Brian Leiter's Law School Reports

Legal Historian Mann from Penn to Harvard

Bruce Mann (legal history) at the University of Pennsylvania Law School has accepted a senior offer from Harvard Law School.  HLS has made a strong push in legal history in recent years; recent and prospective visitors in that field include John Witt (Columbia), Michael Klarman (UVA), Mary Dudziak (USC), and William Forbath (Texas). 

Reputation Rank vs. Overall U.S. News Rank

How do the reputation scores, as determined by U.S. News surveys, compare to the overall rank assigned by U.S. News?  There are some striking discrepancies.  (An explanation of the baroque U.S. News formula for the overall rank is here.)

Schools by Average Reputation Rank (Overall U.S. News Rank)

1.  Yale University (1)

1.5.  Harvard University (3)

2.5.  Stanford University (2)

4.  Columbia University (4)

4.  University of Chicago (6)

6.  University of Virginia (8)

6.5.  New York University (4)

6.5.  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (8)

7.5.  University of California, Berkeley (8)

10.  University of Pennsylvania (7)

11.  Duke University (11)

11.  Georgetown University (14)

12.  Cornell University (13)

13.5.  Northwestern University (12)

13.5.  University of Texas, Austin (16)

16.5.  University of California, Los Angeles (15)

16.5.  Vanderbilt University (17)

18.  University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (27)

20.  George Washington University (19)

20.  University of Iowa (22)

21.  University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (19)

22.  Emory University (26)

22.  Washington University, St. Louis (19)

22.  Washington & Lee University (19)

24.  University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (27)

25.  University of Southern California (17)

26.5.  Boston College (27)

26.5.  University of California, Hastings (43)

26.5.  University of Notre Dame (19)

27.  University of Wisconsin, Madison (32)

27.5.  University of California, Davis (34)

29.  Boston University (24)

30.  College of William & Mary (27)

Schools by Average Reputation Score (average reputation score)

1.  Yale University (4.9)

2.  Harvard University (4.85)

3.  Stanford University (4.8)

4.  Columbia University (4.65)

4.  University of Chicago (4.65)

6.  New York University (4.55)

6.  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (4.55)

6.  University of Virginia (4.55)

9.  University of California, Berkeley (4.5)

10. University of Pennsylvania (4.4)

11.  Duke University (4.25)

11.  Georgetown University (4.25)

13.  Cornell University (4.15)

14.  Northwestern University (4.1)

14.  University of Texas, Austin (4.1)

16.  University of California, Los Angeles (3.95)

17.  Vanderbilt University (3.9)

18.  University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (3.75)

19.  George Washington University (3.65)

19.  University of Iowa (3.65)

19.  University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (3.65)

19.  University of Southern California (3.65)

23.  Emory University (3.6)

23.  Washington & Lee University (3.6)

23.  Washington University, St. Louis (3.6)

26.  University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (3.55)

27.  Boston College (3.5)

27.  University of California, Davis (3.5)

27.  University of California, Hastings (3.5)

27.  University of Notre Dame (3.5)

27.  University of Wisconsin, Madison (3.5)

There are other oddities.  George Mason and San Diego both rank 49th in reputation among academics, an assessment that understates significantly the strengths of their respective faculties, though in the case of San Diego 49th is a substantial improvement over prior years (suggesting, perhaps, that better sources of information do have an impact).  San Diego, however, is ranked 65th overall, while George Mason, through its, shall we say, careful handling of the other factors that go into the ranking, manages to come out at 37th--probably still too low, relative to the academic merits, but, as the chart above shows, even the U.S. News measure of "academic merits" correlates only roughly with the U.S. News ranking.  The two variables that seem to matter most are size (the bigger, the worse off in the overall ranking compared to reputation:  e.g., Harvard, Georgetown) and private/public status (publics generally fare worse--here there are usually two variables, one related to expenditures [the figure U.S. News no longer prints], and one to student selectivity).  One exception to that generalization is the University of Chicago, which is chronically underranked by U.S. News (relative even to the reputation scores as U.S. News computes them), though the school is both private and small. 

New U.S. News Rankings of Law Schools: Facts and Fictions

Dan Markel (Law, Florida State) has come up with a copy of the new U.S. News law school rankings.  It's old news, of course, that the ranking methodology is baroque and indefensible and prone to gaming, but let's put that aside.  Even if U.S. News rankings of law schools are, to put the matter gently, weird, it might at least be useful to break out the one component of the survey that, at least at the higher end, has some relationship to reality and which also can't be manipulated by the schools:  namely, the reputational surveys.

Jeffrey Stake (Law, Indiana-Bloomington) has shown that the reputational survey of academics is increasingly an "echo chamber" reflecting the overall U.S. News rank.  Still, the effect isn't (yet, anyway) absolute, and the academic reputation results still tend to be a bit closer to "common wisdom" among informed academics than the overall rankings.  So here they are:

Academic Reputation Score (67% of Deans, Associate Deans, Hiring Chairs, and recently tenured faculty responded)

1.  Harvard University (4.9)

1.  Yale University (4.9)

3.  Stanford University (4.8)

4.  Columbia University (4.7)

4.  University of Chicago (4.7)

6.  New York University (4.6)

6.  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (4.6)

8.  University of California, Berkeley (4.5)

8.  University of Virginia (4.5)

10. University of Pennsylvania (4.4)

11. Cornell University (4.2)

11. Duke University (4.2)

11. Georgetown University (4.2)

14. Northwestern University (4.1)

14. University of Texas, Austin (4.1)

16. University of California, Los Angeles (4.0)

17. University of Southern California (3.8)

17. Vanderbilt University (3.8)

19. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (3.6)

19. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (3.6)

21. George Washington University (3.5)

21. University of Iowa (3.5)

21. University of Wisconsin, Madison (3.5)

21. Washington University, St. Louis (3.5)

25. Boston University (3.4)

25. Emory University (3.4)

25. University of California, Davis (3.4)

25. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (3.4)

25. Washington & Lee University (3.4)

30. Boston College (3.3)

30. College of William & Mary (3.3)

30. University of California, Hastings (3.3)

30. University of Notre Dame (3.3)

Not a crazy set of results, but if we assume reasonably enough that "academic reputation" ought to track the quality of faculty and students, then some schools (UC Davis, Washington & Lee, Duke, Michigan, perhaps North Carolina, perhaps Northwestern) are too high, while others (UC Hastings, Illinois, NYU, BU) are too low, relative to the actual academic merits.  (Addendum:  It should go without saying, I hope, that these are my judgments about the relative merits only:  e.g., Michigan is "too high" in the sense that NYU is now clearly better; and so on.  Michigan can obviously have an outstanding faculty, which it does (and even before adding Laycock, Radin, et al.!), without it being sensible to rate Michigan on a par with NYU.  The same point applies to the other instances mentioned.)

The surveys of lawyers and judges suffer from the fact that the way U.S. News chooses whom to survey, a disproportionate number of those asked to be evaluators are on the two coasts, and in the Northeast in particular.  The response rate is also low, so it's also possible further geographical biases are introduced.

Practitioner Reputation (only 26% responded; those surveyed skewed toward the coasts, esp. the Northeast)

1.  Yale University (4.9)

2.  Harvard University (4.8)

2.  Stanford University (4.8)

4.  Columbia University (4.6)

4.  University of Chicago (4.6)

4.  University of Virginia (4.6)

7.  New York University (4.5)

7.  University of California, Berkeley (4.5)

7.  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (4.5)

10. University of Pennsylvania (4.4)

11. Duke University (4.3)

11. Georgetown University (4.3)

13. Cornell University (4.1)

13. Northwestern University (4.1)

13. University of Texas, Austin (4.1)

16. Vanderbilt University (4.0)

17. University of California, Los Angeles (3.9)

17. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (3.9)

19. Emory University (3.8)

19. George Washington University (3.8)

19. University of Iowa (3.8)

19. Washington & Lee University (3.8)

23. Boston College (3.7)

23. Indiana University, Bloomington (3.7)

23. University of California, Hastings (3.7)

23. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (3.7)

23. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (3.7)

23. University of Notre Dame (3.7)

23. Washington University, St. Louis (3.7)

30. College of William & Mary (3.6)

30. Ohio State University (3.6)

30. University of California, Davis (3.6)

An amusing sidenote:  the only school in the U.S. News top 100 claiming 100% employment for its grads nine months out was Duke.  Not Harvard, not Chicago, not Columbia, not Penn.  Just Duke. Given that these figures are "works of the imagination," I'm afraid this doesn't redound to Duke's credit. 

More U.S. News thoughts tomorrow...

How the US News Undergrad Rankings Mislead Students

An undergraduate philosophy major considering PhD programs in philosophy wrote to me wondering about the overall quality of the universities he was considering.  He remarked:

[A] cursory glance [at various sources] suggests that UCLA might be better than Notre Dame. I found this surprising since if you check the US News undergraduate/overall rankings, Notre Dame is significantly higher than UCLA (and Berkeley!).

CollegeProwler.com, which I also discovered recently, rates Notre Dame's "Academics" as somewhat higher than UCLA's, although their criteria are bizarre.

It is likely that along several relevant dimensions of undergraduate education (contact with faculty, student selectivity, etc.), Notre Dame is better than UCLA.  But PhD students in philosophy, like law students, are graduate students, and here it is important to bear in mind how deeply unhinged from the quality of research universities the U.S. News rankings are.  By any sensible measure--whether THES or the 1995 National Research Council report or even U.S. News surveys of academics when rating PhD programs--UCLA is at worst one of the top 20 universities (public or private) in the country, and perhaps one of the top 10.  Notre Dame isn't in the top 50. 

This prospective PhD student, of course, was educating himself about the actual academic quality of the universities he was considering.  In my experience, it is prospective law students who are more often misled.  Do follow some of the links above, which will tell you quite a bit more about the quality of graduate education outside law at the various schools you may be considering.  Some very good law schools (e.g., Georgetown, Vanderbilt) are at relatively weak universities, at least compared to other universities with comparable law schools.

Columbia Law School Faculty Hiring and Conservative "Conspiracy Theories"...

...are ably debunked here.

Criteria for Article Selection Applied by Student Editors at Law Reviews

Blog Emperor Caron has the interesting details.

Katrina Aftermath? Faculty Leaving Tulane

Dave Hoffman (Temple) has details here.  Already, the leading figure in the Tulane Philosophy Department has left because of the Katrina disaster. Faculty recruitment and retention, together with student recruitment and retention, will surely be crucial issues for Tulane over the next year or two.  Assuming there are no more flooding fiascos, I would expect Tulane to largely succeed on both fronts in the long run, though I imagine there will be other losses in the immediate future.

Filler's List of Lateral Faculty Moves...

...has been updated again.  Some of the moves you will have read about here, others are new.

Balkin on our Lawless Executive

I don't usually do links like this, but Jack Balkin's analysis of the latest evidence of brazen contempt for the rule of law by the executive ought to be read by all law professors.

"Why Evolutionary Biology is (so far) Irrelevant to Law"

Michael Weisberg (Philosophy, Penn) and I have made available on SSRN here what we hope is the penultimate draft of this paper, which is being submitted currently to the usual suspects for the top law reviews.  (Editors, if you're interested, contact me.)  Here is the abstract:

Evolutionary biology—or, more precisely, two (purported) applications of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, namely, evolutionary psychology and what has been called “human behavioral biology”—is on the cusp of becoming the new rage among legal scholars looking for “interdisciplinary” insights into the law. We argue that as the actual science stands today, evolutionary biology offers nothing to help with questions about legal regulation of behavior. Only systematic misrepresentations or lack of understanding of the relevant biology, together with far-reaching analytical and philosophical confusions, have led anyone to think otherwise.

Evolutionary accounts are etiological accounts of how a trait evolved. We argue that an account of causal etiology could be relevant to law if (1) the account of causal etiology is scientifically well-confirmed, and (2) there is an explanation of how the well-confirmed etiology bears on questions of development (what we call “the Environmental Gap Objection”). We then show that the accounts of causal etiology that might be relevant are not remotely well-confirmed by scientific standards. We argue, in particular, that (a) evolutionary psychology is not entitled to assume selectionist accounts of human behaviors, (b) the assumptions necessary for the selectionist accounts to be true are not warranted by standard criteria for theory choice, , and (c) only confusions about levels of explanation of human behavior create the appearance that understanding the biology of behavior is important. We also note that no response to the Environmental Gap Objection has been proferred. In the concluding section of the article, we turn directly to the work of Professor Owen Jones, a leading proponent of the relevance of evolutionary biology to law, and show that he does not come to terms with any of the fundamental problems identified in this article

Comments would be welcome.