Naturally, Bob Morse has decided to respond to USNWR role in the scholarship game and, as seemingly usual, wants to pretend it's someone else's issue. After a "no duh" paragraph about students understanding risks and the need for disclosure, Bob lays out this gem of a passage (numbers mine for purposes of commentary below):
It's clear that the U.S. News law school rankings have a (1) large impact on law schools and prospective law school students. (2) However, the U.S. News Best Law School rankings are not why students lose their scholarships. In addition, the article (3) implies that the U.S. News rankings are the key factor behind why law schools are offering more merit-based aid and less need-based aid in order to enroll students with higher LSATs and GPAs and, as a result, improve in the rankings. (4) Law schools need to take far more direct responsibility for their policies instead of citing the oft-repeated claims that they are forced into these actions solely because U.S. News exerts so much power over law school behavior.(1) With the power of national journalism (or are we going to admit that USNWR is no longer "journalism?") comes a grave responsibility in understanding the effects of one's words. That's why it's essential for the journalist to report accurately what happens, not base his conclusions on small sample sizes or unexamined self-reporting. And the journalist has a responsibility not to have a conflict of interest in the resolution of what happens. Bob's admission that his rankings have great effect is an admission that he either has a great amount of responsibility to get it right or that he's not a journalist at all.
(2) Technically, no, Bob, but your rankings are essential in establishing a system where parties act on reliance on insincere (as in, they're getting pulled after one year) scholarship offers - often advertised as three-year deals - that only exist because your magazine irrationally believes the LSAT to be relevant to how good a law school is; and many of those students actually do lose their scholarships. It also causes the rankings to favor richer schools, possibly at the expense of more efficient ones, and it causes schools to shift more money to their merit scholarship balances. Your magazine is a but-for cause of this mess, and disclaiming responsibility because you had nothing to do with Johnny taking the bait and getting a C+ in torts is absurd.
(3) "Implies?" No, Bob. The article "implied" nothing, and to say otherwise is disingenuous weasel-wording.
(4) Why don't you take responsibility as a "journalist" for the power your words have over people's actions, especially those who need metrics to boast of their accomplishments? There are countless steps you could take to prevent potentially-deceptive and abusive behavior from occurring. You could factor scholarship retention rates into your rankings. You could factor need-based scholarships into your rankings. You could collect and disclose scholarship offering and retention rates. You could do surveys comparing students' expected debt totals to their actual debt totals and penalize schools for the difference.
There are all sorts of steps to take to aid USNWR be a detached voice that helps the consumers understand the truth and have the facts necessary to make a decision about what law schools are good. To date, USNWR has done none of them and has persisted in using a formula that has nothing to do with actual law school merit. And yet, when they're called on it, they throw up their hands and say "that's the law schools' fault!"
Well, no, it's not. As a news institution, USNWR has a responsibility not to be a party in things like this. As long as they have the word "news" in the masthead, people like Bob Morse can't abnegate that responsibility by some twisted logic. So Bob, don't throw up your hands. Do your damned job.
Either that, or change the name and admit you're just a puppet for the elite educational lobby.
Ok seriously why shouldn't law schools be ranked based on LSAT and GPA? It lets employers get a general idea of the apptitude of potential based on where they went to law school.
ReplyDeleteYou'd rather it be based on the quality of the torts professors? How good their civ pro classes are? Really? I thought all the scambloggers agreed that you don't learn dick in law school anyway.
Ok seriously why shouldn't law schools be ranked based on LSAT and GPA? It lets employers get a general idea of the apptitude of potential employees based on where they went to law school.
ReplyDeleteYou'd rather it be based on the quality of the torts professors? How good their civ pro classes are? Really? I thought all the scambloggers agreed that you don't learn dick in law school anyway.
You can read how I think law schools should be ranked here:
ReplyDeletehttp://restoringdignitytothelaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/building-law-school-ratings-system-part.html
As a more substantive response, if employers want to know the apptitude of the potential employee, they could just ask the potential employee what his or her LSAT score was, or have him or her take an IQ test. That would be a more accurate indication of the applicant's natural aptitude than using the school as a heuristic, unless, of course, you think a 168 LSAT from Harvard is better than a 168 LSAT from State Public U.
ReplyDeleteOne might argue that ranking schools by LSAT/GPA is an indication of the strength of the student body, which helps employers place class ranks in context. I don't think that's a reliable way of viewing things (i.e., a good use of statistics) for multiple reasons, chiefly among them is that creates distinctions the LSAT/uGPAs really aren't meant to create and it mistakes the student body as a whole for the fragment of the student body one is actually in competition with). It also is based on the faulty premise that people who go to schools with "smarter" student bodies are themselves smarter by association. That's assuming the conclusion and, frankly, it's not a good one.
Regarding your final point (made in response to an argument I have *never* seen, made, or endorsed) - "thought all the scambloggers agreed that you don't learn dick in law school anyway." - I would say that "dick" is relative.
As a general proposition, law school teaches very little about how to practice law. But not all schools fail equally. An article I linked to a few weeks ago had a BigLaw recruiter admit that lower-ranked schools often prepare students for practice better than the Yales of the world. And Managing Partner (Legal Dollar blog) has commented here that many mid-sized firms prefer hiring from lower-ranked schools, with that as a partial reason. If USNWR tried to rank schools on how well their graduates are actually prepared for the job market - instead of things like "prestige" or LSAT scores that merely regurgitate the status quo - law schools would actually respond by - gasp - preparing their students for practice.
Responding to your argument:
ReplyDelete"It also is based on the faulty premise that people who go to schools with "smarter" student bodies are themselves smarter by association. That's assuming the conclusion and, frankly, it's not a good one."
I think the thing I would be assuming is that a student body with 168's and 3.8gpa's would, overall, do better on a given law school exam than a student body with 150's and 2.0gpas. The conclusion that I'd be making is that if you rank in the top 10% of the 168/3.8 student body than you performed better than someone who's in the top 10% of the 150/2.0 student body.
Unless you disagree with my assumption, you must admit that ranking a school based on the appitude of the student body allows employers to make more sense of class rankings.
First, aside from the fact that your assumption involves assuming meaningful differences at every LSAT/uGPA level (not true; a 3.5 uGPA/168 LSAT is not unequivocally better than a 3.6 uGPA/170 LSAT due to variances in the metrics), your conclusion is faulty as a matter of basic mathematics, namely that you're using averages of an entire student body to judge what happens at the top of the curve.
ReplyDeleteFor example, let's take 2 law schools:
School A: 100% of its class is people with 165 LSATs and 3.5 GPAs.
School B: 15% of its class is people with 170 LSATs and 3.9 GPAs, which it gets by offering juicy full-tuition scholarships and lucrative living stipends. The remaining 85% of its class is 155 LSATs and 3.0 GPAs.
School A's numbers (average, media, 25th %, 75th %, etc.) are ALL going to be higher than School B's. But at School B, the kids at the top of the curve are actually competing against stricter competition than at School A.
Unless you have more sophisticated statistics, using 25/75 LSAT/GPAs to judge how competitive students are at the top of the curve (where the difference between an A and a B comes into play) is faulty.
When an employer looks at an employee, they're really not concerned with the student body as a whole. They're concerned only with the students who ranked ahead of them. A 25th percentile cut-off does nothing to aid in that take for evaluating students in the top 5% or the top 15%.
If schools supplied full graphs of their student bodies' LSAT/GPA curves, you might have a valid point. As far as I know, those aren't available, so it doesn't work.
Second, again, the LSAT/uGPA is hardly a good metric for post-graduate "aptitude," and in any event employers could just ask the students if it's that important to them. Couldn't you use bar exam pass rates? Bar exam scores? Performance in interscholastic competitions? Metrics of success at new jobs? It's incredibly lazy to fall back on flawed statistics.
Third, using the LSAT/uGPA in a rankings scheme makes the quality of a school dependent on the decisions of uninformed 0L applicants, which means you're essentially judging a product on the ability of its marketing and advertising departments, or on what people thought 5 years ago. You have to admit that's deeply flawed, don't you?
J-Dog,
ReplyDeleteI can see your point of the average lsat not really being indicative of the lsat scores at the top of the curve.
But shouldn't we assume that the top 15% LSAT scores at EVERY school are higher than the average? Maybe at a top 20 school the average LSAT is 167 but the top 15% of LSATs are 175's with juicy scholarships. T20 schools give juicy scholarships too.
I'm not really sure why it's relevant that 0L's were uninformed when they chose a school or how that relates to the idea of ranking schools based on LSAT/uGPA of the student body. If a student has a 170/3.6, he's still more likely to be a good student and provide fiercer competition to his classmates whether he's naive or not.
This is still a giant red herring. We're not ranking/evaluating student bodies, students, or anything else; even if we were, I've already pointed out numerous places where the LSAT/uGPA approach is hopelessly flawed.
ReplyDeleteRanking systems exist and are used to judge schools (companies) for the education (product) that they provide. Deciding which schools (companies) are best by which students (customers) pick the school (product) before they've ever stepped foot on campus (bought it) produces an absurd tautology: the best students go to the best schools, which draw the best students. That only works if you're an elitist devoid of statistical sense.
As I've noted, there could be positive uses to knowing LSAT/GPA scores if such data were produced in large and reliable enough quantities. It's not, so it's a moot point, and since I've already pointed out the major mathematical flaw in your "assumption," I won't waste any more of my time debunking it.
Bob Morse is complicit in the scam. Even "law professor" Brian Leiter of REAL law school University of Chicago states the obvious, with regards to this ball-less reptile:
ReplyDeletehttp://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2011/03/an-open-letter.html
“[US News] combines too many factors, in an inexplicable formula, and much of the underlying data isn't reliable, and some of it (e.g., expenditures on secretarial salaries and electriciy) isn't even relevant. You all know this. So don't report it. The fact that this garbage appears in what used to be a major 'news' magazine doesn't change the fact that it is garbage.”
To the apologist cockroach who posted at 6:47, 6:49, 7:27 and 11:20:
Keep coming up with those straw men arguments. We will be happy to shove them up your rectum, cretin. By the way, why do YOU think it is okay for "law professors," the ABA, and banksters to take advantage of naive kids?
http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2011/03/us-news-which-has-aided-abetted-and-encouraged-the-dissemination-of-fraudulent-and-misleading-employ.html
ReplyDeleteCheck out where Leiter rips Pussy Morse's arm out of its socket, and beats him over the head with it:
“US "News," which has aided, abetted, and encouraged the dissemination of fraudulent and misleading employment data...
“...would like that to stop, but isn't going to do anything about it, except tweak the ranking formula. Mr. Morse, here is what you can do: don't use self-reported data at all. Follow the lead of Maclean's in Canada, who took my suggestion, and uses employment data in the public arena. This would require more work, but it would also report real information, not fiction.”
to Anonymous, because of course you are:
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems I noticed in law school was an active failure to understand statistics in particular or math in general. At least four times during my first year, I heard professors say "we're here because we don't like math" during classes. Aside from the small number of students who had been business or engineering majors, everyone laughed and nodded and agreed. Providing statistics to people is, for the most part, useless, because statistics are usually presented in a way that makes the points their being used to make false.
That said, if you're not sure why it matters that 0Ls or whatever the hell they call themselves are being misled and lied to, why are you reading a blog like this and investing so much time commenting? (Also, because I love analogies, pretend law school is a used car. You meet someone who bought a used car from a salesman who provides paperwork showing the car is five years old, has 40K miles on it, will serve the buyer for another hundred thousand miles and has had regular maintenance. After buying it, the car breaks down, being a proverbial lemon, actually having a faulty transmission, 120K miles, and being 8 years old. Should that buyer have any recourse?)
The buyer can walk away from the broken-down car and not have to drag it around for the rest of his/her life. Buying a car and buying an education are different purchases. They are not equivalent.
ReplyDelete