The Interplay between Law School Rankings, Reputations, and Resource Allocation: Ways Rankings Mislead
The Interplay between Law School Rankings, Reputations, and Resource Allocation: Ways Rankings Mislead
复制标题
法学院排名、声誉和资源分配之间的相互作用：排名误导的方式
DOI：
10.2139/ssrn.700862
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Stake
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Stake
《美国新闻与世界报道》（US News and World Report）发布的法学院排名已经并将继续改变法学院世界，影响着法律教育的供需双方。排名是否有效？他们是为了更好地改变学校吗？《美国新闻与世界报道》的排名误导了申请人和法学院。作为衡量教育质量的标准，《美国新闻与世界报道》的排名存在严重缺陷。他们加重了无关紧要的标准，比如酒吧合格率。他们排除了非常重要的标准，比如工作满意度。在《美国新闻与世界报道》的排名中，至少有两个看似有效的标准是虚假的；《美国新闻与世界报道》所做的声誉调查没有听取独立的专业意见，而是衡量的是与《美国新闻与世界报道》相呼应的意见，因此，与其他标准相比，结果的可靠性几乎没有增加。一个更严重的问题是《美国新闻与世界报道》的排名对法学院运作和学生入学意愿的影响。这个排名为那些想成为律师的学生创造了动机，让他们去那些分数膨胀的学校，在这些学校学习简单的课程。《美国新闻与世界报道》的排名激励了学校为律师资格考试而教学，花钱出版光鲜的出版物，提高学费，增加转校生数量，并根据学生的泡沫能力（参加多项选择标准化考试的能力）而不是他们对法学院学习环境做出贡献的前景或他们成为有效和负责任的律师的前景来录取学生。
The law school rankings published by US News and World Report have changed and continue to change the law school world, affecting both the demand and supply sides of legal education. Are the rankings valid? Are they changing schools for the better? The US News rankings mislead both applicants and law schools. As measures of educational quality, the US News rankings are seriously flawed. They overweight criteria that matter little, such as bar pass rate. They exclude criteria that matter greatly, such as job satisfaction. At least two of the seemingly valid criteria incorporated into the US News rankings are illusory; the reputation surveys done by US News do not tap into independent professional opinion but instead measure opinions that are echos of US News and, thus, add little reliability to the results that would be reached on other criteria. A more serious problem is the effect of US News rankings on the operation of law schools and students who desire admission. The rankings have created incentives for students who want to be lawyers to go to schools that have grade inflation and take easy courses at those schools. The US News rankings have created incentives for schools to teach to the bar exam, spend money on glossy publications, raise tuition, increase the number of transfer students, and admit students according to their bubble ability (their aptitude for taking multiple-choice standardized exams) rather than their prospects for contributing to the learning environment at the law school or their prospects for becoming effective and responsible lawyers.