Osler's Razor

The frustrating thing is that the answer to your question, in large part, depends on something we are seem undecided on: what kind of law school we want to be in 10 years?

If we want to be the best advocacy school, then I think we need to consider moving P.C. and Evidence to 2L, work on putting together more of a coherent advocacy program and put out killer 3L mock trial and moot court teams.

If we want to be a more traditional law school, then we should consider doing a couple things:

1-Up Faculty Ratio - Our number was the second worst of the schools in the top 55. It appears we should be shooting for something around the 12:1 mark. this will also lighten teaching loads and (hopefully) increase non-teaching output.

2-Increase Academic Output - here we either create financial incentives (say $3K for every article that a tenured faculty member puts in a non-baylor academic journal; 5-10K for an original academic book), or hire a dedicated research monster to just exist and pump out articles and books.

3-Reexamine Our Law Review - Can we do something so that it's more meaningful in a larger academic sense.

4-P.C. to 2L - I think this might help another one of our weaknesses because currently our 3Ls don't have the meaningful opportunity to hustle for jobs, and so our pre-graduation job placement is lower than it should be.
 

The quarter system is both a tough sell for prospective professors in terms of teaching load and awkward scheduling. Furthermore, the quarter system often precludes both student and faculty interaction with other law schools, which would help boost our perception among law faculty.

For example: each year the public service/interest job and career fair in Austin occurs right during our finals. Having four finals periods instead of two a year inhibits participation in events between law schools. If students and faculty only leave the school for mock trial/moot court stuff, then that's all we'll ever be known for.
 

The following question is an honest inquiry not a criticism.

Have their been critics who claim Baylor "teaches to the Bar" instead of to the larger picture of law?

Sincerely,
A theatre guy who's just curious.
 

Dan-

That has been alleged, I think wrongly, and I wrote about that in posts last November 4 and 14, which you can see here.
 

I think that Baylor may have to follow the advice of the gentleman in Comment 1 ("diserns twitter") as to "becoming a better 'traditional' law school." I believe that the acid test of a law school is job placement and bar passage- no matter how "elite" a school perceives itself to be, if its graduates cannot find work, then their statements to prospective students as to "how great their school is" are "mere puffery." I think many individuals feel bitter because it is as if they work so hard here, and then get worse (defined by low-paying, which may not be an objective measure) jobs than individuals from schools where students are considered to not have to have endured as difficult of a program (see UH and SMU).

Just my 2 cents,
Chicago
 

I know, I know....

First, you all must stop teaching and get to writing. We need articles on critical legal studies, critical race theory, postmodern deconstructions of the law, and mostly a lot of law review articles about why everything President Bush has done is unconstitutional. I don't know how any of this stuff actually helps practioners of the law (something I think our professors' writing and the writing in the law review do quite well right now) but it seems that is what all the fancy schools are doing.

Next, we need to replace practice court and evidence with a 6 month "journey through the law." Look, I understand that you all think procedure, evidence, and professional responsibility are useful (and they are, learning that every day now) but we need to get to know our feelings about the law. And we need to have an easier 3L year. That is what the big boys do.

Third, bar schmar I say....standardized tests are probably colonialist attempts to comodify the law (we can discuss that in our new law review). We need to get down to around 90% passage, which will show that we are hip and cool and don't just focus on numbers man....

Bottom line, I would rather be Baylor Law School than be "generic academic ruminations on the law" law school described above, and I certainly think I'm a much better lawyer today for having gone to Baylor than I would've been coming out of UT, UH, or SMU.

Now, that jobs thing is troubling....but I have no answer for that.
 

We need to hire more faculty and lighten their teaching loads so they have more time to devote to scholarship that is published in respected journals.
 

I'm not that concerned about our ranking, but I wanted to respond to a couple of comments.

First, I think we should definitely reexamine the law review. Prof. Osler, you've talked before about the practical uselessness of law reviews. Since we don't have much to lose (in terms of reputation), I think we should experiment a little. Why not do something crazy with our law review? What if we made a conscious effort at having a more user-friendly law review? You know, something people subscribed to because it was interesting and useful instead of just “my alma mater's publication”? Certainly, the law doesn't think highly of experimentation and new ideas, but clearly the old ideas aren't working for us anymore. The Baylor Law Review will probably never be the Harvard Law Review. (By the way, I think the online Texas Supplement to the BLR is an excellent example of doing "something crazy." What other law reviews offer RSS syndication?)

Second, I don't know about moving PC to 2L. In my experience, during the first year, you're just figuring out the language. Then, the second year is about learning how it all fits together as a coherent whole. Instead of broad, clearly distinct areas of law (torts, criminal, contracts), everything interacts and has a broad unity. Maybe you could learn that during the third year, but it might hinder the PC experience not to have that. I don't know for sure either way, but I think we should think a lot about the costs and benefits before moving PC. Lastly, I think at least some of our excellent bar passage rate stems from the fact that our students don't forget how to work hard and study during the third year. I think that makes the transition to studying for the Bar a lot easier.

Third, my only problem with the quarter system is that I have to pay more for books each year. I've been able to take more subjects than my counterparts at other schools. I've been able to get to know more professors. Finals are (almost) fun now--or at least they don't scare the snot out of me like they did first year. It might be nice to stretch Civil Procedure over four months instead of 2 1/2, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. To resolve Anon 6:09's issues, maybe we could shift the quarter system so that our finals wouldn't conflict with other schools' events.

That said, I do have two of my own thoughts.

First, we have some real heavyweights on our faculty. For example, Prof. Featherston, whom the Supreme Court of Texas cites to solve T&E problems, and Prof. Miller, who was recently elected to the ALI. I think Beal wrote the book on Texas administrative law. These professors have already garnered significant respect among their peers. (As a side note, Featherston and Miller are both BLS grads.) If we could take advantage of the respect they've already earned and spread it to the wider institution, that would surely help. I don't know how exactly to do that, but while we're looking for new assets to make us better, we should not neglect our existing excellent assets.

Second, externships and internships are great, but why don't we have any clinics?
 

I concur with everything said thus far, except with regards to the problems associated with the quarter system. I was one of the brave few who went straight through the system. I completed law school in 27 months and took the bar three days after I finished my last exam (PC2). It was intense, but at the ripe old age of 35 I had little need (nor financial resources) to postpone re-entering the workforce for any longer. So, on that issue, I say the quarter system may increase the diversity of the student body in that it draws people attracted to the ability to get in and out as well as study through the summer. Traditional law schools don't offer that and, on that basis, I chose Baylor over SMU and others.

To me, the core problems with Baylor vis-a-vis the USNWR rankings are that (a) the faculty is too homegrown and (b) the school has done little to sell students to larger "name" firms inside and outside of Texas.

First, the faculty. At the outset let me say that by and large the faculty is excellent. However, many are Baylor grads with limited experience in the workforce and, in turn, limited reputations. I believe it is a false presumption that a Baylor grad "understands Baylor" and, as a result, is a better professor. Look outside the family; make it attractive for Yalies and others to come to Baylor (even for a short time) and then move, spreading the good word about the school. To do so, the dual handicaps of Waco and the whole Baptist-only thing must be addressed. Other than $$ I have no idea how to deal with those. To be sure, faculty ratio and academic output are important, but I think the foundation must be laid first by diversifying the employees base.

Second, as for the job situation, moving PC to 2L is a good idea and frees students to focus on getting a job during 3L, when they will now have the confidence gained during PC and can properly sell themselves. You need a CSO that actively "works" Akin Gump, V&E, HayBoo, BakerBotts, etc., having lunches with partners, speaking at events, playing golf, and all the other stuff salepeople do to build client relationships. It's a sales job - nothing more, nothing less - where you sell the school and its students to the marketplace. Passive sales don't work; they are not beating down the door to come to Baylor.

Just my 2 cents.
 

I think the rankings are silly. That being said, in my humble opinion, the first post hit it on the head.

I think the kind of law school we want to be in 10 years is the exact same kind of law school were are now, but we need to be better promoters of what it is we do here. We know how great or advocacy training/practical approach/actually teach kids how to practice law - stuff is, but folks outside of us don't really recognize it. Partly that's b/c we spend lots of time and energy making sure every student gets that preparation (P.C.), rather than grooming a few kids in each class to be the advocacy specialists. And that's awesome. That's how it should be. Schools shouldn't get credit for being an "advocacy school" b/c they teach 6 kids in every graduating class of 100 to really be good practicing attorneys. We need to first make this distinction in our promotion of us over other "advocacy schools," but second, we need to smash these schools when we see them at tournaments. This is where the balance the "twitter" was talking about comes in. I don't know about moving P.C., but definitely we should focus on getting more 1 and 2Ls more involved so that when they get to their big national tournament (M.T. or M.C.) their 3rd year, they've got tons of experience.

I don't know enough about law review or publication to be helpful.

But most importantly, like "rrl" said, regardless of the rankings or any changes we do or don't make - I 'd rather be at Baylor Law than anywhere else.

-Ed
 

Not specific advice, but I posted this on the last entry not realizing there was a new one: While I agree that, from an internal perspective, I received a great education at Baylor Law, and that the school continues to have a great program, it is not okay to eschew the rankings because we are confident that Baylor Law students receive a great education. While it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to have to worry about what others think, this is becoming a necessity. If Baylor does not take steps to improve their rankings, regardless of Baylor's confidence in its own system, it is doing a great disservice to its students. Many firms, including mine, will not even interview at schools that are not in the top tier, and, in my opinion, are becoming even more selective in this regard, showing hesitance to hire outside of the top 20. While Baylor law students may graduate with a great education, if they are unemployable, this won't mean much from a practical standpoint, especially with the increasing amount of student debt most students are forced to accrue.
 

I've long been a fan of moving PC to 2L, despite concerns about people slacking off in 3L. I just don't see it. 3Ls w/ a full course load, plus Bar/Bri, plus interviews, plus assistantships, advocacy teams, interniships, etc. will still be plenty busy, but a lot better prepared to handle it all. In regards to whether 2Ls can handle it, absolutely. I never got a big picture understanding of the law until PC, so 2L was a waste of time but I got a lot out of my post-PC classes.

One way to improve faculty ratio and boost our rep would be to bring in big name faculty from other schools to do lecture series or even teach for a quarter. St. Mary's gets Supreme Ct justices for their summer program in Austria, surely we can tempt a few scholars to scenic Waco for a summer quarter. However, the faculty ratio is already improving as old hands return from the trenches and new hires are picking up more classes.

I don't care a bit about academic publishing. I used law reviews for a graduate thesis before I knew anything about the law. Much of what they are is crap. I like our law review but maybe we could put out some pratice-oriented newsletters like the various bar sections do. It would be an opportunity for non-BLR folks to get their names out, require fewer resources, and get BLS noticed by practicioners (including some at firms). I can tell you that a "motion of the month" and sample briefs go over very well.

I wouldn't do anything that increases faculty workload without directly benefiting students, however. We already ask a ton of those guys.

The quarter system is good. We actually got a lot more material than the semester classes at other schools. Plus, it keeps the intensity up. Complacency is very, very bad. To the extent that it puts us on a weird schedule, maybe profs could be more flexible about allowing people to reschedule exams? Actually, I found them to be helpful when I needed it.

Career services. Sigh. There's only so much they can do. We are a small school in a small market. Big firms don't get the value they want from sending people to OCI. Maybe video conference interviews?? Heather has embarked on a program of bringing people in for practice seminars over lunch and dinner. That may help get our rep up among employers if we are bringing senior partners to Waco and educating them. I think that may just be what it takes, educating non-BLS types one dude at a time.

Clinics don't do anything for rankings unless they tackle high-profile cases and very few do (there are only so many capital/DNA projects needed). The way most clinics work, they're only useful to people w/ no practice experience. PC covers us.

I agree w/ TradelawGuy, although I would like to see a core of BLS grads on the faculty always. Especially for PC, although Osler is great. There is some serious solidarity built by our shared experiences. He's also right about getting the CSO to actively network. It's expensive but it's money well-spent. Get one person into a private club network like Corporate Clubs of America, buy the golf and dinner package, and have him/her travel to the big markets and take people out. See if any alums can hook up benes like occasional use of box seats or season tickets. CCA's package gives you free meals/greens fees outside your home city (one per month per club you visit). That'd be a sweet gig for somebody. If BLS needs someone, I've already got a membship and promise to take golf lessons. :)
 

Uh, sorry, that was long.
 

I agree that something must be done about the law review. First, I think the Texas Practice Edition should go. An entire edition (and when I was there, we only published 3) devoted to Texas issues, does nothing to gain us national attention. IN ADDITON TO continuing to look for articles useful to practitioners, we could actively solicit articles from academics with national reputations - no matter what the garbage might be, at least it would attract attention.

I also think there could be a lot more PC marketing - specifically to governmental employers. Law firms are used to having students pitched to them, but what about governmental employers? In my experience, no matter what I said or did, no prospective governmental employer has given a rip about PC, and certainly anything I said was inadequate to educate them. I think reaching out to governmental employers is particularly advantageous because for many BLS students, they want what the government can offer - immediate courtroom responsibilities, and governmental employers want what BLS students have to offer - someone immediately competent to perform, but who, beacuse they aren't being drawn from the private sector, will come in at a lower pay grade.
 

_b_ has a great point about pitching students to government employers. The DOJ attorneys I work with and against are always, and I mean always, in court. A Baylor grad is perfectly suited for that type of work and would be an asset to any number of federal agencies. Like all jobs, however, it is oftentimes who you know and not what you know that lands the job which, again, suggests a more proactive CSO would be helpful.
 

For whatever it's worth, I got a job at the DOJ this summer, and the guy who interviewed me (over the phone) admitted that he had never known anybody who'd gone to Baylor or anything about the program. I don't think I know anybody up there, so I'm not sure how I got the job. Maybe he did some research? Anyway--I'm saying that to say that I like the idea of pitching to the government and really selling PC and what it is we do here.
 

What about hiring a marketing firm? What we need is exposure. Exposure will lead to name recognition, and that will lead to an improved reputation. We need Baylor Law Profs. on TV, talking about legal issues in Texas. This will also raise the interest level of potential students, thus giving us better incoming LSATs and GPAs. The Flutie effect is real!!
 

I do think that location and 3L PC really hinders our job placement. Many of my friends who went to school with the wife at UH had incredibly light loads their 3L year and worked part time at really good mid-sized firms and had 6-figure job offers as a direct result even without great summer associate gigs.
 

I think the rankings are terribly important. They provide the only way for firms and people who don't already know about Baylor to get a sense of our program. These people are not going to come here and find out about our school, so they use the rankings to catagorize us.
 

One of the concerns several people have raised is marketing the school and having a more proactive CSO. That is something on which we are working. Part of my responsibilities, as well as one of the responsibilities of the new CSO Director (once he/she is hired), is to actively go out and meet with employers and let them know why Baylor Law - and especially our students/graduates - is great. I have done very little of that so far because of the vacancy in the Director position, but take heart in knowing that is something that will be happening soon.

Also, specifically with regard to the DOJ, we had a representative come on campus last fall to do a presentation and answer students' questions after. It was open to all students and we even provided a free lunch. I had the opportunity to speak to him about Baylor's program, and one of our recent graduates has accepted a position at the DOJ that she learned about through that presentation.

We want to work with you and for you, so please join us in the effort!
 

I do think that being in Waco causes some problems for finding employment. I remember our former CSO director saying that it was difficult to get firms send attorneys out to Waco for OCI. Why can't we take OCI to them? For instance, set up a day of screening interviews in Houston and/or Dallas at a hotel. This would help small and midsized firms that wanted to hire, but didn't want to send somebody to Waco for the day. That would definitely bolster the visibility of Baylor in the city if it was promoted right. It would also, undoubtedly, lead to several jobs for upcoming Baylor grads. I know that there are other law schools that do these type of events and they appear to be very successful.
 

I like that idea a lot. Why not hold a job fair (or something like one) in Dallas/Houston?
 

Love the job fair idea - I think it'd have the added bonus of bringing in less "prestigious" firms too. I think employment would improve exponentially if we could only have easier access to firms that don't require that you be on law review, top 10% and have been to the moon on your own solo space mission.

Personally, I don't give a flip about rankings - overall, I'm happy with Baylor and think that much of it is just fine the way it is. But professionally, I care very much because employers care. It's a double standard that can get very frustrating at times.
 

I'm glad others are jumping on many of the ideas that have been mentioned on this site in previous posts and today.

Heather, I have a question. How long has the CSO position been open and how could Baylor possibly leave it open while school is in session? That kind of thinking is what prevents BU Law from moving forward and is purely ridiculous (mind you, I'm not blaming you for this, but it needs explaination) If my memory serves me correctly the last CSO director left quite a long time ago. But it's quite sad that our efforts have thus far consisted of "inviting" employers for Fall OCI and sending students to a UT job fair. I'm still bitter about the lack of help our CSO provided (a majority of my friends found jobs on their own with no help from the CSO during our last year and after).

I have suggested before that we launch other publications apart from LR. We've proposed academic journals to the brass at BU Law with no hint of interest. I still think we could get more students involved and more professors involved if we had more magazine-type or even newsletter-type publications out there. Thus increasing our reputation. Wouldn't you think that a judge or another professor in Texas might think of Baylor a bit more respectfully if he had a journal sitting on his desk or reading a newsletter in his e-mail box that dealt with his field?

I don't know if moving PC is a great idea or not because it definitely helps us with our bar passage (I took the bar right after PC2 ended and was fortunate to not have to worry about evidence nor procedure during my prep, so it definitely helped).
However, during my internships during the summers, my lack of procedural and evidentiary knowledge was obvious and I struggled during that time compared to other students who had taken those courses in their first year at other schools.

There is no question that BU has a faculty problem, but until BU starts focusing on raising more money, we can't afford new faculty or visiting faculty. Let alone entice them to come to Waco during Texas summers. Baylor definitely sucks at being visible in any community. Our deans and professors should be on a statewide and nationwide circuit with job fairs, recruiting events, CLEs, and just plain schmoozing, increasing our reputation and visibilty in the process.

If we are going to keep our numbers as low as we do, we need to make sure that we are turning away more applications than anywhere else. We need to make sure students are killing themselves to get in, and perception of the school (including rankings) have an impact.

Lastly, and this is personal for me, the brass at BU Law needs to realize that the students should be the focus at the school and not anyone else. 1) Don't lie to students and say they voted for a speaker at graduation when it's just an alumni you hand picked who donated money or is promoting himself (I know for a fact no one nominated Kirk Watson to speak at my graduation).
2) Don't hold any events at the law school that don't have anything to do with the law school. (Your kid's prom dinner shouldn't supercede finals study or even be considered for something to be allowed in the library)
3) ease up and let me drink my water bottle in the library, and don't tell me it's to protect the wood, especially when you hold lunches upstairs for people unrelated to our school.
4) don't tell the SBA the students are responsible for paying for things like furniture in the law school or we have to dontate money to an elementary school (It's our money and we are adults who can decide how it's spent)
5) Don't tell us to do something and quit "whining" about doing it simply because it's the way it's always been done.
Maybe then I won't tell all of my undergrad friends not to bother applying because my law school could care less about us as students.
 

1) Hire faculty that are interested in contributing to the national conversation about law. Professor Osler, you do that through your work on federal sentencing. Others who frequently publish books or articles or are members of national law boards include, to my knowledge, professors Ryan, Counseller, Miller, Bates, Beal, and Wilson.
Other faculty members, all wonderful teachers and phenominal human beings, don't do those things. So, when people in accedemia outside of Texas are asked about Baylor, they have few possible leaders at Baylor to point to. (Not dumping on teachers who don't, just a recognition that if they don't participate in the national converstion about their focus in law, they can't be recongized as a leader in that focus.)

2) I know that law schools are a big financial boon to the universities that have them, but a higher percentage of that money needs to be returned to the BLS budget for additional faculty. The way to get a more prominent faculty is not to ditch the phenominal teachers who don't write or to abandon the great practical programs, it's to get more faculty - young or mid career - with intellect, passion, and desire, even if that desire means that they are just using 5-6 years at Baylor as a stepping stone to bigger and better things for their career in accedemia.

3) Scholarships or loan forgiveness for all students committing at the outset of law school or before the start of 4th quarter to spend 3 of their first 5 years out of law school in public service. It's just the right thing to do.

4) Have a mission. Just as the first poster said, the school leaders needs to decide "what kind of law school [BLS] want[s] to be in 10 years." Once you have a mission, goals follow, then means to achieve those goals. Without a mission or goals, any measures taken are reactionary or stop-gaps.
 

There are a lot of great ideas here. As to Lurch, I agree with much of what you said, but you missed some people doing significant national work, such as Prof. Featherston.

Whenever I ask for ideas, I'm always struck by the depth, intelligence, and passion of the responses. It's clear that our students really care about the school.

I do know one thing-- these ideas will be the subject of conversations on the third floor over the next months.
 

dallas_ada, I have been handling many of the Director's responsibilities (along with Monica) in addition to my responsibilities as Asst. Dean while the position is vacant. We posted it in September in the appropriate national forums and have been interviewing people since that time but haven't found the person we believe to be the right fit for the direction we want to take the office. As you know, we have classes year-round, so school is always 'in session' making the absence in any position in the school challenging. However, that is true in any work environment where every employee serves an essential role.
 

It seems that BLS must be doing something terribly wrong with its marketing when South Texas is ranked higher for its trial advocacy program.

Heather - while I appreciate your taking the time to respond, I don't think your answer is sufficient. Since BLS is on the quarter system, that is all the more reason that the CSO can't just take a full academic year off while waiting for the perfect candidate to fall into your lap. I think the solution is to immediately bring in an interim director. While an interim will not provide the leadership that the permanent director will, at least there will be somebody to help with resumes, call firms, bring firms to campus, etc. BLS is being extremely unfair to current students by waiting this long; additionally, law firms are beginning to turn elsewhere for their hiring needs since there is nobody at BLS to work with. I realize (and appreciate) that you are trying to step up and help fill the gap, but it is impossible for you to do everything.
 

You know, I've said a couple of times now that I think BLS needs to create an Excellence Committee (I think it sounds better than an Improvement Committee). The committee should consist of a few faculty members, at least one person from within the administration, a representative from SBA, a representative from Law Review, a representative from the mock trial and/or moot court teams, a 1st year rep, a 2nd year rep, a 3rd year rep, and then a representative from various alumni groupings (i.e. a brand new graduate, a 1-2 year alumnus, a 2-5 year alumnus, a 5-10 year alumnus, a 10-20 year alumnus and a 20+ year alumnus. I think a committee like this gives a broad spectrum of ideas and perspectives and I think a committee like this would really create some great ideas on how to improve BLS.

I've also repeatedly said that I'm here to help in any way I can. All you have to do is contact me and let me know what you need.
 

Dustin-- that's a really interesting idea.
 

These are all great thoughts. But as many have already stated the Career Services is just lacking. I have not talked to anyone whether 1L, 2L, or 3L that has confidence in our CS office. Employers just dont come here even though i really believe that we put out students on par with any University in Texas. One problem is that there is really no incentive for employers to come to Waco when in there minds they can find a student of the same caliber at SMU, U of H, or even St. Mary's. Somehow we have to get more employers here or take students to the employers in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas etc.
I just find it really depressing that I am gonna spend 3 years at a great law school earning a great degree and then am going to be stuck with no job and a lot of depth in all likelihood if no changes are made. And after discussion with numerous other students this is the feeling i get from all of them. I dont like the fact that I constantly ponder whether i made a mistake coming to Baylor. It shouldn't be that way. Sorry if this sounds like a rant or just alot of complaining.
 

I know that being located in Waco places BLS at something of an employment disadvantage because of the smaller local market; however, a less than two hour drive is not a sufficient reason for a school with our advocacy program and bar passage rate to have such a low pre-graduation employment rate. Even the greater distance between Waco and Houston is not enough to explain why the firm who hired me (during a massive recruitment campaign) had never received any information about Baylor or our OCI program.

I knew when I chose to attend BLS rather than the higher-ranked schools to which I was admitted that I had a great chance of passing the bar, but also of being unemployed when I did so. Well aware of the fact that the responsibility of employment is ultimately that of the student, I was in the CSO early as a 1L. The extent to which I was offered assistance after much inquiry, was a reference to Martindale-Hubbell. I sacrificed a small forest for résumés and cover letters applying to EVERY firm that I could find (1) in the practice area I wanted and (2) with a BLS grad in any practice area. I made a great set of contacts and got a job. That said, other than the really large national firms, no one with whom I spoke had any idea of the recruitment program at Baylor. These were neither unfriendly people nor tiny firms. If I could use the Martindale-Hubbell list in my spare time as a student and come back with contacts and multiple job offers, why were these firms unaware of our OCI? It would seem far more efficient for the CSO to clear-cut an acre in marketing materials than for each student to have to canvas the whole of the regional Martindale directory. Statistically, ninety percent of our student body will not even be considered by the national firms that will only entertain applications from top-ten-percenters (law school math at work there), so we should also generate “buzz” among the other mid to large size firms that are just looking for good attorneys who can win cases.

Additionally, the CSO might be able to make better use of the local alumni network in each of the big cities. My undergrad institution uses local alumni groups across the country for job placement, with a CSO representative attending each of the quarterly social gatherings. I also think that getting other attorneys out to our law school for things like continuing education seminars (despite the fact that this will raise a whole new set of parking nightmares). We send our faculty to other schools for conferences, but we should also start hosting more.
 

As an aside to all the ideas on here...Let me confirm to you why the ranking matters.

I just heard that the multi-national firm that my wife works at will no longer actively recruit from Baylor because of it's low position. That's one less employer in the Dallas, FTW, and Austin areas for all the recruits during fall OCI.

Also, Heather, just what is the "direction you want to take" with the CSO?? Explaining that might make alot of us feel better about what we can expect in the future.
 

I think the CSO does nothing but pass on opprotunities that are sent to it. There is no personalization, just a job listing service. The common mis-perception is that the CSO only finds jobs for those in the top 10%. Even this is not true. Most people in the Top 10% get jobs because that is what the employer wanys. The CSO does little, if anything, to help.
 

I'm tired of the school saying ranking does not matter. It matters to employers, so it should matter to the school.
 

It's amazing how Baylor administration's tune changes based upon where the law school ranks. Five years ago, when Baylor liked its ranking, I seem to remember the Dean sending out an email on how wonderful it is that we are recognized as a "tier one" school. Baylor University put a link to a news story about it on the front page of their website. Now, after four straight years of decline, they try to convince us that the rankings mean nothing.
 

8:03--

If that last comment was directed at me, you are wrong on two counts. First, I'm not the administration, and haven't seen anything about this from our administration. Second, while I don't think this year's rankings are cause for alarm, I do think they matter. Here is what I wrote over on the Law School Innovation Blog, reacting to the idea that rankings don't matter:

"But, they do matter. Students too often choose a school based on the rankings, and academics pay attention to rankings when considering jobs. Donors care, as do currently enrolled students. Everyone's parents, for some reason, seem to follow these damn rankings."
 

Prof. Osler: No, that comment was not directed at you. It was directed at the administration (maybe I am wrong, but I consider you part of the faculty, not administration).

Those of us who came to Baylor a few years ago remember hearing the consistent mantra that Baylor is "tier one." I was reminded of that consistently throughout the recruitment process. It was mentioned several times during orientation. A faculty member even reminded us on a weekly basis that we were "expected to perform at the level of students at a tier one law school." During that time, we were all given the impression that rankings did indeed matter.

Over the last several years, we have watched the ranking drop a little bit each year. Each individual year is certainly not cause for concern. But I think that this trend is definitely cause for concern. Over these years, I have limited personal contact with the administration; however, the few occasions I have had to discuss these issues, my concerns were brushed off.

In order to graduate, we commit three difficult years and about $100K in tuition. We invest a tremendous amount in our law degrees. Yes, we are greatly concerned when our educational investment loses its value. In the eyes of our peers and employers, our degrees are losing value.

What should be done about it? This thread is a nice start, but I think more open dialog is necessary. In response to a drop from 24 to 27, the dean of the U. of Iowa today announced nine open forums to discuss the issue (abovethelaw.com posted the email the dean sent). I don't think we need nine forums - I would be happy with one. I would really appreciate hearing our administration share what they think caused the drop, how to solve it, and listen to some of our ideas to improve the school.
 

I second that idea. Some of my fellow students and I have been repeatedly ignored when we expressed concerns about last year's drop. The administration has always taken the attitude that they know more than the students when it comes to the importance of rankings. I flat disagree!
 

You can't make rankings less important by saying that they don't matter.
 

I agree. We can say the rankings are skewed, that they don't recognize our strengths, etc., but we can't say that they don't matter, because they do matter to people (like employers) who make decisions which affect our students.
 

3L student (with a pretty good resume and not a job offer in sight)-
CSO:
CSO has got to step up efforts to bring in employers and advertise the school. I love the idea of holding fairs in other cities. Now, these would probably need to be on the weekends, due to the student's intensive schedules. I, too, am shocked at not having a CSO director for over 1/2 the year. I agree with a previous post that an interim director is a must until the school finds exactly who it's looking for. (I've seen a video recently that tried to explain the school a little better that was sent out to employers. I don't know if this is the first time a video was sent to employers or not. I like the idea. It's a step in the right directio - we just need to do more - much more! I question how many employers actually watched the video.)
Admissions:
I have no idea if this has ever kept students away, but whenever I applied to Baylor Law (for the fall class) and was accepted for a different class, I didn't get a single piece of mail from the admissions office that didn't have an error of some sort on it. The date deadline I had to accept admission, the date my payment was due, the date to register -- EVERYTHING was off. To the extent the dates were correct, I received the mailings after the deadlines. I think the reason is that our 2nd floor isn't equipped to handle 3 entering classes. The copy-and-paste jobs are too inadequate for Baylor Law. So, I questioned the competence of the school's administration since before I was accepted. This does NOT look good for the school! Student's should get timely mailings on admissions with correct dates!
Student Rankings:
Students are only ranked twice a year (for the online postings) and the postings online right now are as of SPRING 2007. There have been 3 sets of grades since then. Why are there no new numbers posted? I realize you can go to Jerri and get your rank at any time, but she is not going to go through where all your classmates rank so you know how ahead or behind the rest of the pack you rank. Since the grading system has changed at Baylor, GPAs are going up. It is misleading to look at the Spring 2007 approximate ranks and try to figure out where you sit with your GPA that includes Summer 2007, Fall 2007, and Winter 2007-08 grades. (That was a personal rank and not much to do with the school's perception to the outside.)
 

As long as we try to say why the rankings are wrong (or unimportant, skewed, not reflective of our glorious program, or any other nonsense) we will never improve in the eyes of employers as a whole. We look like the little boy who doesn't win at the game so he quits playing Instead what this school must do is embrace the ranking system and work to improve the areas that can be fixed. I understand that 40% of the score comes from subjective opinions of our school held by others; and I agree this takes a while to change. However, the other 60% is hard data such as student/techer ratios, spending, LSAT/GPAs, books available, job placement, and acceptance rate. This is hard, objective data and it can be changed much more quickly than people's opinions. I know our school focuses on how to convince a jury that sh*t is shinola, but if we can maximize these hard numbers, the touchy feely stuff's importance is minimized.