May 05, 2017
May 02, 2017
Robert Thompson (Georgetown) kindly shared the 2016 results (this is the 25th year they've been running these surveys about leading articles):
The Top 10 Corporate and Securities Articles of 2016
The Corporate Practice Commentator is pleased to announce the results of its twenty-third annual poll to select the ten best corporate and securities articles. Teachers in corporate and securities law were asked to select the best corporate and securities articles from a list of articles published and indexed in legal journals during 2016. More than 490 articles were on this year’s list. Because of the vagaries of publication, indexing, and mailing, some articles published in 2016 have a 2015 date, and not all articles containing a 2016 date were published and indexed in time to be included in this year’s list.
The articles, listed in alphabetical order of the initial author, are:
Baker, Lynn A., Michael A. Perino and Charles Silver. Is the Price Right? An Empirical Study of Fee-setting in Securities Class Actions. 115 Colum. L. Rev. 1371-1452 (2015).
Cain, Matthew D., Jill E. Fisch, Sean J. Griffith & Steven Davidoff Solomon. How Corporate Governance is Made: The Case of the Golden Leash. 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. 649-702 (2016).
Catan, Emiliano M. and Marcel Kahan. The Law and Finance of Antitakeover Statutes. 68 Stan. L. Rev. 629-680 (2016).
Cremers, K.J Martijn and Simone M. Sepe. The Shareholder Value of Empowered Boards. 68 Stan. L. Rev. 67-148 (2016).
Elhauge, Einer. Horizontal Shareholding. 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1267-1317 (2016).
Fox, Merritt B., Lawrence R. Glosten and Gabriel V. Rauterberg. The New Stock Market: Sense and Nonsense. 65 Duke L.J. 191-277 (2015).
Goshen, Zohar and Assaf Hamdani. Corporate Control and Idiosyncratic Vision. 125 Yale L.J. 560-619 (2016).
Korsmo, Charles R. and Minor Myers. Appraisal Arbitrage and the Future of Public Company M&A. 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1551-1615 (2015).
Talley, Eric L. Corporate Inversions and the Unbundling of Regulatory Competition. 101 Va. L. Rev. 1649-1751 (2015).
Thompson, Robert B. Anti-Primacy: Sharing Power in American Corporations. 71 Bus. Law. 381-425 (2016).
April 18, 2017
Mark Hall and Glenn Cohen have extended Brian Leiter's approach to ranking faculty by scholarly citations (based on Sisk data) to the field of health law.
According to Hall and Cohen, the most cited health law scholars in 2010-2014 (inclusive) are:
|Rank||Name||School||Citations||Approx. Age in 2017|
|2||Mark A. Hall||Wake Forest||480||62|
|3||David A. Hyman||Georgetown||360||56|
|4||I. Glenn Cohen||Harvard||320||39|
|5||John A. Robertson||Texas||310||74|
|6||Michelle M. Mello||Stanford||300||46|
|10||George J. Annas||Boston U||270||72|
The full ranking is available here.
April 12, 2017
April 11, 2017
Bill Henderson (Indiana) comments. (I'm more skeptical than Henderson appears to be that the adoption of GRE by Harvard had anything to do with rankings, though. Harvard's US News problem has to do with its size, and nothing else--if it were even half the size it is, it would be #1 every year. But being more than twice the size of Yale, Stanford, and Chicago means it is punished in the per capita expenditures measure because of economies of scale.)
Isn't it a bit nutty that law school admissions in the United States are run by a guy who works for a ranking website?
March 14, 2017
...by promoting random movement in the "overall" US News rank as meaningful, rather than noise. This only came to my attention because their PR office actually sent it to me! They should do some research about whom they send this stuff too! What's especially unfortunate about press releases like this is that it legitimizes the US News metrics, which can only come back to haunt schools when the "overall" nonsense number moves in the opposite direction for no discernible (or, in any case, meaningful) reason.
UPDATE: More superficial reporting, treating random movements as having meaning, or as worthy of note. 95% of movement in the US News "overall" rank is attributable to schools puffing, fudging or lying more than their peers in how they report the data to US News (or the reverse, for schools that drop); US News, recalls, audits none of the self-reported data.
March 13, 2017
MOVING TO FRONT (ORIGINALLY POSTED FROM OCT. 3 2011, WITH MINOR REVISIONS), SINCE IT IS TIMELY AGAIN
I've occasionally commented in the past about particular schools that clearly had artificially low overall ranks in U.S. News, and readers e-mail me periodically asking about various schools in this regard. Since the overall rank in U.S. News is a meaningless nonsense number, permit me to make one very general comment: it seems to me that all the law schools dumped into what U.S. News calls the "second" tier--indeed, all the law schools ranked ordinally beyond the top 25 or 30 based on irrelevant and trivial differences-- are unfairly ranked and represented. This isn't because all these schools have as good faculties or as successful graduates as schools ranked higher--though many of them, in fact, do--but because the metric which puts them into these lower ranks is a self-reinforcing one, and one that assumes, falsely and perniciously, that the mission of all law schools is the same. Some missions, to be sure, are the same at some generic level: e.g., pretty much all law schools look to train lawyers and produce legal scholarship. U.S. News has no meaningful measure of the latter, so that part of the shared mission isn't even part of the exercise. The only "measures" of the former are the fictional employment statistics that schools self-report and bar exam results. The latter may be only slightly more probative, except that the way U.S. News incorporates them into the ranking penalizes schools in states with relatively easy bar exams. So with respect to the way in which the missions of law schools are the same, U.S. News employs no pertinent measures.
But schools differ quite a bit in how they discharge the two generic missions, namely, producing scholarship and training lawyers. Some schools focus much of their scholasrhip on the needs of the local or state bar. Some schools produce lots of DAs, and not many "big firm" lawyers. Some schools emphasize skills training and state law. Some schools emphasize theory and national and transnational legal issues. Some schools value only interdisciplinary scholarship. And so on. U.S. News conveys no information at all about how well or poorly different schools discharge these functions. But by ordinally ranking some 150 schools based on incompetently done surveys, irrelevant differences and fictional data, and dumping the remainder into a "second tier", U.S. News conveys no actual information, it simply rewards fraud in data reporting and gratuitously insults hard-working legal educators and scholars and their students and graduates.
March 09, 2017
February 13, 2017
This is amusing, courtesy of law professor Ryan Whalen (Dalhousie), a recent JD/PhD graduate of Northwestern. One minor drawback is that faculty who retire and move elsewhere are treated as ordinary lateral moves. (So, too, with moves to assume Deanships: there too, the reasons for the move are different than ordinary lateral moves.)
January 31, 2017
Brad Hillis called this data compilation he did to my attention; I haven't verified its accuracy, but the recent (2005-17) data looks roughly right. Readers can weigh in at Wikipedia to correct the data if need be. Neither list is adjusted for class size.
Here are the twenty law schools that have produced the most Supreme Court clerks since 1882:
Rank/ Law School/ # clerks / % of all clerks
1) Harvard 607 27%
2) Yale 396 18%
3) Chicago 156 7%
4) Stanford 137 6%
5) Columbia 135 6%
6) Virginia 110 5%
7) Michigan 87 4%
8) Georgetown 61 3%
9) Berkeley 59 3%
10) NYU 54 2%
11) Penn 48
12) Northwestern 42
13) Texas 35
14) GW 26
15) Duke 21
16) UCLA 19
17) Notre Dame-17
18) BYU 13
19) Indiana 11
And here is Mr. Hillis's list of the top 20 law schools which have produced the most clerks since 2005 through 2017 (again, note that Harvard is more than twice the size of Yale, Stanford, and Chicago; that Virginia, Columbia, and NYU are about twice the size of the latter; etc.):