‘Dean Of Whittier Law School’ Announces Its Total Withdrawal From The U.S. News Rankings, And Pretty Much Every Other Ranking Too

I recently got an email from someone claiming to be the current dean of Whittier Law School. I think the email as a whole should not be taken seriously because Whittier Law School no longer exists. (The author also seems to have some personal issues and should seek professional help.) But he or she makes some interesting points that convinced me to share it in full.

---

Dear Remaining Whitter Law School Alumni, As some of may have heard, most of the top law schools that you dreamed of transferring to, notably Yale, Harvard, and Stanford have announced that they are no longer supplying information to U.S. News and World Report for their annual law school rankings. Other schools are slowly claiming “ME TOO!” I am announcing that Whittier Law School (WLS) will also join the U.S. News cancel culture boycott bandwagon even though technically we did this years ago before it was cool. Not only that, WLS went even further by making sure that all companies making money by ranking schools remove WLS completely. Each of the schools participating sent an open letter explaining their reasons yet all of them sound suspiciously similar. I will not follow suit. As the dean of the most exclusive and selective law school in the country with a zero percent acceptance rate, I feel that I have special liberties to say things that my distinguished colleagues cannot. The purpose of this letter is share these unspoken reasons with you. Let’s start with the schools’ reasons for boycotting the ranking. They claim to be doing it because U.S. News’s ranking methodology incentivizes behavior that conflicts with their values. They point specifically to discouraging students from seeking public interest careers and admitting students who come from low-income backgrounds. There is also speculation that these schools are doing this in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling that affirmative action is unconstitutional. By withdrawing from U.S. News, schools supposedly will have more latitude to admit promising people of color and have a diverse student body. Diversity, social mobility, and public service are good values to promote. But the problems listed above have been around for decades. The schools participating in the boycott had plenty of time to make this grand change with the best time being a year or two before you applied to law school. If they were waiting for a “burning bush” event, why didn’t the schools take action in 2003 when the Supreme Court was deciding Grutter v. Bollinger, another case involving affirmative action in education? It is possible that Yale and Harvard were motivated by something other than altruism. There is speculation that the dean of Yale Law School made the decision to withdraw from the rankings in anticipation that it would lose its number one rank that it held for decades due to recent scandals that could adversely reduce its reputational score. Harvard Law School, until this year has been part of the holy trinity of the rankings. Now it is tied at #4. If WLS alone withdraws from the rankings, not many people will care, myself included. But if Yale does lose its number one rank, it will be national news and people will react to it similarly to Elon Musk losing $100 billion in net worth. So withdrawing from U.S. News months before the release of its rankings might look like a PR move similar to announcing a questionable student loan forgiveness program months before the midterm election. So it appears now that U.S. News and the rogue law schools are playing a game of chicken. Will U.S. News be forced to change its rankings methodology if a critical mass of schools don’t participate? Or will the boycotting schools cross the picket line if the resulting drop in rank creates employment and reputational problems for its graduates? In reality, not much will change, at least not immediately and the changes will be gradual. The people at U.S. News said that they will continue to rank schools despite the boycott although they have not stated whether they will change its rankings methodology. So rankers are going to rank. But don’t expect Yale and Harvard to suffer a steep drop in the upcoming rankings. Punishing noncooperative law schools will not only make U.S. News look petty, but it will also further damage its already questionable credibility. At the same time, don’t expect schools like Yale and Harvard to immediately make their incoming classes look like a large box of crayons. They will still have high admission standards, even if LSATs are optional in the future. And the word optional is more like “optional.” It is like giving an extra credit assignment in a class graded on a curve or paid time-off days that first-year associates are “encouraged” to use. But these days, prospective students look more than just rankings. They look at blogs, message boards, and even LinkedIn to chat with students and alumni. So they are better informed than ever. So for the above reasons, WLS will not allow its name to be displayed in future U.S. News rankings. If you see any company using WLS’s name in their rankings, please let me know immediately so that I can contact our alumni-owned law firms who will file multiple trademark infringement lawsuits against them, whether the claims are viable or not. Go Poets!

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at [email protected]. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.