Hazards of the (Over-)Standardization of Academic Legal Works

Abstract To compare and classify objects on the basis of quantitative indicators is nothing new. Bereft of any direct subjectivity, the quantified method of assessing quality may be a useful tool to avoid or reduce any bias or other forms of human frailties in the assessment. However, the effort to assess the quality of academic output with quantifiable metrics is perhaps a relatively new but increasingly common phenomenon. This article argues that while some higher education rankings can serve laudable purposes, such as sending signals to aspiring students and other stakeholders and giving institutions an opportunity for introspecting on their affairs, the ranking of research outputs on quantifiable metrics alone is an inherently hazardous task. Rankings may be used as an indicium of quality; however, they cannot and should not be the sole proxy for assessing the quality of scholarly outputs. Another main argument of the article is that the university-wide “one size fits all” metric should exhibit more deference to discipline-specific norms, such as law.