Many in the legal academy agree that US News & World Report rankings fail to make meaningful comparisons among law schools. But applicants and others want help making distinctions. And as tuition rises faster than inflation, the calls for greater transparency, accountability and outcomes reporting in legal education, just gets louder. In short, we must figure out new measures and reporting methods.

Some would protest that such an approach requires comparing apples to oranges. But teaching and practice are all about making comparisons and evaluations. We select who is admitted to our law schools, who gets promoted to tenure, who gets an “A-“ vs. a “B”, which law schools are worthy of accreditation. Indeed, faculty and senior administrators’ jobs constantly require such quality distinctions. Think of it as comparing Granny Smith, Washington, and Fuji apples, not comparing, let alone ranking apples in relation to Tuesdays.

For starters, I propose that we develop a series of benchmarks for different programs (such as financial aid and pro bono) and curriculum (for example, simulation and live-client clinics). Reward those who hit them with the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. This process would not punish those who don’t meet the standard. The evaluation would allow schools to play to their strengths by pursuing seals for different aspects of a legal education, thus enabling schools to reach for and satisfy particular benchmarks that match their strengths. The goal would be to support innovation and also articulate measures that best predict a quality learning experience.

As Rosie the Riveter said, “we can do it.” It’s just a matter of finding the right tools to describe and compare the jobs each of us does every day.