Rankings, Being "Better," and How it Hurts the Legal Profession

How some people feel after 2012 Rankings

      The newest U.S. News and World Report law school rankings have been out for a few weeks, but I haven't had the time to really write about them until now.  There was major movement this year that ended up working in my law school's favor.  Other law schools, however, were not so lucky.

      Some critics are looking at the shift in rankings as a way for U.S. News/ The ABA to appease the "you-lied-about-employment" suits currently scaring the pants off of law schools.  I don't know if i agree with this completely, but I do think that these suits have spurred more critical analysis of these skewed statistics.  U.S. News says of their methodology:

The ABA will start requiring more detailed jobs placement data for the 2011 graduating class that will require law schools to reveal such key stats as how many graduates had jobs that are full time or part time, short term or long term, and that actually require the J.D. degree. U.S. News plans to incorporate this more granular data into our methodology for future rankings.

Translation:  We're trying to cut through the fluff to figure out what is ACTUALLY happening with employment.

     I can't help but try and analyze my own reaction to these rankings.  Why do I care so much?  As someone who doesn't even want to be an attorney, why does this ONE PUBLICATION's rankings mean so much to me-- and to everyone else in the legal profession?

     I think it's because lawyers are trained to be "better" than the other guy.  In court, we are trying to win by making the better argument.  We're constantly compared to our other classmates, trying to be "better" than them.  We compete against other students in negotiation competitions to end up on top. But is this what is best for the profession?

     Lets think about this.  Lets frame the situation so that we are going into a trial or negotiation. Sure, as lawyers we have the duty to be "zealous advocates" for our client-- but is "winning" what is really best for the situation? What if we are negotiating with a little old woman.  Steamrolling her and taking full advantage of her assets is NOT what is best for anyone, really-- society, the little old lady, your client's image, etc etc.  In trial, you are representing a criminal.  To continue your run as a "good" lawyer, you do everything in your power to get him off or get his sentence reduced.  You know he did it, but it's still your job-- and what is expected f you-- to do everything you can to keep him out of jail. Granted, these are SERIOUSLY SIMPLIFIED examples. But they illustrate my point:  when did winning-- being better than the other side-- become synonymous with being a successful, zealous lawyer?

     I don't really have an answer.  I don't even know how to address this problem.  But I know that constantly ranking ourselves on a single scale-- class rank, U.S. News, LSAT scores-- aren't helping the profession.  I strongly feel that the way we look at ourselves as lawyers-- winning or losing-- doesn't do us justice as humans. We can't expect the legal system to reflect its full potential when we only have two answers-- win or lose. We need to start factoring in OTHER things, like morality fairness, and (in the case of law school rankings) overall happiness and fulfillment of students when "ranking" ourselves.

     Does this blog make sense?  Possibly not.  I actually wrote it in class, when I was supposed to be paying attention. But what I am saying is that we can't hold all lawyers, all cases, all  law schools, to the same meter.  We're too different, dare I say it-- "special."

Thoughts are encouraged.