens...

[071816]

These all seem like plausible explanations. I have worked at several law firms in CA and older attorneys especially seem to think pretty highly of Hastings and Loyola while rarely mentioning Pepperdine or Davis. This is most likely because Davis is relatively new on the scene and has much smaller incoming classes and thus less graduates, thereby enabling Davis to spend more money per student. Also, UC Davis is a large university with a hefty endowment whereas Hastings has a very odd relationship with the state of CA and no connection to any undergrad institution.

TLDR: it all comes down to money.

[Borhas]

It's not money, UC Davis just made shit up to boost their employment at graduation numbers. That's pretty much it.

Some shit like 98% employed at graduation One thing I admire about Hastings is that it doesn't try as hard as other schools to hide the risks of going to law school... though sometimes I wish they would just report BS #'s like everyone else just to level the playing field.

You got to also take into account that difference in a couple points of raw USNWR points can make a big difference in terms of rankings.

But all of that is really a dick waving contest, there is no reason to believe that a higher USNWR ranking leads to better employment prospects... better #'s from the incoming class? Probably, but not employment. (see WUSTL and IUB)

[drdolittle]

TLDR: it all comes down to money.

But after reading that Ka-Ching! NY Times article over the weekend, I wonder how much $$$ Davis' law school has to hand over to UC Davis. That article claimed it's not unusual for law schools to kick back in the neighborhood of 30% of their "income" to the main campus, this profit making is argued to explain rising tuition costs nationwide. Hastings would not have to do this. And from that article, Hastings should be making $$$, or at least doing OK (yes CA's expensive, but Hastings is also expensive). I wonder then why tuition keeps rising? And if the state's provisional budget is not approved as is later this year, apparently a mid-year tuition hike is a possibility.

[071816]

It's not money, UC Davis just made shit up to boost their employment at graduation numbers. That's pretty much it.

Some shit like 98% employed at graduation

You got to also take into account that difference in a couple points of raw USNWR points can make a big difference in terms of rankings. Regardless there is no reason to believe that a higher USNWR ranking leads to better employment prospects... better #'s from the incoming class? Probably, but not employment. (see WUSTL and IUB)

Most, if not all, schools "make shit up." There is more to this equation.