Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
minuit
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:39 pm

Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby minuit » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:52 am

Have you all seen this yet? What do you make of it? These are 2010 rankings that just came out, ranking schools based on faculty scholarly impact.

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2010_ ... pact.shtml
Last edited by minuit on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

lawyering
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:27 am

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby lawyering » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:54 am

minuit wrote:Have you all seen this yet? What do you make of it?

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2010_ ... pact.shtml



<3 yale. :D

Rawlsian
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby Rawlsian » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:58 am

Vandy> Cornell, Duke, UM, UVA, Penn, UCLA, UT, GULC :)

User avatar
kittenmittons
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby kittenmittons » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:00 am

Rawlsian wrote:Vandy> Cornell, Duke, UM, UVA, Penn, UCLA, UT, GULC :)

They tend to favor smaller faculties over larger faculties, which no doubt explains why schools like Texas and Virginia and Georgetown come out behind schools like Vanderbilt and Cornell, even though I don’t think any informed scholarly judgment would rate them that way.

Geist13
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby Geist13 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:01 am

eh. This info is really only useful if you are set on academia (getting LOR from influential scholars), in which case if you're not at T6 it doesn't matter anyways. Some of the top scholars will indeed be excellent professors. Some of them will also be dreadful professors. The influence of their papers and books says nothing about how they are in the classroom. We're going to class, not writing dissertations. It's cool that the school I deposited at is in the top 20 and has multiple professors listed in the specialty I'm most interested in (but, if you do your research you should already know that your school has good professors in an area you're interested in). But really, I don't think this list is that important unless you dream of the academy. If you do, just go to Yale.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby nealric » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:14 am

The study also discounts profs whose impact lies outside the standard "publish or perish" realm of academia.

For example, GULC wouldn't get much impact "credit" for Neal Katyal (who argued most of the Gitmo cases in front of the SCOTUS and was recently appointed by Obama as deputy solicitor general) because his focus wasn't getting published in law reviews. GULC has a lot of people like that due the DC location.

Rawlsian
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby Rawlsian » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:20 am

It also has this problem:

In some cases, older faculty account for quite a lot of the result (e.g., three of NYU’s ten most cited faculty are between the ages of 76 and 80; four of Columbia’s ten most cited are 70 or older).

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby sumus romani » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:21 am

Basically, Leiter is offering an objective alternative to reputation rankings. But at least for lots of people, law school choice largely comes down to job prospects, so reputation rankings are more important (even though they have so many problems).

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby nealric » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:24 am

Basically, Leiter is offering an objective alternative to reputation rankings. But at least for lots of people, law school choice largely comes down to job prospects, so reputation rankings are more important (even though they have so many problems).


I don't think Leiter is trying to replace standard rankings per-se, he is just offering up additional data based on different criteria. Citations probably matter a lot more to someone who is planning on teaching law school as opposed to someone going to law school.

Rawlsian
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby Rawlsian » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:26 am

nealric wrote:
Basically, Leiter is offering an objective alternative to reputation rankings. But at least for lots of people, law school choice largely comes down to job prospects, so reputation rankings are more important (even though they have so many problems).


I don't think Leiter is trying to replace standard rankings per-se, he is just offering up additional data based on different criteria. Citations probably matter a lot more to someone who is planning on teaching law school as opposed to someone going to law school.


Yea, I like his rankings. I'm likely headed to Vandy, so I'm always on the look out for outside validation.

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby sumus romani » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:30 am

nealric wrote:
Basically, Leiter is offering an objective alternative to reputation rankings. But at least for lots of people, law school choice largely comes down to job prospects, so reputation rankings are more important (even though they have so many problems).


I don't think Leiter is trying to replace standard rankings per-se, he is just offering up additional data based on different criteria. Citations probably matter a lot more to someone who is planning on teaching law school as opposed to someone going to law school.


Yeah, I said 'alternative' and it is probably the wrong word. I agree that he is offering something closer to a supplement than an alternative.

Twit
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:53 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby Twit » Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:40 pm

Trolling through Leiter's stuff today, and I've come to this conclusion: his agenda is to establish that the T4 is a thing, and that it is: Y-H-S/Chi. He abhors the fact that Columbia is ranked higher than Chi and really thinks that Chi is on par with S and probably H. He's got a lot data to back it up.

Granted, however, he gets to pick the data that's be used, but that's what argumentation is all about, isn't it?

Excellent117
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:44 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby Excellent117 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:02 am

Why the f**k is scholarly impact even important?

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby TaipeiMort » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:08 am

Excellent117 wrote:Why the f**k is scholarly impact even important?


Because if you want academia you need faculty members to champion for you.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby TaipeiMort » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:15 am

Twit wrote:Trolling through Leiter's stuff today, and I've come to this conclusion: his agenda is to establish that the T4 is a thing, and that it is: Y-H-S/Chi. He abhors the fact that Columbia is ranked higher than Chi and really thinks that Chi is on par with S and probably H. He's got a lot data to back it up.

Granted, however, he gets to pick the data that's be used, but that's what argumentation is all about, isn't it?


Actually, Leiter is a pretty laid back, hilarious guy. You need to calm down. Chicago does have a stronger academic faculty than Columbia. Columbia has a stronger practitioner faculty. They are different approaches to education. It doesn't make either school better.

User avatar
Doorkeeper
Posts: 4872
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:25 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby Doorkeeper » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:42 am

TaipeiMort wrote:
Twit wrote:Trolling through Leiter's stuff today, and I've come to this conclusion: his agenda is to establish that the T4 is a thing, and that it is: Y-H-S/Chi. He abhors the fact that Columbia is ranked higher than Chi and really thinks that Chi is on par with S and probably H. He's got a lot data to back it up.

Granted, however, he gets to pick the data that's be used, but that's what argumentation is all about, isn't it?


Actually, Leiter is a pretty laid back, hilarious guy. You need to calm down. Chicago does have a stronger academic faculty than Columbia. Columbia has a stronger practitioner faculty. They are different approaches to education. It doesn't make either school better.


Yea, I'm actually going to back Taipei on this one. Chicago and NYU (although NYU has the old faculty problem) both have stronger academic faculties than Columbia.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby stillwater » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:46 am

Leiter is a hack.

Twit
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:53 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby Twit » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:59 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:Actually, Leiter is a pretty laid back, hilarious guy. You need to calm down. Chicago does have a stronger academic faculty than Columbia. Columbia has a stronger practitioner faculty. They are different approaches to education. It doesn't make either school better.


Nope. I actually think that Leiter is on to something. His methodology is as good if not better than USNWR's and it presents a pretty persuasive argument that UChi should not be overlooked.

I don't think it's fair to say that Leiter is just trying to show that UChi has a stronger academic faculty; he has numerous rankings on national firm placement and UChi does well in them.

I think Leiter is doing a good thing.

User avatar
moneybagsphd
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:07 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby moneybagsphd » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:02 pm

stillwater wrote:Leiter is a hack.

User avatar
hung jury
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:52 am

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby hung jury » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:53 pm

moneybagsphd wrote:
stillwater wrote:Leiter is a hack.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby 09042014 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:57 pm

sumus romani wrote:Basically, Leiter is offering an objective alternative to reputation rankings. But at least for lots of people, law school choice largely comes down to job prospects, so reputation rankings are more important (even though they have so many problems).


Academic reputation ratings have zero impact on job prospects. And professional reputation rankings don't seem to match employment trends.

User avatar
hung jury
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:52 am

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby hung jury » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:58 pm

Also, anyone notice Leiter recently decided to troll the internet to note that Chicago is #1 in the always crucial metric "FACULTY QUALITY BASED ON MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES."

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2012_AAAS.shtml

I mean, it wouldn't be so egregious if it wasn't the only update to his "rankings" since January 2011
(that wonderful piece, by the way, decided to stretch all the way back to Chicago's glory years when discussing tenure track appointments).

d.schoenfeld16
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby d.schoenfeld16 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:42 pm

All these rankings seem to be good for is getting a job in the Obama Administration where you get to participate first-hand in the downfall of our country as some hack regulatory czar.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby stillwater » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:49 pm

d.schoenfeld16 wrote:All these rankings seem to be good for is getting a job in the Obama Administration where you get to participate first-hand in the downfall of our country as some hack regulatory czar.


Props for shamelessly politicizing the thread.

User avatar
FlightoftheEarls
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Leiter Rankings in Scholarly Impact Study

Postby FlightoftheEarls » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:45 am

hung jury wrote:Also, anyone notice Leiter recently decided to troll the internet to note that Chicago is #1 in the always crucial metric "FACULTY QUALITY BASED ON MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES."

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2012_AAAS.shtml

I mean, it wouldn't be so egregious if it wasn't the only update to his "rankings" since January 2011
(that wonderful piece, by the way, decided to stretch all the way back to Chicago's glory years when discussing tenure track appointments).

Don't forget his arbitrary ranking of the "Placement in Law Teaching" that he did only in 2006. You know, the year where Chicago happened to beat out SLS? But, of course, since Chicago's placement has declined significantly relative to YSH (in that order) in recent years, he only recently in 2011 decided to look at historic placement dating back to 1995 when Chicago was still crushing its numbers. Similar, single-year studies are nowhere to be found apart from this isolated ranking where it looked particularly favorable to the school that pays his salary.

In all seriousness, anybody writing academic papers like this with such blatantly cherry-picked statistics would be laughed out of the profession. While the "law school ranking" environment is clearly different from his day-to-day of legal academia, the fact that he manages to do it so casually within this environment and retains any credibility is beyond me. But this is TLS and he's a big-name professor at a "T4" law school -- people will cling to his rankings like gospel.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests