2006 ELS Ranking

The 2006 ELS Ranking is complete.  A quick review of the variables that were discussed in greater detail over the last three days:

• relative number of research faculty with social science doctorates
• relative number of research faculty with a secondary social science appointment
• per capita articles citing “statistic! /1 significan!” in Westlaw JLR since 1996

The results:

Rank	School	Rank	School
1	Northwestern	26-tie	BYU
2	George Mason	26-tie	Indiana-Bloomington
3-tie	Cornell	26-tie	Virginia
3-tie	Vanderbilt	26-tie	Wake Forest
3-tie	Yale	30-tie	Connecticut
6-tie	Chicago	30-tie	William & Mary
6-tie	Illinois	32-tie	Boston University
8-tie	Pennsylvania	32-tie	UC-Hastings
8-tie	UC-Berkeley	34-tie	George Washington
10-tie	Stanford	34-tie	UC-Davis
10-tie	USC	36	Iowa
12-tie	Duke	37-tie	Notre Dame
12-tie	UCLA	37-tie	SMU
14-tie	Michigan	39	Washington & Lee
14-tie	Wisconsin	40	Georgetown
16	NYU	41-tie	Arizona
17	Columbia	41-tie	Tulane
18	Harvard	43-tie	Boston College
19	Texas	43-tie	Maryland
20-tie	Emory	45-tie	Alabama
20-tie	WashU (St. Louis)	45-tie	Fordham
22	Ohio State	47-tie	American
23-tie	Florida	47-tie	Georgia
23-tie	Minnesota	49-tie	Colorado
23-tie	North Carolina	49-tie	Washington (Seattle)

How does the 2006 ELS Ranking compare to 2005 ELS Ranking (which looked at 2003-2004 faculty)?  The methodology and data have changed. The empirical research output measure is based on a search of Westlaw rather than a selected set of journals and covers more years.  The 2006 ELS Ranking is based on faculty as of August 1, 2006 whereas the 2005 Ranking was based on the 2003-2004 faculty. And the 2006 ranking includes all US News tier-1 schools. 

The 2006 Ranking is highly correlated with the 2005 Ranking (.82), but there is substantial movement.  Noteworthy moves up the ranking: Vanderbilt up 15 spots, BYU up 11 spots, and Duke and Wake Forest each up 9 spots.  Substantial losses:  Iowa falls 23 spots, Fordham falls 20  spots, and Georgia falls 16 spots.  Nine additional schools are in the 2006 Ranking.  Of those, Ohio State at 22nd and Florida at 23rd make the strongest showing.

How can I account for the dramatic rise of my home institution?  Well, all three schools in this study that have employed me did very well:  Northwestern (2001-2004), George Mason (visitor in 2000) and Vanderbilt (2004 to present).  The only reasonable inference to draw is that my presence reflects and/or encourages ELS.  Or, perhaps, I’m just very clever at constructing a measure that recognizes those places with which I’ve been affiliated.  Either way, it’s all about me!

But, in truth, Vanderbilt’s rise owes more to the Viscusi Effect.  Kip Viscusi, who was recently hired away from Harvard Law, alone published as many or more articles citing statistical significance than 17 schools (some with as many as 65 professors).  If Kip and his wife Joni Hirsch had not moved to Vanderbilt, then Vanderbilt would have been ranked 10th rather than 3rd.

I welcome your feedback, either as posted comments or emails to me ([email protected]).  Thanks to Jason and the other ELS Blog organizers.  Guestblogging has been fun.

Comments

[Elizabeth Mertz]

A question raised by this method of ranking law schools is one that we discussed when a number of us (ironically, from the ABF as well as Wisconsin) were guest blogging earlier this year. It so clearly privileges statistics over all manner of other empirical research, and arguably without any attempt to assess real engagement with social science methods at a profound level. Because I share the sentiments expressed by both Bob Nelson and Michael Heise in posts during that week -- that good empirical work selects methods based on their appropriateness to the questions asked -- I would prefer a method of assessment that actually looks at the quality of the empirical research generated, defining "empirical" to include the full range of valid empirical research. (And, as we know, that gets you into all kinds of methodological problems. But otherwise, I remain highly skeptical that we are measuring anything worthwhile here.)

A second doubt that I have -- one hinted at by the first comment to this post -- is the merit of assessing a law school's commitment to social science based on the number of joint JD-PhD's on its faculty. Note that this measure leaves out scholars like Marc Galanter and Stewart Macaulay (just to mention a couple of Wisconsin faculty), law faculty who were pioneers in introducing empirical methods to law schools. In fact, a school that just recently hired a bunch of PhD's, without altering much of its core law school culture, would do better under this approach than a law school which had actually integrated empirical research to the point where it was a common part of the faculty's research program, regardless of educational background. (And I speak as a joint JD-PhD myself.)

As an anthropologist, I find myself reinforced in a core tenet of my discipline -- that counting things without performing the hard work of looking at them in depth, on the ground -- can obscure as much as it reveals.

I of course mean no disrespect here for Tracey; I respect her as a researcher and fellow social scientist in the legal academy.

[Anon]

The irony of these rankings is that one of the reasons Northwestern may feel the need to have a number of PhD's on site is because the Law School is so far removed from the main campus and the other academic departments. In law schools on main campuses, a political theory talk in a law school can attract people from the political science department, for instance, although it is reasonable to assume this could happen more if there are cross-appointments etc. Northwestern is aided by the presence of the American Bar Foundation to be sure. Nevertheless, it does beg the question of whether a non-main campus Law school that accumulates primarily PhDs is really just a poor imitation of an actual university rather than a good example of an empirically-minded law school.