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.

Post a comment to this story

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
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you? http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/state-takes-legal-action-to-seize-135k-from-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: https://web0.memphis.edu/law/currentstudents/mentalhealthjournal/1-2-203-Bird.pdf Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?