RANK HYPOCRISY
On April 1, U.S. News' annual "Graduate School Rankings" issue will hit newsstands across North America. The contents of this issue that U.S. News deem suitable for web publication will be posted at http://www.usnews.com at 12:00 A.M., 4/1/2006 ("Have we not heard the chimes at mid-night?")
Because the law profession, and in particular, the industry through which one must navigate to gain entry to this profession (law school) is pickled more in artificiality than in substance, the rankings for law schools (which rank schools based on criteria such as reputation among other schools; reputation among judges and attorneys; student to faculty ratio; median LSAT range; median GPA; acceptance rate; library volumes; % employed at graduation; % employed nine months after graduation) are, so to speak, the proverbial NutraSweet on the pickle.
Since we live in a fantasy world, however, these rankings are monitored with keen interest, by both the law schools themselves, by prospective employers, and by prospective, current and former students.
The usage by prospective students of these rankings as a proxy for how "good" a school is is eminently understandable. While almost every law school, a few years back, signed on to a letter exhorting applicants to, in effect, "ignore" the U.S. News Rankings (because, the schools said, the rankings attempted to quantify that which could not be quanitified), the schools have not given students a compelling reason to heed this exhortation. Why?
As an initial matter, the literature provided from law schools' admission offices describes the law schools and "what they have to offer" in perfunctory and desultory terms. In other words, the schools do not provide students with a sense of what "unquantifiable qualities" they possess that U.S. News "leaves out."
Secondly, students have tuned out the message of the schools' letter because the letter is the vertiginous height of hypocrisy. One of the few pieces of useful information that the schools do provide is data concerning admission rates by LSAT score and GPA. Every law school in America ascribes significantly higher weight to the LSAT than it does to GPA, and every school ascribes almost exclusive weight to the LSAT and GPA, as opposed to, say, um, anything else. Even when we look at how the schools' "affirmative action" programs work, while it is true that "set-asides" are admitted with lower LSAT scores than are "non-set-asides," the LSAT score is still the dispositive factor for the set-aside. In other words, assuming that a "set-aside" can gain admission with, say, an LSAT score that is 6 points lower than a non-set-aside, if the set-aside receives a score that is 7 points lower - a mere one point difference - he will likely not be admited - just as a non-set-aside will likely not be admitted if he receives an LSAT score that is 1 point below the median. What a wonderful system - a discriminatory system that is linked by a discriminatory and irrelevant test.
But back to my point about hypocrisy. The schools regale us to regard them as more than mere "numbers." Why should we, though, when their own data makes it irrefutably clear that they refuse to regard US as anything more than mere numbers? The schools, in their propaganda, tell us that they are not guided solely by numerical considerations. Students have seen through these lies, and have every right to pay no heed to the words of hypocrites and liars.
Of course, if the U.S. News rankings had no significant implications - either for schools or students - the students' slapping the schools' pap would amount to little more than a slap on the wrist. Students would pick schools in accordance with the rankings, but, since the rankings were not deemed of value by society, the schools would be able to conduct their disingenuous business without significant disturbance.
As everyone knows, though, the rankings (not because they SHOULD) have TREMENDOUS importance. Why? Reason #1 - Yep, you got it: Because the SCHOOLS assign the rankings this importance. If you don't believe me, Google the words "Brian Leiter" and "University of Texas." Leiter has written extensively about the sheer servility these schools have to the rankings, and the laughable extent the schools go to flat-out lie about their numbers so as to increase their rankings. Of course, if the schools meant what they said about the rankings being of no importance, such manipuation would be unnecessary.
I know, I know. The schools, were they ever to acknowledge such mendacity, would justify it by saying, "We have to do this. The students are making us. They are the ones who are going number shopping. Since the number shopping creates and maintains a system wherein much money is at stake - a one-place drop in the rankings could cause a school to lose thousands of dollars of application money - we have no choice but to be slaves to the rankings."
But since we all know that the law schools aren't in the business of education for the application money, for the prestige, or for the extra money that flows into their coffers on account of the cachet that a high U.S. News ranking gives them, surely THAT explanation can't be the reason why the schools are slaves to the rankings, now can it. Can it?
Bottom line: students, employers, U.S. News, and the schools are all in it for the money. But only the schools will not admit this. After all, teaching is "God's work," and those who speak in the name of God NEVER serve him and mammon at the same time.
Because the law profession, and in particular, the industry through which one must navigate to gain entry to this profession (law school) is pickled more in artificiality than in substance, the rankings for law schools (which rank schools based on criteria such as reputation among other schools; reputation among judges and attorneys; student to faculty ratio; median LSAT range; median GPA; acceptance rate; library volumes; % employed at graduation; % employed nine months after graduation) are, so to speak, the proverbial NutraSweet on the pickle.
Since we live in a fantasy world, however, these rankings are monitored with keen interest, by both the law schools themselves, by prospective employers, and by prospective, current and former students.
The usage by prospective students of these rankings as a proxy for how "good" a school is is eminently understandable. While almost every law school, a few years back, signed on to a letter exhorting applicants to, in effect, "ignore" the U.S. News Rankings (because, the schools said, the rankings attempted to quantify that which could not be quanitified), the schools have not given students a compelling reason to heed this exhortation. Why?
As an initial matter, the literature provided from law schools' admission offices describes the law schools and "what they have to offer" in perfunctory and desultory terms. In other words, the schools do not provide students with a sense of what "unquantifiable qualities" they possess that U.S. News "leaves out."
Secondly, students have tuned out the message of the schools' letter because the letter is the vertiginous height of hypocrisy. One of the few pieces of useful information that the schools do provide is data concerning admission rates by LSAT score and GPA. Every law school in America ascribes significantly higher weight to the LSAT than it does to GPA, and every school ascribes almost exclusive weight to the LSAT and GPA, as opposed to, say, um, anything else. Even when we look at how the schools' "affirmative action" programs work, while it is true that "set-asides" are admitted with lower LSAT scores than are "non-set-asides," the LSAT score is still the dispositive factor for the set-aside. In other words, assuming that a "set-aside" can gain admission with, say, an LSAT score that is 6 points lower than a non-set-aside, if the set-aside receives a score that is 7 points lower - a mere one point difference - he will likely not be admited - just as a non-set-aside will likely not be admitted if he receives an LSAT score that is 1 point below the median. What a wonderful system - a discriminatory system that is linked by a discriminatory and irrelevant test.
But back to my point about hypocrisy. The schools regale us to regard them as more than mere "numbers." Why should we, though, when their own data makes it irrefutably clear that they refuse to regard US as anything more than mere numbers? The schools, in their propaganda, tell us that they are not guided solely by numerical considerations. Students have seen through these lies, and have every right to pay no heed to the words of hypocrites and liars.
Of course, if the U.S. News rankings had no significant implications - either for schools or students - the students' slapping the schools' pap would amount to little more than a slap on the wrist. Students would pick schools in accordance with the rankings, but, since the rankings were not deemed of value by society, the schools would be able to conduct their disingenuous business without significant disturbance.
As everyone knows, though, the rankings (not because they SHOULD) have TREMENDOUS importance. Why? Reason #1 - Yep, you got it: Because the SCHOOLS assign the rankings this importance. If you don't believe me, Google the words "Brian Leiter" and "University of Texas." Leiter has written extensively about the sheer servility these schools have to the rankings, and the laughable extent the schools go to flat-out lie about their numbers so as to increase their rankings. Of course, if the schools meant what they said about the rankings being of no importance, such manipuation would be unnecessary.
I know, I know. The schools, were they ever to acknowledge such mendacity, would justify it by saying, "We have to do this. The students are making us. They are the ones who are going number shopping. Since the number shopping creates and maintains a system wherein much money is at stake - a one-place drop in the rankings could cause a school to lose thousands of dollars of application money - we have no choice but to be slaves to the rankings."
But since we all know that the law schools aren't in the business of education for the application money, for the prestige, or for the extra money that flows into their coffers on account of the cachet that a high U.S. News ranking gives them, surely THAT explanation can't be the reason why the schools are slaves to the rankings, now can it. Can it?
Bottom line: students, employers, U.S. News, and the schools are all in it for the money. But only the schools will not admit this. After all, teaching is "God's work," and those who speak in the name of God NEVER serve him and mammon at the same time.
posted by EnterCenter at 10:38 AM
2 Comments:
This essay is publishable in quality. You should seek to submit it somewhere.
What really gets me is that we are nothing but a number, a cog in the machine. We are chewed up and spit out by society, until we become a quivering shell of what a human being is supposed to resemble.
God bless America!
Yes, it's the domesticated equivalent of a war, basically, launched against us (most of us, anyway) by "the hallowed institutions" we take an oath to defend so that they can in turn rape, pillage and plunder us so we can then gleefully cry, "Please, oh please, I want more!"
And to think that my law school debt, which will amount to $300K, will be going to a school that will use that money to lure other unwitting (and maybe witting - but this is not to say "not witless") into the snake pit of sodomy.
I remember some born-again blowhard (is there another kind) giving a speech at a CLE event telling us, "Don't listen to what anyone says. You still CAN make a difference." I turned to the zombie next to me and said, "Well, I guess he's right. Perhaps one day, I'll be able to, one month, pay more than the minimum amount due on my student loans. That amount will be more than the amount I paid the month before, no?"
Then I realized I was talking to a zombie, so I had to agree with myself. Uggh
Post a Comment
<< Home