The state of the market for entry-level legal employment is important to current law students, and to potential applicants for admission to law school. As Al Brophy, and others, have discussed, the number of applicants for the Fall 2014 entering class continues its free fall. Before long, the ABA (and NALP) will be releasing the employment report for the Class of 2013. That report may well influence decisions about applying to law school at all, and the law schools to which applicants might apply, or enroll.
Given that, I was not entirely surprised by an inquiry from one of the editors of a Wikipedia entry on law-schools, or on recent graduate employment. Last year, when the Class of 2012 ABA employment data was released, I focused on one crucial slice of the overall data, the percentage of graduates employed in positions (i) requiring admission to the Bar that were both (ii) full-time and (ii) long-term. In my initial post, Bar-Admission Required, Full-Time, Long-Term: First Look, I discussed the general distribution of Class-of-2012 law-graduate employment rates. I also listed the 20 schools reporting employment rates in such positions of at least 75%.
Given our national obsession with rankings, and requests from commenters, I folllowed up with Full Rankings: Bar Admission Required, Full-Time, Long Term, which
- posted the Class of 2012 ABA Employment rates in that category for all 197 law schools (i) located in the continental United States and (ii) reporting employment statistics, and
- ranked the law schools from highest to lowest reported rates.
Thus, the inevitable question: is it better to focus on reported employment rates (percentages), or on rankings?