Quote from: CanadianWolf on April 24, 2010, 12:32:39 PMHow 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.
How do you know?
How is public interest a bad thing? That just shows how stupid the ranking system is.
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.
You're beginning to understand.