|
|
September 1, 2007
This is a ranking of the top 35 law faculties based on a
standard "objective" measure of scholarly impact: per capita citations to
faculty scholarship. Unlike earlier studies (see, e.g., the 2005 study),
this study looked at citations for all tenure-stream members of the academic
faculty (for 2007-08) from 2000 to the present. Impact was measured using
Westlaw's JRL database rather than TP-ALL, since the latter includes on-line
versions of treatises (for example, Wright & Miller on Federal Practice
& Procedure) and thus would artificially inflate the counts for schools
at which these treatise authors teach. Names were searched as,
Brian /2 Leiter
except where multiple middle initials or similar factors
made necessary a wider scope. To guard against false positives with
common names, ten to twenty of the "hits" were reviewed; the
percentage that were false positives was then multiplied against the total
number of hits returned, and that amount was subtracted from the citation
total. The citation counts were completed over the course of
several days in early July 2007, thus obviating the need for adjustments in the
counts to reflect changes in the size of the database. All results were
rounded to the nearest ten, to avoid illusory precision in the results and to
make recording of the data simpler. Cass Sunstein was used as the benchmark
for determining the size of the database; schools wanting to undertake
self-studies for comparison purposes should discount the results based on how
much Sunstein's post 1999 citation total has increased since early July (he had
6,180 citations at that time).
Impact as measured by citations has important limitations as
a proxy for scholarly reputation, and it is worth noting those in detail before
going further. Why might the correlation between impact and actual
academic quality break down? My colleague Richard Markovits
aptly summarizes some of the problems:
Since many frequently cited articles
are cited because they contain succinct statements of boilerplate propositions
of law or of a particular academic approach to some set of issues, or because
they fall squarely within a particular academic paradigm whose proponents make
a practice of citing each other, the frequency of an author's citations has
little to do with his influence, much less with the quality of his work.
("The Professional Assessment of Legal Academics," 48 Journal of Legal
Education, 417, 423-4 [1998].)
Although Professor Markovits leaps
too quickly to his conclusion, he has certainly identified a genuine worry
about the use of citations. Indeed, we might identify six kinds of
phenomena at work here which skew the correlation between citation and
quality.
First, there is the industrious drudge: the competent
but uninspired scholar who simply churns out huge amounts of writing in his or
her field. Citation practices of law reviews being what they are, the
drudge quickly reaches the threshold level of visibility at which one is
obliged to cite his or her work in the obligatory early footnotes of any
article in that field. The work is neither particularly good, nor
especially creative or groundbreaking, but it is there and everyone
knows it is there and it must be duly acknowledged.
Second, there is the treatise writer, whose treatise is standardly cited because like the output of the drudge it
is a recognized reference point in the literature. Unlike the drudge, the
authors of leading treatises are generally very accomplished scholars, but with
the devaluation of doctrinal work over the past twenty years, an outstanding
treatise writer—with a few exceptions—is not necessarily highly regarded as a
legal scholar.
Third, there is the "academic surfer," who surfs the wave of
the latest fad to sweep the legal academy, and thus piles up citations because
law reviews, being creatures of fashion, give the fad extensive exposure.
Any study counting citations, depending on when it is conducted, runs the risk
of registering the "impact" of the fad in disproportion to its
scholarly merit or long-term value or interest.
Fourth, there is work that is cited because it constitutes
"the classic mistake": some work is so wrong, or so bad, that everyone
acknowledges it for that reason. The citation and organizational
preferences of student-edited law reviews exacerbate this problem. Since
the typical law-review article must first reinvent the wheel, by surveying what
has come before, the classic mistake will earn an obligatory citation in
article after article in a particular field, even though the point of the
article may be to show how wrong the classic mistake is. True, some
authors of classic mistakes may have excellent reputations; but who among us
aspires to be best remembered for a "grand" mistake?
Fifth, citation tallies are skewed towards more senior
faculty, so that faculties with lots of "bright young things" (as the Dean of
one famous law school likes to call top young scholars) won't fare as well,
while faculties with once-productive dinosaurs will. On the other hand, by
looking only at citations since 2000, we have reduced the distorting effect of
this factor.
Sixth, citation studies are highly field-sensitive.
Law reviews publish lots on constitutional law, and very little on tax.
Scholars in the public law fields or who work in critical theory get lots of
cites; scholars who work on trusts, comparative law, and general jurisprudence do
not.
So for all these reasons, one would expect scholarly impact
to be an imperfect measure of scholarly quality. But an imperfect measure
may still be an adequate measure, and that is almost certainly true of citation
rates as a proxy for impact as a proxy for reputation or quality. I am
confident that one will learn more about faculty quality at leading American
law schools from the scholarly impact study, below, than from U.S. News.
Three rankings are presented in what follows: (1) a ranking
by mean per capita scholarly impact; (2) a ranking by median per
capita scholarly impact; and (3) a ranking by a combination of mean and
media per capita scholarly impact (calculated by summing the normalized score
for mean and median per capita impact, and dividing in half). My inclination
is to think that mean per capita impact is the best measure, since
median impact can be affected simply by the addition or subtraction of one
faculty member. On the other hand, a school with a median rank much lower than
the mean rank is one whose impact ranking is more heavily dependent on a
minority of highly cited faculty (e.g., Georgetown, Northwestern); a school
whose median rank is much higher than its mean rank is one where scholarly
impact is more evenly spread across the faculty (e.g., Penn, Minnesota). So
the median ranking does provide information, and the amalgamated ranking, based
on mean and median impact, helps guard against the distorting effect of having just
a handful of faculty with enormously high citation counts on an otherwise
low-cited faculty.
The first chart lists the mean, median, and alagmated
results for each school for ease of reference. The ranking by mean per capita
impact also lists the ten most-cited scholars on the faculty (those over the
age of 70 are marked with an *).
Some interpretive comments on the results. The top four faculties in scholarly impact-Yale, Chicago, Stanford, and
Harvard-contain no surprises; these faculties have always dominated the results
since I began doing these studies, though there is some jockeying for position
between Yale and Chicago, on the one hand, and Stanford and Harvard, on the
other. Chicago, despite some recent faculty losses, still retains its strong
position right behind Yale (and this is without counting any of the citations
to Judges Easterbrook and Posner, who both still do some teaching there, but as
part-time faculty they were excluded from the study). Columbia and NYU
continue to battle it out for the bottom of the top five, but do not seem to be
closing the gap between them and the top four.
Schools whose improvements in faculty quality in recent
years are well-registered here include Duke (which has recovered handsomely
from the doldrums that afflicted it at the turn of the century), Michigan, Vanderbilt, Illinois, and Arizona. Duke's performance is perhaps especially notable.
Four of the ten most cited faculty at Duke are relatively recent additions
(Curtis Bradley, Erwin Chemerinsky, Mitu Gulati, and Ernest Young), while
Duke's high median citation score reflects other additions of productive and
influential scholars to the faculty in the last 4-5 years, including Stuart
Benjamin, Arti Rai, James Salzman, and Lawrence Zelenak among others. (Duke
is, it should be noted, at risk currently of losing both Bradley and
Chemerinsky, though may well end up retaining both of them.) It is true that
without Chemerinsky, Duke's mean per capita citation rate would drop noticeably,
from 380 to 300, yet even without Chemerinsky, Duke would still rank 8th overall
in mean impact. (So, too, Pittsburgh gets a big boost in mean per capita
impact from Richard Delgado, yet even without Delgado, Pitt would have been
tied with the University of Iowa in mean per capita impact [and Pitt's median
impact score is also quite respectable].)
Virginia's faculty has taken something of a beating due to
raids by other schools (esp. Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago), and those losses
are reflected here, especially in the mean per capita impact figure (though
note the stronger median citations figure for UVA, reflecting the depth of
strength on that faculty). Texas, though having taken some hits the last two
years (e.g., Philip Bobbitt [who still teaches part-time at Texas, though
didn't count in the study here], Douglas Laycock and Ronald Mann), still had a
strong showing (two of its ten most-cited faculty are recent additions:
Bernard Black and Larry Sager). USC's surprisingly weak showing is partly
attributable to the loss of Chemerinsky, and partly to the fact that the school
never quite recovered from the raids on its faculty in the 1990s (though I
think most informed observers would still rate the quality of the faculty as in
the top 20). Wisconsin had the most startlingly weak showing for a school that,
a generation ago, was solidly in the top twenty or so. Chicago-Kent, George
Mason, Cardozo, and San Diego, among others, continue to distinguish themselves
as traditionally "regional" law schools with strong scholarly cultures that
make a national impact.
Summary of the Three Rankings
|
School
|
Mean Rank
|
Median Rank
|
Mean & Median Rank
|
|
Yale University
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
University of Chicago
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
|
Stanford University
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
|
Harvard University
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
|
Columbia University
|
5
|
6
|
6
|
|
New York University
|
6
|
4
|
5
|
|
Univ. of California, Berkeley
|
7
|
8
|
7
|
|
Duke University
|
8
|
7
|
7
|
|
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
|
9
|
15
|
13
|
|
Univ. of California, Los Angeles
|
10
|
13
|
12
|
|
University of Texas, Austin
|
10
|
9
|
9
|
|
Georgetown University
|
12
|
19
|
14
|
|
Northwestern University
|
12
|
21
|
17
|
|
Cornell University
|
14
|
11
|
10
|
|
Vanderbilt University
|
14
|
18
|
14
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
|
16
|
10
|
10
|
|
University of Illinois
|
17
|
16
|
18
|
|
University of Virginia
|
17
|
13
|
14
|
|
George Washington University
|
19
|
16
|
20
|
|
University of Arizona
|
20
|
22
|
21
|
|
George Mason University
|
21
|
24
|
23
|
|
University of Minnesota
|
21
|
12
|
18
|
|
University of Pittsburgh
|
21
|
24
|
23
|
|
Boston University
|
24
|
24
|
25
|
|
Emory University
|
24
|
24
|
25
|
|
University of California, Davis
|
24
|
not in top 35
|
28
|
|
Cardozo Law School/Yeshiva Univ.
|
27
|
19
|
21
|
|
Ohio State University
|
27
|
32
|
30
|
|
University of California, Hastings
|
27
|
32
|
30
|
|
University of San Diego
|
27
|
not in top 35
|
33
|
|
University of Southern California
|
27
|
23
|
27
|
|
University of Iowa
|
32
|
24
|
28
|
|
Fordham University
|
33
|
32
|
35
|
|
University of Colorado, Boulder
|
33
|
not in top 35
|
not in top 35
|
|
University of Florida, Gainesville
|
33
|
not in top 35
|
not in top 35
|
|
Washington & Lee University
|
33
|
32
|
35
|
|
Washington University, St. Louis
|
33
|
24
|
30
|
|
Chicago-Kent College of Law
|
not in top 35
|
24
|
33
|
|
Indiana University, Bloomington
|
not in top 35
|
24
|
not in top 35
|
I. Ranking of Law Faculties by Mean Per Capita Scholarly
Impact (Citations)
|
Rank
|
School
|
Normalized Score
|
Mean Per Capita Citations
|
Ten Most Cited Faculty (*faculty over 70) (more than
ten listed means there were ties)
|
|
1
|
Yale University
|
100
|
790
|
B. Ackerman, A. Amar, I. Ayres, J. Balkin, R. Ellickson,
W. Eskridge, O. Fiss, J. Macey, R. Post, P. Schuck
|
|
2
|
University of Chicago
|
95
|
750
|
D. Baird, R. Epstein, W. Landes, S. Levmore, R. McAdams,
M. Nussbaum, E. Posner, G. Stone, D. Strauss, C. Sunstein
|
|
3
|
Stanford University
|
84
|
660
|
*L. Friedman, R. Gilson, L. Kramer, M. Lemley, L. Lessig,
M. Polinsky, R. Rabin, D. Rhode, K. Sullivan, A. Sykes
|
|
4
|
Harvard University
|
75
|
590
|
R. Fallon, *C. Fried, J. Goldsmith, L. Kaplow, Du.
Kennedy, *F. Michelman, M. Minow, S. Shavell, L. Tribe, M. Tushnet
|
|
5
|
Columbia University
|
54
|
430
|
J. Coffee, K. Crenshaw, M. Dorf, G. Fletcher, R. Gilson,
J. Ginsburg, *K. Greenawalt, T. Merrill, *H. Monaghan, J. Raz, R. Scott
|
|
6
|
New York University
|
53
|
420
|
*D. Bell, *R. Dworkin, B. Friedman, S. Issacharoff, *A.
Miller, G. Miller, R. Pildes, S. Schulhofer, R. Stewart, J. Waldron
|
|
7
|
University of California, Berkeley
|
49
|
390
|
*J. Choper, R. Cooter, *M. Eisenberg, A. Guzman, A.
Harris, D. Farber, P. Frickey, R. Merges, P. Samuelson, F. Zimring
|
|
8
|
Duke University
|
48
|
380
|
J. Boyle, C. Bradley, *P. Carrington, E. Chemerinsky, J.
Cox, M. Gulati, J. Powell, J. Reichman, N. Vidmar, E. Young
|
|
9
|
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
|
35
|
280
|
R. Eisenberg, S. Gross, R. Howse, J. Krier, D. Laycock, J.
Litman, C. MacKinnon, M. Radin, S. Ratner, *J.J. White
|
|
10
|
University of California, Los Angeles
|
34
|
270
|
R. Abel, S. Bainbridge, K. Crenshaw, J. Kang, R. Korobkin,
L. LoPucki, N. Netanel, K. Stone, L. Stout, E. Volokh
|
|
|
University of Texas, Austin
|
34
|
270
|
L. Baker, B. Black, F. Cross, S. Levinson, T. McGarity, L.
Mullenix, L.A. Powe, J. Robertson, L. Sager, J. Westbrook
|
|
12
|
Georgetown University
|
33
|
260
|
A. Aleinikoff, R. Barnett, D. Cole, *J. Jackson, V.
Jackson, D. Langevoort, C. Lawrence, D. Luban, M. Matsuda, C. Menkel-Meadow,
R. West
|
|
|
Northwestern University
|
33
|
260
|
R. Allen, A. Alschuler, S. Calabresi, A. D'Amato, L.
Epstein, A. Koppelman, F. McChesney, J. McGinnis, M. Redish, D. Roberts
|
|
14
|
Cornell University
|
32
|
250
|
K. Clermont, T. Eisenberg, M. Heise, J. Henderson, R.
Hillman, S. Johnson, D. Kysar, J. Rachlinski, S. Schwab, *R. Summers
|
|
|
Vanderbilt University
|
32
|
250
|
M. Blair, J. Ely, C. Guthrie, L. Helfer, N. King, E.
Rubin, S. Sherry, R. Thomas, R. Thompson, K. Viscusi
|
|
16
|
University of Pennsylvania
|
30
|
240
|
M. Adler, A. Allen, C.E. Baker, S. Bibas, S. Burbank, S.
Kreimer, G. Parchomovsky, P. Robinson, E. Rock, D. Skeel, P. Wagner
|
|
17
|
University of Illinois
|
28
|
220
|
M. Finkin, T. Ginsburg, D. Hyman, J. Kesan, M. Moore, A.
Morriss, L. Ribstein, L. Solum, C. Tabb, T. Ulen, C. Williams
|
|
|
University of Virginia
|
28
|
220
|
K. Abraham, V. Blasi, J. Harrison, J. Jeffries, E. Kitch,
M. Klarman, P. Mahoney, P. Stephan, J. Ryan, G.E. White
|
|
19
|
George Washington University
|
27
|
210
|
N. Cahn, J. Duffy, I. Lupu, L. Mitchell, T. Morgan, S.
Murphy, R. Pierce, J. Rosen, S. Saltzburg, M. Selmi, D. Solove
|
|
20
|
University of Arizona
|
25
|
200
|
J. Anaya, J. Braucher, G. Chin, *D. Dobbs, D. Gantz, T.
Massaro, M. Miller, C. Rose, T. Schneyer, D. Wexler
|
|
21
|
George Mason University
|
24
|
190
|
D. Bernstein, E. Claeys, T. Hazlett, B. Kobayashi, N. Lund, T. Muris, D. Polsby, J. Rabkin, R. Rotunda, *G. Tullock, T. Zywicki
|
|
|
University of Minnesota
|
24
|
190
|
B. Bix, D. Burk, T. Cotter, B. Feld, M. Fellows, R. Frase,
B. Karkkainen, R. Painter, M. Tonry, D. Weissbrodt,
|
|
|
University of Pittsburgh
|
24
|
190
|
R. Brand, D. Branson, R. Delgado, L. Frolik, D. Harris, A.
Hellman, J. Lobel, A. Meisel, J. Mueller, T. Ross, J. Stefancic,
|
|
24
|
Boston University
|
22
|
170
|
G. Annas, R. Bone, J. Fleming, T. Frankel, W. Gordon, K.
Hylton, G. Lawson, T. Maclin, N. Moore, M. O'Rourke, W. Park
|
|
|
Emory University
|
22
|
170
|
D. Bederman, *H. Berman, W. Buzbee, *W. Carney, M.
Fineman, *P. Hay, M. Perry, P. Rubin, R. Schapiro, J. Witte
|
|
|
University of California, Davis
|
22
|
170
|
D. Amann, V. Amar, K. Aoki, A. Brownstein, A. Chander, H.
Doremus, B. Hing, E. Imwinkelried, K. Johnson, M. Sunder.
|
|
27
|
Cardozo Law School/Yeshiva University
|
20
|
160
|
L. Brickman, D. Carlson, M. Hamilton, M. Herz, J. Hughes,
M. Rosenfeld, B. Scheck, A. Sebok, S. Sterk, P. Verkuil, E. Zelinsky
|
|
|
Ohio State University
|
20
|
160
|
D. Berman, J. Brudney, M. Chamallas, S. Cole, R. Colker,
J. Dressler, D. Merritt, D. Oesterle, J. Powell, P. Shane, P. Swire
|
|
|
University of California, Hastings
|
20
|
160
|
W. Dodge, D. Faigman, *G. Hazard, M. Kane, R. Marcus, C.
Massey, U. Mattei, N. Newton, R. Park, N. Roht-Arriaza, J. Williams
|
|
|
University of San Diego
|
20
|
160
|
L. Alexander, D. Dripps, *Y. Kamisar, D. McGowan, F. Partnoy,
S. Prakash, M. Ramsey, M. Rappaport, S. Smith, *R. Speidel, F. Zacharias
|
|
|
University of Southern California
|
20
|
160
|
J. Armour, M. Dudziak, S. Estrich, E. Garrett, G.
Hadfield, E. McCaffery, R. Rasmussen, M. Spitzer, *C. Stone, C. Whitebread
|
|
32
|
University of Iowa
|
19
|
150
|
*D. Baldus, R. Bezanson, S. Burton, A. Estin, H.
Hovenkamp, M. Janis, M. Osiel, H. Sale, G. Wetlaufer, A. Wing,
|
|
33
|
Fordham University
|
18
|
140
|
D. Capra, G. de Burca, M. Diller, J. Fisch, M. Flaherty,
B. Green A. Greene, R. Pearce, J. Reidenberg, W. Treanor, B. Zipursky
|
|
|
University of Colorado, Boulder
|
18
|
140
|
H. Bruff, R. Collins, D. Getches, L. Guruswamy, C.
Mueller, R. Nagel, W. Pizzi, P. Schlag, P. Weiser, C. Wilkinson
|
|
|
University of Florida, Gainesville
|
18
|
140
|
J. Harrison, B. Hernandez-Truyol, *J. Israel, R. Jerry, L.
Noah, W. Page, J. Perea, L. Riskin, C. Slobogin, B. Woodhouse
|
|
|
Washington & Lee University
|
18
|
140
|
D. Brown, M. Drumbl, L. Johnson, M. Howard, T. Jost, R.
Krotoszynski, D. Millon, R. Smolla, S. Sundby, R. Wilson
|
|
|
Washington University, St. Louis
|
18
|
140
|
K. Brickey, A. Davis, B. Flagg, J. Haley, P. Joy, S.
Legomsky, R. Levin, *D. Mandelker, L. Sadat, K. Syverud
|
| |
Other School Studied (not ranked, since schools not
studied may have performed comparably)
|
|
|
Brooklyn Law School
|
17
|
130
|
M. Berger, A. Bernstein, N. Cohen, M. Garrison, S. Herman,
N. Hunter, R. Karmel, G. Minda, E. Schneider, L. Solan, A. Twerski
|
|
|
Chicago-Kent College of Law
|
17
|
130
|
L. Andrews, G. Dinwoodie, D. Gerber, H. Krent, C. Leslie,
M. Malin, H. Perrit, M. Rosen, D. Tarlock, R. Wright
|
|
|
Florida State University
|
17
|
130
|
F. Abbott, R. Atkinson, J. Dodge, S. Gey, A. Hirsch, W.
Logan, J. Rossi, J. Ruhl, M. Seidenfeld, F. Teson
|
|
|
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
|
17
|
130
|
J. Calmore, J. Conly, M. Crain, M. Gerhardt, T. Hazen, W.
Marshall, H. Motomura, J. Orth, G. Postema, R. Rosen
|
|
|
Wake Forest University
|
17
|
130
|
M. Curtis, M. Green, M. Hall, J. Knox, A. Palmiter, W.
Parker, T. Roberts, S. Shapiro, M. Taylor, R. Wright
|
|
|
College of William & Mary
|
15
|
120
|
P. Alces, N. Devins, J. Dwyer, T. Hardy, C. Koch, L.
Malone, P. Marcus, A. Meese, J. Moliterno, M. Stein, *W. Van Alstyne
|
|
|
Indiana University, Bloomington
|
15
|
120
|
J. Applegate, C. Bradley, F. Cate, D. Conkle, K.
Dau-Schmidt, D. Fidler, C. Keyh, M. Leaffer, L. Lederman, L. Robel
|
|
|
University of Notre Dame
|
15
|
120
|
J. Bauer, P. Bellia, R. Blakey, G. Bradley, M. Brinig, J.
Finnis, N. Garnett, R. Garnett, J. Nagle, M. O'Connell, J. Tidmarsh,
|
|
|
Arizona State University
|
14
|
110
|
K. Abbott, R. Clinton, I. Ellman, D. Karjala, D. Kaye, M.
Kornhauser, J. Murphy, M. Saks, R. Tsosie, J. Weinstein
|
|
|
Rutgers University, Camden
|
14
|
110
|
L. Bosniak, M. Carrier, J. Feinman, E. Maltz, D.
Patterson, R. Rosenblatt, R. Singer, A. Stein, B. Stephens, R. Williams
|
|
|
Boston College
|
13
|
100
|
M. Brodin, G. Brown, D. Coquillette, J. Garvey, K.
Greenfield, J. Liu, Z. Plater, J. Repetti, C. Wells, D. Wirth, A. Yen
|
|
|
Rutgers University, Newark
|
13
|
100
|
B. Bell, S. Colb, C. Dickerson, J. Dubin, G. Francione, A.
Hyde, H. Latin, J. Leubsdorf, T. Perry, J. Pope, G. Thomas
|
|
|
University of Wisconsin, Madison
|
11
|
90
|
A. Althouse, P. Carstensen, R.A. Charo, H. Erlanger, L.
Greene, H. Klug, N. Komesar, J. Larson, *S. Macaulay, E. Mertz, T. Palay, J.
Rogers, D. Schwartz
|
II. Ranking of Law Faculties by Median Per Capita
Citations
|
Rank
|
School
|
Normalized Score
|
Median Per Capita Citations
|
|
1
|
Yale University
|
100
|
685
|
|
2
|
Harvard University
|
56
|
380
|
|
3
|
University of Chicago
|
47
|
320
|
|
4
|
New York University
|
45
|
310
|
|
|
Stanford University
|
45
|
310
|
|
6
|
Columbia University
|
43
|
295
|
|
7
|
Duke University
|
37
|
250
|
|
8
|
University of California, Berkeley
|
36
|
245
|
|
9
|
University of Texas, Austin
|
32
|
220
|
|
10
|
University of Pennsylvania
|
31
|
210
|
|
11
|
Cornell University
|
29
|
195
|
|
12
|
University of Minnesota
|
26
|
180
|
|
13
|
University of California, Los Angeles
|
25
|
170
|
|
|
University of Virginia
|
25
|
170
|
|
15
|
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
|
23
|
160
|
|
16
|
George Washington University
|
22
|
150
|
|
|
University of Illinois
|
22
|
150
|
|
18
|
Vanderbilt University
|
21
|
145
|
|
19
|
Cardozo Law School/Yeshiva University
|
20
|
135
|
|
|
Georgetown University
|
20
|
140
|
|
21
|
Northwestern University
|
19
|
130
|
|
22
|
University of Arizona
|
17
|
115
|
|
23
|
University of Southern California
|
16
|
110
|
|
24
|
Boston University
|
15
|
100
|
|
|
Chicago-Kent College of Law
|
15
|
100
|
|
|
Emory University
|
15
|
100
|
|
|
George Mason University
|
15
|
100
|
|
|
Indiana University, Bloomington
|
15
|
100
|
|
|
University of Iowa
|
15
|
105
|
|
|
University of Pittsburgh
|
15
|
100
|
|
|
Washington University, St. Louis
|
15
|
100
|
|
32
|
Fordham University
|
13
|
90
|
|
|
Ohio State University
|
13
|
90
|
|
|
University of California, Hastings
|
13
|
90
|
|
|
Washington & Lee University
|
13
|
90
|
| |
Other School Studied (not ranked, since schools not
studied may have performed comparably)
|
|
|
University of California, Davis
|
12
|
80
|
|
|
University of Florida, Gainesville
|
12
|
80
|
|
|
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
|
12
|
80
|
|
|
University of San Diego
|
12
|
80
|
|
|
Boston College
|
11
|
75
|
|
|
College of William & Mary
|
11
|
75
|
|
|
Wake Forest University
|
11
|
75
|
|
|
Brooklyn Law School
|
10
|
70
|
|
|
Florida State University
|
10
|
70
|
|
|
Rutgers University, Camden
|
10
|
70
|
|
|
University of Colorado, Boulder
|
10
|
70
|
|
|
University of Notre Dame
|
10
|
65
|
|
|
Arizona State University
|
8
|
55
|
|
|
Rutgers University, Newark
|
7
|
50
|
|
|
University of Wisconsin, Madison
|
7
|
50
|
III. Ranking of Law Faculties by Mean and Median Per
Capita Citations
Normalized score=sum of the normalized scores for mean and
median per capita citations divided by two: so mean and median citations get
equal weight in this ranking.
|
Rank
|
School
|
Normalized Score
|
|
1
|
Yale University
|
100.0
|
|
2
|
University of Chicago
|
71.5
|
|
3
|
Harvard University
|
66.5
|
|
4
|
Stanford University
|
64.5
|
|
5
|
New York University
|
49.0
|
|
6
|
Columbia University
|
48.5
|
|
7
|
Duke University
|
42.5
|
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
|
42.5
|
|
9
|
University of Texas, Austin
|
33.0
|
|
10
|
Cornell University
|
30.5
|
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
|
30.5
|
|
12
|
University of California, Los Angeles
|
29.5
|
|
13
|
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
|
29.0
|
|
14
|
Georgetown University
|
26.5
|
|
|
University of Virginia
|
26.5
|
|
|
Vanderbilt University
|
26.5
|
|
17
|
Northwestern University
|
26.0
|
|
18
|
University of Illinois
|
25.0
|
|
|
University of Minnesota
|
25.0
|
|
20
|
George Washington University
|
24.5
|
|
21
|
Cardozo Law School/Yeshiva University
|
21.0
|
|
|
University of Arizona
|
21.0
|
|
23
|
George Mason University
|
19.5
|
|
|
University of Pittsburgh
|
19.5
|
|
25
|
Boston University
|
18.5
|
|
|
Emory University
|
18.5
|
|
27
|
University of Southern California
|
18.0
|
|
28
|
University of California, Davis
|
17.0
|
|
|
University of Iowa
|
17.0
|
|
30
|
Ohio State University
|
16.5
|
|
|
University of California, Hastings
|
16.5
|
|
|
Washington University, St. Louis
|
16.5
|
|
33
|
Chicago-Kent College of Law
|
16.0
|
|
|
University of San Diego
|
16.0
|
|
35
|
Fordham University
|
15.5
|
|
|
Washington & Lee University
|
15.5
|
| |
Other School Studied (not ranked, since schools not
studied may have performed comparably)
|
|
|
Indiana University, Bloomington
|
15.0
|
|
|
University of Florida, Gainesville
|
15.0
|
|
|
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
|
14.5
|
|
|
University of Colorado, Boulder
|
14.0
|
|
|
Wake Forest University
|
14.0
|
|
|
Brooklyn Law School
|
13.5
|
|
|
Florida State University
|
13.5
|
|
|
College of William & Mary
|
13.0
|
|
|
University of Notre Dame
|
12.5
|
|
|
Boston College
|
12.0
|
|
|
Rutgers University, Camden
|
12.0
|
|
|
Arizona State University
|
11.0
|
|
|
Rutgers University, Newark
|
10.0
|
|
|
University of Wisconsin, Madison
|
9.0
|
|
|
