Law School Discussion

2010 rankings leaked

Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2009, 01:34:25 PM »
It's actually the same pic that leaked on TLS last night... I think that's where they took the photo from.  Here's a link to that thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69124.  It has been widely debated as to whether the leak is real or not.  Personally, I'm inclined to think it is legit.
No way.

If you check out this link, US News explains that they may change the methodology to factor the PT medians into the overall score, as well as scoring the individual part-time programs. This would explain Fordham's fall.

Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2009, 10:35:40 PM »
It's actually the same pic that leaked on TLS last night... I think that's where they took the photo from.  Here's a link to that thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69124.  It has been widely debated as to whether the leak is real or not.  Personally, I'm inclined to think it is legit.
No way.

If you check out this link, US News explains that they may change the methodology to factor the PT medians into the overall score, as well as scoring the individual part-time programs. This would explain Fordham's fall.


Here's the quote from the link: Itís important to point out that these new part-time rankings will be in addition to the overall law school rankings that we will continue to publish as we have annually since 1990...

From every article I have read, USNWR is NOT including p/t scores in the f/t rankings. In fact, that's been the talk of the net. Many people are going crazy b/c they feel USNWR has "coppped out" in the end, largely, some say, due to the fact that one of the preverbial T-14 schools (can u guess which one? hint: it's in D.C., enrolls like 550 students and has, DING!, a p/t program!) would succum to one of the schools right "below" it.

USNWR, with its elitist agenda, can't have that, can it?

Besides, even if the p/t scores were merged with the f/t scores, it WOULD NOT explain IUB's sudden rise from #38 to #23 or UC-Davis's leapfrog of 10 spots over UC-Hastings.

CTL

  • ****
  • 1185
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2009, 05:40:54 AM »
It's legit guys.

Top Cat

  • ****
  • 423
  • Ky. born, Ky. bred... when I die, I'll be Ky. dead
    • View Profile
    • LSN Profile
    • Email
Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2009, 06:22:47 AM »
It's legit guys.

Credited.  Over on TLS, they had some people go and confirm it... they have pictures of the book.

CTL

  • ****
  • 1185
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2009, 06:29:01 AM »
GW people will be crying a bunch.  It's one thing to lose the ability to say T20; it's another thing to lose the ability to say T25 as well.  Boo hoo...

bl825

  • ****
  • 541
  • There are just so many reasons to smile.
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2009, 06:36:53 AM »
It's actually the same pic that leaked on TLS last night... I think that's where they took the photo from.  Here's a link to that thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69124.  It has been widely debated as to whether the leak is real or not.  Personally, I'm inclined to think it is legit.
No way.

If you check out this link, US News explains that they may change the methodology to factor the PT medians into the overall score, as well as scoring the individual part-time programs. This would explain Fordham's fall.


Here's the quote from the link: Itís important to point out that these new part-time rankings will be in addition to the overall law school rankings that we will continue to publish as we have annually since 1990...

From every article I have read, USNWR is NOT including p/t scores in the f/t rankings. In fact, that's been the talk of the net. Many people are going crazy b/c they feel USNWR has "coppped out" in the end, largely, some say, due to the fact that one of the preverbial T-14 schools (can u guess which one? hint: it's in D.C., enrolls like 550 students and has, DING!, a p/t program!) would succum to one of the schools right "below" it.

USNWR, with its elitist agenda, can't have that, can it?

Besides, even if the p/t scores were merged with the f/t scores, it WOULD NOT explain IUB's sudden rise from #38 to #23 or UC-Davis's leapfrog of 10 spots over UC-Hastings.

LOL at USNWR's "elitist agenda."

Their only agenda is to sell magazines.  They're only elitist if being so helps them sell.  ;)

CTL

  • ****
  • 1185
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2009, 06:37:53 AM »
It's actually the same pic that leaked on TLS last night... I think that's where they took the photo from.  Here's a link to that thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69124.  It has been widely debated as to whether the leak is real or not.  Personally, I'm inclined to think it is legit.
No way.

If you check out this link, US News explains that they may change the methodology to factor the PT medians into the overall score, as well as scoring the individual part-time programs. This would explain Fordham's fall.


Here's the quote from the link: It’s important to point out that these new part-time rankings will be in addition to the overall law school rankings that we will continue to publish as we have annually since 1990...

From every article I have read, USNWR is NOT including p/t scores in the f/t rankings. In fact, that's been the talk of the net. Many people are going crazy b/c they feel USNWR has "coppped out" in the end, largely, some say, due to the fact that one of the preverbial T-14 schools (can u guess which one? hint: it's in D.C., enrolls like 550 students and has, DING!, a p/t program!) would succum to one of the schools right "below" it.

USNWR, with its elitist agenda, can't have that, can it?

Besides, even if the p/t scores were merged with the f/t scores, it WOULD NOT explain IUB's sudden rise from #38 to #23 or UC-Davis's leapfrog of 10 spots over UC-Hastings.

LOL at USNWR's "elitist agenda."

Their only agenda is to sell magazines.  They're only elitist if being so helps them sell.  ;)

Whenever people use the word 'agenda', I tend to roll my eyes. 

Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2009, 06:50:16 AM »
Thank god these rankings finally came out, some people need to choose what law school they're going to  ::) ::) ::) ::)

bl825

  • ****
  • 541
  • There are just so many reasons to smile.
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2009, 06:54:02 AM »
It's actually the same pic that leaked on TLS last night... I think that's where they took the photo from.  Here's a link to that thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69124.  It has been widely debated as to whether the leak is real or not.  Personally, I'm inclined to think it is legit.
No way.

If you check out this link, US News explains that they may change the methodology to factor the PT medians into the overall score, as well as scoring the individual part-time programs. This would explain Fordham's fall.


Here's the quote from the link: Itís important to point out that these new part-time rankings will be in addition to the overall law school rankings that we will continue to publish as we have annually since 1990...

From every article I have read, USNWR is NOT including p/t scores in the f/t rankings. In fact, that's been the talk of the net. Many people are going crazy b/c they feel USNWR has "coppped out" in the end, largely, some say, due to the fact that one of the preverbial T-14 schools (can u guess which one? hint: it's in D.C., enrolls like 550 students and has, DING!, a p/t program!) would succum to one of the schools right "below" it.

USNWR, with its elitist agenda, can't have that, can it?

Besides, even if the p/t scores were merged with the f/t scores, it WOULD NOT explain IUB's sudden rise from #38 to #23 or UC-Davis's leapfrog of 10 spots over UC-Hastings.

LOL at USNWR's "elitist agenda."

Their only agenda is to sell magazines.  They're only elitist if being so helps them sell.  ;)

Whenever people use the word 'agenda', I tend to roll my eyes. 

To be fair, some people do have an agenda.

My agenda, for example, is to climb out of this hole that I've dug for myself over the past few weeks.

bl825

  • ****
  • 541
  • There are just so many reasons to smile.
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 rankings leaked
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2009, 06:58:38 AM »
At first, I thought you were referring to "LSD" as a whole... And then I'd say good luck to you.

Um, what?