First Page
311
Abstract
The world that law schools inhabit is obsessed with rankings. The most conspicuous example of this is the annual survey of law schools by U.S. News and World Report. Although university administrators ritually decry such rankings, their condemnations ring hollow. After all, law schools regularly rank applicants and students, as well as faculty performance. And it is common for the deans of schools that "move up" in the rankings to trumpet their success, if not to the world, then to their own faculties, alumni, students, and prospective students. Thus, the schools themselves can hardly claim an exemption from this hierarchical mentality. In a similar vein, scholars have long sought to identify "great" Supreme Court decisions. The criteria for selection in such lists are contestable. Should cases be chosen for their immediate impact? What about decisions later overturned by the Supreme Court itself or by constitutional amendment? Should cases be designated "great" because of their enduring influence? Should cases be selected for their outcome or for skillful legal reasoning? How, for example, to rank Lochner v. New York (1905), discussed infra in the Article on Rufus Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law and Professor of History. Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science.
Recommended Citation
James W. Ely, Jr. Professor of Law and Mark E. Brandon Professor of Law & Political Science,
The Rankings Game,
62 Vanderbilt Law Review
311
(2009)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol62/iss2/13
