TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron
Pepperdine University School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Saturday, October 14, 2006

The First Law School Rankings (1975)

Bill Henderson (Indiana) provides a fascinating history of the first ranking of all U.S. law schools in 1975:  Adding Up the Law Schools:  A Tabulation and Rating of their Resources, by Charles D. Kelso.  The ranking groups law schools into seven groups; Groups 1-2 received "A" grades; Groups 3-5 received "B" grades; and Groups 6-7 received "C" grades.  Each law school was given a score based on six resource categories:

  • Number of Students
  • Student/Volume Ratio
  • Student/Faculty Ratio
  • Number of Faculty
  • Faculty/Volume Ratio
  • Volumes in Library

Here are the Top 22 law schools (Group 1), along with their 2006 U.S. News rank:

1975_v_2006_rankings_page_1_3   

Some other notable schools:

  • #49:  NYU (#4 in 2006 U.S. News)
  • #53:  Washington & Lee (#22)
  • #60:  Boston College (#27)
  • #60:  George Washington (#19)
  • #69:  Boston University (#22)
  • #69:  Georgetown (#14)
  • #77:  Notre Dame (#22)
  • #77:  William & Mary (#27)
  • #88:  Emory (#26)
  • #88:  Hastings (#43)
  • #97:  Florida State (#53)
  • #97:  San Diego (#65)
  • #103:  Wake Forest (#39)
  • #146:  Chicago-Kent (#60)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/10/the_first_law_s.html

Law School | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00d834bc349e53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The First Law School Rankings (1975):

Comments

Have you thought about separating your blog in two -- one for tax and one for law-school rankings, etc. The two don't really have a thing to do with each other and there are plenty of people who care about one who have no interest in the other.

Posted by: Bill | Oct 14, 2006 10:37:31 AM

I wonder what was the methodology of the older study? It's suspicious for example that both Rutgers branches seem to have been ranked more or less the same when Camden was much newer and smaller at the time. I certainly don't think we're 40 places lower now than we were back then.

Posted by: michael livingston | Oct 15, 2006 8:39:59 AM