<p>northwestern el
just can’t spell
goes to a school
that looks like hell.</p>
<p>fyi, HLS per capita (Top Universities and Top LACs) I calculated last year (2006):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2996241&postcount=7[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2996241&postcount=7</a></p>
<p>Ah… I remember that thread…</p>
<p>YLS:</p>
<p>Top Pre-Law Programs
- Yale 2.16%</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Harvard 1.56%</p></li>
<li><p>Princeton 1.09%</p></li>
<li><p>Williams 1.03%</p></li>
<li><p>Amherst 0.73%</p></li>
<li><p>Stanford 0.68%</p></li>
<li><p>Bowdoin 0.57%</p></li>
<li><p>Swarthmore 0.55%</p></li>
<li><p>Brown 0.44%</p></li>
<li><p>Columbia 0.43%</p></li>
<li><p>Dartmouth 0.36%</p></li>
<li><p>Duke 0.33%</p></li>
<li><p>Rice 0.28%</p></li>
<li><p>Wesleyan 0.25%</p></li>
<li><p>Chicago 0.20%</p></li>
<li><p>Carleton 0.140%</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley 0.139%</p></li>
<li><p>Emory 0.11%</p></li>
<li><p>JHU 0.094%</p></li>
<li><p>Oberlin 0.094%</p></li>
<li><p>Northwestern 0.084%</p></li>
<li><p>UVA 0.082%</p></li>
<li><p>Georgetown 0.081%</p></li>
<li><p>Notre Dame 0.080%</p></li>
<li><p>USC 0.07%</p></li>
<li><p>WUSTL 0.056%</p></li>
<li><p>Tufts 0.055%</p></li>
<li><p>Tulane 0.05%</p></li>
<li><p>Cornell 0.049% (would rank 16th (0.16%) if CAS only)</p></li>
<li><p>UCLA 0.036%</p></li>
<li><p>Utah 0.035%</p></li>
<li><p>Penn 0.034% (would rank 27th (0.06%) if CAS only)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The ranking is based on the % of students who go to Yale Law School, which is by a very wide margin, the nation’s top-ranked law school (ranked #1 every year since the US News rankings were first published in 1987, and the only law school to ever be ranked #1 - other schools fluctuate between being ranked #2-4).
[originally posted by posterx 4-19-2006 <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=177439][/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=177439][/url</a>]</p>
<p>I hope that before people start talking about this they actually read the arguments that already were given in the other thread…</p>
<p>I’m not vouching for their conclusions; I’m simply saying, elsijfdl owes brand an apology for saying, he “lied” about their existence. He remembered the same threads we all read – and some of us even posted on.</p>
<p>johnwesley, I haven’t read the entire original thread on your YLS-based ranking, so I don’t know if this has already been discussed, but the ranking has some serious flaws as the basis for evaluating the relative strength of “pre-law programs”. Although the YLS yield is very high (75% according to the latest class profile on the YLS site), this can vary widely from school to school. Using Penn as an example, during 2002-2005, 13 Penn grads were accepted to YLS, but only 5 matriculated, resulting in a 38% yield:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/law/law_stats.html[/url]”>http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/law/law_stats.html</a></p>
<p>So during that period, Penn’s YLS yield was half that of the general YLS yield, greatly skewing the results of any ranking based on YLS matriculants (e.g., using your metric, Penn would move from #32 to around #16 if all 13 YLS admitees were counted).</p>
<p>A better comparison would be based on the number of matriculants at, e.g., the top 10 law schools, as a percentage of graduating class (a la the WSJ ranking, only more comprehensive). Even this would have flaws, however, not accounting for the varying characters of the different feeders (e.g., pre-professional components at Penn with Wharton, SEAS, and Nursing vs. all liberal arts at Brown). The only true evaluator of the relative strength of schools’ law school placement would be something like the number of matriculants at the top 10 or 14 law schools as a percentage of the total number of law school applicants from each school. Unfortunately, that kind of data is unavailable for many schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So did you sleep well last night?</p>
<p>One more little lesson for you: in order to lie, one must be aware that the support used for their conclusion is false, and therefore be aware that their conclusion is false, yet purport it to be true. Sam Lee informed me that my support wouldn’t necessarily lead to my conclusion, so I modified it. To put it in simpler terms for you, were I set on lying about something to make my school look better, I would not concede that point and my conclusion. You have claimed that NU grads are regularly getting 6 figure jobs out of undergrad. Are you willing to provide some support for that, or can I call you out on your lie right now? That’s what I thought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And was the HLS list formed in the same manner? I’m sure of it.</p>
<p>45 Percenter - I could be wrong about this, but I believe the OP of the thread to which you refer (PosterX) did base it on the size of each school as per this snippet which got cut from the original:
“Formula = Makeup of Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut enrollment / Number of undergrads (from wikipedia).”</p>
<p>^ johnwesley, I saw that, but it still has the major flaws I discussed above (e.g., (1) it reflects only those who matriculated at YLS, and not those who were admitted, leading to disparities like the 13/5 ratio for Penn cited above; (2) it fails to account for the true pre-law population of a feeder school by counting entire student bodies where, in cases such as Penn, there is a significant pre-professional component; (3) it is based solely on one law school that, its obvious superiority notwithstanding, is EXTREMELY small and tends to attract certain types of academically-oriented students; etc.).</p>
<p>45%er,</p>
<p>bear in mind that these “per capita” rankings were very “back of the envelope” calculations indeed. they are intended to give you a rough snapshot of the undergraduate representation at HLS / YLS for a given year. it absolutely cannot substitute the kind of deep and thorough analysis that you are suggesting, but in the absence of such an analysis (I haven’t seen a database that would contain all of those numbers) – and really for CC purposes of discussion, it provides a better picture than a lot of throw away statement that occur here.</p>
<p>So, yeah, there are flaws to any analysis (case and point people arguing to this day about the USNWR ranking), but I’d like to say that for back of the envelope purposes (never stated than being anything more than that) it gives you a rough picture of what people are talking about.</p>
<p>besides, that YLS ranking above (posted originally by posterX) is very different to the YLS per capita ranking that I did last year where UPenn ranked no. 19.</p>
<p>^ True. It just screws Penn in a sorta obvious way. :)</p>
<p>Exactly. What would be a good project: students interested in law school could go to the pre-law office at their undergrad and get such data (most schools make it available) for the previous application cycle, then post their results for the T14 (or whatever) on a CC thread.</p>
<p>besides UPenn has a Top 10 law school on its home court so the law numbers are going to be slightly skewed negative in a H / Y analysis in any given year anyway.</p>
<p>^ Just like Penn got royally screwed–er, um, SKEWED–in the WSJ feeder ranking because it failed to include top-3 Penn Med, while acknowledging that Penn Med had enrolled a record number of Penn undergrad alums.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>jazzymom – I think you have misunderstood what I had posted. Of course, WUSTL’s SAT scores should be used for the USNWR rankings (as are all the other schools that use merit aid); with regard to WUSTL’s admit rate, I have a problem with how the admin comes up with the no. – but that’s a whole ‘nother issue.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with WUSTL using these metrics for USNWR rankings – what I do have a problem with is WUSTL supporters trying to justify comparisons with other schools by touting its SAT scores or admit rates w/o taking into account that these nos. for WUSTL are artificially boosted or lowered.</p>
<p>WUSTL is a fine school and I certainly don’t have a problem with supporters comparing it with school-X, however, touting statistics (at least with regard to SAT scores and admit rates) seems a bit disingenuous to me.</p>
<p>After all, UChicago proponents compare their school with just about every other top school – irrespective of Chicago’s comparatively higher admit rate.</p>
<p>Btw, those stats of grads attending Yale or Harvard Law really give a very limited picture.</p>
<p>For instance, a year or so ago - NU sent as many people to UChicago Law as Chicago (in the big picture, these little snapshots don’t mean much).</p>
<p>The highest % of NU grads at top law schools are at UChicago, Mich and Northwestern - shocking!!</p>
<p>k&s:</p>
<p>You’re so convinced of the unassailable rightness of your assertion that you think I misunderstood you. I don’t misunderstand you. I disagree with you and emphatically so.</p>
<pre><code>You can take as much issue as you like with WashU’s policies, you have a right to your opinion. But you can’t expect me or other WU supporters to kowtow to your POV and the “problem” you have with using WU’s stats as reported to compare it to other colleges. I do not consider it disingenuous to put WU’s stats up against any other colleges for comparison as long as those are the stats reported in the official record — whether it’s USNWR, the ASU report on American research universities, the THES, or any other national or international report.
</code></pre>
<p>If those stats were to be challenged and officially removed or changed, of course, I would no longer cite them. If USNWR decided to place a little asterisk next to the SAT scores of every college that offers merit aid (in any form) I would not object to that since it would be applied fairly and equally and not just against WU. </p>
<p>From my standpoint, I don’t see why the asterisk would be necessary. The issue isn’t how the students got there with their high SAT scores — whether they were lured by merit money or enticed by the dazzle of the Ivy League name on their future diploma — they exist, they’re at the college contributing what they contribute and adding to the educational quality. However they got there, their presence and their scores can be legitimately touted.</p>
<p>jazzymom - </p>
<p>Uhh, I think that you HAVE misunderstood what I had written. </p>
<p>Like I stated previously, I do NOT have a problem with WUSTL reporting what they report to USNWR (or any other such ) since WUSTL’s stats are what they are (the exception is the admit rate which, when taking into account WUSTL’s yield %, is highly irregular).</p>
<p>However, when YOU (or others) start extolling WUSTL’s SAT scores or admit rate - it does become a bit disingenuous (its akin to some guy bragging about how he can bench 300 lbs, but totally overlooking the fact that he took some performance enhancers).</p>
<p>How can Wash U have a 1450 sat average but a 34 percent yield rate, when it was offering 2 ED decision periods for many years?</p>
<p>incredible!</p>
<p>think about if you are hiring someone, would you pay more attention to the dartmouth grad or the wash u grad? come on dartmouth by a landslide, think clearly now. dartmouth also has alot more money than wash u = better everything</p>