They basically say that the rankings don't measure anything useful and give law schools perverse incentives. I wonder whether other law schools will do the same, and whether the trend carries over to undergraduate and other U.S. news rankings. This affects Rutgers which, at least as an undergraduate school, is to my mind short-changed by the ratings. (I can't be objective about the law school and so I won't comment on whether that's true there too.) Here's the link for those who can get through the paywall: https://www.wsj.com/articles/yale-l...wed-methodology-11668607649?mod=hp_lead_pos10
Harvard and Yale pull out of U.S. News law school rankings
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
Harvard and Yale don't need the rankings.
Kids will apply regardless of not being a part of the ranking system.
Other schools do and will move up a notch left by the Ivy Void.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Kids will apply regardless of not being a part of the ranking system.
Other schools do and will move up a notch left by the Ivy Void.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Perhaps. I think it's more likely that Harvard's and Yale's decision will prompt a domino effect in which first the other elite schools and then the not-quite-so-elite schools will drop out, and that this will spread beyond law schools. Basically, Harvard and Yale have been the child who says that the emperor has no clothes (which is indeed true).
Law is one of the few areas where rankings make sense because at least for one year you have an identical curriculum. And admissions are mostly formulaic with LSAT and GPA being the overwhelming factors.
My guess is in line w Panther's and I think if USNWR stops, someone else will fill in the void- even if it's Google to rank LSAT scores and GPAs (which notice the law schools are still using).
What to me is more interesting is that in the post COVID world will law schools be less provincial and could that impact rankings. If you don't want to be a litigator you may have an office free career. If your dream is to live on the beach or in the country somewhere, how much will that figure into law school choice?
I don't know if having a uniform first year curriculum really does much to make rankings useful. The rankings don't really put any emphasis on the first year curriculum -- for instance, the rankings don't ask how good the instruction is in the first year or anything like that.
Yes, someone else may step in to rank. But the key to US News is that schools fill out their surveys. Now that Harvard and Yale have dropped out (and historically the practices at both schools have had big impacts on other law schools), my guess is that other schools will drop out of doing the surveys. Just about everybody in legal academe knows that rankings are BS. A mere ranking on the basis of LSATs/GPAs (my impression is that much more emphasis is still put on the former in law school admissions) is not going to have the cachet of the U.S. News rankings. It would be possible to rank on the basis of bar admission results, but, even with the national bar exam making bar exams more uniform, there is too much difference in grading and in what is on the test to make intelligent comparisons. You could do that in-state (e.g. Seton Hall has a better bar passage rate than Rutgers), but not otherwise. You could rank by asking lawyers about reputation, as is done at present, but most lawyers don't know enough to do it reliably.
My guess is that remote work is going to have its primary impact on partners. Law firms want young lawyers to be in the office because training happens largely by observing and working with senior lawyers. But I do know that there is more remote work even at the associate level. In addition, I wonder if clients will be content with remote contact with lawyers. I also wonder if remote work is going to have much impact on law school choice. In the last analysis, the key is to find a job, and prestigious law schools or law schools in metropolitan areas will continue to be the best for that.
But who knows? All any of us can do is to speculate. Of course, that's what message boards are for!
FWIW, the Wall Street Journal reports that Berkeley has also pulled out. Stanford and Penn are thinking about it.
NYT says GTown out too
Will be interesting. The article noted the schools right outside the T14 like Texas and UCLA stand to gain. Which I would agree.
There's only a small percentage of people who go to t14...the people who go to 100-15 are still going to be following this (and bragging when it helps them lol). My time in school was a peak for the ranking there at literally anyone can and did recite it when they got the chance.
The rankings become less credible for every school once the top ones are gone. (What good is a beauty contest if the most attractive girls won't compete?) And the kinds of objections that the top schools have to the rankings are shared by other schools. My guess, for instance, is that UCLA will drop out now that Cal has.
The WSJ story says a lot of the info US News uses is public info; but the reputation survey numbers are one example of something that US News has to generate on its own. Once it's clear that the top schools aren't in, will faculty and lawyers be willing to rank what's left?
I think they can still rank the schools but I guess Yale et al won't provide their own information.
Yes . . . but will people still regard the list with such veneration knowing that the schools rank the highest have said it's bogus?
I think there's too much money for the other 80+ schools to leave on the table...at this point that's what it is all about.
I agree that not all schools will leave. But I think the best ones will continue to do so, and that will hurt the rankings' credibility. The rankings will be like a beauty contest in which the best-looking girls say the contest's rules are wrong. In addition, the departure of the best schools means that many middling schools will be able to plausibly say that no one should pay attention to their rankings.
i think there's a real chance for narrative shift with schools in the top 50 especially.
The schools will move up and with remote work, maybe you have an argument that things should be less regionalized.
It will be an interesting space to watch. I just hope the schools and profession react better to the current shifting landscape that the abysmal response from the sector in the Great Recession.
This is silly when data analytics and rankings are part of everything. I can't read the article due to the paywall, so can anyone explain how these rankings discourage support for low income students and public service careers? Seems these schools are just admitting they have no self-control to change their own actions to support those interests, so they just took their ball and went home.
Latest NYT OpEd from former UPenn Law School Dean:
The deans are making a powerful claim that the formula used by U.S. News rewards wealth and privilege by subtly penalizing law schools that seek to provide access to the legal profession for people from less privileged backgrounds and help prepare their graduates for careers in public service.
* * *
These rankings rely on various “student selectivity” measures, such as the standardized test scores of entering classes and, for some graduate schools, the school’s acceptance rate. The rankings have encouraged admissions offices to give more weight to test scores, to expand binding early decision programs and to greatly increase merit (rather than need-based) financial aid — practices that favor wealthier applicants, often at the expense of their lower-income peers.
The “outcome” measures used by U.S. News, such as overall graduation rates or, for graduate schools, post-graduate employment success, further encourage schools to admit applicants who are already programmed for success. And although many schools want to encourage more students to pursue public-service careers, succeeding at that goal may well cost them points in the U.S. News scoring system because salaries for those jobs are relatively low.
Another problem with the rankings is that they equate academic quality with institutional wealth (as measured by financial resources per student, faculty salaries and the like). This encourages admissions preferences for full-paying students, legacies and children of wealthy donors, which in turn helps to fuel the spending and fund-raising arms race that already afflicts higher education. At the same time, the ranking formulas give schools no credit for their spending on need-based financial aid, although U.S. News does give colleges some credit for having a high graduation rate for students who have received federal Pell Grants.
www.nytimes.com
The deans are making a powerful claim that the formula used by U.S. News rewards wealth and privilege by subtly penalizing law schools that seek to provide access to the legal profession for people from less privileged backgrounds and help prepare their graduates for careers in public service.
* * *
These rankings rely on various “student selectivity” measures, such as the standardized test scores of entering classes and, for some graduate schools, the school’s acceptance rate. The rankings have encouraged admissions offices to give more weight to test scores, to expand binding early decision programs and to greatly increase merit (rather than need-based) financial aid — practices that favor wealthier applicants, often at the expense of their lower-income peers.
The “outcome” measures used by U.S. News, such as overall graduation rates or, for graduate schools, post-graduate employment success, further encourage schools to admit applicants who are already programmed for success. And although many schools want to encourage more students to pursue public-service careers, succeeding at that goal may well cost them points in the U.S. News scoring system because salaries for those jobs are relatively low.
Another problem with the rankings is that they equate academic quality with institutional wealth (as measured by financial resources per student, faculty salaries and the like). This encourages admissions preferences for full-paying students, legacies and children of wealthy donors, which in turn helps to fuel the spending and fund-raising arms race that already afflicts higher education. At the same time, the ranking formulas give schools no credit for their spending on need-based financial aid, although U.S. News does give colleges some credit for having a high graduation rate for students who have received federal Pell Grants.
Opinion | Are the U.S. News College Rankings Finally Going to Die?
With top law schools quitting the rankings, will other colleges and universities follow?
It's a nonsense argument.
If they wanted to attract low income students and inspire public service careers, they'd lower tuition and/or hand out more scholarships.
If you read the article that @Leonard23 just excerpted, you'll see that the problem is that the rankings lead law schools to use their scholarship money to attract high-LSAT scorers rather than to give financial aid to the needy.
As I predicted, UCLA has withdrawn. See the following letter from Russell Korobkin, the interim dean at the law school:
|
If we're talking the T14 schools here, they already have the high scorers. The average LSAT at Georgetown versus Harvard isn't a ton of points.
If they were serious about pro bono work they could forgive loans for public interest work in 2 or 5 years versus the federal 10 year forgiveness. They could go tuition free for most students like Yale and UPenn are for undergrad.
There are a ton of options. The reality is though the person who gets into public defender work likely isn't going to become a big donor down the line.
Also, the other reality is that even lower paying jobs want prestige. When i graduated during the recession NYU and Columbia grads were fighting for government jobs. Their disappearance from the rankings won't change that.
Lets see what happens.
The WSJ also had an article saying the ABA will no longer require Law Schools to have applicants take the LSAT (optional) as an admission requirement (if they so choose).
How many law schools will drop the LSAT requirement.
Will Harvard and Yale no longer require the LSAT for admission.
Lets see, I think Yale accepts students with a 3.8 GPA and an LSAT score of 169.
There are students who have 3.8 GPA's from college but only score around 156 on their LSAT.
Does anyone on the board anticipate most Law Schools will drop the LSAT requirement or make it optional.
So if you have a 3.8 GPA and don't submit an LSAT score will you be equally considered as the student who also has a 3.8 GPA and submits an LSAT score of 168 (or will some law schools say don't submit LSAT scores).
I think Cooley Law accepts students with LSAT scores of about 145.
Using a football analogy, Rival 5-star (LSAT 169) and Rival 2-star (LSAT 145) LOL.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
The WSJ also had an article saying the ABA will no longer require Law Schools to have applicants take the LSAT (optional) as an admission requirement (if they so choose).
How many law schools will drop the LSAT requirement.
Will Harvard and Yale no longer require the LSAT for admission.
Lets see, I think Yale accepts students with a 3.8 GPA and an LSAT score of 169.
There are students who have 3.8 GPA's from college but only score around 156 on their LSAT.
Does anyone on the board anticipate most Law Schools will drop the LSAT requirement or make it optional.
So if you have a 3.8 GPA and don't submit an LSAT score will you be equally considered as the student who also has a 3.8 GPA and submits an LSAT score of 168 (or will some law schools say don't submit LSAT scores).
I think Cooley Law accepts students with LSAT scores of about 145.
Using a football analogy, Rival 5-star (LSAT 169) and Rival 2-star (LSAT 145) LOL.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
My personal opinion is that most schools will still want the LSAT. There is no real way to judge college students.
And I say this as some who had around a 3.8 weighted GPA applying (and a pretty good LSAT score but focusing on the GPA would have helped more).
The ABA's Council on Legal Education recently voted to do away with the requirement that law schools use the LSAT. But deletion of the requirement requires the approval of the ABA's House of Delegates, and the last time deletion came before the House of Delegates the Council pulled its proposal because it was clear it didn't have the votes. Moreover, just as you say, many law schools will probably continue to require the LSAT. As you can see from the story, many law school deans oppose deleting the requirement on the grounds that having the test actually promotes diversity -- that otherwise undergraduate institution prestige, grades, or recommendations will have too much weight. This may seem odd, but recall that the original purpose of the SAT and the LSAT was to break the advantage that graduates of expensive prep schools and private colleges had in the admissions process. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legal...s-lsat-requirement-not-until-2025-2022-11-18/
The problem is that the prep courses that poorer folks cannot afford give people an advantage.
I don't really buy the argument the tests are biased in and of themselves.
Is there really empirical data that show that expensive prep courses make a significant difference?
I've sent an inquiry to somebody who might know. I'll let you know if he answers.
Yale and other "top" law schools have been wrecking themselves with their Maoist flavors.
Yale in particular has been getting a reputation for being
nypost.com
The medical schools are also being wrecked by toxic and radical ideology and unfortunatekly (but not surprisingly) Rutgers is one of them.
Critical race theory programs are mandatory in 58 of top 100 medical schools: Report
criticalrace.org
Yale in particular has been getting a reputation for being
Affirmative action drove Yale, Harvard to leave U.S. News rankings: Vivek Ramaswamy
Vivek Ramaswamy suggested that the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action played a major factor in Yale and Harvard’s decision.
nypost.com
The medical schools are also being wrecked by toxic and radical ideology and unfortunatekly (but not surprisingly) Rutgers is one of them.
Critical race theory programs are mandatory in 58 of top 100 medical schools: Report
Medical Schools
criticalrace.org
Now that @ashokan has enlightened us, we can return to our regularly scheduled programming.
I corresponded with someone who knows a lot about the LSAT. He says there have been no studies on the effect of prep courses on LSAT score. But there have been studies on SAT scores. The results are significant because there is a strong correlation between SAT and LSAT score --particularly between verbal SAT and LSAT score. (In my case, there was only a one point difference -- I took the LSAT in the ancient days when it was graded on the same 200-800 scale as the verbal SAT.) The studies find that preparation increases scores, but only by a minor amount that would be about a point on the LSAT scale. There are people who get a big gain from preparation, but these are people who are very rusty on basic skills. This is most important for the math portion of the SAT because many kids either didn't understand math the first time around or have forgotten whatever they learned. None of this matters much for the verbal SAT. Most important, it is not necessary to take an expensive course to get the benefit of preparation -- any course, including the free course offered through the Educational Testing Service ,will do. The courses help not so much because they give the kids any specific skills, but mostly because they focus kids on preparing.
We'll see what the ABA House of Delegates does with the LSAT requirement -- and, more importantly, how the law schools react to the end of the mandate. As I said above, law school deans oppose the abolition so probably the vast majority of law schools would keep requiring the LSAT
If anything I think they use it to predict passing the bar, which is WAY harder though graded pass/fail and based on actual material versus your ability to take a test. That, and there is no other way to try to equalize GPAs from different schools and majors.
If they drop it, I think RU grads would have a distinct advantage considering we don't have minus grades.
There is actually a pretty good correlation between LSAT performance and bar passage rate.
Everybody in the graduate and professional admissions world knows that Rutgers undergraduate doesn't use minor grades, and adjusts for it.
Well LSAC literally adjusts your GPA, but for the law schools, the minus-free GPAs still help keep higher figures that count towards the school average.
I once chaired a committee that looked into having plus-minus grades. The difference between Rutgers GPAs and everybody else's is minor. It's true that Rutgers doesn't have minus grades for undergraduates, but, unlike a lot of schools, it doesn't have an A plus.
The students we talked to were divided, but the best students felt your way -- they didn't want to take the chance that they would get A-'s rather than A's. A lot of faculty would like minus grades because, with grade inflation(which has occurred much more in upper-level humanities and social sciences than in STEM courses or in courses like freshman English composition), there really are few usable grades. (That's why the Camden law school went to having minus grades.)
There is also controversy about A plus grades, which the law school has -- some employers say they discount Rutgers law school grades because they feel the law school is on a 4.3 scale rather than a 4.0 scale. (In fact, A plus grades are pretty rare.) But a proposal to get rid of the A plus grade was opposed by many students because they didn't want to give up the chance of getting an A plus in a course. So the status quo prevailed.
Yeah I definitely feel a lot of sympathy towards top notch students who major in the social sciences and humanities 😇
Latest posts
-
***WAR ROOM: Latest Recruit Scoop and Team News on Rutgers Athletics***- Latest: RU-Choppin-Ohio
-
Football Things Rutgers submitted to EA Sports for the NCAA Video Game?
- Latest: Scarlet Shack
-
-
-
