GW v. Vandy with $

[bamf]

also, at GW the smaller writing class is primarily taught by a TA.  This doesn't happen at schools with a smaller overall incoming class

[dcforlife]

also, at GW the smaller writing class is primarily taught by a TA.  This doesn't happen at schools with a smaller overall incoming class

I knew it was partially, but not primarily taught by a TA. What more had you heard? I'm curious after hearing some horror stories from another DC law school.

[bamf]

What I was told by Dean Richard was that there is a prof who supervises the class, as in tells the TA what to do and meets with the class possibly once a week? but that the majority of teaching is done by the TA.  This was several months ago, though, so I would look into it more closely if you are considering GW.  The huge class size was one of the main reasons I didn't take GW.

[dcforlife]

Ah, gotcha. The class size thing doesn't bother me because I went to a huge place for college, but a larger role for the so-called "Dean's Fellow" over a professor is a bit strange.

[Mr. Burnz]

also, at GW the smaller writing class is primarily taught by a TA.

That's just flat out wrong.  My good friend at GW says EVERY writing section has about 12 kids and meets twice a week: once with an Adjunct Professor who is a practicing local attorney, and once with a 3L "Dean's Fellow" who teaches how to use Lexis/Westlaw, how to bluebook, and other law school tips for 1Ls (outlining, exam taking, etc.).  He says they use a "Fail < Low Pass < Pass < High Pass" scale, but that no one ever gets low passes or fails....so that's kinda cool.

[OhHellYeah]

rankings are retarded

employers don't so much look at the USNWR rankings themselves as they do at the median LSAT / GPA for the particular class that they are recruiting from.

as far as i know, Vandy and GW are virtually identical on these two counts... they are 100% peer schools.

your choice should thus be determined by other factrs - such as COL, preference of locale, etc., etc.

Rankings are retarded? Really? Then surely you can tell me why they still are so important. Rankings indicate prestige - this is a fact. It doesn't encompass the entire prestige of a school, but it certainly is a huge factor.

As far as your contention that median LSAT/GPA are the same for GW and Vanderbilt, this is slightly misleading. It's like saying oh well gosh, Georgetown and Chicago are virtually the same in terms of median GPA and LSAT, so they are peer schools. In fact, the percentile difference between Chicago (171 - 98th) and Georgetown (169 - 97th) is the same as Vanderbilt and George Washington's (166/94 vs. 165/93).

But I don't think anyone would say that Georgetown and Chicago are necessarily peer schools. In some ways, perhaps, they are. But there is definitely a reason why Chicago consistently ranks in the top half of the T14 and why Georgetown consistently is the reason the T14 exists in the first place.

The same thing goes with Vanderbilt and George Washington. They are peer schools in many respects, definitely. In terms of the quality of the faculty, probably very similar. The students probably are not the same quality - remember that a good portion of the GW class is part-time. Also remember that GW is the "second-best law school in D.C.," a burden which it has to constantly shoulder. It has been increasing in prestige in recent years, but it has not been a solid, historically prestigious school with deep connections to firms and power players. Someday perhaps.

[bamf]

also, at GW the smaller writing class is primarily taught by a TA.

That's just flat out wrong.  My good friend at GW says EVERY writing section has about 12 kids and meets twice a week: once with an Adjunct Professor who is a practicing local attorney, and once with a 3L "Dean's Fellow" who teaches how to use Lexis/Westlaw, how to bluebook, and other law school tips for 1Ls (outlining, exam taking, etc.).  He says they use a "Fail < Low Pass < Pass < High Pass" scale, but that no one ever gets low passes or fails....so that's kinda cool.

ok, so, its not taught by a real professor ...

[dcforlife]

I suppose it depends on how you define a "real" professor. At my undergrad you were either full-time or adjunct -- more than half in the latter category. In my experience, full-time profs were much more likely to be worse than adjuncts (though I had stinkers in both categories). The adjunct that taught my undergrad con law class was a former EPA man and in addition to being the best professor I had all through college, he was the guy that made me decide to go to law school.

[Gary Glitter]

Rankings are retarded? Really? Then surely you can tell me why they still are so important. Rankings indicate prestige - this is a fact. It doesn't encompass the entire prestige of a school, but it certainly is a huge factor.

As far as your contention that median LSAT/GPA are the same for GW and Vanderbilt, this is slightly misleading. It's like saying oh well gosh, Georgetown and Chicago are virtually the same in terms of median GPA and LSAT, so they are peer schools. In fact, the percentile difference between Chicago (171 - 98th) and Georgetown (169 - 97th) is the same as Vanderbilt and George Washington's (166/94 vs. 165/93).

But I don't think anyone would say that Georgetown and Chicago are necessarily peer schools. In some ways, perhaps, they are. But there is definitely a reason why Chicago consistently ranks in the top half of the T14 and why Georgetown consistently is the reason the T14 exists in the first place.

The same thing goes with Vanderbilt and George Washington. They are peer schools in many respects, definitely. In terms of the quality of the faculty, probably very similar. The students probably are not the same quality - remember that a good portion of the GW class is part-time. Also remember that GW is the "second-best law school in D.C.," a burden which it has to constantly shoulder. It has been increasing in prestige in recent years, but it has not been a solid, historically prestigious school with deep connections to firms and power players. Someday perhaps.

why you think PT composition and "2nd best" has any bearing on the quality of student is beyond me

like i said, employers look to the #ers

and though you may think that a 166 is significantly superior to a 165, you are more or less alone in that capacity as most people, at least those in a position of hiring power, are familiar with the concept of stnd deviation and know that exact #ers are only really predictive of ranges

as far as your GT / UChi comparison goes, sure - the incoming classes are more or less equal is most relevant capacities and yet there is a difference in the ranking - but what does this really mean? in terms of employability, close to nothing. a GT grad is more or less on equal footing in terms of biglaw placement as a UChi grad - regional preferences aside. sure, UChi might have a more "academic" focus and thus places more into academica, but that is more of an institutional element as opposed to some sort of indicia of quality. those who want to teach go to certain institutions...the quality of the institution is really defined by the quality of the incoming students.

basically Vandy, GW, USC, BC, BU, UMinn, W&L, WUSTL, ND, Fordham, Emory and maybe W&M are basically the exact same school in terms of employment opportunities upon graduation - if you don't believe me go to nalp.org and research firms and where they conduct their OCIs...

[OhHellYeah]

Wow, how did you get into Harvard and Stanford?

"Employers look at the #ers." Great. No one disputes this, and I did not. I disputed the fact that this was the only thing they looked at, and that the numbers were entirely revealing.

Secondly, I never said there was a major difference between 166 and 165. I said there was as big of a difference between 166 and 165 as there is between 171 and 169 when it comes to percentiles.

basically Vandy, GW, USC, BC, BU, UMinn, W&L, WUSTL, ND, Fordham, Emory and maybe W&M are basically the exact same school in terms of employment opportunities upon graduation - if you don't believe me go to nalp.org and research firms and where they conduct their OCIs...

You're just wrong. You're including schools in there that aren't even comparable, and leaving out some schools which you should've been including (Texas, UCLA, have the same employment as Vanderbilt and USC, for instance, under your theory). This is ridiculous. I'm well aware of nalp - you apparently don't know how to interpret data or understand the differences in prestige are both quantitative AND qualitative.

What were you...a URM admit?