Rankings influence schools

December 3, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A new report says law schools are greatly influenced by the annual rankings released by U.S. News & World Report.

I didn’t need a report to tell me that. What I did need the report to tell me was how influential the U.S. News & World Report’s rankings are. According to the research report, “Fear of Falling: The Effect of U.S. News & World Report Rankings on U.S. Law Schools,” pressure to move up in the rankings influences the way law schools allocate money, categorize students, and hire deans. Faculty members and administrators describe a drop in ranks as “demoralizing” and “devastating,” the report says.

In fact, the majority who responded had a negative view of the rankings and felt they were more harmful than beneficial. Yet, schools are still trying to improve their rankings.

Some schools allocate more money to merit-based scholarships instead of need-based so they attract students with higher LSAT scores. Some admitted to hiring recent graduates on a temporary basis so that they could be considered employed for the survey. Some categorized students as part-time or probationary so their LSAT scores wouldn’t count. I don’t know if U.S. News & World Report caught on to that, but just last year, it changed the methodology to include part-time students in its analysis.

Surprised? I initially was, but now I think it makes sense that schools would try to manipulate the results of their ranking.

Law schools on the list get free publicity and can tout their high rankings in recruiting material or justify tuition or budget increases. Those who don’t rank so high are quick to complain about the survey’s methodology or say the rankings don’t matter. They know that students use these rankings when picking schools. According to the report, prospective law students interviewed said the rankings were the biggest influence on which schools they applied to.

Take Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis as an example. A quick search on its Web site reveals press releases each time the rankings are released. Just last year, when the school jumped nearly 20 spots, it issued a press release about it and how it expected to continue to rise in the rankings.

Cut to this year when IU – Indy fell back nearly 20 spots. I couldn’t find the press release mentioning this, but Dean Gary Roberts had released a statement in April blaming the change in methodology on the school’s drop.

Rankings are important to educational programs of all kinds because kids want to go to highly ranked schools. IU – Indy is currently promoting its “Super Lawyer” law school ranking on its home page.

Indiana University in Bloomington also issues press releases when the rankings come out, although the school tends to emphasize the rankings of all its graduate programs, not just the law school. I couldn’t find any on Notre Dame’s law school Web site, and the press releases I found on Valparaiso University’s Web site touted their rankings of graduate programs but not the law school. (That could be because it’s consistently ranked as a Tier 4 school, where schools are just listed alphabetically.)

The report was released by the Law School Admission Council and conducted by two sociology professors. You can read more about it on the LSCA’s Web site under "Research reports." Interestingly enough, the authors also studied business school rankings for a comparison, but because there are more rankings released by various sources, the business schools’ reputation sand operations were not as affected as the law schools were.
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
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT