I offer a simple solution: omit downloads of the three most-downloaded faculty members at each school when ranking law schools by SSRN downloads. Odd articles (like mine) and potentially unrepresentative faculty members are thereby removed. What is left is a fairly reliable indicator of the depth of each faculty's current articles productivity and visibility. I have computed "recent downloads less top 3" for the 75 top schools by recent downloads as of March 1, 2007. Here are the Top 50 Law Schools, ranked by "recent downloads less top 3."
|18||U San Diego||6,708||4|
|25||U Southern California||5,202||-5|
|29||Loyola Los Angeles||4,435||0|
|34||Ohio State University||3,463||-25|
|36||New York Law School||3,360||9|
|38||Case Western Reserve||2,820||-1|
|43||Washington U St. Louis||2,501||1|
|49||U North Carolina||2,000||15|
The right-most column indicates the ranking shift each school experiences by reason of the fact that each school's three most downloaded authors have been omitted. One might think of it as a measure of how much those authors' downloads distort the school's rankings. Thus, for example, Yale, Vanderbilt, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania fare much better when the top 3 authors at all schools are removed. (Yale, ranked 8th on the basis of all recent downloads, ranks 3rd in "recent downloads less top 3," moving up 5 ranks.) This presumably reflects the depth of those faculties' scholarly output in article form.