Comments on: Announcing the Moss Law School Rankings: Harvard #1, Yale #2!

By: Freddy Mac

Freddy Mac — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:52:25 +0000

I think Chicago-Kent would be on the list somewhere, too. Seems like Otto Kerner, Jr. who was convicted would get at least a point…and I seem to remember some other alum-judges who were impeached.

By: Scott Moss

Scott Moss — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:42:58 +0000

Mea culpa — my apologies to multiple schools for mis-ranking them: (1) NYU should be tied with (not ahead of) the next several schools at 2 pts each; (2) Clinton should not qualify based on my criterion of not just scandal but conviction or being forced from office (in an earlier draft list I was just collecting political scandals, but frankly there were just so many that I had to narrow it, and I shouldn’t have left Clinton on the list); and (3) I did over-rank large schools and under-rank small schools by not adjusting for school size. I now have a newfound respect for the US News rankings; this is tricky business.

By: A.J. Sutter

A.J. Sutter — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:09:19 +0000

apologies — I just noticed that anon already made a more profound comment based on the same observation.

By: A.J. Sutter

A.J. Sutter — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:07:16 +0000

“convicted, or simply forced to leave office, following criminal or otherwise serious unlawful misconduct they allegedly committed while in office in the 1990s or 2000s”: Clinton was “forced to leave office” by the term limits in the US Constitution; post hoc isn’t propter hoc. You’ve inflated Yale’s grade.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:43:28 +0000

Siegelman shouldn’t count

By: John N. Mitchell

John N. Mitchell — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:50:23 +0000

what about G. Gordon Lilly’s and John N. Mitchell’s involvement in Watergate? Another point for Fordham?

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:28:40 +0000

As a G’Town grad I want to dispute the points we got for Siegelman. As widely noted (see citations on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman) Siegelman’s conviction was highly politicized and may in fact be overturned.

Also, Buddy Cianci is worth A MILLION POINTS!

By: bob

bob — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:23:55 +0000

what about Scooter Libby (Columbia Law)?

By: tony smith

tony smith — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:59:24 +0000

This is great – as long as I do not think while reading it.

By: tim

tim — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:00:50 +0000

Duke offers not just Tricky Dick… Claude Allen never held elective office, but as a top GWB aide, he comes close, and sure deserves points for style:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allen

By: Duke Law 85

Duke Law 85 — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:16:40 +0000

Lucky old Duke! Richard Nixon (third-rate burglary, obstruction of justice, etc.) predates your 1990-2008 window. But why no David Addington (kidnapping, aggravated assault, etc.)?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:27:01 +0000

Notre Dame should be on that list because of Esther Slater McDonald and her involvement in the DOJ scandal. And as for Harvard, you forgot to include Bill Kelley, former White House Counsel and Notre Dame professor who is eyeball deep in the US Attorney firing debacle.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:36:21 +0000

What about “Scooter” Libby? Where is Columbia law school on this list?

By: frankcross

frankcross — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:49:23 +0000

Go back a little farther in time, and Duke surely wins (Richard Nixon).

By: Pacific Reporter

Pacific Reporter — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:34:14 +0000

What about judges that are forced to step down? Maybe you can add them to next year’s rankings.

By: Jonathan H. Adler

Jonathan H. Adler — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:30:46 +0000

You forgot Case Western. We deserve a point for Marc Dann . . . he was forced to leave office as state AG, and there are rumors that indictments could be forthcoming.

JHA

By: Jason Wojciechowski

Jason Wojciechowski — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:32:34 +0000

Maybe Clinton meets the “forced to leave” requirement with a special “his successor and VP wasn’t elected in 2000″ dispensation?

Of course, that opens a whole other can of worms!

By: anon

anon — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:14:27 +0000

The “convicted or forced to leave office” standard is rather vague, especially as to Clinton. Clinton, of course, was “forced” to leave office only by virtue of the 22nd amendment. Is there a causation requirement, or does the formula really encompass allegation+term-limit within its scope (in which case your methodology might require some adjustment).

By: Lawrence Cunningham

Lawrence Cunningham — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:59:42 +0000

Very funny. But, seriously, could you explain what breaks the tie among schools earning 2 points each, so that 2-point NYU is #4 whereas 2-point GT et al are #5? Perhaps it is inherently obvious to those more familiar with NYU, but it may not generally be obvious why poor Cincinnati, Rutgers, Pepperdine and Louisiana State should suffer. Another technical point, is the Rutgers earning top rankings Newark or Camden?

By: dobe gulia

dobe gulia — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:52:30 +0000

This ranking has been totally rigged to favor the author’s alma mater. The correct ranking would adjust the number of points by the size of the graduating class, taking Yale back to the top where it belongs. On the other hand, the truly correct ranking would adjust the points by the total number of a school’s alums in top echelons of the government — because it’s not hard to avoid getting points if no matter what you do, you are not in the position where the points are assigned. Which means Tulane first, then, Cincinnati and Pepperdine. On the third hand, Yale will still be on top if correct weights are assigned to positions — a US president should get 100 times more points than a US senator and 50 times more points than a state governor. One might further adjust for the differences in the duration of a term, but I can’t think of a way to make it advantageous to Yale, so I’ll stop here.