Updates to Some Grad School Data

Amigos dela vien to tempos

Surcho mekes todo vede en Karen solevestra. Best price propecia Todos piedes bone Petra en connent

UCLA Health Administration Program

I called UCLA about their "#11 ranked" graduate health care management program. The health services dept. (listed on the USN website) knew nothing about a health management program at their school...very peculiar!

Is the University of Michigan reporting accurate statistics?

I admit to eagerly anticipating the rankings that appear annually. I regularly find the methodology of the rankings logical. However, I am posting this blog after years of puzzling over what appears to be a conundrum in the statistics of your "Best National Universities" category. To illustrate the peculiarity, below is data from three Big Ten universities for the years 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2008.

U. of MI-Ann Arbor U of IL-Urbana/Cham. U of WI-Madison

top 10% ACT* top 10% ACT* top 10% ACT*

2002 69 26-30 55 25-30 50 25-30

2003 87 26-30 56 26-30 55 26-30

2005 90 26-30 50 25-31 58 26-30

2007 90 27-31 55 25-30 58 26-30

2008 90 27-31 55 26-31 60 26-30

* 25th-75th percentile

I find it curious that, in 2003, Michigan's top 10% rose miraculously 18% to 87% yet its ACT range remained identical to 2002 and, indeed, matched both WI and IL, both of which edged up only slightly to the mid-50% range. In the ensuing years, MI has gone on to report that 90% of its entering freshmen are in the top 10% of their classes whereas IL and WI have remained in the 55-60% range. The statistics reported by WI and IL are understandable in view of not only their patterns over the past six years but also in comparison to other top tier public and private universities. MI, however, appears to be a very suspicious "outlier". It is difficult to understand how such an outstanding freshman class, 90% of which have graduated in the top 10% of their high school classes, have scored so relatively modestly on their ACT exams. It would be interesting to see how the incoming freshmen at Duke and Stanford, also in the 90-91% range for top 10% of their class, performed on their ACT exams. I would be very surprised if their scores were in the 27-31 range that Michigan is reporting.

One explanation for Wisconsin and Illinois' lower top 10% numbers in comparison to Michigan's, while at the same time maintaining a near identical ACT range, could be that the high schools from which MI recruits are far less competitive than those from which IL and WI recruit, thereby resulting in fewer of their entering freshmen achieving top 10% ranking. But this seems an unlikely explanation.

I would urge you to pay particular attention to what Michigan reports this year. Perhaps they can explain the conundrum. Obviously, integrity of reported data and prevention of "gaming" remains vital to the survey's reputation.

To JC - on penalizing law schools

JC wrote: "However, law schools that were gaming the system by not including part time students in their calculations the past few years should receive a slight penalty in the next few years."

First, as far as I can tell there is only one law school that did this. Second, this is the first year part-time numbers were incorporated, so law schools shouldn't be "penalized" for having gamed the rankings - as most did - through part-time and LLM programs for years. This is exactly what the old rankings methodology encouraged.

Also, penalizing law schools in the rankings for administrative errors just gives bad information to applicants and employers. The best solution is not to rank schools that do not provide complete data. End of story.

To JC

I disagree with JC about including tuition in the rankings. If you did, students would be saying "this is a cheap school, and it is ranked highly" -- when really, it is ranked highly because it is cheap. It would get better students with higher LSATs and GPAs because it is cheap. Students can see the tuition price of each school and will always consider it, it would distort things to include tuition in the rankings.

Law School Rankings

Employment statistics are the easiest to manipulate and should not be given as much weight. They should be offset by average tuition paid per student (Tuition-School grants). This calculation should only include grants and not work aid or student loans. A waiver of out-of-state tuition would be fine. This statistic would help students consider likely rates of return for their future degree. It should apply to Law & Business schools more than other programs. US News would be doing a great service as this would force schools to issue more aid or suffer in the rankings. Schools like Fordham Law send out e-mails to unemployed students stating that a non-response will be taken as though the student is STILL EMPLOYED. Gimme a break...

Overall, you guys did a good job with the rankings this year. However, law schools that were gaming the system by not including part time students in their calculations the past few years should receive a slight penalty in the next few years.

us news

yes joey, read it again perhaps - they are saying they intended to leave blank, as they had every other year. i think us news could have at least responded to bls's inquiry as to the change in rankings..

what about the fact that many schools have large may / winter admission programs - are the lsat / gpas of these students counted?

Brooklyn's Puzzling Explanation

Brooklyn issued a press release: http://lawschoolheadlines.com/brooklyns-statement/ I think the explanation still leaves a lot to be desired. Is Brooklyn saying it meant to leave the question about the combined full-time/part-time LSAT/GPA blank? If Brooklyn had in fact left the question blank, I am wondering how US News would have handled Brooklyn's ranking? Would US News have ranked Brooklyn 184th on that question and move Brooklyn way down in the rankings, perhaps the 4th tier? Or would they have just not ranked Brooklyn at all? I find it hard to believe that Brooklyn, knowing US News was considering the change in the ranking formula to include part-timers, would have risked such an outcome.

If Brooklyn is saying it intended to fill in correct numbers for the combined figures -- then why would it continue to leave the numbers for the part-time program blank? Brooklyn says in is press release it is appropriate to compare part-time programs to part-time programs, so why would it omit providing the necessary information about its part-time program?

Good luck in your continued investigation into this matter.

bls

I doubt brooklyn intentionally did not report the part time data. also, considering you KNEW that brooklyn had a large part time program, how did you NOT CATCH the fact that the data was missing?? isn't that reason you did not rank brooklyn in the part time category??

Kudos to you Mr. Morse

In light of the law schools' continued strategic deception in reporting - might I suggest you consider decreasing the weight of, or eliminate, factors that are repeatedly manipulated such as employment statistics and overhead costs, and increase the weight of objective quality indicators that can't be manipulated such as bar pass rates, student/faculty ratios, etc.?

A long time ago, someone wrote on this blog about the depth of the deceit particular to the law schools. That person was right, and the schools won't change themselves, so you have to limit their ability to consistently undermine the integrity of your product...