Fordham Waiting Room Forum

[lawboy83]

Fordham dropped from 30 to 34. Discuss.

The US News report doesnt come out till the fifteenth. Where's this from?

[SaintClarence27]

Conversations I've had with alums and a current student have essentially touched on the fact that (obv) most UCLA grads self-select LA/SoCal, so while UCLA's overall network in NYC can't compare with Fordham's, their ability to place 25-50 students a year versus Fordham's 400-500 give them an edge up per student. They've stressed that to many firms and in several cases, rankings DO matter and sometimes strive for (school) diversity of their incoming associates. You know, more for the website.

I'm also not claiming I buy into this logic, but I'm trying to see both sides. I'll be inferring more during ASD this Sunday.

Having a really rough time with this decision...

What you say is valid. And let me be clear that UCLA is an awesome school. I'd be careful though. ITE, with less jobs available, networking has become more important than ever. UCLA places a tons of grads in SoCal, and UCLA alums know what to expect from graduating UCLA lawyers. So they're a lot more comfortable hiring their own.

The same phenomenon exists with Fordham. Many argue that Fordham grads self-select to NYC and that's why they don't have a strong presence elsewhere. While self-selection is highly likely, this lends itself to Fordham grads being in every corner of the NYC market. Since there are more Fordham alums in NYC than UCLA alums, there are likely more Fordham hiring partners than UCLA hiring partners. And when these Fordham hiring partners are hiring, who would they be more likely to pick? A top 25% UCLA student? Or a top 25% Fordham student? The converse exists in SoCal.

You can't make a poor decision here. But do realize that while UCLA has more portability than Fordham nationwide given its prestige, competing with Fordham grads in Fordham's home market will not be a walk in the park.

Going to ASDs is a great idea. Pick the better fit (both school and location) and make sure you'd be happy starting your career in that location. If I got into UCLA, I'd be seriously considering moving to LA myself and starting a new life there (I'd also be very, very torn with the idea of leaving NYC).

I appreciate the response and, like you would be, I am considering a move, but very, very (very) torn with the idea of leaving NYC, even if it's only for just 3 years.

Have you always lived in NYC? I moved here last year, and I *hate* it. I'm excited to move back to the Midwest, but I'm also glad that I had the opportunity to experience something else. I think it gives me a little more clarity on what I want.

[hannah87]

Conversations I've had with alums and a current student have essentially touched on the fact that (obv) most UCLA grads self-select LA/SoCal, so while UCLA's overall network in NYC can't compare with Fordham's, their ability to place 25-50 students a year versus Fordham's 400-500 give them an edge up per student. They've stressed that to many firms and in several cases, rankings DO matter and sometimes strive for (school) diversity of their incoming associates. You know, more for the website.

I'm also not claiming I buy into this logic, but I'm trying to see both sides. I'll be inferring more during ASD this Sunday.

Having a really rough time with this decision...

good luck! see how much of a "fit" you feel at ASD, and then take it from there.

thanks! if fordham was as generous with scholly $ for me as they were for you, this would be a much easier decision

aww, have you tried negotiating with them? my cycle is odd- i got more than i expected from fordham, and got WL by UCLA! i think that meeting with admissions at Fordham helped me secure the merit $.

[empire84]

Conversations I've had with alums and a current student have essentially touched on the fact that (obv) most UCLA grads self-select LA/SoCal, so while UCLA's overall network in NYC can't compare with Fordham's, their ability to place 25-50 students a year versus Fordham's 400-500 give them an edge up per student. They've stressed that to many firms and in several cases, rankings DO matter and sometimes strive for (school) diversity of their incoming associates. You know, more for the website.

I'm also not claiming I buy into this logic, but I'm trying to see both sides. I'll be inferring more during ASD this Sunday.

Having a really rough time with this decision...

good luck! see how much of a "fit" you feel at ASD, and then take it from there.

thanks! if fordham was as generous with scholly $ for me as they were for you, this would be a much easier decision

aww, have you tried negotiating with them? my cycle is odd- i got more than i expected from fordham, and got WL by UCLA! i think that meeting with admissions at Fordham helped me secure the merit $.

I did, even after they offered $30K. I guess I could try again? Not sure what angle I would take. I met with FinAid, but not admissions, in person.

And to the poster previous to this, I have been in NYC since 2004 and <3 it.

[OperaSoprano]

Just a quick observation for you guys about part time numbers: GW dropped eight spots last year, when PT numbers were first included. This year, GW cut the PT class to 50 people, and added more FT seats. Fordham did not allow USNews to dictate its policies. Since the availability of evening classes is crucial to working adults, people with families, and people who just want/need more flexibility, I believe Fordham did the right thing by not shrinking its part time class just to game the rankings. My PT class is the same size as the one that came before it. There are rumors afoot that Fordham may be forced to change this policy, because people care a lot about the rankings, and deans have been fired if schools slip. I think the evening program is one of Fordham's singular strengths, and I very much hope this doesn't happen because people are obsessed with a news magazine.

[Always Credited]

Just a quick observation for you guys about part time numbers: GW dropped eight spots last year, when PT numbers were first included. This year, GW cut the PT class to 50 people, and added more FT seats. Fordham did not allow USNews to dictate its policies. Since the availability of evening classes is crucial to working adults, people with families, and people who just want/need more flexibility, I believe Fordham did the right thing by not shrinking its part time class just to game the rankings. My PT class is the same size as the one that came before it. There are rumors afoot that Fordham may be forced to change this policy, because people care a lot about the rankings, and deans have been fired if schools slip. I think the evening program is one of Fordham's singular strengths, and I very much hope this doesn't happen because people are obsessed with a news magazine.

OS, I think its a bit of a stretch to say that USNWR dictates GWU's policy simply because they reacted accordingly to a change in ranking criteria. If this is to be labeled as policy dictation, well, USNWR runs nearly every school in the T-14 more so than their own deans.

[SanBun]

hey guys,

please help me with this: What's Fordham's policy on multiple deposits? Will the offer be revoked once they find out you have submitted deposits to other schools?

Please only people who know this, not just speculation. (OperaSoprano perhaps?)

THANKSSSS!!!

[OperaSoprano]

hey guys,

please help me with this: What's Fordham's policy on multiple deposits? Will the offer be revoked once they find out you have submitted deposits to other schools?

Please only people who know this, not just speculation. (OperaSoprano perhaps?)

THANKSSSS!!!

The school won't know until LSAC notifies them, which I believe is June 15th. By that date, you should have withdrawn from every school but the one you will attend.

[OperaSoprano]

Just a quick observation for you guys about part time numbers: GW dropped eight spots last year, when PT numbers were first included. This year, GW cut the PT class to 50 people, and added more FT seats. Fordham did not allow USNews to dictate its policies. Since the availability of evening classes is crucial to working adults, people with families, and people who just want/need more flexibility, I believe Fordham did the right thing by not shrinking its part time class just to game the rankings. My PT class is the same size as the one that came before it. There are rumors afoot that Fordham may be forced to change this policy, because people care a lot about the rankings, and deans have been fired if schools slip. I think the evening program is one of Fordham's singular strengths, and I very much hope this doesn't happen because people are obsessed with a news magazine.

OS, I think its a bit of a stretch to say that USNWR dictates GWU's policy simply because they reacted accordingly to a change in ranking criteria. If this is to be labeled as policy dictation, well, USNWR runs nearly every school in the T-14 more so than their own deans.

The rankings drop is the only compelling reason for GW to have reacted this way, given that there is no evidence that demand for part time seats suddenly plummeted. Unfortunately, your second sentence is probably spot on. People have been let go for inability to prevent their schools from dropping in the rankings.

[flcath]

Just a quick observation for you guys about part time numbers: GW dropped eight spots last year, when PT numbers were first included. This year, GW cut the PT class to 50 people, and added more FT seats. Fordham did not allow USNews to dictate its policies. Since the availability of evening classes is crucial to working adults, people with families, and people who just want/need more flexibility, I believe Fordham did the right thing by not shrinking its part time class just to game the rankings. My PT class is the same size as the one that came before it. There are rumors afoot that Fordham may be forced to change this policy, because people care a lot about the rankings, and deans have been fired if schools slip. I think the evening program is one of Fordham's singular strengths, and I very much hope this doesn't happen because people are obsessed with a news magazine.

OS, I think its a bit of a stretch to say that USNWR dictates GWU's policy simply because they reacted accordingly to a change in ranking criteria. If this is to be labeled as policy dictation, well, USNWR runs nearly every school in the T-14 more so than their own deans.

I'll give you an SAT-style analogy:

Law School Deans : USNWR Rankings :: D1 College Football Coaches at top programs : BCS Rankings

Did you see the GWU dean's email to the student body last year after the slip? Jesus Christ, I felt like he should have delivered it from in front of a GWU seal-emblazoned backdrop.

--ImageRemoved--

[SanBun]

hey guys,

please help me with this: What's Fordham's policy on multiple deposits? Will the offer be revoked once they find out you have submitted deposits to other schools?

Please only people who know this, not just speculation. (OperaSoprano perhaps?)

THANKSSSS!!!

The school won't know until LSAC notifies them, which I believe is June 15th. By that date, you should have withdrawn from every school but the one you will attend.

Can someone confirm this?
Just to clarify, the offer will not be revoked as long as you withdraw by June 15th?

[OperaSoprano]

hey guys,

please help me with this: What's Fordham's policy on multiple deposits? Will the offer be revoked once they find out you have submitted deposits to other schools?

Please only people who know this, not just speculation. (OperaSoprano perhaps?)

THANKSSSS!!!

The school won't know until LSAC notifies them, which I believe is June 15th. By that date, you should have withdrawn from every school but the one you will attend.

Can someone confirm this?
Just to clarify, the offer will not be revoked as long as you withdraw by June 15th?

That's my understanding, though schools would obviously prefer if students didn't double deposit. If anyone believes otherwise, feel free to contradict me, but I made my own plans last year based upon this.

[even2flow]

Well guys, here's my question for the day: should I be concerned that I didn't (and still don't) care about the rankings release? I'm very confused here.

[tesoro]

Just a quick observation for you guys about part time numbers: GW dropped eight spots last year, when PT numbers were first included. This year, GW cut the PT class to 50 people, and added more FT seats. Fordham did not allow USNews to dictate its policies. Since the availability of evening classes is crucial to working adults, people with families, and people who just want/need more flexibility, I believe Fordham did the right thing by not shrinking its part time class just to game the rankings. My PT class is the same size as the one that came before it. There are rumors afoot that Fordham may be forced to change this policy, because people care a lot about the rankings, and deans have been fired if schools slip. I think the evening program is one of Fordham's singular strengths, and I very much hope this doesn't happen because people are obsessed with a news magazine.

At the most recent ASD (weeks before the rankings released and Fordham dropped), DB announced the shrinking of the PT program. Well, not really. He announced with pride a new afternoon section for the incoming 1L class, and very cautiously mentioned that the evening class is going to be smaller to preserve the class size.

So yeah, there's no need to be blindly optimistic about them hanging onto a large evening program anymore. Because it's already been announced that they won't be, and that was pre dropping-out-of-the-T30 carnage. It's likely they are pleased to let USNWR force their policies, but were just a year behind GW in realizing what was going on.

Just saying this to inform, though. As an incoming evening student, I don't really care. In fact, smaller classes will probably be better.

[tesoro]

Well guys, here's my question for the day: should I be concerned that I didn't (and still don't) care about the rankings release? I'm very confused here.

I don't really care either. It's not like anything really changes... NYC market = T14 > Fordham > everyone else. That's the beauty of going to a regional school. We're immune unless a regional competitor takes over (not bloody likely).

[SAE]

Fordham is dropping in rankings! It's a sinking ship. Withdraw your applications immediately!!!

[So I can get in]

[even2flow]

Well guys, here's my question for the day: should I be concerned that I didn't (and still don't) care about the rankings release? I'm very confused here.

I don't really care either. It's not like anything really changes... NYC market = T14 > Fordham > everyone else. That's the beauty of going to a regional school. We're immune unless a regional competitor takes over (not bloody likely).

Yeah I was sold on the schools I applied to before I was aware of the rankings. Now I know and it just crushes my dreams of actually getting in.

Similarly, I skimmed the rankings at work, went "ahh." to nothing in particular in my head, then spent the rest of the day skimming espn and wikipedia.

[OperaSoprano]

Just a quick observation for you guys about part time numbers: GW dropped eight spots last year, when PT numbers were first included. This year, GW cut the PT class to 50 people, and added more FT seats. Fordham did not allow USNews to dictate its policies. Since the availability of evening classes is crucial to working adults, people with families, and people who just want/need more flexibility, I believe Fordham did the right thing by not shrinking its part time class just to game the rankings. My PT class is the same size as the one that came before it. There are rumors afoot that Fordham may be forced to change this policy, because people care a lot about the rankings, and deans have been fired if schools slip. I think the evening program is one of Fordham's singular strengths, and I very much hope this doesn't happen because people are obsessed with a news magazine.

At the most recent ASD (weeks before the rankings released and Fordham dropped), DB announced the shrinking of the PT program. Well, not really. He announced with pride a new afternoon section for the incoming 1L class, and very cautiously mentioned that the evening class is going to be smaller to preserve the class size.

So yeah, there's no need to be blindly optimistic about them hanging onto a large evening program anymore. Because it's already been announced that they won't be, and that was pre dropping-out-of-the-T30 carnage. It's likely they are pleased to let USNWR force their policies, but were just a year behind GW in realizing what was going on.

Just saying this to inform, though. As an incoming evening student, I don't really care. In fact, smaller classes will probably be better.

This is similar to what I heard, though I don't know any more details. Were you told, at any point, the size of either of these new sections?

I wouldn't assume DB was behind in realizing anything, though. He told me that deans are in contact with the magazine, so he knew about this before we did (certain of it.) He's also a numbers wiz. He once told me specifically how my first semester performance stacked up with statistical expectations (IE: my expected GPA range) based upon my entering numbers. I went that he could make such a calculation on the spot. Fordham knew, and the school must have had a reason for not shrinking my entering PT class. I don't know what it was, but I am certainly grateful for it. I was a waitlist admit; I wouldn't be here now if they had altered the class size.

To answer your last post, this is very credited. Unless NYC pulls an Irvine (IE: a strong public school offering lower tuition), I think we are safe.

I do know that Cardozo probably is not happy about slipping either, and they also have a part time program (May entry. I believe Jan. entry is PT as well, though I didn't look into it.) I wonder if they'll have to do the same thing.

Ironically, USNews probably wanted to serve working adults (the original PT demographic, after all), and will end up screwing them when schools gut their evening programs to save their rankings.

[starsong]

Well guys, here's my question for the day: should I be concerned that I didn't (and still don't) care about the rankings release? I'm very confused here.

I don't really care either. It's not like anything really changes... NYC market = T14 > Fordham > everyone else. That's the beauty of going to a regional school. We're immune unless a regional competitor takes over (not bloody likely).

While I'm not particularly concerned about the drop to #34, I think we should care about the rankings. They are driven by key numerical data. LSAT/GPA medians and reputation scores--the variables that primarily drive the ratings--are direct indicators of academic and professional strength, respectively. Even selectivity reflects, to some extent, the strength of the school's "brand" in the eyes of potential students.

Maybe it's just me, but I think improving these is an important goal. Fordham's superior regional status is a function of its strength in the above categories, not the other way around. A drop in the rankings reflects a failure to maintain relative strength in one or more of those critical areas vis-a-vis peer schools. This should concern us all.

[OperaSoprano]

Well guys, here's my question for the day: should I be concerned that I didn't (and still don't) care about the rankings release? I'm very confused here.

I don't really care either. It's not like anything really changes... NYC market = T14 > Fordham > everyone else. That's the beauty of going to a regional school. We're immune unless a regional competitor takes over (not bloody likely).

While I'm not particularly concerned about the drop to #34, I think we should care about the rankings. They are driven by key numerical data. LSAT/GPA medians and reputation scores--the variables that primarily drive the ratings--are direct indicators of academic and professional strength, respectively. Even selectivity reflects, to some extent, the strength of the school's "brand" in the eyes of potential students.

Maybe it's just me, but I think improving these is an important goal. Fordham's superior regional status is a function of its strength in the above categories, not the other way around. A drop in the rankings reflects a failure to maintain relative strength in one or more of those critical areas vis-a-vis peer schools. This should concern us all.

The main issue with the peer rankings is that Fordham grads are very concentrated in the tri-state area, and employers around the country (IE: in places where the school is not well known, because few graduates are working there) are asked for their opinions. This method arguably hurts any school with a concentrated alumni base, so it isn't only Fordham's problem. We do need to be concerned with the school's rep with employers, but among the employers who actually hire the majority of Fordham students (IE, the ones within 2-3 hours' driving radius of the school), Fordham's rep is excellent. Actions speak louder than words here. If the school's rep were not excellent among these employers, hiring statistics would reflect this.

What you've said about the brand and potential students is true, however, and is among the reasons Fordham is forced to care about the rankings. They won't effect our employment outcomes (any change in that regard would take years, or even a decade plus of failure to maintain rank), but the rankings matter to applicants, and this is why Fordham will have to take some sort of action to raise our rank, even if it that action isn't otherwise beneficial for the school.

[starsong]

While I'm not particularly concerned about the drop to #34, I think we should care about the rankings. They are driven by key numerical data. LSAT/GPA medians and reputation scores--the variables that primarily drive the ratings--are direct indicators of academic and professional strength, respectively. Even selectivity reflects, to some extent, the strength of the school's "brand" in the eyes of potential students.

Maybe it's just me, but I think improving these is an important goal. Fordham's superior regional status is a function of its strength in the above categories, not the other way around. A drop in the rankings reflects a failure to maintain relative strength in one or more of those critical areas vis-a-vis peer schools. This should concern us all.

The main issue with the peer rankings is that Fordham grads are very concentrated in the tri-state area, and employers around the country (IE: in places where the school is not well known, because few graduates are working there) are asked for their opinions. This method arguably hurts any school with a concentrated alumni base, so it isn't only Fordham's problem. We do need to be concerned with the school's rep with employers, but among the employers who actually hire the majority of Fordham students (IE, the ones within 2-3 hours' driving radius of the school), Fordham's rep is excellent. Actions speak louder than words here. If the school's rep were not excellent among these employers, hiring statistics would reflect this.

What you've said about the brand and potential students is true, however, and is among the reasons Fordham is forced to care about the rankings. They won't effect our employment outcomes (any change in that regard would take years, or even a decade plus of failure to maintain rank), but the rankings matter to applicants, and this is why Fordham will have to take some sort of action to raise our rank, even if it that action isn't otherwise beneficial for the school.

I agree. And I don't mean to insinuate that fantastic, exceptional PT students like yourself shouldn't be admitted. I see it more as a matter of admissions policy: #s first (using $$$ to hook high # students), unique stories/diversity after that, with raising medians and increasing selectivity as the supreme goal.

[H. E. Pennypacker]

I didn't even know law schools were ranked until last august when I first decided to look into schools, and maybe this has been covered already, but why aren't the FT and PT programs ranked seperately? It seems odd that US News would penalize a school for offering 2 options to their students (perhaps not their intended goal, but it seems most schools with PT programs were hurt in the rankings when they were all lumped together).

[kaydish21]

To clear up the new pt questions, DB said they were basically moving it from 160 to 80 and focusing those 80 spots on people who were legit tied to work obligations. The other 80 spots would be given to FT students so the overall class size will remain the same but so long as the medians are maintained a higher percentage of students will have higher scores and thus the school will jump in rank which is the exact same thing GW did last year. Also DB said the school had a record 9,000 apps this year for the same number of spots so that should help the selectivity ranking a bit.

Really though, once you are attending law school the ranking doesn't make much of a difference. I was at Fordham yesterday and still loved it while talking to current students and a prof. The education and employment doesn't change with a new ranking especially as the only difference in ranking is an arbitrary outside factoring decision.

[starsong]

I didn't even know law schools were ranked until last august when I first decided to look into schools, and maybe this has been covered already, but why aren't the FT and PT programs ranked seperately? It seems odd that US News would penalize a school for offering 2 options to their students (perhaps not their intended goal, but it seems most schools with PT programs were hurt in the rankings when they were all lumped together).

U.S. News doesn't "penalize" schools for offering a PT program, it's just that PT students typically have lower incoming #s. From what I understand, it's nearly impossible for schools to maintain the same medians for the PT class as the FT class. Hence the larger the PT class, the greater downward drag on the overall medians. What happened last year was that USNWR decided to use the overall medians, which makes sense: otherwise schools could game the rankings by maintaining a large PT class and allowing significant PT->FT transfers post-1L.

[H. E. Pennypacker]

I have another rankings question while we're all taking about it....the numbers that these new rankings are based on...they're based on the numbers from the 08-09 cycle, right?