<p>Well, they are both very well respected schools. But I was just doing some math, since on other threads, we saw Chicago law's profile. </p>
<p>University of Chicago Law (Schools, Colleges and Universities represented by the entire Law School student body):
Northwestern University 29
University of Chicago 29
Brigham Young University 22
Georgetown University 20
Yale University 20
Harvard University 17
UC-Berkeley 17
Duke University 16
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign 16
University of Pennsylvania 16
Princeton University 15
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 14
Brown University 12
University of Texas-Austin 12
Stanford University 11
University of Wisconsin-Madison 11
Dartmouth College 9
University of California-Los Angeles 9
Vanderbilt University 9
Cornell University 8
Emory University 8
Rice University 8
University of Southern California 7
University of Virginia 7
Carleton College 6
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6
Amherst College 5
Indiana University-Bloomington 5
Williams College 5</p>
<p>Northwestern University Law (class of 2007):
Northwestern University 18
Georgetown University 11
Duke University 8
Princeton University 8
Stanford University 8
University of California-Los Angeles 8
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 8
University of Pennsylvania 8
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign 7
University of California-Berkeley 6
University of Notre Dame 6
Cornell University 5
Harvard University 6
Yale University 5
Columbia University 4
Dartmouth College 4
Miami University-Ohio 4
University of Florida 4
University of Texas-Austin 4
University of Virginia 4
University of Wisconsin-Madison 4
Brown University 3
University of Washington-Seattle 3
Williams College 3</p>
<p>so using U of Chicago Law school data, 29 students / 950 size of Chicago's class, you get rougly 3 percent, which already would put it in the top 25 on that ranking. JUST USING 1 SCHOOL FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Thefore, this shows me this ranking is incredibly flawed. Do you not find it quite odd that a school can make it to the top 25 just using its own law school and using 1 school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
for Rice's student body, I would have expected a strong showing. Student body wise, Rice is as strong as a place like Duke. However, as this shows, student body doesn't necessarily mean success in grad placement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not sure if Rice's grad-school placement is as negative as it seems; they even have an accelerated JD program where juniors can apply early to Columbia Law School. Rice's grading system is not particularly conducive to high grades, and any prospective law school student should know that the GPA is the most important factor.</p>
<p>Hey, they clearly identified what they did.
Its not the best way to do it, but its the best way its been done so far for something that ranks entrances into professional programs.</p>
<p>Or it could just mean, that as I said, that the only professional school many Rice students are interested in is medical school. Compare this to a place like Duke, which attracts a wider array of students who want to go into medicine, law, or business. I'm not saying that Rice has no humanities people, but it's reputation for the sciences/engineering preceeds it, and as such it tends to draw students interested in these areas (and accordingly suffers in a flawed ranking like WSJ, which only divides #attending by total population, instead of the % accepted). I bet that Rice has a far lower percentage of students applying to law than a school like Duke.</p>
<p>Conversely, I think that there is a ranking somewhere which lists the schools that produce the most eventual PhDs per student, and surprise surprise, schools like Chicago, Reed, Swarthmore, etc. which did fairly poorly on the WSJ ranking lead the way.</p>
<p>I thought Chicago and Swarthmore were lower the first time I looked at it, but I think Chicago's program that guarantees certain seniors admission to their GSB helps a bit in comparison to other schools.</p>
<p>I think one of the most telling takeaways from this list are the ranking of the "Public Ivys":</p>
<p>U Michigan (30)
UVA (33)
Cal (41) - by far the most surprising rank of the list.</p>
<p>Let's face it, for grad school placement on a RELATIVE percentage basis, the public Ivy's are down right weak (none in the top 25!). Do they still produce grads that go onto top grad schools in decent numbers? Of course. But that's because due more to the sheer volume of undergrads coming out of these institutions rather than a sign that they are consistently placing their grads in high quality grad progams in high percentages (relative to other top undergrad programs).</p>
<p>So for all this talk about "world class" grad schools, this again confirms that AT THE UNDERGRAD LEVEL, the "Public" Ivy undergrads are largely riding on the considerably large coattails of their grad school peers.</p>
<p>To me, what is interesting is what is happening in the overall world of professional school admissions, since family wealth is so mcuh a factor in the Wall Street list.</p>
<p>Since 1975, the Yale student body has gotten better and better. SAT scores up, selectivity up, etc., etc. Yet, in the period between 1975-2002, rates of post-graduate study have dropped from 35% to 27%. Much bigger drops in law and medical school admissions: in law, from 18% of the student body to 7%; in med. school admits, from 17% to 6%; both drops a huge 65% or so. It is true that some students return to grad/prof. schools later, but that is true at ALL schools, not just Yale, so that's a red herring. In the same period of time, the number of Fulbrights awarded to Yale students has been passed by both Wellesley and Smith, with student bodies half the size.</p>
<p>It is not that the Yale student body isn't what it used to be - on the contrary, statistically it is better than ever. It may be that Yalies simply find law and medical school and grad school less desirable than they used to. Similarly with Fulbright possibilities. But the more likely explanation is that the gap between schools has narrowed rapidly, and the grad/professional schools know it. Yale admissions now says they turn away entire classes of students "as academically qualified as those they accept". Not "almost as qualified"; "as qualified". The statistics suggest we should believe them. These students are going elsewhere, and turn up later in the graduate/professional school admissions statistics.</p>
<p>Slipper1234 and IvyGrad, am glad you've turned your swords into plowshares over my "bell curve" posting on another thread. As an aside as to why UVa is ranked so highly, it is because, IMHO, of the difficulty of a large number of students to get in, especially out-of-staters. It is the most difficult public uni to get into, followed by Cal, Michigan, UCLA and UNC.</p>
<p>BTW, as for the "bell curve" tiering, I've received enormous compliments on it because it helps direct applicants to schools that fall within their academic abilities. From there, they can look closer at finding what for them is a right fit. It is in no way meant as a competition or contest of one school over another. The schools are not receiving grades; the grades are there to offer applicants an arena in which they might play. In other words, if an applicant who's primarily a solid B+ student (3.3-3.5) with 1800+ SATs, then the schools which might interest that applicant fall in that category. It doesn't mean that I've graded the school as such.</p>
<p>Also, each institution has something specific to offer each student. Again, what the "bell curve" does is to offer prospective applicants a look at certain arenas or ball parks based on their proven abilities; whether they get to play is of course another matter. There are exceptions to every rule and variables that offset scores & numbers.</p>
<p>All in all, I am pleased with the "bell curve" and it remains a "bell curve" and not just a random listing of a school receiving a certain "grade." (BTW, eventhough most statisticians configure the pool of applicants in a "bell curve" format, others would've preferred that I would've used the pyramid form to make the tiering of schools). Also, in my "bell curve," I have tried to avoid trolling for particular schools on it; what went into the assessments were published rankings from several sources, guide books ratings, up-to-date numbers and of course, comments from CCers. I think the "bell curve" a fair and reasonable list and with some deference to others who have personal preferences, it is for the most part a fair and accurate assessment. I also appreciate both of your positive comments about it.</p>
<p>I agree with clustering schools but ranking UVA so highly, especially because of out of state selectivity, is ridiculous. I personally know about 5 out of state admits who couldnt dream of going to any Ivy.</p>
<p>specific colleges aside, i very much like your "grade" tiering method for ranking schools. this is very much what i was envisioning when i wrote my initial post on the USNWR thread.</p>
<p>Back to the law school data for UC and Northwestern: what strikes me is the nearby name schools that didn't place many students into either law school. Notre Dame only made the NW list, WUSTL and Grinnell didn't make either list.</p>
<p>Collegekid, since that 29 UChicago students at UChicago law is for the entire law school body and not just one year, divide that by 3 to average out for each year of law school, and you get about 10, so thats only 1% of the Chicago student body that is counted by the Wall Street Survey. </p>
<p>So the effect of having its own law school gives it a 1% boost for the survey, instead of 3% since the data is for the entire law school and not just one year</p>
<p>"Let's face it, for grad school placement on a RELATIVE percentage basis, the public Ivy's are down right weak (none in the top 25!). Do they still produce grads that go onto top grad schools in decent numbers? Of course. But that's because due more to the sheer volume of undergrads coming out of these institutions rather than a sign that they are consistently placing their grads in high quality grad progams in high percentages (relative to other top undergrad programs)."</p>
<p>Or due to the fact that they are, hey, easier to get in to, and as such don't have quite as strong a student body. Considering how easy it is to get in to Michigan especially compared to peer schools, I'd say they do fairly well in the rankings. You also have to keep in mind that state schools on average have more undergrad professional programs (business, engineering, journalism, etc.), while few Ivies do with the exception of Cornell (Wharton is the only UG business program outside of Cornell, for example). I realize that many of the Ivies have engineering, but a good number of the graduates of these programs (again, except for Cornell) go on to work in other fields such as finance.</p>
<p>"The methodology isn't perfect in that it doesn't account for the boost given to universities whose professional schools are used in the sampling (undergrads tend to want to remain at their alma mater for grad school). Harvard, for example, had all three of its professional schools included, which gave it a big advantage. Stanford would have done better if its own professional schools were used. None of them were, even though its med school is ranked 8th, its business school 2nd, and its law school 3rd."</p>
<p>How could they not use Stanford Business School? That's like the best business school in the world! And I guess Stanford Law Schools sucks major balls. It only graduated like 4 Supreme Court Justices.</p>
<p>There really is no absolute "best business school in the world," or even an absolute top three. Some schools own a particular field (HBS - management, Wharton - finance). Others may not be so dominant in one area, but are still powerhouses overall (Kellogg, Sloan, Stanford GSB).</p>