Will Hastings overtake Davis in 2009?

[HappyCritter]

UCI will overtake both by 2029.

UCI might make it out of the third tier by then... Assuming it actually happens.

[Lindbergh]

I found this spreadsheet on another thread.

http://members.aol.com/stuje1/lawrankings.xls

According to it Hastings has only been ranked higher than Davis for two years since 1990 ('99-'00). Even if Hastings were to overtake Davis in '09 I think it will be short lived. Also, even if Hastings were to be ranked higer than Davis in '09 (and maybe even for a few years after), with such a solid history of Davis being slightly higer than Hastings I think professionally Davis will hold more prestige for a for several more years.

With that said, both are great schools, and when it comes down to it I think the biggest difference between them is not the rankings but the programs they offer.

There are 4 years where Davis isn't listed, and therefore presumably wasn't in the top 50.  This would mean Hastings outranked Davis 6 times, not 2 times. 

I also believe (though I'm not certain) that Hastings generally has higher reputation ratings, and therefore more prestige, which is what really matters.

That said, again, Hastings is the school for the Bay area, and Davis is the school for Sacramento.

[1654134681665465]

UCI Law School has its own website. 

[hastingsOK2008]

Eventually yes.  Year 2009 I don’t know.

Year 1992 Hastings (19th ranked) was higher than U Texas 20th)


Former Dean K refused to send in data to US NEWS resulted Hastings rankings as low as 50th.
although Judges and Lawyers Reputations were always in the top 30.

Dean K didn’t like USNEWS, and she graduated from Michigan Law.


Now Hastings got new deans N, it will be better.

1.       Dean N graduated from Hastings.
2.   Dean N tried to get donations. (Money talks)
3.   Submitted accurate data, which made Hastings to 34th.
4.   Bar passing rate(84%) is far better than Davis(73%).  Actually better than SC
5.   New library

[Vapid Unicorn]

Eventually yes.  Year 2009 I don’t know.

Year 1992 Hastings (19th ranked) was higher than U Texas 20th)


Former Dean K refused to send in data to US NEWS resulted Hastings rankings as low as 50th.
although Judges and Lawyers Reputations were always in the top 30.

Dean K didn’t like USNEWS, and she graduated from Michigan Law.

Rumor has it that Hastings over-enrolled through its LEOP program which brought down the numbers, not that they refused to submit them.  I'd be curious to know which it was.

[Guess who's coming to dinner?!?]

Eventually yes.  Year 2009 I don’t know.

Year 1992 Hastings (19th ranked) was higher than U Texas 20th)


Former Dean K refused to send in data to US NEWS resulted Hastings rankings as low as 50th.
although Judges and Lawyers Reputations were always in the top 30.

Dean K didn’t like USNEWS, and she graduated from Michigan Law.

Rumor has it that Hastings over-enrolled through its LEOP program which brought down the numbers, not that they refused to submit them.  I'd be curious to know which it was.

Oh whatever.  Who told you that?  LEOP IS NOT THE REASON HASTINGS RANKS/BAR PASSAGE/ ETC is screwed up.  They just like to blame shift.  Hastings admin is the master at that game. 

FYI:  LEOP has bar passage around 85%.  Also plenty of LEOP students get cali awards (amjur)

[Groundhog]

I think what he meant was that they admitted a good number of people that would not have been admitted via regular admissions, and that lowered their admission statistics, not bar passage or anything.

[hastingsOK2008]

U.S. News Changes Placement Component of Rankings "to Reduce Gamesmanship by Law Schools"
Robert Morse, Director of Data Research at U.S. News & World Report, reports that the placement component of the law school rankings (employment nine months after graduation (14% of the overall ranking) and employed at graduation (4%)) will be changed this year to mirror changes in the ABA's questionnaire "to reduce gamesmanship by law schools":

From Leiter

What the Employment Stats from the Last US News Rankings Would Have Looked Like Under the New Approach
A colleague sent me a revealing chart, showing what the employment stats for the top law schools would have looked like if U.S. News had already been employing the new policy of treating those unemployed but allegedly "not seeking employment" as part of the stats.  UCLA's placement would have fallen from the reported 99.7% to 94.4%, while USC's stats would have fallen from 98.2% to 93.3%!  Those were the biggest changes (5.3 and 4.9 percentage points, respectively), though Michigan and Vanderbilt were close:  Michigan's employmente rate would have dropped from 99.7% to 95.8%, while Vanderbilt's would have gone from 99.0% to 95.5%.  Only Cornell and Stanford would have been unaffected by this change, though the differences for Penn, Duke, Yale, and Columbia would all have been less than 1%.  (Texas, for those curious, would have reported an employment rate 1.2% lower.)

To be sure, there are some graduates of law school who are genuinely not seeking employment--but it has surely not been in the numbers that some schools have been reporting. 

[Lindbergh]

U.S. News Changes Placement Component of Rankings "to Reduce Gamesmanship by Law Schools"
Robert Morse, Director of Data Research at U.S. News & World Report, reports that the placement component of the law school rankings (employment nine months after graduation (14% of the overall ranking) and employed at graduation (4%)) will be changed this year to mirror changes in the ABA's questionnaire "to reduce gamesmanship by law schools":

From Leiter

What the Employment Stats from the Last US News Rankings Would Have Looked Like Under the New Approach
A colleague sent me a revealing chart, showing what the employment stats for the top law schools would have looked like if U.S. News had already been employing the new policy of treating those unemployed but allegedly "not seeking employment" as part of the stats.  UCLA's placement would have fallen from the reported 99.7% to 94.4%, while USC's stats would have fallen from 98.2% to 93.3%!  Those were the biggest changes (5.3 and 4.9 percentage points, respectively), though Michigan and Vanderbilt were close:  Michigan's employmente rate would have dropped from 99.7% to 95.8%, while Vanderbilt's would have gone from 99.0% to 95.5%.  Only Cornell and Stanford would have been unaffected by this change, though the differences for Penn, Duke, Yale, and Columbia would all have been less than 1%.  (Texas, for those curious, would have reported an employment rate 1.2% lower.)

To be sure, there are some graduates of law school who are genuinely not seeking employment--but it has surely not been in the numbers that some schools have been reporting. 

Apparently, Penn and Duke are gaming their placement stats in other ways.

[Zenith Electronics Corp.]

this thread is not approved.