UF Law slide from 21 to 28 in the US News Law School Rankings. Twenty-eight is not so bad and it, at least, avoids the dreaded 30. (I don't mean to imply these rankings mean anything except to some University Presidents and law school deans on the make.)
So why the slip? It's actually pretty simple. US News began factoring in bar passage rate on which UF Law has historically done miserably given the caliber of students admitted. (Schools with nominally less capable students put UF to shame.) The reasons UF underachieves is likely due to a number or reasons: a very high curve, students taking many hours of non graded courses often in tangential subjects, very few required bar courses and so on.
Since passage has been a problem for decades, why wasn't it address before? That too has an easy answer. The ranking obsession of the Laura Rosenbury administration and, I think, her chief benefactor Provost Glover, did not deem it a pressing matter. Why? Because when only rankings count and not whether graduating students can pass a bar exam, why worry about it.
Don't get me wrong. I do not know if there is a correlation between passing the bar and succeeding as an attorney. I do know passing the bar is definitely correlated with being permitted to practice law and, there can be no "success" if you can't get through the door.
So, UF is left with the collateral damage caused by a Dean who put self promotion ahead of duty to the students. In fact, I am told that that policy actually exasperated the bar passage issue. When confronted with "splitter students" -- those with high LSAT and not comparable GPAs, the policy was to give the nod to the high LSAT students. Yes, those would be the very bright ones who are likely over confident and lack the work ethic to pass the bar. Seems like a dumb policy but not when you realized that UF thought it did better in the rankings with this policy -- that is, until bar passage counted.
Of course, there is no accountability. Rosenbury is off to Barnard where she continues a policy that personally served her interests at Florida of limiting free speech. If this does not ring a bell, check it out in the Times. Presumably, that policy is also because it pleases those who are higher up.
