There is so much variation year-to-year beyond the top 15. What value do these rankings even have? All non-top 15 schools are essentially different variations of the same school--strong regional law schools. Perhaps as you get past 100, things might change more. But is UC Irvine so different from UC Davis that it warrants 42 instead of 55? Signed a bitter King Hall grad.
Counterpoint. To me, what knowing that one is 42 and one is 55 conveys is precisely that they're not appreciably different from each other.
If I didn't have that information, how the heck would I -- an East Coast lawyer with random ad hoc awareness of California law schools -- know that Irvine and Davis were basically the same thing? I'd be at the mercy of (a) fleeting personal interactions with lawyers from either school or (b) vague guesses based on star faculty or the host university's overall reputation.
It's a bit ridiculous. But you'd be surprised at how much influence these rankings wield, on so many fronts. There's a reason why every year, a certain number of deans are terminated because their school suffered a double-digit drop in U.S. News—even if the fundamentals of the school really didn't change much (because how could they in a single year).
Here's something I hadn't thought about. I was chatting with a dean of a school that has had a very strong rise in the rankings over the years. He talked about how the rankings rise dramatically improved the acceptance rate of authors who were offered the chance to publish in that school's flagship law review. If I recall correctly, it doubled or tripled the acceptance rate.
So it's not just students picking between schools who consult these rankings. They're looked at by employers doing recruiting, professors considering lateral moves, and academics weighing publication offers. In my opinion, the rankings carry weigh too much influence.
(Yes, I know, I'm arguably amplifying their influence each time I write about them. But y'all enjoy reading about them, and I believe in giving readers what they want.)
I am surprised because it does not make any sense. What do schools gain by seeking to rise in the rankings (outside the top 20)? If that is their school's mission, it seems like a bad mission. Meanwhile, their competitors, i.e., other schools outside the top-20, have their own particular goals--many which are laudable, like enrolling first generation students or emphasis on public service--that the rankings do not account for and thus they are usually penalized. See https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2024/03/law-schools-unfairly-ranked-by-us-news.html.
Also, for academics considering publication offers or seeking to lateral up, why don't they refer to a more relevant ranking such as the scholarly impact of the school or the ranking of the law school journal itself? Those rankings differ quite markedly from USNWR.
As for legal employers, I would be surprised if hiring partners assiduously keep up with the rankings of regional schools that they hire from. I do think that they would consider the past performance of associates from such schools. Though you would probably know better. And where alumni presence is heavy, I think that could outweigh a drop in the rankings of a regional school. Anecdotally speaking, UC Law, SF has been falling in the rankings for meany years, yet they still perform quite well at OCI in the Bay Area, likely because of the extensive alumni network there.
So I do find the rankings frustrating and too influential. But I also understand that you must GTRWTW.
In the minds of many, Harvard is still a top-three school, despite the past two years of rankings, and the "HYS" trinity will be a thing for a long time. But I wonder whether that will change if U. Chicago consistently outranks Harvard, year after year. (Yale wasn't always #1—I'd say that Harvard was, once upon a time—but U.S. News helped turn Yale into #1.)
But Chicago's secret—or not-so-secret—weapon is the Rubenstein Scholars Program. It offers full rides, for all three years—plus a stipend or spending money, I believe—based purely on merit. So you could be a kid whose family makes six or seven figures, or has a big net worth, but still go to U. Chicago for free.
Yale, Stanford, and Harvard recently beefed up their financial-aid programs, so you can basically go for free if you and your family satisfy certain criteria. But at U. Chicago, you can go for free even if your family is wealthy.
Back in the day, well before the Rubenstein Program existed, Chicago offered me some merit money. I asked my parents for their views, since they were footing the bill—and they told me to go to Harvard or Yale. But law school was a lot cheaper back then, something that was within reach of an upper-middle-class family (as opposed to folks who are truly rich).
Harvard and Yale, in my opinion, will always be considered more prestigious than U of C regardless of the rankings. I vividly remember being annoyed when people in NYC thought U of C was a "state school." Given the cost of law school nowadays, I would advise people to think very seriously about whether going to law school is a good idea.
Yes, if you get a full ride to Chicago or Columbia or probably even UVA or Duke, by all means go over Harvard. But nobody in their right mind would pay full freight to go to anywhere other than Harvard unless they had some *very* compelling, non-professionally related reason for doing so.
If someone is a resident in Virginia or Michigan, I would say go to U Va or Michigan if Ivy tuition is out of reach financially and they're receiving no financial aid from anywhere else.
I have always viewed U of Chicago similarly to Stanford. They're both Ivy caliber. I actually don't mind U of C outpacing Harvard. I object to Duke being up there. Some lawyers have said to me that to work internationally, an Ivy League education will give someone an advantage.
There is so much variation year-to-year beyond the top 15. What value do these rankings even have? All non-top 15 schools are essentially different variations of the same school--strong regional law schools. Perhaps as you get past 100, things might change more. But is UC Irvine so different from UC Davis that it warrants 42 instead of 55? Signed a bitter King Hall grad.
Counterpoint. To me, what knowing that one is 42 and one is 55 conveys is precisely that they're not appreciably different from each other.
If I didn't have that information, how the heck would I -- an East Coast lawyer with random ad hoc awareness of California law schools -- know that Irvine and Davis were basically the same thing? I'd be at the mercy of (a) fleeting personal interactions with lawyers from either school or (b) vague guesses based on star faculty or the host university's overall reputation.
It's a bit ridiculous. But you'd be surprised at how much influence these rankings wield, on so many fronts. There's a reason why every year, a certain number of deans are terminated because their school suffered a double-digit drop in U.S. News—even if the fundamentals of the school really didn't change much (because how could they in a single year).
Here's something I hadn't thought about. I was chatting with a dean of a school that has had a very strong rise in the rankings over the years. He talked about how the rankings rise dramatically improved the acceptance rate of authors who were offered the chance to publish in that school's flagship law review. If I recall correctly, it doubled or tripled the acceptance rate.
So it's not just students picking between schools who consult these rankings. They're looked at by employers doing recruiting, professors considering lateral moves, and academics weighing publication offers. In my opinion, the rankings carry weigh too much influence.
(Yes, I know, I'm arguably amplifying their influence each time I write about them. But y'all enjoy reading about them, and I believe in giving readers what they want.)
I am surprised because it does not make any sense. What do schools gain by seeking to rise in the rankings (outside the top 20)? If that is their school's mission, it seems like a bad mission. Meanwhile, their competitors, i.e., other schools outside the top-20, have their own particular goals--many which are laudable, like enrolling first generation students or emphasis on public service--that the rankings do not account for and thus they are usually penalized. See https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2024/03/law-schools-unfairly-ranked-by-us-news.html.
Also, for academics considering publication offers or seeking to lateral up, why don't they refer to a more relevant ranking such as the scholarly impact of the school or the ranking of the law school journal itself? Those rankings differ quite markedly from USNWR.
As for legal employers, I would be surprised if hiring partners assiduously keep up with the rankings of regional schools that they hire from. I do think that they would consider the past performance of associates from such schools. Though you would probably know better. And where alumni presence is heavy, I think that could outweigh a drop in the rankings of a regional school. Anecdotally speaking, UC Law, SF has been falling in the rankings for meany years, yet they still perform quite well at OCI in the Bay Area, likely because of the extensive alumni network there.
So I do find the rankings frustrating and too influential. But I also understand that you must GTRWTW.
Maybe I am stuck in the past, but I will never consider Duke better than Harvard, NYU or Columbia. I don't care what USNWR says!
Ha! But what about U. Chicago versus Harvard?
In the minds of many, Harvard is still a top-three school, despite the past two years of rankings, and the "HYS" trinity will be a thing for a long time. But I wonder whether that will change if U. Chicago consistently outranks Harvard, year after year. (Yale wasn't always #1—I'd say that Harvard was, once upon a time—but U.S. News helped turn Yale into #1.)
Nobody is going to UChicago for the same aid package as what they are offered at Harvard, no matter what the USNWR rankings say.
But Chicago's secret—or not-so-secret—weapon is the Rubenstein Scholars Program. It offers full rides, for all three years—plus a stipend or spending money, I believe—based purely on merit. So you could be a kid whose family makes six or seven figures, or has a big net worth, but still go to U. Chicago for free.
Yale, Stanford, and Harvard recently beefed up their financial-aid programs, so you can basically go for free if you and your family satisfy certain criteria. But at U. Chicago, you can go for free even if your family is wealthy.
I would advise anyone to turn down Harvard if they received that type of aid from U of C. Full ride? That, to me, is a no brainer!
Back in the day, well before the Rubenstein Program existed, Chicago offered me some merit money. I asked my parents for their views, since they were footing the bill—and they told me to go to Harvard or Yale. But law school was a lot cheaper back then, something that was within reach of an upper-middle-class family (as opposed to folks who are truly rich).
Harvard and Yale, in my opinion, will always be considered more prestigious than U of C regardless of the rankings. I vividly remember being annoyed when people in NYC thought U of C was a "state school." Given the cost of law school nowadays, I would advise people to think very seriously about whether going to law school is a good idea.
Yes, if you get a full ride to Chicago or Columbia or probably even UVA or Duke, by all means go over Harvard. But nobody in their right mind would pay full freight to go to anywhere other than Harvard unless they had some *very* compelling, non-professionally related reason for doing so.
If someone is a resident in Virginia or Michigan, I would say go to U Va or Michigan if Ivy tuition is out of reach financially and they're receiving no financial aid from anywhere else.
Much less Duke lol
I would agree with that.
One of my friends who went to HLS was accepted to both YLS and HLS. He chose HLS because he thought HLS people were less "intense."
I have always viewed U of Chicago similarly to Stanford. They're both Ivy caliber. I actually don't mind U of C outpacing Harvard. I object to Duke being up there. Some lawyers have said to me that to work internationally, an Ivy League education will give someone an advantage.