Clawing and scratching for rank and position

The other day at the gym, an undergrad asked me whether he shouldn’t apply to the University of Alabama’s law school seeing as they’re paying students—in iTunes credits no less—to do so. The scam is that boosting the number of applications means they can reject more people, thus making the school appear more selective under U.S. News and World Report’s criteria. I know, I know: One would expect a reputable institution of higher learning to find paying applicants—in iTunes downloads no less—to endure a rejection letter too unseemly to tolerate. But Alabama has decided that closing the gap between it (in a five-way tie at 30th) and, say, the University of Iowa (tied at 26th with BC) is worth whatever sneers they endure within academe. (Is there really any difference between studying law in Tuscaloosa and studying law in Iowa City? Isn’t either fate sufficiently akin to punishment or at least civil confinement that distinguishing between the two is pointless?)

Notwithstanding the annual list’s shortcomings in method and dubiousness of purpose, schools seem on the whole unable to resist jockeying for position. And that means gaming the numbers in ways that push the boundaries of what might be strictly ethical. The academy is, in other words, about as obsessed with U.S. News’ rankings as Jon Stewart was with the Bush Administration. The sheer amount of energy professors and pundits spend picking apart the rankings and cataloguing their flaws both underscores and enhances the magazine’s influence. And this influence translates into schools making important decisions based on how they impact the rankings. Like buying applications from sub-par candidates. And focusing admissions decisions on GPAs (somewhat regardless of the major in which it was earned or the institution that bestowed it) and LSAT scores. Etc. This means that law schools generally start to look more and more alike and that it makes less and less of a difference whether a prospective student chooses one or another.

Yesterday, a publication non-ironically called Super Lawyers ranked UM 20th in its inaugural ranking of law schools. Their claim is that they base their rankings on the quality of the lawyers each school produces. And, to be sure, we have more than our fair share of outstanding alumni. Coincidentally and in fact, Kathleen Williams (JD ’82) was honored at the Law School yesterday for her leadership in the profession. Chief Judge Moreno (JD ’78) was there as were Magistrate Judges O’Sullivan (JD ’85) and Palermo (JD ’50). And those are just the alumni I ran into yesterday. But how much does the success of our alumni say about the program we offer today? I point this out not because I have any opinion one way or the other (I don’t, as per custom) but because the real relevance of this Super Lawyers thing is how its anti-intellectual reaction to U.S. News’ hegemony illustrates the folly of any attempt to rank a product so complex as a professional-school education. Here’s what they say:

Most law school rankings look at things like bar passage rates, professor-to-student ratios and the number of books in the library, but they ignore the end product—the quality of lawyers produced. We think it’s like ranking football teams based on athletic facilities, player size and equipment without considering who wins the games.

In the real world—the world of clients and juries and judges—no one cares about your GPA or LSAT score. All that matters is how good and ethical a lawyer you are. That’s the focus of Super Lawyers.

Yikes. I mean, really: Yikes. If criticizing U.S. News is like criticizing Bush, here comes Super Lawyers spouting nonsense and similes like Sarah Palin. No one cares about your GPA. You don’t need lotsa books. Just git in thar and raise hell!