ILNews

Indiana law schools slip from top 25 in annual rankings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The annual ranking that law schools love to hate was released March 11, and it may stir more emotions than usual in Indiana since none of the state’s law school placed in the top 25.

US News & World Report has published its rankings of the 2015 Best Law Schools in the country. Nationwide, 145 made the list with titans Yale University filling the No. 1 spot followed by Harvard University and Stanford University sharing the No. 2 position.

University of Notre Dame is the first law school in Indiana to pierce the 2015 rankings at No. 26. This is down from its 2014 place at No. 23. Indiana University Maurer School of Law shared the No. 29 slot with the University of Georgia. In 2014, IU Maurer was ranked at No. 25.

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law leaped to No. 87 from No. 98 one year ago. Six schools tied for the No. 87 spot, including Michigan State University and University of Louisville.

IU McKinney placed at No. 8 in the legal writing category and No. 10 in the health care law division.

University of Valparaiso Law School’s retained its listing as “rank not published” because its placement fell below the cutoff line.

The yearly ranking by the news magazine has drawn sharp criticism from the American Bar Association Task Force on the Future of Legal Education.

In its final report and recommendations released in January 2014, the task force, led by retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard, called on US News & World Report to adjust the methodology for determining the rankings. The task force recommended the magazine stop using law school expenditures and make sure its criteria for ranking “does not promote conduct damaging to the interests of law students and the system of legal education.”


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT