USNews 2007 Law School Rankings

[Erapitt]

I think within a year or two they will start including PT data.  At least the schools that PT students are included in the curve.  For GW, there is one curve, so it only makes sense to include them in the data. 

[TheJesus]

I think I can confirm this is a fake...

US News doesn't include (or never has in the past) data from part-time programs, however, that data is included in these numbers for the schools that have part-time programs...

Look at Georgetown, Fordham, GW...

Looks like someone just went through the new ABA data on LSAC.org and just used the information in the 'Total' column...my guess is that they were unaware that US News doesn't include the part-time data...

Wouldn't it be a riot if USNews actually used part-time data this year? A whole bunch of back doors would close.

How do you figure?

[George Jefferson²]

Well, part-time programs tend to have significantly lower numbers than their full time counterparts. If programs are forced to make their part time programs as competitive as their full time programs, because the numbers are computed in ranking data, people sneaking in with lower numbers would be a thing of the past. It is only a "back door" when it is easier.

[Erapitt]

Well, part-time programs tend to have significantly lower numbers than their full time counterparts. If programs are forced to make their part time programs as competitive as their full time programs, because the numbers are computed in ranking data, people sneaking in with lower numbers would be a thing of the past. It is only a "back door" when it is easier.

"significantly lower numbers" is definately not true.  I think the GW numbers are 1 or 2 points different than the FT 75Th percentile.

[TheJesus]

I think within a year or two they will start including PT data.  At least the schools that PT students are included in the curve.  For GW, there is one curve, so it only makes sense to include them in the data. 

Actually, it doesn't make sense to include part-time data, as the numbers for part-time students are generally lower since most have jobs, families, or have been out of school for a number of years and therefor don't have it as easy as full-time students...

And since certain schools have PT programs and others don't, including this data would result in a false comparison of their law program, which is exactly why US News doesn't include it

And the curve a school uses has zilch to do with the data that US News bases it's ranking on

[TheJesus]

Well, part-time programs tend to have significantly lower numbers than their full time counterparts. If programs are forced to make their part time programs as competitive as their full time programs, because the numbers are computed in ranking data, people sneaking in with lower numbers would be a thing of the past. It is only a "back door" when it is easier.

lol, there are so many things wrong with this that I don't know where to begin...

I will only say that you are mixing up cause and effect...think about it some more

Plus, your assertion that PT tend to have significantly lower numbers is not always true...check out the data at LSAC.org for the school I will be attending in the fall, Wayne State University...you will see that PT and FT are pretty much the same

[George Jefferson²]

Well, part-time programs tend to have significantly lower numbers than their full time counterparts. If programs are forced to make their part time programs as competitive as their full time programs, because the numbers are computed in ranking data, people sneaking in with lower numbers would be a thing of the past. It is only a "back door" when it is easier.

"significantly lower numbers" is definately not true.  I think the GW numbers are 1 or 2 points different than the FT 75Th percentile.

I understand that you want to defend youself and your school and your part-time program, annoying people both here and on xo, but give me a break...1-2 points is significant when talking about the LSAT across a large group of people. Does it mean that the people with higher scores are necessarily smarter? Of course not. Does it mean people got in with significantly lower numbers...yes.

Here go the numbers:

Full Time: 166/163 median: 165
Part Time: 164/160 median: 161

If the part time program was considered a full time school for argument sake, with the same rep rating but these numbers, it would be significantly distant from full time GW.

STFU

[George Jefferson²]

Well, part-time programs tend to have significantly lower numbers than their full time counterparts. If programs are forced to make their part time programs as competitive as their full time programs, because the numbers are computed in ranking data, people sneaking in with lower numbers would be a thing of the past. It is only a "back door" when it is easier.

lol, there are so many things wrong with this that I don't know where to begin...

I will only say that you are mixing up cause and effect...think about it some more

Plus, your assertion that PT tend to have significantly lower numbers is not always true...check out the data at LSAC.org for the school I will be attending in the fall, Wayne State University...you will see that PT and FT are pretty much the same

"tend"

[Erapitt]

That really isn't that true since adcomms usually view LSAT scores in ranges of 5's or so.  You see 160-165, 165-170, etc.... 

Nonetheless, it is all irrelevant since I could care less.  I am going PT bc I chose to, not because I have to, so yeah, I guess I do get a bit defensive....  Sorry.

[George Jefferson²]

That really isn't that true since adcomms usually view LSAT scores in ranges of 5's or so.  You see 160-165, 165-170, etc.... 

Nonetheless, it is all irrelevant since I could care less.  I am going PT bc I chose to, not because I have to, so yeah, I guess I do get a bit defensive....  Sorry.

Adcomms may see numbers in groups of "5's" but adcomms =/= USNews