Law School Discussion

Deciding Where to Go => Choosing the Right Law School => Topic started by: mitchb on September 16, 2006, 06:41:57 PM

Title: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 16, 2006, 06:41:57 PM
Take my law school, UC Hastings for example. In literally EVERY other ranking out there, UC Hastings is far better than its US News rank. You know something is wrong with your ranking system when literally EVERYONE ELSE has hastings ranked higher than you. It's not just random statistical variance with some coming in lower... US News rankings are bogus I feel seriously sorry for students who base their decisions off them... like kids who go to davis over hastings... if you look at the exterior numbers hastings has way higher bar passage rates, top firm recruitment, and median salary levels than uc davis.

UC Hastings
2007 US News Rank: 43rd

2007 Educational Quality Rank: 29th (http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html (http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html))
2007 Justice Brennan's Top 20: 11th (http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html (http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html))
Median Salary: tied for 18th with UC Berkeley (http://www.ilrg.com/schools/salary/ (http://www.ilrg.com/schools/salary/))
2006 Leiter's Student Quality Ranking: 34th (http://www.leiterrankings.com/students/2006student_quality.shtml (http://www.leiterrankings.com/students/2006student_quality.shtml))
Leiter's Faculty Quality Rankings: 23rd (http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2005faculty_impact_cites.shtml (http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2005faculty_impact_cites.shtml))
Bar Passage Rate vs. Average: 9th (http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/1/desc/SchoolvsBar (http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/1/desc/SchoolvsBar))
Law School 100: 35th (http://www.lawschool100.com/ (http://www.lawschool100.com/))
Consensus Group 100: 26th (http://www.consusgroup.com/news/rankings/law_schools/law_schools.asp (http://www.consusgroup.com/news/rankings/law_schools/law_schools.asp))
Leiter's Top Firms Recruiting: 20th - 200 (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/02/national_and_re.html (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/02/national_and_re.html))
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 16, 2006, 06:48:57 PM
oh yeah and my girlfriend is a 3-L at hastings... she is in the top 25% of her class, not in moot court or law journal, and she summered at, was offered, and accepted an offer at Orrick, the #1 firm in the bay area and a top firm nationally and internationally. She will be making $135,000/year starting next year... all that from getting good but not great grades and not doing any extracurriclars...

just another reason why US News is bogus - The Firms know US News is bogus. That's why hastings is still top 20 for top firm recruitment despite being ranked 43rd in US News.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 16, 2006, 08:49:09 PM
Look, I'm not trying to argue Hastings is better than G-town or Uc Berkeley or anything but it's definitely way better than 43rd...

"There are no other decent rankings that I'm aware of."

I think Leiter's Law Rankings are way better than US News. He also has links to other alternative rankings from his website. I agree with you about Wisconsin and Tulane also being underranked by US News. They are just other examples of why not to trust US News.

"Morrison & Foerster is the top SF firm.  Sorry.  Dude your GF is so TTT."

I think Orrick  passed them this year for Bay Area-wide (not just SF) with the strong growth at their silicon valley office. But whatever if not #1 then #2 firm in the bay area. The point is still the same - not even top 15% and no extracurricluars and still got a job at a top notch firm.

"It's fascinating that you leave out placement in academia, yet want to make the argument that the school's basically regarded as t20 or thereabouts by everybody other than USNWR."

I did not leave out their placement in academia. Leiter's faculty quality rankings put Hastings at 23rd in the country! It's there in my list! He even says this about Hastings' faculty on his website:

"Hastings recruited some leading "doctrinalists" (broadly construed), including Roger Park (evidence) from the University of Minnesota and, most recently, Geoffrey Hazard (legal ethics, civil procedure) from the University of Pennsylvania; the Hastings group in the civil procedure and evidence areas (Kane, Park, Hazard, Marcus, Faigman, among others) is now probably one of the two or three best in the country."

"Like many large, state law schools, Hastings has been treated badly by U.S. News; probably only Wisconsin has fared as badly at the hands of the U.S. News criteria that reward a school for being small and private."

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2005/12/u_conn_law_dean.html (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2005/12/u_conn_law_dean.html)

Top two or three in civil procedure and evidence! Both of which are some of the most important bar classes one will take at law school. So much for your whole "left out their place in academia" BS.

I think my point is still pretty clear: US News is bogus and should not be used as a major deciding factor. Especially if you are considering schools that it underranks like Hastings, Tulane, and Wisconsin, or schools that it overranks (private schools with huge endowments).
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 16, 2006, 09:27:38 PM
Getting some weird responses here... mistah you seem to agree that US News DOES in fact under rank schools like Hastings and Wisconsin and yet you are still highly critical of me calling out US News.

"And look, I've read basically everything Brian Leiter has to say.  He expressly does not DO "overall" rankings -- just more focused things, e.g. faculty quality, student quality, national firm placement success, SCOTUS clerkship success, and academia placement success."

OK well there are other "overall" rankings that I posted up there and all of them have Hastings ranked way higher than US News does, just like all of Leiter's rankings. Noticing any patterns there?

"Evidence is one of the most important classes you take in law school?  That's interesting.  And uninteresting, because faculty quality has nothing to do with the quality of instruction."

Evidence is the only class required for you to become bar-certified before you graduate so that you can argue motions in court during law clerkships or externships. So yes, it is pretty freakin' important.

So you have read everything Leiter has to say? Do you agree or disagree with what he has to say? Because your previous post indicates you seem to agree with him that US News does under rank schools. Which is exactly what my point is.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 16, 2006, 11:22:47 PM
First of all I am not trying to argue Hastings should be ranked in the top 20 by US News I am just saying it is a lot better than 43rd and should be in the 20's or 30's. So you disagree with Leiter and think US News is a great ranking system. Awesome. I completely disagree with you... I agree with Leiter's critique of the US News rankings that he posted on his site:

http://www.leiterrankings.com/usnews/guide.shtml (http://www.leiterrankings.com/usnews/guide.shtml)

"The U.S. News methodology for ranking law schools is confusing, comprising 12 different factors in 5 different categories.  It is crucial to recognize two things, however, at the start.  First, the relative weight of the factors varies dramatically, with some having a significant effect on the results (reputation, median numerical credentials, expenditures), while others matter hardly at all (size of the library, acceptance rates, bar passage rates).  Second, the factors vary quite a bit in their susceptibility to artificial manipulation by law schools.  However, the fact is some of the factors are highly manipulable, and, as a result, the overall ranking results are meaningless, though no less important, alas, because of that.

Note also that U.S. News has actually held its “methodology” for ranking schools constant since 1999, after making changes every year prior to that.  In 1999—a consequence of U.S. News having hired someone with expert knowledge of statistics—they made perhaps the single most dramatic change in their methodology:  they started adjusting per capita expenditures (item #6, below) to reflect differences in cost-of-living.  The results were so dramatic—Albama turned up in the top 50, Fordham and Boston College dropped out of the top 25 (BC has since returned)—that in 1999 U.S. News stopped printing the “Faculty Resources” rank (as they call this category):  it would have been too obvious how this irrelevant expenditures category had skewed the rankings.  (Of course, it still skews them, in favor of small schools like Yale and against large schools like Harvard, but more on that shortly.)

Here are the factors U.S. News employs to rank schools, in descending order of importance.  The factor in question is also described as either “Highly Manipulable,” meaning schools can exercise, through deceit or otherwise, a lot of control over this criterion; or “Not Manipulable,” meaning the criterion is basically beyond a school’s control.

Academic reputation (25% of the overall score).  Not Manipulable.  25% of the overall score is a function of academic reputation, as measured by a survey done mid-fall of some 700 law school deans and faculty (about two-thirds fill out the surveys).  Since US News switched to the new ranking scale in 1998 (1-5, where 1 is marginal and 5 is distinguished), there have been far fewer ties than there were early in the 1990s.  The scores have also stabilized in to predictable clusters of Yale, Harvard, Stanford; then Columbia and Chicago; then Michigan, NYU, Berkeley; then Virginia; then Penn; then Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Northwestern, and Texas; then UCLA; then Vanderbilt; then Southern California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, and so on.  These results aren’t ridiculous, but, at least with regard to faculty quality, they are also dated:  NYU, for example, is clearly better than Michigan, and certainly on a par with Columbia; Chicago is at least on a par with Stanford; Yale is better than Harvard; and so on.  This is unsurprising given that evaluators are presented only with a list of 180 school names, and nothing more.  For a snapshot of what leading legal scholars think about faculty quality when actually presented with faculty lists, see http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/rankings/rankings03.html.  Schools have little control over the results of the academic reputation survey:  even improving the quality of your school (its faculty, its student body) does not necessarily result in any increase in the academic reputation score.  (Case in point:  NYU has seen its academic reputation score decline during a period when both its faculty and student body improved.)  

15% of the overall score is based on reputation among lawyers and judges.  Not Manipulable.  These results reflect a survey of lawyers at large firms and federal and state judges.  The response rate is low:  less than one-third complete the surveys.  Because U.S. News only surveys large firms, the survey is also dramatically skewed towards the Northeast (especially New York City):  schools that have large alumni contingents in New York City perform, shall we say, suspiciously well in this survey by comparison to schools that are otherwise comparable.  Schools have little control over the results of this survey.

12.5% of the overall score is based on the median LSAT score.  Highly Manipulable.  This criterion is one of many that favors small schools.  Consider:  a school that enrolls 180 students each year, only needs to recruit 90 with an LSAT of, say, at least 164 in order to have a strong median LSAT.  A school that enrolls 450 each year, by contrast, will need to recruit 225 students (more than twice as many) with that LSAT to report the very same median.  Note also that U.S. News has no way of verifying the data reported by private schools, since the American Bar Association does not collect median LSAT data, only data about the 25th and 75th percentile.  So this factor is highly manipulable by the schools.

12% of the overall score is the employment rate 9 months after graduation. Highly Manipulable.  This data is entirely self-reported by schools, and should be treated as essentially fiction:  it may have elements of truth, but basically it’s a work of the imagination.  Schools report it, and U.S. News has no way of checking.  In addition, we know nothing about the nature of the employment—it could simply be as a research assistant, which is what Northwestern did a few years ago for its unemployed grads.

10% of the overall score is based on the median GPA of the entering class.  Highly Manipulable.  See the discussion in (3), above.  Note, too, that the feeder schools for a particular law school will have a significant effect on this criterion.  Example:  schools that draw on the “grade inflated” Ivy League have it easier than those that draw on universities with less rampant grade inflation.

9.75% of the overall score is average per capita expenditures for this year and the prior year for instruction, library, and supporting services.  Highly Manipulable.  This is the figure that is adjusted for differences in cost of living.  Once again, schools self-report the data.  This criterion, along with (3) and (5), gives a huge boost to small schools, since per capita measures penalize for economies of scale.  This explains how, in many years (including 2003), Harvard can have higher reputation scores than Yale, yet Yale will come out 1st and Harvard 3rd.  Harvard is three times the size, and that makes all the difference.

The preceding are the six major factors making up a school's overall score in US News. Together they account for 84.25% of the overall score.  Four of these factors are highly manipulable, and three favor small schools.  The remaining six factors in U.S. News (that account for just 15.75% of the overall score) are as follows:

6% of the overall score is the employment rate at graduation.  Highly Manipulable.  See the discussion in (4), above.

3% of the overall score is the student-teacher ratio.  ABA collects data on this, and so does U.S. News, but there are often discrepancies, which U.S. News appears to let slide.  So the manipulability of this category is unclear, but seems to be high.  Much depends on how schools “count” their faculty.

2.5% of the overall score is the acceptance rate for students.  Highly Manipulable.  As with (3) and (5), U.S. News has no way of verifying the data reported by private schools.  In addition, many schools inflate their “selectivity” by giving fee waivers to applicants who have no chance of getting in.  NYU is reported to have pioneered in this arena, but many others have followed suit.

2% of the overall score is the bar pass rate adjusted to reflect the avg. pass rate in the major jurisdiction where students take the exam.  Not Manipulable.

1.5% of the overall score is average per capita expenditures for the current and prior year on everything else OTHER than instruction, library & supporting services--so this includes utilities, financial aid, and the like.  Highly Manipulable.  As with (6), the criterion also favors small schools.  Stories abound about schools who, via little accounting changes here and there, boost their rank in this category astronomically.

 0.75% of the overall score is the total number of volumes in the library.  Not Manipulable.  Schools reports this data to the ABA, which means it is checkable.  (Schools that might lie to U.S. News are unlikely to lie to the ABA.)

Even putting aside the fact that this formula, with its various weightings, is impossible to rationalize in any principled way, the really striking fact about the U.S. News methodology is surely the following:

More than half the criteria—over 54%--that go in to the final score can be manipulated by the schools themselves, either through outright (and undetectable) deceit, or other devices (giving fee waivers to hopeless applicants, employing graduates in temp jobs to boost employment stats, etc.).

More than one-third of the criteria that go in to the final score favor small schools and penalize large schools.

Reread the U.S. News rankings with these two pertinent facts in mind, and a lot that looks academically indefensible about the results (Chicago behind Columbia, Penn ahead of Berkeley, Duke ahead of Georgetown and Texas) may begin to make sense."


Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 16, 2006, 11:27:34 PM
I would especially like to emphasize the last part of his critique:

"Even putting aside the fact that this formula, with its various weightings, is impossible to rationalize in any principled way, the really striking fact about the U.S. News methodology is surely the following:

More than half the criteria—over 54%--that go in to the final score can be manipulated by the schools themselves, either through outright (and undetectable) deceit, or other devices (giving fee waivers to hopeless applicants, employing graduates in temp jobs to boost employment stats, etc.).

More than one-third of the criteria that go in to the final score favor small schools and penalize large schools.

Reread the U.S. News rankings with these two pertinent facts in mind, and a lot that looks academically indefensible about the results (Chicago behind Columbia, Penn ahead of Berkeley, Duke ahead of Georgetown and Texas) may begin to make sense."


So now we have way more than just a couple of fallacies in the US News rankings. We have Chicago behind Columbia, Penn ahead of Berkeley, Duke ahead of G-town and Texas, and the underrankings of Tulane, Hastings, and Wisconsin. I am sure there are way more than that. US News rankings are bogus.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 16, 2006, 11:36:28 PM
"Let's get down to brass tacks: only 30 schools can be in the top 30.  Hastings isn't one of them, so here's the crux... which schools would you displace in order to satisfy your ego, and under what methodology would you displace them?"

I don't know how to compare hastings to schools outside of California but the best example I can give is UC Davis law school. It is ranked 34th in the most recent US News rankings. 9 spots ahead of UC Hastings. Yet Hastings has a far higher bar passage rate. Look at the bar passage rate site - http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/1/desc/SchoolvsBar (http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/1/desc/SchoolvsBar) - out of the California schools (which YOU CAN compare to) - Hastings is ranked just ahead of USC and a good 5% ahead of UC Davis.

I found a median salary report from last year. http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/median.php/1/desc/MSPrivate (http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/median.php/1/desc/MSPrivate)

Hastings is ranked 30th overall. UC Davis 45th overall.

I think those should be setting off big lightbulbs for everyone here that Hastings is better than US News has it and belongs at least in the top 40 if not the top 30.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 17, 2006, 02:43:34 PM
"Indeed!  Two of the top 5 by USNWR have 500+ 1L class sizes, and one of those is likely overranked.  I would investigate the Hastings 1L class size, but LSAC is down (again)."

Hastings entering classes are a little more than 400 students with a total student body of 1,261. So it's up there in terms of size.

"Fallacy would be to say that just because some schools are underranked means that the entire ranking system is flawed.

ANY ranking system is going to leave SOME people displeased."

This isn't just being displeased. This is clear evidence of numerous schools being over ranked and numerous schools being under ranked by US News.

"Let's get down to brass tacks: only 30 schools can be in the top 30.  Hastings isn't one of them, so here's the crux... which schools would you displace in order to satisfy your ego, and under what methodology would you displace them?"

Well I'm not an expert but I like Brian Leiter's Educational Quality Rankings which are based on three factors: student quality, teacher quality, and quality of instruction. In those rankings Hastings is 29th overall. But I'm not saying that's the best alternative out there. My point is that if you look at EVERY OTHER ALTERNATIVE ranking out there, Hastings is ranked higher than it is in US News.

Of course, I also think salary and bar passage rate should be important. That is a major reason behind why people go to law school - it's a professional school that people go to to start careers.

"So is your argument that the US News rankings suck?  Or just that Hastings is underranked in these rankings?"

Both. Hastings is just one of many examples of how US News rankings are bogus.

"You're not at all clear on what your criteria for ranking schools should be.  You know that, don't you?  It's really quite pathetic.  At least Fordham trolls, while irritating, have a clear (if stupid) argument -- thank God there aren't more Hastings trolls, eh?"

Like I said, I like Leiter's rankings but I also think bar passage and salary are important. However, your point here does not really address my main argument, which is that under EVERY OTHER ALTERNATIVE RANKING out there - using numerous different criteria - Hastings is ranked higher than it is in US News. There is no statistical variance. In not one of those ranks does Hastings come in higher than the 43 spot it occupies in US News.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 17, 2006, 06:28:40 PM
"You still have the problem of deciding which criteria are meaningful -- saying "other rankings using random criteria find differently" doesn't cut it.  You still have the problem of addressing Leiter's highly suspect methodology.  Furthermore, you've failed to cite "every other alternative ranking" out there."

Why is leiter's methodology so "suspect?" You're making a claim without any arguments or analysis behind it. I like Leiter's different rankings, they show you lots of different things about how schools stack up against each other. And in every single one of them Hastings is better than 43rd.

"The Ciolli study perhaps being the most important of these, but the ALAMAR rankings not being insignificant, nor the potentially forthcoming A-H rankings1."

I looked up the Ciolli study... the guys who did it are: "a 21-year-old kid from Queens who just finished his first year at Penn's law school, the other a college dropout and insurance salesman"

"Turns out Mr. Ciolli's delusions extend to the realm of politics.  As a Penn law student pointed out to me, Mr. Ciolli is also "very dissappointed with Bush" since "he is FAR too left wing for my tastes.""


http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/anthony_ciollis.html (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/anthony_ciollis.html)

Real reliable source there. But even still, in the Ciolli study, UC Hastings comes in at #33 in national firm placement! That's ten spots better than the 43 that US News has it at. (http://www.autoadmit.com/studies/ciolli/draft14.pdf#search='ciolli%20study') Pg. 35, appendix B.

"I think this is the key distinction useful in interpreting ratings.  Beyond the top 20 or 30 schools, regional reputation overwhelms other differences."

I completely agree. Which is why I think it is ridiculous that UC Davis is ranked ahead of Hastings when Hastings outperforms it in all of these alternative rankings. I think Davis is the best comparison to Hastings in terms of regions. But you are right if you want to practice in the midwest it's better to go to Wisconsin or something.

"Hastings is ranked #167 in student-to-faculty ratio.  Only 13 schools in the whole country are worse."

Good point, that should definitely be a factor in rankings.

"Hastings is #72 in bar passage rate among the top 100 schools."

That is a very inaccurate measure b/c it is nationwide instead of state by state. As many people know California is one of the hardest if not the hardest Bar exams to pass. When you look at the comparison to state averages, Hastings is #9 - just ahead of USC and well ahead of UC Davis in bar passage rate!

Those last two aren't really good factors to include in rankings.

Like I said before, This isn't just being displeased. This is clear evidence of numerous schools being over ranked and numerous schools being under ranked by US News. Every other study and ranking has Hastings higher than 43. Except for this Alamar thing that has hastings at 43... but I don't know what alamar is. So you still haven't found any rankings that put hastings worse than 43. Everything else has hastings better than  43 and one is tied at 43. I think you guys are the ones with the lack of evidence here, not me. Especially considering even one of the studies YOU cited - Ciolli - has hastings way higher than 43.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: So Yeah.... on September 17, 2006, 07:16:28 PM
remember, if you're not first you're last.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: Jolie Was Here on September 18, 2006, 04:09:35 AM
There, there.  Don't fret, Mitch.  If you're looking for someone here to validate your choices, all you have to do is ask. 

Hastings is just about the best school out there.  Everybody else is just jealous. 

Better now?
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: theprofessor on September 18, 2006, 04:27:30 AM
If you are looking for someone else to agree that Hastings is a better school than its USNWR ranking would suggest, look no further...based on my criteria, I absolutely agree with you. At the same time, it is foolish to point your finger at USNWR and call the rankings bogus. They are just as legitimate as any other, and certainly moreso than many. They publish their methodology and their data. You can easily use their data to create your own rankings based on what is important to you. Better yet, make your own ranking using whatever combination of data and other rankings that makes the most sense to you, based on what you are looking for in a law school. You're going to come up with different numbers - that doesn't mean any of the rankings are "bogus" - they are just using different criteria.
Hastings used to be ranked around 20 by USNWR, but it has definitely gone downhill in more recent years. It lost and has not been able to replace its once mighty faculty. It is also in the unfortunate position of being the 3rd best school (and not even close to #2) in an extremely competitive market. Its student quality is better than the school quality, mainly because there are lots of good students who want to go to school in the bay area and were rejected by Stanford and Boalt, schools that are exceedingly difficult to get into (like Fordham being way behind CLS and NYU in New York.) Similarly, grads of those two schools have their pick of the best jobs in the area...leaving Hastings with only 60+ percent of its students employed at graduation, a rather pitiful number. Combined with the gargantuan student to faculty ratio, the USNWR ranking makes a lot of sense. You can come up with one that is better for your individual purposes that may very well be higher, but it could be lower as well (if you weight % employed at graduation and student-faculty ratio more heavily, for example) - none of these rankings would be "bogus."
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: classic695 on September 19, 2006, 08:48:30 AM
This same post appears here:

http://drinksoakedlawstudents.blogspot.com/2006/09/us-news-law-school-rankings-are-bogus.html

Unfortunately, Leiter's blog links to it today.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: db2ur on September 19, 2006, 10:36:27 AM
At this point the OP's obviously pulling an AmyT - just embracing his idiocy to draw a few more minutes of attention to himself.  No law student could be this ignorant this long unintntionally.

Vapid, please.  You were doing so well until this post... ::)

I love these threads, when "boyfriends" of "law students" get, ahem, pwned.  RepeaTTTedly.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 19, 2006, 02:02:37 PM
Yes I also cross posted this over at my blog.

So far I think people have made some good points but none convincing enough to prove me wrong. Namely, nobody has provided any major factors or studies other than the US News rankings themselves that have Hastings lower than 43. So despite the fact that you have knocked SOME of the studies I have cited, my general argument still stands - which is that every other alternative ranking out there has Hastings higher.

I've also been trying to ignore the smack talking, apparantly there are a lot of children who post on this site...

I agree with Michigan student that the Brennan rankings are old and should be discounted.

"The median salary ranking (as mentioned before) is from 1996. I've already mentioned that he also misreports the ranking as being tied with Boalt. "

Look, I already answered this one. Yes that data is old but I found the most recent salary data from last year and it has Hastings at 30 and UC Davis (9 ranks ahead of hastings in US News) at 45 for salary. Again, the salary data cuts heavily against US News' ranking.

"The student quality ranking is nothing more than a list of 75th percentile LSAT scores, and the poster again misreports the ranking (he claims Hastings is 34, but is in fact 36)."

Leiter's student quality ranking is LSAT plus GPA. And 36 is still well higher than US News' 43.

And no, that doesn't just leave two rankings. Your own Ciolli firm study that YOU cited had Hastings way higher than US News' 43.

And I think you are way off base to be throwing the bar passage rates out the window. Hastings comes in higher than USC and UC Davis - two schools in the same BAR state that US News has ranked way higher.

Anyways, it's clear from the firm recruiting statistics and the salary statistics that at least the firms know that US News is wrong. They know that Hastings is a better lawyer factory than say UC Davis.

Say what you will against my studies but you have cited NO STUDIES (except for alamar? which nobody linked to) of your own that have found the same as US News... the weight of the evidence still cuts against the US News ranking.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 19, 2006, 06:19:31 PM
Finally found some link to the "Alamar" rankings from some other thread on this site: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php?topic=66033.0 (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php?topic=66033.0)

The 2007 list has Hastings at 39 which I think is still a little low but it's still 4 spots ahead of US News. Of course, this list also has Georgetown at 31 so I'm not sure if it is a very trustworthy measure. Also, the link to the ranking from the thread is dead, so is the alamar foundation website.

"You cannot claim that one ranking is wrong on the grounds that it has different results than rankings which measure different things."

Well I guess that is the whole point. US News claims its rankings are a ranking of "America's Best Law Schools." Yet by all of these alternative measures that I have cited, the criteria US News used to determine this ranking GOT IT WRONG. They are not an accurate measure of the best law schools.

I think the Leiter critique that I posted in here clarified this. US News uses many bogus measures. I think the alternative studies I posted shows that it also churns out BOGUS RESULTS.

For example, consider that 25% of it is based on a "peer assessment score" of people across the country who know nothing about most of these schools and have probably never visited them. Consider what the well respected Professor Bainbridge posted on this criteria 2 years ago:

"My friend Wisconsin law professor Gordon Smith, who has a vote in this year's US News rankings because he's chairing the school's appointments committee, blogs:

The U.S. News survey just arrived. I am torn: should I toss it or sell my votes? Or should I be a good citizen and do what they ask: "Identify the schools you are familiar with, and then rate the academic quality of their J.D. program at each of these schools." (Look at the syntactical errors! Ugh!)
As I look over the list, I realize that my impressions of most schools on the list are based on wispy thin evidence, such as contact with a single faculty member. I have visited about 30 of the schools, but even the vivid image of a law school building tells me little about what U.S. News is trying to measure. Nevertheless, thousands of law students will shape their preferences in accord with what I and hundreds of people pretty much like me write on this survey. That's crazy."
(http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2004/10/why_the_us_news.html (http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2004/10/why_the_us_news.html))

So yes, I do disagree with you Michigan student. Leiter's and Bainbridge's critiques point out the flawed reasoning that US News uses. My alternative studies show that it's churning out bogus results.

I refuse to follow your relativist reasoning that you can't compare two different studies that measure two different things. I think you need to consider all of the studies out there and the weight of the evidence clearly cuts against the US News rankings.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 19, 2006, 06:27:53 PM
"Why did Leiter link to that idiot post?

I know he hates the US News rankings, and levels some legitimate complaints, but he attached himself to idiocy (Brennan rankings) and outright lies (claiming by a "Leiter ranking" it's 20th for "top firm recruiting").

I'm guessing he didn't even read what he was linking to, outside of the title."

Again, dispensing with the childish smack talking...

I already agreed that Brennan's rankings are old and should be discounted. And no, the top firm recruitment was not an outright lie - go to the list - hastings is in the group with over 200 big firms recruiting out of it, tied for 20th place with BC, BU, emory, fordham, UNC, notre dame, USC, and William & Mary. (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/02/national_and_re.html (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/02/national_and_re.html))

Stop repeating stuff that I have already answered.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: Jolie Was Here on September 19, 2006, 08:15:13 PM
You are finally starting to build the semblance of argument, but you're still inept.  I shouldn't have to walk you through the process, but I will so that you can finally discuss substance at some point in the future, rather than spewing the kind of drivel that has filled the pages of this thread for so long.

Here is the argument you ought to be trying to make:

Argument #1
Premise: US News purports to be a ranking of the top American law Schools.
Premise: In determining their rankings, US News relied on factors x, y, and z.
Premise: However, factors x, y, and z are either a) not measured properly, b) not weighted properly, or c) not relevant to a determination of what constitutes a top American law school.
---------------------------------------------
Conclusion #1: US News rankings do not successfully measure the top American law schools.

Argument #2
Premise: Factors r, s, and t are more accurate and/or more appropriate measures of what constitutes a top American law school.
Premise: When judged on these factors, schools A, B, and C perform much better than would have been expected based on their US News ranking.
----------------------------------------------
Conclusion #2: Schools A, B, and C are better law schools than would have been expected based on their US News ranking.


Here is the argument you tried to make, which is illegitimate:

Premise: Ranking #1, which measures factors x, y, and z places school A at #50.
Premise: Ranking #2, which measures factor r places school A at #10.
Premise: Ranking #3, which measures factor s, places school A at #20.
Premise: Ranking #4, which measures factor t, places school A at #30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Ranking #1 is incorrect.

See the difference?

(snip)

If you've been following along, this line of argument would fall under Premise #3 of Argument #1.  That's just for your own reference, in case you lose track of your argument.

The natural response, of course, to your one anecdote regarding a law professor who claims to be only passingly familiar with certain schools is "The Durability of Law School Reputation" a 1998 article from The Journal of Legal Education, in which its author, Richard Schmalbeck, found that the reputations (and reputation scores) of law schools have remained virtually unchanged since the introduction of US News Rankings in 1987 (indeed, there is a great degree of consistency dating as far back as the 1974 survey, replete with methodological challenges though it was).  Given the level of consistency over time, the argument that the reputation scores are the result of poorly informed deans making arbitrary distinctions based on tenuous connections seems untennable.

Additionally, the Peer Assessment Score correlates with (and thus serves as a proxy for) such factors as: success of placement in academia, clerkship rates and clerkship placement, quality of faculty (both research and instruction), and quality of scholarly resources (libraries, journals, etc).  Given the importance each of these factors should have in determining the top American law schools, using this as the basis for 25% of the total score seems eminently reasonable. 

(snip)

First, a helpful little piece of advice for the future.  If you are going to make an argument, you ought to make it yourself.  Relying on constant quotes from a guy like Leiter, who is a joke among many members of the legal community, will only make you look bad.  It is tantamount to me starting a thread entitled "The Right to Choice is BOGUS" and then just linking you to Rush Limbaugh's website.  Also, most of us have read those quotes.  If we're not already convinced by him, why would your re-posting the same material have any discernable effect?  There's no point in speaking if you argument has already been made, and better, in a location just as readily accessable.

Second, you really need to be more careful with your word choice.  For instance, when you post rankings of Hastings that range from #11 to #36, claim that there is "no statistical variance" among those, and then claim that these rankings "show" that another ranking placing Hastings at #43 is bogus.  Even if it weren't illigitimate to use the results of some rankings to discredit others (which is is when they measure different things; don't ever forget that), the #43 is not an outlier - the value would still be reasonable given the dispersion of other rankings.  You can't automatically lop off the lowest or highest values simply becuase they are low or high.

Third (and this is the one that will save you the most heartache in the end), your argument is bound to fail.  Now I've been playing along becuase its fun and becuase you make such a good punching bag, but in the end, even if you frame the argument correctly and take some time to articulate all the points properly, you won't recieve any satisfaction.  Why?  Becuase there are no objectively true, perfectly quantifiable standards for what makes a law school better than another.  They just don't exist. 

Here's a very simple, but great example:  Let's assume that we can all agree that a school with smarter kids makes it better.  School A has 25/50/75 LSAT of 164/168/171; School B has a 25/50/75 LSAT of 153/168/180.  Which school is better? (hint: there's not going to be a right answer).

Law school will always be an individual, ideosyncratic choice where we rank the schools ourselves based on the critera that matter to us.  By posting links to a bunch of rankings of factors that may or may not matter to others, you will never be abe to discredit alternative rankings based on different factors.  For some people, the USNews factors will matter and yours won't, even if it's the exact opposite for you personally.  But that should be common knowledge, especially to the people on a board like this.  We know that there can't be one "correct" ranking that is right in every instance. 

By arguing that other rankings are evidence that one ranking is wrong, you are implicitly asserting that there is right answer to the question of "Where does Hastings rank among top American law schools," and that's just asinine.  To make matters worse, you are posting links to information that is even more outdated, irrelevant, and methodologically flawed than the US News rankings.  You give us 10-year old salary data, we give you "Correlates of Elite Firm Placement."  You give us Brennan, we give you ALAMAR. 

Much of the information that people need for making the individual decision of which school is right for them is available, and this community has done an excellent job of disseminating it to those who lack it.  Neither your posts nor your links have conveyed any new information (it might be arguable that they conveyed any information at all), and your rankings-obsession is misguided at best.  If you had come to us before choosing a law school, I'm sure most of us would have gladly helped you become informed.  Instead, you come to us after the fact, attempting to convince us that you made a good choice three years ago, and that if we were wise we wouldn't put any stock in sources that disagree with you.  Well, we're one step ahead of you (four steps, if you count the three years it took you to get to this point). 

So, you see, you can't even win the argument if you could execute one successully, becuase one point you're trying to make (that the US News rankings aren't the best measure of a law school) is so obvious to all of us that it usually gos without saying, and the other point that you probably aren't even aware that you are trying to make (that there is some correct ranking scheme out there somewhere) is so laughable a to have led us to riddicule you ceacelessly.  It's probably best if you just stop now.

I go to school with him.  Not bad, eh?
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: Jolie Was Here on September 19, 2006, 08:25:34 PM
I go to school with him.  Not bad, eh?

I know I wouldn't want to be competing with him.

Of course, for a top 10 school, I might be willing to risk the possibly lower class rank.

No worries - different sections.   ;)  We can be friends with impunity.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: juliemccoy on September 19, 2006, 10:39:56 PM
Since this thread is full of useless information, I thought I'd contribute another factoid:

28.1% of people pee in pools.

/Still looking for information on how many people swim in toliets...

 ;D
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 20, 2006, 12:58:41 AM
Quote
Here is the argument you ought to be trying to make:

Argument #1
Premise: US News purports to be a ranking of the top American law Schools.
Premise: In determining their rankings, US News relied on factors x, y, and z.
Premise: However, factors x, y, and z are either a) not measured properly, b) not weighted properly, or c) not relevant to a determination of what constitutes a top American law school.
---------------------------------------------
Conclusion #1: US News rankings do not successfully measure the top American law schools.

Argument #2
Premise: Factors r, s, and t are more accurate and/or more appropriate measures of what constitutes a top American law school.
Premise: When judged on these factors, schools A, B, and C perform much better than would have been expected based on their US News ranking.
----------------------------------------------
Conclusion #2: Schools A, B, and C are better law schools than would have been expected based on their US News ranking.


Here is the argument you tried to make, which is illegitimate:

Premise: Ranking #1, which measures factors x, y, and z places school A at #50.
Premise: Ranking #2, which measures factor r places school A at #10.
Premise: Ranking #3, which measures factor s, places school A at #20.
Premise: Ranking #4, which measures factor t, places school A at #30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Ranking #1 is incorrect.

See the difference?

OK sorry for not putting my arguments in numerical format. Calm down dude this is an internet message board not a court room and these are posts not legal motions.

Quote
The natural response, of course, to your one anecdote regarding a law professor who claims to be only passingly familiar with certain schools is "The Durability of Law School Reputation" a 1998 article from The Journal of Legal Education, in which its author, Richard Schmalbeck, found that the reputations (and reputation scores) of law schools have remained virtually unchanged since the introduction of US News Rankings in 1987 (indeed, there is a great degree of consistency dating as far back as the 1974 survey, replete with methodological challenges though it was).  Given the level of consistency over time, the argument that the reputation scores are the result of poorly informed deans making arbitrary distinctions based on tenuous connections seems untennable.

This is very interesting evidence but it's 8 years old. The study ended in 1998 and yet 1998 is the year that US News made a major change in their system for measuring academic reputation.

Additionally, it is one of the scores that are not manipulable by law schools. So even on top of this problematic tool, you still have a number of other factors that US News uses that are highly manipulable.

Also, the US News scholarly reputation rankings only present professors with a list of schools and has them rank them (with no corresponding faculty lists provideD). Leiter did his own study in 2003 where he handed out faculty lists:

http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2003faculty_reputation.shtml (http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2003faculty_reputation.shtml)

Hastings came in at #29, just ahead of UC Davis (#32), its most comparable school.

Quote
For instance, when you post rankings of Hastings that range from #11 to #36, claim that there is "no statistical variance" among those, and then claim that these rankings "show" that another ranking placing Hastings at #43 is bogus.

I think I have said like 3 times already that I agree the Brennan list that ranks hastings at 11 is way old and should obviously be discounted...

Quote
the #43 is not an outlier - the value would still be reasonable given the dispersion of other rankings.  You can't automatically lop off the lowest or highest values simply becuase they are low or high.

Yes, the #43 is an outlier - it is the worst ranking of hastings out of any of these measurements. By definition it is the highest outlier. Brennan/#11 was the highest outlier on the other end and was obviously bogus.

Quote
To make matters worse, you are posting links to information that is even more outdated, irrelevant, and methodologically flawed than the US News rankings.  You give us 10-year old salary data, we give you "Correlates of Elite Firm Placement."  You give us Brennan, we give you ALAMAR.

Again you keep attacking my brennan cite. You guys have done this like 5 times so far I have said over and over it is old and should be discounted.

You also go after the salary data AGAIN. I already posted the updated salary information from 2006. Hastings was #30. UC Davis was 45 (despite being 9 spots higher in US News).

I dealt with these issues a while back and you guys keep attacking them and pretending like everything I have said is wrong. It's setting up a straw man.

Quote
Why?  Becuase there are no objectively true, perfectly quantifiable standards for what makes a law school better than another.  They just don't exist.

Again this is being relatavist and it doesn't justify the flaws in US News' rankings that I have pointed out. Even if you do think there is no perfect ranking system, the goal should be as good a system as possible and US News clearly is not cutting it with all of these issues.

"Neither your posts nor your links have conveyed any new information (it might be arguable that they conveyed any information at all), and your rankings-obsession is misguided at best. "

What? That Hastings has way higher salary, bar passage, student quality, faculty quality, and firm recruitment than US News ranks it? That Hastings ranks way higher than US News in other comprehensive rankings?

Quote
one point you're trying to make (that the US News rankings aren't the best measure of a law school) is so obvious to all of us that it usually gos without saying

I completely agree with you on that point. Interesting that you spend so much time defending US News only to say this now...
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: Jolie Was Here on September 20, 2006, 04:49:21 AM
Okay, I give up on you, kid.  I really try to be kind on this board, but you're remarkably obtuse.

As someone who will complete his legal education in the very near future, surely you've been instructed as to the use of precise language?  The idea, then, that words have specific meanings probably isn't foreign?

For example: outlier.  You cannot decide that, in a list of numbers, the highest and lowest are outliers by virtue of their being the highest and lowest.  You determine outliers by looking at values which fall outside a certain number of standard deviations from the mean.  It's based on sample size and confidence level, not a desire to lop off unfavorable numbers. 

(I won't even bother explaining for the umpteenth time that you can't consider those different rankings as a set since they're all different measures of different standards.  I mean, compare and contrast the different rankings all you like, but that's it.  What you've argued is similar to invalidating the measure of today's temperature in Dublin because it's 18, which is clearly out of whack with reality since it's 61 in NYC and 63 in Boston, and nevermind that the Dublin temperature is from a different continent and measured in degrees Celsius...)

And of course this wasn't supposed to be a legal brief.  I know VU in real life, and I can assure you that if he intended to present a brief or a scholarly treatise, he'd at least take down his goofy 'tar and clean up his typos. ;)  What he was doing was constructing a sound argument:  applying logic and reason to the facts at hand in a systematic fashion.  You should try it sometime.

You should have just quit while you were...okay, not ahead, but at least even.  I think everyone here was willing to accept (or was indifferent to) your underlying premise  - namely, that the rankings fail to give an accurate picture of Hastings' overall quality.  Like the oft-cited amyt, all you've accomplished in several days of blustering is to put off those who might have helped you frame your argument more soundly.  Frankly, I'm now convinced that someone should yank Hastings' ABA-accreditation, since 2/3 of the way through your legal education it appears that they've taught you nothing.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: jorge on September 20, 2006, 07:14:48 AM
And if I ever meet one, I hope they explain what the hell a toliet is.
It's a far-flung southern suburb of Chicago.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mitchb on September 20, 2006, 09:18:39 AM
Quote
I give up.  This guy's just an idiot.  He's never going to get it.  I'm still very skeptical that he's a law student at all, especially a 3L, given that he doesn't know the difference between placement and recruiting, that he can't follow or construct an argument, that arguments from policy or theory so confound him that the best he can do is defend the details in a failed scheme, and that he's wasting his time on an internet message board trying to justify his school choice like a sulking 15 year old when he should really be out looking for a job (along with the other 43% of his class that is unemployed at graduation).  I never thought much of Hastings to begin with, but if this guy actually is a student there, my opinion of it will be even further depressed.  God forbid I ever fill out a USNews reputation survey.

Quote
Frankly, I'm now convinced that someone should yank Hastings' ABA-accreditation, since 2/3 of the way through your legal education it appears that they've taught you nothing.

And now back to the personal attacks. I guess that is the way you are supposed to win arguments around here - insult people you disagree with instead of making arguments. Clearly we haven't convinced each other so leave it at that and agree to disagree. You are calling me a 15 year old and yet I haven't once engaged in the childish name-calling that everyone else here has been doing. So if that is all that you have left then I won't argue about US News rankings with you anymore. I still don't understand why you disagreed so strongly with me when you just stated that you don't think US News are a great ranking of how good law schools are.

I hope you don't make a habit out of insulting people so much. That crap may fly on internet message boards but it won't fly in courtrooms. It just makes you look cheap and pathetic.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: juliemccoy on September 20, 2006, 10:43:34 AM
Just so you know, this does fly on an internet message board. And this internet message board has nothing to do with real life.

Unplug the computer and go play outside. It's a nice day.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: Bosox on January 08, 2007, 02:15:04 PM

To the OP:

Seriously, posts like  this are embarrassing to read. Just take your summer job, turn it into an offer, and stop worrying about what others think about your school. Jesus. If you go out and get a good firm job offer, then you shouldnt care about what others think. If you dont get the offer, then you shouldn't be posting here anyways. Don't take this stuff so personally.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: Jolie Was Here on January 08, 2007, 04:14:11 PM
My favorite part was when he cited the Alamar rankings:

Finally found some link to the "Alamar" rankings from some other thread on this site: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php?topic=66033.0 (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php?topic=66033.0)

The 2007 list has Hastings at 39 which I think is still a little low but it's still 4 spots ahead of US News. Of course, this list also has Georgetown at 31 so I'm not sure if it is a very trustworthy measure. Also, the link to the ranking from the thread is dead, so is the alamar foundation website.


Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: Denny Crane on January 08, 2007, 05:21:11 PM
Brennan founded Cooley, so his rankings aren't even worth the effort it would take me to wipe myself with them if they were printed on toilet paper.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: alphadog24 on March 27, 2007, 06:51:52 PM
You know something is wrong with your ranking system when literally EVERYONE ELSE has hastings ranked higher than you.

If everyone says the earth is flat and only 1 person says its round, that does'nt mean that the 1 person is wrong.

HTH
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on March 27, 2007, 07:41:54 PM
oh yeah and my girlfriend is a 3-L at hastings... she is in the top 25% of her class, not in moot court or law journal, and she summered at, was offered, and accepted an offer at Orrick, the #1 firm in the bay area and a top firm nationally and internationally. She will be making $135,000/year starting next year... all that from getting good but not great grades and not doing any extracurriclars...

just another reason why US News is bogus - The Firms know US News is bogus. That's why hastings is still top 20 for top firm recruitment despite being ranked 43rd in US News.

good for her. how do you explain your classmates who have resorted to posting their resume on craigslist to look for jobs?
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: goosenesque on March 27, 2007, 08:30:53 PM
Whoa, I thought former and future Boalt students are supposed to like each other.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on March 28, 2007, 07:34:23 AM
oh yeah and my girlfriend is a 3-L at hastings... she is in the top 25% of her class, not in moot court or law journal, and she summered at, was offered, and accepted an offer at Orrick, the #1 firm in the bay area and a top firm nationally and internationally. She will be making $135,000/year starting next year... all that from getting good but not great grades and not doing any extracurriclars...

just another reason why US News is bogus - The Firms know US News is bogus. That's why hastings is still top 20 for top firm recruitment despite being ranked 43rd in US News.

good for her. how do you explain your classmates who have resorted to posting their resume on craigslist to look for jobs?

Is it really necessary to knock other people's schools? I think this guy was pretty much shot down in this thread already, and it's from months and months ago....
not really knocking the school. in fact, i think that hastings students are often better prepared for the bar, because they work harder and learn more state law than we do. however, i think the OP is doing a disservice to everyone here by implying that many or all people who graduate at the top of their class at hastings are a shoo-in at top firms in the bay area.

it happens, no doubt, but it's relatively difficult to accomplish. and, for what it's worth, i don't believe that the outcome is justified by the quality of hastings students, who tend to be exceptionally bright, motivated and hard-working.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: mathlete on March 28, 2007, 09:27:49 AM
You know something is wrong with your ranking system when literally EVERYONE ELSE has hastings ranked higher than you.

If everyone says the earth is flat and only 1 person says its round, that does'nt mean that the 1 person is wrong.

HTH

While I generally agree, your example is a bit off since that is an indisputable fact, whereas this case the number of respondents actually affect the argument in question. For example, if you are debating whether or not a person is popular, and 9 out of 10 people say he is, then the respondents who say he is not ARE wrong, merely from the fact that by definition the responses dictate what the answer to the question is.

In this case, one may argue that USNWR's "clout" in the world of rankings overshadows the other rankings. If they say it is so, then it is likely so because they said it.

HTH
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: t... on August 03, 2007, 07:45:21 PM
...
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 16, 2007, 01:55:21 AM
oh yeah and my girlfriend is a 3-L at hastings... she is in the top 25% of her class, not in moot court or law journal, and she summered at, was offered, and accepted an offer at Orrick, the #1 firm in the bay area and a top firm nationally and internationally. She will be making $135,000/year starting next year... all that from getting good but not great grades and not doing any extracurriclars...

just another reason why US News is bogus - The Firms know US News is bogus. That's why hastings is still top 20 for top firm recruitment despite being ranked 43rd in US News.

good for her. how do you explain your classmates who have resorted to posting their resume on craigslist to look for jobs?


I guess they and the Boalt students are in good company.

Excuse me?

For a T14 school, Boalt doesn't have the most secure placement.  Obviously it's better than Hastings, but I wouldn't go around throwing stones if I were Ruskie.
proof that Boalt's placement isn't secure or lags behind its peers?
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 16, 2007, 02:28:01 AM
oh yeah and my girlfriend is a 3-L at hastings... she is in the top 25% of her class, not in moot court or law journal, and she summered at, was offered, and accepted an offer at Orrick, the #1 firm in the bay area and a top firm nationally and internationally. She will be making $135,000/year starting next year... all that from getting good but not great grades and not doing any extracurriclars...

just another reason why US News is bogus - The Firms know US News is bogus. That's why hastings is still top 20 for top firm recruitment despite being ranked 43rd in US News.

good for her. how do you explain your classmates who have resorted to posting their resume on craigslist to look for jobs?


I guess they and the Boalt students are in good company.

Excuse me?

For a T14 school, Boalt doesn't have the most secure placement.  Obviously it's better than Hastings, but I wouldn't go around throwing stones if I were Ruskie.
proof that Boalt's placement isn't secure or lags behind its peers?

Jesus, are you a f*cking bloodhound?   :)

Placement stats over the last decade.



Your attempt to cite stats generally, as if they support your contention when in reality they do not, is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Post the actual stats and discuss them.
Title: Re: US News Rankings are Bogus
Post by: t... on October 16, 2007, 11:42:40 PM
Example 1.