<p>That touch of singularity does not negate the fact that he is extremely revered in jurisprudence and public law. Anthony Amsterdam is also really good. If you are interested in Environmental or Administrative Law, NYU is also second to no one. Wierd you cite Lieter, even though they rank NYU 6th in terms of per capita scholarly impact. There is a rough correlation between total citations and prestige, less of a correlation between total citations and actual quality. We are aspiring lawyers, notice I did not say Dworkin was one of the best (insert bold font here) law school professors. Dworkin has over 4750 citations, making him among the top 5. Catherine MacKinnon is the only Umich/Chicago (she likes to swap lol) professor I can think of that comes close. Not bad for a 71 year old, aye?</p>
<p>I can't believe you actually quoted Brian Leiter. To see what the academic/law student world thinks of him, check out xoxo and he has a hyperlink in the top middle "Why Leiter hates us."</p>
<p>I care not about citations; the general quality of Dworkin's work, in my opinion, is subpar. Thus far, all I have read are ad hominem attacks against Leiter, but in reality, there are many better legal/political philosophers. I doubt you have read Dworkin's main work, or the work of his rival and former mentor, H.L.A. Hart. Perhaps after you accustom yourself to the Hart/Dworkin debate you will take less stock in rankings per citation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Daniel Farber is where it's at.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Preposition. You can do better than that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That touch of singularity
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do not trivialize it; what Dworkin did was scholarly fraud. Do not mince words...</p>
<p><em>Peter Griffin voice</em> Oh come on. Come on. :) Give me a break here. I'm talking semantically and argument-wise.</p>
<p>And I still think old Ronald is the man. I have heard great things about NYU Law as well.</p>
<p>PS: We maybe in disagreement about the strength of Dworkin as a teacher, but I never brought his didactic prowess into the equation. I spoke merely in citations. In that fact, I was correct. Faculty quality is too capricious to be ranked.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm talking semantically and argument-wise.</p>
<p>And I still think old Ronald is the man.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is indubitable that he is prominent, but I have doubts about the verity of his works. His arguments were not lucid, either, and he took advantage of the obscurity he perpetuated.</p>
<p>umm are you kidding me? Berkeley is a very VERY selective school, especially for students out of state. Even in state, many students in california dont even dream/think about applying to berkeley. Berkeley has a world-wide reputation bigger than every ivy with the exception of Harvard. Berkeley is a top-tier university and if rankings were based solely on academic strength and reputation, i strongly believe cal would be in the top 10. and for your information, my friend was accepted as a Stern student, an NYU Presidential Scholar, and rejected at Berkeley, (she turned down Stern for Washu's Olin SChool....not quite sure why but that was her choice). But just letting you know, Berkeley is a very strong school and does NOT accept many people even under 1200 within its own state.</p>
<p>Whoa there, before we get a little patronizing, let's do some research. As hard as it is to believe, UC Regent John Moores last year commissioned a study which found out that Berkeley admitted almost 400 students with sub 1000 SAT scores for the 2002 admissions round. Almost 400! </p>
<p>But themegastud, out of how many admits? 372 out of 8,000 admits. Do you know how many students with sub 1000 SAT scores apply to Cal annually? Over 10,000. The odds of getting in at not good. they are under extreme casses. But the mean at Cal is 1330 or 1340 and the bulk of students have 1200-1450. NYU's student body is no better than Cal's.</p>
<p>No no, I'm not saying that this is common or that NYU's student body is better than Cal's. Not by any means. I'm just debating the sentiment that sub 1000 people don't get into Cal is misinformed.</p>
<p>If there's any side of this argument that I'm on, it's Michigan's.</p>
<p>May be that's why Cal won some football games finally ... oops, just kidding.</p>
<p>According to that article, "Berkeley's unfair admissions game", the subpar students were admitted to UCB/UCLA as some form of 'unofficial' affirmative action. The quota system was voted out by the Californians (replaced by the top 4% rule) ... but racial/diversity consideration in admission is allowed by the recent supreme court ruling. You may or may not agree with affirmative action, but that's another story.</p>
<p>As Alexandre pointed out, UCB admits almost 9,000 students each year. They can afford to admit a few subpar students, and still have plenty of stellar students on campus. The drop-out rate is high (as pointed out in the article) but some of these students do make it when given a second chance.</p>
<p>Btw, with about 4-5% subpar students, UCB's freshman class still boasts a 1220-1450 SAT ... and this is for the enrolled students (not admitted which should be even higher).</p>
<p>UC Berkeley's SAT averages are still quite low compared to the schools it likes to compare itself to. And it's still questionable whether these subpar students should be admitted in lieu of the 1500+ top 10 students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
almost 400 students with sub 1000 SAT scores for the 2002 admissions round. Almost 400!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And if you followed the story closely, you'd also have read Berkeley's response, which was to post anonymous profiles of some of those students. </p>
<p>The SATs didn't tell the whole story. </p>
<p>Most of those kids had stellar grades, and some had extraordinary circumstances in their lives; they had overcome remarkable challenges and had still graduated top of their class. Some of their stories were jaw-dropping. For these students, it was wholly appropriate to consider their SATs as being completely unreflective of their abilities. These students are precisely why you actually ask for recommendations and look at transcripts instead of SAT alone, and they are precisely the sort of students who deserve a shot at the flagship university in the state.</p>
<p>Here's one:</p>
<p>"Weighted GPA 4.00. The API 1 school ranked student in the top 2 percent of the class, which student achieved despite being a recent immigrant with English as a second language. Student lived in a basement in an impoverished, high crime neighborhood and family members were victims of violent crime. Family is low income ($30,000, including student earnings), and highest parent education is some high school. Student worked significant hours to pay for household bills and school supplies."</p>
<p>Another:</p>
<p>"Weighted GPA 4.44. Ranked by API 1 high school as valedictorian of class of 375. Governors scholar and president of national scholastic federation at the high school. Student cares for younger siblings (10 people in family) and works for no pay every weekend to help parents."</p>
<p>Another:</p>
<p>"Weighted GPA 3.84. Student achieved honor roll grades in a rigorous UC preparatory curriculum despite missing two months of school due to severe injuries from a tragic auto accident that killed one of the students parents. Regional awards in debate and leader is multiple school organizations. Highest education level of parents is "some high school." "</p>
<p>"and for your information, my friend was accepted as a Stern student, an NYU Presidential Scholar, and rejected at Berkeley, (she turned down Stern for Washu's Olin SChool....not quite sure why but that was her choice). "</p>
<p>Whats your point? I have plenty of California friends at Berkeley with 4.0+gpa/12-- SAT rejected at NYU. I have friends at Stern who turned down Yale. I have a friend at Florida who turned down Columbia. You aren't really proving anything.</p>
<p>And don't act like a 4.0+ at a California high school is any accomplishment. It's well known in CA that showing up to class at public schools pretty much gets you As. It's not like these kids are attending Stuyvescant; their schools have average SATS hovering at or below the national average.</p>
<p>The people that were accepted into Berkeley with low SAT scores have other things going for them. Most of these students come from extremely low income households. For many, English is not their native language.</p>
<p>"The people that were accepted into Berkeley with low SAT scores have other things going for them. Most of these students come from extremely low income households. For many, English is not their native language"</p>
<p>There's people like that at every school. Berkeley just happens to admit a lot of 4.0+, 12-- SAt score people, regardless.</p>
<p>Stern, I am confused. NYU's mid 50% SAT range is 1220-1410. Cal's mid 50% SAT range is 1220-1450. It would seem that NYU also has plenty of 12-- SAT students.</p>
<p>I think NYUsternman is confusing the admit stats of Stern with that of NYU. While I don't know the numbers for just Stern admits, I would not be surprised if their SAT's and other qualifications were at or just below ivy standards. As Stern is one of the premiere schools at NYU, the rest university as a whole lags behind.</p>