Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Could Hastings accomplish what NYU did.


Replies to: Could Hastings accomplish what NYU did.

  • mattmommattmom Registered User Posts: 1,763 Senior Member
    Keep in mind as well that NYU was in the top ten long before the 1990s, though the recruitment of high-profile faculty members may have made more people aware of its quality and propelled it a couple of spots up the ladder.
  • CotoDeCasaCotoDeCasa Registered User Posts: 276 Junior Member
    Excerpt from Leiter Report

    Data from the National Association for Law Placement on the number of firms interviewing on campus

    Over 800 firms: Georgetown, Harvard [note, of course, that Georgetown and Harvard are the two largest top law schools in the country in terms of student population]

    Over 700 firms: Virginia

    Over 600 firms: Duke, Michigan, NYU

    Over 500 firms: Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Penn, Stanford

    Over 400 firms: George Washington, Howard, Northwestern, Texas, Yale

    Over 300 firms: Cornell, UCLA, Vanderbilt

    Over 200 firms: Boston College, Boston Univ., Emory, Fordham, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Southern California, UC Hastings, William & Mary (and Washington & Lee is very close, with 197)

    Over 150 firms: UC Davis

    Over 100 firms: American, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Illinois, Iowa, Loyola/Los Angeles, Minnesota, SMU, Tulane, Wake Forest, Wash U/St. Louis, Wisconsin

    72-94 firms: Baylor, Brigham Young, Brooklyn, Cardozo, Case Western, Catholic, George Mason, Indiana, Miami, Ohio State, Rutgers-Camden, Rutgers-Newark, San Diego, Santa Clara, Temple, Villanova, Washington/Seattle

    49-66 firms: Chicago-Kent, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Denver, Florida State, Kansas, LSU, Maryland, Oregon, Penn State, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seton Hall, South Carolina, South Texas, St. John's, Tennessee. (And on the cusp: Arizona [47], Loyola-Chicago [47], Mississippi [47], Utah [46], Georgia State [45], Missouri-Columbia [45].)
  • AmericanskiAmericanski Registered User Posts: 683 Member
    Specifically, I don't think that USNews necessarily rewards schools for being small. Consider this. What's the most populous full-time law school in the country? Some scrub school? No, it's Harvard Law. Yep - HLS is absolutely gigantic in terms of student population. Literally triple the size of peer schools like Yale law or Stanford Law. Yet there Harvard sits at #2, lower than Yale, but higher than Stanford.

    This is a really poor argument. I don't really know specifically what the critics allege that USNews does to favor small, private schools, but this does nothing to disprove any of it.
    In fact, of the top 5 in the USNews rankings, 3 of them are large. Harvard, Columbia, and NYU are not small law school by any stretch. Hence, I don't know how you can say that USNews discriminates against large schools.

    And three of the top six are small. What's your point? This is like a middle schooler trying to make some kind of argument. Hey, if Bill Gates is the wealthiest person alive, you can't say that having a college degree has any impact on your net worth!
    My issue with the press release is that it seems as if Hastings thinks it deserves a top ranking just because it is located in San Francisco and by being part of a strong university system.

    That isn't the point. The idea is that they have the potential to exploit these resources and become a top school.
  • sreissreis Registered User Posts: 752 Member
    man where is sakky to respond with the 3 page rebuttal?
  • CotoDeCasaCotoDeCasa Registered User Posts: 276 Junior Member
    From Leiter Report

    Ten Highest Paid University of California Law Faculty

    1. Michael Schill (Dean, UCLA)

    2. Neil Netanel (UCLA)

    3. Mark Grady (UCLA)

    4. Daniel Farber (Berkeley)

    5. Katherine van Wezel Stone (UCLA)

    6. Christopher Edley (Dean, Berkeley)

    7. Daniel Rubinfeld (Berkeley)

    8. Robert Cooter (Berkeley)

    8. Melvin Eisenberg (Berkeley)

    8. Rachel Moran (Berkeley)

    In terms of 2004-05 salaries, if we exclude the two Deans who made the list (Christopher Edley at Berkeley, who earned $280,000, and Michael Schill at UCLA who earned $266,000), here are the ten law professors with the highest salaries in the UC system (rounded to the nearest thousand):

    1. Mark Grady (UCLA) (225)

    2. Stephen Yeazell (UCLA) (220)

    3. Richard Abel (UCLA) (215)

    3. Joel Handler (UCLA) (215)

    5. Grant Nelson (UCLA) (210)

    6. Robert Hillman (UC Davis) (208)

    7. Melvin Eisenberg (Berkeley) (201)

    7. Daniel Rubinfeld (Berkeley) (201)

    9. Jesse Choper (Berkeley) (198)

    9. Daniel Farber (Berkeley) (198)
  • DRabDRab Registered User Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    This is sort of interesting. Is there any particular reason you're posting this besides to inform of salary amount for top-paid faculty?
  • CotoDeCasaCotoDeCasa Registered User Posts: 276 Junior Member
  • AmericanskiAmericanski Registered User Posts: 683 Member
    ^Why do you keep posting these totally unrelated things?
  • CotoDeCasaCotoDeCasa Registered User Posts: 276 Junior Member
    I though this is interesting


    Every March (or thereabouts), USNews publishes a new list of the best law schools, based on a large number of criteria, some more relevant than others. Every April, chaos ensues.

    One year Stanford was accidentally listed as higher than Harvard (or was it the reverse?). The school that was slighted made so much noise that the magazine was pulled from every news stand in the country and reprinted.
    One year Penn moved from 10th to 7th in the rankings. Their resulting yield was so high that they overenrolled by more than 100 people.
    One year Hastings didn't submit placement data. They fell from 20th to 45th, and the resulting feedback loop (i.e. consumer response) has kept them from ever regaining their original place in the top 25.
    For the schools ranging between 25 and 60, there's constant pressure to gain or keep a spot in the top 50. When a school's ranking drops, people get fired.
    What has caused all this commotion? A report that tells you something about law schools, but which has varied so much that sometimes even I don't know exactly what it tells you.

    Around 1988 or so, USNews & World Report published a ranking of law schools. There was a top 25 and nothing else.
    Readers were so hungry for more data that in 1992 the report was expanded. There were four quartiles, with the top 25 singled out.
    In 1994 there were two groups of 25, and third, fourth and fifth tiers.
    In 1997, allegedly in response to pressure from law schools, both the top 25 and the next 25 were labelled "top tier," and the remaining three groups re-labelled 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Students were ecstatic that their school was in a higher tier, ignoring the fact that the 5th tier no longer existed.
    In 1999 a top 50 replaced the two top 25s, with only a minor emphasis on the break between 25 and 26.
    In 2003 USNews took the big leap to a top 100, with a tiny third tier and a full 4th tier.
    None of this surprises me; their job is to sell magazines, and if a change in format will do that, they'll change the format. What surprises me is how many of America's future lawyers are foolish enough to buy into all this hype!

    In an effort to combat this problem, I've analyzed the data, shown you how it can be used profitably (as well as how you misuse it), and prepared my own reports, charts and graphs. All of that info is saved for you here.

    Enough! I'm not gonna say it again! USNews is a useful tool, but until you learn to tell the difference between a ranking and a reputation, between a ranking and a good school, or between a ranking and the right school for you, most of you doom yourself to a well-deserved failure.
This discussion has been closed.