Law School Rankings: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

More on the ongoing rankings brouhaha.  Those wars have heated up for both business schools and now for law schools. The appearance of the August 2 Draft of "The Interplay between Law School Rankings, Reputations, and Resource Allocation"  by Professor Jeffrey Evans Stake of Indian University has added fuel to the fire.

He has extensively researched and analyzed the impact of the rankings on law school practice and admissions. Unfortunately, while he does offer thoughtful suggestions to mitigate the potential negative impact of the rankings, specifically US News rankings, the general tenor of the paper is one of almost of hysterical antipathy towards US News combined with condescension toward law school students and almost everyone in the field. As I read the paper, I kept thinking "The sky is falling down! The sky is falling down!" That's when I wasn't reminded of Alice in the looking glass.

For example he blames the rankings for:

• Encouraging schools to reject applicants with low LSAT scores, because the average LSAT is a factor in the rankings. At the same time, he also accuses the rankings of encouraging schools to reject applicants with high LSAT scores, lest they reject the school and reduce the school's yield, another rankings factor. So schools are simultaneously encouraged to reject those with high and low scores.
  
• Causing schools to reject applicants with limited prospects for employment. Frankly the schools should reject applicants who are unlikely to succeed. Doing otherwise is irresponsible and encourages the applicant to spend thousands of dollars and 3 years chasing an unrealistic dream.
• Pushes teachers to teach to the bar and improve bar passage rates because bar passage rates are an element in the rankings. Sorry, but bar passage rates are a legitimate concern of law school students.
• Promotes college  students selecting easy classes so their GPA will be higher. I hate to inform you, but students had those concerns (and tactics) before US News.

I certainly agree 100% with Professor Stake that "Presentations of data as ranks are inherently misleading."  The rankings really are surveys and data banks, but they sell more  magazines as "rankings" and they do provide consumers with information they want -- information that the law school establishment is not providing in a digestible form. 

As I wrote about the business school rankings, I am tired of academics whining about the rankings.  Almost every field has some short-term vs long-term tension.  Let the schools have a little backbone in their admissions process and teaching. Or let the law school establishment develop more informed surveys and data banks.

Professor Stake admits that the rankings are here to stay. Despite his aversion, he recommends that there be more rankings measuring multiple factors and from different perspectives. Competition will benefit the field, he feels .

Ironically multiple rankings and vigorous competition among them exists in the business school world. And b-schools don't like them.  Maybe the good professor should be careful what he wishes for.