U.S. News recently ranked the University of Oregon School of Law as 2016’s 82^nd-best law school. Of course, it’s strange to think that a publishing company owned by a Canadian billionaire gets to decide who will train America’s future lawyers rather than, say, a committee of impartial judges. However, UO’s reaction to that ranking, regardless of its merit, will determine the future of its law school. But, above all, that reaction should embrace what makes the UO unique – not what’s expected of it.

U.S. News ranks schools using three primary criteria: quality, selectivity and job opportunities available to graduates. The problem, though, is that these rankings can fluctuate dramatically. While the top 20 schools rest comfortably, the rest duke it out every year in an unpredictable melee. Take the Lewis and Clark Law School, for instance: in 2009, it sat comfortably at 61^st, better than any other law school in Oregon at the time. But, after a short-lived jump to 58^th in 2012, the school dropped to 94^th.

In fact, a school’s top-tier ranking can become dependent on its ability to find jobs for its graduates – it makes up 20 percent of the score. And as the economy expands and shrinks, so too do the amount of available jobs for freshly minted lawyers. The school should create opportunities for students, of course. But buying into a system that rewards rote conformity isn’t the path for a groundbreaking university.

Trying to keep up with those rankings is an impractical and inefficient way to build a nationally recognized program. Instead of playing catch-up, the UO School of Law should recognize the ranking system’s inherent flaw and instead focus on the fundamentals. Old-fashioned prestige, won through hard academic work and the reputations of successful graduates, is the best way forward.

Take a look at the School of Law’s recent rebranding campaign, as part of the UO’s general makeover. Despite the sleek design of its new website and promotional media, this process has revealed a fundamentally problematic approach to its lagging national rank. The new Portland Program, an obvious attempt to boost the school’s post-graduation employment statistics by moving students closer to where jobs are, is mistakenly prioritized over serious programs like the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference, an acclaimed gathering of the best environmental lawyers in the country.

Taking a reactionary stance towards development is an unfortunate detour for the School of Law. Sure, rankings are still important. They’re the first tools prospective students use to narrow their list of choices. But a competition that can’t be won by the UO shouldn’t be confused for a guiding organizational principle. Quality programs, led and taught by quality people, are what build institutions – not a perpetual horse race.

If the UO wants a quick boost to its image, its specialty programs are an easy solution. Its legal writing, environment and conflict resolution programs are consistently named among the nation’s best. So attract high-caliber talent to them, give them whatever resources they need and the best professors in the business, and let them do extraordinary things. They are the people that will put the School of Law on the map – not the ones who add up the numbers.

When you watch the polls, the Democratic presidential nomination feels like it’s already over. Hillary Clinton is ahead by a huge margin, her rivals are largely ignored in the news and talk is turning toward the hot mess that is the Republican primary.

But just because Clinton is the favorite, voters shouldn’t give up on the Democratic primary. Conventional wisdom says that with her experience in the State Department and Senate, fundraising skills and political savviness, she’ll secure the nomination.

As cracks in the Clinton campaign’s image inevitably appear over time, voters can create real change of the content of her platform through the primary system. It’s a valuable opportunity that shouldn’t be ignored.

Of all the Democratic candidates, Clinton is the most “electable” — industry jargon for a wide, politically moderate popular appeal that could translate into victory. Clinton wants to keep that title because it’s one of her most valuable assets in the primary. It makes her the logical, almost inevitable choice. And she wants it to stay that way.

That doesn’t mean that she won’t have to take hard stances on important issues. As a political insider, the onus is on her to demonstrate her commitment to substantive reform and progress rather than complacency. If her campaign sees continued support for other candidates in May and June 2016, Clinton will have to address the issues — both in the platform and in her campaign – that those votes symbolize in order to secure her base by Nov. 8, 2016.

So, as Oregon’s Democrats gear up for the primary in May of next year, they should consider the other candidates in the field. Even if they can’t win the nomination, they’ll put pressure on Clinton to incorporate their ideas into her campaign. Economic fairness, climate change, campaign finance reform and government surveillance should be front and center during the general election, and this is the best way put them there.

Because Clinton has the reputation and experience to backup such a decision, she can adopt new planks into her platform without serious fear of being seen as weak on the issues. It’ll be good for the party and for the country.

As you consider whether to vote next spring, look at the other Democrats who might have a chance at shaping the national discussion. Each has established a specific policy focus of their own — giving voters an easy opportunity to signal their interests to the front-runner.

For Jim Webb, it’s national security; for Lincoln Chafee, it’s increased investment in bedrock programs like infrastructure and education; for Martin O’Malley, it’s criminal justice reform; and for Bernie Sanders, of course, it’s income inequality.

Whether these candidates become a part of Clinton’s administration or she simply has to talk about what they’re talking about, supporting them is an important use of your time. A vote for them — no matter how late in the process — will be heard by the Clinton campaign’s teams of political analysts or discontented superdelegates.

That is, assuming Clinton is the candidate. Remember, primaries can be unpredictable contests. Despite the power of his campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama didn’t break 30 percent in the national polls until January 2008. Clinton led Obama in the delegate count until mid-February, and the two were still locked in a bitter fight after Super Tuesday in March. Our primary system may not be perfect, but it always manages to keep things interesting.

As more high-density residential developments spring up around campus, University of Oregon students should become increasingly concerned. Although they offer luxurious amenities and convenient locations, Eugene’s student housing boom threatens to fundamentally transform students’ place in the local community.

Most importantly, high-density developments like The Patterson and 13th & Olive, alienate students from their neighbors. These buildings are concrete sanctuaries, replete with high-tech security systems and automated gates. While the idea of safety is comforting, such measures keep students and local residents at arm’s length.

Students should be involved in their communities, even if it’s as simple as volunteering for the neighborhood watch, planting flowers or going to a city council meeting. But in a secure high-rise, there’s little chance for the kinds of neighborly interaction that produce such efforts. Students from out of state risk living in a bubble for four years, only making memories of sitting in class and visiting other sterile apartments.

College students also don’t need granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, heated swimming pools, fancy cabinets or rooftop fire pits. Indeed, most graduates won’t be able to match that standard of living for the foreseeable future – so why set the bar so high, so early? Your college apartment shouldn’t be nicer than your first home.

That perceived desire for unnecessary luxury leads to the construction of big new buildings, which in turn poses an aesthetic challenge for the city. The UO’s west and south borders are zoned for high-density residential development, meaning that 18th Avenue and Hilyard Street could soon be completely lined with six-story metal and glass behemoths. Coupled with questionable architectural choices that will surely look outdated. Our university might soon lose some of its character.

Eugene will also lose some of its appeal – part of that appeal lies in open skies and lush trees. Some of the best hangouts in town, like Max’s and Rennie’s, are charming precisely because of their relatively modest locations. Towering grey buildings might be attractive short-term investments – I’m looking at you, developers – but they’ll quickly become boring properties with boring prospects.

Future costs over transportation and pedestrian access loom, too. Most new large developments include underground parking, a convenient bonus for residents. But without commensurate upgrades to the UO’s parking accommodations, students who would have otherwise walked to campus will soon fill up already overcrowded lots and streets during the school year. Meanwhile, those who do walk will have to forge across Franklin Boulevard and 18th Avenue without dedicated pedestrian thoroughfares.

Fortunately, there’s an opportunity for change: the City of Eugene allows its citizens to petition for special zoning districts. Currently, the neighborhoods directly to the west and south of campus are simply zoned as high and limited high-density. Zoning that regulated height limits, high rent and anonymous design could give Eugene a chance to build a unique identity out of its influx of well-off students.

UO students should also demand that more attention be paid to the infrastructure that should accompany new high-density residential development. New parking structures, development of better-protected crosswalks and revamped pedestrian access along Franklin Boulevard would go a long way toward making the surrounding neighborhoods safer and more efficient.

Ultimately, the choice to live in an old house or a shiny apartment is a matter of taste. But remember: Living a real life — problems with the leaking faucet and all — is a part of the authentic young adult experience. Learn about plumbing, grill with your neighbors and do some gardening – it’s better for you and the community than paying $800 a month to live in a hotel.

Today’s college students live in a world that’s challenging the legal status quo. As president of the University of Oregon, Michael Schill should prepare them for it.

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that same-sex marriages are a civil right, the State of Oregon took its first step towards the full legalization of marijuana and a fierce debate over the use of deadly force by police officers erupted — to name just a few legal issues that will be in the public mind for decades to come.

On July 1, Michael Schill stepped into Johnson Hall as the University of Oregon’s new president. Of course, his job isn’t to try to address these problems directly. But his background as a legal scholar and dean of the University of Chicago’s prestigious law school allow him to turn these issues to the UO’s advantage.

For example: his presidency should embrace the opportunities presented by debates over fundamental legal problems. By helping give students the tools to apply the law to today’s most important issues, Schill can give them the edge — both intellectually and practically — in an uncertain world. The UO will be stronger for it.

The university’s presidency has had an uneven past. With the exception of David Frohnmayer, no president in over 70 years has lasted more than a decade in office. And, in the past five years, there have been two interim presidents.

The UO can’t be an elite institution without resolved leadership. Its students and faculty need a common goal that bridges the university’s diverse academic interests. For Schill, a focus on comprehensive legal education would play to his strengths while satisfying both these needs.

The need for legal education is everywhere. To be useful and ethical citizens, young Americans need to be able to grasp the complexities of gay marriage, gender discrimination and voting rights when they go to vote. The future will still need champions of civil rights, and champions from all disciplines should be educated here in Eugene whether or not they choose to formally study the law.

Students who learn about the law will also have an edge in the marketplace. Companies want to hire people who understand the world around them, and entrepreneurs need a firm grasp of the legal system to build robust businesses. Here, Schill can really shine — he’s written respected texts on property law, securities and the regulation of housing markets.

And finally, a legal education will help students deal with the increasingly intrusive surveillance state that has accompanied the proliferation of technology into everyday life. Some politicians feel that they can hide behind confusing statutes and obtuse legal processes to gather information on American citizens. But armed with an understanding of due process and other constitutional rights, the University of Oregon’s students could put forth a serious, grassroots challenge to such activities.

However, the real question is still this: How can Schill create a sustainable plan for both scholarly and institutional growth while simultaneously producing the short-term results his enormous salary demands?

He can start by attracting donations and imaginations to the university’s undergraduate legal program, encouraging innovation like the Inside-Out class and engaging faculty with a cohesive campaign to reimagine Oregon’s conception of a well-rounded student. And hopefully, though his focus should remain broad, he can help the UO’s law school shed its modest national image.

At heart though, his goal should be this: give the UO’s students an unrivaled edge over their competitors. A basic legal education, whether through interaction with Oregon’s incarcerated citizens or studying the Constitution, is a crucial step towards accomplishing that.

Alis volat propriis, “She Flies With Her Own Wings,” is a unique motto for a unique state.

A mesh of small-town Americana and cutting-edge cultural experimentation, it’s fair to say no one’s ever expected the ordinary from Oregon. After three years here, even I — an admittedly over-forgiving fan of my home state of California — can’t help but be inspired by the promise contained in its citizens and pioneer spirit.

In the spirit of its official motto, the state still flies with her own wings despite a seemingly relentless tide of political cynicism that has left much of rest of the nation adrift.

Part of it is simple geography. Its capital, major cities and largest universities are all located within hours of each other along the I5 corridor.

Though it may not seem important, consider the circumstances of Oregon’s neighbor to the south. A drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento lasts six hours, meaning that many of California’s state legislators can retreat to relative anonymity when they’re in session. Salem’s proximity, on the other hand, forces lawmakers to confront their constituents on a regular basis. As University of Oregon students have demonstrated, it’s easier to organize public protest when your elected representatives are only an hour away.

The real force behind Oregon’s special brand of politics is its legacy of progressive politics that dates back to 1902, when it became the second state in the country to adopt direct democracy.

Initiatives for women’s suffrage, labor protections, the right to recall elected officials, smoking bans, and environmental protections — to name a few — were placed on the ballot before World War II. In doing so, Oregonians demonstrated that an active public is not a dangerous one.

These experiments shaped the national character as much as they did Oregon’s.

Demands for access to equal rights and opportunities originating from the people are, for the most part, accepted as inherently legitimate in our modern society. Oregon helped make this possible by giving its people a robust voice to try new ideas.

Sometimes these experiments don’t work.

Judicial elections are a good example. Offended by the existence of openly partisan judges, Oregon’s early 20th-century Progressives implemented a popular election scheme for its state judiciary. By most accounts, this was effective at first; now, however, the same scheme can influence judges by demanding they raise money for their campaigns, often from a public that votes for tough-on-crime candidates.

Nevertheless, I’d rather live in a state that confronts problems like a corrupt judiciary head on rather than ignore them. It’s Oregon’s relentless optimism for change that gives it the edge, even if it does stumble.

With the 2016 national election coming up, it’ll be easy to be dissuaded by conservative rhetoric on both sides of the aisle that doesn’t seem to match up with the opportunities offered by this new century. In Oregon, though, we have a reminder that popular democratic processes can create positive change and progress for the better.

But during the 2015 legislative session lawmakers have also done their part, submitting bills addressing school use of Native American mascots, the protection of state-employed whistleblowers, the regulation of carbon emissions, and more. Oregon is still ahead of the national curve when it comes to embracing the future, even if it’s a messy one.

I just hope our nation’s leaders have been taking notes.

Congressman Peter DeFazio is missing the big picture in the Pacific.

For most Americans, the United States’ brutal struggle with Japan in WWII has become an afterthought after decades of blossoming trade, diplomatic cooperation and military aid. Now, sharing the world stage as equals, they’ll be playing each other for the World Cup instead of waging war. Troublingly, though, as memories of the conflict’s geopolitical origins retreat further into history, our leaders and citizens alike are forgetting an important political legacy these once bitter rivals left in the Pacific.

In his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a hotly contested free-trade agreement whose terms are currently under negotiation, U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio has overlooked a crucial one. Eighty years ago, American economic policy in Asia set the foundations for war in the Pacific by ignoring the importance of free trade to the region’s political stability. As Japan became increasingly isolated from the American economic sphere in the years before Pearl Harbor, it turned to militarism and expansion for relief. The TPP is important because it would create a different scenario – one in which the United States and Asia can build lasting diplomatic ties that might contain the region’s newest ascendant power, China.

The TPP would remove trade barriers between its signatories, including key regional actors like Japan, Australia, Singapore and Vietnam. These countries are already vital to the American economy – four million U.S. jobs were supported by exports to TPP countries in 2012, for example – and the Obama administration expects the agreement to add tens of billions of dollars to American exports by 2025. And crucially, for the time being, the list excludes China – meaning that the TPP would put economic pressure on its government to curtail aggressive behavior.

However, because the president has requested fast-track negotiating authority from Congress, the threat of executive overreach and opaque diplomacy have sparked uproar on both the right and left. DeFazio is one of the most outspoken members of this bipartisan opposition and has even called for an alliance between Democrats and the Tea Party to block the TPP in Congress.

In DeFazio’s view – one shared by many Democrats in Congress – President Obama has created an agreement that excludes Congress from its Constitutional duty to negotiate deals like the TPP. Fast-track authority, he’s argued, would allow the executive to push a bad deal through Congress. In addition, DeFazio charges that the results of TPP negotiations will be bad for the United States: foreign companies would be able to sue the United States for trade infractions, Wall Street would unduly benefit from access to the negotiating table and American trade deficits would grow.

These criticisms miss the point. Regardless of how a deal is reached or if Congress – setting aside the danger of its systemic incompetence and bias – is eventually given proper influence over its specifics, the existence of a deal itself should be celebrated because of its diplomatic significance. Essentially, the United States is buying the political influence in Asia needed to make the Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia possible. As history shows us, this is a worthwhile goal.

In the run-up to WWII, Japan’s leaders felt it had two choices: succumb to American tariffs and collapse in isolationism, or build a new economic system that could support an emergent Japan. Because the United States feared Japanese militarism, it kept applying economic pressure. One of the results was the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere: an aggressive Japanese program of colonial expansion across Asia in search of greater access to resources masked as a rejection of Western imperialism.

At heart, the TPP is an effort to prevent this circumstance from arriving again, giving Asian countries a chance to integrate into the American economy before they’re forced into conflict. As China continues to build its military and political presence in Asia, the United States must create an alternative economic system for Asian states to engage in even if it’s harmful to some American businesses. If tensions build, and states are forced to either trade with China or fall into disrepair because of prohibitive American trade regulations, then the only remaining option is war.

Following in the footsteps of one of Oregon’s greatest Congressmen, Wayne Morse, DeFazio is taking a bold stand against the dangers of executive power. But in doing so, he’s setting the stage for future conflict in Asia that could erupt into something far more dangerous than the President’s trade negotiators. With the TPP, the threat of Chinese regional hegemony is held at bay while America explores new opportunities to build meaningful relationships in the region. Without it, the United States sends a message to Asia that it still sees trade as a weapon, not an olive branch. Distrust of President Obama and the prioritization of domestic interests over essential foreign policy isn’t worth that risk.

The internet is the future of education – why is the University of Oregon treating it like an afterthought?

This summer, the University of Oregon will complete its initial rollout of the Canvas course website in preparation for the permanent removal of Blackboard, whose shutdown has been tentatively scheduled for September 30, 2015. This is, of course, welcome news for those who have struggled with Blackboard’s outages and difficult user experiences.

But, in its haste to ditch its outdated learning management software – or LMS, as it’s known in the industry jargon – the UO has overlooked a critical opportunity to reorient its digital presence towards the future. The Canvas migration is a chance for the university to become a pioneer in online education and set the bar for reliable and efficient online student services.

As of yet, though, the UO has failed to position itself for success in the age of the internet.

So far, Canvas itself has been well received, by teachers at least. In a 2014 study, for example, the university found that 80% of faculty and GTFs would recommend switching over from Blackboard. 2,236 courses have already been imported for the upcoming Winter 2015 term, showing that outreach efforts have been effective.

Beneath the numbers and fancy new user interface, though, Canvas is being used as an airbrushed Blackboard – the same thinking disguised as a new toy. It’s easier to use, but the migration hasn’t incorporated the vital innovations and considerations that could create a modern online identity for the university.

Most importantly, the university has failed to recognize the potential of combining MOOCs, or Massive Online Open Courses, with its new software. Over the past several years, prestigious universities like Harvard and MIT have been closely involved in creating a new kind of educational experience that offers free, college-level instruction to students across the world through the internet.

Canvas offers the ability to integrate MOOCs directly into its interface and allows professors to publish their courses online, giving the University of Oregon a chance to broaden its international reach and attract new students. Yet in 2015, the UO has only offered one such course, the two-part “Shaping the Way We Teach English”, and it is hosted on Coursera.org – one of Canvas’ direct competitors.

But the internet doesn’t just offer opportunities. The migration to Canvas also opens the University of Oregon to new kinds of risk. Education software is big business. Instructure, the company that runs Canvas, recently completed a $40 million pre-IPO series-E funding round and will become bigger as more universities join up.

For Canvas’ founder, Josh Coates, the software would be his first successful company. Coates described his original company, Scale Eight, as “kind of a bust” and his second was sold after its series-A funding round. If a larger company buys Instructure or if Canvas pivots to a new business model, it’s unclear how UO’s services will be affected. 21,000 courses will have been archived by the end of this summer alone.

In addition, a move to a new platform like Canvas exposes the university to privacy and security concerns. During a 2015 security audit, programmers uncovered a “startling” 59 issues with the Canvas website.

Though these were quickly fixed, the dangers of future information breaches are clearly present. And the university has also failed to address if, and how, Canvas and Instructure will collect and use student data as part of its services. In the new internet age, such concerns should be a priority. Especially because Canvas will hold thousands of grades and papers with sensitive personal information.

Education software should reflect the values of the institution it represents. Unlike a Twitter handle managed by an intern, it’s an interactive showcase of the university’s best and brightest talent. The University of Oregon needs to rethink its approach to Canvas: Allow students more access to online services and let those services be transparent and reliable; give faculty more opportunities to teach and connect with the international community and don’t get tied down to software that could quickly bite the dust.

The UO has a chance for a bold, independent step towards being an innovator in online education, rather than a follower – it should take it.