2009 USNWR rankings

[negativeexternality]

The rankings make a lot of sense to me.  It seemed as though BC was greatly underappreciated.  I also predicted Notre Dame would make a leap, although I didn't think it would be so huge. 

I don't know how Emory can hold onto its position still.  IMO Emory and BC should change positions.  

One of the more surprising things I noticed was that Syracuse edged its way back into the top 100.  Go figure?

why?  objective data, or just personal opinion?  Emory has a higher peer assessment, LSAT 75th percentile, better student/faculty ratio, and similar employment/bar passage numbers.  BC probably has a more longstanding national reputation, but as far as i can tell, that's the only area where it really edges Emory out.

i know there are others who have posted similar things, but i just don't see how these tiny year-to-year shifts are meaningful in any way.  do you really think that BU being edged out by GW or BC being a few spots behind Emory matters at all in the long run?  i'm sure no firm adjusts their hiring practices in accordance with minute adjustments in the USNEWS rankings, especially given that the methodology is so opaque and seemingly random.  it would seem much more likely that employers have a good idea which schools are T6 (hls, yale, stanford, etc.), lower T14 (duke, cornell, NW, gtown, etc.), T25 (BU, Emory, ND, BC, GW, etc.) and whatever else, and that their opinions don't fluctuate too much with the year-to-year rankings.

although i jumped when i saw the rankings were released, i really hate how everyone is getting worked up about them--US news loves to freak everyone out by moving some schools two or three spots up or down, and it helps them generate attention and sell magazines, but they never do anything meaningful.  i think the main reason people on here get so emotionally invested in these rankings is because everyone is so prestige-driven.  don't get me wrong--i don't think that's necessarily a good or bad thing--but in the competitive world of law students, everyone is looking for something to feed their ego, and are thrilled if they gain a few spots over rival schools and students, even if it's just on paper.

[philibusters]

The rankings make a lot of sense to me.  It seemed as though BC was greatly underappreciated.  I also predicted Notre Dame would make a leap, although I didn't think it would be so huge. 

I don't know how Emory can hold onto its position still.  IMO Emory and BC should change positions.  

One of the more surprising things I noticed was that Syracuse edged its way back into the top 100.  Go figure?

why?  objective data, or just personal opinion?  Emory has a higher peer assessment, LSAT 75th percentile, better student/faculty ratio, and similar employment/bar passage numbers.  BC probably has a more longstanding national reputation, but as far as i can tell, that's the only area where it really edges Emory out.

i know there are others who have posted similar things, but i just don't see how these tiny year-to-year shifts are meaningful in any way.  do you really think that BU being edged out by GW or BC being a few spots behind Emory matters at all in the long run?  i'm sure no firm adjusts their hiring practices in accordance with minute adjustments in the USNEWS rankings, especially given that the methodology is so opaque and seemingly random.  it would seem much more likely that employers have a good idea which schools are T6 (hls, yale, stanford, etc.), lower T14 (duke, cornell, NW, gtown, etc.), T25 (BU, Emory, ND, BC, GW, etc.) and whatever else, and that their opinions don't fluctuate too much with the year-to-year rankings.

although i jumped when i saw the rankings were released, i really hate how everyone is getting worked up about them--US news loves to freak everyone out by moving some schools two or three spots up or down, and it helps them generate attention and sell magazines, but they never do anything meaningful.  i think the main reason people on here get so emotionally invested in these rankings is because everyone is so prestige-driven.  don't get me wrong--i don't think that's necessarily a good or bad thing--but in the competitive world of law students, everyone is looking for something to feed their ego, and are thrilled if they gain a few spots over rival schools and students, even if it's just on paper.

Your last paragraph is so true

[newjaytdot]

The rankings make a lot of sense to me.  It seemed as though BC was greatly underappreciated.  I also predicted Notre Dame would make a leap, although I didn't think it would be so huge. 

I don't know how Emory can hold onto its position still.  IMO Emory and BC should change positions.  

One of the more surprising things I noticed was that Syracuse edged its way back into the top 100.  Go figure?

why?  objective data, or just personal opinion?  Emory has a higher peer assessment, LSAT 75th percentile, better student/faculty ratio, and similar employment/bar passage numbers.  BC probably has a more longstanding national reputation, but as far as i can tell, that's the only area where it really edges Emory out.

Personal opinion, hence the 'IMO'.  I'm sure Emory has something going in the south which is beyond my comprehension.  I've lived the life of an isolated yankee, so I don't know what goes on down there. 

I completely agree with everything you said though.

[negativeexternality]

The rankings make a lot of sense to me.  It seemed as though BC was greatly underappreciated.  I also predicted Notre Dame would make a leap, although I didn't think it would be so huge. 

I don't know how Emory can hold onto its position still.  IMO Emory and BC should change positions.  

One of the more surprising things I noticed was that Syracuse edged its way back into the top 100.  Go figure?

why?  objective data, or just personal opinion?  Emory has a higher peer assessment, LSAT 75th percentile, better student/faculty ratio, and similar employment/bar passage numbers.  BC probably has a more longstanding national reputation, but as far as i can tell, that's the only area where it really edges Emory out.

Personal opinion, hence the 'IMO'.  I'm sure Emory has something going in the south which is beyond my comprehension.  I've lived the life of an isolated yankee, so I don't know what goes on down there. 

I completely agree with everything you said though.

fair enough.  i wasn't trying to get on your case or anything--i just didn't know if when you said "IMO" you meant it in the sense that the rankings were ignoring or overlooking some crucial data, or if your statement just reflected the impression you had formed based on your own personal experiences.

[smplsimon2]

Can someone please post all the specialty rankings?  Nobody has posted that anywhere, so if you're first, you're likely to get a lot of praise.

[Captain]

IMO Emory and BC should change positions.

I hope that was a joke.

Expect Emory's ranking to go up next year.

[Captain]

1. The methodology behind the rankings is really unsound. For example, putting "per student expenditures" which is an easily manipulable statistic, at 10 percent weight and then not disclosing the numbers.

All-things-considered, I disagree vehemently. If you spend a lot per-student you have to be spending it on things that will increase the quality of education.

2. Pretty much only OLs care about these rankings. Hiring officials already have a set idea of which schools are better than others and won't be affected by rankings changes.

Not true. Nonetheless, here is a link to the top-25 schools as ranked by the people who will hopefully hire ya'll. http://www.vault.com/lawschool/top25/

Of course, everyone knows that the Cooley rankings are FAR more realistic that the horribly-flawed US News ranking.