« on: January 09, 2008, 10:04:59 PM »
If anyone is familiar with the process, please let me know if my analysis is correct.
If Fordham continues to place really well in Biglaw NYC, who cares if it rises higher in the rankings? It's been shown that some schools "ranked" lower place better in Biglaw than some ranked higher anyway. If Fordham isn't higher ranked, it is because nationally it isn't as good. Is it really true that bottom 50% at Fordham are screwed though? Maybe then if you're below the median LSAT, you should look into being smarter than average at St. John's or Brooklyn.
I think the new ABA rule about taking the highest score rather than the averaged school has a big part in the rising of the medians as well!
I concur. Answer is 'D'.
The key here is "known" vs "ever."
That is, known now versus what might happen in the future.
What about the "only frogs" versus "frogs are the only animals" distinction?
The problem is still rough, IMO.