How do you think law schools should be ranked? Forum

[thelaststraw05]

bump.

good answers so far. but how could you develop a system that would actually track real employment statistics? It seems like it would be pretty difficult.

Agreed. I think though that the most important thing would be to have a single third party consultant who did the post-graduation surveys for EVERY school that wished to be ranked. The main problem is that the schools each collect their own statistics and this creates an atmosphere where the schools are encouraged to "cheat."

[im_blue]

Law schools should be ranked by average starting salary, counting unreported graduates as zero.

[James Bond]

Employment prospects. Nothing else matters.

[nealric]

I don't think they need to be ranked. People will know what the top schools are with or without a magazine to tell them.

[motiontodismiss]

Placement power.

[hokie]

by awesomeness (yea, it exists )

[2011Law]

It would be interesting to see a ranking of law schools based on promiscuity, they should put that in maxim for me to read some time (shoutout to dealnews.com for finding me a free 1 yr subscription).

But really, I think law schools should be ranked in whatever way the god-loving capitalist market deems they should be ranked in the best only journal that does so.


Just to get it out of the way, I know there are other ranking systems out there, but who gives a fuck?

[YankeesFan]

promiscuity

[quakeroats]

By number of embarrassing undergraduates

[Renzo]

I've said it before, but the best way would be annual donations (excluding bequests) divided by class size. It shows a) availability of resources b) income of alumni c) pleasure/displeasure of alumni with their job prospects, experience, etc. d) faith of non-alums (firms, businesses, etc.) in the quality of the schools education/students.

[ohlawl]

Doesn't that come with the assumption that if you have the money, then you will donate? I am sure lots of people are pleased with their alma mater and still do not donate.

[Renzo]

Doesn't that come with the assumption that if you have the money, then you will donate? I am sure lots of people are pleased with their alma mater and still do not donate.

Schools will have a doubly-strong reason to get out and solicit money, since there will be a multiplier on any current donations (current donations->better ranking->better students->better reputation->better placement->more satisfied students-> more future donations)

And, if you hold everything else constant, and assume all students are equally rich and satisfied, there's no reason to think one school's alumni would be more likely to donate than others, so any variance should be based on a) the effectiveness of the school's fundraising infrastructure and b) people's perception of the value of the institution.

[youarereadingthis]

I think I have some practical ideas. My answer is a raw score mix of the following:

1. Law Review prestige: the amount of times the school's student edited law review(s) are quoted by judges in court. Higher levels of court give the school a greater boost.

2. Moot Court competition results.

3. Placement: (a) the amount of clerkships attained by the graduating class as a percentage; higher levels of court give the school a greater boost (b) the average salary in the private sector of the graduating class (non reporting students are zeroes) (c) the average salary in the public sector of the graduating class (non reporting students are counted as zeroes for a second time).

4. Bar Passage Rates

5. Diversity of Courses

6. Library resources available to the student and faculty

7. Professor/student ratio

8. Adjunct/Full time professor ratio

9. Student and professorial racial diversity.

[2011Law]

Just saw this ranking by shownprove which ranks by NLJ250 + federal clerkships. Pretty good shit.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

[arhmcpo]

I think Employment Prospects is what matters most and all the schools are lying about their prospects except probably HYS.

US News should say they are revamping the way they evaluate employment statistics so that school's can save face when they have been reporting like 90%+ employment with like 10% reporting.

Create a metric where you only measure "legal" jobs to get rid of the starbucks kids, and for every non-reporting graduate you penalize the school enough that it is in their best interest to get every student reporting even if they are unemployed or working a shit job.

The 2 problems with reporting currently IMO is (1) the selective reponse rate (with schools only seeking responses from employed/successful new grads) and (2) reporting the employment % without considering the type of employment.

Practically, with no other publications or the ABA stepping up, I think you have to work within US News to correct abuses of their system, knowing the law schools as a general rule are unethical, lying, and completely self interested to the detriment of future law students.

[IfByWhiskey770]

Employment is king.

And the real problem is the ABA.

[ahduth]

Distance between the library and the nearest bar where you can get a brandy alexander without the bartender having to look at a book.

[quakeroats]

Distance between the library and the nearest bar where you can get a brandy alexander without the bartender having to look at a book.

Or you could go with brandy in a snifter, which is both easy and a better use of brandy.