The most cogent anti-rankings article ever! Forum

[hotdog123]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation. Im not sure if thats a problem though. You cant expect a school like Harvard to take a 2.5 GPA, 150 LSAT applicant.

However, the rankings are problematic in the sense that Harvard wont admit a 3.5, 165 LSAT applicant because they dont want to slip in the precious rankings. If the rankings focused more on what happens in school and after school instead of what students did before, then many other people could get into certain schools.

The idea that a schools ranking is mainly comprised of its incoming students' UG GPA, LSAT scores and things like yield and acceptance rates is ridiculous. Im just saying that there needs to be a better way to rank schools based off of important things such as bar passage rates and post graduation legal employment. When all is said and done, your LSAT score and UG GPA will most likely be of no help in getting a legal job.

The T14 will probably stay the same, but many schools that are currently lower ranked may be found to be underestimated.

It should be "composed of," but other than that, everything else here is just peachy.

Good show. An irony angel just got it's wings. And they're totally unappreciative, I'm sure.

[PDaddy]

If we can get into law school data w/LSGPA, how about the LSAC developing (and the ABA instituting) a "1LSAT", where 1L's are tested at the end of their first year to see what they learned. That would be a useful way of grading the law schools not only on their ability to predict which students will learn the most during their 1L years, but their abilities to teach the core concepts. This would make schools directly accountable for students' learning and "standardize" the measurements. And it could help test, once and-for-all, whether or not any pre-law standardized test has predictive value.

The sexiest part is that schools could be directly compared with each other on material related to the study of law in core subjects (Con Law, Torts, Contracts, Civ Pro, etc), which would theoretically put all students and schools on a level playing field. And if that were the case, schools that admitted students with lower LSAT's would gain points for getting them up-to-speed. In that same vein, schools that admitted strong LSAT performers would be rewarded for admitting students who performed as predicted during 1L.

Schools' performances could be metrics that factor into the rankings. Another benefit: it would foster more collegial environments on law school campuses b/c students would have a vested interest in helping each other...like a school spirit thing. And we all know that we would love having that kind of direct control over the rankings.

Give the exam in late May/early June, just before people leave for their summer internships.

[redsox]

If we can get into law school data w/LSGPA, how about the LSAC developing (and the ABA instituting) a "1LSAT", where 1L's are tested at the end of their first year to see what they learned. That would be a useful way of grading the law schools not only on their ability to predict which students will learn the most during their 1L years, but their abilities to teach the core concepts. This would make schools directly accountable for students' learning and "standardize" the measurements. And it could help test, once and-for-all, whether or not any pre-law standardized test has predictive value.

The sexiest part is that schools could be directly compared with each other on material related to the study of law in core subjects (Con Law, Torts, Contracts, Civ Pro, etc), which would theoretically put all students and schools on a level playing field. And if that were the case, schools that admitted students with lower LSAT's would gain points for getting them up-to-speed. In that same vein, schools that admitted strong LSAT performers would be rewarded for admitting students who performed as predicted during 1L.

I think you're missing one of the more important points: law school rankings need not reflect how well law schools teach. Look at MBA programs. They hardly teach people anything. The value of an MBA from a top school is that it is evidence that, before getting the MBA, you were impressive enough to be admitted. Thats why UGPA and LSAT are legitimate factors in law school rankings. Who cares who teaches best? If the best professors in the world taught the best curriculum in the world, but they were teaching it to idiots, would that make you want to hire the idiots? The LSAT is just a mechanism for sorting candidates for the law schools, and the law schools are primarily a mechanism for sorting candidates for employment.

[bigben]

The so-called T14 should all boycott the rankings and lobby the ABA to cease providing all data to USNWR and other ranking systems until a better system can be devised. And...no...I am not going to a "T2 school" or a "TTT".

If you don't like USNWR then make your own rankings. If they are better then people will use them instead.

LOL @ failure to understand market dynamics.

Give me a bigger advertising budget over the next decade. I'll make a ratings based in part on the average toilet paper ply in law school bathrooms that will be more widely circulated than USNews.

Will that make it better?

If it was so great then you could sell it to a magazine. Or just make a blog and let word of mouth work its magic.

Anyway Bob Morse the creator of the USNWR rankings actively solicits advice. He reaches out to his harshest critics for ideas on how to make the rankings better. Most of them have nothing to say or take the position that ALL rankings are bad. lol.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti ... ings_czar/

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-ran ... ebate.html

[bernie shmegma]

HEEEEERE's BERNIE!

http://www.educationsector.org/research ... _id=404230

Here is a critic that is not against all rankings, but very cynical of USNWR.

[bigben]

HEEEEERE's BERNIE!

http://www.educationsector.org/research ... _id=404230

Here is a critic that is not against all rankings, but very cynical of USNWR.

This is about UG rankings.

[djgoldbe]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

[bernie shmegma]

PDaddy, you have an ally here. I too am not a USNWR Lemming and I express that POV on TLS shamelessly. I have never been called a troll for doing so though, (until now that I just welcomed it). The arguments against U.S. news are overwhelming and their success relies heavily upon consumer ignorance. Now, that is not to say there is no portion of the rankings that show an accurate correlation to quality schools. But, for the most part USNEWS is built on sand.

[bernie shmegma]

HEEEEERE's BERNIE!

http://www.educationsector.org/research ... _id=404230

Here is a critic that is not against all rankings, but very cynical of USNWR.

This is about UG rankings.

Apply the principles then

[bigben]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Correct. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth over USNWR is truly puzzling -- it's like these hysterics are the only ones that don't realize rankings are just one piece of information to be considered along with all available information.

Nobody would care about USNWR if law schools provided comprehensive transparent employment data. But no, schools don't want that. They just want to be left alone and keep the gravy train running smooth.

[bernie shmegma]

If we can get into law school data w/LSGPA, how about the LSAC developing (and the ABA instituting) a "1LSAT", where 1L's are tested at the end of their first year to see what they learned. That would be a useful way of grading the law schools not only on their ability to predict which students will learn the most during their 1L years, but their abilities to teach the core concepts. This would make schools directly accountable for students' learning and "standardize" the measurements. And it could help test, once and-for-all, whether or not any pre-law standardized test has predictive value.

The sexiest part is that schools could be directly compared with each other on material related to the study of law in core subjects (Con Law, Torts, Contracts, Civ Pro, etc), which would theoretically put all students and schools on a level playing field. And if that were the case, schools that admitted students with lower LSAT's would gain points for getting them up-to-speed. In that same vein, schools that admitted strong LSAT performers would be rewarded for admitting students who performed as predicted during 1L.

Schools' performances could be metrics that factor into the rankings. Another benefit: it would foster more collegial environments on law school campuses b/c students would have a vested interest in helping each other...like a school spirit thing. And we all know that we would love having that kind of direct control over the rankings.


Give the exam in late May/early June, just before people leave for their summer internships.

Yeah, the problem with that is the LSAT's happen to be well coordinated with success in law school so schools will still accept higher scores. I guess you could create a handicap of some sort where the improvement ratio is what you measure.
For Instance: the Bar exam by respective state (maybe scale or measure difficulty if possible) or 1L LSAT / LSAT ratio.

It has to be done by VALUE ADDED ratio measurements

[bernie shmegma]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Correct. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth over USNWR is truly puzzling -- it's like these hysterics are the only ones that don't realize rankings are just one piece of information to be considered along with all available information.

Nobody would care about USNWR if law schools provided comprehensive transparent employment data. But no, schools don't want that. They just want to be left alone and keep the gravy train running smooth.

That is right. They LOBBY HARD to keep it that way. Schools like this system. $$$$

[09042014]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Students are part of what makes a school good. If you took 200 Cooley students and threw them into Yale, Yale wouldn't be Yale.

Though I agree post-grad placement absolutely needs to be a bigger component, and not just percent employed either. Article 3 clerkships, big law, and public interest should all be included.

[bernie shmegma]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Students are part of what makes a school good. If you took 200 Cooley students and threw them into Yale, Yale wouldn't be Yale.

Though I agree post-grad placement absolutely needs to be a bigger component, and not just percent employed either. Article 3 clerkships, big law, and public interest should all be included.

Students make the school attractive AND convenient to employers, but it does not make the school good. Are great scholars necessarily great teachers for the profession of law? Or do they help cycle in great scholars to academia under this system that benefits the institutions sooo much more than individuals.

Imagine schools having to serve more instead of running like a for-profit, non-profit?

[D. H2Oman]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Students are part of what makes a school good. If you took 200 Cooley students and threw them into Yale, Yale wouldn't be Yale.

Though I agree post-grad placement absolutely needs to be a bigger component, and not just percent employed either. Article 3 clerkships, big law, and public interest should all be included.

Students make the school attractive AND convenient to employers, but it does not make the school good. Are great scholars necessarily great teachers for the profession of law? Or do they help cycle in great scholars to academia under this system that benefits the institutions sooo much more than individuals.

lolwut?

[bernie shmegma]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Students are part of what makes a school good. If you took 200 Cooley students and threw them into Yale, Yale wouldn't be Yale.

Though I agree post-grad placement absolutely needs to be a bigger component, and not just percent employed either. Article 3 clerkships, big law, and public interest should all be included.

Students make the school attractive AND convenient to employers, but it does not make the school good. Are great scholars necessarily great teachers for the profession of law? Or do they help cycle in great scholars to academia under this system that benefits the institutions sooo much more than individuals.

lolwut?

What didn't you get?

[rayiner]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

It's not backwards. The rankings serve the purposes of employers as well as students. The top students look at the rankings to see what schools to go to, and employers look at the rankings to see where to find the top students.

[bernie shmegma]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

It's not backwards. The rankings serve the purposes of employers as well as students. The top students look at the rankings to see what schools to go to, and employers look at the rankings to see where to find the top students.

This is about INPUT on behalf of the school to generate greater OUTPUT on behalf of the students because of that input. It isn't just to the collect the smartest people, teach them what they need to know and shoot them out. Schools should be ranked on value added performance standards. There is a demand for a competing Ranking system. The difficulty is it requires a level of cooperation and information from schools that they work very hard to keep confidential.

[djgoldbe]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Students are part of what makes a school good. If you took 200 Cooley students and threw them into Yale, Yale wouldn't be Yale.

Though I agree post-grad placement absolutely needs to be a bigger component, and not just percent employed either. Article 3 clerkships, big law, and public interest should all be included.

I understand your point, but I disagree. Students do not make a school good, or bad, in an institutional sense. They may make the student experience different in one way or another, but that has no real effect on the quality of the institution itself. As I was already saying - obviously if you have a better institution you are going to attract better students and thus get better results post-grad. But to say that if you took 200 Cooley (or, lets just say unintelligent since that is more or less what we are implying here) students and put them into the rigors of Yale that Yale would be a worse school institutionally - I think is incorrect. A great faculty and great programs/alumni connections exist regardless of the intelligence/accomplishments of the student body.

[bigben]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Students are part of what makes a school good. If you took 200 Cooley students and threw them into Yale, Yale wouldn't be Yale.

Though I agree post-grad placement absolutely needs to be a bigger component, and not just percent employed either. Article 3 clerkships, big law, and public interest should all be included.

The point is that as prospective students, you should be looking at faculty rep and job placement - not student quality. Of course student quality is something that eventually affects job placement since it's what employers want, but this is just too remote to make student quality a very useful metric for an applicant too consider, especially when you're looking at small differences that are fluctuating year by year.

[bernie shmegma]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Students are part of what makes a school good. If you took 200 Cooley students and threw them into Yale, Yale wouldn't be Yale.

Though I agree post-grad placement absolutely needs to be a bigger component, and not just percent employed either. Article 3 clerkships, big law, and public interest should all be included.

I understand your point, but I disagree. Students do not make a school good, or bad, in an institutional sense. They may make the student experience different in one way or another, but that has no real effect on the quality of the institution itself. As I was already saying - obviously if you have a better institution you are going to attract better students and thus get better results post-grad. But to say that if you took 200 Cooley (or, lets just say unintelligent since that is more or less what we are implying here) students and put them into the rigors of Yale that Yale would be a worse school institutionally - I think is incorrect. A great faculty and great programs/alumni connections exist regardless of the intelligence/accomplishments of the student body.

I think the real testament to a school's quality is their ability to relative to other schools to prepare students of equivalent ability.

That being said I think this whole discussion should really ignore the T14 or so schools for the most part (with maybe an exception or two, but easy to just group them for expediency). The ranking problem applies to everything below the elite and elite regional schools. Even then, the elite regional schools are misrepresented by the rankings very often. The issue with USNWR rankings extends into a systemic concern for higher education altogether.

[bernie shmegma]

I really don't see why the ranking of law schools should have anything to do with the students themselves. If you want to evaluate the institution and its quality you could just evaluate a hybrid of faculty scholarship (similar to what Leiter does) and post-grad placement (although that would be tricky to quantify - but not impossible). Seems like if you judge a school by its ability to attract top students, your going backwards.

Students are part of what makes a school good. If you took 200 Cooley students and threw them into Yale, Yale wouldn't be Yale.

Though I agree post-grad placement absolutely needs to be a bigger component, and not just percent employed either. Article 3 clerkships, big law, and public interest should all be included.

The point is that as prospective students, you should be looking at faculty rep and job placement - not student quality. Of course student quality is something that eventually affects job placement since it's what employers want, but this is just too remote to make student quality a very useful metric for an applicant too consider, especially when you're looking at small differences that are fluctuating year by year.

Agreed. The employment numbers are also something to take with a grain of salt because of the quality students. If you fall outside of the average of pay sticker to some mid or low T1, you may want to think twice about what exactly those prospects mean.

[bigben]

I understand your point, but I disagree. Students do not make a school good, or bad, in an institutional sense. They may make the student experience different in one way or another, but that has no real effect on the quality of the institution itself. As I was already saying - obviously if you have a better institution you are going to attract better students and thus get better results post-grad. But to say that if you took 200 Cooley (or, lets just say unintelligent since that is more or less what we are implying here) students and put them into the rigors of Yale that Yale would be a worse school institutionally - I think is incorrect. A great faculty and great programs/alumni connections exist regardless of the intelligence/accomplishments of the student body.

I agree that student quality isn't so important, but I disagree on the reason why. I don't think the "institutional quality" argument is that great - most law schools have plenty of money and frankly it doesn't take much to teach law. You just read the stupid books. The main differences between law schools seems to be the percentage of floors that are marble, the expensiveness of the wood paneled walls, and the plushness of the furniture.

Rather, I just think that job placement is more important because student quality is too remote to be of much immediate value to you as an applicant.

[bigben]

Agreed. The employment numbers are also something to take with a grain of salt because of the quality students. If you fall outside of the average of pay sticker to some mid or low T1, you may want to think twice about what exactly those prospects mean.

I don't mean job placement stats distributed by the schools themselves - those are worthless. (Except for Vanderbilt which I think has led the charge in releasing comprehensive data).

[bernie shmegma]

I suppose there is something to be said for student quality and sociological prestige. Make connections and stay in that class. That's at least a huge part of why tuition is so high for non-elite, but high selectivity schools. There's a demand for that.