Law School Discussion

Deciding Where to Go => Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses => Topic started by: Viking Quest on April 20, 2009, 06:19:50 PM

Title: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Viking Quest on April 20, 2009, 06:19:50 PM
Take a look at the new Brooklyn Law School rankings.  For every other school, they have combined full time and part time LSAT scores in the main rankings.  Not for Brooklyn.  They use just the full time scores.  And for the part-time rankings?  Brooklyn is not even listed.  So what's the story?  Did Brooklyn not tell US News about its part-time folks, or did US News screw up?  A correction seems to be in order here -- Brooklyn should probably have gone down in the rankings with the new formula rather than up.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Pop Up Video on April 20, 2009, 06:22:32 PM
Why does it matter?
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: vap on April 20, 2009, 06:48:04 PM
Fall 2008 LSAT spread full + part (US News): 162-165
Fall 2008 GPA spread full + part (US News):  3.22-3.66

Fall 2007 LSAT spread full + part (LSAC):  159-164
Fall 2007 GPA spread full + part (LSAC):  3.15-3.61

Fall 2007 LSAT spread full (LSAC):  162-165
Fall 2007 GPA spread full (LSAC):  3.17-3.63
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Viking Quest on April 22, 2009, 02:32:05 PM
Law School headlines has picked up on this, confirmed the discrepancy, contacted the school for comment:

http://lawschoolheadlines.com/?cat=5
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 22, 2009, 03:42:20 PM
I don't understand why you care about this (and I don't much care myself), but it's perfectly possible that Brooklyn's 25-75 spread, including part-time numbers, improved to 162-165 this year.  The numbers cited in the blog post are from 2007.  My guess is that, seeing the coming changes in the U.S. News methodology, Brooklyn took steps to improve its overall numbers.  (This seems much more likely than your scenario -- that Brooklyn straight-out lied to US News and got away with it -- doesn't it?)  It could have, for instance, increased the admissions criteria for or decreased the size of its part-time program. 

Moreover, the part-time numbers may not have a huge impact on the overall median and 25-75 spread.  Already in 2007, the part-time program made up only about 1/3 of the class.  The bottom 75% of the part-time program may fill in the bottom 25% of the overall class, for all we know.  For what it's worth (again, not much), in 2007, Brooklyn's PT+FT median LSAT was higher than the median LSAT of any school ranked below it.  I haven't seen the full 2008 data, but there's no reason to believe this has changed.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 22, 2009, 03:51:20 PM
I don't understand why you care about this (and I don't much care myself), but it's perfectly possible that Brooklyn's 25-75 spread, including part-time numbers, improved to 162-165 this year.  The numbers cited in the blog post are from 2007.  My guess is that, seeing the coming changes in the U.S. News methodology, Brooklyn took steps to improve its overall numbers.  (This seems much more likely than your scenario -- that Brooklyn straight-out lied to US News and got away with it -- doesn't it?)  It could have, for instance, increased its admissions criteria for the part-time program or decreased the size of its part-time program. 


Way to kill the conspiracy theories there with facts, logical speculation and stuff, next you’re going to tell me we actually landed on the moon.   :P
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 22, 2009, 03:57:36 PM
Way to kill the conspiracy theories there with facts, logical speculation and stuff, next you’re going to tell me we actually landed on the moon.   :P

I do my best to ruin every bit of fun anyone might have in my midst.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 22, 2009, 04:02:23 PM
Way to kill the conspiracy theories there with facts, logical speculation and stuff, next you’re going to tell me we actually landed on the moon.   :P

I do my best to ruin every bit of fun anyone might have in my midst.

I still thinks its more likely that a group of Watergate type burglars broke into USNEWS offices and used white out to change the numbers.   
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on April 22, 2009, 04:12:20 PM
Way to kill the conspiracy theories there with facts, logical speculation and stuff, next you’re going to tell me we actually landed on the moon.   :P

I do my best to ruin every bit of fun anyone might have in my midst.

I still thinks its more likely that a group of Watergate type burglars broke into USNEWS offices and used white out to change the numbers.   

I heard it was correction tape.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 22, 2009, 04:17:02 PM
Way to kill the conspiracy theories there with facts, logical speculation and stuff, next you’re going to tell me we actually landed on the moon.   :P

I do my best to ruin every bit of fun anyone might have in my midst.

I still thinks its more likely that a group of Watergate type burglars broke into USNEWS offices and used white out to change the numbers.   

I heard it was correction tape.

technology!
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Viking Quest on April 22, 2009, 04:40:53 PM
Ok, explain this away all you want with unsupported theories that the numbers went up drastically this year, but
FACT:  Brooklyn has a part time program with more than 20 students admitted this year.
FACT:  US News purports to list all the schools with part-time programs with more than 20 students in its part time rankings
FACT:  Brooklyn is not listed as having a part time program.

So how does this fit into the rational explanations?

Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 22, 2009, 04:56:35 PM
Ok, explain this away all you want with unsupported theories that the numbers went up drastically this year, but
FACT:  Brooklyn has a part time program with more than 20 students admitted this year.
FACT:  US News purports to list all the schools with part-time programs with more than 20 students in its part time rankings
FACT:  Brooklyn is not listed as having a part time program.

So how does this fit into the rational explanations?



I think nobody really cares becuas they all want to go to Denver becuase its a top 10 school now. I know I do. I'm elite
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 22, 2009, 05:01:17 PM
Ok, explain this away all you want with unsupported theories that the numbers went up drastically this year, but
FACT:  Brooklyn has a part time program with more than 20 students admitted this year.
FACT:  US News purports to list all the schools with part-time programs with more than 20 students in its part time rankings
FACT:  Brooklyn is not listed as having a part time program.

So how does this fit into the rational explanations?

I haven't seen the part-time rankings; I have no idea if Brooklyn is listed.  Do you have a copy of USNWR in front of you? Also, again, I'm not sure why you're so invested in this.  

FWIW, 159/164 to 162/165 is not exactly "drastic."

I think nobody really cares becuas they all want to go to Denver becuase its a top 10 school now. I know I do. I'm elite

lol.  For me, it was the candy profs who sealed the deal.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 22, 2009, 05:04:12 PM
PT ranks, note pay special attention to number nine http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/part-time-law
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 22, 2009, 05:19:45 PM
PT ranks, note pay special attention to number nine http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/part-time-law

:D  Number nine looks great!

Brooklyn is indeed missing.  There must be some kind of clerical error.  The USNWR editors are clearly aware that Brooklyn has a part-time program (e.g., http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/items/03102, listing the number of part-time students).
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on April 22, 2009, 05:20:15 PM
They include information (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/items/03102) (tuition cost, application fee) about the part time program for Brooklyn, so USNWR clearly knows that the part time program exists. I can't imagine that they somehow manages to pull the wool over USNWR's eyes with respect to the numbers for the PT program. It's far more likely some error or other explainable reason on USNWR's part.

And Miss P is correct that that is not a drastic change in numbers

ETA: Damn it! Beat by P!
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 22, 2009, 05:21:44 PM
Ok all fun and games aside, US News says it ranked 87 part-time law schools this year see generally http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/part-time-law

Yet they only actually list 85 see generally   http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/part-time-law

So two schools, Brooklyn and one other are missing. Rather than it being an evil plot by Brooklyn’s law school administrators to cheat the system, could it not, possibility, just be a mistake on USNEWS part by forgetting to plug the data in for two schools? I mean it’s not like they have not made coding mistake sin the past, like last year when they ranked T3 and T4 schools by accident.

I know this theory is not as fun as bashing Broklyn, but hey I'm puting out there like my moon land seniero


BTW if it is a msitake and they fix it and you bump me out of top 10 I'm going to be really POed
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 22, 2009, 05:27:22 PM
And Miss P is correct that that is not a drastic change in numbers

Especially given the fact that the admissions office was aware of the coming change in rankings and had both motive and means to improve the numbers.  (Also, fwiw, last year, BLS underestimated yield among high-index students and ended up giving out much more merit scholarship money than it had planned.  This likely led to higher numbers as well.)

p.s. Good catch, Matthies.  And I strongly doubt we would be able to bump you.  I'm sure we'd be somewhere right behind Cardozo.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 22, 2009, 05:30:57 PM
And Miss P is correct that that is not a drastic change in numbers

p.s. Good catch, Matthies.  And I strongly doubt we would be able to bump you.  I'm sure we'd be somewhere right behind Cardozo.

<--- is smart/goes to top 10 school
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Viking Quest on April 23, 2009, 05:59:43 AM
>>>Also, again, I'm not sure why you're so invested in this. 

Brooklyn Law School ate my baby. 


Brooklyn's own website puts its data as "for the entering class of 2008" -- which is the current year and the same one used by US News.   If there is a rational explanation, I assume the Deans who had been contacted by lawschoolheadlines.com would have responded by now with one.


Now I can understand why the Madoff Ponzi scheme survived for so long in the face of so much evidence to doubt it over the years. 

Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 24, 2009, 11:10:14 AM
>>>Also, again, I'm not sure why you're so invested in this. 

Brooklyn Law School ate my baby. 

Brooklyn's own website puts its data as "for the entering class of 2008" -- which is the current year and the same one used by US News.   If there is a rational explanation, I assume the Deans who had been contacted by lawschoolheadlines.com would have responded by now with one.

Now I can understand why the Madoff Ponzi scheme survived for so long in the face of so much evidence to doubt it over the years. 

::sighs::

I really don't understand your investment in this.  At least on your blog you have the excuse that it's drummed up traffic to a whopping 8 (assuming they're unique) commenters.

There's no good reason for Brooklyn to respond immediately to unsubstantiated accusations on a one-bit blog, especially if it doesn't know what happened because it submitted the correct data.  And honestly, you're quibbling over whether the rankings were calculated with a median LSAT of 163 or a median LSAT of 162.  What, really, would such a difference make in the quality of the education one receives at Brooklyn?  I have plenty of complaints about my school, but the intelligence of my peers is certainly not one of them.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: botbot on April 24, 2009, 05:15:41 PM
>>>Also, again, I'm not sure why you're so invested in this. 

Brooklyn Law School ate my baby. 

Brooklyn's own website puts its data as "for the entering class of 2008" -- which is the current year and the same one used by US News.   If there is a rational explanation, I assume the Deans who had been contacted by lawschoolheadlines.com would have responded by now with one.

Now I can understand why the Madoff Ponzi scheme survived for so long in the face of so much evidence to doubt it over the years. 

::sighs::

I really don't understand your investment in this.  At least on your blog you have the excuse that it's drummed up traffic to a whopping 8 (assuming they're unique) commenters.

There's no good reason for Brooklyn to respond immediately to unsubstantiated accusations on a one-bit blog, especially if it doesn't know what happened because it submitted the correct data.  And honestly, you're quibbling over whether the rankings were calculated with a median LSAT of 163 or a median LSAT of 162.  What, really, would such a difference make in the quality of the education one receives at Brooklyn?  I have plenty of complaints about my school, but the intelligence of my peers is certainly not one of them.

I'm pretty certain that Viking Quest has nothing to do with LSH.

LSH had something like 50k unique visitors this week though...
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 24, 2009, 05:19:42 PM
LSH had something like 50k unique visitors this week though...

It would appear that most were just there to read the leaked rankings, as there are very few comments.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: botbot on April 24, 2009, 05:21:52 PM
LSH had something like 50k unique visitors this week though...

It would appear that most were just there to read the leaked rankings, as there are very few comments.

I don't understand what comments have to do with anything?  My blog has no comments.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 24, 2009, 08:25:27 PM
LSH had something like 50k unique visitors this week though...

It would appear that most were just there to read the leaked rankings, as there are very few comments.

I don't understand what comments have to do with anything?  My blog has no comments.

Most blogs that allow unmoderated comments (as your blog does not, from what I can tell) have more spam than LSH has legit comments.  Regardless, it's clear that the huge bump in its readership is from publishing the U.S. News rankings.  I think it's just as obvious that it is now trying to retain those potential new readers by sensational and irresponsible accusations.  I would be embarrassed to be associated with that blog, but YMMV.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: botbot on April 24, 2009, 08:57:39 PM
LSH moderates the comments for spam and excessive vulgarity.

I'm very comfortable on the network and don't see any thing wrong with what LSH said about the situation.  Brooklyn doesn't have to contact the website directly, but I think this situation merits some kind of release.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 24, 2009, 09:26:51 PM
LSH moderates the comments for spam and excessive vulgarity.

I'm very comfortable on the network and don't see any thing wrong with what LSH said about the situation.  Brooklyn doesn't have to contact the website directly, but I think this situation merits some kind of release.

Perhaps it's just the defense attorney in me, but I think there's a big leap between saying, "It looks like there's some inconsistency in the data that benefits Brooklyn," and saying, "Brooklyn probably lied about its data to game the rankings."  There are plenty of other inconsistencies in the data and mistakes in the rankings that likely benefited some schools and hurt others, yet this is the only one that the blog attributes to a particular school's affirmative misrepresentations.  My guess is rather that most of these inconsistencies and errors stem from uneven communications about new methodologies, rookie mistakes with new rankings like the part-time list, and a rush to publish the already-late Best Colleges issue, which is the only thing that's keeping USNWR afloat.  I frankly think it's absurd to suggest that Brooklyn lied without any evidence other than the fact that it may have benefited from what looks like potentially bad data. There's no proof, even, that the class median -- what the rankings are based on, after all -- isn't 163.  In any case, LSH's repeated accusations are certainly not good journalism.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Viking Quest on April 25, 2009, 06:01:55 AM
Correct that I have no blog. 

US News only lists 25th -75th percentile with its rankings -- and if Brooklyn's data published elsewhere is correct the 25th percentile should be 159 rather than 162 -- a big difference. 

It is just that the overly reported LSAT score looks like the one thing that makes Brooklyn ranked so high.  Look at Brooklyn's bar passage rate --it is worse than a number of NY schools behind them in the rankings -- St. Johns, Hofstra, NYLS, Albany and Pace -- and Pace is in the 4th tier. 

Brooklyn could clear this up by explaining.  But it benefits from silence -- US News published something so it must be true. 
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 25, 2009, 06:13:16 AM
US News published something so it must be true. 


ummmmm noooooooo, just becuase its published does not mean it true. Also the only thing we know for sure is UNEWS made a mistake, as they say 87 but only list 85, either they made a mistake and meant 85, or they made a miatske and meant 87, but only published 85. Either way that's published, that's US news mistake and it can't both be true. I really hope your a pre-law becuase this is really bad reasoning all the way around.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Dr. Balsenschaft on April 25, 2009, 06:29:15 AM
US News published something so it must be true. 


ummmmm noooooooo, just becuase its published does not mean it true. Also the only thing we know for sure is UNEWS made a mistake, as they say 87 but only list 85, either they made a mistake and meant 85, or they made a miatske and meant 87, but only published 85. Either way that's published, that's US news mistake and it can't both be true. I really hope your a pre-law becuase this is really bad reasoning all the way around.

He was being facetious.  He's saying the mistake (if it is a mistake) regarding the reported LSAT score can only benefit Brooklyn because many people won't bother to check.   Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on April 25, 2009, 09:46:06 AM

Brooklyn could clear this up by explaining. 

Maybe they don't know what happened. Maybe they've asked USNWR what happened, and haven't gotten a response. Maybe USNWR has told them that they're going to address it. Maybe they don't feel the need to respond to a third-rate blog with an unattractive web design that chose "Brooklyn must have flat-out lied!" as the most likely explanation and then spammed every dean listed on the website demanding an accounting for their ranking and perceived discrepancies.

Of course, the party better able to explain this is UNSWR itself. They are, one can [more] reasonably surmise [than one could surmise that Brooklyn just decided to pretend their part time program doesn't exist], aware that Brooklyn has a part time program, given the inclusion of part-time statistics in their information about Brooklyn, and they also note that there are 87 part time schools, but only include 85 in the rankings. They know what Brooklyn reported and, presumably, what they did with that information.

Is it possible that Brooklyn neglected to include their part-time statistics in the reported information, either intentionally or mistakenly? Sure. Is it particularly likely? Well, I would hope that the people in charge realize that it would be rather obvious to do so, given the separate part-time rankings and what one would hope to be very basic fact-checking on the part of USNWR. If you're going to consciously game the rankings via incorrect data reporting, most people wouldn't do it in the most obvious manner possible in the year that a new rankings methodology is released. Of course, this kind of reasoning seems to be above the individual in charge of the blog. But then, what can you expect from a parent company that also thought that "Life at 160" business was worth publishing (but not updating? Did they just steal it from somewhere? Probably).

Should we be asking why there is this discrepancy? Of course. But that doesn't make these kinds of assumptions and accusations reasonable - or anything other than sensationalist pseudo-journalism on the part of Law School Headlines.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 25, 2009, 10:00:06 AM
Thank you, SBA.

Correct that I have no blog. 

US News only lists 25th -75th percentile with its rankings -- and if Brooklyn's data published elsewhere is correct the 25th percentile should be 159 rather than 162 -- a big difference. 

It is just that the overly reported LSAT score looks like the one thing that makes Brooklyn ranked so high.  Look at Brooklyn's bar passage rate --it is worse than a number of NY schools behind them in the rankings -- St. Johns, Hofstra, NYLS, Albany and Pace -- and Pace is in the 4th tier. 

Brooklyn could clear this up by explaining.  But it benefits from silence -- US News published something so it must be true. 

1. You're right: Assuming there is an error, Brooklyn could probably clear it up by issuing an explanatory press release.  One of the reasons it hasn't may be that it benefits from the error, as you suggest.  (Note that this is not the same as Brooklyn trying to perpetrate some fraud on applicants by lying to USNWR.)  As SBA suggested, USNWR may be planning to address the error, or Brooklyn may be working with USNWR to correct the error jointly.  Finally, it may not know what happened because the error may be USNWR's.  Law schools are notoriously risk-averse.  The last thing they want is to issue a press release that can later be proven wrong in any way.  Brooklyn, in particular, is rather ham-fisted and slow to respond to controversy (some theorize because of the dean's paranoia).  So I am just not in any way surprised that Brooklyn hasn't hopped to respond to the scattered blog posts (all quoting LSH) about this.  It may be a failing, sure, but transparency is not big in law school communications, generally.

2. I haven't seen any published data anywhere for the full + part-time LSAT numbers for the class entering in 2008.  The 159 25th percentile is from the 2007 entering class. It may be the same for the 2008 entering class, but there are various reasons it may have changed, including the record number of merit scholarships awarded and accepted last year (creating higher-index yield), specific efforts to recruit higher-LSAT candidates because of the change in the rankings, and normal fluctuations.  In any case, without knowing the distributions LSAT scores in the bottom quartile of the full-time class and the top and middle quartiles of the part-time class, you cannot assume that the 25th percentile of the entire 2008 entering class is 159.  

3. No, 159 and 162 are not substantially different.  They're in the same scoreband, for instance.  Also, fully 25 schools ranked above Brooklyn have 25th percentile LSATs at or below 159, starting with Indy-Bloomington at number 23.  (I have listed them at the end of this post.)  Villanova, tied with Brooklyn, has a 25th percentile LSAT at 160 (where I would guess Brooklyn's is), and a 75th percentile of 163, Brooklyn's median.

4. Regardless, the middle 50% LSAT range no longer determines the rankings.  I do think it's useful information for applicants who are trying to judge their chances of admission; if the numbers are wrong, USNWR should correct them.  But the rankings are based on medians.  Brooklyn's reported median is 163.  It may be as low as 162.  It's a pretty high score.

5. I don't have a subscription to USNWR, so I cannot answer your claims about the relative bar passage rates and their weight in the rankings.  I do know that some of the lower-ranked law schools in the region recently improved their bar-passage rates by instituting bar-only curricula that deprive their students of the opportunity to get meaningful exposure to real legal work through clinical programs.  I also know that a much higher percentage of Brooklyn JDs take the bar in their first opportunity following graduation.  Regardless, Brooklyn's bar-passage rate is not low by any means. Last year, it was 91% (and above Hofstra, Pace, et al.).

***

Schools ranked at or above 61 with 25th percentile LSATs at or below 159:

23 Indy Bloomington 156-165
26 Iowa 158-164
30 Alabama 158-165
30 UNC 157-163
30 University of Washington 159-166
35 Ohio State 159-164
35 UC-Davis 158-163
35 Georgia 159-164
35 UW-Madison 157-163
43 Arizona 159-164
45 American 159-163
45 Tulane 159-163
45 Utah 157-162
49 SMU 154-165
49 Cardozo 159-165

51 UF 156-162
52 FSU 157-161
52 Cincy 156-162
52 UConn 156-162
55 ASU 156-162
55 Case 156-160
55 Pepperdine 158-162
55 Kentucky 157-162
59 Houston 157-163
59 Tennessee 154-161

61 L&C 157-163
61 USD 158-162
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: botbot on April 25, 2009, 10:01:43 AM
This is what I know in regards to the above post.

Life at 160 isn't a live blog.  The book publisher that picked it up is holding up the next two chapters from being posted on the web. 

Edit:  blog@subtledig.com - email them about it.  I bet they would respond or, at least, issue a press release  ;)
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on April 25, 2009, 10:08:18 AM
This is what I know in regards to the above post.

Life at 160 isn't a live blog.  The book publisher that picked it up is holding up the next two chapters from being posted on the web. 

Edit:  blog@subtledig.com - email them about it.  I bet they would respond or, at least, issue a press release  ;)

Wait, you mean there are explanations for things other than intentional dishonesty? Slap me silly and call me Susan!
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: botbot on April 25, 2009, 10:15:28 AM
Things sure are cleared up quickly when someone "in-the-know" addresses them....
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on April 25, 2009, 10:26:02 AM
Things sure are cleared up quickly when someone "in-the-know" addresses them....

And see above for reasons that BLS just might not be in a position (or the best position) to do so. I hardly think that it's reasonable for them/you/viking quest/anyone else to expect LSH to be the Great Accountability Holder in this (or any other) instance. Its position in the blogging world is hardly such that anyone would feel particularly compelled to immediately issue a statement refuting spurious accusations, particularly in a situation where further information may well need to be gathered before such a statement can be issued.

Again, the question of what happened is reasonable and important. The assumptions and accusations? Not so much.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: whartonn on April 25, 2009, 10:32:45 AM
Take a look at the new Brooklyn Law School rankings.  For every other school, they have combined full time and part time LSAT scores in the main rankings.  Not for Brooklyn.  They use just the full time scores.  And for the part-time rankings?  Brooklyn is not even listed.   So what's the story?  Did Brooklyn not tell US News about its part-time folks, or did US News screw up?  A correction seems to be in order here -- Brooklyn should probably have gone down in the rankings with the new formula rather than up.

That's a good point. Why isn't Brooklyn law even listed among the part-time rankings?
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on April 25, 2009, 11:17:36 AM
Take a look at the new Brooklyn Law School rankings.  For every other school, they have combined full time and part time LSAT scores in the main rankings.  Not for Brooklyn.  They use just the full time scores.  And for the part-time rankings?  Brooklyn is not even listed.   So what's the story?  Did Brooklyn not tell US News about its part-time folks, or did US News screw up?  A correction seems to be in order here -- Brooklyn should probably have gone down in the rankings with the new formula rather than up.

That's a good point. Why isn't Brooklyn law even listed among the part-time rankings?

No one here knows.  There is clearly an error.  USNWR says it ranked 87 part-time programs, and it only lists 85.  It also lists some data about Brooklyn's part-time program under Brooklyn's general listing, so the editors are obviously aware that Brooklyn has a part-time program that makes up approximately 30% of each incoming class.  (Only about 10% of the class graduates from the part-time program; most shift into the full-time program by graduation.)
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: botbot on April 25, 2009, 11:22:25 AM
And for the record, since the sd and LSH guys have seen this thread.

I think LSH is perfectly attractive website.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on April 25, 2009, 01:45:14 PM
US News published something so it must be true. 


ummmmm noooooooo, just becuase its published does not mean it true. Also the only thing we know for sure is UNEWS made a mistake, as they say 87 but only list 85, either they made a mistake and meant 85, or they made a miatske and meant 87, but only published 85. Either way that's published, that's US news mistake and it can't both be true. I really hope your a pre-law becuase this is really bad reasoning all the way around.

He was being facetious.  He's saying the mistake (if it is a mistake) regarding the reported LSAT score can only benefit Brooklyn because many people won't bother to check.   Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

Why I dun finished law schoolz, I gots job, self esteem, money, great online personality and people like me. You gotz = reading comprehension.

I win.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Viking Quest on May 08, 2009, 06:22:08 AM
Here's an update and Brooklyn's explanation:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202430524801&US_News_looks_into_Brooklyn_L aws_survey_response_&slreturn=1

Sounds like Brooklyn clearly gave false data.  They try to both justify why they would give false data and then say it was inadvertent (can it really be both? Sound like saying "I didn't steal a car from that guy and crash it, but if I did it was because the guy owed me some money, and anyways it was broke when I got it."
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on May 08, 2009, 06:51:27 AM
Here's an update and Brooklyn's explanation:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202430524801&US_News_looks_into_Brooklyn_L aws_survey_response_&slreturn=1

Sounds like Brooklyn clearly gave false data.  They try to both justify why they would give false data and then say it was inadvertent (can it really be both? Sound like saying "I didn't steal a car from that guy and crash it, but if I did it was because the guy owed me some money, and anyways it was broke when I got it."

It says BLS intentionally left out the part-time data and explicitly told U.S. News that it was doing so.  It also inadvertently filled out the "whole class" number with only the full-time data when it should have left that space blank as well.  You can choose not to believe BLS's explanation, but there's nothing inconsistent about it.  And certainly U.S. News was on notice and should have caught the error (even if you don't hold the editors to the standards to which you would hold ordinary journalists -- which I don't understand, but that's a question for another day).
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: JayCLS on May 19, 2009, 03:12:12 PM
Brooklyn was obviously disingenuous here.  Let's not sugar coat this.  They know that if they include their part time numbers they will drop in the rankings so they are taking some kind of self-satisfying moral stance on the matter that is convenient for them.  They thought they'd get away with reporting only full time numbers and got caught (too late for publication but not too late for public humiliation).

These schools have been using the part time/full time thing for financial gain for way too long and it needs to stop.

Also, think about how unfair this is to the schools that included part time numbers in their submission(per the instructions from USNews).  This looks very bad for Brooklyn...
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Pop Up Video on May 19, 2009, 03:37:55 PM
Cincinnati is actually full-time only
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on May 19, 2009, 03:46:56 PM
Cincinnati is actually full-time only

wow since when? I applied to their PT program I'm pretty sure 5 years ago or maybe that was Indy can't remeber.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Pop Up Video on May 19, 2009, 04:04:24 PM
Not sure, probably at least three years though.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on May 19, 2009, 08:55:48 PM
Brooklyn was obviously disingenuous here.  Let's not sugar coat this.  They know that if they include their part time numbers they will drop in the rankings so they are taking some kind of self-satisfying moral stance on the matter that is convenient for them.  They thought they'd get away with reporting only full time numbers and got caught (too late for publication but not too late for public humiliation).

These schools have been using the part time/full time thing for financial gain for way too long and it needs to stop.

Also, think about how unfair this is to the schools that included part time numbers in their submission(per the instructions from USNews).  This looks very bad for Brooklyn...

Eh.  Omitting the part-time numbers was self-serving, but Brooklyn claims it wrote a letter to U.S. News explaining why it was doing so.  This hardly constitutes fraud of any sort.  USNWR should have caught the error and ranked Brooklyn accordingly (or left Brooklyn out of the rankings).
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: JayCLS on May 20, 2009, 11:48:48 AM
What they should do is rank Brooklyn last based on a 0.0 GPA/0 LSAT. Then put an asterisk on it.

Again, not fair to the other schools who properly report their numbers. If Brooklyn is embarrassed about the numbers of their incoming part-time students then they can change that on their own.  They are responsible for it.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on May 20, 2009, 11:57:01 AM
What they should do is rank Brooklyn last based on a 0.0 GPA/0 LSAT. Then put an asterisk on it.

Again, not fair to the other schools who properly report their numbers. If Brooklyn is embarrassed about the numbers of their incoming part-time students then they can change that on their own.  They are responsible for it.

No, it should either rank Brooklyn based on accurate numbers or leave Brooklyn out of the rankings altogether, listing its full-time numbers as full-time numbers.  It doesn't make sense to compound the errors in the rankings by using even more inaccurate information in the rankings.  This desire to somehow punish Brooklyn doesn't make sense to me.  If you care about whether applicants have access to good data, you should want U.S. News to publish and use the best data available.

It's perfectly "fair" for Brooklyn to choose to omit the part-time numbers as long as it is upfront about doing so and accepts the consequences.  What's not fair is for U.S. News to rank Brooklyn using full-time numbers when it ranks all other schools with part-time programs using both full-time and part-time numbers.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: vap on May 21, 2009, 06:31:56 AM
One minor change throws all the rankings into question.  See Theodore P. Seto, Understanding the U.S. News Law School Rankings, 60 SMU L. Rev. 493 (2007), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937017.

Consider this excerpt from Professor Seto's article:

     I begin with my conclusions. First, U.S. News’ law school “ranks” are unreliable – that is, they are subject to significant random error. . . .
 
     The first conclusion can be illustrated by a simple example involving a change in the numbers of U.S. News's lowest-ranked school--which I will call the “bottom anchor” but otherwise leave unnamed. Assume that the reported nine-month employment rate for graduates of the bottom anchor falls by just one percentage point and nothing else changes at any school in the country. . . .

     As one might expect, nothing happens to the bottom anchor's overall score (by definition, zero) or rank (180th). But this tiny change wreaks havoc on the relative ranking of the top one hundred law schools. Seattle and San Francisco jump six ranks, Fordham jumps from 32nd to 27th, and Rutgers Camden, San Diego, and Indiana Indianapolis each jump four. Houston, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon, by contrast, each drop three ranks. Overall, forty-one of the top one hundred schools change rank. Fordham's dean gets a bonus. Fingers are pointed and voices raised at Houston. All because of a trivial change in the employment statistics of a single school far away in the spreadsheet. Stranger still, if the bottom anchor's nine-month employment rate falls an additional four percentage points (that is, a total of five percentage points)--and nothing else changes at any school in the country--most of these effects disappear, but the reordering moves into the Top Ten. University of California (UC) Berkeley and Virginia both drop from 8th to 9th place. At the other schools named above, it is as if nothing had ever happened.

     Prospective students, employers, and faculty members, reading that UC Berkeley and Virginia have dropped to 9th place, may decide to go elsewhere. Regents, trustees, and university presidents, reading that Seattle, San Francisco, and Fordham have advanced dramatically in the rankings, may record this accomplishment in the apparently responsible deans' performance evaluations. What the foregoing example suggests, however, is that basing decisions on this kind of difference or change in U.S. News ranks is unwarranted.

Id. at 509-10 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

And keep in mind that there were several other schools this year with inaccurate data (Nebraska, and one other I can't remember).
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: JayCLS on May 22, 2009, 12:03:24 PM
This is the legal profession. We are supposed to value and teach honesty/the pursuit of truth and a high standard of ethics.  If you don't punish Brooklyn then what stops every school from blatantly cheating the rankings.  Again, if they are embarrassed at the numbers of their part time students then they should change their admissions process.  It is not fair that Brooklyn wants to play by one set of rules while other schools do the right thing.

Also if you think what Brooklyn did was merely a clerical error then I challenge you with this.  Wouldn't submitting no numbers at all be the more obvious thing to do if Brooklyn really wanted to protest the rankings?  Clearly they submitted partial numbers because they were hoping the fact that they were not complete would go unnoticed.


What they should do is rank Brooklyn last based on a 0.0 GPA/0 LSAT. Then put an asterisk on it.

Again, not fair to the other schools who properly report their numbers. If Brooklyn is embarrassed about the numbers of their incoming part-time students then they can change that on their own.  They are responsible for it.

No, it should either rank Brooklyn based on accurate numbers or leave Brooklyn out of the rankings altogether, listing its full-time numbers as full-time numbers.  It doesn't make sense to compound the errors in the rankings by using even more inaccurate information in the rankings.  This desire to somehow punish Brooklyn doesn't make sense to me.  If you care about whether applicants have access to good data, you should want U.S. News to publish and use the best data available.

It's perfectly "fair" for Brooklyn to choose to omit the part-time numbers as long as it is upfront about doing so and accepts the consequences.  What's not fair is for U.S. News to rank Brooklyn using full-time numbers when it ranks all other schools with part-time programs using both full-time and part-time numbers.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on May 22, 2009, 11:28:34 PM
This is the legal profession. We are supposed to value and teach honesty/the pursuit of truth and a high standard of ethics.  If you don't punish Brooklyn then what stops every school from blatantly cheating the rankings.  Again, if they are embarrassed at the numbers of their part time students then they should change their admissions process.  It is not fair that Brooklyn wants to play by one set of rules while other schools do the right thing.

I just question the notion that the USNWR rankings are an appropriate teaching instrument for your moral lesson.  The rankings exist, presumably, to provide a service to prospective law students and legal employers.  They should therefore contain the best information available.  Listing Brooklyn with a 0.00 GPA and 000 LSAT and in the fourth tier is hardly useful to anyone.  Why not list (a) the full-time numbers or (b) last year's ABA numbers, and leave Brooklyn unranked for its failure to provide information about the whole class for the current year.  That information might actually matter to applicants, and publishing it doesn't create any incentive for Brooklyn or other schools to submit inaccurate data.  Leaving Brooklyn out of the rankings would have been embarrassment enough. 

Most schools will not blatantly cheat in the rankings for fear of being caught.  The bad publicity itself is the punishment.  Schools are also supposed to submit the same information they submit to USNWR to the ABA. I find it hard to believe that schools would deliberately, and so clumsily, deceive one of the accrediting bodies in the profession.

Also if you think what Brooklyn did was merely a clerical error then I challenge you with this.  Wouldn't submitting no numbers at all be the more obvious thing to do if Brooklyn really wanted to protest the rankings?  Clearly they submitted partial numbers because they were hoping the fact that they were not complete would go unnoticed.

The form requests information for the full-time class, the part-time class, and the whole class.  Brooklyn says that it sent a letter protesting the change in methodology to include part-time numbers in the rankings (not the rankings themselves) and, in accordance with this protest, filled out only the full-time numbers on its submission.  Then, as the result of an administrative error, someone listed the same numbers in the blanks for the whole class.  I realize that this is a somewhat unsatisfying, and not immediately credible, explanation.  That said, the alternatives don't make a lot of sense either.  Brooklyn certainly can't have hoped to hide the existence of its part-time program on a form where it listed all sorts of other information about the part-time program (tuition, etc.), especially after writing a letter acknowledging that its part-time students have lower numerical entry credentials than its full-time students. 

Finally, as an aside, I find it slightly unseemly for an upperclass student at a T5 law school to jump into this thread and criticize a second-tier law school for messing up the second-tier and part-time rankings, particularly when he doesn't appear to have read the school's explanations and USNWR's statements.  I don't mean this as a personal attack; I have always liked you rather well.  I just think a more humble approach was in order here.

EDIT
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: simonsays on May 23, 2009, 04:44:37 AM


Finally, as an aside, I find it slightly unseemly for an upperclass student at a T5 law school to jump into this thread and criticize a second-tier law school for messing up the second-tier and part-time rankings, particularly when he doesn't appear to have read the school's explanations and USNWR's statements.  I don't mean this as a personal attack; I have always liked you rather well.  I just think a more humble approach was in order here.

EDIT

Are you PT or FT at Brooklyn?
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Matthies on May 23, 2009, 06:47:12 AM
This is the legal profession. We are supposed to value and teach honesty/the pursuit of truth and a high standard of ethics.  If you don't punish Brooklyn then what stops every school from blatantly cheating the rankings.  Again, if they are embarrassed at the numbers of their part time students then they should change their admissions process.  It is not fair that Brooklyn wants to play by one set of rules while other schools do the right thing.

I just question the notion that the USNWR rankings are an appropriate teaching instrument for your moral lesson.  The rankings exist, presumably, to provide a service to prospective law students and legal employers.  They should therefore contain the best information available.  Listing Brooklyn with a 0.00 GPA and 000 LSAT and in the fourth tier is hardly useful to anyone.  Why not list (a) the full-time numbers or (b) last year's ABA numbers, and leave Brooklyn unranked for its failure to provide information about the whole class for the current year.  That information might actually matter to applicants, and publishing it doesn't create any incentive for Brooklyn or other schools to submit inaccurate data.  Leaving Brooklyn out of the rankings would have been embarrassment enough. 

Most schools will not blatantly cheat in the rankings for fear of being caught.  The bad publicity itself is the punishment.  Schools are also supposed to submit the same information they submit to USNWR to the ABA. I find it hard to believe that schools would deliberately, and so clumsily, deceive one of the accrediting bodies in the profession.

Also if you think what Brooklyn did was merely a clerical error then I challenge you with this.  Wouldn't submitting no numbers at all be the more obvious thing to do if Brooklyn really wanted to protest the rankings?  Clearly they submitted partial numbers because they were hoping the fact that they were not complete would go unnoticed.

The form requests information for the full-time class, the part-time class, and the whole class.  Brooklyn says that it sent a letter protesting the change in methodology to include part-time numbers in the rankings (not the rankings themselves) and, in accordance with this protest, filled out only the full-time numbers on its submission.  Then, as the result of an administrative error, someone listed the same numbers in the blanks for the whole class.  I realize that this is a somewhat unsatisfying, and not immediately credible, explanation.  That said, the alternatives don't make a lot of sense either.  Brooklyn certainly can't have hoped to hide the existence of its part-time program on a form where it listed all sorts of other information about the part-time program (tuition, etc.), especially after writing a letter acknowledging that its part-time students have lower numerical entry credentials than its full-time students. 

Finally, as an aside, I find it slightly unseemly for an upperclass student at a T5 law school to jump into this thread and criticize a second-tier law school for messing up the second-tier and part-time rankings, particularly when he doesn't appear to have read the school's explanations and USNWR's statements.  I don't mean this as a personal attack; I have always liked you rather well.  I just think a more humble approach was in order here.

EDIT

Agreed it comes off as pissing contest for no reason other than to bash a school you don’t go to. Having a reasonable conversation about the issue is one thing, using charged language and making blanket accusations is another and seems pretty lame if you don’t have a horse in this race.
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: Miss P on May 23, 2009, 08:43:49 AM
Are you PT or FT at Brooklyn?

FT (and, as of last week, finished). 
Title: Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
Post by: JDat45 on November 06, 2009, 08:06:14 PM
Way to kill the conspiracy theories there with facts, logical speculation and stuff, next you’re going to tell me we actually landed on the moon.   :P

I do my best to ruin every bit of fun anyone might have in my midst.

I still thinks its more likely that a group of Watergate type burglars broke into USNEWS offices and used white out to change the numbers.   

I heard it was correction tape.



I actually LOL'd.  :D