Bloggers Debate the Law School Rankings

Reader Comments
Back to blog

vfure icts borrowing loss empowerment keen olkf roundtable clumsy numeracy acandidates

Buy Ambien of AL 10:19AM April 05, 2010

я думаю: бесподобно! а82ч

adjuct of AL 7:44PM February 22, 2010

now i`ll read your rss

Bypenear of AL 6:56AM December 12, 2009

Is the 2010 part-time law ranking methodology meant to be a joke?
Morse spends all this time building up the anticipation of the "all new part-time law rankings" and then flops in the end? I thought the idea was to get an accurate guaging of part-time programs using actual submitted data and not an 8th grade popularity contest.
Hey Bobbo, if you are going to resort to popularity contests (like the dilettante that you are) and ask school admins to "rank up to 15 schools" then (hint) only post the rankings for the top 15 schools! A fifth grader could come up with a better ranking methodology than you. These new rankings are nothing short of disgraceful and I am not referring to any particular school but, rather, the childish methodolgy which detracts from the credibility of all of the rankings in general (if it ever existed).

Shawn Batista of NY 7:04PM April 22, 2009

It is a conflict of interest for GULC and GWU authors to argue against separate PT rankings without disclosing how much they rely on PT.
They can't have it both ways - either publish separate rankings, or include the PT data in the JD program.
And yes, I'm at a school with no PT. We've never gamed this system.

law prof of MA 9:52PM March 23, 2009

At any decent law school, for every good student who transfers out, there's another one who excelled at a different school and wants to transfer in. So schools can replenish their talent through a kind of "trickle-up" system, where only the weakest law schools as designated by their inability to produce at least a small group of overacheiving students - will suffer, because of their rankings.
Even so, not all transfers are for "upgrade reasons" (the simple desire to attend more prestigious or higher-ranked schools); some students make what can be termed "lateral moves" to similarly ranked and prestiged schools for geographic or personal reasons.
Moreover, part-time, working students may wish to remain in school but take job relocation, giving other schools compelling reasons to accept them.
Still, a third reason the "Triple-A Farm System" you speak about may not be so is the existence of "visiting students", who will receive their degrees from their original schools, but, for various reasons, wish to study at different law schools for their second and/or third year(s).

Ivan of WA 12:13AM February 04, 2009

Recently disseminated rumors of separate rankings have been scaring many prospective law students and rightly so. The result of such an augmentation to the current rankings would be, in effect, punishing the students rather than the institutions, which go through extraordinary lengths to cheat the system. The only fair way to mitigate the rankings game and those who unfairly cheat, would be to have one single ranking of law schools as opposed to two separate ones. After all, it seems a little ridiculous and redundant that there would be two rankings for law schools as opposed to all the other disciplines, which have limited rankings (and, not suprisingly, have been less affected by elitism).
So, please, do the prudent thing and, if part-time rankings have to be created at all, then include those statistics in the overall rankings!
But on a personal note, if it were up to me, I would do away with all law school rankings in general as they are not an accurate indication of educational quality but nothing more than an arbitrary set of variables comprised to inject snobbism into already snobbish profession. Not to mention, they corrupt the minds of the impressionable youth with materialism, focusing on a futile pursuit of high salaries rather than focusing on the more noble but antiquated pursuit of actual LEARNING!

DrBJohnson of DC 7:08PM January 18, 2009

Recently disseminated rumors of a separate rankings have been scaring many prospective law students and rightly so. The result of such an augmentation to the current rankings would be, in effect, punishing the students rather than the institutions, which go through extraordinary lengths to cheat the system. The only fair way to mitigate the rankings game and those who unfairly cheat, would be to have one single ranking of law schools as opposed to two separate ones. After all, it seems a little ridiculous and redundant that there would be two rankings for law schools as opposed to all the other disciplines, which have limited rankings (and, not suprisingly, have been less affected by elitism).
So, please, do the prudent thing and, if part-time rankings have to be created at all, then include those statistics in the overall rankings!
But on a personal note, if it were up to me, I would do away with all law rankings in general as they are not an accurate indication of educational quality but nothing more than an arbitrary set of variables comprised to inject snobbism into already snobbish profession. Not to mention, they corrupt the minds of the impressionable youth with materialism, focusing on a futile pursuit of high salaries rather than focusing on the more noble but antiquated pursuit of acutal LEARNING.

DrBJohnson of DC 7:04PM January 18, 2009

Last year, I went back to my alma mater to teach for a semester. I was appalled at the depths to which a majority of the faculty, led by the dean, had stooped in order to "play the rankings" game.
After an elongated political process, during which the dean twisted some arms and ruffled more than a few feathers, the faculty took a secret ballot vote, which passed by a slim margin. Under the resolution, the dean was authorized to take reasonable measures in pursuit of higher rankings in US News.
This produced some troubling effects. One of the key areas in which our "regional" law school always ranks low is in student funding, when calculated on a student/teacher ratio. There are two possible ways to increase funding per student: A) hire more faculty or B) reduce the student population.
Regretably, the school opted for the more economical of the two and will embark on a "short term" plan to decrease the incoming classes over the next 3 to 5 years, from current levels of 240 back down to about 200. Of course, this plan also enhances the student/faculty ratio, another key US News survey ingredient.
Although one may argue the actual merits of a lower student/faculty ratio, the reality of the approach taken by my alma mater is beyond dispute: Displaced students will consist primarily of economically disadvantaged minority groups.
This is a direct side-effect of the enormously illogical system employed by US News to sell more magazines.
The system has little, if any merit and should be abandoned. No telling how many other schools are fighting an uphill battle in the name of improving perceived quality of their schools.
Chuck (former adjunct at a state law school in TX)
p.s. The distinction between day and night students does not warrant additional consideration. Part-time students are generally older and wiser to the world, but they certainly have less time to study, irrespective of their lighter load. It's just another obvious attempt to sell more magazines.

Chuck of TX 2:08AM October 07, 2008