Indiana: Bloomington & The New Rank Forum

[flcath]

It's a mixture of jealousy from those below and territory protection from those above. Ohio State and Illinois both see Indiana as a threat for 2 entirely different reasons. Ohio State wants to be Indiana (in terms of rankings at least) and Illinois wants to keep Indiana from becoming Illinois.

That way both schools can prevent Indiana from poaching students and/or jobs from either. It's the same reason people always dislike upsetting the status quo... they're worried about losing what they themselves currently have. It's very much true that Indiana can't place with Illinois right now, and places with or below Ohio State. And Illinois and Ohio State want it to stay that way.

Great points! It's always the guys in the middle or the bottom that fight hardest for the left-overs. The guys at the top sit back and enjoy the show. You'll never see a HUGE debate about who should be in the top 3. And the top 10 might fluctuate, but they are all seen as legitimate holders of their position.

But God forbid a school in the middle try to move up. ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!!!!

How are they doing it? Are they cheating? Is someone at the school blowing ALL employees of the USNWR????

Do you know what Leland Stanford did to make Stanford University a great school? He threw a ton of money at it!!! And what did that money get? They hired FORMER President Benjamin Harrison as a professor.

Ask yourself this, how did the top schools become the top schools? What methods did they use? How did they wield whatever power and influence they had at the time? You don't think they used their money and power to "game" the system?

Moreover, doesn't it make sense that schools at some point will move up and down in the rankings? Doesn't it make sense that things will change? How long do you expect the status quo to continue? Does anything in the history of humanity last forever? Look at the mighty Roman Empire. Most powerful empire in human history, yet they were defeated by "barbarians."

What in the ENTIRE history of humanity leads anyone to believe that things will NOT change? Of course they will change. Lower ranked schools will become innovative in trying to improve their rankings. Higher ranked schools will become complacent and falter.

How do I know? That's how things work. Look at IBM, Woolworths, Soviet Union, Roman Empire, Pan Am Airlines (there only about 10 billion other examples).

The only constant is change. The status quo will fight change, but change will come regardless.

Some posts invite ridicule.

This post demands it.

[danquayle]

It's a mixture of jealousy from those below and territory protection from those above. Ohio State and Illinois both see Indiana as a threat for 2 entirely different reasons. Ohio State wants to be Indiana (in terms of rankings at least) and Illinois wants to keep Indiana from becoming Illinois.

That way both schools can prevent Indiana from poaching students and/or jobs from either. It's the same reason people always dislike upsetting the status quo... they're worried about losing what they themselves currently have. It's very much true that Indiana can't place with Illinois right now, and places with or below Ohio State. And Illinois and Ohio State want it to stay that way.

Great points! It's always the guys in the middle or the bottom that fight hardest for the left-overs. The guys at the top sit back and enjoy the show. You'll never see a HUGE debate about who should be in the top 3. And the top 10 might fluctuate, but they are all seen as legitimate holders of their position.

But God forbid a school in the middle try to move up. ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!!!!

How are they doing it? Are they cheating? Is someone at the school blowing ALL employees of the USNWR????

Do you know what Leland Stanford did to make Stanford University a great school? He threw a ton of money at it!!! And what did that money get? They hired FORMER President Benjamin Harrison as a professor.

Ask yourself this, how did the top schools become the top schools? What methods did they use? How did they wield whatever power and influence they had at the time? You don't think they used their money and power to "game" the system?

Moreover, doesn't it make sense that schools at some point will move up and down in the rankings? Doesn't it make sense that things will change? How long do you expect the status quo to continue? Does anything in the history of humanity last forever? Look at the mighty Roman Empire. Most powerful empire in human history, yet they were defeated by "barbarians."

What in the ENTIRE history of humanity leads anyone to believe that things will NOT change? Of course they will change. Lower ranked schools will become innovative in trying to improve their rankings. Higher ranked schools will become complacent and falter.

How do I know? That's how things work. Look at IBM, Woolworths, Soviet Union, Roman Empire, Pan Am Airlines (there only about 10 billion other examples).

The only constant is change. The status quo will fight change, but change will come regardless.

Some posts invite ridicule.

This post demands it.

Hey... hyperbole doesn't really help the cause...

[nelaw2010]

edit

[flcath]

Lol!!!!! Sorry, I got emotional. But some of you defend the status quo as if you were getting paid to do it. What did people say about Stanford Law School when it first opened?

I'm all for it dude; IUB is nice school, and bouncing back to 23 after the fall is meaningful, even if TLSers (somewhat ironically, given the nature of this board) act like it doesn't matter.

Just pointing out that you just did the positive version of the thing where people compare debatable modern policies to Nazism.

[nelaw2010]

Lol!!!!! Sorry, I got emotional. But some of you defend the status quo as if you were getting paid to do it. What did people say about Stanford Law School when it first opened?

I'm all for it dude; IUB is nice school, and bouncing back to 23 after the fall is meaningful, even if TLSers (somewhat ironically, given the nature of this board) act like it doesn't matter.

Just pointing out that you just did the positive version of the thing where people compare debatable modern policies to Nazism.

How so? If I did, it was inadvertent.

[flcath]

Lol!!!!! Sorry, I got emotional. But some of you defend the status quo as if you were getting paid to do it. What did people say about Stanford Law School when it first opened?

I'm all for it dude; IUB is nice school, and bouncing back to 23 after the fall is meaningful, even if TLSers (somewhat ironically, given the nature of this board) act like it doesn't matter.

Just pointing out that you just did the positive version of the thing where people compare debatable modern policies to Nazism.

How so? If I did, it was inadvertent.

You seem like a good dude. Comparing the Roman Empire and USSR and PanAm to IUB's incremental rise in the USNews rankings kinda activated my gag reflex, though.

"The only constant is change. The status quo will fight change, but change will come regardless." <--in addition to being eye roll-worthy, this is an odd usage of 'status quo.'

[lateblooming]

this thread has been a painful exercise in watching people who have unique, but entirely legitimate interests debate which interest is more important.

some people don't want to be tied down to a mountain of debt their whole life. for instance, I plan on going to Cuba in 5 or 6 years to start another revolution. the last thing I want is the banks to come after me while I'm there.

but it's completely reasonable if other people will take the debt because they'll get a better job, make more money, and work 300 hours a week with the spiritually fulfilling environment of big law.

everyone has like, their opinion, man.

[mez06]

this thread has been a painful exercise in watching people who have unique, but entirely legitimate interests debate which interest is more important.

some people don't want to be tied down to a mountain of debt their whole life. for instance, I plan on going to Cuba in 5 or 6 years to start another revolution. the last thing I want is the banks to come after me while I'm there.

[nelaw2010]

To be honest, you're right, I have never stepped foot in a BigLAW office. I am in fact infatuated with the money and the prestige. Granted, I have worked for a Fortune 100 company for a couple year so I get the general office politics and bloodthirsty money-machine vibe. But to add to that, I understand the limits of IU. Not sure if I'm going there, but I sure as hell want to check it out b/c of the big scholarship and the opportunity to fly there for free.

You're right, its a hell of a gamble. Where did you get the calculations for the monthly payments? I'm looking at another option that would cost me 115k over 3 years.

http://www.finaid.org/calculators/

This is the calc I use. I'm not sure how accurate, but gives a decent ballpark.

[nelaw2010]

You seem like a good dude. Comparing the Roman Empire and USSR and PanAm to IUB's incremental rise in the USNews rankings kinda activated my gag reflex, though.

"The only constant is change. The status quo will fight change, but change will come regardless." <--in addition to being eye roll-worthy, this is an odd usage of 'status quo.'

I probably should have stopped while I was ahead (If I ever was). I didn't mean to derail this thread. I guess I'll sum it up by saying:

This thread was about IUB's rise in the rankings. I think a law school has a duty to its students and alumni to be constantly maintaing and/or improving its reputation. Climbing the ranks in the USNWR is one way in which schools accomplish this goal. Are there other ways a school can improve its reputation? Of course. Improving their job placement is one way, and probably the most important way. But improving their rankings, and in the process improving their reputation, is a logical way to attempt to improve job placement for graduates. Basically, do what you can with what you got. If IUB can improve their rank by using their cash reserves to attract higher caliber students, I think they should. An IUB alum's life is only improved the better the school does in the rankings.

Does this mean that someone who wants BIG LAW should pick IUB with $ over a school that places significantly better in BIG LAW with no $? Probably not. But then I would ask myself what percentage of BIG LAW placement is worth 180k in debt. Perhaps a school that places 30% or higher (assuming you got in). I'm not really sure, I guess that depends on each individual.

[flcath]

You seem like a good dude. Comparing the Roman Empire and USSR and PanAm to IUB's incremental rise in the USNews rankings kinda activated my gag reflex, though.

"The only constant is change. The status quo will fight change, but change will come regardless." <--in addition to being eye roll-worthy, this is an odd usage of 'status quo.'

I probably should have stopped while I was ahead (If I ever was). I didn't mean to derail this thread. I guess I'll sum it up by saying:

This thread was about IUB's rise in the rankings. I think a law school has a duty to its students and alumni to be constantly maintaing and/or improving its reputation. Climbing the ranks in the USNWR is one way in which schools accomplish this goal. Are there other ways a school can improve its reputation? Of course. Improving their job placement is one way, and probably the most important way. But improving their rankings, and in the process improving their reputation, is a logical way to attempt to improve job placement for graduates. Basically, do what you can with what you got. If IUB can improve their rank by using their cash reserves to attract higher caliber students, I think they should. An IUB alum's life is only improved the better the school does in the rankings.

Does this mean that someone who wants BIG LAW should pick IUB with $ over a school that places significantly better in BIG LAW with no $? Probably not. But then I would ask myself what percentage of BIG LAW placement is worth 180k in debt. Perhaps a school that places 30% or higher (assuming you got in). I'm not really sure, I guess that depends on each individual.

If the OP was asking about ND w/ $60K vs. IUB w/ $120K, then I think it's a no-brainer in favor of the latter unless you're from a very wealthy family (in which case, do what you want).

And ppl appreciate IUB's rise, and notice it. There will of course be (a) legitimate skepticism, (b) bitterness, (c) jealousy, and (d) defensiveness here on TLS. Bear in mind that no one who doesn't go to IUB has any rational incentive to wish it well.

[romothesavior]

My god, this thread embodies everything I hate about naive prospective law students. DF is spot on with everything he said. The rankings mean shit, and until Indiana becomes even relevant for big firm hiring, it will continue to simply be an above average school. It isn't even a blip on the NLJ 250 radar. OSU, Iowa, UIUC, UMN, etc. all place better into biglaw ITE than IUB did pre-ITE. Yes, there is life outside of biglaw, but the Indiana market simply isn't big enough to absorb all of those grads with midlaw and solid PI/government gigs. Simple math dictates that most IUB grads will be making sub-par salaries to start. If you've got low debt, this is great. If not, then you're entering a world of pain.

OP, if you have a big scholarship to IUB and you have ties to Indiana, it could be a great choice. But don't pick IUB because of their rise in the rankings. Their rise in the rankings is easily explained away by their massive spending. Sure, the scholarships age great for students (keeping debt low is crucial), but that doesn't mean that they are getting any better at placement. Do NOT mistake rankings for job prospects. All the other schools mentioned ITT (Emory, BU, GW, UIUC, etc.) are all far better schools, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what USNWR says. IUB's NLJ placement has typically been less than half of what their supposed "peers" are. Just keep that in mind.

[flcath]

My god, this thread embodies everything I hate about naive prospective law students. DF is spot on with everything he said. The rankings mean shit, and until Indiana becomes even relevant for big firm hiring, it will continue to simply be an above average school. It isn't even a blip on the NLJ 250 radar. OSU, Iowa, UIUC, UMN, etc. all place better into biglaw ITE than IUB did pre-ITE. Yes, there is life outside of biglaw, but the Indiana market simply isn't big enough to absorb all of those grads with midlaw and solid PI/government gigs. Simple math dictates that most IUB grads will be making sub-par salaries to start. If you've got low debt, this is great. If not, then you're entering a world of pain.

OP, if you have a big scholarship to IUB and you have ties to Indiana, it could be a great choice. But don't pick IUB because of their rise in the rankings. Their rise in the rankings is easily explained away by their massive spending. Sure, the scholarships age great for students (keeping debt low is crucial), but that doesn't mean that they are getting any better at placement. Do NOT mistake rankings for job prospects. All the other schools mentioned ITT (Emory, BU, GW, UIUC, etc.) are all far better schools, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what USNWR says. IUB's NLJ placement has typically been less than half of what their supposed "peers" are. Just keep that in mind.

Gotta take into account location though, brah. The opportunities for Biglaw are somewhat more limited when (1) you're a regional school, and (2) your region is the agrarian half of the Midwest.

Their grads tend to be universally employed as lawyers. And the USNews rankings don't just "mean shit," they're the primary regulatory mechanism for U.S. law schools (since the ABA is a joke that accredits Infilaw schools).

[romothesavior]

Gotta take into account location though, brah. The opportunities for Biglaw are somewhat more limited when (1) you're a regional school, and (2) your region is the agrarian half of the Midwest.

Their grads tend to be universally employed as lawyers. And the USNews rankings don't just "mean shit," they're the primary regulatory mechanism for U.S. law schools (since the ABA is a joke that accredits Infilaw schools).

I don't doubt that the majority of their students are employed as lawyers, but universally is way too strong, unless you're saying IUB does better than UIUC/WUSTL/ND/Emory/etc. Also, your means of defending a school's poor placement is "Well look where it is located!" Isn't that even more reason to be skeptical of spending a lot of money to go there? Their location and inability to place into midwestern NLJ firms is exactly why they get too much credit, and only someone with a big scholly or a desire to stay in Indiana should go there.

And come on people, seriously? Tell me how Indiana moving up to 23 makes it a better school. Tell me how it has had one effect on placement for their students (hint: it hasn't, and it won't. See NLJ 250 numbers). Tell me how Emory's drop will affect it. Tell me how WUSTL jumping up in the rankings over the past decade has helped us get hired. Tell me how Cardozo being a T1 now will make it more competitive with other NYC schools. The answer to all of the above? None of these new rankings will make a difference.

The rankings do (to some degree) reflect realities in the legal world, like a school's placement or a school's reputation. But they only reflect it, they do not drive it. And to the extent that they do reflect anything of importance, they only do it in very general terms. Sure, a T1 is in all likelihood better than a T3. But no way in hell you could start making arguments about the 20th school being better than the 28th based on the USNWR rankings. And even more importantly, no way people should be basing their decisions off this crap. Cardozo and IUB have moved up in recent years, but their new rankings do not make them better schools than they were 3-4 years ago. Anyone who picks a school based on these fluctuations is making a huge mistake, and those of you endorsing this crap to the OP are doing him a huge disservice.

[chrisnashville]

Gotta take into account location though, brah. The opportunities for Biglaw are somewhat more limited when (1) you're a regional school, and (2) your region is the agrarian half of the Midwest.

Their grads tend to be universally employed as lawyers. And the USNews rankings don't just "mean shit," they're the primary regulatory mechanism for U.S. law schools (since the ABA is a joke that accredits Infilaw schools).

I don't doubt that the majority of their students are employed as lawyers, but universally is way too strong, unless you're saying IUB does better than UIUC/WUSTL/ND/Emory/etc. Also, your means of defending a school's poor placement is "Well look where it is located!" Isn't that even more reason to be skeptical of spending a lot of money to go there? Their location and inability to place into midwestern NLJ firms is exactly why they get too much credit, and only someone with a big scholly or a desire to stay in Indiana should go there.

And come on people, seriously? Tell me how Indiana moving up to 23 makes it a better school. Tell me how it has had one effect on placement for their students (hint: it hasn't, and it won't. See NLJ 250 numbers). Tell me how Emory's drop will affect it. Tell me how WUSTL jumping up in the rankings over the past decade has helped us get hired. Tell me how Cardozo being a T1 now will make it more competitive with other NYC schools. The answer to all of the above? None of these new rankings will make a difference.

The rankings do (to some degree) reflect realities in the legal world, like a school's placement or a school's reputation. But they only reflect it, they do not drive it. And to the extent that they do reflect anyI cthing of importance, they only do it in very general terms. Sure, a T1 is in all likelihood better than a T3. But no way in hell you could start making arguments about the 20th school being better than the 28th based on the USNWR rankings. And even more importantly, no way people should be basing their decisions off this crap. Cardozo and IUB have moved up in recent years, but their new rankings do not make them better schools than they were 3-4 years ago. Anyone who picks a school based on these fluctuations is making a huge mistake, and those of you endorsing this crap to the OP are doing him a huge disservice.

Thanks for this. Though I'm not sure why people say HIGHER NLJ250 % = BETTER SCHOOL. Many of those schools are on that list because they're smack in the middle of the city. Does that mean the school is better? I'm likely attending IUB, but with the huge scholarship, the desire to practice in the Midwest, and no burning desire for Big Law. I'm happy to see it rise in the rankings only so I can now say I go to a T25 school, even if I realize that means pretty little for IUB But I cringed when I saw this thread pop up -- knew it'd go something like this....

[romothesavior]

Thanks for this. Though I'm not sure why people say HIGHER NLJ250 % = BETTER SCHOOL. Many of those schools are on that list because they're smack in the middle of the city. Does that mean the school is better? I'm likely attending IUB, but with the huge scholarship, the desire to practice in the Midwest, and no burning desire for Big Law. I'm happy to see it rise in the rankings only so I can now say I go to a T25 school, even if I realize that means pretty little for IUB But I cringed when I saw this thread pop up -- knew it'd go something like this....

Hey man, I can't knock your choice at all, because it sounds like you're making a smart decision. I'm mostly concerned about the people who see IUB moving up the rankings and then decide to take out a big chunk of debt to go there, thinking they'll easily pay it off due to the great job prospects. That huge debt will be hard to pay off without a big starting salary, which will be difficult to get from IUB. I'm not solely knocking IUB, as I think this same concern exists at all T20ish schools, including my own.

And the reason the NLJ numbers mean so much is that they are the most reliable, objective means of comparing schools. I definitely get what you're saying that there is a NYC bias in the NLJ numbers, and obviously a lot of people who go to law school will have successful careers outside of the NLJ firms. But the NLJ is really the best metric we've got, and it is pretty safe to assume that schools with better NLJ/clerkship data are also going to be doing better at placing students into prestigious government and PI jobs. It is not an all-encompassing metric for a wide variety of reasons, but it is a pretty good metric nonetheless.

Good luck at IUB.

[alexb]

Gotta take into account location though, brah. The opportunities for Biglaw are somewhat more limited when (1) you're a regional school, and (2) your region is the agrarian half of the Midwest.

Their grads tend to be universally employed as lawyers. And the USNews rankings don't just "mean shit," they're the primary regulatory mechanism for U.S. law schools (since the ABA is a joke that accredits Infilaw schools).

I don't doubt that the majority of their students are employed as lawyers, but universally is way too strong, unless you're saying IUB does better than UIUC/WUSTL/ND/Emory/etc. Also, your means of defending a school's poor placement is "Well look where it is located!" Isn't that even more reason to be skeptical of spending a lot of money to go there? Their location and inability to place into midwestern NLJ firms is exactly why they get too much credit, and only someone with a big scholly or a desire to stay in Indiana should go there.

And come on people, seriously? Tell me how Indiana moving up to 23 makes it a better school. Tell me how it has had one effect on placement for their students (hint: it hasn't, and it won't. See NLJ 250 numbers). Tell me how Emory's drop will affect it. Tell me how WUSTL jumping up in the rankings over the past decade has helped us get hired. Tell me how Cardozo being a T1 now will make it more competitive with other NYC schools. The answer to all of the above? None of these new rankings will make a difference.

The rankings do (to some degree) reflect realities in the legal world, like a school's placement or a school's reputation. But they only reflect it, they do not drive it. And to the extent that they do reflect anything of importance, they only do it in very general terms. Sure, a T1 is in all likelihood better than a T3. But no way in hell you could start making arguments about the 20th school being better than the 28th based on the USNWR rankings. And even more importantly, no way people should be basing their decisions off this crap. Cardozo and IUB have moved up in recent years, but their new rankings do not make them better schools than they were 3-4 years ago. Anyone who picks a school based on these fluctuations is making a huge mistake, and those of you endorsing this crap to the OP are doing him a huge disservice.

You sure ranking doesn't drive a school's placement? You sure the perceived higher quality of education doesn't drive more employers to the particular school's OCI? Sure a few spots, from year to year, don't matter, no one reasonable is saying that. It is more probable that they are speculating about the long term effects of the possibility that IU-B remains in T25 for a while.

[Borhas]

Thanks for this. Though I'm not sure why people say HIGHER NLJ250 % = BETTER SCHOOL. Many of those schools are on that list because they're smack in the middle of the city. Does that mean the school is better?

yes, apparently it does

why give a handicap to a school that's not in the middle of a city? being in the middle of a city may be a positive factor intrinsic to the quality of a particular school

[Borhas]

doesn't drive more employers to the particular school's OCI? Sure a few spots, from year to year, don't matter, no one reasonable is saying that. It is more probable that they are speculating about the long term effects of the possibility that IU-B remains in T25 for a while.

Even then they would still be speculating. Are they sure? They're speculating about 1) IUB staying sustaining the rank and 2) whether rank means anything to employment outcomes

Nothing wrong with taking risks, as long they are informed. The evidence heavily undercuts that hypothesis about #2. Even in the long term (see WUSTL)

[AreJay711]

Thanks for this. Though I'm not sure why people say HIGHER NLJ250 % = BETTER SCHOOL. Many of those schools are on that list because they're smack in the middle of the city. Does that mean the school is better?

yes, apparently it does

why give a handicap to a school that's not in the middle of a city? being in the middle of a city may be a positive factor intrinsic to the quality of a particular school

Idk if it makes a school better as far as academic quality but the purpose of a law degree is to get a job. Obviously, not everyone wants the same things but for someone that wants to work for a large firm this stat can make a difference.

[Borhas]

You are right in a sense, but quality of education is sort of dubious thing to worry about anyway. I don't think the quality of education between any school outside of the top 3 is really that much different, we study the same opinions, all of our law profs are pretty smart and experienced. Law professors tend to be highly qualified for their jobs no matter where they go anyway (well maybe not the non-accredited or brand new law schools). So at least for a self motivated person, the educational quality would be probably be the same most anywhere.

I know some profs publish more than others, but really who gives a shit? (academia and almost nobody else)

[alexb]

doesn't drive more employers to the particular school's OCI? Sure a few spots, from year to year, don't matter, no one reasonable is saying that. It is more probable that they are speculating about the long term effects of the possibility that IU-B remains in T25 for a while.

Even then they would still be speculating. Are they sure? They're speculating about 1) IUB staying sustaining the rank and 2) whether rank means anything to employment outcomes

Nothing wrong with taking risks, as long they are informed. The evidence heavily undercuts that hypothesis about #2. Even in the long term (see WUSTL)

You're right, such predictions about IU-B's future are, perhaps necessarily, highly speculative. I suppose that's the point I'm trying to make: All such predictions are.

To be fair, in the case of WUSTL, no one has adequately taken into consideration all of the possible variables (ie fluctuations in the market, self-selection, etc.) and then performed an appropriate statistical hypothesis test to determine whether or not these changes in the percentage of those employed by firms in the NLJ250 are statistically significant or not.

Nevertheless, whatever the truth is about WUSTL, WUSTL is just one school and thus makes for a very small sample size, not to mention the fact that WUSTL ≠ IU-B. There far too many possible differences, between the two schools and the steps they will take, or have taken, to secure employment for their students, to make, with a reasonable degree of certainty, let alone a high one, any sort of conclusion about what the future might hold for IU-B and whether or not it will be similar to WUSTL.


Basically, I’m just saying we’re all a bunch of wannabe-hotshot lawyers, full of shit and making wanton, weakly supported guesses about the future of a school.

[flcath]

Gotta take into account location though, brah. The opportunities for Biglaw are somewhat more limited when (1) you're a regional school, and (2) your region is the agrarian half of the Midwest.

Their grads tend to be universally employed as lawyers. And the USNews rankings don't just "mean shit," they're the primary regulatory mechanism for U.S. law schools (since the ABA is a joke that accredits Infilaw schools).

I don't doubt that the majority of their students are employed as lawyers, but universally is way too strong, unless you're saying IUB does better than UIUC/WUSTL/ND/Emory/etc. Also, your means of defending a school's poor placement is "Well look where it is located!" Isn't that even more reason to be skeptical of spending a lot of money to go there? Their location and inability to place into midwestern NLJ firms is exactly why they get too much credit, and only someone with a big scholly or a desire to stay in Indiana should go there.

And come on people, seriously? Tell me how Indiana moving up to 23 makes it a better school. Tell me how it has had one effect on placement for their students (hint: it hasn't, and it won't. See NLJ 250 numbers). Tell me how Emory's drop will affect it. Tell me how WUSTL jumping up in the rankings over the past decade has helped us get hired. Tell me how Cardozo being a T1 now will make it more competitive with other NYC schools. The answer to all of the above? None of these new rankings will make a difference.

The rankings do (to some degree) reflect realities in the legal world, like a school's placement or a school's reputation. But they only reflect it, they do not drive it. And to the extent that they do reflect anything of importance, they only do it in very general terms. Sure, a T1 is in all likelihood better than a T3. But no way in hell you could start making arguments about the 20th school being better than the 28th based on the USNWR rankings. And even more importantly, no way people should be basing their decisions off this crap. Cardozo and IUB have moved up in recent years, but their new rankings do not make them better schools than they were 3-4 years ago. Anyone who picks a school based on these fluctuations is making a huge mistake, and those of you endorsing this crap to the OP are doing him a huge disservice.

Sure, sure, fine points all. But regardless of wether the rankings reflect or drive LS perception, they seem to do so remarkable accurately, especially towards the top of the list where professors they poll are actually familiar with the schools. Either way, it's a good thing to be ranked higher, regardless of whether it presages improved job prospects (and it'd take more than a 2-year jump to #23 for that) or reflects some other, prior improvement the school's made.

And, if this hasn't been made clear ITT already (and maybe it hasn't been), I take IUB in this situation (i.e., twice the money), having nothing to do with the boost in ranking. ND leaves open more geographical options, sure, but if you don't like the Midwest at all then you really should be looking elsewhere than these 2 schools. NDLS will get you a job in Cali, but you'd be better off just going to Hastings or Davis for that.

[Borhas]

doesn't drive more employers to the particular school's OCI? Sure a few spots, from year to year, don't matter, no one reasonable is saying that. It is more probable that they are speculating about the long term effects of the possibility that IU-B remains in T25 for a while.

Even then they would still be speculating. Are they sure? They're speculating about 1) IUB staying sustaining the rank and 2) whether rank means anything to employment outcomes

Nothing wrong with taking risks, as long they are informed. The evidence heavily undercuts that hypothesis about #2. Even in the long term (see WUSTL)

You're right, such predictions about IU-B's future are, perhaps necessarily, highly speculative. I suppose that's the point I'm trying to make: All such predictions are.

To be fair, in the case of WUSTL, no one has adequately taken into consideration all of the possible variables (ie fluctuations in the market, self-selection, etc.) and then performed an appropriate statistical hypothesis test to determine whether or not these changes in the percentage of those employed by firms in the NLJ250 are statistically significant or not.

Nevertheless, whatever the truth is about WUSTL, WUSTL is just one school and thus makes for a very small sample size, not to mention the fact that WUSTL ≠ IU-B. There far too many possible differences, between the two schools and the steps they will take, or have taken, to secure employment for their students, to make, with a reasonable degree of certainty, let alone a high one, any sort of conclusion about what the future might hold for IU-B and whether or not it will be similar to WUSTL.


Basically, I’m just saying we’re all a bunch of wannabe-hotshot lawyers, full of shit and making wanton, weakly supported guesses about the future of a school.

well to be fair, I'm not making wanton weakly supported guesses

I'm using the evidence available to check on other people's wanton weakly supported guesses

As for WUSTL, I don't think all those variables you mention would make that big of a change because it compares WUSTL to itself in the past, and the NLJ 250 data is relative to other schools so overall economic fluctuation wouldn't matter (though I guess if one region in particular did better or worse compared to the rest of the country it could skew the trend)... It is one school, but it is the poster child for the whole USNWR gaming system that's developed... cause they've been incredibly successful at it, and they've actually sustain it. In short, IUB wants to be the next WUSTL.

[romothesavior]

Sure, sure, fine points all. But regardless of wether the rankings reflect or drive LS perception, they seem to do so remarkable accurately, except for especially towards the top of the list where professors they poll are actually familiar with the schools.

The rankings are remarkably inaccurate for matching rank with job prospects. They are better at it towards the top, but still not that good.