Fordham Waiting Room Forum

[starsong]

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?

Yep.

[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).

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.

Yeah when I say penalize, I don't mean to say that they actually take away points because the program exists. But overall, is transfer from PT->FT the norm? I know it is popular at Fordham, but is it that way at most schools? It just seems to me that the intended purpose for the PT program is different enough from the FT program that it would warrant it's own ranking.

[kaydish21]

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?

correct. Schools also use to game us news by admitting a disproportionate # of minority candidates into the PT program to improve the minority rank (schools are given a minority rank but it doesn't factor into actual ranking score) but not hurt their medians as there is a proven tendency that certain demographic groups perform disproportionately well or poor on the LSAT.

[starsong]

Yeah when I say penalize, I don't mean to say that they actually take away points because the program exists. But overall, is transfer from PT->FT the norm? I know it is popular at Fordham, but is it that way at most schools? It just seems to me that the intended purpose for the PT program is different enough from the FT program that it would warrant it's own ranking.

Georgetown is notorious for PT->FT, I believe. But I'm not sure there is a real difference in purpose in the two programs, I mean PT is for working students, but everyone wants to be a lawyer in the end. PT students summer at law firms, etc. Why not treat them equally?

[starsong]

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.

Good to hear!

[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?

correct. Schools also use to game us news by admitting a disproportionate # of minority candidates into the PT program to improve the minority rank (schools are given a minority rank but it doesn't factor into actual ranking score) but not hurt their medians as there is a proven tendency that certain demographic groups perform disproportionately well or poor on the LSAT.

Is there any particular reason it takes them so long to release them? You would think they could get this info out earlier in the cycle so that schools could react a little quicker. I guess a year lag doesn't make much of a difference, all things considered.

Starsong, you make a good point. I guess it's incumbent on the law school to either make the admissions criteria the same for both or accept the drop.

[SAE]

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.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that currently the school has a limited number of 1L seats and as such, offers PT spots with the intention of later FT transfer?

[starsong]

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.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that currently the school has a limited number of 1L seats and as such, offers PT spots with the intention of later FT transfer?

The idea is to offer the new afternoon classes to those 80 FT students, I believe.

[timertimer61]

not to sound like a tool, but as a probable fordham student this fall, i hope fordham manages to GAME the rankings starting today. =)

[tesoro]

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.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that currently the school has a limited number of 1L seats and as such, offers PT spots with the intention of later FT transfer?

The idea is to offer the new afternoon classes to those 80 FT students, I believe.

Yep. Dean Brown announced that the intention was to "frontload" the process of having students transfer to FT from PT, and vastly limit the PT program to students who work full-time. Sounds reasonable, but nothing's changed over the last ten years wrt students transferring PT->FT, so I read it as a simple run at the USNWR rankings to stop the freefall rather than coincidental timing.

[timertimer61]

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.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that currently the school has a limited number of 1L seats and as such, offers PT spots with the intention of later FT transfer?

The idea is to offer the new afternoon classes to those 80 FT students, I believe.

Yep. Dean Brown announced that the intention was to "frontload" the process of having students transfer to FT from PT, and vastly limit the PT program to students who work full-time. Sounds reasonable, but nothing's changed over the last ten years wrt students transferring PT->FT, so I read it as a simple run at the USNWR rankings to stop the freefall rather than coincidental timing.

does that mean it will be harder for students to transfer pt to ft? (particularly for this incoming class?)

[starsong]

not to sound like a tool, but as a probable fordham student this fall, i hope fordham manages to GAME the rankings starting today. =)

Yeah, it's a tough issue, b/c while techniques like YP can increase selectivity, they can cause applicants a lot of stress. And I think there's something to be said for students with unique and enriching life stories that can't be expressed solely in #s. But I agree that Fordham cannot neglect USNWR.

[H. E. Pennypacker]

Where was Fordham ranked prior to the PT inclusion?

[starsong]

Where was Fordham ranked prior to the PT inclusion?

#26 in USNWR 2008, #28 in USNWR 2009 (see http://www.prelawhandbook.com/top_100_l ... _2007_2009)

[H. E. Pennypacker]

Where was Fordham ranked prior to the PT inclusion?

#26 in USNWR 2008, #28 in USNWR 2009 (see http://www.prelawhandbook.com/top_100_l ... _2007_2009)

Thanks!

[Fordhamorbust]

What do you guys think the odds are of coming off the waiting list for Fordham's PT program? With above 75th percentile numbers and full-time employment?

[OperaSoprano]

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.

Kaydish, thank you for sharing this. We heard rumors, but not exact numbers, and I probably should have asked him about it. For the record, this does not make me happy, but I understand that Fordham has no other choice. It's actually a miracle that I applied when I did. I know I was a numbers admit; my numbers were high for PT, but about 43rd percentile for FT, according to the always brilliant YCRevolution. If numbers hadn't counted for PT last year, as much as I hate to admit it, I would not have gotten in. I was working, but I don't know how appealing my academic background would have been. The cynic in me says that the school needed my LSAT score. However, if there were only 80 places, I'm sure I would not have gotten one.

I actually don't see a problem with people switching over, because so many discover just how difficult it is to work full time and take 13 credits (the number we have this semester.) This is only one class under a full courseload, and it would count as a full courseload for a 2L. In addition, there are many activities it would be impossible to participate in with a full time job. The best of all possible worlds is to work part time, but that isn't an option for everyone. There are opportunity costs for students that could go full time who choose to go part time. The biggest one is that we have to take summer classes if we want to switch, but it also makes transferring harder (though not impossible) for those whose eyes are watching Columbia. (That in itself is a major opportunity cost: you would have to be top 5% to do it, and giving up top 5% + law review at Fordham is a gigantic sacrifice. I honestly believe career opportunities would be better for that hypothetical student if he stayed.)

As for calculating admission odds, the game has changed forever. If he really only has room for 80, I'm not sure what the answer is. It saddens me that USNews decided to do this in the first place, because it cut off one of the last avenues of holistic (non numbers based) admission. Ironically, holistic admission would probably have been fatal to my own chances last year, but that doesn't mean I believe doing away with it didn't harm students. I would rather study with people who have had interesting life experiences and slightly lower numbers. (And no, the correlation between numbers and 1L performance is not the reason for this. It's too small for YCR to make, say, a 1L GPA predictor.)

I understand Fordham's choice, though I am saddened that it came to this.

[handydandy]

nm

[H. E. Pennypacker]

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.

Kaydish, thank you for sharing this. We heard rumors, but not exact numbers, and I probably should have asked him about it. For the record, this does not make me happy, but I understand that Fordham has no other choice. It's actually a miracle that I applied when I did. I know I was a numbers admit; my numbers were high for PT, but about 43rd percentile for FT, according to the always brilliant YCRevolution. If numbers hadn't counted for PT last year, as much as I hate to admit it, I would not have gotten in. I was working, but I don't know how appealing my academic background would have been. The cynic in me says that the school needed my LSAT score. However, if there were only 80 places, I'm sure I would not have gotten one.

I actually don't see a problem with people switching over, because so many discover just how difficult it is to work full time and take 13 credits (the number we have this semester.) This is only one class under a full courseload, and it would count as a full courseload for a 2L. In addition, there are many activities it would be impossible to participate in with a full time job. The best of all possible worlds is to work part time, but that isn't an option for everyone. There are opportunity costs for students that could go full time who choose to go part time. The biggest one is that we have to take summer classes if we want to switch, but it also makes transferring harder (though not impossible) for those whose eyes are watching Columbia. (That in itself is a major opportunity cost: you would have to be top 5% to do it, and giving up top 5% + law review at Fordham is a gigantic sacrifice. I honestly believe career opportunities would be better for that hypothetical student if he stayed.)

As for calculating admission odds, the game has changed forever. If he really only has room for 80, I'm not sure what the answer is. It saddens me that USNews decided to do this in the first place, because it cut off one of the last avenues of holistic (non numbers based) admission. Ironically, holistic admission would probably have been fatal to my own chances last year, but that doesn't mean I believe doing away with it didn't harm students. I would rather study with people who have had interesting life experiences and slightly lower numbers. (And no, the correlation between numbers and 1L performance is not the reason for this. It's too small for YCR to make, say, a 1L GPA predictor.)

I understand Fordham's choice, though I am saddened that it came to this.

Total sadface. Does not bode well for Pennypacker...

[Bailarina08]

I have seen a lot of conflicting information on here in the past few days. There are still spots available, right? I spoke with the admissions office today to see where my application stood. (My mail delivery has been a mess since the flooding in MA, so I was worried I'd missed something.) They told me I'm under review and should hear in the next two weeks. I feel like it could go one of two ways:

1. They just slipped in the rankings and assume higher numbers will go elsewhere, so my 167/3.38 will get me in/waitlisted.

2. They just slipped in the rankings and want to push their numbers up, so they'll ding/waitlist me to try and raise their medians again.

Does anyone think either of these is likely?

[chicoalto0649]

I have seen a lot of conflicting information on here in the past few days. There are still spots available, right? I spoke with the admissions office today to see where my application stood. (My mail delivery has been a mess since the flooding in MA, so I was worried I'd missed something.) They told me I'm under review and should hear in the next two weeks. I feel like it could go one of two ways:

1. They just slipped in the rankings and assume higher numbers will go elsewhere, so my 167/3.38 will get me in/waitlisted.

2. They just slipped in the rankings and want to push their numbers up, so they'll ding/waitlist me to try and raise their medians again.

Does anyone think either of these is likely?

I think at this point in the cycle, it is going to be very difficult to gain an outright acceptance and plenty of people with your numbers + have been waitlisted so far. I know they slipped in the rankings but I am sure their medians are set at this point and it is more of a space issue than a game usnews situation.

[OperaSoprano]

I have seen a lot of conflicting information on here in the past few days. There are still spots available, right? I spoke with the admissions office today to see where my application stood. (My mail delivery has been a mess since the flooding in MA, so I was worried I'd missed something.) They told me I'm under review and should hear in the next two weeks. I feel like it could go one of two ways:

1. They just slipped in the rankings and assume higher numbers will go elsewhere, so my 167/3.38 will get me in/waitlisted.

2. They just slipped in the rankings and want to push their numbers up, so they'll ding/waitlist me to try and raise their medians again.

Does anyone think either of these is likely?

I think at this point in the cycle, it is going to be very difficult to gain an outright acceptance and plenty of people with your numbers + have been waitlisted so far. I know they slipped in the rankings but I am sure their medians are set at this point and it is more of a space issue than a game usnews situation.

Those were WL/IN numbers for many people last cycle, but that's all I can tell you, because chicoalto is right about it being a space issue.

[ziggystardust23]

I have seen a lot of conflicting information on here in the past few days. There are still spots available, right? I spoke with the admissions office today to see where my application stood. (My mail delivery has been a mess since the flooding in MA, so I was worried I'd missed something.) They told me I'm under review and should hear in the next two weeks. I feel like it could go one of two ways:

1. They just slipped in the rankings and assume higher numbers will go elsewhere, so my 167/3.38 will get me in/waitlisted.

2. They just slipped in the rankings and want to push their numbers up, so they'll ding/waitlist me to try and raise their medians again.

Does anyone think either of these is likely?

I think there are definitely spots left as I was accepted last week, 167/3.4, so don't lose hope!

[and the beast]

I have seen a lot of conflicting information on here in the past few days. There are still spots available, right? I spoke with the admissions office today to see where my application stood. (My mail delivery has been a mess since the flooding in MA, so I was worried I'd missed something.) They told me I'm under review and should hear in the next two weeks. I feel like it could go one of two ways:

1. They just slipped in the rankings and assume higher numbers will go elsewhere, so my 167/3.38 will get me in/waitlisted.

2. They just slipped in the rankings and want to push their numbers up, so they'll ding/waitlist me to try and raise their medians again.

Does anyone think either of these is likely?

I think there are definitely spots left as I was accepted last week, 167/3.4, so don't lose hope!

I met with an adcomm last week and she told me that they would definitely be pulling from the waitlist this year, because despite having so many applicants, they know many will choose other schools. So...i'm thinking, if they're planning on pulling from the WL, they're planning on still accepting people. so cheer up!

[starsong]

(That in itself is a major opportunity cost: you would have to be top 5% to do it, and giving up top 5% + law review at Fordham is a gigantic sacrifice. I honestly believe career opportunities would be better for that hypothetical student if he stayed.)

OS, just curious, do you know of any Fordham top 5% people who transferred to CLS and made the Columbia Law Review via the (pre-admission) write-on competition?