The results of such polls are published in a spring issue that gets a great deal of attention. It has been flattering, but not surprising, to see Franklin Pierce Law Center consistently appearing among the top five -- indicating that senior intellectual property faculty at some schools are aware of its intensive and extensive coverage. [3] However, when Pierce Law's ranking slipped in March 1996, a few students and alumni were upset. [4]

     That and a related article in a local newspaper [5] prompted a serious look at the 1996 data: [6]

                       School                   Votes
                   1.  George Washington               28
                   2.  Columbia                        26
                   3.  Stanford                        22
                   4.  Houston                         21
                   5.  Pierce Law                      20
                   6.  Berkeley                        17
                   7.  NYU                             16
                   8.  UCLA & Boston University        15
                   10. John Marshall                   13
                       Total votes                   178

• Perhaps reflecting honest ignorance about other schools' programs, total 1996 votes for the top ten programs represent only 39% of those that could have been cast. [7] Given how quickly program tallies dwindle, average responding professors may have cast no more than half of their votes.

• Second, most rankings differ on the basis of one or two raw votes. For example, the three-vote difference between Pierce Law (20) and Berkeley (17) might have been found significant after formal analysis, but that is highly improbable.

• Also, only about 60% of respondents recognized GW's IP program -- one of the oldest. This, too, sparks wonder about the information available to even senior law professors on others' programs.

Postscript. Although I was glad to see Pierce Law top the rankings for several years, my views have remained unchanged. Indeed, after being refused raw data since 1996 and having had more time to consider the issues, my skepticism has deepened.

---

Notes

¹ Association of American Law Schools, Directory of Law Teachers 1995-96, at 1129; 87 professors were listed. Initially only those with 10 or more years' experience received a ballot, but at least some of those teaching more than five years now apparently receive one.
      While twenty 1995 respondents did not teach an "intellectual property" course or seminar during the previous year, they were nevertheless polled. Conversely, a colleague with about 20 years experience was not polled because he did not update his AALS data sheet; another with nine years experience didn't quite qualify -- and, as shown above, only two votes separated 3d and 5th place!
     [2004 addendum. In the Fall of 2003, I (with 30 years experience) and several IP colleagues did not get a ballot. The effect that might have had on the rankings published in 2004 is unknown. Yet, in light of the latest available (1996) data set out above, it is likely to have been substantial.]

² That the number of schools potentially selected was increased is reflected in a 2000 US News statement (its sole disclosure of methodology for specialty rankings):

Specialty rankings: Legal educators identified the 15 schools with the best offerings. The 10 schools receiving the most nominations appear. Schools verified their offerings.

³ For many years, Pierce Law has offered an Intellectual Property Summer Institute as well as a globally recognized Masters in Intellectual Property. Since 1996, it has also offered an LLM.
      Each year, announcements are sent to all IP professors. Students from about 60 other U.S. law schools have attended IPSI; because most have been generous in their praise, it is difficult to imagine why that, alone, would not accord substantial recognition. See also, several reasons why our programs are hard to match.

⁴ Distress when rankings fall is not surprising. Yet, some apparently take such rankings far too seriously. For example, we interviewed an administrator who was reportedly fired because his previous school dropped but one notch in general rankings!

⁵ Scott Calvert, Law school guards its niche, Concord (NH) Monitor, May 17, 1996, at 1. Calvert's article shows how even well seasoned faculty may be uninformed about programs at other schools. Intellectual property is a broad subset of the law; see, e.g., Field, The Practical and Legal Fundamentals of Intellectual Property, online here. Copyright faculty, for example, have little reason to know about programs that emphasize patents or trademarks.

⁶ Bob Morris of US News provided the data to Dan Cahoy, then a Pierce Law student (by phone, May 21, 1996).

⁷ Only 46 ballots were returned (despite phone follow-ups). Because each professor could have selected up to ten schools, 460 votes were possible -- compared to 178; id.

• Jon R. Cavicchi and Thomas G. Field, Jr., Evaluating IP Programs (ipFrontline, Feb. 2007)
• Reasons for the success of Pierce Law's IP program
• Index to Law School Rankings (Internet Legal Resource Guide)
• Rankings Caution and Controversy (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)