Each spring the U.S. News & World Report releases its law school rankings to the media and the public. These rankings of over 200 law schools allow prospective students and the public to assess and compare differences in the quality of law schools. However, Engines of Anxiety: Academic Rankings, Reputation, and Accountability, just published by the foundation, shows that the increasing reliance on these rankings has negative consequences for students and educators and has implications for all educational programs that are ranked using similar methods.

Based on a wealth of observational data and over 200 in-depth interviews with law students, university deans, and other administrators, authors Wendy Espeland (Northwestern University) and Michael Sauder (University of Iowa) show how the scramble for high rankings has affected the missions and practices of many law schools. For instance, admissions officers face pressure to admit applicants with high test scores over lower-scoring candidates who possess other favorable credentials in order to boost their school’s ranking. As a new profile of Engines of Anxiety in Inside Higher Ed puts it, “The authors found an overwhelming focus on LSAT scores—above everything else and sometimes regardless of other indications of whether an applicant would be a good or bad law student or lawyer.”

Similarly, because graduates’ job placements play a major role in the rankings, many institutions have shifted their career-services resources toward tracking placements, and away from counseling students and network-building. Espeland told Quartz, “Career services departments spend an enormous amount of money tracking graduates’ employment status, instead of spending that money on contacting employers and helping students prepare for the market.” She also added in an interview with The American Lawyer, “Students and alums are hurt too [in their job prospects] if the ranking dips.”

Ultimately, as law schools compete to improve their rankings, their programs become more homogenized and less accessible to non-traditional students. In an overview of the authors’ findings, Education Dive notes that other negative effects of the scramble for rankings include “attempts by institutions to game the system, reductions in diversity, and apathy regarding ethics.”

Mitigating these unintended consequences, Espeland and Sauder argue, would involve “relying on more metrics—particularly those that are qualitative rather than quantitative—than just a single ranking, provide transparency on their limitations and perhaps even following dental schools’ lead in not sending data to U.S. News and other rankings organizers en masse.”

Click here to read more about Engines of Anxiety or purchase a copy of the book.