Archive for the ‘Law Schools’ Category

Ambition and Rankings?

Friday, August 21st, 2009

Jeff Lipshaw has an interesting comment on the rankings game, Ambition and Rankings:  “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us”.  He begins by noting a WSJ article by Eric Felten, who is of the view that “the rankings are really about getting ahead.”  He then notes an discussion with a colleague about the Big Law School game–moving up to more prestigious law schools.  He continues

Yes, I think the rankings do have something to do with our subjective views of getting ahead, and I do think there’s something about the legal profession that makes OUR rankings so powerful.  I used the phrase “progressing up the food chain” with my colleague, and in what industries or professions is the food chain as quantitative as the legal profession?  * * *

* * *

… there’s a lot of self-selection in the process of becoming a lawyer, and even more in becoming a big law firm lawyer or a law professor.  I suspect the first element of that self-selection is a particular orientation to progressing up the food chain….  There ain’t that much to distinguish us…. There are only dozens and not thousands of law schools.  * * * In other words, it’s easy to see a well-defined food chain in the relatively small, homogeneous, and closed legal community.  

Most of the blogging about law-school rankings focuses on the top law schools, and sometimes as far down as the top 100.  Perhaps that’s because they are the only schools individually ranked, but I don’t think so.  I’m not sure that professors at top law schools really care about what happens on the other side of the Great Divide in the legal academy (Tiers 3 and 4).  If nothing else, the concerns of the lower-ranked schools are not the concerns of the elite. 

For example, during the debate about ABA Interpretation 301-6 and minimum law-school Bar passage standards, the blawgosphere was largely (entirely?) silent.  Was that because the elite law schools, and even the top 100, don’t worry about the Bar?  Yes, the occasional Top 100 Dean gets toppled when Bar passage rates slip.  But the top law schools don’t measure themselves by the proportion of the graduates that can meet the minimum standards to be come a lawyer.  That’s taken as a given.

Gary Rosin

Components of the 2010 US News Rankings of the Top 100 Law Schools

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

The official (as opposed to the leaked2010 US News Law School rankings came out today.  Over at MoneyLaw, Tom Bell has an interesting post, How Top-Ranked Law Schools Got That Way, Pt. I. He looks at the weighted standardized scores on each of the 12 components of the overall score.  He then compares the amounts by which the component scores vary among the top 100, and the top 12, law schools.  As expected, the peer reputation scores (PeerRep) vary (and count) the most.  The surprising result is that the second highest variation is in overall expenditures per student (Over$/Stu):

[T]he Over$/Stu z-scores range quite widely, with Yale having more than double the score of all but two schools, Harvard and Stanford, which themselves manage less than two-thirds Yale’s Over$/Stu score. That wide spread gives the Over$/Stu score an especially powerful influence on Yale’s overall score, making it almost as important as Yale’s PeerRep score and much more important than any of the school’s remaining 10 z-scores. In effect, Yale’s extraordinary expenditures per student buy it a tenured slot at number one.

If would be interesting to see the relative component contributions for Tiers 3 and 4, as well as Tiers 2 and 3.

Gary Rosin