T14_Scholly wrote:I think this tidbit from an ATL commenter says it all:
I agree that the rankings need input from other sources as well to give a more rounded opinion. Its sort of like when you fart in the car when you're by yourself. You if it smells really bad or just a little unpleasant. But to really now how awful that day-after-a-bing fart truly is, you have to have a couple of friends in the car with you and you have to be able to lock the windows so that you can hotbox the folks along for the ride. Only then will you know the true rank of the fart.
EDIT: ATL commenters are pretty funny.
"Take, for example, U.S. News’ measuring of the number of volumes in a school’s law library, which is especially irrelevant in today’s digital age."
I agree with Dean van Zandt regarding the need for additional rankings that value other metrics. But it seems the Dean van Zandt has not done all of the requisite homework on this issue. Take his comment about library statistics for example. As it turns out, The Thomas Cooley School of Law publishes rankings that also place some considerable weight on the library. While Dean van Zandt cavalierly dismisses such metrics as "especially irrelevant," it turns out that not only are there ranking alternatives to U.S. News, but they, too, use library metrics.
Of course, this does not mean that measures of the library are unassailable. But it is a bit disappointing to see Dean van Zandt lament a dearth of alternative rankings and simultaneously criticize library metrics. Apparently he did not realize that not only are there alternative rankings, but those alternatives also employ library based metrics in no small measure. I believe this unaddressed oversight undercuts the strength of Dean van Zandt's position with respect to both the absence of alternative rankings and the use of library metrics in ranking law schools.
It's not inconsistent to feel it's valuable to have more rankings systems and to feel comparing library volumes is questionable methodology.