U.S. News may go under

[LawDog3]

Edit:

Be able to in a grade-inflated major or in a very rigorous program?

Doesn't matter.  Admissions counselors tend to adjust based on major and university.  A 3.2 in mechanical engineering at MIT is higher than a 3.8 in business admin at Joeblow Tech.

For law school admissions?? Nuh uh. Come on. Look at LSN. It matters some, but not to the extent that a 3.2 would trump a 3.8, no matter what the respective programs.

I don't find this line of inquiry very interesting, so I'll let it be, but that part is just not true.

Is LSN completely reliable. I tend to agree that a lower GPA in a super-tough major from a more competitive school should and does trump a higher GPA in a more relaxed major from a so-so school. Law school dean's admit that they will give more rope to a lower GPA if the major and school are tough. But the interpretations of those relative strengths make the science so inexact.

[nailemlaw]

Be careful in assessment of Law Schools as well.  Many schools like UDC had a much higher bar passage rate (90%) last year compared with more elite institutions like Georgetown right down the road.

http://www.nailemlaw.com

[Resident CLS Troll]

Be careful in assessment of Law Schools as well.  Many schools like UDC had a much higher bar passage rate (90%) last year compared with more elite institutions like Georgetown right down the road.

And?

[CTL]

Be careful in assessment of Law Schools as well.  Many schools like UDC had a much higher bar passage rate (90%) last year compared with more elite institutions like Georgetown right down the road.

And?

And they still couldn't get jobs.

[LawDog3]

you can think whatever you want.  that doesn't mean it's supported.

Back at ya.

in the absence of evidence to indicate that a particular group of people is able to do something, the default assumption should be that they are not necessarily able to do that thing.

agree or disagree?

I have no evidence the world can exist without God.
I have no evidence that God could exist.

The absence of evidence isn't terribly probative either way.  This is why I'm asking you (yet again) to support your side.

That's true, logically. Absence of evidence for something is not evidence for absence of something.