Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - hawvaad2008

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11
21
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: UW Madison v. Iowa
« on: February 05, 2008, 07:58:34 PM »
Iowa seems to get some flak on these boards, but I rarely hear much about UW Madison, whether it be positive or negative. 

I'd like to stay in the Chicago market and was wondering if a) either or both of these schools would carry better in Chicago when compared to Kent/Loyola/DePaul and b) which school (between Iowa and Wisconsin) would lead to better employment?

Depends on which state you'd rather live in as you rake in your $40,000.

cough, prick, cough.

22
Law School Admissions / Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
« on: February 04, 2008, 06:11:14 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.     

23
Law School Admissions / Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
« on: February 04, 2008, 06:01:01 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. 


24
Law School Admissions / Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
« on: February 02, 2008, 06:10:20 PM »
why is everyone griping so much.  i think its cool that he took the time to do this. bravo!

TITCR

25
Law School Admissions / Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
« on: February 02, 2008, 05:48:57 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.

26
Law School Admissions / Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
« on: February 02, 2008, 05:39:18 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. 

27
Let's be fare

Cardozo is in a much cooler neighborhood.

The law schoold is down near union square which is way more fun than columbus circle (fordham)

I guess that depends on what you consider "fun."  If smoking grass with toothless hippies is fun, you're correct.  If you'd prefer the theater district, the opera, the arts, etc., then I'd say you're wrong.

You're either the world's most convincing flame, or the world's largest prick.  Either way, nobody should take anything you say on this board seriously. 

28
Law School Admissions / Re: New Rankings!! Discuss!!
« on: February 02, 2008, 04:49:18 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.

29
Eh, I really think it depends too much on the place you're looking at working rather than the region in general. Some schools places better within a certain city or state than they do within a certain region, if that makes sense.

Don't overthink the rankings thing, dude.

I second this.  None of them really mean anything outside of their respective regions.

The evidence you give for seconding has nothing to do with the argument xxxxxx... was making. 

30
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: LSAT = dirty word?
« on: February 01, 2008, 05:47:58 PM »
I hate the thing.  I think it places all too much importance on a highly prep-able test, and undermines proven achievement in undergrad.

Without an LSAT how would Law Schools differentiate between the 4.0 candidates?  Also, how would they account for the variance in how difficult certain schools grade, and how difficult certain majors are whem compared to others?  Seems to me that the LSAT is necessary. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11