May 18, 2016

Ten Most-Cited Law Faculty in the United States, 2010-2014

This is based on the data collected and published in 2015 by Professor Sisk and colleagues.  I'll be posting additional data about most cited faculty in various areas of scholarship.  But to start, here's the ten most-cited faculty in the academic literature for the years 2010 through 2014 inclusive:

 

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Area(s)

Age in 2016

1

Cass Sunstein

Harvard University

5480

Constitutional, Administrative, Environmental, Behavioral Law & Economics

62

2

Erwin Chemerinsky

University of California, Irvine

2940

Constitutional, Civil Procedure

63

3

Richard Epstein

New York University, University of Chicago

2680

Constitutional, Torts, Law & Economics

73

4

Eric Posner

University of Chicago

2470

Law & Economics, International, Commercial Law, Contracts

51

5

Mark Lemley

Stanford University

2400

Intellectual Property

50

6

William Eskridge, Jr.

Yale University

2180

Constitutional, Legislation

65

7

Mark Tushnet

Harvard University

1880

Constitutional, Legal History

71

8

Akhil Amar

Yale University

1790

Constitutional

58

9

Bruce Ackerman

Yale University

1730

Constitutional

73 

10

Lawrence Lessig

Harvard University

1720

Constitutional, Intellectul Property, Cyberlaw

55

 

 

 


May 18, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

May 11, 2016

Sarah Lawsky's entry-level hiring report for 2015-16--plus the percentage of successful job seekers from each school

Professor Lawsky (currently UC Irvine, moving this fall to Northwestern) has produced her annual, informative report on rookie hiring this year.  As she notes, it reflects only those who accepted tenure-track jobs, not tenure-track offers.  (This matters for Chicago this year, since two alumni turned down tenure-track offers for personal reasons; as I noted earlier, 75% of our JD and LLM candidates on the market received tenure-track offers.)

Here are the statistics based on the percentage of JD, LLM and SJD (or Law PhD) seekers from each school who accepted a tenure-track position this year (I excluded clinical and LRW jobs, since that market operates differently from the market for "doctrinal" faculty--there were 80 of the latter, as I had estimated--a 20% uptick from recent years, but still about half of the pre-recession numbers); only schools that placed at least two candidates and which had at least nine job seekers* are listed:

1.  University of Chicago (58%: 7 of 12)

2.  Yale University (50%:  21 of 42)

3.  Stanford University (42%:  8 of 19)

4.  Columbia University (29%:  6 of 21)

5.  Harvard University (27%:  12 of 45)

6.  New York University (24%:  7 of 29)

7.  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (22%:  2 of 9)

8.  University of California, Berkeley (19%:  3 of 16)

9.  University of Virginia (17%:  2 of 12)

UCLA had just five job seekers, but two (40%) got tenure-track jobs.

*I used 9 rather than 10 is the cut-off, since Michigan was just under ten, but still had enough candidates to make the figure somewhat meaningful.


May 11, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News, Of Academic Interest, Rankings, Student Advice | Permalink

May 04, 2016

Three-year federal clerkship placement rates

Interesting chart, though note two things about the data:  first, it includes both district and circuit court placement, without distinguishing between them; and second, it includes only clerkships secured before graduation from law school.  With the current turmoil in the clerkship market, securing federal clerkships after graduation is increasingly common.  One thing that leaps out is that being a regional powerhouse is advantageous for clerkship placement.


May 4, 2016 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Rankings | Permalink

April 25, 2016

Corporate Practice Commentator's "Top 10" articles of 2015

The Corporate Practice Commentator is pleased to announce the results of its twenty-second 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 2015.  More than 540 articles were on this year’s list.  Because of the vagaries of publication, indexing, and mailing, some articles published in 2015 have a 2014 date, and not all articles containing a 2015 date were published and indexed in time to be included in this year’s list.  Because of ties, there are 12 articles on this year’s list.

The articles, listed in alphabetical order of the initial author, are:

Bartlett, Robert P. III. Do Institutional Investors Value the Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action? Evidence from Investors' Trading Behavior following Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. 44 J. Legal Stud. 183-227 (2015).

Bebchuk, Lucian, Alon Brav and Wei Jiang. The Long-term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism. 115 Colum. L. Rev. 1085-1155 (2015).

Bratton, William W. and Michael L. Wachter. Bankers and Chancellors. 93 Tex. L. Rev. 1-84 (2014).

Cain, Matthew D. and Steven Davidoff Solomon. A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation. 100 Iowa L. Rev. 465-500 (2015).

Casey, Anthony J. The New Corporate Web: Tailored Entity Partitions and Creditors' Selective Enforcement. 124 Yale L. J. 2680-2744 (2015).

Coates, John C. IV. Cost-benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Case Studies and Implications. 124 Yale L .J. 882-1011 (2015).

Edelman, Paul H., Randall S. Thomas and Robert B. Thompson. Shareholder Voting in an Age of Intermediary Capitalism. 87 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1359-1434 (2014).

Fisch, Jill E., Sean J. Griffith and Steven Davidoff Solomon. Confronting the Peppercorn Settlement in Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis and a Proposal for Reform. 93 Tex. L. Rev. 557-624 (2015).

Fried, Jesse M. The Uneasy Case for Favoring Long-term Shareholders. 124 Yale L. J. 1554-1627 (2015).

Judge, Kathryn. Intermediary Influence. 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 573-642 (2015).

Kahan, Marcel and Edward Rock. Symbolic Corporate Governance Politics. 94 B.U. L. Rev. 1997 (2014).

Velikonja, Urska. Public Compensation for Private Harm: Evidence from the SEC's Fair Fund Distributions. 67 Stan. L. Rev. 331-395 (2015).

----------------------------

The authors represent the following institutions (based on fall 2016 affiliations):  Penn (3), Harvard (3), Berkeley (3), NYU (2), Vanderbilt (2), Columbia (1), Chicago (1), Georgetown (1), Emory (1), and Fordham (1) as well as  the business schools at Duke (1) and Columbia (1).


April 25, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

April 18, 2016

Princeton Review rankings

The methodology is dubious, but what else is new?  (Anyone going to NYU over Columbia, however, for "career prospects" has made a mistake!  Choose NYU for particular programs or intellectual reasons (the NYU faculty is stronger than Columbia's in many areas), but reputations die hard in the law school world, and Columbia's is still stronger; and see also)


April 18, 2016 in Rankings | Permalink

April 05, 2016

Most cited intellectual property articles in the last decade...

...though calculated with HeinOnLine, which I've found to be a bit quirky, but perhaps still interesting results.


April 5, 2016 in Faculty News, Of Academic Interest, Rankings | Permalink

March 18, 2016

More on the new bar passage requirements

March 16, 2016

Prawfs entry-level hiring thread is now open

If you've accepted a tenure-track job in a law school for next year, enter your information here.


March 16, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News, Of Academic Interest, Rankings | Permalink

March 15, 2016

Law Schools Unfairly Ranked by U.S. News

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 15, 2016 in Rankings | Permalink

March 10, 2016

Apparently USNews.com accidentally released their nonsense ranking of law schools early...

...but since the only data in circulation is the "overall rank"--the "nonsense number"--I'll just link to last year's post, which is as relevant to this year's "results" as it was last year.  When we get some of the underlying data next week, I may have more to say.


March 10, 2016 in Rankings | Permalink