Rankings as measured by USN's 2007 assessment score by lawyer's and judges.

[hastingsOK2008]

PRESTIGE RANKINGS, as measured by USN's 2007 assessment score by lawyer's and judges.

1. Yale

1. Harvard

1 Stanford

4. Columbia

4. U. Chicago

6. NYU (4.6)

6. Michigan

6. UVA

9. Boalt (4.5)

9. UPenn

11. Cornell (4.4)

11. Duke

11. Northwestern

14. Georgetown (4.3)

14. Univ. of Texas

14. Vanderbilt

17. UCLA (4.0)

17. UNC

19. Emory (3.9)

20. GWU (3.

20. U.C.-Hastings

20. Minn.

20. Notre Dame

20. W&L

20. WU-STL

26. Boston Col. (3.7)

26. W&M

26. U. Illinois

26. Iowa

26 USC 

26. Wisconsin

32. Boston U. (3.6)

32. Fordham

32. Ohio State

32. U.C.-Davis 

32. Wake Forest

37. Indiana-BL (3.5)

37. Florida

37. U. Washington


40. Grg Mason (3.4)

40. Tulane

42. American (3.3)

42. Baylor

42. BYU

42. Case-Western

42. SMU

42. Alabama

42. U. Pitt.

42. Villanova


50. Temple (3.2)

50 Colorado

50. Georgia

53. Penn St. (3.1)

53. Rutgers [Both]

53. St. Louis

53. Arizona

53. Kansas

53. Maryland

53. Missouri

53. Oregon

53. Tennessee

62. Arizona St. (3.0)

62. Catholic

62. Florida St.

62. Louisiana St.

62. Loyola-Chicago

62. Seton Hall

62. U. Cincinnati

62. U. Conn

62. U. Kentucky

62. U. Miami

62. Nebraska

62. Oklahoma

62. Michigan St. ***

62. Mississippi ***


76. Loyola-CA (2.9)

76. Marquette

76. Pepperdine

76. U. Richmond

76. South Carolina

76. Utah

76. Yeshiva-Cardozo

76. Syracuse ***

84. Depaul (2.

84. Chicago-Kent

84. Indiana-INDY

84. Santa Clara

84. U. Seattle

84. St. Johns

84. Buffalo-SUNY

84. U. Denver

84. U. Houston

84. U. San Fran.

84. Gonzaga ***

84. Hofstra ***

84. Loyola-NO ***

84. Arkansas ***

84. South Dakota ++++

97. Brooklyn (2.7)

97. Lewis & Clark

97. New Mexico

97. Creighton ***

97. Howard ***

97. U. Wyoming ***

97. Duquesne ++++

97. Valparaiso ++++

[Special Agent Dana Scully]

yay for CLS and Chi!!!

[StudentUVA]

Yay for UVA!
PS: someone should do rankings based on the average of peer assessment/lawyer's judges and student quality as it's measured by the lsat/gpa. Such rankings would be more legit than the current USNEWs.

[Johnny Stuffs His Mouth]

I sure hope this is you; otherwise, I would suggest you stop plagiarizing other people's work and passing it off as your own.

http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=613656&mc=35&forum_id=2#7935379

[The Doctor is IN!]

I sure hope this is you; otherwise, I would suggest you stop plagiarizing other people's work and passing it off as your own.

http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=613656&mc=35&forum_id=2#7935379

Hmm... aren't the numbers for Judge/Lawyer Prestige Rankings readily available via US News (ie. it is one of the rated factors)?

If so, then there's no plagiarizing here and certainly no call for such a charge to be made here.  This person has simply ranked the school according to the US News Judge/Lawyer Prestige Rankings AND this person has cited that these numbers stem from the US News 2007 assessment.

Your charge would be warranted if perhaps the OP used the Preface in the XOXO thread but since the OP doesn't use it, I think your charge is both unjust and overly harsh.

[Johnny Stuffs His Mouth]

I sure hope this is you; otherwise, I would suggest you stop plagiarizing other people's work and passing it off as your own.

http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=613656&mc=35&forum_id=2#7935379

Hmm... aren't the numbers for Judge/Lawyer Prestige Rankings readily available via US News (ie. it is one of the rated factors)?

If so, then there's no plagiarizing here and certainly no call for such a charge to be made here.  This person has simply ranked the school according to the US News Judge/Lawyer Prestige Rankings AND this person has cited that these numbers stem from the US News 2007 assessment.

Your charge would be warranted if perhaps the OP used the Preface in the XOXO thread but since the OP doesn't use it, I think your charge is both unjust and overly harsh.

It was the all-caps of the title PRESTIGE RANKINGS that bothered me; to me, this is clearly the same title as the xoxo post minus THE XOXO. Compare for yourself.

As an added criticism, I find it hard to believe two people would independently label the rankings as USN 2007 numbers when they come from the 2008 rankings.

[The Doctor is IN!]

It was the all-caps of the title PRESTIGE RANKINGS that bothered me; to me, this is clearly the same title as the xoxo post minus THE XOXO. Compare for yourself.

Oh yes because nobody but that XOXO person would ever think to put PRESTIGE RANKINGS in call caps.   

However I don't recall seeing any      in the XOXO post, so I guess those at least are original?

Also the OP has not copied the "Tier/Echelon" divisions found in the XOXO post.

I'm not saying there may not be a case for some parallels but it most certainly is not an exact copy and when you come right down to it, the numbers used are available from US News (i.e. both the XOXO poster and the OP have the same source cited for their data).  The worst that could be said is that the format is similar but the WORK is primarily credited to US News (i.e. the XOXO poster did NOT collect all that data on his or her own).

I suppose I could accept the rather severe charge of plagiarism if the OP had tried to pass off the same sentiments & reasoning that are found in the XOXO post Preface, but that doesn't appear here.  So I think the charge was rather nasty and somewhat uncalled for without more substantial evidence of "theft of ideas".

But then maybe I'm just wary of being the first one to "cast stones"?

Or perhaps I just appreciate the OP's posting of this info since I don't waste my time wading through the CRAP that floods XOXO (you get 1 nugget of useful info for every thousand posts of TTT or racist/sexist remarks or comparisons of female law student "assets" or other such BS!) 

[Johnny Stuffs His Mouth]

It was the all-caps of the title PRESTIGE RANKINGS that bothered me; to me, this is clearly the same title as the xoxo post minus THE XOXO. Compare for yourself.

Oh yes because nobody but that XOXO person would ever think to put PRESTIGE RANKINGS in call caps.   

However I don't recall seeing any      in the XOXO post, so I guess those at least are original?

Also the OP has not copied the "Tier/Echelon" divisions found in the XOXO post.

I'm not saying there may not be a case for some parallels but it most certainly is not an exact copy and when you come right down to it, the numbers used are available from US News (i.e. both the XOXO poster and the OP have the same source cited for their data).  The worst that could be said is that the format is similar but the WORK is primarily credited to US News (i.e. the XOXO poster did NOT collect all that data on his or her own).

I suppose I could accept the rather severe charge of plagiarism if the OP had tried to pass off the same sentiments & reasoning that are found in the XOXO post Preface, but that doesn't appear here.  So I think the charge was rather nasty and somewhat uncalled for without more substantial evidence of "theft of ideas".

But then maybe I'm just wary of being the first one to "cast stones"?

Question then: what do the asterisks and crosses mean?

[botbot]

The poster did not say he did it, nor did he say he copied it.  He just posted a list that some people might be interested in, it is ok not to cite internet message board posts...

[Johnny Stuffs His Mouth]

The poster did not say he did it, nor did he say he copied it.  He just posted a list that some people might be interested in, it is ok not to cite internet message board posts...

Yeah, I suppose you're right... still, I thought something like this counts as copyright infringement? My knowledge of IP is very lmited, but I thought copyright was "granted" automatically.