Podcast: Why Rankings Matter to People (& Why They Should Not)

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike discusses some of the psychological and societal reasons that rankings seem to matter so much to people—then explains the reasons that they shouldn't matter as much as they do.

You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠Google Podcasts⁠⁠.

Mike: Welcome to Status Check with Spivey, where we talk about life, law school, law school admissions, a little bit of everything. In the "everything" category—something our firm does for schools but also openly speaks about pejoratively, because it needs to be spoken about—is rankings.

So what do I mean by that? Rankings are incredibly prominent in higher education, much more so than, off the top of my head, any field I can think of. And our firm does reverse-engineer rankings very well, and we can use that model that we have at the undergraduate/law school level to do some pretty sophisticated things as far as where resources should be allocated, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean that we think that rankings are good for the market, are good for schools, are good for students. So while we make money off of rankings, we also openly talk about the negative consequences of rankings publicly. In a perfect world, rankings, I think, would go away or they would be very diffuse. It's a small revenue stream for our firm; we would gladly take the hit. Which often leaves me wondering, why do rankings seem to matter so much? They matter because they impact behavior. And they impact behavior for interesting reasons, and I want to talk about those interesting reasons.

Rankings have been something that, for 26 years now I've been embedded in higher education, I've noticed have a super-sized over-influence on how people behave. Even when I was a kid, I remember my dad every year would have us rank our favorite summer vacations. Whether it was, like, a drive to Hershey Park in Pennsylvania or whatever, he would want us to rank them. So there's something about the human mind that craves rankings. We’re here to dive a little bit into Mike Spivey, we'll call it, pseudo-psychology. Pseudo-psychology based on not just 25, 26 years of thinking about this, but having interviewed now—and you could check out our interviews—people like Terry Real, who has been on Oprah and written a 20-year best-selling list. So I'm tracking with the psychology that they've taught me.

Number one, for evolutionary reasons, humans crave to get rid of extraneous noise. We are bombarded with information, data at such a level that we have to ordinally rank things, which is what rankings do. There's almost a ranking for anything out there, service or product. You can find a rankings for, be it socks or eggs or hospitals. They're ranked. And the reason why they’re ranked is, smart people have realized that people will be drawn, will give them more attention if they rank these things. “What are the top five supplements to take for longevity?” I can tell you right now that we noticed at our firm, very early on in our analytics, if we said something like, “One of the top 10 ways to get into law school,” “One of the top 10 things that will surprise you as a first-year law school student,” those blogs got far more hits analytically than a blog that would say, “Things you should know as an incoming 1L student.” Now we try to titrate this; we try not to go overboard with rankings, because again, it's almost like we understand so well how much rankings matter that it would be unfair to just keep coming up with rankings. Because I don't want to overemphasize—there might not be a "top 10 admissions hacks to get into law school." It might vary from person to person, school to school. In fact, it does, which is why we haven't done “these are the top 10.” There's a top two—have a strong test score, have a great GPA, neither of which our firm does. So focus on those top two, and then there's thousands at the margins that are going to increase your chances you can work on. None of which we're going to rank.

I'm not immune to this at all. I am drawn to things like “Top 10 supplements for longevity,” I can assure you. Why am I drawn to this? So beyond the need to get rid of the noise, I mentioned that in higher education, rankings seem to matter more than in any other arena I’ve seen. Interestingly enough, biglaw particularly seems also to be drawn towards rankings of law firms, rankings of prestige.

In today's society, more than ever before, we have more downtime. It's the easiest time, physically, to survive. There's an abundance of resources available to most people on the planet, almost everyone going to law school; by resources—we don't have to worry about starvation or survival. (Obviously there's outliers.) The converse of that though is, it is the hardest time psychologically to exist on the planet, for that very reason. A great book on this is Dr. Anna Lembke at Stanford's book, Dopamine Nation, speaking about how much time we have in today's society—and how this is only going to trend upward towards 2040—to be in our own heads. Our own heads are going to be pretty messy at times. One of my favorite authors, David Foster Wallace, who, you know, unfortunately struggled himself in his own head, said, you know, “If only I could sit quietly in a room for 15 minutes with my own thoughts.” So often our thoughts are going towards different areas of where we get our esteem, how we feel about ourselves. I promise you, this is coming back to rankings on higher ed in a big way, so just bear with the pseudo-psychology here.

There's four areas to get esteem. I’ll start with the most common for me and maybe a lot of people listening to this—I’d suspect a lot of people listening to this—and I'll end with the best area. There's performance-based esteem. I've written extensively about this, because for much of my life, this was 90% of where my esteem came from. Did I win the race? Did I get an A on the paper? Did my business do well this year? Sounds maybe decent in theory if it drives you towards doing better. The problem is there's always going to be someone better, and if you're purely performance-based esteem, which I essentially was, if you don't perform well, if someone beats you, if you have a bad day or if there's just someone better, then your esteem is going to be low, and has—it's conditioned upon something external. Keep rankings in mind, because performance-based esteem relates to getting into highly ranked schools.

There's other-based esteem. Did that person smile at me? Did that law school email me back? Did that highly-ranked law school email me back? You see where I'm going with this. So other-based esteem is also conditioned, nefariously, on how others treat you. Did I tweet something and someone tweets something angrily back at me? Do I let that impact me? For some people, more than others, that might be low—it's relatively low for me, but it's certainly there for me, I can assure you—and for others, it might be high. And again, for those where it's high, often the higher the ranked the school, the more they crave the other-based attention.

The third—very endemic to higher education; in fact Terry Real in his book, I Don't Want To Talk About It, cites higher education and Harvard as an example—is attribute-based esteem. Did I go to Harvard? Did my child go to Harvard? Did I get a paper in Harvard Law Review? Do I drive a BMW? Any of those are attribute-based esteem.

Incidentally, all three of these, I think, are not what you want. We all have a little bit of these. Yours could be other-based or attribute-based; mine is predominantly performance-based (unfortunately). And higher education, particularly elite schools, would suffer greatly if not for attribute-based esteem. Nothing's black or white.

So I'm not saying any of these are all bad, but ideally—the fourth kind of esteem is unconditional self-love, self-esteem. I'm here, I'm in this universe. So are you. Congrats to both of us; I made it and you made it. I’m not worse than you, but I'm also no better than you. And you've had these moments, I assure you, and I have these moments. I particularly have them when I'm meditating or running in the mountains and just feeling good about life, nature and the universe—we're all in it together.

Rankings are conditioned, and unfortunately, today's society points us in these three directions of performance—"Did I get into Harvard Law School?"—attribute—"Did I go to Harvard Law School?”—other—"Did Harvard Law School show me attention?" What rankings do is, they feed these kinds of esteem that the society we live in thrusts us towards anyways.

We'll probably title this something like, “Why Rankings Matter to People.” I think this is it. I've spent many years thinking of this. There might be more, and if there are, please chime in on our YouTube or Spotify if you have other theories.

But the second part of the title would be, “Why They Should Not.” Should one media source, U.S. News & World Report, tell you, an applicant, that this school is "two better" than another school for you? Of course not. It could be infinitely worse as far as fit. I personally would much rather go to UVA than NYU for many reasons, and I've been to both. And some of those are just the small-town feel versus the big-town feel. We have a feature called MyRank, myrankbyspivey.com, it's free, where you can weigh what categories matter to you. Certainly I could not care less what the median GPA of the people around me in law school is. I personally could not care less about the citation counts of faculty at law schools that I might attend, but other people could. If U.S. News adds in citations, or chairs in the library (an even more, to me, absurd one), yeah, that might matter to a tiny fraction of librarians or other people, but it's not going to matter to you, which is why the first half is behaviorally, psychologically, my best guess why rankings matter. But if we can get past these evolutionary, the first part, in today's society—the second part, reasons rankings really should not matter. Employment outcomes, maybe a ton. So if you were to rank schools just on employment outcomes, maybe they would matter a little more. That still takes you out of the equation. At the end of the day, in an ideal world, it would be you coming up with your own rankings. “I like Princeton Law School because of these reasons that matter to me unconditionally, not conditioned on other people or what society tells me I should like.”

So our firm—it's kind of interesting, and I get that it almost can seem oxymoronic—we look at the rankings carefully, because there's so much misinformation about the rankings. And we put out information about the rankings, but every time we do, to the nth degree, we try to disclaim—almost to the point where it's overly disclaiming—please understand that, as much as we're trying to clarify some of the mystery of the rankings to the market, we're also imploring: do not make big decisions based on rankings. And I see it at the faculty level, sadly; obviously, you know, a lot of some of my best friends in this world are faculty members from schools I've worked at. But you see faculty members treating other faculty members of lower-ranked schools as inferior some of the time. That's not a reflection on the rankings or the school being better, that's a reflection—and I could tell you real-life stories—on the person treating the other person as an inferior.

Ending on that note. Rankings can be deleterious, nefarious, and harmful, not just when you're making school decisions, if you're making it based on what others might think, “Oh well, if others want me to go to a higher ranked school, I should.” We see this all the time. We try to talk people out of this pathway all the time. Please don't make a school decision based on what other people think you should do. It's what you should do. It's even more impactful, in a negative sense and a sad sense, when anyone ever treats someone as an inferior because they think they're at a "higher-ranked school."

I hope this was interesting. The fact that rankings impact behavior so much has long been something that I’ve thought about, and I finally wanted to sit down and just share some of those thoughts. I'm not saying I'm necessarily right, and I think there might be more going on. So if you have more, let us know. This was Mike Spivey of the Spivey Consulting Group.

Latest Podcasts

August 12, 2025

UVA Law Admissions Dean Natalie Blazer on the 2025-26 Cycle, Rising LSATs/GPAs, the "Why UVA" & More

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Anna Hicks-Jaco interviews Natalie Blazer, Assistant Dean for Admissions and Chief Admissions Officer at the University of Virginia School of Law, on the upcoming 2025-2026 admissions cycle, how applicants should be thinking about and taking into account relevant current events, and advice for prospective law students preparing to submit their applications. They discuss predictions for the 2025-26 cycle (1:56), rising LSAT and GPA medians (20:22, 27:45), changes they've made to their application this year (12:30), the new student loan cap (30:26), how admissions offices are considering applicants writing about politics and protest in the current political climate (4:18), how they evaluate applicants who have been unable to get a job after graduating from college (7:36), whether writing about AI is overdone (36:34), advice for the "Why UVA" essay (13:05), and much more. As a brief disclaimer, Dean Blazer speaks for herself and often for UVA Law in this episode; her opinions do not reflect those of all admissions officers.

In addition to her work at UVA Law, Natalie has served as Director of J.D. Admissions at Georgetown University Law Center and was Associate Director of Admissions at Columbia Law School. She hosts the UVA Law podcast Admissible, which "offers insights into the world of law school admissions and a behind-the-scenes look at life as a law student through interviews with students, faculty, alumni and staff."

We've interviewed Natalie twice for Status Check before, and though we weren't able to get to all of the questions that Redditors requested we ask, we answered many of them in these past episodes:

Please note: At the time that we recorded this episode, we noted that August 2025 LSAT registrants were up 27% relative to August 2024 registrants but that that number would come down over the days of the test administration. Ultimately, August LSAT registrants landed at a 23.7% increase vs. last year.

You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.

August 4, 2025

Bill Treanor on 30+ Years as a Law School Dean & Standing Up to Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike interviews William ("Bill") Treanor on his long and recently-concluded tenure as Dean of Georgetown University Law Center as well as his experiences and perspectives from a 40-year career. Bill talks about the the biggest changes he's seen during his time in legal education (16:06), the coming changes he foresees in the short-term future both good (19:22) and bad (20:56), his proudest accomplishments as a law school dean (41:57), the biggest challenges law students face today (24:27), and how he reacted and famously responded to the letter from Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin threatening not to hire Georgetown Law graduates if the school was found to be teaching a curriculum involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (1:33).

Dean Treanor's response to then-Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin is below. You can also read it in full here.

Header: Georgetown Law, William M. Treanor, Dean and Executive Vice President, Paul Regis Dean Leadership Chair, March 6, 2025, Addressed to: Edward R. Martin, Jr., Interim United States Attorney, District of Columbia Judiciary Center, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Contents of Letter: Dear Interim United States Attorney Martin: I write in response to your letter dated February 17, 2025, which you sent to me via email on March 3, 2025. As a Catholic and Jesuit institution, Georgetown University was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical, and spiritual understanding. For us at Georgetown, this principle is a moral and educational imperative. It is a principle that defines our mission as a Catholic and Jesuit institution. Georgetown University also prohibits discrimination and harassment in its programs and activities and takes seriously its obligations to comply with all federal and local laws. Your letter challenges Georgetown’s ability to define our mission as an educational institution. It inquires about Georgetown Law’s curriculum and classroom teaching, asks whether diversity, equity, and inclusion is part of the curriculum, and asserts that your office will not hire individuals from schools where you find the curriculum “unacceptable.” The First Amendment, however, guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it. The Supreme Court has continually affirmed that among the freedoms central to a university’s First Amendment rights are its abilities to determine, on academic grounds, who may teach, what to teach, and how to teach it. Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20001-2075 This is a bedrock principle of constitutional law – recognized not only by the courts, but by the administration in which you serve. The Department of Education confirmed last week that it cannot restrict First Amendment rights and that it is statutorily prohibited from “exercising control over the content of school curricula.” Your letter informs me that your office will deny our students and graduates government employment opportunities until you, as Interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, approve of our curriculum. Given the First Amendment’s protection of a university’s freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it, the constitutional violation behind this threat is clear, as is the attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution. Georgetown Law has one of the preeminent faculties in the country, fostering groundbreaking scholarship, educating students in a wide variety of perspectives, and thriving on the robust exchange of ideas. Georgetown Law faculty have educated world leaders, members of Congress, and Justice Department officials, from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. We pride ourselves on providing an excellent graduate and professional education, built upon the Catholic and Jesuit tradition. Georgetown-educated attorneys have, for decades, served this country capably and selflessly in offices such as yours, and we have confidence that tradition will continue. We look forward to your confirming that any Georgetown-affiliated candidates for employment with your office will receive full and fair consideration. Sincerely, [Signature] William M. Treanor Dean and Executive Vice President Paul Regis Dean Leadership Chair 2

Other topics they discuss include the value (and lack of value) of the Socratic method (16:30), experiential learning in law school (16:06) and the potential effects of a current proposal before the ABA (20:56), the growing field of law and technology (19:22), the prospect of government taking accrediting authority from independent organizations (21:57), the current and coming impacts of AI on legal education and practice (23:43, 46:58), how law firms have learned from past recessions and overreactions (29:33), Bill's take on the current surge in law school applicants (30:36), his advice for prospective law students today (33:48), and his thoughts on the law school rankings (35:18).

Bill Treanor served as Dean of Georgetown University Law Center for 15 years, prior to which he served as Dean of Fordham University School of Law for almost 20 years. His accomplishments at Georgetown were innumerable—you can read more about him and his impressive career here.

Letters of Recommendation

Admissions

July 14, 2025

Podcast: Military Applicants—Law School Admissions Strategy & More with Harvard Law Grad Brian Henson

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Spivey J.D. admissions consultants Danielle Early (former Associate Director of Admissions at Harvard Law School and military/veteran admissions specialist) and Mike Burns (former Director of Admissions & Financial Aid at Northwestern Law and Navy veteran) interview Brian Henson, a former consulting client of Danielle's, Navy Intelligence Officer, ⁠Service to School⁠ mentor, Harvard Law Armed Forces Association president, and recent HLS graduate. They discuss Brian's story of applying to law school from the middle of the ocean on an aircraft carrier and his experiences as a veteran at HLS, plus insights into admissions and legal education specifically targeted at military veterans and those on active duty.

What considerations should military applicants keep in mind that differ from non-military applicants? What is the adjustment like moving from the military to law school? What sorts of admissions resources are available for military members and veterans? What are common pieces of misinformation that military applicants may encounter, and what's the true story? They cover these topics and more, including admissions for enlisted soldiers vs. officers (29:36), getting letters of recommendation from supervisors/commanders (36:44), application timing (5:28 and 21:51), resumes (43:36), personal statements (46:08), determining your chances and making a school list (31:51), job search advice (1:03:42), and more.

Listen

Podcast: Why Rankings Matter to People (& Why They Should Not)

Latest Podcasts

Have questions? Get in touch with us

About

For Prospective Students

For Universities

Follow Us

Podcast: Why Rankings Matter to People (& Why They Should Not)

Podcast Transcript

Latest Podcasts

Have questions? Get in touch with us

Stay Updated!

About

For Prospective Students

For Universities

Follow Us