Monday, March 9, 2015
2016 U.S. News Peer Reputation Rankings (v. Overall Rankings)
Continuing a TaxProf Blog tradition (see links below for 2009-2015), here is the full list of the 198 law schools ranked by academic peer reputation, as well as their overall rank, in the new 2016 U.S. News Law School Rankings (methodology here):
Peer Rank |
Peer Score |
School |
Overall Rank |
1 |
4.8 |
Yale |
1 |
1 |
4.8 |
Harvard |
2 |
1 |
4.8 |
Stanford |
2 |
4 |
4.6 |
Columbia |
4 |
4 |
4.6 |
Chicago |
4 |
6 |
4.5 |
NYU |
6 |
7 |
4.4 |
Penn |
7 |
7 |
4.4 |
UC-Berkeley |
8 |
7 |
4.4 |
Michigan |
11 |
10 |
4.3 |
Virginia |
8 |
11 |
4.2 |
Duke |
8 |
11 |
4.2 |
Cornell |
13 |
13 |
4.1 |
Northwestern |
12 |
13 |
4.1 |
Georgetown |
14 |
15 |
4.0 |
Texas |
15 |
16 |
3.9 |
UCLA |
16 |
17 |
3.8 |
Vanderbilt |
17 |
18 |
3.5 |
Washington U. |
18 |
18 |
3.5 |
Emory |
19 |
18 |
3.5 |
USC |
20 |
21 |
3.4 |
Minnesota |
20 |
21 |
3.4 |
G. Washington |
22 |
21 |
3.4 |
Notre Dame |
22 |
21 |
3.4 |
North Carolina |
34 |
25 |
3.3 |
Boston University |
26 |
25 |
3.3 |
UC-Davis |
31 |
25 |
3.3 |
Wisconsin |
31 |
28 |
3.2 |
Alabama |
22 |
28 |
3.2 |
Iowa |
22 |
28 |
3.2 |
William & Mary |
29 |
28 |
3.2 |
Boston College |
34 |
28 |
3.2 |
Fordham |
34 |
28 |
3.2 |
Indiana |
34 |
28 |
3.2 |
Ohio State |
34 |
35 |
3.1 |
U. Washington |
28 |
35 |
3.1 |
Georgia |
31 |
35 |
3.1 |
Colorado |
40 |
35 |
3.1 |
Illinois |
41 |
35 |
3.1 |
Wash. & Lee |
42 |
35 |
3.1 |
Florida |
47 |
35 |
3.1 |
UC-Hastings |
59 |
42 |
3.0 |
Arizona State |
26 |
42 |
3.0 |
UC-Irvine |
30 |
42 |
3.0 |
Arizona |
42 |
42 |
3.0 |
Wake Forest |
47 |
42 |
3.0 |
Tulane |
50 |
47 |
2.9 |
BYU |
34 |
47 |
2.9 |
Maryland |
47 |
47 |
2.9 |
Florida State |
50 |
50 |
2.8 |
Utah |
42 |
50 |
2.8 |
Connecticut |
63 |
50 |
2.8 |
American |
71 |
53 |
2.7 |
George Mason |
42 |
53 |
2.7 |
Miami |
63 |
53 |
2.7 |
Denver |
67 |
53 |
2.7 |
Cardozo |
75 |
57 |
2.6 |
SMU |
46 |
57 |
2.6 |
Pepperdine |
52 |
57 |
2.6 |
Temple |
52 |
57 |
2.6 |
Tennessee |
52 |
57 |
2.6 |
Missouri |
59 |
57 |
2.6 |
Kansas |
67 |
57 |
2.6 |
San Diego |
71 |
57 |
2.6 |
Pittsburgh |
78 |
57 |
2.6 |
Oregon |
82 |
66 |
2.5 |
Richmond |
52 |
66 |
2.5 |
Georgia State |
56 |
66 |
2.5 |
Case Western |
59 |
66 |
2.5 |
Houston |
59 |
66 |
2.5 |
Kentucky |
63 |
66 |
2.5 |
Loyola-L.A. |
75 |
66 |
2.5 |
Brooklyn |
78 |
66 |
2.5 |
Chicago-Kent |
78 |
74 |
2.4 |
Baylor |
56 |
74 |
2.4 |
Nebraska |
56 |
74 |
2.4 |
Oklahoma |
67 |
74 |
2.4 |
New Mexico |
71 |
74 |
2.4 |
Loyola-Chicago |
78 |
74 |
2.4 |
Hawaii |
82 |
74 |
2.4 |
Rutgers-Newark |
87 |
74 |
2.4 |
Lewis & Clark |
94 |
74 |
2.4 |
Santa Clara |
94 |
74 |
2.4 |
Indiana-Indy |
102 |
74 |
2.4 |
Rutgers-Camden |
102 |
85 |
2.3 |
Seton Hall |
63 |
85 |
2.3 |
UNLV |
67 |
85 |
2.3 |
Arkansas |
75 |
85 |
2.3 |
Cincinnati |
82 |
85 |
2.3 |
Northeastern |
87 |
85 |
2.3 |
Villanova |
87 |
85 |
2.3 |
Michigan State |
94 |
85 |
2.3 |
Mississippi |
94 |
85 |
2.3 |
South Carolina |
94 |
85 |
2.3 |
Marquette |
105 |
85 |
2.3 |
Howard |
110 |
96 |
2.2 |
Penn State |
71 |
96 |
2.2 |
St. John's |
82 |
96 |
2.2 |
St. Louis |
87 |
96 |
2.2 |
SUNY-Buffalo |
87 |
96 |
2.2 |
Syracuse |
87 |
96 |
2.2 |
LSU |
94 |
96 |
2.2 |
Maine |
110 |
96 |
2.2 |
Seattle |
113 |
96 |
2.2 |
DePaul |
122 |
96 |
2.2 |
UMKC |
127 |
106 |
2.1 |
Louisville |
94 |
106 |
2.1 |
West Virginia |
94 |
106 |
2.1 |
Stetson |
105 |
106 |
2.1 |
Catholic |
108 |
106 |
2.1 |
Hofstra |
122 |
106 |
2.1 |
Loyola-NO |
135 |
106 |
2.1 |
Arkansas-LR |
135 |
106 |
2.1 |
San Francisco |
138 |
114 |
2.0 |
Wyoming |
108 |
114 |
2.0 |
Gonzaga |
110 |
114 |
2.0 |
CUNY |
113 |
114 |
2.0 |
Mercer |
118 |
114 |
2.0 |
Willamette |
118 |
114 |
2.0 |
Baltimore |
122 |
114 |
2.0 |
Vermont |
122 |
114 |
2.0 |
Drexel |
127 |
114 |
2.0 |
Idaho |
127 |
123 |
1.9 |
Tulsa |
82 |
123 |
1.9 |
New Hampshire |
87 |
123 |
1.9 |
Wayne State |
105 |
123 |
1.9 |
Creighton |
113 |
123 |
1.9 |
Drake |
113 |
123 |
1.9 |
Montana |
113 |
123 |
1.9 |
Quinnipiac |
127 |
123 |
1.9 |
Pace |
138 |
123 |
1.9 |
North Dakota |
138 |
123 |
1.9 |
Texas A&M |
149 |
123 |
1.9 |
Southwestern |
Tier 2 |
123 |
1.9 |
McGeorge |
Tier 2 |
135 |
1.8 |
Texas Tech |
118 |
135 |
1.8 |
Washburn |
122 |
135 |
1.8 |
Chapman |
127 |
135 |
1.8 |
New York L.S. |
127 |
135 |
1.8 |
St. Thomas (MN) |
135 |
135 |
1.8 |
Memphis |
142 |
135 |
1.8 |
William Mitchell |
142 |
135 |
1.8 |
South Dakota |
145 |
135 |
1.8 |
Suffolk |
Tier 2 |
144 |
1.7 |
Florida Int'l |
102 |
144 |
1.7 |
Duquesne |
118 |
144 |
1.7 |
Cleveland State |
127 |
144 |
1.7 |
Akron |
127 |
144 |
1.7 |
Albany |
138 |
144 |
1.7 |
Toledo |
142 |
144 |
1.7 |
Hamline |
145 |
144 |
1.7 |
Dayton |
145 |
144 |
1.7 |
Cumberland |
149 |
144 |
1.7 |
S. Illinois |
149 |
144 |
1.7 |
J. Marshall (CHI) |
Tier 2 |
144 |
1.7 |
Widener |
Tier 2 |
156 |
1.6 |
South Texas |
149 |
156 |
1.6 |
Elon |
Tier 2 |
156 |
1.6 |
Golden Gate |
Tier 2 |
156 |
1.6 |
Mississippi C. |
Tier 2 |
156 |
1.6 |
N. Illinois |
Tier 2 |
156 |
1.6 |
Roger Williams |
Tier 2 |
156 |
1.6 |
St. Mary's |
Tier 2 |
156 |
1.6 |
Valparaiso |
Tier 2 |
164 |
1.5 |
Ohio Northern |
145 |
164 |
1.5 |
Oklahoma City |
149 |
164 |
1.5 |
Cal-Western |
Tier 2 |
164 |
1.5 |
Campbell |
Tier 2 |
164 |
1.5 |
New England |
Tier 2 |
164 |
1.5 |
N. Kentucky |
Tier 2 |
164 |
1.5 |
Nova |
Tier 2 |
164 |
1.5 |
Touro |
Tier 2 |
164 |
1.5 |
Puerto Rico |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
Capital |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
N.C. Central |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
Southern |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
St. Thomas (FL) |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
Texas Southern |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
Detroit Mercy |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
Dist. of Columbia |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
W. New England |
Tier 2 |
173 |
1.4 |
Whittier |
Tier 2 |
182 |
1.3 |
J. Marshall (ATL) |
Tier 2 |
182 |
1.3 |
Faulkner |
Tier 2 |
182 |
1.3 |
Florida A&M |
Tier 2 |
182 |
1.3 |
Inter-Americana |
Tier 2 |
182 |
1.3 |
Pontifical Catholic |
Tier 2 |
182 |
1.3 |
Regent |
Tier 2 |
182 |
1.3 |
Thomas Jefferson |
Tier 2 |
189 |
1.2 |
Appalachian |
Tier 2 |
189 |
1.2 |
Barry |
Tier 2 |
189 |
1.2 |
Charleston |
Tier 2 |
189 |
1.2 |
Charlotte |
Tier 2 |
189 |
1.2 |
Florida Coastal |
Tier 2 |
189 |
1.2 |
Liberty |
Tier 2 |
195 |
1.1 |
Arizona Summit |
Tier 2 |
195 |
1.1 |
Ave Maria |
Tier 2 |
195 |
1.1 |
W. Mich. Cooley |
Tier 2 |
195 |
1.1 |
Western State |
Tier 2 |
Prior years' rankings:
Update: More on the 2016 U.S. News Law School Rankings
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/03/2016-us-news-peer-reputation-.html
Comments
If anyone remains agnostic as to the objectivity and reliability of the U.S. News rankings, consider this. As usual, the latest list shows little movement among the “elite” law schools; these relative positions remained mostly stable from last year’s report. But beneath the top 50, there were some remarkable changes in overall score, in just one year. Why? Do these precipitous leaps and crashes accurate reflect what the rankings purport to represent, or something very different?
As the National Law Journal has reported, “Thirteen saw their rankings change by 20 or more spots—up from eight last year. Forty law schools moved 10 or more spots, up from 37 last year.” With only schools ranked 149 and above given an actual ranking, roughly 25% of currently accredited law schools are arbitrarily lumped together, unranked, in the U.S. News version of a Walmart clearance bin. This means that 13 schools of the supposedly top 150 moved above or below 20 of their competitors—in a single year. How is this possible in any legitimate, objectively-derived way?
As the recent controversy over “predatory poaching” illustrates, some law schools aggressively structure their initial admissions criteria and their transfer-student criteria to maximize both their U.S. news score and their surplus of revenues over expenses. It is human nature for self-interested people to manipulate that which can be manipulated to maintain or enhance their own advantage. Meanwhile, there is a perverse incentive to ignore or devote less attention to those aspects of the law school experience that are minimized or entirely excluded from the U.S. News numbers. Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity? Zero influence on the rankings. Community service, clinical opportunities, and outreach? Again, zero. Programs to benefit the students, including underserved and nontraditional students, such as academic support and bar exam preparation? Yes, zero.
The U.S. News chart has the appearance of mathematical precision without the actuality thereof. The numbers look so scientific, so definite. There are no margins of error or measures of probability mentioned. And with 12 factors considered, each with a weight calculated down to the hundredth of 1 percent, how can the rankings be less than reliable and rigorous? The truth is that the rankings convey the illusion of validity, camouflaging the immense subjectivity, bias, imprecision, and manipulability of the underlying input. I am tempted to dredge up the cliché “garbage in, garbage out,” but that would be a disservice to municipal household waste. At least some of that has actual value in composting and recycling.
Posted by: Prof. John C. Kunich | Mar 13, 2015 1:35:08 PM
Eyeballing it, it looks like Irvine had the largest gap between peer rank and final rank, aside from ASU, for schools that had a higher actual rank than peer rank. Does anyone else sense bribery?
Posted by: JM | Mar 10, 2015 8:08:27 AM
So UC-Irvine has failed to make good on Dean Chemerinsky's vow to debut on the U.S. News list in the Top 20? His fledgling law school made it "only" to number 30 in its first appearance on this infamous chart. The most notable aspect of this bizarre charade is its undeniable demonstration of the artificiality and artifice at the rotten core of the ranking scheme.
The manipulation of unrealistic and irrelevant metrics is part of the reason why Justice Alito has declared, “The U.S. News and World Report rankings of law schools are an abomination. The legal profession and the country would be better off if they were eliminated." They fail to reflect what truly matters in legal education, and what they do reflect is backwards and distorted, like an image in a carnival mirror.
Chemerinsky came as close to his target as he did because his many years of marinating in legal academe have thoroughly prepared him to play the U.S. News factors like a rigged violin. He knew how to game the numbers to conjure up the illusion of quality, within the simulated, Hollywood-set, mock-up world of the rankings. He has proved how easily the metrics can be manipulated to tell a false narrative, if a law school has the resources and the willingness to sacrifice all else to that single goal.
It is tragic indeed that so many decent law schools are consigned to the black hole of unranked institutions at the bottom 25% of the chart. The leaders of these honorable law schools may not have huge financial advantages available to unleash on the system, but their schools are where a lot more genuine knowledge and experience are acquired, every day, than in the faux parallel universe of UC-Irvine and others of its ilk.
Posted by: John Charles Kunich | Mar 23, 2015 2:45:03 AM