Moreover, the ranking system seems hopelessly rigged. All schools are evaluated by the same standards and consequently chase the same prize — but schools at the top are very rich, and usually very old.

These schools (like Yale) tend to run lavish programs with low faculty-to-student ratios, colossal libraries, a wealth of clinical programs and generous loan-repayment offers.

Such largesse is supported only partially by tuition; the rest is funded by alumni donations and endowment interest. As such, these institutions set a hopelessly high bar for younger schools. To climb in the rankings, deans must scramble to mimic long-established schools.

Deans should certainly take heed of their rank — it matters a great deal to students. But they should not rush to counteract routine blips with policy revisions tailored specifically to pander to U.S. News. By adjusting sound academic policies to improve their school's rank, administrators prioritize vanilla criteria chosen simply because they are easily measured.

Magazine editors shouldn't be de facto deans, and — for law schools in particular — one size does not fit all.

For students, the defining aspects of law school really aren't captured in rankings. Relationships with classmates hinge more on personalities and life stories than test scores; academic life is shaped by the atmosphere at the school — relationships with specific professors, clinics, grading policy — not the number of printed volumes in the library.

The deans had it right in 2006: Rankings mania is unhealthy. Now, if only they believed that.

---

Michael Seringhaus is a first-year student at Yale Law School, which is ranked No. 1 in the latest U.S. News & World Report.