The Law School Rankings Debate, Part 2

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Nice article

arhiderrr of DE 6:16PM February 28, 2009

Nice article

arhiderrr of DE 6:15PM February 28, 2009

Nice article

arhiderrr of DE 10:11AM February 28, 2009

Nice article

arhiderrr of DE 9:22AM February 28, 2009

Nice article

arhiderrr of DE 9:22AM February 28, 2009

The "Dirty Secrets" commenter is right on target.
My LSAT score is 156. Not what Loyola wants in their day school data. I applied for the day program, as did may of my "evening" peers. I was on their wait list. They called me and offered me an evening slot promising me that if I was in the top 75% of that class, I could transfer to days by taking two summer school classes. They did this to many of my fellow night students.
The dean dances around this issue when asked about it in school town hall meetings. Loyola wants to manipulate their rank. They also will find flaws in the whole ranking system. Fair enough, it isn't perfect.
Neither is ranking students or grading on a curve when you don't have a random sample. You'd expect educated people to know better. It's all a game and so much is tainted by money. Law school is just too much of a money maker so few schools dare to drop out of the herd and really seek a better way to educate.
Law school is so beholden to the rankings, the ABA and the big firms. Students come last. To improve the educational experience for students is certainly possible, but the deans and professors have little interest as they can make more money as expert witnesses, authors, and consultants that they don't want to bother with the meetings and work that innovation would require.
Hats off to University of Illinois and others who at least don't participate in the rankings.

SMK of IL 1:57PM January 02, 2009

I don't understand how we can lump LSAT scores of part-time, evening, and full-time students. Each of these groups have completely different law school programs. I have read comments on other blogs that part-time students only take "1 less class." Yeah, that's 1/4 to 1/3 the amount of credits taken. That's a huge difference. That means that not only is there 1 less class to take, there is then more time to study for the other classes they have. That means that part-time students have an incredibly greater amount of time to study for the 1L courses. Given time, most students can perform very well. In addition, part-time students may get extra help in the form of "how to take law school exams" instruction and maybe even get dedicated mentors in their area. In other words, part-time students are given every opportunity to excel and they actually give full-time students a serious run for their money. In fact, I know a lot of part-time students who got on journals including law review and got offers from top quality firms when many of the full-timers were left out. The argument that the quality of students at schools with high numbers of part-time students is obviously true (if LSAT/GPA is the criteria), but they may in fact be the ones performing better. If they are performing better than full-time students, then their LSAT scores/GPAs are NOT the reason obviously and thus should NOT be included in schools' LSAT/GPA numbers. These numbers are meant to say how competitive the school will be. Well, as a full-time student, you take classes with other full-time students who have high GPA/LSAT scores as indicators of performance AND against part-time students who are still good students BUT whose real indicator of performance is the extra time studying and fewer classes to study for (basically an extra 15-20 hours or so a week--that's 1/2 a work week). As a full-time student, then, I am really concerned about how smart the other full-time students are since the part-time students extra time compensates for any academic deficiencies.
As for evening students, they take classes at night and are not competing at all against the full and part-time day students that take the same classes together. Thus, the exams they take are NOT pooled with the day students; their curves are against each other (i.e. students with generally lower LSAT scores/GPAs against other students with the same scores). At my school and I'm sure most if not all other schools, they are ranked separately. Thus, again, pooling LSAT/GPA scores of evening student would give the complete wrong impression to students planning to go to a particular school. They would see a much lower number and think they are going to be at the top of the class (which as we all now are the only ones who get the good jobs unless at the top 20 law schools) and then get a big shock when they discovered that the curves on their exams would be against ONLY students with high LSAT scores/GPAs.
Because, each program so completely different, I propose a SEPARATE ranking system (assuming rankings continue) for EACH program. I reiterate that the part-time day program is one program where I don't think LSAT scores/GPA really have much correlation at all with performance since in that case students have so much more time which can allow any student who buckles down to perform much better than they ever could in a full-timme program. (many evening students unlike the part-time day folks so they don't quite have the luxury of time and thus as compared to each other as they are for their exams, evening students LSAT scores/GPAs should correlate with their law school success.)
I think one other important issue has not been discussed much and that's about disclosure not only by law schools BUT by the students themselves. Employers that I've worked with seem to be oblivious to the differences in these 3 programs. Many employers don't even understand that there are 3 types of programs. Most just think there are day and evening programs. To keep this from getting way out of hand, I propose that career resource/planning centers at law schools force students to state on their resume the program they entered as 1st years. Furthermore, the grading curves need to be made consistent in classes at law schools. I have seen part-time day students take small classes all the way through law school that have small numbers of students which for some reason have automatic higher grades that professors can give (e.g. a class with 25 students or more would be allowed a 3.0 overall average BUT a class with less than 25 students can have a 3.67 overall average). Thus, if you take all small classes, your GPA can be amazing without ever really facing any challenge.
Without this, there is simply a complete lack of transparency to employers and students (not just law schools as has been alleged) can skirt the system.

maverick of 2:15AM September 07, 2008

Mr.,
My apologizes for my english but I don't use your language for 25 years ago!
I have a son, student in law in Luxembourg ( we are belgian, french part of the land).
My son have his diploma in law ( first cycle of 3 years in Belgium, afterthat one year in Luxembourg for his master 1 ( diploma lawyer of luxembourg after 4 years), and he is agreed to do the M2 in "European Banking & financial law")
With your system (as for UK), he has the level to apply for a Phd!
He is fluent in english ( TOEFL 603, IELTS 7,5) and he have decided to apply for a LLM in UK or in the United States ( he has friends in your country, knows LA-NY).
Big problem : there is ONE website for the LLM with explanations, links, ... but not ranking for the LLM's.
There is ONE ranking on the web for the american LLM's: AUAP.
But nothing about the quality in function of the "concentrations".
He have all about the tuition, fees, costs, facilities, religion,color of our body, sex, if the is gay's club, ... but nothing about the qualifications of the faculty !
-The salary after : it is a false data : a "big apple $" is not a "little apple $"! Your country have a lot of big specialists in economy to explain that.
-Average salary after n years : idem and "average" is beter that none but it is also ?
-The best : number of publications : quantity in place of quality! My wife is doctor in medicine with a specialization in rhumatology : she knows the "war of the publications". Practical it is ridiculous. It is worthless, it is as to compare the production of an industrial firm : "Big is beautiful"
-Employment: it is very important but function of the market's quality of the product: the young fresh lawyer : good faculty ( a lot of money to do that), big name, bigs relations, good family( good to do business),....it is (not he is...) "le produit d'appel", very good salary for the son, so "dad" will be happy and hop, we have a new "big" name in the list.
For the real work, last door, little desk : the worker ( unknowed family, no $, no "big" name, studies payed with littles jobs and scholarships : it is not "marketable"to show that, too dangerous for THE list.
In summary : your ranking is a marketing ranking ( good for the tuition fees)
Where is the real ranking, with real data for everyone?
I'm always waiting.
It is to pay (a lot of) for what? To give hope for the "littles" with no "big" names...
I don't give my money to go to an "empty road".
You are not the unique people in the world to want to have the best quality price for his money.
Signed,
"A little frenchtalking belgian father"
PS: for your pleasure : we're using an AMANA, IMAC, Belleville, ... and amazon.com is one of my sellers.
Our prefered actors : De Niro, Nicholson, Danny Glover, Samuel L. Jackson, Warren Beaty, Redford, Hackman, Caine, Willis, Gibson (the actor, not the man), Eastwood, Lee Jones, Kevin Kline, Pacino, Hugh Jackman, Gabriel Birne, "Governator", Belushi, Brando, Rourke, Newman, Hofmann, Seymour Hoffman (one of the bests), Pitt, William Macy, Cruise (in one film, his first "born a 4 july", ..... and too more actress...and to more producers : God bless America ( and the $ ...)
And I do'nt write for all others things.
My email is good for the biggest computer of the world, I have a name for this "machine": Bigbrother. Hi for the men of the NSA.
For your specialists of "decryptage", "profiling", ...I love too "The Truman Show", "the 3 days of Condor", "the specialists", "Bulworth","Woodstein" for the researchsoftware of Bigbrother, and Billy Cristal ( for the "humour juif", no traduction in english).

Paul André Fostier 4:56AM July 24, 2008

My evening class started with about 80 students and ended with around 40-45 at graduation. While in school, the full-time students liked to take elective evening classes because they figured they would have an advantage over time-pressed part-timers. After graduation, the only consistent calls I received from my school were reminders to fill out the job survey so the school would look better in the US NEWS rankings.

of 4:42PM July 14, 2008

Robert - You argue that the profile of the entire law school should be the basis under which ranking comparisons are made.
One way of doing this is by creating a separate ranking for schools offering part-time and transfer programs. This way, even if some law schools try to game the system by enrolling lower scoring students in their part-time and transfer programs, their rankings for the part-time and transfer programs will suffer.
Combining the scores of full-time as well as part-time and transfer students is a rather rudimentary way of solving the gaming problem. This is because not all schools offer a part-time program. And combining the scores is reasonable only if all schools offered a part-time program. Since this is not the case, by combining of the scores of full-time and part-time students, rankings of those schools who have a genuine part-time program and who do not game the system will unnecessarily suffer.
Therefore, combining the scores of full-time and part-time students will negatively impact opportunities for the genuine part-time students (minorities, working adults who can’t afford to go full time, etc.) As pointed out by William Treanor, dean of Fordham Law School, "If U.S. News starts combining the scores of full-time and part-time students, the pressure to end evening schools will become overwhelming,." (google "change ahead for law school rankings" to look at the article on law dot com)
Accordingly, although simply combining the scores for full-time and part-time students would be much easier for U.S. News to do to address the gaming problem, it would cause damage that would clearly harm the profession. By contrast, creating a separate ranking for schools offering part-time and transfer programs may be more difficult for U.S. News to implement. But, by doing so, the intended result of addressing the gaming problem would be achieved without causing any harm.
Creating a separate ranking for part-time and transfer programs is clearly a better alternative.

JD of NJ 1:21PM July 12, 2008