Lieter's New Rankings Are Crap
Brian Lieter released a new ranking of law schools today, entitled "The Top 15 Schools From Which the Most "Prestigious" Law Firms Hire New Lawyers, 2008."
Where does he get his data? Here's a direct quote:
So, essentially, if you go to Latham, Weil, Debevoise, Gibson, WilmerHale, White & Case, Shearman, O'Melveny, or Clifford Chance, you're not counted.
1/3 of the omitted firms are west coast firms. If you're looking to be "elite" in California, you're likely at one of those firms. Further, 2/5 of the included firms don't operate west coast offices.
It's no wonder why Stanfurd and Berkeley score so low, and Columbia and NYU magically rise to the top.
Given his glaring bias/omissions, what's the point of releasing these rankings in the first place?
Where does he get his data? Here's a direct quote:
We started with the most recent Vault list of the most prestigious law firms in the U.S. We had to go to #24 on that list to identify fifteen super elite law firms that had the right kinds of search engines to permit efficient identification of where associates at these law firms went to law school. The firms studied were: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Sullivan & Cromwell; Skadden Arps; Davis Polk & Wardwell; Simpson Thacher; Clearly [sic] Gottlieb; Kirkland & Ellis; Covington & Burling; Paul, Weiss; Williams & Connolly; Sidley Austin; Arnold & Porter; Jones Day; and Morrison & Foerster.
So, essentially, if you go to Latham, Weil, Debevoise, Gibson, WilmerHale, White & Case, Shearman, O'Melveny, or Clifford Chance, you're not counted.
1/3 of the omitted firms are west coast firms. If you're looking to be "elite" in California, you're likely at one of those firms. Further, 2/5 of the included firms don't operate west coast offices.
It's no wonder why Stanfurd and Berkeley score so low, and Columbia and NYU magically rise to the top.
Given his glaring bias/omissions, what's the point of releasing these rankings in the first place?
Labels: Rankings And Associated Bullshit
posted by tj at 2:42 PM
13 Comments:
We need more rankings such as these, because obviously people should choose a school on whether they can go to Jones Day instead of Wilson Sonsini. Otherwise, we set up undergrads for failure the second they choose to go to Stanford over UVA.
TJ, I was thinking of a post along the same exact lines. For a guy who rails on the US News rankings so consistently and vociferously, this is a pile of garbage. It has no bearing on the schools' relative merit in job placement at "elite" firms let alone at any firm. Normally, I'd look at the results and expect Berkeley to have slightly lower firm numbers than peers b/c of our large public sector/public interest draws. But this is just a ridiculous "study" if one can call it that. More accurately, it's just a web surfing session of "Hey who went to these 10 firms?"
Is Leiter really an empiricist by training or vocation? I thought he was a philosopher. I can't imagine a professional empiricist doing that kind of study and thinking it has any relevance.
Yawn. Who cares?
Anyone with a single functioning neuron?
I'm with 10:22... there are bigger things to worry about. BLaw is good enough to guarantee you a spot at the firm of your choice if you're worth your weight in smarts, which I assume most of us are.
Toney: You and 10:22 might have missed my point. I don't fear Berkeley has been slighted in any way (I highly doubt employers give a rat's @$$ about Lieter's rankings when they make hiring decisions).
I simply share 9:10's sentiment: I am confused why a person such as Lieter would perpetuate such a worthless poll - especially when he assails the US News rankings.
Toney, as someone who got absolutely slaughtered in OCI, I question the weight of your assumption. Guarantee my ass.
9:17 - I apologize, and I didn't mean to come off as insensitive.
Having said that, I still feel that you are a prime candidate for the firm of your choice. OCIP just might not be the route for you. It may take a little elbow grease, but I have full confidence that you (anonymous as you are) will land a job at a kickass firm. With the economy the way it is right now, OCIP very well might not be the optimal job-seeking route.
Toney, it's not by pure dumb luck that Berkeley has such a success (in most cases) in placing its students at firms. The number of firms at OCIP and the number of Boalties hired is in large part due to the reputation that the school has earned over the years.
Thanks to DE's hard work, presently, the reputation of the school and its USN&WR ranking are in line with each other. But that wasn't always the case. I can live with movement in rankings, but not an attack on our reputation. And so whenever a new "ranking" or "study" gives an inaccurate glimpse of the school's reach, then it's cause for concern because it can affect the school's reputation. The last thing we want to be is the next UPenn.
Armen - I absolutely agree, but at the same time, what does it matter if nobody takes Lieter seriously? TJ gave a great rundown of reasons why Lieter's rankings are flawed, and other people can see them as well.
If Phil, a well-meaning but often-intoxicated carnival worker posts "Berkeley Law sucks" on his blog, and gives us a ranking of 743rd, it doesn't affect our reputation at all (despite what it might do to our street cred).
TJ - I have no idea why Lieter keeps up with his rankings, but I suspect it has something to do with the swelling of his ego or the compensation for something.
What? Leiter's a carney now?
Of course not, but if his methods are as sketchy as TJ says, he might as well be.
Post a Comment
<< Home