Rankings are stupid. Calm down. Forum

[breadbucket]

Yes, maybe the firms don't care, and maybe they do care. I do not work for a firm, and therefore I do not know, nor do I pretend to know, what it is they use as criteria for hiring. Why is Yale number one? Who knows. At the end of the day, regardless of rankings, IMHO good schools are considered good schools because of perception. All law schools teach the same things, but its because they are perceived as elite law schools that they are able to attract the best students, the best faculty, and the best employers. I suppose this is not limited to UNSWR, this is a problem with how people find the need to have hierarchical ordering systems. You said it yourself, "Yale is the best law school" and it is the best because it is the best, because people perceive it to be the best. If one day all the 180s applied to cooley, and all the employers OCI at cooley, and all the Harvard Alums go teach at cooley, and everyone put all their faith and money into cooley, then cooley would be the best. The system of law school prestige, regardless of USNWR, is a faith based system. It exists because people believe it exists

Except not. In your system, Cooley would be a damn good school because they would have recruited some of the brightest students and professors/legal minds in the country. Thus, them being seen as awesome would be because they would be awesome, not because people believe its awesome.

You are missing the nuance of my point. Its basically a self fulfilling prophecy. In order for all those 180s, employers, and teachers to go to Cooley; they would have to believe that Cooley was "worth" it. At the point where they all act on that belief, a belief that is based on perception, then their actions make that belief a reality. Then, Cooley does become realistically awesome, but only because people first perceived it to be that way and acted on that perception. Its like God or the Stock Market, Stock doesn't have value until people believe in it, then they give it value. "Oh I think this technology will be awesome, so I put money into it, and then lo and behold because i believed in it it actually did become awesome" Etc.

[WhiteGuy5]

Except that getting a 180 on the LSAT doesn't make you bright. Which is, in and of itself, the perception idea circle effect.

Being bright (e.g. accumulated intelligence, intellectual curiosity, thoughtful reasoning skills, great reading capabilities, intense work ethic and ability to discipline yourself to study/excel on the most learnable standardized test in America ) makes you get a 180.

I think it's safe to say those attributes are what make good law students, if not lawyers--not whether you can put together a conditional reasoning chain and find the contrapositive on question #22 before time runs out.

[JusticeHarlan]

The USNWR rankings are similar to the Nielsen TV ratings. In the case of Nielsen, they survey less than 1% of the population―the other 99% are irrelevant. Argue that flawed method as much as you want, the bottom line is, what Nielsen says is gospel, ditto USNWR. Advertisers pay the BIG bucks to the highest rated shows while the lower rated shows are cancelled. The difference, of course, is that the lower rated law schools are not cancelled, they just march on happily collecting their tuitions.

In a manner of speaking, law firms use USNWR the way advertisers use Nielsen. The T-14, are “must buys” with special consideration to YSH, T-6, and PBV. One could also argue that dropping out of Tier-1 is like having your show going from network to cable.

Law firms do not use USNWR. If USNEWS made ASU a T14 next year and made Duke T2, firms would still recruit heavily at Duke and would still think ASU is a TTT.

USNEWS is a (poor) attempt to gauge the prestige of law schools. Yale isn't elite because USNEWS says so, USNEWS says it's elite because Yale is elite.

The AP college poll doesn't MAKE football teams be good, being good makes them do well on the poll.

The only people who use this is are 0L's, 0L's parents, and werido alumni.

This.

What firms think of law schools is an input, not an output, of the ratings. Considering that only 15% of the rankings are based on that survey, there's gonna be a ton of noise in what comes out. And then add in the fact that only something like 12% of practitioners responded to USNWR anyways, what does that say about how much the vast majority of lawyers actually care about US News?

I'm not defending the rankings, but this is stupid. "Yale isn't good because USNEWS says so, USNEWS says it's good because Yale is good." Exactly...the rankings try to define what is "good/elite" -- and if they aren't measuring it in the objective sense, they are measuring what schools others think are "good," which is the whole point anyway. If it's merely validating the perception people have of these schools, then the rankings DO matter. Duh?

I'll be honest, I read this three times yet I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[breadbucket]

Law firms do not use USNWR. If USNEWS made ASU a T14 next year and made Duke T2, firms would still recruit heavily at Duke and would still think ASU is a TTT.

USNEWS is a (poor) attempt to gauge the prestige of law schools. Yale isn't elite because USNEWS says so, USNEWS says it's elite because Yale is elite.

The AP college poll doesn't MAKE football teams be good, being good makes them do well on the poll.

The only people who use this is are 0L's, 0L's parents, and werido alumni.

This.

What firms think of law schools is an input, not an output, of the ratings. Considering that only 15% of the rankings are based on that survey, there's gonna be a ton of noise in what comes out. And then add in the fact that only something like 12% of practitioners responded to USNWR anyways, what does that say about how much the vast majority of lawyers actually care about US News?

I'm not defending the rankings, but this is stupid. "Yale isn't good because USNEWS says so, USNEWS says it's good because Yale is good." Exactly...the rankings try to define what is "good/elite" -- and if they aren't measuring it in the objective sense, they are measuring what schools others think are "good," which is the whole point anyway. If it's merely validating the perception people have of these schools, then the rankings DO matter. Duh?

I'll be honest, I read this three times yet I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Hes saying the rankings only echo what people already believe, thus if what people believe matters then the rankings also matter

[JoeMo]

You're all talking in circles

[BearsGrl]

Except that getting a 180 on the LSAT doesn't make you bright. Which is, in and of itself, the perception idea circle effect.

Being bright (e.g. accumulated intelligence, intellectual curiosity, thoughtful reasoning skills, great reading capabilities, intense work ethic and ability to discipline yourself to study/excel on the most learnable standardized test in America ) makes you get a 180.

I think it's safe to say those attributes are what make good law students, if not lawyers--not whether you can put together a conditional reasoning chain and find the contrapositive on question #22 before time runs out.

It's just a matter of difference of what I think (as a non-law student so I understand the general ridicule this will get) will be important to a law school student. I weigh the personality skills way more important than the academic skills.

If you can't present an oral argument or even sell yourself to peers and job prospects, the likelihood that you'll influence a jury and have sound written skills becomes far and far less. You can teach anyone to write, at least anyone that wishes to learn. You can't teach people how to network effectively. A person may be able to be taught how to network in certain situations, but it is less likely to become a learned quality in the "rare" opportunities that could potentially matter.

[Renne Walker]

. . .add in the fact that only something like 12% of practitioners responded to USNWR anyway. .

Let me see if I understand this rationality. Less than 1% of all viewers make up the Nielsen survey, and that’s adequate. But only 12% of U.S. lawyers respond to USNWR, and that is not acceptable. You know what, I am not even going to try to respond to that logic . . . it is way too far off the silly screen.

[WhiteGuy5]

I'm not defending the rankings, but this is stupid. "Yale isn't good because USNEWS says so, USNEWS says it's good because Yale is good." Exactly...the rankings try to define what is "good/elite" -- and if they aren't measuring it in the objective sense, they are measuring what schools others think are "good," which is the whole point anyway. If it's merely validating the perception people have of these schools, then the rankings DO matter. Duh?

I'll be honest, I read this three times yet I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Fiar enough. I think if people are debating whether the rankings tell us which schools are "better" than others, then we would have to define "better." That's a very subjective term obviously. Even if we could come up with an objective way to rank them (which is what USNWR is trying to do if you look at their methodology), schools might be "better" for any given applicant depending on their goals/preferences, ya know?

So...in all honesty, as a general rule, I don't think you can use the rankings to say that you will receive a "better" legal education at Harvard than you will at George Washington for example.

But if we're talking about whether the rankings matter in so far as practical considerations go (e.g. employment prospects, what type of opportunities the alumni network will give you, whether OTHERS think you received a "better" legal education, etc.), then I think the rankings DO matter--if for no other reason than the fact that employers/the legal profession think they matter.

ETA: This is fun.

[paratactical]

Thread Title v. Actual Thread

DELETED

[FryBreadPower]

. . .add in the fact that only something like 12% of practitioners responded to USNWR anyway. .

Let me see if I understand this rationality. Less than 1% of all viewers make up the Nielsen survey, and that’s adequate. But only 12% of U.S. lawyers respond to USNWR, and that is not acceptable. You know what, I am not even going to try to respond to that logic . . . it is way too far off the silly screen.

You again are totally misunderstanding how the Nielsen survey works. 1% of the television viewing population randomly selected. Lawyers responding to the USNWR have to choose to respond to the survey, which inherently creates a large amount of bias (they have interests that they are either consciously or subconsciously representing). While you have to choose to participate in the Nielsen survey once picked, what interests are you representing?

[ConfidenceMan2]

Yes, maybe the firms don't care, and maybe they do care. I do not work for a firm, and therefore I do not know, nor do I pretend to know, what it is they use as criteria for hiring. Why is Yale number one? Who knows. At the end of the day, regardless of rankings, IMHO good schools are considered good schools because of perception. All law schools teach the same things, but its because they are perceived as elite law schools that they are able to attract the best students, the best faculty, and the best employers. I suppose this is not limited to UNSWR, this is a problem with how people find the need to have hierarchical ordering systems. You said it yourself, "Yale is the best law school" and it is the best because it is the best, because people perceive it to be the best. If one day all the 180s applied to cooley, and all the employers OCI at cooley, and all the Harvard Alums go teach at cooley, and everyone put all their faith and money into cooley, then cooley would be the best. The system of law school prestige, regardless of USNWR, is a faith based system. It exists because people believe it exists

Except not. In your system, Cooley would be a damn good school because they would have recruited some of the brightest students and professors/legal minds in the country. Thus, them being seen as awesome would be because they would be awesome, not because people believe its awesome.

You are missing the nuance of my point. Its basically a self fulfilling prophecy. In order for all those 180s, employers, and teachers to go to Cooley; they would have to believe that Cooley was "worth" it. At the point where they all act on that belief, a belief that is based on perception, then their actions make that belief a reality. Then, Cooley does become realistically awesome, but only because people first perceived it to be that way and acted on that perception. Its like God or the Stock Market, Stock doesn't have value until people believe in it, then they give it value. "Oh I think this technology will be awesome, so I put money into it, and then lo and behold because i believed in it it actually did become awesome" Etc.

I'm most certainly missing the "nuance" of your point. Are you making the (fairly benign) claim that beliefs (which I'll suppose encompasses things like literal propositional beliefs as well as dispositions, desires, values, etc) drive persons to action (so that action is not an entirely random and arbitrary result of the will or whatever), or are you making the much stronger and in my opinion entirely dubious claim that beliefs (defined however strongly or weakly you want) are somehow, mysteriously, transforming "reality"? You used the example of God; if such a being exists, I'd wager, he exists independently of our perceptions of him. I think maybe you're claiming that "perception and beliefs" influence our value judgments (e.g., is Cooley great or trash?), but that's not a very impressive observation, in terms of having consequences which influence this conversation.

I'm trying to use your language here, which is admittedly difficult, because you seem to think you have an undeniable point but I can't say I know what it is to begin with. I mean, of course people would be choosing to go to Cooley (students/faculty/firms) based on some sort of mixture of perception and belief (in a very general sense of that term). I'm not sure what you think you're refuting here.

I guess you're just saying that Cooley only becomes "objectively awesome" if people first perceive it to be that way.

But that's an entirely questionable claim. It could be, for example, that some Harvard faculty member moves to Detroit due to familial circumstances; seeing something humorous in the situation, they decide to accept a position at Cooley. After a change in administration, Cooley reevaluates its business model, and cuts its class size by 90%. After a game-changing publication by previously mentioned faculty member, a slew of new hires eager to join this new wave, fresh out of Yale, Stanford, and RIGOROUS Chicago, join the ranks of Cooley. Seeing that they've somehow managed, incidentally, to gain an all-star faculty, Cooley's administration changes their LSAT/GPA requirements. Thanks to a generous store of cash from its TTT days, Cooley is able to offer 100% free tuition to a new wave of students with decent numerical statistics in its small class size; the value of these students reaches the ears of local and further away employers, and Cooley has a decent 2020 OCI.

I could go on. This example is ridiculous, but not impossible in any strong sense. And Cooley's value is only being perceived to rise as it actually does rise. So again, not sure what your point here is.

[JusticeHarlan]

. . .add in the fact that only something like 12% of practitioners responded to USNWR anyway. .

Let me see if I understand this rationality. Less than 1% of all viewers make up the Nielsen survey, and that’s adequate. But only 12% of U.S. lawyers respond to USNWR, and that is not acceptable. You know what, I am not even going to try to respond to that logic . . . it is way too far off the silly screen.

You're comparing apples to platypuses. You're comparing response rate for the USNRW survey with a population rate for the Nielson. For this to be analogous, you'd need to say either (A) the number of lawyers in that responded to the USNWR survey are 1% of all the lawyers in the country, or (B) 12% of people asked to take the Nielson survey respond. Do you understand why these aren't the same things?

EDIT: There are other reasons this analogy is stupid, of course. But "12 is bigger than 1 herp derp" is among the worst parts.

[Renne Walker]

. . it’s because they are perceived as elite law schools that they are able to attract the best students, the best faculty, and the best employers.

Well stated. The reasons you so smartly noted are exactly why USNWR is essential. [Most] every law school fights to claw their way up the rankings, or fight to hold their position.

What I mainly question about USNWR is the timing of when they release their rankings. IMHO, because UGs are deciding on “what law school” I would think Oct/Nov would be best, but there might be some blowback on that, not sure.

[JusticeHarlan]

I think if people are debating whether the rankings tell us which schools are "better" than others, then we would have to define "better." That's a very subjective term obviously. Even if we could come up with an objective way to rank them (which is what USNWR is trying to do if you look at their methodology), schools might be "better" for any given applicant depending on their goals/preferences, ya know?

True. Most people, however, would say that better = better job prospects. It's a professional schools, after all, and pretty much everyone agrees you don't really learn the practice of law in law school, whether you go to Yale, Cooley, or anywhere in between.

But if we're talking about whether the rankings matter in so far as practical considerations go (e.g. employment prospects, what type of opportunities the alumni network will give you, whether OTHERS think you received a "better" legal education, etc.), then I think the rankings DO matter--if for no other reason than the fact that employers/the legal profession think they matter.

The fact is, there's no support for the bolded. If you have some, I'd love to see it. Let's go back to the original point: is ASU gonna have better jobs prospects now and WashU worse? I don't see it.

[BearsGrl]

I think if people are debating whether the rankings tell us which schools are "better" than others, then we would have to define "better." That's a very subjective term obviously. Even if we could come up with an objective way to rank them (which is what USNWR is trying to do if you look at their methodology), schools might be "better" for any given applicant depending on their goals/preferences, ya know?

True. Most people, however, would say that better = better job prospects. It's a professional schools, after all, and pretty much everyone agrees you don't really learn the practice of law in law school, whether you go to Yale, Cooley, or anywhere in between.

But if we're talking about whether the rankings matter in so far as practical considerations go (e.g. employment prospects, what type of opportunities the alumni network will give you, whether OTHERS think you received a "better" legal education, etc.), then I think the rankings DO matter--if for no other reason than the fact that employers/the legal profession think they matter.

The fact is, there's no support for the bolded. If you have some, I'd love to see it. Let's go back to the original point: is ASU gonna have better jobs prospects now and WashU worse? I don't see it.

I thought the ASU thing was just a joke begging for snark to respond. No?

[WhiteGuy5]

But if we're talking about whether the rankings matter in so far as practical considerations go (e.g. employment prospects, what type of opportunities the alumni network will give you, whether OTHERS think you received a "better" legal education, etc.), then I think the rankings DO matter--if for no other reason than the fact that employers/the legal profession think they matter.

The fact is, there's no support for the bolded. If you have some, I'd love to see it. Let's go back to the original point: is ASU gonna have better jobs prospects now and WashU worse? I don't see it.

I don't know where they specifically land on the rankings (I'm presuming they're close). But...no--I think the "general perception" I was talking about does not change dramatically from year to year, nor does it change by individual ranks. Schools tend to be placed in broad clusters. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2; within Tier 1: Top 50 vs. Top 100; within top 50: Top 20-30 vs. Top 50; within the Top 20-30: T14 vs. Top 20-30; within the T14: T6/HYS vs. T14.

I don't think there is a "general perception" that Stanford is better than Harvard, or that Chicago is better than NYU--nor does anyone seriously argue such things (even on TLS, people tend to understand how futile that is).

So...minor changes in rankings from year to year do nothing. At best they might indicate a "trend," but even then...I don't think anyone REALLY thinks Michigan is going south, do they?

The evidence for the bolded is 1) where would you go to law school if you could pick ANY one of them at the same price? 2) biglaw/clerkship chances/placement data, 3) what sounds cooler: I went to Columbia or I went to Northwestern?

I think that's pretty fair brah.

[ASAP]

I just can't wait to hang out with lawl students next year.

[BearsGrl]

I just can't wait to hang out with lawl students next year.

Not applying til Fall of 2013?

[romothesavior]

The derp in this thread is just overwhelming.

[Antilles Haven]

The derp in this thread is just overwhelming.

Renee won me over with:

Let me see if I understand this rationality. Less than 1% of all viewers make up the Nielsen survey, and that’s adequate. But only 12% of U.S. lawyers respond to USNWR, and that is not acceptable. You know what, I am not even going to try to respond to that logic . . . it is way too far off the silly screen.

[t14fanboy]

God that pic of the 2 girls scares me so much.

[BearsGrl]

God that pic of the 2 girls scares me so much.

It shouldn't. I took a LSAT prep class with a girl that wasn't too far off from those gals in the looks department. She's actually a good friend of mine now. She took the June LSAT and started this past Fall. She should've waited to apply as she would've been more competitive but she was anxious about starting anywhere as she's pretty set on where she's going to be working after school.

I should say that my friend knows more about fashion than these two but if you went by looks alone, she's on par. But obviously with less roots issues. More Barbie and labels though. Maybe she's not anything like these two - haha.

[ephemeral.bete.noire]

God that pic of the 2 girls scares me so much.

It shouldn't. I took a LSAT prep class with a girl that wasn't too far off from those gals in the looks department. She's actually a good friend of mine now. She took the June LSAT and started this past Fall. She should've waited to apply as she would've been more competitive but she was anxious about starting anywhere as she's pretty set on where she's going to be working after school.

I should say that my friend knows more about fashion than these two but if you went by looks alone, she's on par. But obviously with less roots issues. More Barbie and labels though. Maybe she's not anything like these two - haha.

Awesome!

[yngblkgifted]

TLS people seem to live in this reality where because they find UNSWR to be corrupt, flawed, and/or not credible that means the rankings are useless. However, if you ever happen to study communication/rhetorical criticism, you'll learn that perception is indeed reality.

But the thing is, few people outside of law school deans and prospective students perceive them as important. Yes, you're right that law is a prestige-whoring industry, but it doesn't follow that the USNWR rankings are therefore meaningful. HYS are the most prestigious schools in the country because they are the best, not because USNWR says they're the best. Cooley doesn't suck because it is a TTTT according to USNWR, they suck because they are a laughingstock of a school. You're conflating the cause and the effect.

I entered WUSTL when it was ranked 18th. If I graduate from WUSTL when it is a T23 or something, it will have virtually no impact on the value of my degree, and no impact on the job prospects of myself or my peers. That's what we mean when we say rankings are meaningless; they have no real world impact on the students at the school. No firm is going to start pulling out of OCI because of fluctuations in rankings or valuing degrees more or less because of USNWR. Look at the NLJ 250 statistics over the past 5 years, and then compare that to the USNWR rankings. You'll see that fluctuations in USNWR have not impacted how schools place relative to their peers. Again, USNWR is a rough proxy for job placement, but it is not a driver for job placement.

You guys can repeat this "perception = reality" schtick ad naseum, and maybe there is some truth to it in the abstract, but until people outside of the hordes of mouth-breathing 0Ls start perceiving them as important, then the reality is that they aren't that important.

+1

While my job opportunities are different than those of the T14 peeps, fact is that my schools local rep allows us to have job opportunities that are comparable with being in a school ranked 15-30 despite being a low T2. Employers come there because we are local, they hired us for internships, they went there, and they teach there. Also because not many elite grads want to live here. So we do OK. Perception=reality, sure.... but the employers don't give a shit about USNWR rankings, the perceive what the other attorneys in this market see. That is their reality. It doesn't really have shit to do rankings.

ETA; also, why I am arguing in here with the mouth-breathing 0Ls who think they have some sort of philosophical ultimate truth (perception=reality) answer that the fricking 1-3Ls don't have after having ACTUALLY BEEN IN the schools and job market?

Dear TLS: please get over yourself. Rankings don't mean shit. Employers don't care, clients don't care, only your momma and pretentious friend from (insert Ivy league) care! Please get over your vault rankings, your NLJ 250, and US New rankings. NONE of them mean anything. The law might be a prestige-whoring industry, but so is I-Banking, Consulting, and many others. It is what it is. But none of it means anything. So WUSTL is ranked 23, who cares. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? What exactly does going to a school ranked 15 - 25 get you that a school ranked 45-65 get you?

Someone goes to WUSTL...

[stillwater]

LOL, the rankings are everything, LOL