Heald & Sichelman: The Top 100 Law School Faculties In Citations (Hein) And Impact (SSRN Downloads)

Paul J. Heald (Illinois) & Ted M. Sichelman (San Diego), Ranking the Academic Impact of 100 American Law Schools, 60 Jurimetrics J. 1 (2019):

U.S. News & World Report and rankings-minded scholars have constructed several measures of faculty impact at U.S. law schools, but each has been limited in a variety of ways. For instance, the U.S. News “peer assessment” rankings rely on the qualitative opinions of a small group of professors and administrators and largely mirror the overall rankings (correlations of 0.96 in 2016). While the scholarly rankings improve upon U.S. News by using the quantitative measure of citation counts, they have relied on the Westlaw database, which has notable limitations. Additionally, these rankings have failed to capture the component of scholarly impact on the broader legal community. We overcome these limitations by offering citation-based rankings using the more comprehensive Hein database and impact rankings based on Social Science Research Network (SSRN) download counts, as well as a combination of the two metrics.

Notably, we find a high correlation with the previous scholarly rankings (about 0.88), but a significantly lower correlation with the U.S. News peer assessment rankings (about 0.63). Specifically, we find that many law schools in dense urban areas with large numbers of other law schools that are highly ranked in the U.S. News survey are underrated in the U.S. News peer assessment rankings relative to our faculty impact metrics. Given the relatively low correlation between our rankings and the U.S. News peer assessment rankings—and the fact the U.S. News peer assessment rankings largely track its overall rankings—we strongly support U.S. News’s plans to rank schools on the basis of citation counts and recommend that U.S. News adopt a quantitative-based metric as a faculty reputation component of its overall rankings. ...

Here, pursuant to our suggested weighting discussed earlier, we combine the SSRN and Hein scores equally. Because SSRN download counts are substantially higher than Hein citation counts, we determine the number of standard deviations (z-score) from each school’s score from the mean for that metric, then average the SSRN and Hein z-scores together for a final score.

Table 3. Ranking by SSRN Download and Hein Citation Metrics

Combined Ranking	School	Total SSRN Score	Hein Total Score	SSRN Z-score	Hein Z-score	Average Z-score
1	Yale	18,753	5223	2.56	5.25	3.91
2	Harvard	23,608	3856	3.60	3.53	3.56
3	Columbia	17,820	3075	2.36	2.55	2.45
4	Chicago	19,103	2414	2.64	1.71	2.17
5	Vanderbilt	21,124	1995	3.07	1.19	2.13
6	Penn	18,340	2364	2.47	1.65	2.06
7	NYU	12,569	3114	1.24	2.60	1.92
8	Stanford	11,336	2837	0.97	2.25	1.61
9	UC-Irvine	15,786	2027	1.93	1.23	1.58
10	Duke	12,194	2029	1.16	1.23	1.19
11	GW	14,037	1617	1.55	0.71	1.13
12	Northwestern	11,648	1939	1.04	1.12	1.08
13	Cornell	10,942	1970	0.89	1.15	1.02
14	UCLA	11,956	1782	1.11	0.92	1.01
15	G. Mason	15,120	1150	1.78	0.12	0.95
16	Georgetown	9906	1758	0.67	0.89	0.78
17	Virginia	9325	1702	0.54	0.82	0.68
18	UC-Berkeley	9781	1609	0.64	0.70	0.67
19	Michigan	10,305	1519	0.75	0.59	0.67
20	Minnesota	10,315	1462	0.75	0.52	0.63
21	St. Thomas	11,487	1155	1.00	0.13	0.57
22	Illinois	10,927	1159	0.88	0.13	0.51
23	Texas	6611	1873	-0.04	1.03	0.50
24	UC-Davis	10,805	1098	0.86	0.06	0.46
25	Arizona	9696	1058	0.62	0.01	0.31

Citations-based rankings of law schools have become increasingly prominent in recent years. This trend has perhaps culminated with U.S. News & World Report’s recent announcement that it will construct a similar ranking, which very likely will become a definitive quantitative measure of law school faculty impact. Our study provides notable insight into the value and potential pitfalls of such a ranking, generally offering an optimistic outlook—at least to the extent one is convinced that quantitative rankings of faculty impact are valuable to the scholarly endeavor. Moreover, we show that mere publication downloads, particularly by those beyond legal academia, can be used effectively to rank faculties, and somewhat surprisingly, these rankings largely mirror those solely constructed with citations. Although we expect more sophisticated and comprehensive quantitative approaches to ranking law school faculties to appear soon, we hope we have shown that even our comparatively crude measure provides many advantages beyond the qualitative surveys that have been pervasive in legal academia

• Paul J. Heald (Illinois) & Ted M. Sichelman (San Diego), Ranking the Academic Impact of 100 American Law Schools, 60 Jurimetrics J. 1 (2019)
• Gregory C. Sisk (St. Thomas), Measuring Law Faculty Scholarly Impact by Citations: Reliable and Valid for Collective Faculty Ranking, 60 Jurimetrics J. 41 (2019)
• Adam S. Chilton (Chicago) & Jonathan S. Masur (Chicago), What Should Law School Rankings Measure and How Should We Measure it: A Comment on Heald & Sichelman's Rankings, 60 Jurimetrics J. 61 (2019)
• Gregory N. Mandel (Temple), Measure for Measure: The Risks of Incorporating Citations Data into U.S. News Rankings, 60 Jurimetrics J. 69 (2019)
• Chris Guthrie (Vanderbilt), Toward A Mission-Based Ranking?, 60 Jurimetrics J. 75 (2019)