Should People Still Care About Law School Rankings?

law-school-rankings

The U.S. News & World Report recently released this year’s law school rankings. Some schools rose and some fell. But who cares?

Despite the lies that can go into calculating them, it appears the law school rankings are still relevant. At least to some folks. I only knew they were released today because of a post on Facebook. A fellow alum lamented my alma mater’s precipitous drop in the rankings. As it turns out, the gist of his gripe was based on competitiveness. Many of his colleagues graduated from ASU, which climbed above the University of Pittsburgh, my alma mater, in the rankings. But can one magazine’s ranking of legal institutions matter for more than just ribbing other lawyers?

The Fear of Looking Bad

During my time there, Pitt went from #57 to #73 in the rankings. The student population freaked out. It was all anyone talked about. Did we make a poor investment? Should we transfer? Would our school’s reputation hinder our job search?

But really we were just scared. Nobody talked about it outright, but that was the undercurrent at the school. We didn’t want potential employers (or later our colleagues and opponents) to judge us for this rankings drop. Finally, we were scared that the education we received would be worse than students at seventy-two other schools, and as a result maybe we wouldn’t be able to keep up in our (hopefully forthcoming) jobs.

The Flaws in the Ranking System

Even if schools all give totally accurate responses to the magazine’s questions, the system is inherently flawed. Steven Harper at The Chronicle of Higher Education delves into the quality assessment component:

Quality assessment is the biggest contributor to a law school’s U.S. News ranking, accounting for 40 percent of its total score. The category itself is a misnomer because it doesn’t reflect quality at all. Rather, using statistically suspect samples of scholars and practicing lawyers, it’s a superficial and unreliable assessment of a school’s reputation.

Where does the assessment come from, you might ask. Harper goes on to explain:

Twenty-five percent of every law school’s total score comes from responses to a survey that the magazine sends each year to four people at every ABA-accredited law school: the dean, the dean of academic affairs, the chair of faculty appointments, and the most recently tenured faculty member. The four receive a list of the country’s accredited law schools, along with a request to rate each—all 195 in 2012—on a scale of 1 to 5. The survey doesn’t ask those responding if they’ve ever set foot on the campuses, met any of the faculty, or have any familiarity with the schools they’re reviewing. Respondents have a “don’t know” option, but U.S. News doesn’t disclose how many people use it for particular schools on the list. After all, such meaningful information would undermine the reported response rate, which was 66 percent for the rankings published in 2011 and 63 percent for 2012.

The rest of the quality-assessment component—accounting for 15 percent of the total U.S. News score—comes from a similar 1-to-5 survey that goes to unnamed “legal professionals, including the hiring partners of law firms, state attorneys general, and selected federal and state judges.” The response rate is abysmal—14 percent for the 2011 rankings, for example, and 12 percent for 2012. Here again, the extent to which respondents replied “don’t know” isn’t disclosed. And whether someone returning the survey actually knows anything about any law school that he or she rates is irrelevant. As a matter of statistical procedure, the entire sampling process suffers from numerous deficiencies.

The Reality of the Rankings

As law students, there is a lot of focus on the rankings. But from my brief time as a lawyer, I can say that focus completely evaporates upon graduation. I’ve never been asked about the rankings in an interview. I don’t judge other attorneys based on which school they go to. Nor do I expect any unkind remarks due to Pitt’s recent drop.

But the law schools continue to feed into the importance of the rankings. For example, this evening I received an e-mail from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law Alumni Association with a special message from our new dean. He opens the letter with “as you have already heard,” indicating that this should be on everyone’s radar. But if I hadn’t been waiting in the courthouse and messing around on Facebook, I never would have known. The message validates the rankings as a system the law school should compete in.

These rankings, from my observation, do not give us any kind of objective basis to judge schools. They don’t help people get jobs, or keep people from getting jobs. Yet law students and academics continue to focus on them, seemingly for the very reasons they aren’t important.

(photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/evelynishere/3417340248/)

  • http://phillylawblog.wordpress.com/ Jordan Rushie

    A few brief thoughts on the rankings…

    1. It’s too geographic to matter. Here in Philly there are regional schools (Temple, Villanova, Drexel, Widener, Penn, etc.) No one is going to discriminate against applicants from Temple because another guy applied from a higher ranked school in D.C., Boston, or New York. In our region, you are better off being from a local school than a higher ranked school from out of town.

    2. Smaller firms don’t care. Five years out, I couldn’t tell you where any law school is ranked. Not even my own. I’d rather hire someone from a local school because they have ties to the area, not someone who wants to work here for a month until they find a job in Washington D.C. where they grew up. I know too many lawyers who leave town to go to a “better” law school and now just want to go home. All the employers know it, too.

    3. Clients don’t care where you went to law school. I’ve never been asked by a client where I went to law school and how my grades were. The only clients who care are fellow Temple alum.

    4. Many of your clients will come from family, friends, classmates, etc. In my opinion, you are better off going to a law school where you have a large social network. The most successful lawyers I know have large social networks. (real ones – not just on Twitter).

    5. It matters in some biglaw firms, I guess. However, you can bet that a guy who signs General Motors as a client is going to make partner before a guy who went to Harvard and graduated top of his class. Prestige is great, but it doesn’t put beer on the table.

    My view is to go where it’s cheapest, and in the place where most of your friends and family are. Don’t go to law school in Kansas because it’s ranked five spots higher than the one on your town.

  • http://jurisdictie.wordpress.com Sebastian

    Hi there. First of all I’m not from America, I’m from Romania and i would say that here, things are different. We don’t have a ranking system so complex like this one here, I’m in a private law school and I don’t have any benefits from this. What I want to say is that I think, no matter where you are, you have to study very much to be good. GOOD means same thing, no matter of university. :) Wish luck to all students because it’s a hard college.

  • Lawrence

    I’m a fellow Pitt Law grad and I am extremely active with the Pitt Alumni Association. Over the past week I’ve heard so many comments from our alumni basically slamming professors, administrators, etc. It’s funny that the same people that are so quick to disparage their alma mater are also the ones who don’t give their talent, time, or money back to the school. If you’re truly concerned about the well being of your school in these rankings then do something about it as an alumnus.

    • http://lawyerist.com/author/joshcamson/ Josh Camson

      I agree that people have been unnecessarily disparaging the University. And I don’t want to turn the comments into a Pitt forum. But I think you’ve misread the point of the post. I am not concerned about the well being of any school in these rankings.