April 8, 2011

US News Weighs Request to Add the Most Freakishly Manipulable Measure to Law School Rankings.

Weigh well, o wise ones, ye who determine the hierarchy of legal academia. 

ADDED: Under the equal protection case law, we'll need to say our race discrimination is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Surely, maintaining our U.S. News rank is compelling, right?


The Drill SGT said...

and the ultimate measure is "how few white males you have"?

seriously, do asians count for or against you or is it "depends", cuz in California, just like the bad old days, they are discriminated against in getting into schools.

traditionalguy said...

Will they add the popularity of Law School's Professor's who write Blogs? Maybe not, since they are the old time media fading away.

RichardS said...

If my memory is correct, when U.S. News first did college rankings, it was based on a survey of college presidents. That always seemed to me to be the best way to do it. It has a certain merit, but one also takes it with a grain of salt. Trying to make it objective is probably no more accurate.
It also has unfortunate consequences. Sometimes it leads schools to do things to game the system.
But a survey of college presidents probably only works when the survey, like the originial, was only about the top 25 universities and liberal arts colleges. That would hurt U.S. News' business model.

paul a'barge said...


I would have used "manipulatable". Now I know a new word.

'preciate it.

PaulV said...

Who can we discriminate against? In the old days Harvard discriminated against the Jews. California discriminates against Asians. No quotas for/against rednecks, Christianists or other disliked minorities? fls was discriminated against for lack of reasoning power. Sowell says schools disciminate when they admit unqualified students who will be unable to pass the bar. I have not passed a bar in years, always go in.

Freeman Hunt said...

Should read:

"US News Weighs Request to Make Rankings Irrelevant"

Freeman Hunt said...

When you start adding in that kind of thing, your rankings suddenly have nothing to do with the quality of the schools.

Once that's the case, who will care about them?

Chuck66 said...

Yes, I need some legal services. I don't care about the skills of your staff. But can you tell me the continents that the ancestors of your law firm's lawyers come from?

Carol_Herman said...

How long ago did Scott Turow write "One-L?"

Harvard stays on top because those who want to get in are in a larger pool than those they accept in.

It's supposed to be a chance to meet the movers and shakers. Which was the trade off, where you worked your hiney off before you made "partner."

While the best schools? They'll tell ya to bring your golf clubs. And, teach courses on how to hire the best paralegal.

Suddenly, a lot of students ask themselves if they want $150,000 in debt? And, believe it or not, the pool of students asking for admissions to law schools in general, has shrunken.

Now, if you're gonna look outside the USA, what you'd have to know ... is how corrupt China's business practices really are.

Maybe, it just pays to join a gang?

Fen said...

Maybe, it just pays to join a gang?

Not since Walker revoked their collective bargaining "rights"

Terrence Berres said...

"Surely, maintaining our U.S. News rank is compelling, right?"

It appears to be so for law school deans, much as they dislike it.