Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings  (Read 10330 times)

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #30 on: April 25, 2009, 12:46:06 PM »

Brooklyn could clear this up by explaining. 

Maybe they don't know what happened. Maybe they've asked USNWR what happened, and haven't gotten a response. Maybe USNWR has told them that they're going to address it. Maybe they don't feel the need to respond to a third-rate blog with an unattractive web design that chose "Brooklyn must have flat-out lied!" as the most likely explanation and then spammed every dean listed on the website demanding an accounting for their ranking and perceived discrepancies.

Of course, the party better able to explain this is UNSWR itself. They are, one can [more] reasonably surmise [than one could surmise that Brooklyn just decided to pretend their part time program doesn't exist], aware that Brooklyn has a part time program, given the inclusion of part-time statistics in their information about Brooklyn, and they also note that there are 87 part time schools, but only include 85 in the rankings. They know what Brooklyn reported and, presumably, what they did with that information.

Is it possible that Brooklyn neglected to include their part-time statistics in the reported information, either intentionally or mistakenly? Sure. Is it particularly likely? Well, I would hope that the people in charge realize that it would be rather obvious to do so, given the separate part-time rankings and what one would hope to be very basic fact-checking on the part of USNWR. If you're going to consciously game the rankings via incorrect data reporting, most people wouldn't do it in the most obvious manner possible in the year that a new rankings methodology is released. Of course, this kind of reasoning seems to be above the individual in charge of the blog. But then, what can you expect from a parent company that also thought that "Life at 160" business was worth publishing (but not updating? Did they just steal it from somewhere? Probably).

Should we be asking why there is this discrepancy? Of course. But that doesn't make these kinds of assumptions and accusations reasonable - or anything other than sensationalist pseudo-journalism on the part of Law School Headlines.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #31 on: April 25, 2009, 01:00:06 PM »
Thank you, SBA.

Correct that I have no blog. 

US News only lists 25th -75th percentile with its rankings -- and if Brooklyn's data published elsewhere is correct the 25th percentile should be 159 rather than 162 -- a big difference. 

It is just that the overly reported LSAT score looks like the one thing that makes Brooklyn ranked so high.  Look at Brooklyn's bar passage rate --it is worse than a number of NY schools behind them in the rankings -- St. Johns, Hofstra, NYLS, Albany and Pace -- and Pace is in the 4th tier. 

Brooklyn could clear this up by explaining.  But it benefits from silence -- US News published something so it must be true. 

1. You're right: Assuming there is an error, Brooklyn could probably clear it up by issuing an explanatory press release.  One of the reasons it hasn't may be that it benefits from the error, as you suggest.  (Note that this is not the same as Brooklyn trying to perpetrate some fraud on applicants by lying to USNWR.)  As SBA suggested, USNWR may be planning to address the error, or Brooklyn may be working with USNWR to correct the error jointly.  Finally, it may not know what happened because the error may be USNWR's.  Law schools are notoriously risk-averse.  The last thing they want is to issue a press release that can later be proven wrong in any way.  Brooklyn, in particular, is rather ham-fisted and slow to respond to controversy (some theorize because of the dean's paranoia).  So I am just not in any way surprised that Brooklyn hasn't hopped to respond to the scattered blog posts (all quoting LSH) about this.  It may be a failing, sure, but transparency is not big in law school communications, generally.

2. I haven't seen any published data anywhere for the full + part-time LSAT numbers for the class entering in 2008.  The 159 25th percentile is from the 2007 entering class. It may be the same for the 2008 entering class, but there are various reasons it may have changed, including the record number of merit scholarships awarded and accepted last year (creating higher-index yield), specific efforts to recruit higher-LSAT candidates because of the change in the rankings, and normal fluctuations.  In any case, without knowing the distributions LSAT scores in the bottom quartile of the full-time class and the top and middle quartiles of the part-time class, you cannot assume that the 25th percentile of the entire 2008 entering class is 159.  

3. No, 159 and 162 are not substantially different.  They're in the same scoreband, for instance.  Also, fully 25 schools ranked above Brooklyn have 25th percentile LSATs at or below 159, starting with Indy-Bloomington at number 23.  (I have listed them at the end of this post.)  Villanova, tied with Brooklyn, has a 25th percentile LSAT at 160 (where I would guess Brooklyn's is), and a 75th percentile of 163, Brooklyn's median.

4. Regardless, the middle 50% LSAT range no longer determines the rankings.  I do think it's useful information for applicants who are trying to judge their chances of admission; if the numbers are wrong, USNWR should correct them.  But the rankings are based on medians.  Brooklyn's reported median is 163.  It may be as low as 162.  It's a pretty high score.

5. I don't have a subscription to USNWR, so I cannot answer your claims about the relative bar passage rates and their weight in the rankings.  I do know that some of the lower-ranked law schools in the region recently improved their bar-passage rates by instituting bar-only curricula that deprive their students of the opportunity to get meaningful exposure to real legal work through clinical programs.  I also know that a much higher percentage of Brooklyn JDs take the bar in their first opportunity following graduation.  Regardless, Brooklyn's bar-passage rate is not low by any means. Last year, it was 91% (and above Hofstra, Pace, et al.).

***

Schools ranked at or above 61 with 25th percentile LSATs at or below 159:

23 Indy Bloomington 156-165
26 Iowa 158-164
30 Alabama 158-165
30 UNC 157-163
30 University of Washington 159-166
35 Ohio State 159-164
35 UC-Davis 158-163
35 Georgia 159-164
35 UW-Madison 157-163
43 Arizona 159-164
45 American 159-163
45 Tulane 159-163
45 Utah 157-162
49 SMU 154-165
49 Cardozo 159-165

51 UF 156-162
52 FSU 157-161
52 Cincy 156-162
52 UConn 156-162
55 ASU 156-162
55 Case 156-160
55 Pepperdine 158-162
55 Kentucky 157-162
59 Houston 157-163
59 Tennessee 154-161

61 L&C 157-163
61 USD 158-162
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

botbot

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2840
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #32 on: April 25, 2009, 01:01:43 PM »
This is what I know in regards to the above post.

Life at 160 isn't a live blog.  The book publisher that picked it up is holding up the next two chapters from being posted on the web. 

Edit:  blog@subtledig.com - email them about it.  I bet they would respond or, at least, issue a press release  ;)

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2009, 01:08:18 PM »
This is what I know in regards to the above post.

Life at 160 isn't a live blog.  The book publisher that picked it up is holding up the next two chapters from being posted on the web. 

Edit:  blog@subtledig.com - email them about it.  I bet they would respond or, at least, issue a press release  ;)

Wait, you mean there are explanations for things other than intentional dishonesty? Slap me silly and call me Susan!

botbot

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2840
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2009, 01:15:28 PM »
Things sure are cleared up quickly when someone "in-the-know" addresses them....

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2009, 01:26:02 PM »
Things sure are cleared up quickly when someone "in-the-know" addresses them....

And see above for reasons that BLS just might not be in a position (or the best position) to do so. I hardly think that it's reasonable for them/you/viking quest/anyone else to expect LSH to be the Great Accountability Holder in this (or any other) instance. Its position in the blogging world is hardly such that anyone would feel particularly compelled to immediately issue a statement refuting spurious accusations, particularly in a situation where further information may well need to be gathered before such a statement can be issued.

Again, the question of what happened is reasonable and important. The assumptions and accusations? Not so much.

whartonn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2009, 01:32:45 PM »
Take a look at the new Brooklyn Law School rankings.  For every other school, they have combined full time and part time LSAT scores in the main rankings.  Not for Brooklyn.  They use just the full time scores.  And for the part-time rankings?  Brooklyn is not even listed.   So what's the story?  Did Brooklyn not tell US News about its part-time folks, or did US News screw up?  A correction seems to be in order here -- Brooklyn should probably have gone down in the rankings with the new formula rather than up.

That's a good point. Why isn't Brooklyn law even listed among the part-time rankings?

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2009, 02:17:36 PM »
Take a look at the new Brooklyn Law School rankings.  For every other school, they have combined full time and part time LSAT scores in the main rankings.  Not for Brooklyn.  They use just the full time scores.  And for the part-time rankings?  Brooklyn is not even listed.   So what's the story?  Did Brooklyn not tell US News about its part-time folks, or did US News screw up?  A correction seems to be in order here -- Brooklyn should probably have gone down in the rankings with the new formula rather than up.

That's a good point. Why isn't Brooklyn law even listed among the part-time rankings?

No one here knows.  There is clearly an error.  USNWR says it ranked 87 part-time programs, and it only lists 85.  It also lists some data about Brooklyn's part-time program under Brooklyn's general listing, so the editors are obviously aware that Brooklyn has a part-time program that makes up approximately 30% of each incoming class.  (Only about 10% of the class graduates from the part-time program; most shift into the full-time program by graduation.)
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

botbot

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2840
    • View Profile
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2009, 02:22:25 PM »
And for the record, since the sd and LSH guys have seen this thread.

I think LSH is perfectly attractive website.

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: Brooklyn's Incorrect US News Rankings
« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2009, 04:45:14 PM »
US News published something so it must be true. 


ummmmm noooooooo, just becuase its published does not mean it true. Also the only thing we know for sure is UNEWS made a mistake, as they say 87 but only list 85, either they made a mistake and meant 85, or they made a miatske and meant 87, but only published 85. Either way that's published, that's US news mistake and it can't both be true. I really hope your a pre-law becuase this is really bad reasoning all the way around.

He was being facetious.  He's saying the mistake (if it is a mistake) regarding the reported LSAT score can only benefit Brooklyn because many people won't bother to check.   Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

Why I dun finished law schoolz, I gots job, self esteem, money, great online personality and people like me. You gotz = reading comprehension.

I win.
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.