Top Law Schools

These rankings are a rough measure of what people in a position to know (lawyers, judges, and academics) think of a particular school along with the numerical quality of students at a particular school. The three main components of these rankings are assessment scores (by both practitioners and academics) and the LSAT + GPA numbers of the incoming students. This is basically the USNWR rankings without the statistics such as expenditures per student, bar passage rates, library resources, etc., and the percentages subsequently tweaked to account for those lack of statistics. I chose to include (in a much smaller proportion) the numbers from last year and the year before to cut down on the year to year fluctuations a little bit. The calculations were then scaled to give Yale a 100. Here are the top 51 2011 USNWR Schools:

(USWNR) [score difference from last year]

Tier 1
(1) 1. Yale - 100
(2) 2. Harvard - 99.9 [+0.1]
(3) 3. Stanford - 98.5 [-0.1]
(4) 4. Columbia - 97.5 [+0.6]
(5) 5. Chicago - 97.3 [+0.9]
(6) 6. NYU - 95.4 [+0.1]
(7) 7. Berkeley - 95.3 [+0.3]
(9) 7. Michigan - 95.3 [+1.3]
(10) 9. Virginia - 94.5 [+0.7]
(7) 10. Penn - 94.1 [+1.8]
(11) 11. Duke - 92.4 [+0.7]
(14) 12. Georgetown - 91.7 [+0.8]
(13) 12. Cornell - 91.7 [+0.6]
(11) 14. Northwestern - 90.9 [+1.3]
(15) 15. Texas - 90.7 [+1.1]
(15) 16. UCLA - 89.1 [+1.7]
(17) 17. Vanderbilt - 88.6 [+1.2]
(18) 18. USC - 85.3 [+1.6]
(19) 18. WUSTL - 85.3 [+1.9]
(22) 20. Emory - 84.6 [+2.2]
(22) 20. UMN - 84.6 [+2.4]
(20) 22. George Washington - 84.5 [+1.9]
(28) 23. UNC - 84.3 [+2.0]
(26) 24. Iowa - 83.8 [+2.4]
(22) 25. Boston U - 83.4 [+2.2]
(22) 26. Notre Dame - 83.0 [+2.0]
(28) 27. Boston College - 82.7 [+1.4]
(28) 27. Wisconsin - 82.7 [+1.8]
(34) 29. Washington and Lee - 82.3 [+1.0]
(28) 30. William and Mary - 82.1 [+2.4]
(42) 31. UC Hastings - 82.0 [+1.7]
(21) 32. Illinois - 81.9 [+1.4]
(28) 33. UC Davis - 81.8 [+1.3]
(34) 34. Ohio State - 81.5 [+2.2]
(34) 35. Fordham - 81.2 [+2.2]
(27) 36. Indiana - 80.7 [+1.7]
(34) 37. UWash - 80.5 [+1.6]
(47) 38. Florida - 80.0 [+3.5]
(28) 39. Georgia - 79.7 [+2.8]
(38) 40. Wake Forest - 79.5 [+1.9]
(42) 41. Arizona - 79.5 [+2.1]
(48) 42. Tulane - 79.4 [+2.4]
(38) 43. Colorado - 78.8 [+3.4]
(38) 44. Alabama - 78.1 [+2.5]
(42) 45. BYU - 78.0 [+3.0]
(38) 46. Arizona St. 77.4 [+2.8]
(48) 47. Maryland - 77.2 [+2.7]

Tier 2
(48) 48. American - 76.9 [+2.2]
(42) 49. George Mason - 76.6 [+2.4]
(42) 50. Utah - 76.6 [+3.3]
(52) 51. Cardozo - 75.5 [+3.2]
(54) 51. UConn - 75.5 [+2.6]
(60) 53. Miami - 75.4 [+3.7]
(56) 54. Case Western - 75.3 [+2.6]
(56) 55. San Diego - 75.2 [+3.8]
(48) 55. SMU - 75.2 [+2.5]
(80) 55. Oregon - 75.2 [+2.5]
(54) 58. Florida St. - 74.9 [+3.3]
(67) 58. Pittsburgh - 74.9 [+3.4]
(60) 60. Tennessee - 74.6 [+3.3]
(93) 61. Missouri - 74.6 [+2.5]
(67) 62. Kansas - 74.5 [+3.5]
(67) 63. Villanova - 74.4 [+2.4]
(72) 64. Temple - 74.2 [+2.5]
(52) 65. Pepperdine - 73.9 [+4.0]
(54) 65. Cincinnati - 73.9 [+3.6]
(67) 67. Brooklyn - 73.5 [+3.2]
(64) 68. Kentucky - 73.4 [+2.6]
(60) 69. Houston - 73.3 [+2.8]
(80) 70. Chicago Kent - 72.9 [+2.9]
(56) 71. Loyola LA - 72.8 [+4.1]
(72) 72. Oklahoma - 72.7 [+3.1]
(64) 73. Baylor - 72.6 [+1.5]
(80) 73. Rutgers Camden - 72.6 [+3.1]
(93) 75. Nebraska - 72.5 [+2.8]
(72) 76. Penn St. - 72.4 [+4.2]
(64) 76. Lewis & Clark - 72.4 [+2.9]
(80) 78. Rutgers Newark - 72.1 [+3.3]
(72) 79. Seton Hall - 71.9 [+3.2]
(80) 79. Denver - 71.9 [+3.4]
(93) 81. Santa Clara - 71.8 [+2.4]
(78) 81. Loyola Chicago - 71.8 [+3.1]
(T3) 83. St. Louis - 71.7 [+3.6]
(86) 84. Richmond - 71.5 [+3.2]
(98) 84. Catholic - 71.5 [+3.2]
(86) 86. IU Indianapolis - 71.4 [+2.7]
(86) 87. Seattle - 71.1 [+3.4]
(60) 87. Georgia St. - 71.1 [+3.8]
(T3) 87. Marquette - 71.1 [+3.0]
(67) 90. New Mexico - 71.0 [+3.5]
(72) 91. St. John's - 70.7 [+4.3]
(86) 92. Northeastern - 70.6 [+3.4]
(80) 93. LSU - 70.5 [+3.2]
(86) 93. Hofstra - 70.5 [+3.7]

Tier 3
(72) 95. Hawaii - 70.1 [+3.5]
(86) 95. Arkansas Fayetteville - 70.1 [+2.8]
(T3) 97. South Carolina - 70.0 [+3.1]
(86) 97. Syracuse - 70.0 [+3.4]
(T3) 99. SUNY Buffalo - 69.9 [+3.9]
(98) 100. Depaul - 69.8 [+2.5]
(78) 100. UNLV - 69.8 [+2.9]
(T3) 100. UMiss - 69.8 [+5.4]
(T3) 103. Louisville - 69.6 [+3.2]
(T3) 104. Vermont - 69.0 [+3.7]
(T3) 105. Wayne St. - 68.8 [+4.1]
(T3) 106. Michigan St. - 68.7 [+3.2]
(T3) 107. Gonzaga - 68.6 [+2.4]
(T3) 108. Wyoming - 68.4 [+3.0]
(T3) 109. Maine - 68.3 [+2.4]
(T3) 109. Missouri Kansas City - 68.3 [+3.3]
(T3) 111. Howard - 68.2 [+2.4]
(98) 112. San Francisco - 68.1 [+3.8]
(T3) 112. Mercer - 68.1 [+3.1]
(T3) 114. Drake - 68.0 [+4.0]
(93) 115. West Virginia - 67.8 [+3.8]
(T3) 116. Creighton - 67.7 [+3.3]
(T3) 117. NYLS - 67.5 [+2.7]
(T3) 117. Stetson - 67.5 [+3.9]
(T3) 119. Arkansas Little Rock - 67.4 [+3.8]
(T3) 119. Loyola New Orleans - 67.4 [+1.9]
(98) 119. McGeorge - 67.4 [+3.0]
(T3) 122. Willamette - 67.3 [+3.8]
(T3) 122. Montana - 67.3 [+3.8]
(T3) 124. Cleveland St. - 66.9 [+3.8]
(T3) 125. Texas Tech - 66.8 [+2.6]
(T3) 126. Albany - 66.4 [+3.9]
(T3) 127. Idaho - 66.1 [+4.2]
(T3) 127. Suffolk - 66.1 [+3.5]
(98) 129. William Mitchell - 66.0 [+5.2]
(T3) 129. Tulsa - 66.0 [+4.2]
(T4) 131. Valparaiso - 65.9 [+3.2]
(T3) 132. Memphis - 65.8 [+3.7]
(T3) 132. Franklin Pierce - 65.8 [+3.7]
(T3) 134. St. Thomas MN - 65.7 [+3.5]
(T3) 135. Akron - 65.6 [+4.2]
(T3) 136. Pace - 65.5 [+4.2]
(T3) 137. Washburn - 65.4 [+3.9]
(T3) 137. South Dakota - 65.4 [+2.6]
(T3) 137. Baltimore - 65.4 [+3.6]
(T4) 140. North Dakota - 65.3 [+3.5]
(93) 141. Chapman - 65.1 [+5.0]
(T3) 141. Quinnipiac - 65.1 [+3.6]
(T3) 141. CUNY Queens - 65.1 [+4.2]

Tier 4
(T4) 144. Hamline - 65.0 [+3.4]
(T3) 145. Samford - 64.8 [+3.6]
(T4) 145. Southern Illinois - 64.8 [+3.4]
(T4) 147. Duquesne - 64.7 [+3.2]
(T3) 147. Toledo - 64.7 [+2.9]
(T4) 149. John Marshall - 64.2 [+4.1]
(T4) 150. Widener - 64.1 [+4.6]
(T4) 151. Dayton - 64.0 [+2.9]
(T3) 152. Southwestern 63.9 [+4.5]
(T4) 153. New England - 62.9 [+4.3]
(T4) 154. Cal Western - 62.8 [+4.4]
(T4) 154. Roger Williams - 62.8 [+4.5]
(T4) 156. Capital - 62.7 [+3.9]
(T4) 157. South Texas - 62.5 [+4.1]
(T4) 158. St. Mary's - 62.2 [+5.7]
(T4) 158. Northern Illinois - 62.2 [+4.4]
(T4) 160. Nova Southeastern - 62.1 [+4.3]
(T4) 161. Northern Kentucky - 62.0 [+4.6]
(T4) 162. Campbell - 61.7 [+4.1]
(T3) 163. Ohio Northern - 61.6 [+3.9]
(T4) 164. Golden Gate - 61.4 [+4.0]
(T4) 165. Florida International - 61.2 [+4.4]
(T4) 166. Texas Wesleyan - 60.5 [+4.7]
(T4) 167. North Carolina Central - 60.3 [+4.4]
(T4) 167. West New England - 60.3 [+5.0]
(T4) 169. Oklahoma City - 60.2 [+4.6]
(T4) 169. Mississippi College - 60.2 [+3.7]
(T4) 171. Touro - 59.9 [+5.0]
(T4) 172. Thomas Jefferson - 58.9 [+3.4]
(T4) 173. Detroit Mercy - 58.7 [+4.0]
(T4) 174. Whittier - 58.5 [+4.1]
(T4) 175. Regent - 58.3 [+5.7]
(T4) 176. St. Thomas FL - 57.8 [+4.4]
(T4) 177. Florida Coastal - 57.5 [+4.9]
(T4) 178. Texas Southern - 57.1 [+3.2]
(T4) 178. John Marshall ATL - 57.1
(T4) 180. Western St. - 56.8
(T4) 181. U of DC - 56.7 [+4.0]
(T4) 182. Ave Marie - 56.4 [+3.7]
(T4) 182. Cooley - 56.4 [+4.1]
(T4) 184. Appalachian - 56.3 [+4.6]
(T4) 184. Florida A&M - 56.2
(T4) 186. Faulkner - 55.9
(T4) 187. Barry - 55.4 [+4.6]
(T4) 187. Southern - 55.4 [+3.5]

Formula:
25% - 2011 Peer Assessment Scores
12.5% - 2011 Practitioner Assessment Scores
11.25% - 2011 25% LSAT
11.25% - 2011 75% LSAT
7.5% - 2011 25% GPA
7.5% - 2011 75% GPA
6.255% - 2010 Peer Assessment Scores
3.12% - 2010 Practitioner Assessment Scores
2.8125% - 2010 25% LSAT
2.8125% - 2010 75% LSAT
2.085% - 2009 Peer Assessment Scores
1.875% - 2010 25% GPA
1.875% - 2010 75% GPA
1.04% - 2009 Practitioner Assessment Scores
.9375% - 2009 25% LSAT
.9375% - 2009 75% LSAT
.625% - 2009 25% GPA
.625% - 2009 75% GPA

This is pretty cool, I guess.

This is really cool! There don't seem to be a lot of major fluctuations at the top, but the rankings really shake up towards the middle. This was interesting.

Well done Helmholtz.

Would you, at some point, include employment stats?

this seems like a more accurate list than US news, and it's even done with statistics to remove bias... i like.

I think being able to squeeze in some V25, NLJ 250, and clerkship stats would be good for "employment" (not sure how to do this).

And is there any reason you rate peer ratings higher than practitioner ratings?

also, i think making LSAT and GPA ranges as this would be more accurate as a reflection of the school:

25% 25th
50% median
25% 75th

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Would you, at some point, include employment stats?

I'd like to at some point, but easier said than done.

It is interesting to see how close schools can be using much of the data that US New does (and the most meaningful data according to many). For example, H and Y would be tied if Helm used whole numbers. Also note how the "big school bias" to some extent disappears in Helm's rankings (at least in the top end I'm familiar with).

Panther7 wrote: And is there any reason you rate peer ratings higher than practitioner ratings?

Historically, the response rate is usually around three times greater for academics, compared to practitioners. I think the lawyer/judge assessment can be useful (hence me including them in my calculations) but (1) the response rate worries me and raises concern of self‐selection in regards to which practitioners choose to participate and (2) I think the academic peers are in a better position to know the quality of a particular school. Additionally, the lawyers and judges almost always give higher marks across the board, creating more of a cluster of similar scores than peers.

Helmholtz wrote:

Panther7 wrote: And is there any reason you rate peer ratings higher than practitioner ratings?

Historically, the response rate is usually around three times greater for academics, compared to practitioners. I think the lawyer/judge assessment can be useful (hence me including them in my calculations) but (1) the response rate worries me and raises concern of self‐selection in regards to which practitioners choose to participate and (2) I think the academic peers are in a better position to know the quality of a particular school. Additionally, the lawyers and judges almost always give higher marks across the board, creating more of a cluster of similar scores than peers.

sounds logical, you have this data in a spreadsheet or something? I wouldn't mind reviewing it.

I don't like it, if only for the reason that it's not as easy to rag on Georgetown now.

I also like how these ratings take into account more than the median LSAT. The use of median LSAT has had a detrimental impact on the application/decision process, I feel. It might not make much of a difference for admissions, but when so much of the merit and so-called need aid goes to high LSATs, something is amiss. Helm might have gone with the 25th and 75 percentile because the median info is not available, but I think that the change is for the better.

First page!

Love these. Last year I think you did something for best value law schools too? Hope to see something like that again! Thanks Helmholtz.

jss1100 wrote:Love these. Last year I think you did something for best value law schools too? Hope to see something like that again! Thanks Helmholtz.

Yep, planning on doing it again this year. That and the ranking of every single law school should be done later this week.

Panther7 wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Panther7 wrote: And is there any reason you rate peer ratings higher than practitioner ratings?

Historically, the response rate is usually around three times greater for academics, compared to practitioners. I think the lawyer/judge assessment can be useful (hence me including them in my calculations) but (1) the response rate worries me and raises concern of self‐selection in regards to which practitioners choose to participate and (2) I think the academic peers are in a better position to know the quality of a particular school. Additionally, the lawyers and judges almost always give higher marks across the board, creating more of a cluster of similar scores than peers.

sounds logical, you have this data in a spreadsheet or something? I wouldn't mind reviewing it.

Once I get every single school done, I'l release the excel spreadsheet and a pdf like I did last year.

Helmholtz wrote:

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Would you, at some point, include employment stats?

I'd like to at some point, but easier said than done.

NLJ250

plus class of 2009 fed clerkships.

Are you doing this for the rest of the top hundred? I like this system.

I'd be curious to see this stripped out for the entire T100 (or even the entire list in general, but that would probably take a while). For at least the T50, this appears to be more accurate than the USNWR methodology. Obviously employment data is important, but the way it's reported is so skewed that it's hard to take seriously; not to mention a whole slew of schools don't report Employment at Graduation which would - likely - negatively affect the rankings.

Agent Bartowski wrote:Are you doing this for the rest of the top hundred? I like this system.

I'll do it for every single accredited law school.

keg411 wrote:I'd be curious to see this stripped out for the entire T100 (or even the entire list in general, but that would probably take a while). For at least the T50, this appears to be more accurate than the USNWR methodology. Obviously employment data is important, but the way it's reported is so skewed that it's hard to take seriously; not to mention a whole slew of schools don't report Employment at Graduation which would - likely - negatively affect the rankings.

which is why DF and I support the use of the NLJ250 data

Desert Fox wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Would you, at some point, include employment stats?

I'd like to at some point, but easier said than done.

NLJ250

plus class of 2009 fed clerkships.

Was my first thought, but then I would have to worry about self-selection into public interest and government work, etc. I might put together a separate list that includes these two factors, and it should be relatively easy since the number of schools I would do it for would be a fraction of the ones included on the main list.

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:

keg411 wrote:I'd be curious to see this stripped out for the entire T100 (or even the entire list in general, but that would probably take a while). For at least the T50, this appears to be more accurate than the USNWR methodology. Obviously employment data is important, but the way it's reported is so skewed that it's hard to take seriously; not to mention a whole slew of schools don't report Employment at Graduation which would - likely - negatively affect the rankings.

which is why DF and I support the use of the NLJ250 data

I would support using that too, but the NLJ250 data isn't complete (although it may be by subscription). For instance, Minnesota isn't on the list we have access to at all, but we don't know how far behind the last couple of schools it is. You can't assume all of the schools not listed are at 0%. However, I'm sure the full list is out there (and I'd like to see it).

I'm pretty sure the 2009 Federal Clerkship data is available for all of the schools, so that would certainly help (though I'm not 100% sure).

Helmholtz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Would you, at some point, include employment stats?

I'd like to at some point, but easier said than done.

NLJ250

plus class of 2009 fed clerkships.

Was my first thought, but then I would have to worry about self-selection into public interest and government work, etc. I might put together a separate list that includes these two factors, and it should be relatively easy since the number of schools I would do it for would be a fraction of the ones included on the main list.

The error would be minimal compared the error of using judge and lawyer rep surveys with sub 30% response rates.

Helmholtz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Would you, at some point, include employment stats?

I'd like to at some point, but easier said than done.

NLJ250

plus class of 2009 fed clerkships.

Was my first thought, but then I would have to worry about self-selection into public interest and government work, etc. I might put together a separate list that includes these two factors, and it should be relatively easy since the number of schools I would do it for would be a fraction of the ones included on the main list.

i think it's worth doing V25 as well, simply because this list skews towards the top much more than the NLJ250. It gives you an idea of who the big players (who can pick and choose) end up picking.

Helmholtz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Would you, at some point, include employment stats?

I'd like to at some point, but easier said than done.

NLJ250

plus class of 2009 fed clerkships.

Was my first thought, but then I would have to worry about self-selection into public interest and government work, etc. I might put together a separate list that includes these two factors, and it should be relatively easy since the number of schools I would do it for would be a fraction of the ones included on the main list.

Nice work (again). If only you had complete employment lists from every ABA-accredited law school to use in compiling your rankings, you'd be able to tell a better story about job placement. Once we start getting law schools on board with this new reporting standard, we might be able to get some data up for you to use. Our website will be open access to allow derivative tools like the now-famous Helmholtz Rankings.

FYI, the working paper we just completed on the issue of reporting employment stats is now available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1528862 . Helmholtz, if you're comfortable with it, we can cite to your rankings as an example of a derivative tool... at one point we had that in there but had to scale back the TLS cites for fear that it would completely destroy whatever credibility we're trying to claim in the realm of academia. That's not to say TLS posters haven't been incredibly helpful in shaping the arguments we outline in this paper, but unfortunately we don't think many law professors consider the discussion boards to be reputable sources for information.

That said, we were able to cite to comments made by a handful of posters, including najumobi, thickfreakness, lawschoolll, and hiphoppopotamus.