First, the debt metric adopted by U.S. News two years ago risks confusing more than it informs because a school may lower debt at graduation through generous financial aid, but it may also achieve the same effect by admitting more students who have the resources to avoid borrowing. The debt metric gives prospective students no way to tell which is which. And to the extent the debt metric creates an incentive for schools to admit better resourced students who don’t need to borrow, it risks harming those it is trying to help.
Second, by heavily weighting students’ test scores and college grades, the U.S. News rankings have over the years created incentives for law schools to direct more financial aid toward applicants based on their LSAT scores and college GPAs without regard to their financial need. Though HLS and YLS have each resisted the pull toward so-called merit aid, it has become increasingly prevalent, absorbing scarce resources that could be allocated more directly on the basis of need.
Third, the U.S. News methodology undermines the efforts of many law schools to support public interest careers for their graduates. We share, and have expressed to U.S. News, the concern that their debt metric ignores school-funded loan forgiveness programs in calculating student debt. Such loan forgiveness programs assist students who pursue lower paying jobs, typically in the public interest sector. We have joined other schools in also sharing with U.S. News our concern about the magazine’s decision to discount, in the employment ranking, professional positions held by those who receive public interest fellowships funded by their home schools. These jobs not only provide lawyers to organizations for critical needs, they also often launch a graduate’s career in the public sector.
For these and other reasons, we will no longer participate in the U.S. News process. It does not advance the best ideals of legal education or the profession we serve, and it contradicts the deeply held commitments of Harvard Law School.
All best,
John Manning
滑動查看哈佛法學院退出聲明全文
要知道 ， 這些學校的法學院一直都是美國法學院中的佼佼者 ， 其中耶魯大學法學院更是從1990年至今一直高居榜首 。
至此，美國頂尖的14所法學院中的10所學校宣布不再參與排名并號召其它學校也一起加入這個行列 。
距離哥大造假數據參與排名事件還沒過去多久，（點擊閱讀：）這些學校如今的舉動無疑是給本身就爭議頗多的U.S.News一記重創 。
對此，U.S.News方的回應則是，為了履行自己的新聞使命并幫助學生做出最好的決定，不管學校學院是否提交數據 ， 他們仍將對這些法學院進行排名 。
其實這些法學院退出與否，都不會影響各自的招生，每個學院的各項主要數據一直都是公開可見的，最終對他們的排名也不會有很大的影響 。
更不用說這只是對一個學院的排名，對大學本身的綜合排名也影響不大 。
畢竟他們已經優秀到不需要依靠外界排名來鞏固名望 。
可是其他不敢退出排名的學校又該何去何從呢？
是繼續為了依附排名提供漂亮的數據逐漸忘記初心？還是在如今的大環境下不顧招生，毅然追隨“大佬們”的腳步一起退出？
不管是哪種選擇，長久以往，對學校、對學生、對整個法律界大環境都會產生影響 。
那么 ， 這些法學院 究竟為什么對U.S.News這么不滿呢？
二、法學院有多難
要想理清其中的關系 ， 首先要來了解一下美國的法學院 。
如果你要申請美國的法學院，只能在本科畢業后才有資格申請，然后擺在面前主要有兩個方向：LLM（Master of Law 法學碩士）和JD（Juries Doctor 法學博士） 。
還有一個SJD （Doctor of Juris Science 法學博士）偏理論研究性，申請者選擇較少，在此就不做贅述 。
