My brief reply to Brian Koppen (better late than never!)

Thanks to Brian Koppen, author of the “Law School Advocacy” website I criticized back in September, for so quickly responding to my post. I wish I could say my promised reply was more timely, but it’s not as if there’s urgency to this discussion, and this post certainly won’t be the last on the subject. In any event, like I said in my initial salvo, however much I disagree with Koppen’s rankings system, I respect and appreciate his efforts to start one.

In all, I think Koppen makes some valid points. But I do want to address two particular arguments.

The first is Koppen’s response to my complaint that his rankings system overvalues some competitions (in particular the Pace National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition) and grossly undervalues others (most notably, the National Moot Court Competition). While apparently conceding that the NMC and ABA NAAC competitions have historically been the “big two,” the crux of his argument seems to be that prestige will “shift” away from the NMC and into the arms of Pace. Why? Well, apparently, because his rankings system will change the behavior of the mooting world.

He doesn’t argue that the NMC is poorly run, or that it’s attendance has fallen off, or that moot court faculty advisers and coaches have come to regard the NMC as unimportant, or any other reason that would cause the oldest moot court competition in the country to lose prestige. Rather, his only argument is that because its regional rounds are too small to warrant inclusion in his ranking system, schools will stop sending their best teams to the NMC in favor of the Pace competition.

Goodness, I hope that’s not the case. The primary purpose behind my criticisms was to stop (or at least slow) the trend of those in the law academy citing to Koppen’s rankings as if they’re the absolute final word on moot court strength. Certainly, it’s true that as rankings systems gain recognition, acceptance, or importance, the “ranked” tend to alter their behavior to improve their standing (or, as Brian Leiter has called it, “gaming the rankings”).

But Pace more prestigious than the National??? I’d love to say the day that happens is the day I retire from coaching moot court. Sadly, I really love my job, so I can’t go that far. Still, even if he’s right, pay careful attention to what Koppen has said: He essentially admits that the NMC is more prestigious now, but that due to his rankings system, it will cease to be so in coming years.

Shouldn’t the rankings system reflect prestige, as opposed to dictating it?

And regardless of how you choose to answer that question, the simple fact is that Koppen’s system puts way too much emphasis on one competition–Pace. Unless I’m missing something, a team will receive more points for just finishing in the top ten at Pace than it would for winning the ABA NAAC (which even Koppen, I have to believe, would say is more prestigious than Pace).

This past year, Pace had 70 teams. Under Koppen’s rules, the nine Pace semifinalists received 61 points. The winner, Lewis and Clark, received 69 points. By contrast, for winning the NAAC (which started with 108 more teams), Harvard received just 51 points – 27 for defeating 31 teams at regionals, and 24 for winning the 25-team national finals. Even Koppen can’t admit that Pace is more prestigious than the NAAC, yet his overly rigid system gives the winner of the 70-team Pace 18 more points than the winner of the 178-team NAAC! And any competition with more than 52 teams would necessarily dictate the same result. When that’s the case, it’s time to reevaluate your system.

As to the issue of whether Koppen’s rankings favor the programs that enter the most competitions, he makes a good point that a “larger” program will develop more advocates, and that by itself is a good thing. I don’t necessarily disagree. The problem, though, is that oftentimes a larger program is simply the result of a larger student body. We don’t (or at least shouldn’t) say one law school is better than an other because it graduates more students. My law school (Texas Tech) has a student body of almost 700. The University of Texas has nearly twice that amount—almost 1,300 students. Wouldn’t you expect us to have less competition teams than Texas? Our budget is smaller, and while I have no idea what percent of UT’s budget is dedicated to advocacy programs, I can say with some confidence that it wanted to send more teams to competitions than Texas Tech, it could easily do so.

In short, I think Koppen's rankings are at best unreliable and at worst misleading. But I thank him for his response, which I think shows he’s given a sufficient amount of thought to his system.

The discussion shall continue...