Newspapers are a dying communications medium yet the Wall Street Journal, which first saw print in 1889, is still going strong.
The Wall Street Journal in partnership with the Times Educational Supplement has just released a ranking of colleges. It provides a useful corrective to the more famous rankings by U.S. News and World Report, because it focuses more on the student outputs rather than inputs. That is, while U.S. News heavily weights the credentials of incoming students, such as the SAT scores and high school grades, the Wall Street Journal weights the outputs, like student satisfaction and salaries earned at graduation. This ranking system also appears to take a more quantitative approach to the quality of the faculty, relying less on reputation and more on actual research output.
It would be hugely beneficial for legal education, if this consortium were to undertake similar rankings of law schools. It would undermine the unhealthy power of US News’ ranking of law schools, which, as with colleges, focuses more on student inputs than outputs. For instance, US News’ only reliable student output measures are bar passage rates and employment statistics. These are blunt measures: a job paying $40,000 counts as much as one paying five times much. In any event, they count for only a relatively small part of the total ranking.
It is true that US News also assesses the reputation of the school among judges and practitioners, but that reputation at least partially reflects their views of law schools at the time they were students with the result that there is only glacial change over time. And the reputation of faculty as determined by law professors is similarly backward looking and difficult to change.
As a result, law school deans are more obsessed with student inputs than outputs as the key to improving their US News ranking, even though it is outputs that count for students and it is outputs that educational institutions are in the business of improving.
In the Weekly Standard, Chris DeMuth explains why the dreaded “fiscal cliff” is actually more like a curbstone and the hoopla surrounding it, a “charade.” Near-term, Chris argues, we have to figure out a contingency plan for California’s impending insolvency. We also have to figure out how to align the transfer state that the middle class seems to demand with a transfer state it’s willing to pay for. As it is, we’re simply transferring income from future generations. That cannot last, and it’s grossly undemocratic and unfair.