Free: The Rankings, Deconstructed and Examined
05-20-2009
In legal education, we have reached the point where the ranking of law schools, particularly by U.S. News & World Report, is an accepted fact of life. A few schools have openly embraced the annual rite, while many more publically decry it, even though they are privately working feverishly to climb above their peers.?
Rarely, a few voices are still raised to protest the corrupting effect the rankings have on academic decision-making. However, regardless of where a school stands publically or what it does behind the scenes, no one can credibly dispute the fact that the rankings are now fully ingrained as a part of law school operations and culture. ?
The practicing bar generally applauds this fact. Law school protests about the consequences for legal education are met with responses like "Stop the whining and deal with it, like we do," or "Why shouldn't law schools be held accountable to the public and the profession?" Indeed, law school alumni are often the most vocal constituency when it comes to fluctuations in their schools' rankings. ?
A rigorous ranking scheme resonates with the broader sense that special standards should apply to law schools and their graduates. Because society expects so much of our graduates, a high level of scrutiny is justified. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's accounting in her majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger comes to mind: ?
"...universities, and in
particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large
number of our Nation's leaders....Individuals with law degrees occupy
roughly ?half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the
United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United
States House of Representatives....The pattern is even more striking
when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these
schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United
States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600
United States District Court judges." Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 332 (2003).?
In the March 20, 2009, issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education two separate references captured the same broad sentiment. First, in an article about Professor John C. Yoo's "torture memos" (internal memos used by the Bush administration to support interrogation techniques that many experts classify as torture under international law), Berkeley's law dean, Christopher Edley, said: ?
"Law professors, after
all, are charged with preparing the next generation of professionals to
live their lives according to our ethical canon." David Glenn, "Torture
Memos vs. Academic Freedom," at p. A-12.
To read the complete article:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202430830141&font_colorredFreefont_The_Rankings_Deconstructed_and_Examined&slreturn=1
Richardson - LSAT - GRE - MCAT - GMAT Preparation Courses - Toronto, Canada
http://www.prep.com