1. Thoughts on the 2005 USNWR Rankings (and Beyond) Nancy B. Rapoport Dean and Professor of Law University of Houston Law Center © Nancy B. Rapoport 2004. All rights reserved.

2. USNWR methodology.

3. USNWR methodology, more specifically.

4. A word or two about the peer reputational score. There are approx. 184 law schools. 4 responders per law school. 67% response rate. That’s approx. 493 people ranking the schools (or 482 people, if there were only 180 schools being ranked). And this factor accounts for 25% of the overall score for the rankings.

5. A bird’s eye view of where we are, according to USNWR’s 2005 rankings (schools 1-82). We’re the school in the red column. See how close the grouping is, past the first 15 or so schools?

6. Now take a look at schools 20-63 (Minnesota to UHLC). Remember, UHLC is the column in red.

7. Or schools ranked from 25- 72. There just isn’t that much difference, once you get past the “elite” schools at the very top.

8. So if the reputational rankings make up the bulk of the score…. AND fewer than 500 academics rate the law schools (rank by peers); AND probably fewer than 400 judges and lawyers rate the law schools; AND most of the other categories stay fairly stable (except for placement at graduation and 9 months out)— Then what part of the rankings IS reasonably reliable?

9. UHLC longitudinal ranking in USNWR, 1993-2004 (lower is better).

10. UHLC’s ranking & overall score over time (lower is better).

11. Rankings by “quality assessment score.”

12. Selectivity by median LSAT score (50% of selectivity score, or 12.5% of overall score).

13. Selectivity by median UGPA (40% of selectivity score, or 10% of overall score).

14. UHLC placement success over time (based on average of two prior years’ graduating classes).

15. Selectivity by % of applicants accepted (3% of selectivity score) (lower is better).

16. What do all of these charts mean? Reputation is very “sticky”: we’re doing all the right things, and yet our reputation lags behind our successes. The drop in placement at graduation in last year’s rankings hurt us the worst. As placement improves, we’ll improve. Small changes create large variances.

17. Relationship of rankings to funding. Four years ago, I did a study of the top 50 schools and the size of their endowments and found a.88 correlation between rankings & endowment. The relative rankings have stayed roughly the same (“elite” grouping; “good” grouping; “others”) even though the market has hurt all endowments.

18. Total UHLC annual unrestricted giving from FY 01-FY03. Note: the estimated net profit for this year’s Gala (FY 04) is $712,000.

19. Total UHLC unrestricted giving, FY 01-03 (another view).

20. UHLC Law Fund, total no. of gifts from FY 93-FY 04 (to date).

21. Law Fund total, FY 93-04.

22. Components of A.A. White giving, by giving level, FY 01-03.

23. Restricted giving, FY 01-04. The yellow column represents an estimate of our FY 04 fundraising—I took our YTD number, divided it by 8 (how far into the FY we are), and multiplied that monthly figure by 11 months.

24. Total restricted giving – large law firms and some individual lawyers, FY 01-04. The yellow column represents an estimate of our FY 04 fundraising— I took our YTD number, divided it by 8 (how far into the FY we are), and multiplied that monthly figure by 11 months.

25. Total restricted giving – corporate donors, FY 01-04.

26. Where’s the bang for the buck in terms of rankings? Investing in career services. Investing in fundraising. Monitoring enrollment data. (Why do people come here? Why do people go elsewhere?) Investing in more faculty visibility within academia. Investing in more interactions with lawyers & judges.