<p>Thought I'd post this since I mentioned it on another thread and how it questions the so called wisdom of rankings which they describe as "unworthy" of consideration in your choice. Its interesting in how this same opinion could be said for undergrad choices/fit. Seems that the Law School Admssions Council (LSAT) has taken a stand on what rankings really mean compared to what provides the best experience/education for a particular student. The list of dozens of Deans that endorse this statement, link at bottom, in fact it probably represents almost all schools in the US, includes all the "top" schools such as Emory,YALE, Harvard, PENN, Chicago, Cornell, Columbia, Georgetown, and so on.</p>
<p>Love the thread title, dogs! And the sentiment! And the link and its endorsement by so many law school deans.</p>
<p>Don't know when, if ever, the rankings madness will have enough holes shot into it to diminish its negative effects. But it's great to see any effort in that direction.</p>
<p>I wish that statement could be posted like a Surgeon General's warning in all high schools across the land.....</p>
<p>...because, for them, rankings are God. The top two factors in determining law school acceptance are GPA and LSAT. It doesn't matter if your GPA from Podunk's Communications department - if it's higher than that of the guy from MIT, he's out and you're in. Law school deans have admitted in interviews that a one-point difference on the LSAT could make or break a candidate, because that one point could move them up or down in the rankings. </p>
<p>Yeah, lovely in theory that they all said that, but, in reality, law school admissions caters to the rankings in ways that make the undergrad process look positively charming. Law school admissions deans have admitted that if you have a low GPA or LSAT, you should consider transfer admissions, because they don't have to count transfers into the rankings. (I had a lot of law schools that sent letters which basically said, "Can't take you now, but transfer in so we don't mess up the rankings.") Night programme students are also not counted. Many schools have a habit of admitting low-numbers (but nevertheless high-potential) students into their night programmes, then have them transfer into day. Many schools will waitlist students (since it's all rolling admissions), so they don't have to admit students who are going to get in somewhere else. (I had a few waitlist letters to this effect - wish I could find them. One school WL-ed me, said that they didn't want to hear from students, then wrote a mass email to say that we had to respond if we wanted to stay on the waitlist and had not committed to another school. Blatant way of saying that we weren't getting in unless it helped their acceptance rate.)</p>
<p>It goes beyond the fact that law schools aren't looking to field a squash team... the focus on the numbers is absurd and almost directly tied into the rankings. Since US News began ranking law schools, the admissions scene has undergone some radical changes. The Deans are all paying lip service to saying that they don't like the rankings, but their admissions strategy is tailored to raising the rankings.</p>
<p>aries said it better than I could. Granted, it's been a long time since I was in law school -- but if you think Law Schools aren't also obsessed with rankings then I have a bridge, no several bridges, to sell you. I was there when my school was moving up in the rankings and saw the euphoria. And now that's it moving down a bit I'm willing to bet that it's a major topic among the administrators and faculty.</p>
<p>Having gone through the biggest name schools, including a top-ranked law schools, my take is that the real fraud is the idea that colleges actually matter for what and how you do. This is a great big world. Ability, drive and commitment matter so much more than the name on a degree. The quality of education received similarly depends to a huge degree on what the person puts in. The results from the Ivies, etc. are skewed by the fact that many of their graduates had more money going in.</p>
<p>But having said that, at a professional school level, the advantage of ranking is ease of job placement. You can graduate much lower in your class and get a decent job. That translates into more money. A recent study of academic salaries says that a first job placement is an advantage that lasts for years. Academics is more stratified than the business world but it is clear a higher ranked professional school helps.</p>
<p>That might sound like an endorsement of top school to top school, keep the track solid, but at each level only a few go on. The number of kids from my college class in my law school class was 7. One can say it was statistically better to be from the top college to get into the top law school but the numbers are small, the difference is small and you had to be competitive with the rest of the pool anyway. Since a large percentage of pre-professional Ivy students are driven to achieve, the competition from say Yale for a place at Yale Law was essentially impossible. You had a much better chance getting in from elsewhere. </p>
<p>Note I said "pre-professional" above. Most students aren't that motivated by grades and the bottom line.</p>
<p>Note they are not addressing their admission requirements but suggesting that ranking are not that meaningful when it comes to the choice the student makes in terms of where he applies or accepts admission. Location trumps so called prestige for many yet we all know kids that will go anywhere no matter how poor a lifestyle fit just to have a brand associated with their name. I think the letter makes excellent points for a consumer to consider. Ranking may be a factor, for some more than others, but their list of reasons why students choose a school seems to apply to the majority of applicants for all types of education not withstanding the minority, that on CC may sometimes seem like a majority, that consider ranking as critical to their choice.</p>