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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT