Top universities are “top” essentially because of professional schools?

[Anonymous]

Paragraphs are your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's T14 but not T4.

There is no top 4 only Top 6 for law schools and top 14. Top 6 has 7 schools--Yale Stanford Harvard Chicago Columbia NYU and now Penn is inching it's way up and some put it in there.
[b]
But you knew that?

Of course there is a top 4. See rankings here. Duke, Harvard, Penn UvA tied for 4. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Duke and UVA at #4. Totally laughable.

DP. You can always tell when you've won an argument on DCUM when a mom uses "totally laughable" or "you're insufferable". Both are terrible woman-speak terms that convey no substantive meaning and add nothing of use to the thread - they are just a trite, non-substantive arrogant slams which serve no purpose but to make the poster feel momentarially superior before going about their miserable life. A verbal b@tch slap, if you will.

Fine. You’re delusional [b]if you think Duke and UVA are top 4 law schools. Happy now?

DO. "Delusional" is another trite woman-speak phrase sed on here to b@tch slap other women. Such comments add nothing of substance to the thread

How about gravely mistaken?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's T14 but not T4.

There is no top 4 only Top 6 for law schools and top 14. Top 6 has 7 schools--Yale Stanford Harvard Chicago Columbia NYU and now Penn is inching it's way up and some put it in there.
[b]
But you knew that?

Of course there is a top 4. See rankings here. Duke, Harvard, Penn UvA tied for 4. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Duke and UVA at #4. Totally laughable.

DP. You can always tell when you've won an argument on DCUM when a mom uses "totally laughable" or "you're insufferable". Both are terrible woman-speak terms that convey no substantive meaning and add nothing of use to the thread - they are just a trite, non-substantive arrogant slams which serve no purpose but to make the poster feel momentarially superior before going about their miserable life. A verbal b@tch slap, if you will.

Fine. You’re delusional [b]if you think Duke and UVA are top 4 law schools. Happy now?

DO. "Delusional" is another trite woman-speak phrase sed on here to b@tch slap other women. Such comments add nothing of substance to the thread

How about gravely mistaken?

that's not used very much here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Paragraphs are your friend.

And you are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's T14 but not T4.

There is no top 4 only Top 6 for law schools and top 14. Top 6 has 7 schools--Yale Stanford Harvard Chicago Columbia NYU and now Penn is inching it's way up and some put it in there.

But you knew that?

Of course there is a top 4. See rankings here. Duke, Harvard, Penn UvA tied for 4. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Duke and UVA at #4. Totally laughable. [b]

DP. You can always tell when you've won an argument on DCUM when a mom uses "totally laughable" or "you're insufferable". Both are terrible woman-speak terms that convey no substantive meaning and add nothing of use to the thread - they are just a trite, non-substantive arrogant slams which serve no purpose but to make the poster feel momentarially superior before going about their miserable life. A verbal b@tch slap, if you will.

Fine. You’re delusional if you think Duke and UVA are top 4 law schools. Happy now?

It is the bourgeoise that drive the obsession with business and law school rankings, as that’s how they maintain their wealth and status without the presence of old money. On the other hand, a good number of the rich Ivy League students come from old money ( e.g. William F Buckley or Bill Gates’ kids). They can focus on the humanities not necessarily because it’s “easier”, but because it’s provides a broader lens about how the world actually works. If I spend my undergrad taking finance courses and joining pre professional organizations I almost certainly will be well off, but I won’t understand fundamentally why I’m doing this rat race to begin with. ( ex. Why is finance even possible as a career? How did it emerge out of the Industrial Revolution?) For this, liberal arts gives you the answer it’s just not inherently profitable. Read Marx, Keynes, Hayek or the philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Hume; you’ll have a much better understanding of how the world works and you’ll probably be pretty critical/cynical after the fact. What amazes me about people complaining about how leftist college campuses are is how nobody on the right assumes the best intentions of academia. For example, nobody on the right even begins to think that perhaps there is something objective or universal that people who spent their whole life studying a subject are seeing. What they are seeing is the farce of the modern capitalist industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's T14 but not T4.

There is no top 4 only Top 6 for law schools and top 14. Top 6 has 7 schools--Yale Stanford Harvard Chicago Columbia NYU and now Penn is inching it's way up and some put it in there.

But you knew that?

Of course there is a top 4. See rankings here. Duke, Harvard, Penn UvA tied for 4. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Duke and UVA at #4. Totally laughable. [b]

DP. You can always tell when you've won an argument on DCUM when a mom uses "totally laughable" or "you're insufferable". Both are terrible woman-speak terms that convey no substantive meaning and add nothing of use to the thread - they are just a trite, non-substantive arrogant slams which serve no purpose but to make the poster feel momentarially superior before going about their miserable life. A verbal b@tch slap, if you will.

Fine. You’re delusional if you think Duke and UVA are top 4 law schools. Happy now?

It is the bourgeoise that drive the obsession with business and law school rankings, as that’s how they maintain their wealth and status without the presence of old money. On the other hand, a good number of the rich Ivy League students come from old money ( e.g. William F Buckley or Bill Gates’ kids). They can focus on the humanities not necessarily because it’s “easier”, but because it’s provides a broader lens about how the world actually works. If I spend my undergrad taking finance courses and joining pre professional organizations I almost certainly will be well off, but I won’t understand fundamentally why I’m doing this rat race to begin with. ( ex. Why is finance even possible as a career? How did it emerge out of the Industrial Revolution?) For this, liberal arts gives you the answer it’s just not inherently profitable. Read Marx, Keynes, Hayek or the philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Hume; you’ll have a much better understanding of how the world works and you’ll probably be pretty critical/cynical after the fact. What amazes me about people complaining about how leftist college campuses are is how nobody on the right assumes the best intentions of academia. For example, nobody on the right even begins to think that perhaps there is something objective or universal that people who spent their whole life studying a subject are seeing. What they are seeing is the farce of the modern capitalist industry.

Excellent post, and I agree with you, but I would probably separate finance from law for the purposes of this particular discussion. Legal education has been a staple of the education of elites seeking to preserve family wealth. Harvard law has graduated an enormous number of children of various old money families and modern billionaire families. Clearly they aren't going there because it seems like a good time. Same is true for a number of other law schools to varying degrees -- newer like Duke and older like Yale. But historically, law school is where smart people go after they study the humanities you mention above. Your last two sentences are really interesting--could you expound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's T14 but not T4.

There is no top 4 only Top 6 for law schools and top 14. Top 6 has 7 schools--Yale Stanford Harvard Chicago Columbia NYU and now Penn is inching it's way up and some put it in there.

But you knew that?

Of course there is a top 4. See rankings here. Duke, Harvard, Penn UvA tied for 4. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Duke and UVA at #4. Totally laughable. [b]

DP. You can always tell when you've won an argument on DCUM when a mom uses "totally laughable" or "you're insufferable". Both are terrible woman-speak terms that convey no substantive meaning and add nothing of use to the thread - they are just a trite, non-substantive arrogant slams which serve no purpose but to make the poster feel momentarially superior before going about their miserable life. A verbal b@tch slap, if you will.

Fine. You’re delusional if you think Duke and UVA are top 4 law schools. Happy now?

It is the bourgeoise that drive the obsession with business and law school rankings, as that’s how they maintain their wealth and status without the presence of old money. On the other hand, a good number of the rich Ivy League students come from old money ( e.g. William F Buckley or Bill Gates’ kids). They can focus on the humanities not necessarily because it’s “easier”, but because it’s provides a broader lens about how the world actually works. If I spend my undergrad taking finance courses and joining pre professional organizations I almost certainly will be well off, but I won’t understand fundamentally why I’m doing this rat race to begin with. ( ex. Why is finance even possible as a career? How did it emerge out of the Industrial Revolution?) For this, liberal arts gives you the answer it’s just not inherently profitable. Read Marx, Keynes, Hayek or the philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Hume; you’ll have a much better understanding of how the world works and you’ll probably be pretty critical/cynical after the fact. What amazes me about people complaining about how leftist college campuses are is how nobody on the right assumes the best intentions of academia. For example, nobody on the right even begins to think that perhaps there is something objective or universal that people who spent their whole life studying a subject are seeing. What they are seeing is the farce of the modern capitalist industry.

Bill Gates' daughters majored in bio. One went to med school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's T14 but not T4.

There is no top 4 only Top 6 for law schools and top 14. Top 6 has 7 schools--Yale Stanford Harvard Chicago Columbia NYU and now Penn is inching it's way up and some put it in there.

But you knew that?

Of course there is a top 4. See rankings here. Duke, Harvard, Penn UvA tied for 4. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Duke and UVA at #4. Totally laughable. [b]

DP. You can always tell when you've won an argument on DCUM when a mom uses "totally laughable" or "you're insufferable". Both are terrible woman-speak terms that convey no substantive meaning and add nothing of use to the thread - they are just a trite, non-substantive arrogant slams which serve no purpose but to make the poster feel momentarially superior before going about their miserable life. A verbal b@tch slap, if you will.

Fine. You’re delusional if you think Duke and UVA are top 4 law schools. Happy now?

It is the bourgeoise that drive the obsession with business and law school rankings, as that’s how they maintain their wealth and status without the presence of old money. On the other hand, a good number of the rich Ivy League students come from old money ( e.g. William F Buckley or Bill Gates’ kids). They can focus on the humanities not necessarily because it’s “easier”, but because it’s provides a broader lens about how the world actually works. If I spend my undergrad taking finance courses and joining pre professional organizations I almost certainly will be well off, but I won’t understand fundamentally why I’m doing this rat race to begin with. ( ex. Why is finance even possible as a career? How did it emerge out of the Industrial Revolution?) For this, liberal arts gives you the answer it’s just not inherently profitable. Read Marx, Keynes, Hayek or the philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Hume; you’ll have a much better understanding of how the world works and you’ll probably be pretty critical/cynical after the fact. What amazes me about people complaining about how leftist college campuses are is how nobody on the right assumes the best intentions of academia. For example, nobody on the right even begins to think that perhaps there is something objective or universal that people who spent their whole life studying a subject are seeing. What they are seeing is the farce of the modern capitalist industry.

Bill Gates' daughters majored in bio. One went to med school.

And history.

[Anonymous]

The irony is that the more that schools favor wealthy elites the less prestige they have over the long-run. Everyone knows that Harvard is filled with people who aren't actually smarter than the people at top public universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the more that schools favor wealthy elites the less prestige they have over the long-run. Everyone knows that Harvard is filled with people who aren't actually smarter than the people at top public universities.

harvard has been favoring the wealthy elites for over 200 years now. makes no difference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the more that schools favor wealthy elites the less prestige they have over the long-run. Everyone knows that Harvard is filled with people who aren't actually smarter than the people at top public universities.

harvard has been favoring the wealthy elites for over 200 years now. makes no difference

Not anymore! I'm a Harvard grad. DC applied 7 years ago with top stats and legacy stats (no big donations -we can't afford it) but on paper this very nice kid probably looks like like a boring white kid of privilege. Deferred; waitlisted. Now applying to Harvard Law, also a legacy there and I'm pretty sure he's going to be bumped for a DEI hooked kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the more that schools favor wealthy elites the less prestige they have over the long-run. Everyone knows that Harvard is filled with people who aren't actually smarter than the people at top public universities.

harvard has been favoring the wealthy elites for over 200 years now. makes no difference

Not anymore! I'm a Harvard grad. DC applied 7 years ago with top stats and legacy stats (no big donations -we can't afford it) but on paper this very nice kid probably looks like like a boring white kid of privilege. Deferred; waitlisted. Now applying to Harvard Law, also a legacy there and I'm pretty sure he's going to be bumped for a DEI hooked kid.

Does Harvard Law give legacy preference too or is it just the undergrad? Is it for graduates of any of the schools or just the law school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the more that schools favor wealthy elites the less prestige they have over the long-run. Everyone knows that Harvard is filled with people who aren't actually smarter than the people at top public universities.

harvard has been favoring the wealthy elites for over 200 years now. makes no difference

Not anymore! I'm a Harvard grad. DC applied 7 years ago with top stats and legacy stats (no big donations -we can't afford it) but on paper this very nice kid probably looks like like a boring white kid of privilege. Deferred; waitlisted. Now applying to Harvard Law, also a legacy there and I'm pretty sure he's going to be bumped for a DEI hooked kid.

Wealthy elites means donations. Your profile is a dime a dozen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’ve noticed this thing with college rankings and it appears that the universities we consider to be “top” are top because of specifically business and law school rankings ( medical school is a different). With the exception of a handful of privates like Johns Hopkins or Rice, along with the ivies of Princeton and Brown, most universities derive their reputations primarily from just these two subjects. Take UVA for example. Historically, it is not well known in either stem or humanities quite frankly. Just compare their department rankings in economics or history to the more historically prestigious Michigan and Wisconsin. But, UVA is seen as comparable and even better than those two, based purely on business and law schools. Furthermore, undergraduate selectivity seems to be primarily generated through competitive pre law/pre-mba finance bros.

You're mistaken. Quite a few "elite" American universities don't have top tier business or law schools - Princeton, CalTech, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Brown, West Point, Annapolis, Williams, Amherst, Carnegie Mellon to name a few.

I'll grant you UVA though. Excellent law and business school.

And some are really well known in one graduate field and not the other. Or don't do it. Like Dartmouth and business. But no law school.

Duke currently has the #4 Law School and #12 business school according to U.S. News.

No one in law actually considers Duke a top 4 law school. harvard, yale, stanford, penn, chicago, northwestern, michigan, NYU, boalt, all out class it. This shows in the entering class stats as well.

People "in law" don't have intelligent opinions that are formed independent of US News. For as long as US News has been around, HLS has always had the absolute #1 Peer ratings (sometimes tied with Yale). But when US News changed the formula to heavily factor expenditure per student, they ensured that all smaller law schools would go up in rankings and HLS would go down. In the 1960s Yale made the curriculum kinder and gentler and thus started taking away many students who previously would have chosen Harvard. All of Yale's faculty stars are now at retirement age, and HLS is on the upswing again in terms of superb faculty quality, not to mention HLS' exceptional depth and breadth, and a general increase in quality of life (no grades). but it makes no difference until the USNEWS gods decide to change their bizarre quantitative weighting of various factors, which they will never do.

Duke is always regarded as a top law school by everyone. But a smart group of people might figure out that USNEWS is complete pile of crap. and should probably be ignored. This is DCUM, so unfortunately, this crowd will never figure it out.

But Harvard does have "grades" - it simply swapped out A,B,C D, fail for "dean's scholar, honirs, pass, low pass and fail"

Honors = A & A- (Dean's scholar is similar to A+ you could say); Pass = everything else (B+ and below). Almost no one gets a lowpass or fail. There is a similar system at Yale. Unfortunately, it appears that the adoption of the new grading system at HLS has done absolutely nothing to reduce the neuroticism of the student body. Also, it seems that levels of brown-nosing and backstabbing have reached new heights at Yale, though I'm not sure why.

It's because the pass-fail system creates a toxic environment amongst Yale Law students who are competing for professors to grease the skids for them into clerkships. The students compete amongst themselves to get the attention of the Dean and faculty. The grade system (HLS when I was there) one of merit. Either you had the grades or the write-on talent for law review or you didn't. And Law Review meant coveted professor research assistant positions.Now its dog-eat-dog

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the more that schools favor wealthy elites the less prestige they have over the long-run. Everyone knows that Harvard is filled with people who aren't actually smarter than the people at top public universities.

harvard has been favoring the wealthy elites for over 200 years now. makes no difference

Not anymore! I'm a Harvard grad. DC applied 7 years ago with top stats and legacy stats (no big donations -we can't afford it) but on paper this very nice kid probably looks like like a boring white kid of privilege. Deferred; waitlisted. Now applying to Harvard Law, also a legacy there and I'm pretty sure he's going to be bumped for a DEI hooked kid.

Does Harvard Law give legacy preference too or is it just the undergrad? Is it for graduates of any of the schools or just the law school?

Just undergrad. I don't think any of thr professional schools there conver legacy