1 Law Schools and Professional Education: Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee for a Study of Legal Education of the American Bar Association (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1980).Google Scholar

2 Id. at 33 (citing Boyer, Barry B. & Cramton, Roger C., American Legal Education: An Agenda for Research and Reform, 59 Cornell L. Rev. 221 (1974)).Google Scholar

3 Id.Google Scholar

4 Alfred Z. Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law (New York: Carnegie Foundation, 1921); id., Present-Day Schools in the United States and Canada (New York: Carnegie Foundation, 1928).Google Scholar

5 First, Harry, Competition in the Legal Education Industry (I), 53 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 311 (1978); Competition in the Legal Education Industry (II): An Antitrust Analysis, 54 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1049 (1979).Google Scholar

6 See generally William R. Johnson, Schooled Lawyers: A Study in the Clash of Professional Cultures (New York: New York University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

7 Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 James Willard Hurst, The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1950) (esp. chs. 12 & 13).Google Scholar

9 Reed, supra note 4.Google Scholar

10 American Council on Education, Report of the Committee on Graduate Instruction, 15 Educ. Rec. 192 (1934).Google Scholar

11 Embree, Edwin R., In Order of Their Eminence: An Appraisal of American Universities, 155 Atl. Monthly 652 (1935).Google Scholar

12 Eels, Walter Crosby, Leading American Graduate Schools, 43 Ass'n Am. Colleges Bull. 563 (1957).Google Scholar

13 Id. at 568–71.Google Scholar

14 The study, under the by-line of Chesly Manley, appeared in the Chicago Sunday Tribune in seven consecutive Sundays. Manley, Chesly, Greatest Schools in Nation, 116 Chi. Sunday Trib., Apr. 21-June 2, 1957, p. 1.Google Scholar

15 Allan M. Cartter, An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Id. at 10–11.Google Scholar

17 Jack Gourman, The Gourman Report: Ratings of American Colleges (Phoenix, Ariz.: Continuing Education Institute, 1967).Google Scholar

18 Jack Gourman, The Gourman Report: A Rating of American and International Universities (2d ed. Los Angeles: National Education Standards, 1977).Google Scholar

19 All three Gourman reports (1967, 1977, 1980) appear unusually ambitious. For example, Gourman rates the administrative quality of institutions such as Moscow State University (U.S.S.R.). Thus, the very scope and detail of the Gourman ratings, whatever system of selection and weighting of criteria was used, raises questions about the validity of the results. Further, granting his methods and criteria with their undisclosed weighting assumptions, the data on admission standards, funding and the like, seem incompatible with his detailed ranking conclusions. Without firsthand familiarity with Gourman's primary material, and without further disclosure of his principles in selecting and using such material, it is difficult for me to accept the conclusions of his work product as having serious weight.Google Scholar

20 The main results of the Ladd-Lipset survey were published in Chron. Higher Educ, Jan. 15, 1979 (copies of the technical report are available from Ladd at the Social Science Data Center, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut).Google Scholar

21 See generally Kenneth D. Roose & Charles J. Anderson, A Rating of Graduate Programs (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970).Google Scholar

22 See generally Strong, William S., The Top Ten Law Schools, 133 Town & Country 69 (Aug. 1979).Google Scholar

23 Id.Google Scholar

24 The Popular Vote: Rankings of the Top Schools (A Staff Report), 6 Juris Doctor 17, 18 (Dec. 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Id. at 18.Google Scholar

26 Attention is again directed, however, to the present author's doubts about the conclusions of the Gourman Reports. It should also be noted that Cartter did attempt to rank law schools by “Faculty Quality” and “Educational Attractiveness” in 1973. It was, however, nothing more than an opinion poll of law school deans. In fact, a substantial percentage of the deans boycotted the questionnaire. Nonetheless, the resultant “rankings” are shown in The Cartter Report on the Leading Schools of Education, Law, and Business, 9 Change 44 (Feb. 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 1980-1982 Prelaw Handbook: Official Guide to ABA-Approved Law Schools (Association of American Law Schools and Law School Admission Council, 1981).Google Scholar

28 University of Rochester Law School Locater, 1980–82 (published in photocopied form for use at the University of Rochester). This document is circulated among ABA-AALS-accredited law school admission offices.Google Scholar

29 Franklin R. Evans, Educational Testing Service Memorandum, Mar. 23, 1981 (distributed to all LSAT Score recipients and law schools).Google Scholar

30 Id.Google Scholar

31 Law Schools and Professional Education, supra note 1.Google Scholar

32 In addition to professional librarians, scholars have noted this problem. For example, the distinguished economist, Fritz Machlup, explored the matter in Our Libraries: Can We Measure Their Holdings and Acquisitions, AAUP Bull. 303 (Autumn 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Betty W. Taylor & Dan F. Henke, Budgeting for the Law School Library 30 (New York: Glanville Publishers, Inc., 1981).Google Scholar

34 Thomas, David A., 1979 Statistical Survey of Law School Libraries and Librarians, 73 L. Libr. J. 451 (1980).Google Scholar

35 In view of Cartter's 1973 “ranking” of law schools resting on the shaky basis of “shooting-from-the-hip” opinions (and the boycott by law school deans to whom Cartter's questionnaire was directed), it is unfortunate to see it used as authority by Dean William D. Warren, in what appears to be an otherwise meritorious appeal for more space at the U.C.L.A. Law School. Utilizing space data from a different source, Warren then appealed for more space at U.C.L.A. so as to make the latter competitive with the “top ten Cartter Report law schools.” He cites U.C.L.A. as having 72 square feet per student and Berkeley as having 122, Stanford 271, Yale 198, Harvard 341, etc. The substantial variance in the figures—all related back to Cartter's “top ten” (by opinion) law schools seem to defeat the Dean's plea. Warren, William D., An Eventful Good Year, 4 U.C.L.A. Law 1 (1981).Google Scholar

36 E. Gordon Gee & Donald W. Jackson, Following the Leader? The Unexamined Consensus in Law School Curricula (New York: Council on Legal Education for Professional Responsibility, Inc., 1975).Google Scholar

37 Stevens, Robert, Law Schools and Law Students, 59 U. Va. L. Rev. 551 (1973).Google Scholar

38 Maru, Olavi, Measuring the Impact of Legal Periodicals, 1976 A.B.F. Res. J. 227.Google Scholar

39 Id. at 228 n.5, quoting Havighurst, Harold C., Law Reviews and Legal Education, 51 Nw. U.L. Rev. 24 (1956).Google Scholar

40 Id., quoting Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., Research in Civil Procedure 135 (New Haven, Ct.: Walter E. Meyer Research Institute of Law, 1963).Google Scholar

41 Id.Google Scholar

42 Id. at 243.Google Scholar

43 Id. at 229 n.11 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

44 Comment, The Law Review—Is It Meeting the Needs of the Legal Community? 44 Denver L.J. 426, 430 n.5 (1967).Google Scholar

45 Id. at 432 n.7.Google Scholar

46 Joseph R. Julin et al., Thinking About the Future of Legal Education (Report of Resources Committee, Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar) ([Chicago]: American Bar Association, Dec., 1980).Google Scholar

47 Thomas, supra note 34 at table 9.Google Scholar

48 Id.Google Scholar

49 Gee & Jackson, supra note 36.Google Scholar

50 Id.Google Scholar

51 First, supra note 5.Google Scholar

52 Francis A. Allen, Humanistic Legal Education: The Quiet Crisis, 25 Law Quadrangle Notes 25 (Spr. 1981).Google Scholar

53 Frances Kahn Zemans & Victor G. Rosenblum, The Making of a Public Profession (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1981).Google Scholar

54 Supra note 28.Google Scholar

55 Supra note 27.Google Scholar

56 Supra note 28.Google Scholar