.....

[M51]

# 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... 

[Slumdog Lovebutton]

i think the peer ranking is a huge omission.

[SBToLaw]

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

[RightHandRule]

I love how every school past the top 15 have negative scores. Good work, but where is cooley?

[hawvaad2008]

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. 

[hawvaad2008]

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.     

[sinkfloridasink]

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!

[Bananas, Melonas, Yeah]

Good work, OP.  I like the way this looks.

[sheltron5000]

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!