A fresh take on rankings, redux
I posted my latest thoughts on possible alternative rankings systems here. Would love your comments. Thanks, and happy 4th!
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Race to the Top
MoneyLaw Essentials
- Reforming the USN&WR law school rankings
- A bibliometric manifesto
- Three deans
- Talent versus character
- The folklore of rankings
- The utility law teacher
- The South Carolina bar exam scandal
Swamp Fox news
The controversy is not going away
Lost Causes
Previous Posts
- Moneyball: The Movie
- Bill Gleason: Excellence within our means
- Least complicated
- Follow J.C. Redbird on Twitter
- With medium power comes no responsibility
- Frank: "So Far So Good"
- Child of Moneyball
- U.S. News to Correct Data, Not Rankings, of Brookl...
- Did 23 Law Schools Commit Rankings Malpractice?
- 2010 U.S. News Law School Rankings
Subscribe to MoneyLaw
Subscribe to MoneyLaw by e-mail 
The MoneyLaw bookshelf
This blog's literary inspiration
This blog's cinematic inspiration
The Official Guide to ABA-Approved Law Schools
1 Comments:
You say:
I'm trying to devise a ranking system based on the opportunities for the faculty, students, and alumni to network--something along the lines of measuring law review placements, clerkships, and careers 5, 10, and 20 years out. My theory (still working on it) is that there are really just three categories of law schools: the truly elite, distinguished more by the networking opportunities; the modal (most frequently occurring) law schools, which are good but don't have the same networking opportunities; and the truly sub-par schools, which provide few if any options for their graduates, especially with respect to bar passage. If anyone has any ideas for methodology, I'm open.
Two quick thoughts:
1. Who is the intended audience, and what is the intended effect? If it is students, this will do little to inform their choice: most will be picking a school from within one of the three bands, and those with cross-band decisions may be uncertain as to whether the candidate schools are at the bottom and top of their respective categories. There is something to be said for more discrimination.
If it is schools to which you are speaking, I shudder to think of the grounds on which they would compete to improve their position, and the difficulty of assessing their merits (but see below).
2. This sounds impossible to measure. Rather, it sounds like you have selected some objective measures that have little to do with networking per se, but which have a much more direct relationship with "career opportunities." If you wanted to measure networking, I suppose you would be interested in the strength of alumni associations, rates of giving, the density of alumni placement in particular markets, the identity of hiring partners, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home