Top Law Schools

Do you think GULC would cut its class size if if fell out of the T14? If they cut their class size in half I feel like they would easily jump past Cornell and maybe Duke and NW. Their expenditure score would go way up and their medians would go up too. I actually just don't understand why GULC is so big as it is...

Sure, if they cut their class size by half and could somehow maintain their level of income then their expenditures/student would jump, but cutting half the class would surely result in a massive drop in income.
edit: Unless they nearly doubled tuition. But who would pay something like 80k in tuition alone?

Mr. Pablo wrote:Sure, if they cut their class size by half and could somehow maintain their level of income then their expenditures/student would jump, but cutting half the class would surely result in a massive drop in income.
edit: Unless they nearly doubled tuition. But who would pay something like 80k in tuition alone?

Not to mention that the students that pay sticker are the weaker ones so cutting the class in half would more than halve the income.

thatsnotmyname wrote:Do you think GULC would cut its class size if if fell out of the T14? If they cut their class size in half I feel like they would easily jump past Cornell and maybe Duke and NW. Their expenditure score would go way up and their medians would go up too. I actually just don't understand why GULC is so big as it is...

As long as the don't decide to make this cut effective immediately.

Also, GULC is that size because they can physically accommodate that many students. The professors and administrators gots to get paid, yo.

If GULC had a smaller class size, I would probably be going there next year.

Holly Golightly wrote:If GULC had a smaller class size, I would probably be going there next year.

Yah, this reasoning is terrible. If GULC cut their class size in half, all that happens is a bunch of law professors lose their jobs. If anything, I think their rank would go down because of the flight and lack of confidence.

How about GULC is one of the smart schools that doesnt seem to care about rankings and works toward actually giving their students an education? This post is one reason why I hate the rankings. The OP suggests that cutting the class size would help GULC jump ahead of Cornell, but is the purpose of law schools solely to move up and down rankings? No. Law schools are here to educate us. Would a one or two spot jump really mean all that much?

Im glad GT hasnt decided to cut its class sizes in recent years. Im not going, but for those that are im sure they appreciate the opportunity to study at a great school in a great region.

gdane5 wrote:Law schools are here to educate us

*checks posting history*

Yep, it's a 0l.

*shakes head solemnly*

You'll learn. It won't be pleasant... but you'll learn.

gdane5 wrote:How about GULC is one of the smart schools that doesnt seem to care about rankings and works toward actually giving their students an education? This post is one reason why I hate the rankings. The OP suggests that cutting the class size would help GULC jump ahead of Cornell, but is the purpose of law schools solely to move up and down rankings? No. Law schools are here to educate us. Would a one or two spot jump really mean all that much?

Im glad GT hasnt decided to cut its class sizes in recent years. Im not going, but for those that are im sure they appreciate the opportunity to study at a great school in a great region.

Nope, law schools are here to take our $150k and in return give us a shot at a good job because of their name on the diploma. In that regard, GULC is failing relative to the rest of the T14.

gdane5 wrote:How about GULC is one of the smart schools that doesnt seem to care about rankings and works toward actually giving their students an education? This post is one reason why I hate the rankings. The OP suggests that cutting the class size would help GULC jump ahead of Cornell, but is the purpose of law schools solely to move up and down rankings? No. Law schools are here to educate us. Would a one or two spot jump really mean all that much?

Im glad GT hasnt decided to cut its class sizes in recent years. Im not going, but for those that are im sure they appreciate the opportunity to study at a great school in a great region.

While I don't even agree with your premise, if you do think that LS's should exist for the sake of their students, one thing to consider would be that cutting their class size would allow them to better place their students.

gdane5 wrote:How about GULC is one of the smart schools that doesnt seem to care about rankings and works toward actually giving their students an education? This post is one reason why I hate the rankings. The OP suggests that cutting the class size would help GULC jump ahead of Cornell, but is the purpose of law schools solely to move up and down rankings? No. Law schools are here to educate us. Would a one or two spot jump really mean all that much?

Im glad GT hasnt decided to cut its class sizes in recent years. Im not going, but for those that are im sure they appreciate the opportunity to study at a great school in a great region.

I admire this post. If reality were half as moral as you, gdane, the world would be a better place.

What GULC could (should?) consider is trimming back the PTTT program.

gdane5 wrote:How about GULC is one of the smart schools that doesnt seem to care about rankings and works toward actually giving their students an education? This post is one reason why I hate the rankings. The OP suggests that cutting the class size would help GULC jump ahead of Cornell, but is the purpose of law schools solely to move up and down rankings? No. Law schools are here to educate us. Would a one or two spot jump really mean all that much?

Im glad GT hasnt decided to cut its class sizes in recent years. Im not going, but for those that are im sure they appreciate the opportunity to study at a great school in a great region.

Actually, the thrust of this question I find interesting....Under what circumstances have law schools considered acting upon or, indeed, acted upon a class size reduction? I know Vandy did it a few years back. Anyone know what motivated it?

I agree that Georgetown should cut its class size. However, they should do this to possibly afford their graduates better placement opportunities or to just improve the student/teacher ratio for the students' benefit. What they should NOT do is cut class sizes solely to appease USNWR. There was a time when rankings did not exist, at least USNWR rankings, and schools were free to do what they felt was best irregardless of what some magazine says.

gdane5 wrote:I agree that Georgetown should cut its class size. However, they should do this to possibly afford their graduates better placement opportunities or to just improve the student/teacher ratio for the students' benefit. What they should NOT do is cut class sizes solely to appease USNWR. There was a time when rankings did not exist, at least USNWR rankings, and schools were free to do what they felt was best irregardless of what some magazine says.

The unfortunate thing is that we make the magazine credible by choosing schools based on rank, negotiating scholarships based on rank, and as professionals eventually filling out surveys based on vague notions of prestige based on rank. We do it.

Mr. Pablo wrote:

gdane5 wrote:I agree that Georgetown should cut its class size. However, they should do this to possibly afford their graduates better placement opportunities or to just improve the student/teacher ratio for the students' benefit. What they should NOT do is cut class sizes solely to appease USNWR. There was a time when rankings did not exist, at least USNWR rankings, and schools were free to do what they felt was best irregardless of what some magazine says.

The unfortunate thing is that we make the magazine credible by choosing schools based on rank, negotiating scholarships based on rank, and as professionals eventually filling out surveys based on vague notions of prestige based on rank. We do it.

USNWR are still a *decent* approximation of employment prospects.

gdane5 wrote:How about GULC is one of the smart schools that doesnt seem to care about rankings and works toward actually giving their students an education? This post is one reason why I hate the rankings. The OP suggests that cutting the class size would help GULC jump ahead of Cornell, but is the purpose of law schools solely to move up and down rankings? No. Law schools are here to educate us. Would a one or two spot jump really mean all that much?

Im glad GT hasnt decided to cut its class sizes in recent years. Im not going, but for those that are im sure they appreciate the opportunity to study at a great school in a great region.

I like most of what you said here, although the bolded is a little too idealistic even for me. And I would need to see more evidence that Georgetown "Doesn't care about rankings." I find that hard to believe.

bk187 wrote:

Mr. Pablo wrote:

gdane5 wrote:I agree that Georgetown should cut its class size. However, they should do this to possibly afford their graduates better placement opportunities or to just improve the student/teacher ratio for the students' benefit. What they should NOT do is cut class sizes solely to appease USNWR. There was a time when rankings did not exist, at least USNWR rankings, and schools were free to do what they felt was best irregardless of what some magazine says.

The unfortunate thing is that we make the magazine credible by choosing schools based on rank, negotiating scholarships based on rank, and as professionals eventually filling out surveys based on vague notions of prestige based on rank. We do it.

USNWR are still a *decent* approximation of employment prospects.

No. They are a *decent* approximation of prestige within the legal community. Does that have a connection to job prospects, yes. However, there are a lot more advanced and superior ways to look at job prospects than simply attending the highest ranking school on the list.

And they go from *decent* to complete joke after you get outside of the top 14 or so. Then they start to break down as regional issues become more and more important.

legalease9 wrote:

bk187 wrote:

Mr. Pablo wrote:

gdane5 wrote:I agree that Georgetown should cut its class size. However, they should do this to possibly afford their graduates better placement opportunities or to just improve the student/teacher ratio for the students' benefit. What they should NOT do is cut class sizes solely to appease USNWR. There was a time when rankings did not exist, at least USNWR rankings, and schools were free to do what they felt was best irregardless of what some magazine says.

The unfortunate thing is that we make the magazine credible by choosing schools based on rank, negotiating scholarships based on rank, and as professionals eventually filling out surveys based on vague notions of prestige based on rank. We do it.

USNWR are still a *decent* approximation of employment prospects.

No. They are a *decent* approximation of prestige within the legal community. Does that have a connection to job prospects, yes. However, there are a lot more advanced and superior ways to look at job prospects than simply attending the highest ranking school on the list.

And they go from *decent* to complete joke after you get outside of the top 14 or so. Then they start to break down as regional issues become more and more important.

I guess I wasn't trying to address the practical use of the rankings, but more going for the basis of their legitimacy (per the above italicized) i.e. the rankings are a reflection of our collective prejudice, and not the random prejudice of a magazine editor. I feel like people criticize the rankings without acknowledging our, at least tacit, support and perpetuation of the rankings.

Edit: Also, irregardless isn't a fucking word. REGARDLESS. Why do people insist on adding the extra IR?

Mr. Pablo wrote:Edit: Also, irregardless isn't a fucking word. REGARDLESS. Why do people insist on adding the extra IR?

The dictionary finally caved and added it recently.

beef wellington wrote:

Mr. Pablo wrote:Edit: Also, irregardless isn't a fucking word. REGARDLESS. Why do people insist on adding the extra IR?

The dictionary finally caved and added it recently.

It may be a word but it is still a colloquialism that shows either carelessness or ignorance. But hey, this is an internet forum.

Exactly, its an internet forum. Its one place where, for the most part, I dont have to check my spelling or grammar. I know irregardless isnt a word. Its a double negative. I just used it for fun. Ill be sure to never use it again though.

Pre law students definitely support and perpetuate the rankings. The problem is that years of doing this have negatively changed the legal profession, mainly when it comes to education. Prior to the rankings things worked differently. Talk to older lawyers. They didnt care about rankings. Rankings had no impact whatsoever on there decision where they went to school and more specifically, their employment prospects. Of course schools like HYS have always been highly regarded and prospective students have always aimed to go to these schools, but it wasnt the way it is now.

The rankings have created this huge monster that pre law students continue to let grow year after year to their detriment. Its to their detriment because instead of being able to go to their top state school or school of their choice, they feel compelled to go to a T14 (where tuition is usually always extraordinarily high in comparison to the state school) because the rankings say so. Of course some people might genuinely want to go to a school like NYU, Penn or GULC, I would, but if they dont get in and have to go to Fordham or American they shouldnt have to feel like failures or like they arent going to find a job just because the schools they are going to are "ranked" lower.

Why must we bend over for USNWR? Why must schools be the bitches for USNWR? It seems so wrong that an outside publication, not a very important one too, dictates what schools do.

@ gdane5: The problem with your argument is that it implies that not only are the rankings a bad thing, but that more knowledge about law schools (i.e. their employment prospects) is also a bad thing. You argue that people should not be dissuaded from going to a top state school or school of their choice, something that more information inevitably will do when people have made an uninformed decision.

What if someone thought that, let's say, University of Detroit Mercy's Law School was the bee's knees and their top choice. He or she had illusions of biglaw and money flowing from the ceiling. I believe that this person should be informed. I believe that we as students deserve access to information that will change our decision and that will make us more knowledgeable. While USNWR may not be the best methodology, you seem to be arguing against any sort of ranking at all. Though no ranking system is perfect, none at all seems naive. If one accepts that employment prospects should be put out, then ranking will be inevitable (i.e. NLJ's "Go-To" Ranking).

On top of that, part of your argument seems to hinge on these magically cheap and well-regarded state schools. The reality is that there aren't many of them, and, for the most part, they aren't that cheap. Not to mention the fact that some are as hard as, or close to, the lower end of the T14 to get in to and some are even in the T14.

People who go to Fordham or American shouldn't feel like they aren't going to get a job because they are going to a lower ranked school but because the employment prospects out of those schools are genuinely worse (I am not saying they won't get a job but that they should know the truth about their prospects). These people are not failures, but they do have a right to be informed about the reality of the situation.