New USNWR law school rankings

[retired711]

The rankings will disclose that Rutgers-Newark moved down from 83 to I think 87. Rutgers-Camden tumbled from 81 to 102. Our acting dean spent a lot of time trying to explain this to the faculty today. He pointed out that there are areas in which Camden was much better than Newark i.e. an 83% bar passage rate at Camden vs. 70% at Newark. He thinks what probably killed us was a one-point decline in the first-year class LSAT median, caused both by shrinking applications and (my guess) by the University's insistence that we enroll 180 students in the first year class this year. The University seems to have agreed that next year we will enroll no more than 160 first-year students and possibly fewer.

We'll have to see whether the merger of the law schools changes anything. For one thing, it is thought that having the law schools merge will decrease the size of the enrollments.

Just figured I'd give people a heads-up

 

[retired711]

BTW, NIRH will be interested to learn that Fordham is the most heavily attended law school for Rutgers graduates.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Was that data from the dean? Or USNWR because they claim it's coming out tomorrow.

I would have guess SHU, but if it's Fordham, thats awesome. Fordham was at the time, and either still is or close to it, the 15th toughest school to get into in America, just outside that golden T14. Which goes to show, RU is a great path to grad eschool especially in NYC

I'll reserve the rest of my commentary until seeing full rankings tomorrow.

 

[Jim_from_RU]

87 and 102 is just completely unacceptable.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[lawmatt78]

Michigan is apparently out of the top 10 now. I don't think that's ever happened before. It was ranked 7th when I attended, and even higher at one point.

Despite all the issues with these rankings, and the arbitrariness of that distinction, this still annoys me.

This post was edited on 3/9 9:14 PM by lawmatt78

 

[Jim_from_RU]

F Michigan.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[sct1111]

There is absolutely no reason a flagship state school the size, scope and caliber of Rutgers should have law schools ranked this low.

 

[RU MAN]

Originally posted by sct1111:
There is absolutely no reason a flagship state school the size, scope and caliber of Rutgers should have law schools ranked this low.

What's sad is that Rutgers-Newark use to be ranked in the 40's not too long ago. I know this topic has been talked to death here, but I would like to see one consolidated school that gets the best of the best in both students and professors. There is no reason Rutgers Law shouldn't be a top 30 school.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Was that data from the dean? Or USNWR because they claim it's coming out tomorrow.

I would have guess SHU, but if it's Fordham, thats awesome. Fordham was at the time, and either still is or close to it, the 15th toughest school to get into in America, just outside that golden T14. Which goes to show, RU is a great path to grad eschool especially in NYC

I'll reserve the rest of my commentary until seeing full rankings tomorrow.

The Dean was speaking because USNWR is about to come out. I don't know the source of the data for sure, but my guess is that it was coming from USNWR.

 

[srru86]

A little OT and dire but...

Washington Post
Law schools are in a death spiral. Maybe now they'll finally change. - JD programs are facing dwindling applicants and a lousy job market for their grads.

Not sure about the prediction that a "top" law school will close in the next 3 years. I won't be surprised to see more of the bottom ranked ones fold up their tent.

 

[retired711]

That's not at all OT. The decline in applications (caused in large part, we think) by the mediocre job market) is part of the problem. It is hard to know, though, whether a major law school will close down, but I do expect to see mergers that amount to takeovers by one law school of another.

 

[Leonard23]

Like MBB, the University stopped caring about its Law Schools decades ago. Just close both already & relocate to NB... Now, onto the rankings released this am:

How is Alabama so highly rated at #22? Same question for Iowa @ #22 & ASU @ #26?

Temple @ #52 is where we should be now.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by Leonard23:
Like MBB, the University stopped caring about its Law Schools decades ago. Just close both already & relocate to NB... Now, onto the rankings released this am:

How is Alabama so highly rated at #22? Same question for Iowa @ #22 & ASU @ #26?

Temple @ #52 is where we should be now.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I would guess that all three are the primary law school for their state. Rutgers is not. If you live in Iowa and aren't an elite law student, you probably go to Iowa, because the only other optin is Drake.

Alabama has Bama, Samford, and Birmingham.

Arizona has has ASU and Arizona.

On top of that, this fact likely means that the law schools have alot of support among the state legislators, considering more of them are likely to have gone there.

RU should be higher - but severe underinvestment, and lots of competition are not a good combo. Plus frankly, I think RU doesnt really care about these rankings - in other words - there are things RU could do to raise its rankings, but dont, because they feel they have another mission that isnt about being a mid-level law school.

 

[retired711]

Iowa has a very fine law school. It has no trouble attracting applications from out-of-state. Iowa City is a very nice town and the campus is beautiful. The state also has a strong tradition of supporting public higher education even though the University is probably larger than the state needs for its own residents.

As I have pointed out before, RU-Newark's high ranking was a one-time event caused by their distortion of their admission practices.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Iowa has a very fine law school. It has no trouble attracting applications from out-of-state. Iowa City is a very nice town and the campus is beautiful. The state also has a strong tradition of supporting public higher education even though the University is probably larger than the state needs for its own residents.

As I have pointed out before, RU-Newark's high ranking was a one-time event caused by their distortion of their admission practices.

Yes. Im sure thats true. But I would argue that to be a top state U (outside of the really hig hend ones) you first need to make sure you are the first choice in your state. RU isnt for alot of reasons - but competition is one - Villanova, Penn, Drexel, Temple, are just over the border from Camden, Brooklyn, CUNY, Columbia, Fordham, NYU, Cardazo, Saint Johns, and arguably Hofstra and Pace are right over the Hudson. Plus SHU.

And of course the two schools also compete with each other for students and resources.

 

[retired711]

making your law school the best in the state is the best strategy to becoming the #1 choice. Maybe a merged Rutgers law school can do that. But it will need more $$ than the University has ever invested in legal education.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
making your law school the best in the state is the best strategy to becoming the #1 choice. Maybe a merged Rutgers law school can do that. But it will need more $$ than the University has ever invested in legal education.

Yes - of course. Like I said - underinvestment coupled WITH lots of competition is a recipe for poor results. J

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by Jim_from_RU:
F Michigan.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

That's the spirit, Jimmie.

 

[Jim_from_RU]

You're always prancing around here bragging about Michigan. Screw them! I care about Rutgers.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by Jim_from_RU:
You're always prancing around here bragging about Michigan. Screw them! I care about Rutgers.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

+1.

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by Jim_from_RU:
You're always prancing around here bragging about Michigan. Screw them! I care about Rutgers.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

The point wasn't to brag about Michigan - especially considering the news was negative. The point was about how much these changes impact perception, often in irrational ways. I'm simply reporting my own reaction to this news - i.e., I'm annoyed by a very minor drop, outside an arbitrary group, even though I really shouldn't be. That's all, Jim.

There is a near obsession, even among otherwise reasonable people, with what tier or group (top 10, the "T-14," top 20, etc.) a law school is in. I'm sure NIRH and others would concur on that.

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by srru86:
A little OT and dire but...

Washington Post
Law schools are in a death spiral. Maybe now they'll finally change. - JD programs are facing dwindling applicants and a lousy job market for their grads.

Not sure about the prediction that a "top" law school will close in the next 3 years. I won't be surprised to see more of the bottom ranked ones fold up their tent.

It would be stunning to see a "top" (or even decent) school close, but, I think more of the marginal ones are likely to go. They are bilking students and leaving them w/ minimal job prospects, so good riddance to them.

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Was that data from the dean? Or USNWR because they claim it's coming out tomorrow.

I would have guess SHU, but if it's Fordham, thats awesome. Fordham was at the time, and either still is or close to it, the 15th toughest school to get into in America, just outside that golden T14. Which goes to show, RU is a great path to grad eschool especially in NYC

I'll reserve the rest of my commentary until seeing full rankings tomorrow.

By the way - a certain repeatedly-banned poster on the main board was (obviously) way off when he called Fordham a bottom-tier school, or something to that effect. That was one of the more bizarre insults I've seen hurled around here.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
making your law school the best in the state is the best strategy to becoming the #1 choice. Maybe a merged Rutgers law school can do that. But it will need more $$ than the University has ever invested in legal education.

Yes - of course. Like I said - underinvestment coupled WITH lots of competition is a recipe for poor results. J

Fordham is an excellent school, but hardly anyone would claim it is the "best" school in NYC. NYU and Columbia compete for that. In other words, a school need not be dominant to be very desirable. NYU law has done an wan excellent job of raising itself over the last several decades. NYU succeeded by investing in the law school; the fact that it had a lot of competition was less important.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I think these may be the rankings that "jumped the shark" so to speak.

The best example I've ever seen is UC-Irvine, a NEW school, is ranked #30!

Not just because I went to Fordham (#34) but how can it be possible...they don't even have an alumni base in this economy...Irvine is a good school but its not Princeton.

This just my $.02, do I think these rankings have more value and will remain more respected than undergrad...yes.

At the end of the day, law school is one the few institutions where everyone pretty much takes the same courses and then at the end takes a test to prove their competency...med school is maybe the other.

However, geography plays a role in all of this. Those of us who follow this stuff would know for example that Iowa is a good law school. But crochety old NJ 5 person law firm attorney has probably no familiarity with any school off the Acela line. And he may be the one hiring you- nevermind the fact that many NJ attorneys think not going to RU or SHU law (of course, not undergrad) is total heresy. I think this provinicialness is breaking down. When I applied to law school in 2006, and even more so now, the universe of the rankings and all of this information was a few clicks away. When I tell old lawyers in California I went to Fordham, they respond with the 7 blocks of granite or comments about the Bronx. People under 35 basically say...that's a great school...like I do or would about Iowa et al.

The reason why those small state law schools are good is because they have a regional reputation. Iowa's reputation extends to Chicago, and to Denver, and Minneapolis. But also, they do invest- I know this will come as a shock but we're the worst ranked B1G law school...for the same reasons were the worst B1G bball program in some respects...

But to be sure, we are behind lots of schools whose overall reputation we mostly trump. So this is a fixable problem. Everyone knows where I am at this point. With Temple costing what it does and SHU giving out cash, we are giving people no reason to come here. And with Fordham being RU undergrads top choice, they are telling the admin- we want a school around here in the top 40...give us one, well stay.

And Matt thanks for the kind words, people who pay attention know the real deal. Any employer whose first thought about Michigan is "not top 10 is not worth their salt in an industry where, well, few are worth their salt.

 

[retired711]

The University of California put a lot of resources into UC Irvine and hired a Dean who has an outstanding reputation. The school is also quite innovative. Keep in mind also that there are a lot of potential law students in Southern California, and that UCLA is the only other public law school south of Berkeley. It's not hard to attract a lot of fine applicants who just miss getting into Berkeley and UCLA.

 

[virginiaru]

Whats interesting is that the mismanagement of the law schools is historical and can be tracked to the expansion of the University. As a starting point, in 1975 both Camden and Newark law schools were ranked in the top 22 in the first nationwide ranking of law schools. See http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/10/the_first_law_s.html. Its taken 40 years of mismanagement and neglect to achieve the current ratings.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Supply and demand.

Too many law schools putting out too many graduates.

Poor job prospects and significantly reduced starting salaries resulted in a 40% drop in applicants.

Only way to improve ranking is to reduce size of class to increase quality of 1st year law students.

Market forces will do what law schools didn't want to do.

Another topic

With the incorporation of UMDNJ into Rutgers I was curious about the US News rankings of the Med Schools.

Rutgers, Robert Wood Johnson (Medical School-Research) #74
Rutgers, Robert Wood Johnson (Medical School- Primary Care) #67

A few other listing;

Physical Therapy (Stratford) #86
Physical Therapy (Newark) #44
Public Health #31
Nursing #25
Pharmacy #26
Engineering #56
Business #48

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by virginiaru:
Whats interesting is that the mismanagement of the law schools is historical and can be tracked to the expansion of the University. As a starting point, in 1975 both Camden and Newark law schools were ranked in the top 22 in the first nationwide ranking of law schools. See http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/10/the_first_law_s.html. Its taken 40 years of mismanagement and neglect to achieve the current ratings.

The 1975 study appears to have been based on a few quantitative imputs (like books in the library) and no outputs (e.g. placement rate, bar passage). It can't be compared to U..S. News. Both schools probably did well because they had very large libraries by the standards of te time. But I wouldn't put much weight on it.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
The University of California put a lot of resources into UC Irvine and hired a Dean who has an outstanding reputation. The school is also quite innovative. Keep in mind also that there are a lot of potential law students in Southern California, and that UCLA is the only other public law school south of Berkeley. It's not hard to attract a lot of fine applicants who just miss getting into Berkeley and UCLA.

Is that worth a top 30 ranking- the alums haven't proven anything yet...say tomorrow RU hires a T14 dean, builds the law quad of the century on Livingston, and comes up with an innovative program. Would it be ranked top 40?

 

[retired711]

The chief determinant of the USNWR rankings is the quality of the entering class, especially its LSAT. Everything else pretty much correlates with that. Irvine, due to its location, attracts a terrific student body.

 

[RU-ROCS]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
The chief determinant of the USNWR rankings is the quality of the entering class, especially its LSAT. Everything else pretty much correlates with that. Irvine, due to its location, attracts a terrific student body.

I was fortunate enough to have a good LSAT score, but today's absolute obsession with the LSAT is unhealthy.

I think the biggest reason for the relative demise of RU's law schools is that the state subsidy has all but been eliminated, taking with it the reason why many top students used to chose RU. When I graduated from Rutgers Law School-Newark in 1988 the state subsidized 75% of the tuition. Today the subsidy is roughly 15%. I chose RU over the likes of Georgetown and other top-tier law schools because it was literally one-forth the price! Back then, in a robust legal market, it was a totally wise choice. Graduating from RU Law in 1988 with very modest student debt, I got a federal clerkship followed by offers from dozens of Wall St. law firms. Sadly, in today's down market, RU law students pay far more and get far less.



This post was edited on 3/13 10:07 AM by RU-ROCS

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by RU-ROCS:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
The chief determinant of the USNWR rankings is the quality of the entering class, especially its LSAT. Everything else pretty much correlates with that. Irvine, due to its location, attracts a terrific student body.

I was fortunate enough to have a good LAST score, but today's absolute obsession with the LSAT is unhealthy.

I think the biggest reason for the relative demise of RU's law schools is that the state subsidy has all but been eliminated, taking with it the reason why many top students used to chose RU. When I graduated from Rutgers Law School-Newark in 1988 the state subsidized 75% of the tuition. Today the subsidy is roughly 15%. I chose RU over the likes of Georgetown and other top-tier law schools because it was literally one-forth the price! Back then, in a robust legal market, it was a totally wise choice. Graduating from RU Law in 1988 with very modest student debt, I got a federal clerkship followed by offers from dozens of Wall St. law firms. Sadly, in today's down market, RU law students pay far more and get far less.

When I started at Rutgers 30 years ago, law school tuition was just over $2000 a year. Now it's close to $30,000. Yes, we are offering many more clinical and practical experiences than 30 years ago, but still it's hard to justify that increase.

 

[lawmatt78]

I agree about the LSAT obsession.

As for costs, it is insane. The top state schools are charging around $50K for IN-STATE students.

 

[virginiaru]

Amazing. I graduated Newark Law in 1975. Tuition was $400 per semester.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I agree about the LSAT obsession.

As for costs, it is insane. The top state schools are charging around $50K for IN-STATE students.


Yes, that's the law school tuition for in-staters at Berkeley.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I agree about the LSAT obsession.

As for costs, it is insane. The top state schools are charging around $50K for IN-STATE students.

Supply and demand. There are only so many elite law schools. They set the price for the rest. Since they can basically charge whatever they want (based on a law degree from one of them being, at least until recently, a surefire path to high pay) then the schools below them only have to charge not quite as much to look like a deal and so on down the line.

This post was edited on 3/13 2:38 PM by derleider

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I agree about the LSAT obsession.

As for costs, it is insane. The top state schools are charging around $50K for IN-STATE students.

Supply and demand. There are only so many elite law schools. They set the price for the rest. Since they can basically charge whatever they want (based on a law degree from one of them being, at least until recently, a surefire path to high pay) then the schools below them only have to charge not quite as much to look like a deal and so on down the line.

This post was edited on 3/13 2:38 PM by derleider

All of that is certainly true. I just think some would be shocked to know that being in-state doesn't confer any real benefit. The difference in tuition is minimal - generally a few thousand. They've essentially been privatized.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by lawmatt78:

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I agree about the LSAT obsession.

As for costs, it is insane. The top state schools are charging around $50K for IN-STATE students.

Supply and demand. There are only so many elite law schools. They set the price for the rest. Since they can basically charge whatever they want (based on a law degree from one of them being, at least until recently, a surefire path to high pay) then the schools below them only have to charge not quite as much to look like a deal and so on down the line.

This post was edited on 3/13 2:38 PM by derleider

All of that is certainly true. I just think some would be shocked to know that being in-state doesn't confer any real benefit. The difference in tuition is minimal - generally a few thousand. They've essentially been privatized.

I guess the question is - is there any reason it shouldnt be that way. Should the state subsidize future lawyers just because they live in the state. I guess the states themselves, even more than undergrad, have basically decided - no - you all will do fine on your own, or will get some other degree or get a job that doesnt require a law degree.

If anything, the place their should be ample subsidies is medicine.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by lawmatt78:

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I agree about the LSAT obsession.

As for costs, it is insane. The top state schools are charging around $50K for IN-STATE students.

Supply and demand. There are only so many elite law schools. They set the price for the rest. Since they can basically charge whatever they want (based on a law degree from one of them being, at least until recently, a surefire path to high pay) then the schools below them only have to charge not quite as much to look like a deal and so on down the line.

This post was edited on 3/13 2:38 PM by derleider

All of that is certainly true. I just think some would be shocked to know that being in-state doesn't confer any real benefit. The difference in tuition is minimal - generally a few thousand. They've essentially been privatized.

I guess the question is - is there any reason it shouldnt be that way. Should the state subsidize future lawyers just because they live in the state. I guess the states themselves, even more than undergrad, have basically decided - no - you all will do fine on your own, or will get some other degree or get a job that doesnt require a law degree.

If anything, the place their should be ample subsidies is medicine.

I think at Berkeley the out-of-state supplement is about $12,000. The school says that it treats in-state and out-of-state applicants the same, although it does try to admit a majority of in-state students. That was pretty much true when I went to law school there.

So that I'm fair -- l aw school expenses have gone up since I was in school. Clinical programs are money-eaters, although they are vital. Such programs didn't exist when I started as a prof at Rutgers-Camden over 30 years ago.