im so goshdarn firsty!
-Firsty McFirsty :)

They should add a category for % of students entering biglaw (with an appropriate definition of biglaw) and bar passage rates school wide, not just by the predominate jurisdiction. The Full-Time/Part-Time change is also a good idea.

They should add a category for % of students entering biglaw (with an appropriate definition of biglaw) and bar passage rates school wide, not just by the predominate jurisdiction. The Full-Time/Part-Time change is also a good idea.

There will be a fight to the death between UT and Vandy.

However; it will probably just become the T13.

I think that more people should focus on the Consus Group's rankings at consusrankings.com

i got into a (solidly) tier 1 school through the part-time "back door" (166 lsat / 2.5 UGPA)... that said, the part-time program here is legit. after the first semester many courses curve day students against evening students, and the evening students do just fine.

There should be some weighting to take into consideration how much more difficult it is to fill a class of 400+ with high LSAT/GPA numbers than a class of 200 or less.

In other words, Vandy should be punished.

Any change that screws a school so TTT as to have a part time program is a positive change.

2:43(2) = G-towner afraid of future Vandy pwnage should this change happen

I agree with 2:34 (the the % that goes to BigLaw should be taken into consideration; however, I would add that prestigious Gov jobs(DOJ) / clerkships, and academia should be added.

The "employed at graduation" stat is worthless because having a job waiting tables (or as a contract atty) shouldn't count. It should only include legit legal jobs.

G-Towner should always fear Vandy pwnage!

The best change US News could make is to go back to only ranking the top 25 schools.

This will probably hurt Fordham law.

How about throwing in Alumni Giving Percentage as a criterion? Alums are more likely to give if they were happier with their experience at the school.

vandy has a law school?

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

This will plummet HLS to #2

As someone who has passed both Cali and New York I did not think that the content was more diffult in Cali. The only thing that is more difficult is the stamina needed for 3 days instead of 2.

It is ridiculous for Cali to claim their exam is so much harder than anywhere else when their low passage rate is mainly due to all the unaccredited takers.

Vandy pwnage continues!

2:39: the consus rankings simply demonstrate that a bad idea can be made worse. They use their own arbitrary criteria and "average" that with US news.

Further, they've been known (and continue to do so) rank schools and programs that don't exist.

2:58: word.

2:58; I agree completely. Only the top 25 should be ranked, everything else should be in tiers, or not even mentioned.

They also should not rank schools every year. Not enough change happens within one year to really justify most of the movement in the rankings. Once every three or five years should be sufficient. I think that is what they do for most PhD programs.

2:58; I agree completely. Only the top 25 should be ranked, everything else should be in tiers, or not even mentioned.

They also should not rank schools every year. Not enough change happens within one year to really justify most of the movement in the rankings. Once every three or five years should be sufficient. I think that is what they do for most PhD programs.

Who gives a $hit?

Not only does Georgetown probably fall out of the top 14 but GW probably has a hard time holding off the schools on its heels. George Mason used to play that game as well. I think you definitely adopt this methodology.

Outside of Georgetown, do any other T14 schools have a part-time JD program? I remember hearing something about NYU having one as well, but I never bothered to look it up.

3:05 - I bet you Vandy kids are giving high fives and going out celebrating at the bars tonight. I bet you are in store for a wild time! Vandy pwnage continues!!!! VP VP VP VP! Awesome! The bars in nashville are going to be just sick tonight - absolutely ridiculous.

I think the result of forcing schools to average in the numbers for night and part time programs would be that schools would shrink and/or eliminate some of those programs. Maybe this is a good thing (less lawyers is probably a good thing), but numbers concious schools won't want to "dilute" themselves with the second tier people's numbers.

NYU has a PT program.

yes screw vandy and georgetown...UT to T14!

I think the result of forcing schools to average in the numbers for night and part time programs would be that schools would shrink and/or eliminate some of those programs. Maybe this is a good thing (less lawyers is probably a good thing), but numbers concious schools won't want to "dilute" themselves with the second tier people's numbers.

GULC to TTT!

NYU is actually Columbia's PT program.

wild party on demonbreun tonight!

hahaha GULC. what a ttt. The only thing G-TTTown has over Vandy is better job prospects, more prestige, smarter students, better city, better careers, better college bball team. Vandy pwnage!

2:43, fair point.

My school dropped from the low 20's to the high 20's while I was there (we were pissed), so only randing the T25 would probably have screwed us.

Saying there is no rankable difference between #26 vs. # 49 or something is a little silly and arbitrary. But comfortable snootyness I suppose if your school is comfortably T20...one more reason to feel extra special.

"Those OTHER schools? Eh, they are all the same crap..."

3:15 (1)

So this really could shake up the T14

-3:09

(1) Some students use the PT as a back door.
(2) However, there are some students that are full time professionals that may actually have higher LSAT scores.
(3) Regardless, those working professionals do not devote nearly as much time preparing for the LSAT as do "kids" who do not work.

In other words, apples to oranges (or should be).

Ahh ... so a USNews higher up said a possible thing to look into is take away PT programs from a ranking methodology and all the sudden Vandy and UT students are feeling superior to UCLA / GULC - becuase of a proposed change in a ranking methodology? lulz at vandy ut students. lol.

Didn't Vandy's dean leave for Wash. U in St. Louis a few years ago?

3:28:

Also because UT is superior already. UT has a good national reputation and it's easy for top 30% to get jobs at biglaw mostly anywhere. And Vandy sucks. The whole school has some weird superiority complex.

UT to world domination.
Kthxbai!!!!!

NYU does not have a part-time program.

NYU does have a PT program.

NYU has a part-time LLM program, but for obvious reasons that is irrelevant to USNews rankings.

Guys in my high school used to make methodological modifications all the time. It was no big deal.

335: Although I usually love bashing on the JD factory , I will say that it is in another league with UT and Vandy. An argument could be made that UT is better than Vandy, but GULC, for better or worse is much much better than either school. I know at my firm, we dip much further into GULC's class than Vandy and UT (of which we only interview at one).

IMHO: GULC = gunners; Vandy/ UT = superiority complexed peons.

They should also require full disclosure of employment stats.

i miss nashville so much.

Go Vandy!

(1) Consider the LSAT/GPA of transfer students. Enough of these loophole lovers. You never put on your resume where you spent your first year. So you better freaking count. Enough of schools getting to take advantage of the extra revenue transfers bring without a hit to the ranking.

(2) Consider the caliber of undergrad. I've had it with all these 4.0 from solidly tier 2 undergrads sweeping into tier 1 law schools and then biffing hard core. If you go to a bad undergrad and blow law school, you're an idiot. If you go to a good undergrad and rock a bad law school, you played too hard when you were young and irresponsible. If you're Phi Bet at Harvard and Order of the Coif at Yale . . . well, God bless ya. Strength of students has to matter.

(3) Count bar passage rate overall. At a lot of state schools, there is a much higher percentage of idiots who stay in the state jurisdiction. The people who are smart and work hard (aka more likely to pass the bar) leave the jurisdiction and thus, don't care under the current stupid system.

(4) Stop letting schools fake the graduation at employment numbers. If it's not a real job and just some stupid $2000 stipend from your dean, it shouldn't count! But a lot of schools don't see it that way.

(5) Count clerkships.

(6) Count biglaw. Or DOJ honors. Or any other reasonably objective indicator that you're not just working for your uncle.

What I've discovered is that if you take the U.S. News rankings, weight the values by 2.74, add the IRLG index rankings in conjunction with the Cooley rankings squared, place this on a neat spreadsheet, sort it in order of LSAT scores with sub-groupings of GPA, 86.29 percent of the time you'll end up at Chapman.

2:58 - Give me a break. We have summers from Cornell, NU, and Duke who are stupid and act entitled.

Our summers from the non-top 25 schools actually work hard and have brains.

ENOUGH!

Preach on 3:45. BTW, DC firms only dip further into GUCL b/c its regional. Other DC schools wouldn't even get on-campus interviews if they were located in the midwest.

I'm all for it. F*cking Georgetown scam artists.

This is about as interesting as a neanderthalic friend explaining, in his drunken stupor, the difference between a 7.5 and an 8.

NYU, does not have a part-time JD program. G-Town is the only T-14 that has one. That said, they should include a separate category on transfers to shame NYU and CLS. They should also ask schools to report more openly on the number of students employed at graduation and they should consider eliminating that category entirely as it is both misleading (harder to get public interest jobs than private sector) and ripe for schools to game the system.

At at NYU part-time.

CLS is NYU's P/T program.

3:52 - If that's true, then why is it that none of this has occured to USNWR???????? Boring people get bored.

The employed at grad. stat. serves 2 purposes: (1) to help prosecptive students gauge their chances of employment upon graduation and (2) as a proxy for the strength of the career services office. As for the former, students can gauge their chances of employement equally well based off the overall ranking of the school (the higher the rank, the easier it will be for you to get a job). As for the latter, surveying interviewing firms about the strength of schools' CSO would be a more accurate indicator.

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/heller_ehrman_update.php

2:58(1) is right. The top 25 (or thereabouts). The rest can be listed too but ought to be ranked in regionally in a way that accurately represents the market various law schools actually send their students too.

Of course this would mean the US News would actually be helpful to students as opposed to terribly misleading and that appears to be counter to US News's goal.

2:43 = SMU evening student. You just got conned by SMU. Have fun (choose one:) 1) Car accidents, 2) Workman's comp, 3) Insurance Defense, 4) public defender, 5) bag boy at Kroger's

Here is the new methodology:

1) HYS
2) T14 (T13?)
3) TTT

Your're welcome.

Nobody is saying that employment at graduation isn't a relevant metric. The way USNWR calculates it allows schools to mess with it.

I'm thinking of a school right now where the Dean helped it jump several spots by providing "employment."

There should be some of official expose about how these law schools game the system and hopefully, there will be some loss of prestie. As it stands now, there are no consequences and you can just stop later if USNEWS ever decides to fix this broken system. Hell, you'd be stupid not to game the system when everyone around is already hard at it.

And if you didn't already know, this lack of accountability (perpetuated because people repeatedly fall for the "spin" excuses after the fact) is the basis for the problems in society in general.

I agree with those of you saying that only the top 25 should be ranked. There are too many jackasses out there that think a JD from anywhere equals instant six figures. I'm not being elitist, either; I went to a top 50 school, and I still think only top 25 should be ranked. Anyone who thinks they're getting 160k a year out of Golden Gate or Widener is a nut.

Of all the things wrong with the law school rankings, the part time/full time issue hardly seems significant.

Employment statistics, bar passage rates, etc are serious problems. Students should know what they are paying for.

But counting part time numbers in the ranking isn't going to shed any new light on the quality of the school for the students. First, most people are aware that part time stats aren't included. If they are worried about the existence of a "lesser" part time program, then just don't apply. Second, is there any evidence that the existence of a part time program hurts students at that law school?

So schools are gaming the system in that area. But, at the same time, the part time programs do (for the most part) serve a different group of students. it seems to me a better solution would be to rank the part time programs separately - maybe even require the school to publish "percentage of part time students who applied to the full time program but were denied admission." That sort of thing would be incredibly useful to part time students in making an assessment and would help alleviate some of the problems associated with the gaming of the system.

3:45 -- TITCR -- Agree with all your suggestions, particularly re transfers.

I second 4:37 on 3:45.

Re: 3:45 on your point two. I agree with you in general, but students from crappy tier 2 undergrads with inflated liberal arts GPAs are essential to any law school. They and affirmative action admits are the ones padding the bottom of the curve and enabling the rest of us to get top 10%.

For the people bashing people from the lower-ranked undergrads, would anyone care to guess where the last summa (who I believe also set the GPA record) at HLS went to undergrad? Anyone care to guess where Bruce Hay (prof at HLS) and first in his class went to undergrad? Sorry - at a place like HLS and similar places, I would not draw too many conclusions about a student based on their undergrad.

5:14, only a tier 2 undergrad would think that the plural of anecdote is data, or that strong correlations are disproved by simple examples. It's like arguing that Africa is not a poor continent because the island of Mauritius is pretty wealthy.

It is sad that you had to cite the joker Bruce Hay (ask any HLS student about his actual reputation) as your example. Furthermore, Hay went to UWisconsin, which is ranked 38th in the USNews undergrad rankings (not tier 2), so apparently you had to stretch so much to find a person to support your points.

3:01 is right.

coming from a low ranked undergrad should not be considered. with the exception of some of the ivy league schools most of the high ranked private schools are out of the reach of poor people, because they can not offer as much aid money. people are more willing to take out student loans for a high ranked grad school because of the chance of getting the high paying job right out of school, but thats not the same with undergrad. no one is giving NU or Gtown undergrads 160k a year fresh out school, so the smart poor kids go to cheaper lower ranked school often.

I do not know what the methodology for the salary percentiles is, but that should also be revisited. I suspect US News simply reiterates whatever the law schools report, and the law schools are actually reportin the 25-75th percentiles of people who responded to the survey.

It is assumed, however, that the 25-75th percentile corresponds to class rank, and that's how it should be calculated. The reported salaries should be plotted along a graph based on class rank, establishing a curve, then the 25th and 75th percentile can be extrapolated from the curve.

5:40

your salary idea is interesting, i would suggest printing it but not making it part of the ranking system. since some schools do not have class ranks (no grades) and others pride themselves on public interest, so they may actively seek out highly qualified students (LSAT,GPD) who show no interest in biglaw.

Widener owns Baltimore.

Whats wrong with insurance defense?

USNWR
to
GULC, GW, Cali law schools
DING!!!!

3:45- all solid pts

6:00 - insurance defense work sucks. The work has become commoditized due to the low-billing rates expected by insurance companies - who will take their work elsewhere in a second to save a few bucks.

Admittedly you are provided with good litigation experience in that you are handed files-full of cases on your first day, thrown into depositions, etc. However, you work as long or longer hours than Biglaw, get paid under 100k for the effort, and have to deal with penny-pinching insurance companies scrutinizing every bill. Time that gets written off does not count towards bonus, and bonuses are small to begin with. It is difficult (but not entirely impossible) to go from insurance defense to Biglaw. As a result, the "prestige" factor is very low.

It's fine as a backup for someone who really loves litigation who could not get Biglaw. Otherwise, if you are qualified, the conventional wisdom is: take the money offered by Biglaw even if it takes you five years to earn the experience you'd get in one year doing insurance defense.

3:45 - You can't be serious about quality of undergrad. People choose undergrad institutions on the basis of any number of factors, and it's not something that should count for much. Some of the most impressive people I know went to average public universities, and some of the least impressive people I know graduated from top undergrad programs.

I can think of several people who went to top ugrads that did very badly at my law school, and several of the COA clerks from my class went to decidedly
unremarkable ugrads.

Distinguishing on this basis simply isn't sound.

UVA poppin collars all over USNWR.

I agree with those who would rather emphasize outcomes than applicants in the rankings.

If part-timers all find good work after graduation then they were obviously good to go and their existence shouldn't hit the school.

The problem isn't that students get to law school and hate it because their classmates are dumber than advertised. The problem is that students get to law school and hate it because they can't get the jobs advertised. If USNWR wants to help they'll address the latter.

Amen, 5:01. Thank goodness for them all.

It's not fair to count the part timers if you aren't going to count the tax llm students. If NYU had to count the lsat scores of its llm students, it would be knocked out of the top 50.

Widener pwns Western New England.

Just another reason to hate my law school....

Fordham = T2 now

Why don't they judge law schools by how kind, honest and ethical the lawyers they produce are? The kids at my school who have highest GPAs talk about how much they cheated as under grads. The ones who get the highest grades now are the ones who "use" the bathroom the most while taking the final (4x's in 3 hours during Torts for the Cali award winner).

-An honest 1L at SeattleU

Fuck you widener!! Touro gots the juice, bitch.

To 5:27, there are a lot more than two people out there but those two were really good examples since they both finished first in their class. I take it then that you think that the people at HLS who came from top 10 schools are statistically more likely to outperform those who came from school ranked 30-50? I highly doubt that is the case.

I still think they should change the rankings to convey reality. This PT consideration is worthless since the rankings should be as follows:

1) Yale
2) TTTs

There. No more discrepancies and TTT students/grads trying to distinguish between quality of their garbage schools. If you are not the best, you are nothing.

4:06 -

Anything below T14 should be ranked regionally.

5:14 PM - Wisconsin undergrad is ranked by everyone other than US News (which doesn't have any public university in the Top 20 iirc) as one of the best universities in the *world*.

Not a good example of a "Tier 2 undergrad."

8:17-
welcome to reality. it stinks. the world is full of malicious, nefarious people who will do anything to get ahead (look at all these law schools gaming numbers).
at my law school, the valedictorian was a well-known cheater who bragged about her accomplishments. yet she never got caught, had prestigious clerkships and the height of prestigious firms.
the only advice I can give you is don't fall into it. you'll be a happier person. oh, and make lots of friends outside of law

-v20 associate, NYC

10:11, yes the student with the same credentials from a top 10 school (e.g., Yale) would have a higher statistical probability of doing better than the student with the same GPA/LSAT credentials from a top 50 school (e.g., Penn State). Put 50 Yale students and 50 Penn State students in the same class, and there will be more Yale students (though obviously not all) in the top half.

Just because you want to desperately deny that undergraduate rankings have any correlation with student caliber does not mean that it is not true.

For all those thinking that Georgetown created their evening program to game the system: "Georgetown's Law School was founded as an evening program. In 1870, the first catalog announced that '[t]he exercises will be held in the evening in order to facilitate the attendance of gentlemen who are engaged in the service of the Government.'"
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/curriculum/jdprog.cfm

1:59 - This is absolutely not true, particularly when talking about Ivy League schools that are notorious grade inflaters.

Undergrad institution is picked for about a dozen different reasons, most of which have little to do with the intellectual ability of the student to perform well in law school. For most people, the biggest factor in undergrad is money. This can mean state school (dirt cheap) or competing scholorships, as most people who are ultimately going onto T1 law school were pretty highly academically recruited.

As far as conflating GPA and LSAT - you are an idiot. GPA is , like undergrad institution, governed by a multitude of outside factors, most of which are illegitimate (grade inflation, corrupt professors) or have no bearing on how someone performs in law school (spent most of freshman year in frat house). There's a reason high GPA and bad LSAT is often a death sentence for applications, whereas not-so-high GPA and good LSAT is something you can explain your way out of, especially if GPA improved over the 4 years.

There's basically no "excuse" for a bad LSAT.

1: 59 is a degenerate who thinks the entire world is driven by the right preschool - right kindergarten - right prep school - right undergrad - right law school - NYC job BS that most people would be shocked to find even *exists* in the real world.

As far as GPA meaning anything, four words: Engineering major. English major.

8:17 PM, maybe they really had to go. For whatever reason, I had to pee like a racehorse twice during my most recent 1L exam. It was four hours. About forty-five minutes in, I couldn't take it any longer. I ran to the bathroom and seriously must have peed for at least a minute. It happened again with about an hour to go. I mean, these were massive streams. I didn't drink more than usual. I don't know what it was. Can nerves make you pee?

You guys missed the most baller night ever in Nashville last night! The party on Demonbreun was unbelievable. Free drinks for all the law students. Local girls coming up and making out with you just so they could say they got "a little taste of a prestigious t14 stud." Downtown, at the Stage, even the band was chanting t14, t14!

As the free drinks flowed and the girls draped themselves around my popped collar, I inwardly chuckled. While my nebbish counterparts at GULC, UCLA, and Cornell spent 3 years of misery, I had 3 years of kegs, hot blondes, and frat-tasticness. Go Vandy!

-Vandy FRAT STUD.

8:17 and 11:25

There was rampant use of adderall and meth in law school so students would have the ability to stay awake for hours on end to study. I am underwhelmed by most lawyers' intelligence.

Employment at graduation is the most worthless stat b/c it can be completely bullshitted. It also hurts schools who have strong govt/public interest placement, since those employers generally don't hire till you've already passed the bar.

Second the superiority of the Consus Rankings. Their list seems more accurate, and their methodology seems legit:

The Consus Group uses the following methodology to compile its law school rankings:

Published Rankings: Published Rankings reflect current and historical ratings by numerous sources. An institution’s aggregate published ranking comprises 50% of its overall score.
Selectivity: Selectivity measures the quality of law schools’ admitted candidates. Selectivity is based on the percent of applicants admitted (40% of composite selectivity score), LSAT scores (35% of composite), and GPAs (25% of composite). An institution’s composite selectivity comprises 25% of its overall score.
Salary: Salary measures historical and current starting salaries of a given school’s graduates. Salary comprises 10% of an institution’s overall score.
Placement: Placement measures historical and current success a given school has placing its graduates. Placement comprises 10% of an institution’s overall score.
Yield: Yield reflects the percentage of admitted candidates that matriculate to the admitting university. An institution’s yield comprises 5% of its overall score.

Consus is far too obsessed with academic prestige and not enough with the concern of 95% of people applying to law schools: gainful legal employment.

Vault is the most useful ranking in terms of straight hiring.

11:58: Brilliant.

us news ranks law schools?

i'm sorry a transfer student took your job, maybe you should work harder.

as most people who are ultimately going onto T1 law school were pretty highly academically recruited.

Not Me! Lol! Fuck you Penn studets who are forced into lower schools due to your inability to pass a single fucking test! My scum (free) undergrad shits all over u! Way to go Ivies, rejecting your own brilliant students over a POS test score and taking a lowlife scumbag like me!

AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! I'M LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!

Of course no one mentions the fact that the law schools LIE about their numbers. I graduated from one of the 2nd tier NY law schools during the last recession. They posted a 90+% employment rate for my class.....trust me, it was more like 50%. Not single person in my class that I talked to had even been contacted by the school to find out if they were employed, so it was clear the school simply made the employment number up out of thin air.

I pissed 11 times in a four hour tax exam three years ago. It was an 8 am, and I'd taken 2 no dose and finished two red bulls before 7:55. I sipped 20 ounce rock star energy drink during the exam.

Being a liberal arts major, I didn't know the effect of massive amounts of caffeine on the bladder.

The proctor probably thought I was cheating. Plus, just getting up and walking around is helpful.

I got an "A" on the exam.

I think the best solution is to create a separate ranking category: Most Insufferable Douchebags. This way Georgetown can be #1 at something.

Nice post!

Nice post! (I am referring to the post directly ahead).

Bar passage rates are key. And if they consider GPAs and LSAT scores, they should do so only in comparison with bar passage rates.

Suppose a school accepts students with higher GPAs/LSATs but fails to train students in certain legal skills, which is reflected in a low bar passage rate. In fact, the rate is lower than a second school that accepts students with lower GPAs/LSATs. The logical conclusion is that the first school has failed to educate their students as well as the second school in at least one concrete capacity. And that should be reflected as a factor in the rankings.

So basically, schools who admit students with lower GPA's and LSAT scores should be rewarded when they have a higher bar passage rate, and vice versa. To just "ding" a school because they accept students with lower test scores is not an accurate reflection of what kind of lawyers will be produced from that school.

Bar passage rates are key. And if they consider GPAs and LSAT scores, they should do so only in comparison with bar passage rates.

Suppose a school accepts students with higher GPAs/LSATs but fails to train students in certain legal skills, which is reflected in a low bar passage rate. In fact, the rate is lower than a second school that accepts students with lower GPAs/LSATs. The logical conclusion is that the first school has failed to educate their students as well as the second school in at least one concrete capacity. And that should be reflected as a factor in the rankings.

So basically, schools who admit students with lower GPA's and LSAT scores should be rewarded when they have a higher bar passage rate, and vice versa. To just "ding" a school because they accept students with lower test scores is not an accurate reflection of what kind of lawyers will be produced from that school.

GULC(include PT) 166-169-171 3.43-3.66-3.81

Cornell 166-167-168 3.54-3.66-3.78

Vandy 164-167-168 3.54-3.74-3.83

UT 163-166-168 3.38-3.60-3.80

UCLA 163-167-169 3.54-3.72-3.85

GW(include PT) 163-166-168 3.33-3.71-3.85

What does "pwn" mean?

9:12,

There are plenty of excuses for a bad LSAT. "I don't test well." "Standardized tests are biased toward white males." Etc.

I don't get the hating on GULC's PT program. The vast majority of PTers at GULC are not 22 year olds trying to "sneak in" to GULC, but are older students with jobs. Many have families to support and can't do 3 years of schooling without a salary. And their LSAT scores are still higher than the vast majority of students attending FT programs at schools outside the top 14.

There's a lot more wrong with the USNWR rankings than adding in PT numbers; I hope if they're serious about making methodology changes they make real ones, like ranking schools outside the top 14 regionally or by job market placement.

First, while there may be no "excuse for a bad LSAT score," we have to decide what a "bad" score is. Is it bad to score between 160 and 165 when that range usually represents the 88th to 95th percentile? Certainly, if the goal is admission to any top ten law school or even top twenty-five, a score of 160-165 will not cut it. But does that mean that the score is "bad"?

Second, what does a very high LSAT score really prove? It might provide evidence that you are a Mensa-qualifying genius. But it might prove merely that you spent many, many weeks in preparation, took a Kaplan or Princeton Review course, took the test multiple times, etc. What it does not prove, without more, is that you are smarter (or will be a better lawyer) than a person with a lower LSAT score. The use of LSAT scores for admissions purposes has correlative, not determinative value.

Third, one post above indicates that there are plenty of reasons to have a low gpa, citing the following four words: "Engineering major. English major." It may be difficult to do well as an engineering or science major. But, earning an A in an engineering course can sometimes mean garnering a mere 50% of the material, based on test performance. Also, in my experience as an engineering student, a generous curve allows the top students to earn A's for struggling to learn 50% of the material, while C students learn less - something like 30% of the material. Perhaps those engineering majors who earned gpa's in the 2.0 to 3.0 range were just lazy. Smart enough to do well on the LSAT, but too busy partying (or playing world of warcraft, as it might be) to learn even 50% of the material for an engineering exam.

Taking the test multiple times shows on the report, and is considered by the school, often negatively.

A high LSAT score means that you are, or have become through practice, fairly skilled at recognizing basic logic patterns in both prose and exercise, and analyzing arguments in a very basic way. If you are a genius, you may be able to do this intuitively. If you need to take a review course but still score highly, the skills you gained in order to achieve that score do not instantly vanish.

It is true that the exorbitant cost of tutored programs like Kaplan and the Princeton Review provide some economic barrier; but this pales in light of the massive tuition charged by many if not most schools.

I wonder, 2:00, if you were one of those students who played world of warcraft to learn the engineering material?

Sorry, my mental editor got caught between "[too busy] play[ing] world of warcraft..." and "played world of warcraft [instead of] learn[ing]...".

@2:49

Bar passage rates? You must be a moron who couldn't get into a top tier law school so you went to a crappy school, paid a lot of money, have no job, and now want to argue for a new ranking to feel better.

Thomas M. Cooley has their own set of rankings. They have some factors that the other rankings dont. However once you see cooley ranked in the top 20 you know how biased and of little value it is..