Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Are Chapman's Princeton Review rankings (see below):

Gospel - Screw the US NEWS
 0 (0%)
Very Helpful and Informative
 3 (3.6%)
One more tool in deciding value
 9 (10.8%)
Interesting trivia
 12 (14.5%)
Bought and Paid for (aka a load of crap)
 14 (16.9%)
Check with Princeton Review before believing this information is true
 3 (3.6%)
Does "Diverse" mean the same thing as "Clueless"?
 8 (9.6%)
Isn't Chapman that "Dog the Bounty Hunter" guy?
 21 (25.3%)
www.chapman.edu/law = source of misinformation
 9 (10.8%)
An explanation for this?: http://www.chapman.edu/law/about/2008_bar_results.asp
 4 (4.8%)
Inflated because John Yoo waterboarded Princeton Review Staff?  http://www.chapman.edu/images/userImages/dfinley/Page_9275/Statement%20Regarding%20John%20Yoo%20--%20revised.pdf
 0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 45

Author Topic: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap  (Read 8513 times)

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2009, 10:56:35 PM »
You know? Every ranking has some arguability, and each seems as though it could have a useful methodology, though I do not know what Hon. Thomas Brennan (Cooley Law) and Princeton Review are using.

...

The elephant in the room is that all of the rankings bring something valuable to the table. The most useful method should incorporate aspects of all of them.   

Epic fail.

A non-believer. Well, you must forgive the eternal optomist in me if you think the rankings suck. I don't. But each is limited or flawed.

To amplify that "most useful" statement, the most useful method would incorporate the best aspect(s) of all of them.

Some are without any "best aspect". No ranking is perfect and all are subjective to some degree, but there certainly is a hierarchy of bad to worst.

Agreed, for the most part. Most people reject Brennan citing that he has a self-interest motive, mainly to hype his own school. That doesn't mean that his ranking is complete crap.

There has to be at least some redeeming aspect of his ranking. We don't know his methodology. At least we can agree that PR applies an undergraduate rankings method to grad schools, which some people think is of little use. I don't.

 

JayCLS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2009, 03:40:15 PM »
Of course, Chapman has the 3rd lowest ranking in the country according to this ranking (based on success of alumni).

http://www.avvo.com/stats/school_overview

SoCal123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2009, 01:01:52 PM »
Of course, Chapman has the 3rd lowest ranking in the country according to this ranking (based on success of alumni).

http://www.avvo.com/stats/school_overview


Does anyone know how AVVO comes up with their rankings?

Ninja1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3089
  • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2009, 04:54:45 AM »
You know? Every ranking has some arguability, and each seems as though it could have a useful methodology, though I do not know what Hon. Thomas Brennan (Cooley Law) and Princeton Review are using.

...

The elephant in the room is that all of the rankings bring something valuable to the table. The most useful method should incorporate aspects of all of them.   

Epic fail.

A non-believer. Well, you must forgive the eternal optomist in me if you think the rankings suck. I don't. But each is limited or flawed.

To amplify that "most useful" statement, the most useful method would incorporate the best aspect(s) of all of them.

Some are without any "best aspect". No ranking is perfect and all are subjective to some degree, but there certainly is a hierarchy of bad to worst.

Agreed, for the most part. Most people reject Brennan citing that he has a self-interest motive, mainly to hype his own school. That doesn't mean that his ranking is complete crap.

There has to be at least some redeeming aspect of his ranking. We don't know his methodology. At least we can agree that PR applies an undergraduate rankings method to grad schools, which some people think is of little use. I don't.

 

I'm starting to suspect your a subtle flame...

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/method.html

And that's my 2 seconds worth of work. I'm pretty sure the Cooley website has the current setup on there somewhere. I recall seeing it before but don't really feel like putting on the waders and swimming through *&^% right now.
I'mma stay bumpin' till I bump my head on my tomb.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2009, 05:07:45 AM »
You know? Every ranking has some arguability, and each seems as though it could have a useful methodology, though I do not know what Hon. Thomas Brennan (Cooley Law) and Princeton Review are using.

...

The elephant in the room is that all of the rankings bring something valuable to the table. The most useful method should incorporate aspects of all of them.   

Epic fail.

A non-believer. Well, you must forgive the eternal optomist in me if you think the rankings suck. I don't. But each is limited or flawed.

To amplify that "most useful" statement, the most useful method would incorporate the best aspect(s) of all of them.

Some are without any "best aspect". No ranking is perfect and all are subjective to some degree, but there certainly is a hierarchy of bad to worst.

Agreed, for the most part. Most people reject Brennan citing that he has a self-interest motive, mainly to hype his own school. That doesn't mean that his ranking is complete crap.

There has to be at least some redeeming aspect of his ranking. We don't know his methodology. At least we can agree that PR applies an undergraduate rankings method to grad schools, which some people think is of little use. I don't.

 

I'm starting to suspect your a subtle flame...

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/method.html

And that's my 2 seconds worth of work. I'm pretty sure the Cooley website has the current setup on there somewhere. I recall seeing it before but don't really feel like putting on the waders and swimming through poo right now.

You do realize that I am not saying I agree with the Brennan rankings. Thus, I wouldn't even care what the method is. I know Cooley isn't better than most of the schools it is ranked above. No flamin' here. The fact that we use ankings sucks in my general opinion, but they are a necessary evil. They can be useful, but I don't put too much stock in them, but for the prestige they have with firms and corporations.

Anyways...on to the next, this is dead.

JayCLS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2009, 12:56:53 AM »
Of course, Chapman has the 3rd lowest ranking in the country according to this ranking (based on success of alumni).

http://www.avvo.com/stats/school_overview


Does anyone know how AVVO comes up with their rankings?

They rank lawyers by client reviews and the number of awards they've received etc.  Then they take an average of all the alum lawyers from every school and rank the schools.

Ninja1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3089
  • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2009, 06:45:31 PM »
You know? Every ranking has some arguability, and each seems as though it could have a useful methodology, though I do not know what Hon. Thomas Brennan (Cooley Law) and Princeton Review are using.

...

The elephant in the room is that all of the rankings bring something valuable to the table. The most useful method should incorporate aspects of all of them.   

Epic fail.

A non-believer. Well, you must forgive the eternal optomist in me if you think the rankings suck. I don't. But each is limited or flawed.

To amplify that "most useful" statement, the most useful method would incorporate the best aspect(s) of all of them.

Some are without any "best aspect". No ranking is perfect and all are subjective to some degree, but there certainly is a hierarchy of bad to worst.

Agreed, for the most part. Most people reject Brennan citing that he has a self-interest motive, mainly to hype his own school. That doesn't mean that his ranking is complete crap.

There has to be at least some redeeming aspect of his ranking. We don't know his methodology. At least we can agree that PR applies an undergraduate rankings method to grad schools, which some people think is of little use. I don't.

 

I'm starting to suspect your a subtle flame...

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/method.html

And that's my 2 seconds worth of work. I'm pretty sure the Cooley website has the current setup on there somewhere. I recall seeing it before but don't really feel like putting on the waders and swimming through poo right now.

You do realize that I am not saying I agree with the Brennan rankings. Thus, I wouldn't even care what the method is. I know Cooley isn't better than most of the schools it is ranked above. No flamin' here. The fact that we use ankings sucks in my general opinion, but they are a necessary evil. They can be useful, but I don't put too much stock in them, but for the prestige they have with firms and corporations.

Anyways...on to the next, this is dead.

I was just pointing out that we do, in fact, know the method to the madness. If not a flame, I'm thinking high school sophomore.
I'mma stay bumpin' till I bump my head on my tomb.

SoCal123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2009, 11:58:13 AM »
I was just pointing out that we do, in fact, know the method to the madness. If not a flame, I'm thinking high school sophomore.

OK, now THAT was a flame for sure.

No guessing there.   :D

Ninja1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3089
  • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2009, 08:37:00 PM »
I was just pointing out that we do, in fact, know the method to the madness. If not a flame, I'm thinking high school sophomore.

OK, now THAT was a flame for sure.

No guessing there.   :D

I was just saying dude seems to lack some basic research/reading/reasoning skills.
I'mma stay bumpin' till I bump my head on my tomb.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: Princeton Review Rankings - Useful or a load of Crap
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2009, 10:51:19 PM »
I was just pointing out that we do, in fact, know the method to the madness. If not a flame, I'm thinking high school sophomore.

OK, now THAT was a flame for sure.

No guessing there.   :D

I was just saying dude seems to lack some basic research/reading/reasoning skills.

Certainly, to define something as basic is to define it as "base", simple, rudimentary...or average. Meaning those who would study it would be average. The rankings and their madness are hardly fodder for the faint of heart, which is to say "average" people. So, "lacking basic" reasoning and research skills?...no. Another assumption you make is that because one does not do something, it must be the case that he cannot. Heck, it's a jump to assume someone has not done something, let alone the rest.

Rankings are simple arbitrary madness, and I take them seriously or not so seriously depending on the day of the week. I do not get into every subtlety of the rankings, though I do understand quite a bit. As for my reasoning? 51/51 on the LSAT and perfect (A+) grades in undergraduate philosophy, near perfect grades on all essays, including term papers (never below an A). Those are "reasons" to think otherwise.   

But, honestly, we've gone way to far on this topic. I don't even think we are so much disagreeing as over-analyzing. It's killing my buzz.