Great suggestions...but will they sell magazines? Eric.

hah. the dog, being wagged by the tail, anxious behind the bars of its own golden cage.

1 and 2 seem quite feasible. As to (1): I know that Stanford Univ's undergrad admissions office (at least as of 15 years ago) would recalculate your high school GPA by excluding your 9th grade grades. I think that at the least, we could drop the freshman year of college -- I think that's the year that students are all over the place based on course/major experimentation, stupid 18-year-old behavior, and other factors not at all relevant to predicting what kind of law student/lawyer the person will be.

I understand that rankings may affect admissions somewhat, but weren't top schools already heavily focused on LSAT before USNews began ranking schools? I believe that in "One L", Scott Turow notes that most students at Harvard and Chicago had LSAT's above the 98th percentile.

Personally, I think publications like the American Lawyer should simply focus on doing a better survey of what hiring partners and judges across the country really think of various law schools. They could do national as well as regional surveys, so students could get better insight into the actual placement quality of various schools. After all, students aren't primarily concerned about grades and LSAT scores, or even necessarily faculty quality. First and foremost, they generally want to know what the school will do for them professionally.

(USNews already does a professional survey as part of their rankings, but it seems pretty inadequate and unfocused, and it isn't weighted as heavily as a better survey probably should be.)

The tail may wag the dog more at law schools that aren't Harvard and Chicago. Those schools are holistically choosing applicants out of pile of candidates with high gpa's and high LSAT scores. Those candidates probably marched through undergraduate and possibly graduate school in a linear fashion. At Marquette, we are choosing from a much more heterogenous pool of applicants with varying gpas and varying LSATs. The temptation is to let everyone in strictly on numbers to boost your rankings, or at least not slip. I think this is a horrible temptation, especially when I know that a candidate with a cumulative gpa of 3.1 is better than the candidate with a 3.7 because of work experience, maturity, or certain obstacles that were overcome.

Your comments are excellent.

I'm set to start law school in the Fall at Pittsburgh and I'm saddened that perhaps my class will not be as diverse as it could be.

I find it curious that I (a recent grad from the Univ. of Michigan with an English major) should be considered the same way as, for instance, an older established professional. It almost borders on the absurd.

BTW, another idea for reforming USN's rankings might be to make their reputation scores more consistent, year after year -- especially since they matter so much. Better collection of the data is crucial. And perhaps they might consider the idea of counting weighing new data against previous data, to give data that might be in error (there is, no doubt, some margin of error) some moderation. My suggestion would be to, for instance, weigh a current year's reputation data twice as much as the last year's. And then weigh a third year's data half as much as the data for last year. Alas, when rankings change it sells magazines. So perhaps USN would have little patience for anything that might maintain a higher level of consistency and quality in their rankings.

In any case, it does bother me that schools are virtually under siege b/c of the USN rankings. The consequences can be dire if the admissions officials keep their schools rising -- or at least not falling -- in the rankings.

Rankings aren't going to just magically disappear. That's becoming apparent. But I believe law schools, future & current law students, and legal academics must either pressure USN to refine their methodology (to make it tolerable, at the very least) or come up with some ranking that can compete.

I'm still hoping that law schools will universally decide to no longer endorse the rankings. Despite all the letters from deans telling us that we should look at factors other than US News ranking, the schools themselves, as you suggest, still use US News ranking effects to determine who will be their incoming students.

This would have to be a top-down process - everyone knows that the Harvards of the law school game are great, and always will be. How about they refuse to divulge their incoming student class information to US News? It wouldn't work if it was your average tier 2 school that was the first to refuse to cooperate, since they don't have anything but their US News ranking to show students why they are better than most schools. But Harvard and the other great, famous law schools have nothing to lose by refusing to play ball with US News - they will still have their pick of the best applicants in the nation.

An alternative would be for the ABA to produce a decent set of rankings that do exactly what you've just suggested - play down LSAT, tailor GPA to the last two years of college (or only for certain 'core' pre-law classes that it wouldn't be a bad idea to make undergrads take - e.g. a government course, basic economics, writing courses, public speaking, and a course on the constitution, and perhaps a few credit hours of public service too), add categories for years of 'real world experience', higher degrees, geographic diversity, etc. Ditch the average salary category, since I think it's the most damaging one of all, and provide the rankings for free. In addition, don't do a straight numerical ranking, but rate schools in groups - national, regional, local - to prevent people from thinking that the school ranked 35 is better than the school ranked 37, when in reality, the differences are non-existant.

There's so much that can be done to fix the rankings. The real problem lies with the schools - they bray constantly about how applicants should ignore the rankings, yet they play to the rankings at every step of the way.

Wouldn't it be bordering on some sort of antitrust violation for law schools to take collective action to disrupt USN?

Perhaps I'm wrong -- perhaps they're protected by free speech laws just like individuals. Of course, I may have a better idea once I've actually become an attorney...

I just don't think one law school refusing to participate in the rankings would make a huge difference. On the other hand, if, for instance, Stanford, said they were going to refuse to take part in the rankings -- perhaps some of the other top fifteen or twenty schools would follow. Then it could virtually shut down USN until they decided to do a bit of a better job rankings schools.

I'm with you on the fact that it really has to be a top down solution. It wouldn't make much of a splash if twenty schools in the "third tier" suddenly refused to furnish data -- it'd only upset their students and alumni.

I do somewhat disagree that the "real problem lies with the schools." I think the schools are only doing what they're pressured to do by their students and alumni.

It's a bad spiral with limited ways to stop it. For instance, I'm not sure I'd want Pittsburgh (where I'll be a 1L next year) to stop all attempts to play to USN rankings. Because it's so darned self-fufilling, like it or not. The rankings are self-fufilling in attracting perspective students and employers.

I understand the frustration felt by the law schools that are stuck way down the US News list. Fact is, though, that however you slice it, the top schools are going to be the top schools.

I went to law school at the age of 40 and was fortunate enough to get into Yale. You want diversity? Racial, social, geographi, political, economic.... Rhodes Scholars, published (like in real books) authors, MDs, former university professors, home schooled, prep-schooled, founders of businesses, former Congressional staffers, Peace Corps folk, and on and on. Age? Well, I was 40 and there were 20-year olds in my small group. As for cura personalis, I'll lay you dollars to donuts there are more Renaissance people at Harvard, Chicago, and Yale than at Marquette-- and their LSAT scores are higher, too.

A clarification.... I don't mean to suggest that there are no Renaissance people at Marquette; there no doubt are. Nor do I mean to suggest that Marquette doesn't produce some damn good lawyers; it does. My point is simply that the top schools have more or less "always" been the top schools. As an undergraduate back in the early 70s I asked my advisor which law schools I should apply to--this was long before the US News rankings. Answer: Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Berkeley, Columbia, Stanford, Michigan. Plus ca change....

Why does everyone blame the schools for perpetuating the rankings obsession? Those who wish to become attorneys are some of the best and brightest minds in our country, yet rather than investigage the quality of schools on their own, they consistently pander to the rankings themselves! Who here hasn't heard a student with a terrific GPA and good LSAT hem and haw over whether to go to Columbia or NYU because one is ranked a few spots higher than the other? If those who apply to law schools simply choose a school based on their own criteria instead of someone else's, law school classes would have much more diverse populations and students could learn from each other rather than compete against each other. Instead, year after year, the smartest of our students become lemmings and hurry to hurl their application in with the sea of others at Harvard, Yale and Stanford, often with no idea what these schools are really like.

The claim that the law schools should stop accepting students based on rankings concerns falls flat on its face when students choose which schools to even apply to based on rankings in USNWR.

Those who wish to put the chicken before the egg are the same ones that don't have the courage of their own convictions to rise above the rankings themselves.

Want to change the system? Start with your own actions. If their customers (the students) want change, the schools will change with them.

I find it ironic that those seeking an education where critical thinking is paramount seem to lack that very skill while navigating the admissions process.

Why attack the reporting requirements to USNWR when it is LSAC that calculates the ridiculous "UGPA" that fails to accurately reflect the GPA quality factors mentioned in mumbers 1-3?

wow! finally someone who makes sense in this mad magazine world! i think i'll send a link to this article to law school discussion...

Hi everyone,
My son is in 9th grade. I am just wondering if you think Stanford will start to look at his grades now. When I was a kid, college's started to look at grades when you were in 10th grade.

I believe that it is unfair for those who worked hard to have (1) affect their GPA. (1) and (2) should never be put into affect. First off, just because you have work experience doesn't make you that much smarter or better. We all know that.

Now I personally don't have the stellar GPA and LSAT to get into a top law school but I believe you should get what you reap in terms of LSAT and GPA. If you didn't sober up until you were 21 and then started getting straight A's that's too bad. We can come up with a myriad of excuses and some lawyer out there can argue that maybe we should just count grades from classes we are interested in because they really show our potential. Shoot, why not let the students pick 10 class grades they feel represent themselves the best? (1) and (2) are slippery slops, if law school admissions let these two go there's no reason why they can't go further. They should count all of it (GPA+LSAT), ALL OF IT.

(3) Are we trying to create lawyers? Lawyers are intellectually sharp, good speakers, quick thinkers and great writers and readers who can persuade a jury. Now some activities seem to be show the promise of an applicant in these areas. For example, if an applicant wins a writing contest, he demonstrates great lawyer potential in writing. If the applicant is a great debator or became some mayor at some small town that's great. But the problem with (3) is, most of the time people want law schools to include idiotic things like work experience in fields no related to law, or community service. While I applaud these acts, they have nothing to do with lawyering skills.

The purpose of US News is not to chastise law schools. It is to separate potential law students so the "good" ones go to the upper schools and the "crappier" ones go to the lower schools. There's nothing wrong with that beacuse in everything there is good and crap. Now the only reason why people piss and moan about these rankings is because of hiring. Everyone says if you go to a lower ranked school you can get prestigious gov't jobs or bad ass BIGLAW positions. Well put yourself into the shoes of employers for great jobs. Do you wanna risk hiring some lazy ass guy over a hard working graduate from a higher ranked school? Would YOU take that risk!?!? No you wouldn't, and these employers are the same. And we all know if you really are a superstar who will blossom in law school, even at a lower ranked one, then you will obviously finish in teh top 10% make order of coif and biglaw firms will still hire you. So stop trying to rig rankings and such just so those who didn't put in the effort can avoid the punishment and consequenes.

I believe that it is unfair for those who worked hard to have (1) affect their GPA. (1) and (2) should never be put into affect. First off, just because you have work experience doesn't make you that much smarter or better. We all know that.

Now I personally don't have the stellar GPA and LSAT to get into a top law school but I believe you should get what you reap in terms of LSAT and GPA. If you didn't sober up until you were 21 and then started getting straight A's that's too bad. We can come up with a myriad of excuses and some lawyer out there can argue that maybe we should just count grades from classes we are interested in because they really show our potential. Shoot, why not let the students pick 10 class grades they feel represent themselves the best? (1) and (2) are slippery slops, if law school admissions let these two go there's no reason why they can't go further. They should count all of it (GPA+LSAT), ALL OF IT.

(3) Are we trying to create lawyers? Lawyers are intellectually sharp, good speakers, quick thinkers and great writers and readers who can persuade a jury. Now some activities seem to be show the promise of an applicant in these areas. For example, if an applicant wins a writing contest, he demonstrates great lawyer potential in writing. If the applicant is a great debator or became some mayor at some small town that's great. But the problem with (3) is, most of the time people want law schools to include idiotic things like work experience in fields no related to law, or community service. While I applaud these acts, they have nothing to do with lawyering skills.

The purpose of US News is not to chastise law schools. It is to separate potential law students so the "good" ones go to the upper schools and the "crappier" ones go to the lower schools. There's nothing wrong with that beacuse in everything there is good and crap. Now the only reason why people piss and moan about these rankings is because of hiring. Everyone says if you go to a lower ranked school you can get prestigious gov't jobs or bad ass BIGLAW positions. Well put yourself into the shoes of employers for great jobs. Do you wanna risk hiring some lazy ass guy over a hard working graduate from a higher ranked school? Would YOU take that risk!?!? No you wouldn't, and these employers are the same. And we all know if you really are a superstar who will blossom in law school, even at a lower ranked one, then you will obviously finish in teh top 10% make order of coif and biglaw firms will still hire you. So stop trying to rig rankings and such just so those who didn't put in the effort can avoid the punishment and consequenes.

I am a 30 year old who just applied to law school, and I want my GPA to be counted. I worked very hard in undergraduate and grad school for my 3.9. On the other hand, I no longer test as well as I did ten years ago. I used to be a stellar standardized test taker, but did not do so well on my LSAT (89% vs. 98% on my GRE). Other older students do great on their LSAT, but have crappy GPAs. Thus looking at both criteria seems to be a good measure of somebody's ability to do well in an academic setting and to quickly grasp the logic of an arguement (the LSAT measures speed as much as anything else). Work experience should be counted like extra curriculars - I learned skills as a professor that should help me as a lawyer, but a student who is on the debate team would learn equally valuable skills. Grades + standardized test + soft factors is the standard admissions formula for almost any school. The first 2 criteria are used to rank almost all programs... Why should law school be different?

Thank you, Ms. Hurt, for your fine post.

I attended law school very briefly 20 years ago, but was forced to withdraw as a result of very pressing family and financial problems. I mention my limited background as a law student in order to give the reader some sense of my perspective on the issues before us here.

After I left law school, I entered government service, but then entered the business world. I served as a marketing executive and general manager for 18 years or so. My work was such that I had close working relationships with experienced attorneys who earned their law degrees from schools at the upper end of the USNWR hierarchy. I knew many other attorneys socially and through my involvement in local politics, who attended schools ranging from the most to the least prestigious.

My perspective on the issues at hand is further informed by a return to the classroom two years ago where I earned an MS degree.

I suspect that the following may contribute to the admissions and USNWR rating fiasco, and be worthy of further thought and reform:

First, I believe undergraduate grading was more rigorous 20+ years ago than today. I base this opinion on close relationships I enjoyed with much younger students I met after I returned to graduate school in my mid 40's. More gentle grading is not, in my view, necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think grading was unreasonably harsh when I was an undergraduate. But, it is important to this discussion to recognize that grade inflation is a serious problem at many institutions. Accordingly, many students are placed at a disadvantage relative applicants who earned their degrees very recently or who attended one of the few schools who have always approached their business with rigor in mind. Schools like MIT, Georgia Tech, West Point, Cal Tech and others simply do not give "A" grades away for less that excellent work. What is more, the subject matter is - more often than not - very difficult. So, not all institutions are to blame. But, who is to blame? I believe that prestigious liberal arts colleges are more likely than others to drift in the direction of grade inflation. Harvard, for example, has been widely criticized for awarding more "A" grades than can be reasonably explained. There are many reasons for this, but one is simply that students at such schools tend to come from wealthy homes and their parents faithfully pony-up with financial support to the institution when called upon to do so. So, the administration has no desire to alienate students or their parents by damaging their futures with poor grades.

As a graduate student, I worked closely with three young women who held undergraduate degrees from very prestigious schools. When I use the word "prestigious", I refer to institutions that would certainly be listed as one of the top 5-7 small colleges in the nation. Not one of the three honor graduates would have been a "B" student at the state university I attended 20+ years ago.

The best student I encountered was a true polymath (double major in political science and biblical languages) who took his B.A. at a small, rural, college affilliated with the Assembiles of God churches. He wanted to go to law school. I thought he would be admitted without difficulty. His LSAT was 150. He put in countless hours of volunteer service at an urban "Gospel Mission" working in a kitchen that serves about 300 down and out folks every day. This fine young man who earned a solid 3.2 in a difficult degree program, applied to 12 law schools and gained admission at one. Yes, one! He was admitted to a part-time program in the northern Illinois area. He applied to a couple of part-time programs because he felt that the admissions offices might be more lenient where PT students are concerned. I'm glad he thought of this safety valve or he would have had to wait a full year to re-apply.

Secondly, there are many fine lawyers who hold diplomas from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Chicago and the like. No one can deny or overlook the enormous contributions that such institutions have made to American jusrisprudence, politics, government service, education, civil rights and liberties, and more. On the other hand, the worst lawyer I ever knew was a graduate of a "Top 5" institution and I have known graduates from distinguished schools such as the University of Texas, Vanderbilt and SMU who were truly imbeciles. On the other hand, I have also known two fine lawyers who attended Atlanta Law School, for over 100 years an unaccredited school in Atlanta of high quality. The school closed when Georgia State University opened an ABA accredited school that offered an evening program, saying that the the famous old school was no longer necessary. The Board was happy to step aside and allow GSU to meet the need for a night law school with a fully accredited degree. Hundreds of excellent lawyers were trained at Atlanta Law School and many went on to enjoy glorious careers as trial lawyers, Justices on the Georgia Supreme Court, and innumerable noteworthy accomplishments.

How can we reconcile the fact that truly great and utterly terrible lawyers are turned out by schools as diverse as the unaccredited Atlanta Law School on one hand, and Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Chicago on the other? Here's my take on the question: Some folks make good lawyers and others don't. A good law school that lays stress on practical matters of legal practice can certainly help one who has the potential to be a good lawyer to fully develop their talent. But, like the young student of the violin who is tone deaf, no amount of instruction will make her a virtuoso. My bother used to teach piano. he told many a parent that their child would never learn to play the piano after a meeting of ten minutes at the keyboard. He was thrown out of more than one home! But, he simply refused to take money for which he could give nothing of value in exchange.

A young man or woman who lacks the basic "stuff" of which good lawyers are made will never be a good lawyer. I'm not sure exactly what the "right stuff" is, but like pornography, I know it when I see it. If personal interviews were made a part of law school admissions, I'll bet most admissions committees would "know it"
too, when it presented itself. I do understand that they just can't interview thousands of people, though.

Thirdly, I am a little concerned about the high degree of influence exercised by the ABA and AALS on the practice of law. One need only revisit the facts surrounding the efforts of these organizations in the immediate post WWII era to eliminate "night law schools" to gain a basic understanding of the high degree of influence that they have on the accreditation, operation and life of law schools in every state. Readers who have time might benefit from exploring the history of these organizations and instutions like John Marshall in Chicago and Golden Gate in San Francisco. The Dean at John Marshall, Noble Lee, had an especially empoisoned relationship with them and terrible confrontations and public pronouncements were made that did violence to the reputation of the profession. Many unfortunate incidents took place that I hope will never be repeated.

Many argue that they ABA and AALS have long had a certain vision of what law schools should be and who they should serve. This vision, some say, is one that strives to intellecutalize the study and practice of law, to enhance the prestige of the practice of law - to put it on par with other scholarly pursuits such as classics and philosophy, all the while serving the interests of huge corporations, their law firms, and hordes of hopeful students who trade their very souls for partnership and a corner office at a premier (read BIG) law firms. I do not endorse conspiracy theories and I believe that the ABA and AALS are good organizations that largely advance the interests of the profession. At the same time, there may be some truth to claims that they favor prestigious schools and seek to serve the intersts of large, important firms and the clients they serve. I hasten to add that I do not know that this is true. The fact is that they are powerful organizations that control - to no small degree - entry into the legal profession and the practice of law once admitted to the bar - and the potential and abilty to shepherd the profession in an impartial and fair way might sometimes be compromised by personal interests of those who hold power. Please understand that I am not making any accusations against them. Rather, I wish to point out that they are powerful organizations and where there is a concentration of power, the potential for abuse of power exists also.

Fresh discussions and the advancement of new, even radical ideas, for reform of the present rating and admissions scheme are indicated. I certainly do not advocate going forward without the ABA or the other organizations - all voices should be heard and respected. But, no one voice should be allowed to drown out the voice or voices of less prominent participants.

In the end, the USNWR rating system is a harmful thing that discourages potentially excellent lawyers from even bothering to submit an application to schools whose ranking is high. After all, why spend $50-$75 to apply to a school like Harvard or Yale when USNWR makes it clear that there is no chance to be admitted with a GPA of 3.1 and an LSAT of 155? Who wants to waste the money? Even schools ranked at the bottom end of the top-tier schools would seem to be unattainable to many fine students.

Law schools must agree to refuse to provide information about their admission stats or processes. Deans, professors and others must refuse to answer their inquiries. They are motivated by profit - they don't care about the students or the institutions.

I believe law schools would also do well to appoint to their admission panels, several everyday people from all walks of life. Such a group might consist in bus drivers, sanitation workers, school teachers, union stewards, homemmakers and the like.

Ever application should be reviewed by the full admissions panel without revealing the GPA and/or LSAT score until the pool is reduced to the point that - of those remaining - 50% will be offered admission. These should then be personally or telephonically interviewed by the whole panel. Their goal should be to seat a class of decent, caring, bright people whose ambition and impulse to study law is based on a sound, sensible, noble, foundation.

In place of the USNWR rankings I suggest that the following procedure be used:

A. Create not-for-profit institution that has no connection to any school. The law schools would provide complete admissions details to this organization and it, in turn, would send investigators to the school annually.

B. Investigators would interview 20-30 students, administration, faculty and staff and create an in-depth report about the school from the perspective of each of these groups. At the same time, interviews should be conducted with regional employers and judges. Their unvarnished perspective should also appear in the final report.

C. The organization would create a very comprehensive report from the data provided by the school.

D. The completed reports could be offered for sale for online download (hardcopy at a higher price). Reports might be sold singly or in packages of 3,5,10 or 15. University libraries might buy the entire set. The organization that creates them would be funded by the sale of the reports. To the extent that sales were insufficient to meet the financial requirements of the organization, law schools could be billed fractionally based upon their ability to pay. That is to say, those with very large endowments would be assessed at a higher rate that schools less well off.

My analysis and proposal ends here. It may not make sense, but it seems to me to be an improvement. In any case, I have enjoyed the range of opinions advanced here. Thank you all.

Great article, great comments. I've been in the room many, many times to have the "rankings vs. interesting candidate" discussion. What about regional rankings? Wouldn't California attorneys rank Davis and Pepperdine and USD and Santa Clara differently (and more highly) than they would BU, GW and Indiana? And wouldn't they be right to do so? And, of course, vice versa on the East coast?