New LAW SCHOOL RANKINGS & RATINGS by CanadianWolf

[cooleylawstudent]

How is public interest a bad thing? That just shows how stupid the ranking system is.

How do you know?

Well for one thing, there isn't a whole lot of room above Harvard's peer assessment score, is there?  Not enough to compensate for the massive hit that Yale's taking in terms of the NLJ250 rankings due to its clerkship placement rate.

More to the point, I'm not the one trying to establish the validity of a particular rankings scheme.  Find a way to control for percentage of the class going to public interest and clerkships rather than the private sector if you want to get something that accurately reflects job opportunities.

[CanadianWolf]

Clerkships & public interest placement is already accounted for in the USNews employment data. Additionally federal law clerkship is again accounted for in the USNews peer assessment ratings which comprise 40% of the total score.Yale probably receives a very significant boost in its peer assessment ratings for its well deserved law clerkship placement numbers.For the year 2009, Yale placed 68 graduates in clerkships (37%) while Harvard placed 104 equaling over 18% of its law graduates for that year.Stanford placed 23% into clerkships equaling 41 placements.
Because clerkship placements are, probably, accounted for twice by USNews & in the case of Yale & Harvard & Stanford, possibly signifigantly more due to their well known history of substantial numbers of clerkship placements, in addition to the double weighting for the USNews results suggests that additional credit for clerkship placements would be overkill unless both peer assessment scores are deleted from the USNews ratings & USNews rankings are recalculated without peer assessment scores. I had to make a choice & I choose to blend both surveys intact to minimize opinion input. My blended rankings product is not intended to be perfect, just better.

[CanadianWolf]

It is clear that the above two negative posters do not fully understand how the USNews ratings & rankings are created. I believe that once the USNews system is understood, then there should be much less concern about the lack of specific categories for clerkship & public interest placings.After all, how many times can we give credit for clerkship placements as they are already, probably, excessively accounted for for the top three law schools in USNews calculations. Additionally my blended rankings were for the purpose of lucrative job placements immediately (within nine months) after graduation & public interest does not fall within this classification, and, neither does clerkship compensation. Again, not perfect, just better for the stated purpose.

[cooleylawstudent]

I say, the ABA should pick a way to do it and do it. That way it adds legitimacy to it and isn't some Wikki run by a private corporation.

[CanadianWolf]

There is an alternative way of presenting "prestige employment" rankings. Simply combine the National Law Journal placement statistics to the top 250 law firms with the Article III law clerk placements for the same year. I believe that a similiar blending was recently done & Stanford still came out on top, although Yale--to the best of my recollection--was third.

[cooleylawstudent]

Anything short of ABA approval, is no better than the cooley rankings.

[the white rabbit]

How is public interest a bad thing? That just shows how stupid the ranking system is.

It's not, and it doesn't hurt schools (theoretically) in the USNews rankings.  I was just pointing out that it would hurt a school in a ranking of which schools send the highest percentage of graduates to the top 250 law firms.

[the white rabbit]

Clerkships & public interest placement is already accounted for in the USNews employment data. Additionally federal law clerkship is again accounted for in the USNews peer assessment ratings which comprise 40% of the total score.Yale probably receives a very significant boost in its peer assessment ratings for its well deserved law clerkship placement numbers.For the year 2009, Yale placed 68 graduates in clerkships (37%) while Harvard placed 104 equaling over 18% of its law graduates for that year.Stanford placed 23% into clerkships equaling 41 placements.
Because clerkship placements are, probably, accounted for twice by USNews & in the case of Yale & Harvard & Stanford, possibly signifigantly more due to their well known history of substantial numbers of clerkship placements, in addition to the double weighting for the USNews results suggests that additional credit for clerkship placements would be overkill unless both peer assessment scores are deleted from the USNews ratings & USNews rankings are recalculated without peer assessment scores. I had to make a choice & I choose to blend both surveys intact to minimize opinion input. My blended rankings product is not intended to be perfect, just better.

Okay, let's back up and do this again.

I am not taking issue with the USNews rankings.  That's a whole other story. 

You are, as I understand, using the NLJ250 ranking as a proxy for job opportunities at graduation for different schools, is that right?

If so, there's a serious flaw in your rankings because the NLJ250 rankings do not act as such a proxy.  They don't take into account the fact that different percentages of the graduating class at different schools are trying to get these jobs.

What part of the above is incorrect?

[CanadianWolf]

You're beginning to understand.

[the white rabbit]

You're beginning to understand.

LOL.  I notice you didn't answer my question.