Many prospective law students rely on rankings as the foundation of their school search decisions, but how reliable and useful can these rankings really be?
Some critics contend that rankings are subjective, failing to take account of all aspects of school performance and encouraging schools to focus solely on gaining higher rankings rather than improving education standards.
The ABA’s College Scorecard
Law school rankings have long been a fixture of legal education. At their best, rankings help students evaluate schools against each other on an objective set of benchmarks; at worst they may encourage schools to tailor their admissions practices and other functions towards maintaining or increasing their ranking. US News’ rankings place too much weight on Law School Admission Test scores without collecting data about other diversity measures – leading many law schools to give financial aid primarily to students with high test scores while neglecting those most in need.
Colin highlights that Yale’s decision to withdraw from U.S. News’ rankings may have been motivated by their desire to avoid further free speech controversy; but, more likely than not, their motivation may also lie elsewhere – its ranking was beginning to decrease on one of the metrics used for ranking purposes by U.S. News.
US News & World Report
The rankings’ methodology and components have come under criticism for placing too much weight on subjective measures while neglecting important legal values. Deans have claimed that such rankings pressure schools to game their criteria by offering scholarships for higher LSAT scores or rewarding more generously for schools that rank high, creating pressure to game the system in order to rise up the ranks.
Changes this year were intended to address these concerns, yet have failed to satisfy everyone. For instance, one new research metric weighs the number of publications by individual faculty members more heavily than overall faculty size; yet the new system does not include a measure for law professors’ scholarly influence – something some feel could undervalue scholarship in less-well-known topics.
Changes were also implemented to give more weight to law school graduates who passed the bar and found jobs, as this is an indicator of their potential employment after law school graduation. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t consider law-school fellowships that help students pay off debts or public service work; something some deans had complained had been overlooked previously.
The National Law Journal
As law school admissions season starts up again, some students are looking to U.S. News rankings to help make their decisions about where and when to apply for law school admissions. But is their focus really on the right data and can these rankings actually assist them in finding their ideal law schools?
The National Law Journal offers perhaps the simplest ranking, which considers which schools had the highest percentage of 2015 graduates placed as first-year associates at 100 of the largest firms nationwide, as well as which students have been promoted to partner at those firms.
Some critics contend that rankings are an inaccurate representation of law school quality; rather than reflecting reality and creating meaningful differences among schools, they only serve to magnify minor distinctions and magnify them further. Instead, applicants should focus on metrics like bar exam pass rates and employment data in order to make more informed decisions when selecting where they will attend law school.
The Economist
The Economist is a weekly British newspaper covering international politics, business, economics, and culture. The paper is widely known for its focus on data journalism and interpretive analysis – which often draws both criticism and praise. Owned by Economist Group which also publishes other news media such as Financial Times, European Voice, and Roll Call.
Heald and Sichelman’s move toward citation-based rankings creates new, potentially counterproductive incentives for law schools. If schools shift their attention toward hiring highly cited faculty, they may devalue interdisciplinary credentials or scholarship that isn’t published in traditional legal reviews, leading to diminished legal academies with less intellectually diverse lawyers, while hurting low-income students who rely on scholarships to afford law school. It is vitally important that this issue be thoroughly debated – there is so much data out there – students should carefully consider what matters most before taking on debt of taking on debt from law degrees.
