Law School Discussion

Applying to Law School => Law School Admissions => Topic started by: ............................. on February 02, 2008, 03:28:25 PM

Title: .....
Post by: ............................. on February 02, 2008, 03:28:25 PM
..
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: JeNeSaisLaw on February 02, 2008, 03:37:18 PM
Um, wow, grats and all on the hard work, but you need to get out more, its the weekend and all

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-cat-blocks-computer.jpg)

Don't be a feminine hygiene product.


Amped, interesting results. What was the motivation behind equal weight?
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: RedNinja on February 02, 2008, 03:37:28 PM
Hmm, so what you're saying is that Yale isn't just better than Stanfurd and Harvard, it outright destroys them, Duke and Northwestern are way underrated, and Berkeley is unquestionably the best public law school. Fascinating.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: t L on February 02, 2008, 03:40:23 PM
these rankings suck and are not credited.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: JeNeSaisLaw on February 02, 2008, 03:42:33 PM
Oh, a few other things that I think are important (but not there) are peer and lawyer assessments. I know the numbers can only come from USNWR, but...it still seems by-proxy important.

As for how to weight them...I would weight quality of student more, tuition less, placement more (including national, regional, and clerkship), gender and racial diversity less, bar passage less, and other stuff (For now) equally.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: JeNeSaisLaw on February 02, 2008, 03:43:05 PM
these rankings suck and are not credited.

Not so subtle UM trolling :D
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: 213Q on February 02, 2008, 03:44:24 PM
lolwut?

Who gives a *&^% about racial diversity, gender diversity, or library seats to students? Are you just copying the Cooley rankings or something?

Even clinic spots is pretty questionable. The types of clinics are probably relevant depending on each student's individual interest, but not the ratio of spots on all clinics.

Journal spots are probably pretty good, but the more spots, the more the journals will be known for being walk-on journals. If everyone who wants a spot gets on, it becomes more and more meaningless to be on.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: t L on February 02, 2008, 03:47:24 PM
Not so subtle UM trolling :D

lol.  so true.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: JeNeSaisLaw on February 02, 2008, 03:47:41 PM
Hmm, I'm rethinking tuition. I think tuition versus expected starting salary should be an important factor. For in-state schools you can use expected percentage of in-state cost * in-state + 1-expected * out-of-state cost. Using median salary might be a good thing to compare, but it couldn't ever be perfect.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: hawvaad2008 on February 02, 2008, 03:49:18 PM
these rankings suck and are not credited.

Can anyone say, "bitter"...what a joke of a thing to say.  Just because you were in love with Michigan and Virginia and they don't stack up according to some neutral ranking system. 

You suck and are not credited.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: botbot on February 02, 2008, 04:34:09 PM
these rankings suck and are not credited.

TITCR.

Why not just modify the USNews methodology to include some reliable employment data?  (and then place more emphasis on said data)
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: hawvaad2008 on February 02, 2008, 04:39:18 PM
these rankings suck and are not credited.

TITCR.

Why not just modify the USNews methodology to include some reliable employment data?  (and then place more emphasis on said data)

Does anyone really know the exact weight given on the criteria that USNews uses?  Might be sort of difficult to replicate.  Also, please conjure "reliable" employment data. 
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: botbot on February 02, 2008, 04:44:33 PM
these rankings suck and are not credited.

TITCR.

Why not just modify the USNews methodology to include some reliable employment data?  (and then place more emphasis on said data)

Does anyone really know the exact weight given on the criteria that USNews uses?  Might be sort of difficult to replicate.  Also, please conjure "reliable" employment data. 

Their methodology is mostly public...

Simply using CDO reported medians would be a big step...
Add in Ciolli or my posted 75%s and you might come up with improved rankings...
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: vercingetorix on February 02, 2008, 04:45:07 PM
i think given your criteria UW Madison should absolutely figure in the top 30.  just look at tuition and bar passage rate (13k and 100%).
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: JeNeSaisLaw on February 02, 2008, 04:46:31 PM
Doesn't graduation from UW guarantee admittance to the bar in Wisconsin? Do other states even honor the Wiscy bar?
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: hawvaad2008 on February 02, 2008, 04:48:57 PM
these rankings suck and are not credited.

TITCR.

Why not just modify the USNews methodology to include some reliable employment data?  (and then place more emphasis on said data)

Does anyone really know the exact weight given on the criteria that USNews uses?  Might be sort of difficult to replicate.  Also, please conjure "reliable" employment data. 

Their methodology is mostly public...

Simply using CDO reported medians would be a big step...
Add in Ciolli or my posted 75%s and you might come up with improved rankings...

How would you incorporate Ciolli?  The data set is so limited and so preferential, anyway.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: JeNeSaisLaw on February 02, 2008, 04:53:51 PM
Does Ciolli only include Vault 100? I can't remember if it's V50, V100, or V250.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: OnTheRoad on February 02, 2008, 05:04:55 PM
Why include cost of living but not grad salaries? That just bumps all city schools down a notch without correcting for it.

A good system would make the USNWR rankings more simple, not less. Drop stuff about library sizes, all libraries will be the same. You're just encouraging Penn to add more chairs to its library to boost it's LSD ranking.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: hbb on February 02, 2008, 05:05:48 PM
I appreciate precision as much as the next person, but eight decimal places is perhaps a bit much. It's not like this is some sort of lunar landing here.


It's pretty interesting to see UW rise and Fordham fall, these are both schools I've applied to. I always like to see folks try to find new ways to compare schools...


edit: looking back over your criteria, I wonder if this is due in part to the fact that in recent years UW has had a disproportionately large percentage of female students. Plus, UW in-state COA costs less than half of Fordham's COA.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: Bob Vance, Vance Refrigeration on February 02, 2008, 05:08:53 PM
why is everyone griping so much.  i think its cool that he took the time to do this. bravo!
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: hawvaad2008 on February 02, 2008, 05:10:20 PM
why is everyone griping so much.  i think its cool that he took the time to do this. bravo!

TITCR
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: _retired_ on February 02, 2008, 05:14:32 PM
why is everyone griping so much.  i think its cool that he took the time to do this. bravo!

Well...

feel free to discuss these or suggest any improvements

i just made the rankings and want input now. since this is the first version i decided to rank all the factors equally...how would you weight them?
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: Man Crush on February 02, 2008, 05:25:52 PM
Actually the only thing I would add is size of market/city of the school, if you can't get out, thats going to be more important than anything else.

I think that would be hard to quantify and isn't applicable in all cases.  I think the job figures (although I realize reliability is debatable) should speak for themselves.  For example, should Washington and Lee get penalized in terms of ranking because they are in a small town while somewhere like southwestern could get a huge jump because they are in L.A. even though jobs after school are drastically different?  I think the size of market factor is important in choosing a lawschool outside of the t14, but I think it could be problematic when used in rankings for all schools because it's not applicable in all cases.  I could see it unjustifiably helping or hurting a school's overall rankings. 
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: Quail! on February 02, 2008, 05:30:50 PM
You forgots library square footage

See http://www.cooley.edu/rankings/intro_9th_general.htm (http://www.cooley.edu/rankings/intro_9th_general.htm)
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: MorningLattes on February 02, 2008, 05:53:57 PM
Good job amped!!!! You make my rankings look juvenile, lol. But they were based on preference and weren't meant to be objective.  :D

Props for the hard work!

But I would like to add that maybe journal spots may not be a good criteria because it doesn't attest to journal quality, just available space.

Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: redbull on February 02, 2008, 08:20:11 PM
I would get rid of class size, USN has the right idea by ranking based on student:faculty ratio.  this is why NYU, Colubmia, Mich, UVA and GULC are all surprisingly low in your ranking (and Duke is way higher than it should be).  That is of course unless this is a ranking from the perspective of someone who has a preference for small schools.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: t... on February 02, 2008, 09:33:40 PM
Good golly.

You know, all of this is so unnecessary. You're conjuring up false security by appealing to vacuous statistics. You're not going to unlock some great secret by doing this.

Pick the best* school you can get into in the place(s) you want to work.


*Let "best" here stand for those qualities which you find most important.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: t... on February 02, 2008, 09:57:01 PM
Works for me.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: bruinbro on February 02, 2008, 10:13:43 PM
So I finally got done with my rankings...i still might add more factors, but here are the methods and results.

I gathered data from the top 30 USNWR ranking (i didn't want to do them all, so i used this as an arbitrary cutoff) on 19 different categories, including:

GPA Median
LSAT Median
Tuition
Cost of Living
In-state tuition difference
Bar passage rates (percent above the state's average)
Student to faculty ratio
Average 1L Class size
Percentage of grads in clerkships
Ciolli national TQS
Ciolli Reigion TQS (for the region the school is in)
racial diversity
gender diversity
clinic spots (ratio of spots to students)
law journal spots (ratio of spots to students)
transfer ratios (in:out)
Number of OCI firms (ratio of firms to students)
Ratio of library seats to students

For factors where lower was better I subtracted them from a constant. I then converted each schools score in each category to a z-score (in other words, i standardized them). So, all the factors have equal weight. Then I added all the z-scores together

and...here are the results

1  Yale               22.13612621
2  Stanford         13.95566776
3  Harvard          11.01449165
4  Chicago          5.114184994
5  Duke               5.017386712
6  Northwestern       4.35005415
7  Columbia       4.083802364
8  NYU               3.955522047
9  Berkeley       3.954064327
10 Penn               3.918420309
11 UCLA               2.976059264
12 Michigan       2.763261831
13 Cornell       2.722111107
14 Virginia       1.532260305
15 Washington & Lee 1.035602735
16 U. Washington   -0.754982741
17 Boston U      -2.544067339
18 Iowa              -2.77296202
19 Minnesota       -2.837676976
20 Texas      -2.915539918
21 Georgetown      -4.170743641
22 Illinois (UC)   -4.898929303
23 USC              -5.93061892
24 Boston C      -6.499961867
25 Emory      -6.913827328
26 Vanderbilt      -7.451524631
27 Notre Dame      -7.650164745
28 WUSTL      -10.79561102
29 GW              -11.1570725
30 Fordham      -11.23533282

feel free to discuss these or suggest any improvements


There are two major problems I see with these rankings.

First, how could all of these factors have equal weight? Why would LSAT median get the same weight as tuition? The stated tuition number is not uniform. At the top schools, 40-60% of the class gets a discount on tuition. Are you inplying that the median LSAT is flexible like tuition?

Second, why would average 1L class size and in-state tuition difference matter?

These imputs would reward a smaller law school which had the same student to faculty ratio as a larger law school. I don't see how class size would matter if faculty ratio was the same. Furthermore, the in-state tuition difference can only apply to public schools. How could this factor exist when private schools are being considered alongside public ones?
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: laughing_heir on February 03, 2008, 03:34:33 AM
Quote
I think its something to factor, want to belive it or not, outside the top 5 schools or so your not gaunrunteed a job. What happens to the bottom 40%, they go back home and compeate with local grads?


I agree and think the list is actually a little shorter than five.  A very small handful of schools have irrevocable cachet.  They don't need USNWR, USNWR needs them.  Below that, the balance of power shifts because the idea of rankings is so compelling.

The USNWR rankings strike me as bizarre, partly because they're from USNWR which is kind of a silly magazine.  It's like Time's man of the year--hello, the goal is to sell more magazines!

But all of that aside, I would propose that salary belongs in a completely separate formula from stats like 1L class size.  They speak to different questions.  Class size (arguably) speaks to whether you'll get a quality education.  Salary and number of OCI firms speak to reputation. 

Reputation definitely follows quality of education, but only broadly.  There's no granularity to that relationship; the varying styles of the individual institutions interfere. 

It's perfectly legit to pick a school based soley on reputation (I wouldn't, but it's a free country). In which case, IMO all you need is

-Salary
-Number of OCI firms
-% of grads in clerkships

weighted, if you want, in that order.

If you want to go the other way and gauge quality of education, things get really messy because students are individuals, and they thrive in varied environments.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: M51 on February 03, 2008, 11:09:46 AM
# of library seats per student is totally on the same level as national TQS... who needs to be employed when you can have a seat in the library...  ???
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: Slumdog Lovebutton on February 03, 2008, 01:00:11 PM
i think the peer ranking is a huge omission.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: SBToLaw on February 04, 2008, 10:58:47 AM
So I finally got done with my rankings...i still might add more factors, but here are the methods and results.

I gathered data from the top 30 USNWR ranking (i didn't want to do them all, so i used this as an arbitrary cutoff) on 19 different categories, including:

GPA Median
LSAT Median
Tuition
Cost of Living
In-state tuition difference
Bar passage rates (percent above the state's average)
Student to faculty ratio
Average 1L Class size
Percentage of grads in clerkships
Ciolli national TQS
Ciolli Reigion TQS (for the region the school is in)
racial diversity
gender diversity
clinic spots (ratio of spots to students)
law journal spots (ratio of spots to students)
transfer ratios (in:out)
Number of OCI firms (ratio of firms to students)
Ratio of library seats to students

For factors where lower was better I subtracted them from a constant. I then converted each schools score in each category to a z-score (in other words, i standardized them). So, all the factors have equal weight. Then I added all the z-scores together

and...here are the results

1  Yale               22.13612621
2  Stanford         13.95566776
3  Harvard          11.01449165
4  Chicago          5.114184994
5  Duke               5.017386712
6  Northwestern       4.35005415
7  Columbia       4.083802364
8  NYU               3.955522047
9  Berkeley       3.954064327
10 Penn               3.918420309
11 UCLA               2.976059264
12 Michigan       2.763261831
13 Cornell       2.722111107
14 Virginia       1.532260305
15 Washington & Lee 1.035602735
16 U. Washington   -0.754982741
17 Boston U      -2.544067339
18 Iowa              -2.77296202
19 Minnesota       -2.837676976
20 Texas      -2.915539918
21 Georgetown      -4.170743641
22 Illinois (UC)   -4.898929303
23 USC              -5.93061892
24 Boston C      -6.499961867
25 Emory      -6.913827328
26 Vanderbilt      -7.451524631
27 Notre Dame      -7.650164745
28 WUSTL      -10.79561102
29 GW              -11.1570725
30 Fordham      -11.23533282

feel free to discuss these or suggest any improvements



GPA Median   -  Most weight
LSAT Median  -  Most weight
Tuition   - Less weight
Cost of Living  - Less weight
In-state tuition difference - Least weight
Bar passage rates (percent above the state's average) - Less weight
Student to faculty ratio - Less weight
Average 1L Class size  - No change
Percentage of grads in clerkships  - More weight
Ciolli national TQS - Most weight
Ciolli Reigion TQS (for the region the school is in) - More weight
racial diversity - No change
gender diversity - No change
clinic spots (ratio of spots to students) - No change
law journal spots (ratio of spots to students) - No change
transfer ratios (in:out) - Less weight
Number of OCI firms (ratio of firms to students) - Most weight
Ratio of library seats to students - Least weight
ADD: Peer ranking - More weight
ADD: Lawyer/Judge ranking - Most weight

Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: RightHandRule on February 04, 2008, 11:10:02 AM
I love how every school past the top 15 have negative scores. Good work, but where is cooley?
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: hawvaad2008 on February 04, 2008, 05:01:01 PM
So I finally got done with my rankings...i still might add more factors, but here are the methods and results.

I gathered data from the top 30 USNWR ranking (i didn't want to do them all, so i used this as an arbitrary cutoff) on 19 different categories, including:

GPA Median
LSAT Median
Tuition
Cost of Living
In-state tuition difference
Bar passage rates (percent above the state's average)
Student to faculty ratio
Average 1L Class size
Percentage of grads in clerkships
Ciolli national TQS
Ciolli Reigion TQS (for the region the school is in)
racial diversity
gender diversity
clinic spots (ratio of spots to students)
law journal spots (ratio of spots to students)
transfer ratios (in:out)
Number of OCI firms (ratio of firms to students)
Ratio of library seats to students

For factors where lower was better I subtracted them from a constant. I then converted each schools score in each category to a z-score (in other words, i standardized them). So, all the factors have equal weight. Then I added all the z-scores together

and...here are the results

1  Yale               22.13612621
2  Stanford         13.95566776
3  Harvard          11.01449165
4  Chicago          5.114184994
5  Duke               5.017386712
6  Northwestern       4.35005415
7  Columbia       4.083802364
8  NYU               3.955522047
9  Berkeley       3.954064327
10 Penn               3.918420309
11 UCLA               2.976059264
12 Michigan       2.763261831
13 Cornell       2.722111107
14 Virginia       1.532260305
15 Washington & Lee 1.035602735
16 U. Washington   -0.754982741
17 Boston U      -2.544067339
18 Iowa              -2.77296202
19 Minnesota       -2.837676976
20 Texas      -2.915539918
21 Georgetown      -4.170743641
22 Illinois (UC)   -4.898929303
23 USC              -5.93061892
24 Boston C      -6.499961867
25 Emory      -6.913827328
26 Vanderbilt      -7.451524631
27 Notre Dame      -7.650164745
28 WUSTL      -10.79561102
29 GW              -11.1570725
30 Fordham      -11.23533282

feel free to discuss these or suggest any improvements


There are two major problems I see with these rankings.

First, how could all of these factors have equal weight? Why would LSAT median get the same weight as tuition? The stated tuition number is not uniform. At the top schools, 40-60% of the class gets a discount on tuition. Are you inplying that the median LSAT is flexible like tuition?

Second, why would average 1L class size and in-state tuition difference matter?

These imputs would reward a smaller law school which had the same student to faculty ratio as a larger law school. I don't see how class size would matter if faculty ratio was the same. Furthermore, the in-state tuition difference can only apply to public schools. How could this factor exist when private schools are being considered alongside public ones?

I agree with your second point, but believe the first needs clarifying.  The weight given to median LSAT and tuition isn't what should be brought into question given your argument.  I believe that what you're asking for is some sort of normalized value of tuition. In other words, rather than a static dollar amount for tuition, the statistic should be "Avg yearly tuition actually paid."  I'm pretty sure this can be accounted for by adding "median or average financial assistance package" as another random variable to the sum of normals. 

Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: hawvaad2008 on February 04, 2008, 05:11:14 PM
To the OP:

So, does this ranking follow a chi-squared distribution?  If you squared your normals, I'm pretty sure it would.  Also, I think you may have a problem with stochastic terms, because certain terms have a correlation with each other.  For instance, Tuition, and In-State tuition difference....or Ratio of Students to Faculty, and Tuition.     
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: sinkfloridasink on February 04, 2008, 07:24:21 PM
To the OP:

So, does this ranking follow a chi-squared distribution?  If you squared your normals, I'm pretty sure it would.  Also, I think you may have a problem with stochastic terms, because certain terms have a correlation with each other.  For instance, Tuition, and In-State tuition difference....or Ratio of Students to Faculty, and Tuition.     

Nerd Fight!
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: Bananas, Melonas, Yeah on February 04, 2008, 07:34:39 PM
Good work, OP.  I like the way this looks.
Title: Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 17, 2008, 05:25:25 AM
To the OP:

So, does this ranking follow a chi-squared distribution?  If you squared your normals, I'm pretty sure it would.  Also, I think you may have a problem with stochastic terms, because certain terms have a correlation with each other.  For instance, Tuition, and In-State tuition difference....or Ratio of Students to Faculty, and Tuition.     

Nerd Fight!

Nerd Fight! Nerd Fight! NERD FIGHT!