UCLA now has a "clear edge" over Duke, Cornell, NU

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>UCLA has made more powerful faculty acquisitions over the last 10 years than any other law school in the Top 14. Since 1992, UCLA has acquired 5 young professors who are currently ranked in the Top 50 in terms of scholarly impact per citiation, including 3 in the Top 25 and one in the Top 10. The only school that comes close to matching these types of quality faculty acquisitions is Chicago, who acquired 4 profs in the Top 50, inclduing 2 in the Top 25 and 2 in the Top 10. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/b...most_cited.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/b...most_cited.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Furthermore, the acquisiting of 3 new tax profs has bumped UCLA's tax law program from #25 to #6 in the country. </p>

<p><a href="http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_...cla_school.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_...cla_school.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Prof. Leiter has commented on some of UCLA's latest acquisitions, including the addition of Michael Schill as Dean (who came from NYU), stating that UCLA now has a "clear edge" over Duke, Cornell, NU, in terms of faculty, and "may have a realistic shot at the top 10". </p>

<p><a href="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/bl...law_school.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://leiterreports.typepad.com/bl...law_school.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>There are also rumors that Farber (an enviro-star at Boalt) might be migrating to UCLA, and that Nimmer might be assuming a full professorship teaching copyright next year.</p>

2

<p>Keep dreaming!</p>

3

<p>My impression was that the relative rankings of law schools really don't change much - and certainly not over a short time with a few faculty acquisitions. A lot of factors go into making a law school one of the top ones (a group that currently has 14 schools), and really, faculty isn't one of them. Reputation among lawyers and judges is far more important. Alumni connections are huge - where are the alums practicing? How are their careers going? Are a lot of them judges, or are they 50 year old associates? For many people, the potential of a degree from a certain school to enchance one's career is a huge factor. </p>

<p>Faculty acquisitions just ain't part of that. UCLA is a good law school, a top-tier law school - but it isn't Cornell and won't be Cornell.</p>

4

<br>


<br>

<p>Another fine school appears to be stricken now: UCLA (whose new Dean, Michael Schill, has just moved from NYU--a fact which may simply be coincidental). A brochure has just arrived in faculty mailboxes nationwide announcing UCLA's "new faculty" hires--a good set of hires, as I've noted on two different occasions (here and here)</p>

<p>"UCLA School of Law is emerging as the strongest law faculty in the United States."</p>

<p>What? What about Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, NYU? Not close. What about Michigan, Virginia, Texas, Penn, Berkeley, Georgetown? Perhaps competitive in some ways, in other ways clearly not. I will say this: it seems to me, and I expect other informed observers, that UCLA has a clear edge now over Northwestern, Cornell, and USC (as well as Duke, of course).</p>

<p>By a reliable measure of faculty quality UCLA ranked 14th before these appointments, and by an unreliable measure, it ranked 16th (in "reputation" among academics). The new appointments are, indeed, good ones, and together with recent losses at Cornell, Northwestern, and USC give UCLA a realistic shot at the top ten.</p>

5

<p>None of the links works for me</p>

6

<p>Try this</p>

<p><a href="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/the_less_they_k.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/the_less_they_k.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Excerpt</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>"The Top 14 Will Always Be the Same," </p>

<p>"There is simply too much of an already-existing establishment for the non-elite to ever catch up to the elite schools in terms of endowment, student-spending, research, grants, excellent faculty, and everything else that makes up an elite academic institution. Non-elites have the only hope of attracting bright students with money or other rewards in hopes that they'll matriculate, but those students will always be deviant from the norm, and by far, the best students will almost always attend an elite school. It's a cycle-- the students of the current elite schools will go on to be more successful than the average graduate of a non-elite. There is simply no way to break the cycle. The Top 14 will stay the same forever, barring a radical methodology change in US News or similar act of God."</p>

<p>The really weird thing here is that it is largely true that "there is simply too much of an already-existing establishment for the non-elite to ever catch up to the elite schools in terms of endowment, student-spending, research, grants, excellent faculty, and everything else that makes up an elite academic institution,"</p>

<p>but this doesn't correlate with the current (or even recent) top 14 in US News, though it correlates slightly better with the top 17 or 18. </p>

<p>For example, USC has a better faculty than Duke (even with Chemerinsky's move, and allowing for Van Alstyne's departure from Duke), and, last time I saw the data, a much better endowment (2 or 3 years ago). Indeed, most of the US News top 17 or so have much bigger endowments than other schools, though places like Duke and Penn and Cornell trail a bit, there is not much difference between Texas and UCLA, on the one hand, and Georgetown, Duke, Penn, and Northwestern on the other--and where there is a difference, it is primarily that Texas and sometimes UCLA are stronger. There is no statistically meaningful difference in student credentials between Cornell, Berkeley, UCLA, Texas, and USC. And so on.</p>

<p>So the odd thing here is that the author's supposition (that the first 14 in US News defines the category) is rather obviously non-factual, at least to anyone who knows anything. So how did this student arrive at this rather fantastic view? The author makes the answer clear: US News. Sad.</p>

7

<p>Faculty strength is clearly not the most important factor in determining school reputation/prestige/placement. However, it is one factor that plays in. For example, the main way NYU overtook Chicago and Michigan in the 1990's (at least in overall USNews ranking) was through hiring better faculty. This helped attract top students, which helped move them up in the rankings (though their overall reputation still trails the other schools.) </p>

<p>UCLA, like NYU, has the advantage of being located in an attractive market. In fact, with its weather and environment, its generally more attractive in those respects than most other top schools. This is one reason it will probably continue to attract more and more top students. (This is also one reason Stanford rose to the top, of course.) </p>

<p>Also, even for those who believe in a "perpetual elite", there is a strong school of thought that there are actually 16 truly elite schools, when one looks at academic reputation rankings. This group includes UCLA. </p>

<p>When one thinks about it, it is actually an aberration that the second largest city in the country does not have a "Top" law school. San Fran, New York, Chicago, Boston, Philly, D.C., and most other major cities all have a top school, so it only makes sense that L.A. may also have one. And again, when you factor in the unpleasant weather and/or environment of certain schools like Cornell and Georgetown, it's not hard to see UCLA gradually competing more for their prospective students. (I'd certainly consider UCLA over those programs if I wanted to work on the West Coast.) </p>

<p>Finally, for those who think the "Top" schools are written in stone, this is actually not quite true. Until fairly recently, few people thought in terms of a top 14. There was a top 5, and a top 10, but Northwestern, Georgetown, Cornell, and Duke were often considered outliers, not truly in this elite group. And NYU was not considered a top 5 by any means, in any context, until fairly recently. So the perception of what is truly "elite" can certainly vary over time.</p>

8

<p>I agree that the list of "elite" law schools can change over time and has. The changes, however, have been glacial. UMichigan has fallen a bit--it used to be in everyone's top 5, back when I had a pet dinosaur and was applying to law school. NYU has come up--but it was in the top 12 or so 30+ years ago. </p>

<p>Faculty hiring does impact reputation, but not as much or as quickly as Leiter would have you believe. This is, to me, proven by the fact that in order to get these results, he had to give the academics he says he polled a LIST OF ACTUAL FACULTY. When he just asked them to rank the strength of various law schools' faculties, the ranking was a bit different. Seriously, if LAW SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBERS at other schools don't know that UCLA has a stronger faculty than some of its competitors unless Leiter gives them a list of names of actual faculty members, do you think hiring partners do? That judges who hire clerks do? </p>

<p>NYU moved up not only by hiring faculty, but by giving lots of merit money to "buy" a better student body and by building a nice new law school.</p>

9

<br>


<br>

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>From UCLA</p>

<p>Turteltaub said this "competitiveness gap" was the principal motivation behind creating the Initiative to Ensure Academic Excellence, a UCLA fund-raising effort started this spring to raise $250 million over the next five years, and "to provide a laser sharp focus on the needs of students and faculty."</p>

<p>Private Money pouring into UCLA.</p>

<p>Though a decade-long fund-raising campaign that ends next year has more than doubled the flow of private money pouring into UCLA, officials say a trend of shrinking government funding of public universities means UCLA will depend even more on private donations in years to come. </p>

<p>Campaign UCLA, launched publicly in May 1997, reached its target earlier this year of raising $2.4 billion for campus entities including professional schools, athletics and the library. University charts show the average annual private donations to UCLA stand at $250 million, up from $100 million prior to the current fund-raising effort. </p>

<p>The campaign will last through Dec. 31, 2005, and Rhea Turteltaub, assistant vice chancellor for development, said the money goes toward everything from research to faculty chair endowments. While the fund-raising push has achieved success beyond initial ambitions, the university now needs to narrow its focus, she added.</p>

10

<p>"I agree that the list of "elite" law schools can change over time and has. The changes, however, have been glacial. UMichigan has fallen a bit--it used to be in everyone's top 5, back when I had a pet dinosaur and was applying to law school. NYU has come up--but it was in the top 12 or so 30+ years ago."</p>

<p>Changes are gradual, as you note. However, UCLA has always, I believe, been ranked in the top 16, and the reputation ratings of schools like Gtown, Cornell, and NU are all generally closer to UCLA than they are to schools like Columbia or Michigan. (Michigan is still actually tied for 5th in the lawyer/judge reputation ranking.) In terms of both reputation ratings and overall ranking, most schools above the 10th spot in USNews have more in common with UCLA than with most schools ranked in the top 10. And the student numbers at UCLA continue to rise. Therefore, it's not inconceivable that UCLA could eventually be considered equivalent to some "Top 14" schools. </p>

<p>It's true that NYU has long been a strong program, but again, years ago, there was a big difference between being on the edge of the top ten, and being a truly elite program, which NYU is today. Also, schools like Gtown and NU weren't considered comparable to "Top 10" schools until fairly recently. If these schools could move up in reputation, then UCLA could possibly as well.</p>

<p>(Check this link for a discussion of UCLA's long-term elite academic reputation: </p>

<p><a href="http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00000108/01/48_J._Legal_Educ._568_(1998).pdf"&gt;http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00000108/01/48_J._Legal_Educ._568_(1998).pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Faculty hiring does impact reputation, but not as much or as quickly as Leiter would have you believe. This is, to me, proven by the fact that in order to get these results, he had to give the academics he says he polled a LIST OF ACTUAL FACULTY. When he just asked them to rank the strength of various law schools' faculties, the ranking was a bit different. Seriously, if LAW SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBERS at other schools don't know that UCLA has a stronger faculty than some of its competitors unless Leiter gives them a list of names of actual faculty members, do you think hiring partners do? That judges who hire clerks do? </p>

<p>NYU moved up not only by hiring faculty, but by giving lots of merit money to "buy" a better student body and by building a nice new law school."</p>

<p>I certainly agree that faculty hiring is but one factor in overall reputation, and hardly the most important one. (Leiter overstates this factor because of his own myopic focus on faculty status.) However, factors like being in a desirable region, and in a desirable market, are also important, and UCLA has all of these. It also, again, has a nice structure, in a nice part of town. </p>

<p>The one issue that is unclear is whether UCLA has the necessary funds to buy top students, as you note. There are other public schools with huge endowments, so it's not impossible for UCLA to develop one. However, its public school "mission" may keep its numbers down somewhat.</p>

11

<p>Back in the pre-Cambrian era when I attended law school very few students went to a school outside their geographic area, with the major exception being folks who went to DC to work and go to law school there or those who went to Harvard or Yale law schools. Few students thought about whether the elite law schools were 10 or 14 or 16 in number. At that time NYU law school was already recognized as second only to Columbia in the NY metropolitan area. However, many students who planned to practice locally went to a less prestigious/less expensive law school and did nicely after graduation.</p>

12

<p>The Most National Law School Based on Job Placement in Elite Law Firms
(West Coast : CA+WA+Ore)</p>

<p>1 Harvard 320</p>

<p>2 Boalt 216 </p>

<p>3 UCLA 213 </p>

<p>4 Stanford 188 </p>

<p>5 GTown 187 </p>

<p>6 Columbia 150 </p>

<p>7 Michi 149 </p>

<p>8 NYU 148 </p>

<p>9 Yale 124</p>

<p>10 Chicago 115</p>

13

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>UCLA vs Michigan</p>

<br>


<br>

14

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>UCLA vs Michigan</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I'm not sure who you're quoting, but I'd say this is an example of flawed reasoning. Law school is much more heirarchical than other graduate programs, and I'd say both Columbia and Michigan would clearly have an advantage over UCLA, even in California. (This may not be true, on the other hand, with regard to other schools not traditionally ranked in the top 6 or 7.) </p>

<p>What's important to realize is that you can't judge actual placement opportunities by simple numerical breakdowns, like the one you note for West Coast placement. The fact is, almost all UCLA grads stay in California, so they will by necessity be more highly represented in California firms. Graduates from the traditional top programs, on the other hand, will go all over the country, which means a smaller number will end up in California firms.</p>

<p>However, the truth is that most UCLA grads will not be in the top California firms, and a higher proportion of top school grads working in that region will be.</p>

<p>Ultimately, what really matters is your chances of getting a good job, in a given location -- if you want it. The list you note doesn't really capture that. UCLA is an excellent and improving school, but anyone who thinks UCLA grads will have more opportunities than Yale grads in California, simply because more UCLA grads end up there, is probably confused.</p>

15

<p>California Bar Pass Statistics
the July 2004 California Bar Exam </p>

<p>Stanford (91%)
UCLA (87%)
UC - Berkeley (87%)
UC - Hastings (81%)
USC (80%)
UC - Davis (76%)
Pepperdine (74%)
University of San Diego (70%)
McGeorge (69%)
Chapman (67%)
Loyola Los Angeles (67%)
Santa Clara (67%)
University of San Francisco (65%)
Southwestern (57%)</p>

<p>Schools in the Top 50 (according to USNews), not surprisingly, had excellent pass rates. The winner was Emory, with a 90% pass rate. Harvard took second (89%), but ten times as many Harvard graduates took the bar as did Emory grads (91 Harvard to 10 Emory). Here are how some of the out-of-state schools fared:</p>

<p>Emory (90%)
Harvard (89%)
Columbia (88%)
Pennsylvania (88%)
Virginia (88%)
Yale (88%)
Texas (85%)
Duke (84%)
NYU (83%)
Chicago (82%)
Cornell (82%)
Georgetown (82%)
Michigan (82%)
Boston University (80%)
Brigham Young (77%)</p>

16

<p>1) U.S. News does not provide evaluators with any information about the schools to be evaluated: evaluators receive a list of about 180 school names, and that’s all. This survey provided evaluators with current faculty rosters for all the schools being evaluated. As evaluators completed the evaluation, they did so with the faculty roster right in front of them. This might explain why schools like NYU and Michigan essentially trade places in the EQR survey as compared to U.S. News: NYU has strengthened its faculty significantly over the last decade, while Michigan’s overall faculty strength (while still quite considerable) has eroded from its previous lofty heights. But because for many decades Michigan was one of the top five law schools, while NYU was not, evaluators presented only with school names rank Michigan more highly than NYU; evaluators presented with current faculty lists reverse that evaluation.</p>

<p>(2) U.S. News sends out their surveys to four faculty at every school in the country: the Dean, the Associate Dean, the chair of the hiring committee, and the most recently tenured faculty member. (Based on our experience at Texas, it appears that instead of sending the survey to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, usually a faculty member, U.S. News often sends the survey to a non-faculty Associate Dean like the Dean of Admissions!) We have no idea who among these recipients actually completes these surveys, and what their competence is to do so. By contrast, this survey was completed exclusively by leading scholars, junior and senior, in a diverse range of academic specialties. The list of evaluators appears below, and its distinction and credibility speaks for itself.</p>

<p>(3) U.S. News asks not only about the “reputation” of the faculty, but for the reputation of the school, mentioning faculty, programs, students, and alumni as possibly pertinent considerations. This survey is exclusively about faculty quality. It is striking that most of the law faculties underrated by U.S. News are part of institutions that fare relatively poorly in the well-known U.S. News rankings of colleges, rankings which do much, one suspects, to shape the “reputation” associated with a school’s name. (The U.S. News rankings of colleges, needless to say, bear little relation to faculty quality either, as a comparison with the National Research Council reports quickly demonstrates.) Yet when evaluators confront actual faculty lists--as opposed to merely school names--they assess these schools rather differently.</p>

17

<p>Okay, now you're just trolling. :^)</p>

18

<p>The last post is just lifted from Leiter....</p>

19

<p>Just thought you would all like this... Princeton Review's Professors Rock, Legally Speaking. You have to register to get more than the top 3 (but it's free and easy). </p>

<p><a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/law/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?topicID=3%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princetonreview.com/law/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?topicID=3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you notice their top 10 list, it's a good mix of strong schools and more regional schools. I believe that this list came out sometime around October... but it is another way to think of how faculty may change the perception of a law school.</p>

20

<p><a href="http://www.consusgroup.com/news/rankings/law_schools/law_schools.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.consusgroup.com/news/rankings/law_schools/law_schools.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Rank
Institution
Score</p>

<p>1
Yale Law School
1.000</p>

<p>2
Harvard Law School
0.824</p>

<p>3
Stanford Law School
0.713</p>

<p>4
Columbia Law School
0.660</p>

<p>5
New York University School of Law
0.649</p>

<p>6
The University of Chicago Law School
0.637</p>

<p>7
Boalt Hall (University of California, Berkeley)
0.606</p>

<p>8*
University of Virginia School of Law
0.597</p>

<p>8*
University of Michigan Law School
0.597</p>

<p>10
University of Pennsylvania Law School
0.569</p>

<p>11*
Georgetown University Law Center
0.557</p>

<p>11*
Northwestern University School of Law
0.557</p>

<p>11*
UCLA School of Law
0.557</p>

<p>14
Cornell Law School
0.550</p>

<p>15
Duke University School of Law
0.541</p>

<p>16
University of Texas School of Law
0.533</p>

<p>17
University of Southern California Law School
0.510</p>

<p>18
Fordham University School of Law
0.509</p>

<p>19
Boston College Law School
0.504</p>

<p>20
The George Washington University Law School
0.502</p>

<p>21
Boston University School of Law
0.498</p>

<p>22
Vanderbilt University Law School
0.491</p>

<p>The Consus Group uses the following methodology to compile its law school rankings:</p>

<p>Published Rankings: Published Rankings reflect current and historical ratings by numerous sources. An institution's aggregate published ranking comprises 50% of its overall score. </p>

<p>Selectivity: Selectivity measures the quality of law schools' admitted candidates. Selectivity is based on the percent of applicants admitted (40% of composite selectivity score), LSAT scores (35% of composite), and GPAs (25% of composite). An institution's composite selectivity comprises 25% of its overall score. </p>

<p>Salary: Salary measures historical and current starting salaries of a given school's graduates. Salary comprises 10% of an institution's overall score. </p>

<p>Placement: Placement measures historical and current success a given school has placing its graduates. Placement comprises 10% of an institution's overall score. </p>

<p>Yield: Yield reflects the percentage of admitted candidates that matriculate to the admitting university. An institution's yield comprises 5% of its overall score</p>