ILNews

2 Indiana law schools in top 25 of annual ranking

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Using a new methodology that takes into account the number of graduates who found jobs in the legal profession, U.S. News & World Report released Tuesday its latest ranking of law schools.

Even with the change in calculation, Indiana maintained a strong showing on the U.S. News 2014 Best Law Schools list. Two of the state’s four law schools placed in the top 25 of the 194 schools reviewed.

All the law schools on the list are accredited by the American Bar Association.

This year, the University of Notre Dame Law School was ranked No. 23, down from last year’s ranking of 22. Indiana University Maurer School of Law rose one spot to No. 25.

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law fell to No. 98 in the ranking from 89 one year ago. The school ranked No. 10 in both areas of healthcare law and legal writing.

Valparaiso University School of Law was listed in the “rank not published” category. U.S. News uses this designation when a school’s numerical ranking falls below the cutoff point.   

The methodology for calculating a school’s ranking was altered this year to include the schools’ success in helping graduates find legal jobs. U.S. News drew upon the more detailed jobs information that law schools are now required to report to the ABA.  

With a full 20 percent of the overall score based on placement success, this year, the publication gave more weight to graduates in full-time positions lasting at least a year that required passage of the bar exam or where a J.D. was useful. Less weight was given to full-time jobs that did not require the employee to pass the bar.

Data was collected in fall of 2012 and early 2013.
 

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT