I came across the 2009 MacLeans Law School rankings the other day. While its nice to see the Western has climbed a little bit since last year (up to 10 from 12 out of 16 common law schools), it was the comments that really got me thinking.
Criteria: But ya’ gotta rate something
First of all, I want to say I agree that ‘elite firm hiring’ and ‘Supreme Court clerkships’ aren’t the most representative of measures. You do have to measure something, though, if you are going to have a ranking. Perhaps we shouldn’t, but that’s a whole different issue. I think rankings come with a huge caveat emptor attached at the best of times (they tend to be elitist and favour quantitative measures over qualitative ones) and what makes a ‘good’ law school may not necessary create ‘good’ lawyers.
Specifically, I think the danger in a space as small as that occupied by Canadian law schools is that measures such as elite firms (which, I’m assume, are necessarily in large, urban centres) and SCC clerkships (which, by definition, are limited) simply aren’t informative. The fact is most law schools in Canada have a large regional focus. Want to practice in Windsor? Well, you better either be from Windsor or go to school there if what I’ve heard is accurate. The same, to some extent, is true in London. I’m sure its even more true in provinces with only one law school. Similarly, as an Ontarian, I would pick Windsor (or any Ontario school) over UManitoba any day, not because of the rankings (indeed, Manitoba beats Windsor), but because I have no interest in enduring the weather and travel that would come with it.
Finally, I fear that rankings become nothing but self-fulfilling prophecies. “Oh, you want to clerk for the SCC? Better get into McGill then!” or “Oh, you have your eye on Bay St.? Hope you like UofT!” Don’t misunderstand me, if a particular school has an academic strength in a certain area that interests you, you’d be a fool not to consider it on that basis. But to pick a school because a ranking told you that it might increase your statistical odds would be utilitarian at best and at worst it would simply continue the cycle that these rankings thrive on.
Alternatives
Do you own research. There simply aren’t that many schools out there (unless you apply to them all and then, well, that’s your own fault). Granted it can be hard to figure out who to trust when you’re doing this insofar as the schools have a vested interest in sounding fantastic and alumni are similarly biased. Our Dean here at Western, a certain Dr. Ian Holloway, QC, makes a pretty good point when he proposes that in Canada there are no bad law schools. Rather it is only a matter of finding the one that is right for you. How you make that choice is up to you. The schools might make it for you between scholarships and rejections. It might be the lure of that shiny MacLean’s #1. It might be your love of sea air. It might be your significant other.
The point is, if you place too much emphasis on any one factor, you have no one to blame but yourself.
In Closing
Rankings make sense in the US. As a legal employer there are simply too many different schools to understand what makes each one stand out. Instead, you can get a rough idea by looking at where they sit on the list. Even then, though, I’ve heard it said that a good, non-Tier 1 regional school can top a Tier 1 (though perhaps not a T-14) non-regional school in some markets.
We simply don’t have that problem here, as you’ll be able to see by looking at most medium to large sized firms’ websites. You’ll see regional/geographic biases to be sure, but that doesn’t show up in the rankings. You can’t really blame MacLean’s though. Its not like their in the truth business. They’re only in the business business.
The moral of the story here is there is simply more to the story than the stats would have you believe.
