About That ABA Journal Cover Story...

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I found lots of interesting information on www.usnews.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. www.usnews.com keep it that way.

Payday Loans of AL 6:30PM April 30, 2009

The ABA's annual questionnaire does not request information about students' employment at time of graduation, I'm curious to know why this is considered important in the U.S. News & World ranking of law schools.
Along the same lines, it appears that a number of law schools do not provide data relating to employment at graduation. How does the U.S. News ranking methodology calculate a law school's overall ranking when the "employed at graduation" data is not provided?

of FL 11:41AM May 09, 2008

Law School Rankings Czar" Bob Morse defended the current law school ranking system. A summary of his comments can be found here:
http://resipsablog.com/2008/04/12/the-law-school-rankings-czar-speaks-out/
Bob Morse responds: Thanks for posting this link and doing this summary.

Benson of TX 6:25PM April 12, 2008

What criteria is used for the law school rankings for trial advocacy. Does the magazine take into account the performance of the schools at mock trial competitions, or the aggregate ratings from such competitions compiled by the National Institute of Trial Advocacy?
Bob Morse responds: Based on responses of facultly members that teach in the field of Trail advocacy. We don't use ratings in competitions.

BL of MA 3:57PM April 11, 2008

Is there any consideration given to the cost of living adjustments? Lawyers in New York for example making $100,000 may not be doing half as well as a lawyer in St. Louis, making $60,000.
What about lawyers going into private practice as solo practictioners? A low income reported may not reflect the actual income reported to the IRS when things like overhead, etc. are factored in.
Bob Morse responds: Starting salaries of recent law graduates are not used in the ranking model as a variable. They are only published for information purposes.

Ken of IL 3:39AM April 04, 2008

In the print edition, you have the five schools listed at #100 listed as both top 100 and third tier schools. Was that intentional?
Bob Morse responds: There is a print error in newsstand guide law ranking table. Those five schools names should not appear in the third tier.
Here is a more detailed explanation.
Due to a printing error, the 2009 edition of the America’s Best Graduate Schools guidebook incorrectly repeats the names of the five schools that tied for 100 in the top law school ranking-- Mercer University, Stetson University, Syracuse University, the University at Buffalo--SUNY, and the University of Louisville--in the list of Third Tier law schools.
These law schools do appear where they belong on the Top 100 list, but we unfortunately were unable to remove them from the Third Tier list for the print version of the guidebook that will arrive on newsstands this week.
We apologize for this error and have taken the following steps to correct it:
1. A correction to the guidebook is being run in the April 7-April14 issue of U.S.News & World Report magazine, the same issue which features the America’s Best Graduate Schools rankings. The complete Top 100 law schools ranking will appear in that issue (without the Third Tier group).
2. The complete law school ranking (including the Third and Fourth Tier lists) is correct as appears online at www.usnews.com.
3. A corrected PDF version of the full law rankings also is available at www.usnews.com.
Once again we apologize for the error.

Kevin Chase of NM 10:38AM April 01, 2008

Why isn't there a second tier?
Bob Morse responds: We stopped doing a second tier years ago and now only do the Top 100. Since we are ranking 1-100 we see no need to create a 2nd tier. The web site's reference to Tier 1 Law Schools will be dropped very soon, it's not supposed to be there.

km of CA 4:52PM March 31, 2008

A couple of quick changes possible for next year:
1) Instead of explicity ranking the schools (e.g. 1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 9, 9, 9, etc.), ONLY show the overall composite score as you list them going down in order. This will show the differentiation of the rankings, yet illustrate the clustering of school rankings also (e.g. #6 to #12 are within 4 points of each other). I understand that you already list both the rankings and the composite together now, but eliminating the actual ranking number and only showing the composite will have a powerful framing effect.
2) Another factor to consider is the % of the 3L class that was accepted into the school as a 1L. This will account for two things that are not currently factored in: transfer students that left to attend other schools and schools adding on more transfer students (and thereby possibly circumventing the 1L application procedure reporting).
Bob Morse responds: Disagree. To have a ranking without a rankings doesn't make sense. In terms of transfer data. That information on transfers is currently not available from law schools at the level of detail needed to calculate your point.

Anon of MI 2:14PM March 29, 2008

Why not just add a category for 9 month (or a year) employment, and keep the "at grad" employment category as well? More data is always better. The 9 month information would help discern between schools with nearly identical "at grad" employment.
Bob Morse responds: the 9-month rate is all ready used in the rankings (it counts 14% of the rankings) and it's published on our web site and in print.

Steve of CA 1:20PM March 29, 2008

It seems naive to think that all schools are playing by the same book. Traditionally the rankings will have a natural flow to them in categories like LSAT or GPA that will have a gradual decline as one goes down the list.
However, there are large discrepancies in how schools treat the employment at graduation numbers. This statistic is useless when one considers schools that play by the rules and don't count certain non-legal types of employment, or those that have larger numbers of students taking public interest or government jobs that won't be solid offers until after bar passage.
The real number the rankings should track is the 9 months number. Even that is probably longer than necessary. Why not have one employment number that corresponds to the usual period of time when bar results are received and offers are in place? Given the May-October turnaround, 5 months would be more than adequate.
Bob Morse responds: The nine month figure is determined by ABA and the National Association of Law Placement (NALP) standards. U.S. News uses at graduation since we think it's important. Don't think the ABA or NALP would change to 5 months. If they did, we would.

Skeptical of MA 6:39PM March 27, 2008