Brooklyn Speaks Out About Rankings
Brooklyn released a statement about the rankings error last night, excerpted below: (full statement here)
Accordingly, when we completed the 2009 questionnaire, we reported the LSAT/GPA information about our full-time students. Consistent with prior practice, we left blank the questions about LSAT/GPA of part-time students. Following these two questions was a question that sought combined LSAT/GPA information for all entering students – full-time and part-time. In prior years, we had left that line blank. This year, however, we mistakenly inserted only the information provided for the previous two questions – the LSAT/GPA information for our full-time students. This error was completely inadvertent. There was no intention to hide the existence of our part-time program, as evidenced by substantial other information we provided about our part-time program elsewhere in the questionnaire. Moreover, given the one point difference between the LSAT median of 163 for our full-time students and the LSAT median of 162 for our entire class, we do not know what effect, if any, the omission of data about our part-time students would have had on our U.S. News ranking.
Well, that just about does it for this story.
Previously:
Re: Brooklyn Gaming the Rankings
Did Brooklyn Law School Game the Rankings?
Posted in 
Tags: 
7:00 am on May 8th, 2009
Good work LSH.
“We protested the part-time rankings, then we accidentally submitted beneficial numbers”
LOLOL
7:06 am on May 8th, 2009
Wow. Who would have ever guessed?
7:10 am on May 8th, 2009
Agreed, it was obvious Brooklyn cheated.
7:12 am on May 8th, 2009
See my response to the U.S. News entry below.
7:13 am on May 8th, 2009
Also, yes, it’s time for you to publish your revised rankings. Thanks in advance.
7:32 am on May 8th, 2009
It’s in the pipeline Occam. We still have a dozen+ hours of work before it will be ready for the web.
7:47 am on May 8th, 2009
Cool. I was under the impression that you had already completed the rankings. I’m happy to wait as long as you do publish what you’ve got (and the model).
2:38 pm on May 8th, 2009
Very interesting that US News did not catch this prior to publication. The rankings do not list BLS’s part-time program, even though it has a rather large program. How did US New miss that? They didn’t even footnote that data was missing.
I question how thorough US News is confirming stats and information from schools.
2:41 pm on May 8th, 2009
That explains why BLS admits a substantial number of people part-time, but who are allowed to transfer to the full-time division after only one semester. Keeps their “first-year” numbers high I guess.
3:34 pm on May 8th, 2009
This comments on this blog are just another example of people with too much time on their hands blowing things out of proportion. I went to BLS and I had a wonderful experience there. The professors actually taught the material and provided a top notch legal education. Granted that you need to be in the upper part of the class to obtain a biglaw job (which I was in), this is the reality for many of the schools ranked at or near BLS (after all, how many big law jobs are there while there 60 schools ranked better with anywhere between 200-500 graduates a year – you do the math).
In my view, the rankings have very little if anything to do with the success of the students and the quality of the education. I work side by side with Harvard and Columbia grads and I do not notice anything so special about them and neither do the partners.
7:53 am on May 9th, 2009
I think the problem is that BLS uses the rankings to lever their graduates into BigLaw programs – even though BigLaw firms aren’t hiring, that those firms pigeon hole attorneys into specialized fields which leave them ill-prepared to actually practice law and BLS continued to look down their nose at attorneys who practice in firms of 10 lawyers or less.
Art Law may be an interesting subject to learn at Williams College or Hampshire. It is not particularly relevant to a trade school. Law Schools are trade schools. The issue is BLS is not adequately preparing their graduates for their trades. Ask my colleagues, class of 2002, good soldiers, did everything they were asked to do of their Big Law capos and now they are collecting unemployment. The Art Law class is not helping.
9:08 am on May 9th, 2009
@ JimmyShrugs,
I’m not quite sure where you’re getting this. Did you go to Brooklyn? And do you work in biglaw? I don’t really see how a school could leverage a ranking in the 60s to put the majority of students into biglaw. I would guess like 10-15% of the class ends up at market-paying firms in the city, in a good year. Yes, there is a problem in the career services office because the counselors focus on jobs that are well out of reach for the majority of Brooklyn alums. But this doesn’t have anything to do with the qualifications of Brooklyn students.
One of Brooklyn’s strengths is its extensive clinical program. As a 3L, I have personally argued a case in an appellate court and two of my friends have been the lead counsel on misdemeanor criminal trials. Many of my friends draft contracts, asylum petitions, and orders of protection; visit clients in jail; and take depositions. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t done a clinic.
No, law schools in general don’t do a great job of preparing their graduates for practice, but I think a clinical program like this is the best way to do it.
1:00 pm on May 18th, 2009
[...] Brooklyn Speaks Out About Rankings Re: Brooklyn Gaming the Rankings Did Brooklyn Law School Game the Rankings? Posted in [...]