New Law School Ranking: Judicial Clerkship Jobs

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Most law students haven't got a clue. And, YES! they do, in fact, let one magazine's rankings dictate where they go. but it isn't that simple. The trickle-down comes from the lazy employers who rely on the rankings to sort the students who ultimately become their candiate pools. Thus buy into the rankings and concentrate their recruiting efforts accordingly.
Students know there really isn't a measurable difference between the education one can receive at Virginia versus UCLA versus Boston College. But employers turn their own treatment of the process into self-fulfilling prophesies by concentrating on the higher ranked schools. The top-ranked schools become "better" because they provide better job prospects.

Antonio of CA 2:13AM February 14, 2010

If U.S. News is the devil incarnate, then why do consumers continue to buy their product? Furthermore, why do law schools continue to participate in the survey? The only people who are truly offended by these rankings are internet message board trolls on here and at Inside Higher Ed, a select few individuals walled off from reality in their ivory towers of academia, and self-interested labor unions like AFT. Everyone always talks about U.S. News “misleading students and their parents” blah blah blah. Seriously, if a student is bright enough to attend law school, do you really think he/she would be so daft as to let one magazine dictate where they attend school?
So New England School of Law and U of North Dakota misreported data…OK, they appear to either 1) trying to pull a Clemson and game the system, or 2) (and more realistically) they simply misreported data. It happens. People make mistakes. U.S. News released these “new” rankings last week, people paid attention, and started calling out the data. Cool, but this data has been available since the 2010 law rankings came out—in April! Why no clamor before now?
Make no mistake—the methodology is flawed at best. The idea of “ranking” colleges is a stunt designed to move product. However, in the process of selling a lot of magazines, there is a significant amount of good, accurate data provided to prospective students. The fact that an organization with a significant readership such as USNWR is providing this data to a population that might otherwise not be able to peer into the historically shadowy admissions processes at higher education institutions is beneficial for all. Unless you think it’s time for prospective students and their families to start collecting data for themselves from the ABA, IPEDS, or whoever, then perhaps everyone should just chill out. Just my .02
Thanks for listening. You may now continue trashing U.S. News in your little bashfest corner of the internet.

Geri of NY 3:13PM September 09, 2009

Seriously - this is just down right embarrassing for a major publication. Your ranking products are consistently rife with errors year after year after year! It is your responsibility to first ensure the integrity of your products by making sure, at a minimum, that your data are reliable. Your methodologies are another story...

Duh of AK 2:37PM September 09, 2009

Immediately upon seeing this report, we at Western New England realized there had been an inadvertent error. I have posted about the correct data here:
http://mars.wnec.edu/blawg/?p=130
We are submitting the corrected data.
Best,
Bill Childs
Professor of Law and
Associate Dean for External Affairs
Western New England College School of Law

Bill Childs of MA 2:39PM September 08, 2009

Factoring federal clerkships into the overall US News rankings of law schools could be valuable -- as could consideration of state high court clerks and longer-term data on graduates' career outcomes, including rates of law firm partnership, appointments to the federal and state bar, proportion of in-house counsel at major corporations, etc. But relying on self-reported data from schools is a flawed methodology. As always with US News rankings, the lack of basic research rigor is laughable. And mystifying.
For example, did you survey the federal judges themselves about the law schools from which their clerks graduated? Did you audit the self-reported data in ANY way? At the very least, you could have flagged questionable data, contacted the schools to verify placements, and -- if necessary -- called the judges who supposedly hired those clerks to confirm the placements.
This is not the first time US News has published unverified data in its rankings of law schools, data that turned out to be incorrect. Generally, the errant data was easily recognizable and correctable -- had anyone at US News bothered to scrutinize and confirm the data before publication. The fact that US News won't correct errors in its rankings makes all of this more irritating. The lack of responsibility in this matter is tantamount to disdain for the entities you rank and the readers you purport to serve.
You have turned yourselves into purveyors of rankings. You need to do a better job of assuring the quality of assessment you are selling the general public.

Disappointed of NY 8:06PM September 05, 2009

The Dean of North Dakota has already stated that the data for that school is wrong, and the correct number of federal clerkships is 0%: see
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/04/north-dakota-law-tops-harvard-in-us-news-ranking/tab/comments/
Clearly there are a lot of other obvious errors here -- why hasn't US News issued a correction or taken these rankings down until they could at least ask each of the other schools with ridiculous numbers here whether the data is indeed correct?

Fact Check of MA 12:58PM September 05, 2009

North Dakota's website boasts that four of its students are clerking at the ND Supreme Court, and makes no mention of federal courts at all. I suspect some of these numbers are reported as % of all students who are clerking, not % of all students. I could believe that North Dakota has 8 total students who are clerking, 2 of whom are clerking in the U.S. District Court of North Dakota. Conveniently, that district court has two judges.

Numbers Numbers of OH 8:58AM September 05, 2009

What makes the data even more ridiculous is that North Dakota is showing that all but 3% of its clerk-bound students ended up in article III clerkships! And NESL is showing that every single one of its clerk-bound students ended up in article III clerkships.
We really need an independent third party ratings agency to take over the collecting/reporting of employment data, particularly at second tier and below schools. Time after time, these schools have shown their willingness to fudge the numbers and outright lie. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying North Dakota is lying. But does anyone here actually believe that all but 3% of their clerk-bound students went to article III clerkships? I've got some ocean front property in Arizona...

Dave of GA 11:55PM September 04, 2009

That many of these schools' data is just plain wrong.
To give just one example. New England School of Law says they have 12.5% in federal, article III clerkships and 12.5% overall in clerkships. This is a very low-ranked school, in a state that also has Harvard, Boston College and Boston University for federal judges to choose from.
This data is so bad it is embararssing for your publication, and should be taken down immediately.

Fact Check of MA 2:52PM September 04, 2009