A 1L at Yale (USNWR’s top law school) has written an op-ed urging other law schools not to take the rankings too seriously. Here’s an exerpt:
[T]he ranking system seems hopelessly rigged. All schools are evaluated by the same standards and consequently chase the same prize — but schools at the top are very rich, and usually very old.
These schools (like Yale) tend to run lavish programs with low faculty-to-student ratios, colossal libraries, a wealth of clinical programs and generous loan-repayment offers.
Such largesse is supported only partially by tuition; the rest is funded by alumni donations and endowment interest. As such, these institutions set a hopelessly high bar for younger schools. To climb in the rankings, deans must scramble to mimic long-established schools.
Deans should certainly take heed of their rank — it matters a great deal to students. But they should not rush to counteract routine blips with policy revisions tailored specifically to pander to U.S. News. By adjusting sound academic policies to improve their school’s rank, administrators prioritize vanilla criteria chosen simply because they are easily measured.
He’s dead on. Our peer assessment rose from last year. Our median LSAT score hasn’t changed in three years, although last year the bottom 25th percentile of our LSAT scores actually went up to 159. Our median GPA has been steadily rising every year as well. Go here for some of our statistics over the past few years.
So I stand by my point: we need to settle down and come together behind our law school despite our legitimate differences in opinion over some of the things the administration does. The state offers our school less and less help every year–we’re not a rich upper-crust school. Per-student expenditures are a problem, but since 40% of our ranking is determined by peer assessment, our best shot is to stay the course: catch up with competitors by improving faculty salaries, recruit aggressively and build the endowment. Most importantly, let’s stay upbeat.
Steve Wieland
fsford
timhilton
smahieu
Morgan N. Engling
maryiowa
jaimiesuzi
jarens
kevinjames
brieanne
lcm
Andrew
enwinfield
It’s interesting how a few bad apples can spoil the [general assessment of a cohort of people coming together to discuss ways to improve]. Your points are well taken, but might be a little off the mark in terms of responding to the core of recent complaints regarding the direction of the law school. My two main responses to your advice to chill-out are thus:
1) From a realistic standpoint, rankings matter and a whole lot. First, for the majority of law students who make the decision to attend law school as an investment to increase their earning potential, the rankings are in many ways outcome determinative of future career course. Of course that doesn’t necessarily apply to the top 10%, or those who are extremely attractive associate prospects for outside reasons. For the majority, however, the US News rankings have become, rightly or wrongly, the single most important factor determining where a student will or will not apply. Secondly, for those students who have already matriculated, they did so under the assumption that efforts were underway and would always remain underway to maintain and improve the ranking of the law school. If, on the other hand, the current administration or a future administration would unilaterally decide “ranking doesn’t matter” — without some really compelling, market-based justification — then one part of the bargain has been removed. These two factors interact when it comes to recruiting both new students and new faculty. To assert otherwise is to suffer foolishness.
Of course, that does not condone the behavior seen on some national blogs wherein Iowa students went off the deep-end about diversity,name-calling, etc. The majority of those who are concerned with these issues understand that recruitment of minorities, and those under-represented by class, is an enormous part of building and maintaining a vibrant and socially equitable professional school.
2) Given the reality of the rankings’ importance (notwithstanding the protestations of a well-meaning 1L at the number 1 ranked school in the country) it is well within the rights of those paying tuition to demand accountability or, at the very least, an explanation of what has gone awry. Were the administration to say “We have decided to operate this school as if rankings did not matter because we think they harm the practice of law”, then all would be absolved. Of course, the number of applicants would drop faster than you can say “devalued diploma”. Accordingly, I think it is a bit misguided to counsel “staying upbeat” when the vast majority of students a) recognize the issues at play, and b) are doing all they can to foster upbeat, positive changes to administrative policy.
At the risk of sounding repetitious, a decline in rankings despite an increase in peer assessment arguably reveals that there are fundamental, institutional problems with the way in which this school is operating. It indicates that we are faltering substantially in the categories that are arguably within administrative control. That being the case, it seems to me that the student body should in fact be compelled to engage in frank discussion about the direction in which the school is heading. We can do almost nothing about peer assessment, but we can do something about the other deficiencies.
Your advice that we focus on faculty salaries, aggressive recruitment, and fundraising is not only well-taken, but is essentially a re-statement of what a majority of the students are calling for. Unfortunately, we as students are not in charge of those processes, and therefore we must phrase the discussion in terms of administrative competence. It may well be that the current administration is doing all it can, and it may even be the case that it is doing a very good job. The point of this discussion is that we do not know whether that is the case and, until recently, we did not have any information necessary to make that determination.
Whether or not the shock of the rankings drop produces any positive changes in policy, it is beyond doubt that it has forced discussion and transparency. I believe this to be beneficial in the short- and long-term, notwithstanding the more egregious of Iowa’s recent commentators. Whether or not the end result of this shock will be administrative change in personnel or policy, or no change at all, at least current and potential students have a better understanding of where they stand vis a vis administrative policy. I think these are all net gains.
Finally, you are completely correct that we should stay “upbeat”. It is a good thing that you all started this blog to engage in rational discourse regarding current issues. I hope that you are not forced to moderate comments in the future, and trust that you will not be. Additionally, I am glad there is a forum to discuss all the great things about Iowa Law, as well as the negatives. The Iowa Law experience is singular, and outstanding — I hope and believe that this discussion, and even this blog, will help the push toward putting Iowa Law back where it belongs: firmly within the nation’s top 20 law schools (as decided by arbitrary and ridiculous factors, but which nonetheless matter).
Thanks Sam.
I’m not “off the mark” in addressing concerns that most people have because my post was not directed at the majority of students that you describe. Instead, it was directed at those few who resorted to blaming people for their personal characteristics (race, gender, sexuality) and to those who otherwise posted comments that made us look to the outside world that we are a sinking ship.
I whole-heartedly agree that there should be transparent discourse about moving up in the ranks. As I mentioned before, transparency and communication are among the most salient complaints people have about the administration.
Last, as the material I quoted notes, I think rankings matter too. We all do. I’m in the dark about how the administration is addressing the components of the rankings within its control, but we all know that the basic underlying problem is a lack of funding, both from the state and from alumni donations. You are right to point that out, too.
In sum, you and I 100% agree.