The US News rankings weight "reputation" as 40% of the rankings. "Reputation" is based on questionnaires mailed to law school deans and hiring committee chairs, and a sampling of law firms and judges. Anybody who receives the form can say anything they want about any school on the list. Only a tiny percentage of those who receive these questionnaires fill them out. Nobody in the world knows enough about the 200-odd law schools on the list. People tend to rate their alma mater highly, and lots of law deans and profs and judges and biglaw partners went to a handful of so-called "elite" schools. In other words, 40% of the ranking score is based on hearsay, personal school loyalty, etc. In the age of internet access to legal materials, the size of a school's physical library plant shouldn't have anything to do with rankings. I consider the rankings to be spurious, a ploy by US News to make money. This is not sour grapes because I am on the faculty of a low-ranked school, or because Harvard (my alma mater) slipped a step. It is because I believe these rankings are spurious.
As someone who chose a Rubenstein Scholarship at Chicago over Harvard in the last couple of years, I ask you not to assume these scholarships go only to the most affluent people. I'm in my mid-20s from a middle class family and have undergraduate loans to pay off. I would have left Harvard with close to $200,000 in additional debt, and HLS expected my parents to contribute $20,000/year toward my tuition for 3 years on top of that.
With only 600 JD students in total, Chicago's entire student body is the size of a single incoming class at HLS, and just 20 Rubenstein Scholarships per year represent one-tenth of the student population at Chicago. I believe that providing such a large percentage of students the means to pursue whatever interests them academically and professionally, with no concern about having to repay six figures of debt, has helped create a vibrant intellectual climate. If Harvard (and Yale and Stanford) feel pressure to finally begin giving financial aid to more of their students, maybe something good will have come out of the US News rankings.
While law school is different than undergrad, to the extent these rankings are connected to undergrad, I think they are going to change in importance in the next few years. Undergrad admissions has changed almost unrecognizably from 15 years ago in some parts of the country - most top students do not go to ivies anymore. This is going to change at some point how employers and grad schools look at prestigious undergrad schools - there will have to be a wider lens when you have stellar students who would have been accepted easily to ivies then now attending schools a tier or even two tiers below.
(Of course I’m not unhappy that my law school alma mater Columbia is now tied with my undergrad alma mater!)
Canadian here - who went to one of the supposedly "top" law schools in Canada, mostly because it happened to be in the town where I already lived; going anywhere else would have meant extra expenses I couldn't afford. I personally find the wrangling about "rankings" unseemly. It generates nothing less than a self-perpetuating class system, even as five or six years into a legal career, people cease to care where you went to school and will judge you on your actual performance.
That said, if that performance gets linked repeatedly and publicly to where you did go to school, those schools should see a corresponding reputational drop. Is that, perhaps, why Harvard is sinking? Could it be the utterly unprofessional antics and apparent disregard for - or ignorance of - constitutional law of so many of its graduates in the US Senate and House of Representatives?
I think the drop in peer assessment that Yale and Harvard had was the thing that caught my eye more than some of the ranking shifts, especially with the increasing drama at Yale as everyone here is well aware of. I think it is easier to see a school or two higher than GMU try and become the "conservative" school. If any in the T14 went that route it is not hard to see how their clerking #'s could skyrocket with the current composition of the Federal Judiciary. UChicago or Duke are the only schools where I could remotely see that happening right now though. I am also happy to see Dean Z and Michigan stay in the top 10 as I am WL'd there and have my fingers crossed.
I wish it didn’t matter so much.
The US News rankings weight "reputation" as 40% of the rankings. "Reputation" is based on questionnaires mailed to law school deans and hiring committee chairs, and a sampling of law firms and judges. Anybody who receives the form can say anything they want about any school on the list. Only a tiny percentage of those who receive these questionnaires fill them out. Nobody in the world knows enough about the 200-odd law schools on the list. People tend to rate their alma mater highly, and lots of law deans and profs and judges and biglaw partners went to a handful of so-called "elite" schools. In other words, 40% of the ranking score is based on hearsay, personal school loyalty, etc. In the age of internet access to legal materials, the size of a school's physical library plant shouldn't have anything to do with rankings. I consider the rankings to be spurious, a ploy by US News to make money. This is not sour grapes because I am on the faculty of a low-ranked school, or because Harvard (my alma mater) slipped a step. It is because I believe these rankings are spurious.
All I have to say is congratulations to my alma mater, the University of Minnesota, for continuing to rank as one of the 25 top 20 law schools.
As someone who chose a Rubenstein Scholarship at Chicago over Harvard in the last couple of years, I ask you not to assume these scholarships go only to the most affluent people. I'm in my mid-20s from a middle class family and have undergraduate loans to pay off. I would have left Harvard with close to $200,000 in additional debt, and HLS expected my parents to contribute $20,000/year toward my tuition for 3 years on top of that.
With only 600 JD students in total, Chicago's entire student body is the size of a single incoming class at HLS, and just 20 Rubenstein Scholarships per year represent one-tenth of the student population at Chicago. I believe that providing such a large percentage of students the means to pursue whatever interests them academically and professionally, with no concern about having to repay six figures of debt, has helped create a vibrant intellectual climate. If Harvard (and Yale and Stanford) feel pressure to finally begin giving financial aid to more of their students, maybe something good will have come out of the US News rankings.
Looking forward to attend the #1 #21 law school, the University of Florida, in the Fall.
Not specific to law schools, but I’m interested in your take on this, David. https://malcolmgladwell.bulletin.com/columbia-fudged-its-numbers-to-improve-its-ranking-what-should-happen-next
I didn't go to Columbia but my Columbia Law friends are always happy when they're ranked higher than NYU.
Alas, my alma mater, University of Miami, is nowhere to be seen on this list. :-(
While law school is different than undergrad, to the extent these rankings are connected to undergrad, I think they are going to change in importance in the next few years. Undergrad admissions has changed almost unrecognizably from 15 years ago in some parts of the country - most top students do not go to ivies anymore. This is going to change at some point how employers and grad schools look at prestigious undergrad schools - there will have to be a wider lens when you have stellar students who would have been accepted easily to ivies then now attending schools a tier or even two tiers below.
(Of course I’m not unhappy that my law school alma mater Columbia is now tied with my undergrad alma mater!)
Canadian here - who went to one of the supposedly "top" law schools in Canada, mostly because it happened to be in the town where I already lived; going anywhere else would have meant extra expenses I couldn't afford. I personally find the wrangling about "rankings" unseemly. It generates nothing less than a self-perpetuating class system, even as five or six years into a legal career, people cease to care where you went to school and will judge you on your actual performance.
That said, if that performance gets linked repeatedly and publicly to where you did go to school, those schools should see a corresponding reputational drop. Is that, perhaps, why Harvard is sinking? Could it be the utterly unprofessional antics and apparent disregard for - or ignorance of - constitutional law of so many of its graduates in the US Senate and House of Representatives?
What is the magic behind the T14 cut-off? Why not Top 10 or 20 or 25. It seems like an odd number. PS Go Grizzlies!
I think the drop in peer assessment that Yale and Harvard had was the thing that caught my eye more than some of the ranking shifts, especially with the increasing drama at Yale as everyone here is well aware of. I think it is easier to see a school or two higher than GMU try and become the "conservative" school. If any in the T14 went that route it is not hard to see how their clerking #'s could skyrocket with the current composition of the Federal Judiciary. UChicago or Duke are the only schools where I could remotely see that happening right now though. I am also happy to see Dean Z and Michigan stay in the top 10 as I am WL'd there and have my fingers crossed.