U.S. News May Change Its Law School Ranking Methodology

Reader Comments
Back to blog

It looks like schools will need to employ a few JD's long-term and permanently (JD required), with full benefits, to collect the data. That ought to improve the data, itself. How's that for killing two birds with one stone? Lol.

Ivan of CA 2:30AM January 24, 2012

No one argues with the theory of law school transparency, the issues lie in the means to achieve that goal. I believe that many of those calling for the increased amount and detail of the reported information do not have a true understanding of the challenges faced in collecting this information. While demanding more, they do not suggest which tools may be used to gather more thorough information, nor do they offer assistance in its collection. Law School Career Services Offices (CSO’s) cannot mandate, coerce, bribe, or otherwise direct their new graduates to answer the annual questionnaire. It is a completely voluntary exercise which only goodwill and nagging manages to elicit responses.
It is for this reason that small or solo CSO’s suffer most noticeably; they simply do not have manpower to make these repetitive outreach efforts. The helplessness and frustration is palpable in our CSO in January.
Without compulsion from an entity that still retains influence over these graduates, the task becomes one of sheer man-hours that can be dedicated to it. The pressure to provide responses for the entire class was already keenly felt, but now will have serious negative impacts on the classes of current students for whom the CSO is responsible. Time spent by the CSO staff in exhausting every avenue of collecting the graduate data takes away the availability of our counselors to meet with current students and address their more immediate needs.
Regardless of the reason that the graduates failed to respond, to presume that they are unemployed is inaccurate, misleading and extremely detrimental to all the constituencies that rely on this information. It serves the exact opposite function of transparency. Could it be that these graduates are indeed employed but merely too busy working in fulfilling and demanding legal jobs to respond? I sure hope so.
A secondary problem arises when the CSO has only some information that was gathered more informally and/or from third parties. With the pressure to report on all of the graduates, what level of certainty must be attained before the information can be reported? If a professor recalls a conversation with a graduate at a Bar reception, can that be entered as employment data?
I would ask for partnerships among the law schools, the various state bars, and the American Bar Association to determine how we can all reach out to the new graduates to obtain full and reliable information. Perhaps as part of the first-year CLE requirement? Perhaps as a condition of joining the ABA as an incentivized newly licensed attorney?
Refocusing the issue as one of a need to COLLECT this information more accurately and reliably is required before we all can move forward with the projected results of the statistical reporting.

Linda Wendling of NC 2:24PM June 27, 2011

Far too many sharks er I mean lawyers already...

Carla Babcock of NY 6:56AM June 26, 2011

U.S. News is complicit in this whole charade. It kills me that I see our schools jumping through hoops constructed by a private magazine. Whatever U.S. News deems "the proper method" must be adhered to. For instance we have all heard how U.S. News gives extra points for "eliteness" by measuring the number of applicants vs. the number accepted. Such measurements have led to pushes by universities to increase the number of applicants from students they know won't be accepted.
U.S. News is free to print what they want but with so much riding on the outcome let me guess their judgments are not exactly "un-influenced". Some day a whistle blower will emerge and this monopolistic ratings magazine will be held to account.
I wish our schools would tell them to jump in the lake when they tried to influence the schools decisions and operations.
That rant about U.S. News is over now. I totally am glad that the Law Schools are starting to be exposed for their selective and misleading employment statistics.

Robert Clark of TX 8:49AM June 22, 2011

Bob Morse *knows* that law schools are providing U.S. News and World Report fraudulent statistics in an attempt to lure in students and their federally backed, non-dischargable loan dollars. Yet, he continues to publish these "rankings." It would be one thing if Mr. Morse were an unwitting pawn in this game, manipulated in ignorance. However, he is fully aware of the deception and does nothing more than "urge" the ABA to change its reporting system.
Yet, if Mr. Morse really wanted to serve his audience and advance the journalistic ethic of transparency, he could do so- unilaterally. Mr. Morse, by himself, has had the power to end the law school industry's use of deceptive statistics and bait and switch scholarships. But he has withheld from doing so, and instead merely wrings his hands on the sidelines "urging" the ABA to institute change.
If Mr. Morse really cared about the integrity of his publication, or his audience he would require the reports submitted for the "rankings" to be audited by independent third parties. This would empower prospective law students, who unwittingly believe U.S. News is a reliable source of information - much to their detriment, to make informed decisions. If third and fourth tier schools were subjected to these audits, the information yielded from these audits would surely drive enough students away that some of these schools would be forced to close their doors. I suspect that many fourth tier schools only see around 20% of their graduates go on to full-time private law practice of any kind. So, to lure students in, the schools obfuscate and blur statistics, and Mr. Morse is a knowing accomplice.
The ABA is going to change the definitions of the statistics and require more detail. That doesn't mean a damn. As long as the statistics are self reported, they will be manipulated to game the U.S. News "rankings" system.
After the Great Depression, our government began to require publicly traded companies be audited by independent third parties, and with good reason. We don't want corporations to manipulate data to induce investors. If we do not allow investors to rely on self reported accounting for $100,000 investments on Wall Street, why should we tolerate self reported date from law schools for $100,000 educational investments?
Back to my main point. Bob Morse could wake up tomorrow morning and announce that his new methodology requires and independent audit. But he won't, because it's not in his interest. You see, Mr. Morse works for a private party and cannot compel law schools to submit data. No doubt that if Mr. Morse required independent audited data, many schools who rely on misinformation simply wouldn't participate. And that would leave the U.S. News law school "rankings", the USNWR swimsuit issue, incomplete. And an incomplete rankings issue isn't very marketable or likely to remain the gold standard. Bob Morse has a conflict of interest.

TRG of NV 11:09PM June 19, 2011

Without an independent 3rd party collecting the data, how are we to trust this information especially when the deans of law schools are desperate enough to try anything to improve their ranking? I hope we don't see more Brooklyn Law School type situations where the deans will claim "whoops, inadvertent error" when caught red handed.

Marsha of NY 10:20AM June 17, 2011