Jeffrey Harrison has written a scathing exposé at MoneyLaw on what really drives law professors, and the institutions for which they labor, in the age of U.S. News and World Reports rankings.  If you thought it was bad before, read Jeffrey’s post and learn that it’s likely worse than you thought, where the show has become so driven by the applause that they’ve perhaps forgotten why they put on a show at all.

For those of us not fortunate receive a lawprofs’ paycheck at the end of the week, this post may come as a bit of a surprise.  After all, jaded and cynical as lawyers tend to become, most of us harbor a hope that things aren’t as ugly as we think.  But Jeffrey didn’t write this post for our benefit as an expose, but as a challenge to the Academy to remember why they bothered to open law schools and become lawprofs in the first place.  In do so, he held no punches.

Teaching evaluations have result in altering teaching styles not in the direction of ensuring that today’s student is even better prepared than their predecessors but so the teacher can score a higher number. Some faculty obsess over a tenth of a point here and there. I’ve had colleagues freely admit that they decided to be funnier to raise evaluations.

Foreign programs have gone from opportunities for students to products that are sold to them oft times in hopes that the professor will get to go and not because there is some gaping hole in educational opportunities for students.

The writing requirement which I suppose at one time was instituted in hopes that people with freedom to study law would “discover” things much like a scientist has largely been diluted to a hurdle, almost a form of hazing, in order receive tenure. 7000 plus articles a year, few of which are read and even fewer of which are written because of inspiration. Instead there is a great deal of casting about — what can I write about now? Does this edited book of reading count? If is refereed if someone asked me to do it for a symposium?

Grades are inflated in part because, as it has been expressed at my school, 1) We have to give high grades so our students can compete. 2) It hurts the students’ feelings to get a C (and increasingly a . Student ask why not raise grades even more so we can be even more competitive.

All of this is driven by the demand to increase a school’s USNWR ranking, the primary driver of all things law school these days.  Would anyone have imagined that so many smart people, so many respected schools, would drop their trousers on demand to please the USNWR gods?  As Jeffrey analogizes this to the tail that wags the dog:

If you peel away all of the tails, would we find a dog? I assume this means 1) teachers who do their best to produce students to whom they would entrust the fates of future clients — even their parents- regardless of the impact on evaluations, 2) writing only when you feel a pressing need to express something that may actually make a difference, 3) honestly evaluating every program to determine what it produces for the students and other stakeholders, 4) admitting students (at least to a state school) so the subsidization is fairly given to those with promise regardless of the USN&WR-affecting LSAT.

My sense is that we would find a dog. My fear is that it may be a chihuahua.

The deepest shame of this academic disaster is that the deans, the lawprofs, all know this to be true, but lack the guts to take a stand and say “enough”.  While each may individually profess to hate it, none will be the first to stand up and reject rankings as their law school’s driving force.   And apparently, academic collegiality ends at the door to the admissions office, where the first checks start rolling in. 

And if law schools, deans and professors, lack the balls to say “no”, then why not the Biglaw hiring partners who are the intended victims of grade inflation and rankings scams.  Real lawyers in the trenches know that no jury ever reached a verdict based on the school a lawyer attended or the number of law review articles written by his torts prof.  Oh, I forgot.  Your prestigious Biglaw associates don’t try cases, do they.  They write memos that no one needs.  Or at least they did when you could afford to keep them.

Maybe chihuahua overstates the case, for law schools and Biglaw.  Huge props to Jeffrey for showing the guts to speak out.