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
滑动查看哈佛法学院退出声明全文
要知道 ， 这些学校的法学院一直都是美国法学院中的佼佼者 ， 其中耶鲁大学法学院更是从1990年至今一直高居榜首 。
至此，美国顶尖的14所法学院中的10所学校宣布不再参与排名并号召其它学校也一起加入这个行列 。
距离哥大造假数据参与排名事件还没过去多久，（点击阅读：）这些学校如今的举动无疑是给本身就争议颇多的U.S.News一记重创 。
对此，U.S.News方的回应则是，为了履行自己的新闻使命并帮助学生做出最好的决定，不管学校学院是否提交数据 ， 他们仍将对这些法学院进行排名 。
其实这些法学院退出与否，都不会影响各自的招生，每个学院的各项主要数据一直都是公开可见的，最终对他们的排名也不会有很大的影响 。
更不用说这只是对一个学院的排名，对大学本身的综合排名也影响不大 。
毕竟他们已经优秀到不需要依靠外界排名来巩固名望 。
可是其他不敢退出排名的学校又该何去何从呢？
是继续为了依附排名提供漂亮的数据逐渐忘记初心？还是在如今的大环境下不顾招生，毅然追随“大佬们”的脚步一起退出？
不管是哪种选择，长久以往，对学校、对学生、对整个法律界大环境都会产生影响 。
那么 ， 这些法学院 究竟为什么对U.S.News这么不满呢？
二、法学院有多难
要想理清其中的关系 ， 首先要来了解一下美国的法学院 。
如果你要申请美国的法学院，只能在本科毕业后才有资格申请，然后摆在面前主要有两个方向：LLM（Master of Law 法学硕士）和JD（Juries Doctor 法学博士） 。
还有一个SJD （Doctor of Juris Science 法学博士）偏理论研究性，申请者选择较少，在此就不做赘述 。
