What's New for the 2011 Best Graduate School Rankings

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Your school gets $$$ from its part-timers. Why should they not be counted as the overall make-up of the school? If we followed your confusion, schools will just have 1 full-time student...the best student...and fill the classrooms up with a bunch of part-timers! Would't put it past a lot of schools. So there is your answer.

Alexander of CA 1:00PM December 27, 2009

Wait a minute...why would you only consider part time LSAT/GPA scores for purposes of ranking part time law programs, but use the combined LSAT/GPA numbers for purposes of ranking the full time law programs??? That doesn't make any sense: if the combined LSAT/GPAs are used for ranking the full time programs, shouldn't the combined numbers be used to rank the corresponding part time programs? This is a mess!

Duh of AK 11:08AM December 18, 2009

It should be obvious to even the casual observer that US News does not care about the damage it is doing to the students, the law schools, and the integrity of the admissions process. They care about selling magazines, and put a thin veneer on their unconscionable behavior with the statement that they are providing consumers with needed information. The "needed information" could be provided without the ranking. The ranking itself is sensationalist journalism, which serves no legitimate function. It has, however, become abundantly clear that the rankings are doing significant damage to the consumers for which US News professes such concern. Unfortunately the system is unlikely to change, as those in a position to cause such change (the so-called T-14), are the ones most vested in maintaining the status quo. Shame on US News. Shame on the T-14 for supporting this sham while professing outrage.

Brad of CA 3:06PM December 15, 2009

There are so many opportunities to improve the rankings, especially in this economic climate, that its sad to see the crack team at US news make minor and meaningless tweaks.
The only reason US news hasn't bit the dust is because law schools are too stubborn to release detailed employment numbers. So we're left with using these "rankings" as a proxy for judging schools' ability to place graduates into non-Starbuck barista work.
Is there anything more useless than the employment metrics? Working at Starbucks or a school's admissions office shouldn't count toward these numbers. An average of the 25th percentile (it would be good to have an idea of who the bottom of the class fares) and 75th percentile salary numbers for private sector salaries is needed.
Moreover, law school isn't cheap. If we're going to borrow to the tun of $50k-$100k, it would only make sense to see what kind of access we have to employment opportunities. How many NLJ_250 firms participate at a school's OCI. How about government agencies? How many students get paid summer employment during their 1st and 2nd summers.
To add to what the commenters below said - get rid of acceptance rate as a metric! Schools just end up waitlisting strong candidate that they THINK will end up going elsewhere. Look at UVA, Penn and Michigan on LSN graphs.
These rankings could be worth something and the only thing saving US news's sorry hide is that there's no competition willing to expend the resources to provide students with answers to some important questions. Given how bad the economy is getting, I wouldn't be surprised to see an organic, student organized effort to publish this information. Fora like lawschoolpredictor.com, top-law-schools.com, or lawschoolnumbers.com could lead the charge. All of them offer valuable information that these garbage publication does not.

nunu of IN 11:56PM December 04, 2009

I agree with the first comment. How does the US News and World Report justify itself in including Acceptance Rate. It seeks like a primitive measure that speaks about an applicant pool, not the school itself.
Also, in an age where Lexis and WestLaw dominate legal research, why does the volume of books matter at all?
For as much explaining as the US News puts out about their methodology, one would think that the rankings are well thought out. But, instead, there seems to be widespread consensus that many of the objective variables used to rank schools are totally irrelevant.

Bryan of UT 12:09PM December 04, 2009

I have been looking at this issue closely for a while and I have yet to come across a satisfying explanation as to why acceptance rate is a valuable metric to include in your rankings formula? Why are you giving credit to schools who simply receive more applications from unqualified candidates? In theory, this could occur at any law school, regardless of prestige, and in and of itself says absolutely nothing about the quality of the program. In practice, it results in law schools practicing yield protection, or rejecting what would be otherwise qualified applicants simply because there is a chance they may end up being accepted to and attending a different program. This practice does everything to distract universities and law applicants from the issues that actually merit consideration, and does nothing to improve the value of legal education in this country.

Steve of AZ 11:34AM December 04, 2009

I have been looking at this issue closely for a while and I have yet to come across a satisfying explanation as to why acceptance rate is a valuable metric to include in your rankings formula. Why are you giving credit to schools who simply receive more applications from unqualified candidates? In theory, this could occur at any law school, regardless of prestige, and in and of itself says absolutely nothing about the quality of the program. In practice, it results in law schools practicing yield protection, rejecting otherwise qualified applicants simply because there is a chance they may end up being accepted to and attending a different program. This practice does everything to distract universities and law applicants from the issues that actually merit consideration, and does nothing to improve the value of legal education in this country.

Anonymous of AZ 11:33AM December 04, 2009