U.S. News recently ranked the University of Oregon School of Law as 2016’s 82^nd-best law school. Of course, it’s strange to think that a publishing company owned by a Canadian billionaire gets to decide who will train America’s future lawyers rather than, say, a committee of impartial judges. However, UO’s reaction to that ranking, regardless of its merit, will determine the future of its law school. But, above all, that reaction should embrace what makes the UO unique – not what’s expected of it.
U.S. News ranks schools using three primary criteria: quality, selectivity and job opportunities available to graduates. The problem, though, is that these rankings can fluctuate dramatically. While the top 20 schools rest comfortably, the rest duke it out every year in an unpredictable melee. Take the Lewis and Clark Law School, for instance: in 2009, it sat comfortably at 61^st, better than any other law school in Oregon at the time. But, after a short-lived jump to 58^th in 2012, the school dropped to 94^th.
In fact, a school’s top-tier ranking can become dependent on its ability to find jobs for its graduates – it makes up 20 percent of the score. And as the economy expands and shrinks, so too do the amount of available jobs for freshly minted lawyers. The school should create opportunities for students, of course. But buying into a system that rewards rote conformity isn’t the path for a groundbreaking university.
Trying to keep up with those rankings is an impractical and inefficient way to build a nationally recognized program. Instead of playing catch-up, the UO School of Law should recognize the ranking system’s inherent flaw and instead focus on the fundamentals. Old-fashioned prestige, won through hard academic work and the reputations of successful graduates, is the best way forward.
Take a look at the School of Law’s recent rebranding campaign, as part of the UO’s general makeover. Despite the sleek design of its new website and promotional media, this process has revealed a fundamentally problematic approach to its lagging national rank. The new Portland Program, an obvious attempt to boost the school’s post-graduation employment statistics by moving students closer to where jobs are, is mistakenly prioritized over serious programs like the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference, an acclaimed gathering of the best environmental lawyers in the country.
Taking a reactionary stance towards development is an unfortunate detour for the School of Law. Sure, rankings are still important. They’re the first tools prospective students use to narrow their list of choices. But a competition that can’t be won by the UO shouldn’t be confused for a guiding organizational principle. Quality programs, led and taught by quality people, are what build institutions – not a perpetual horse race.
If the UO wants a quick boost to its image, its specialty programs are an easy solution. Its legal writing, environment and conflict resolution programs are consistently named among the nation’s best. So attract high-caliber talent to them, give them whatever resources they need and the best professors in the business, and let them do extraordinary things. They are the people that will put the School of Law on the map – not the ones who add up the numbers.