ABA’s Class of 2011 Employment Outcomes Data Show How Rough It Is Out There

Greetings.  I’ve been away attending to an illness in my family, and it’s good to return.  Thanks to both of you for your postcards; I had forgotten how majestic the Badlands could be this time of year.

What’s new?  Well, the ABA Section on Legal Education has kept its promise to disclose more detailed data on law-school employment outcomes, and to do so earlier.  In mid-June, the ABA released employment outcome data for the Class of 2011 at accredited law schools nine months after graduation.  Two things are new about these data:  (1) They are being released nine months earlier than usual (past practice would have seen them released in March 2013); and (2) The data gathered and disclosed are more detailed than prior years’.  Among other categories, school-funded, part-time and short-term positions are broken out.  The types of jobs are categorized by type and size of employer, as well as separated according to whether the job requires a law license, is “JD Advantaged,” “Other Professional,” “Nonprofessional,” or “Undetermined.” 

There is a great deal of information here.  Let’s start examining it by seeing what we can learn about the employment value of a law degree for the law school class of 2011.  In other words, for how many 2011 law grads did their time, effort, three years’ forgone income and advancement from other work, and expenditures on tuition, fees and books result in a certification that provided them real and substantial opportunities for employment not otherwise available to them? 

There are a number of ways this question could be addressed.  Here’s how I propose to take the first cut at it: 

(1)   We should focus on full-time employment.  No one should attend law school expecting only part-time work (and I would imagine that virtually no one does).

(2)   We should focus on long-term employment. Again, no one should (or presumably does) attend law school expecting only short-term contract employment.  Really we should focus on open-term (rather than fixed-term) employment—the kind of job a graduate will keep indefinitely until either the employee or the employer prefers otherwise.  The problem with this definition is that there are a number of fixed-term positions traditionally (and accurately) viewed as highly prestigious and coveted, and whose recipients have little trouble leveraging the experience into conventional open-ended law jobs afterwards, typically very desirable ones.  Such positions include judicial clerkships and certain well-regarded public-interest internships.  The ABA thus gathers information on long-term vs. short-term (rather than open-term vs. fixed-term) jobs, with “long-term” defined as lasting at least a year, almost certainly to accommodate the perception that these prestigious but temporary positions are “good” jobs that ought to “count.”  Since they are generally agreed to be good jobs that lead to other good jobs, the failure to draw the more meaningful distinction does not necessarily make the ABA data less useful. 

(3)   However, since not all fixed-term jobs are equal, the focus on long-term rather than open-term employment requires other adjustments.  We need to focus on the right kind of full-time, long-term employment.  As discussed in a number of my former posts (for example, here), a fixed-term position with a third-party employer (typically a government agency or nonprofit) that is funded by the graduate’s law school is a distinctly less desirable outcome than a “real” job.  If you think about it, you’ll see that the difference between these school-funded “bridge” positions and the positions discussed in the preceding paragraph is not the identity of the payor, but rather the prestige and future employment value of the fixed-term position.  (Though perhaps not in all cases:  In response to an earlier post, a recent Yale Law graduate commented that in 2009 Yale initiated a school-funded program placing graduates in one-year internships with well-regarded government and nonprofit law offices that was highly competitive and much sought-after by 3Ls who had good offers from law firms, but preferred to seek public interest work.  That said, widespread if anecdotal reporting suggests that, at most schools, these school-funded positions are most commonly claimed by losers rather than winners in the job-search derby, and are a distinctly second-best option.)  Thus, we should exclude from the jobs that “count” any school-funded fixed-term jobs.

(4)   Finally, we should be focused on law jobs—that is, jobs that either (a) require a law license, or (b) substantially value a JD degree, so that having one makes a very significant difference in your ability to get and do the job.  Otherwise you could have gotten the job without three years of tuition and our tender professorial ministrations.  For example, a job at McKinsey & Co. or Goldman Sachs is a good job, and having a law degree is probably not an affirmative disadvantage in getting it, but it also probably does not typically make more than a modest marginal difference in hiring, performance or advancement.  Similarly, a job as a paralegal at a large firm is in many conventional respects a good job, but you don’t need three years of law school to get it.  This is the hardest criterion to apply to the data we have.  The ABA asks schools to report jobs that are “JD Advantaged”—which it is easy to imagine accommodating a wide range of value for the degree (not to mention concealing a multitude of sins).  Some of these “JD Advantaged” jobs probably meet the criterion we’re formulating here; some probably don’t.  How many do or don’t is impossible to discern on the current state of the record.

(5)   For the moment, I do not propose to examine marginal economic justifications—that is, whether the job pays enough to justify the cost (however measured) of obtaining the law degree.  There are two pragmatic reasons.  One is that we just don’t have enough salary data to do that job.  The other is that, at least for now, I’d like to indulge the assumption that the utility of a good law job has many dimensions, and avoid any temptation to skew the analysis excessively toward monetary rewards alone.

(6)   [CORRECTION:] One last observation:  While the quality of these data is likely pretty high, some of them are apparently inaccurate here and there, probably because of data-entry or reporting errors, including mine.  In reviewing these materials, I was alerted to errors concerning Arkansas-Fayetteville, Depaul, Hofstra, Indiana-Bloomington, Indiana-Indianapolis, and Penn State.  These errors all appear to be mine, not the schools' or the ABA's, and they are now repaired in this corrected post.  My apologies to those affected.  Anyone else who sees an error in the data is encouraged to contact the ABA and me to correct it.

I invite anyone interested to comment freely (and if necessary derisively) regarding these criteria.  They strike me as sensible, but certainly not compelled. If you disagree, please educate me. 

With these criteria in mind, what can we learn from the latest employment outcomes data?  I worked up four competing ratios designed to approximate a measure for law schools’ success in placing their most recent graduates in jobs for which their legal education really mattered.  Because I’ve spent so much time and space here discussing school-funded positions, I also calculated the percentage of full-time, long-term (“FTLT”) school-funded positions for each school.  (Thanks to my administrative assistant, Ashley Arthur, for her invaluable assistance in preparing spreadsheets and crunching numbers.)

• “% FTLT” is the simplest and easiest ratio to determine.  It is the number of students with full-time, long-term law-license-required jobs divided by the total number of graduates in the class.  This is the ratio that the media has been reporting on (e.g., here).

 

• “% Adjusted FTLT” is designed to reflect some realities of the employment market for new law grads.  It adjusts the “% FTLT” ratio in several ways.  In the numerator, it subtracts out the school-funded positions that would otherwise be considered full-time, long-term law-license-required jobs, and also subtracts out those who are working straight out of law school as self-employed solo practitioners (on the theory that this is not a job that these grads “got” so much as one that they slid into in the absence of a “real” job with things like a regular paycheck and supervision).  In the denominator, it subtracts out those graduates who are not really looking for a job.  There are two such categories: those pursuing another graduate degree full-time, and those who self-report (or at least are reported by their schools) as “not seeking employment.”  Of course, these are imperfect adjustments, but they do in my view go a ways toward refining the measure of those whose legal education is justified by the employment outcome.

 

• “% Weighted FTLT Law Jobs” reflects the fact that some portion of the positions not requiring a law license will also be outcomes that justify the time, effort and other costs of getting a law degree.  (See criterion (4) above.)  This is the most difficult adjustment to quantify.  I assume that some portion of the “JD Advantaged” jobs were ones that made real and substantial use of the law degree in hiring or in performing the job even though no law license was required.  In the absence of some better measure, I just arbitrarily took one-half of the full-time, long-term “JD-Advantaged” positions and added it to the “% FTLT” numerator.  Suggestions for a more discriminating way to adjust for this concern are solicited.

 

• Finally, “% Adjusted Weighted FTLT Law Jobs” combines the adjustments in the prior two ratios.  It is designed to most closely approximate the percentage of each school’s Class of 2011 who made real and substantial use of their law degrees in obtaining employment.  I consider this the most accurate measure of good employment outcomes based on the data available, though concededly still a rough fit in many respects.

Some preliminary observations:

• One thing that is striking about all the ratios by which I attempted to approximate that portion of the graduating class making real and substantial use of their law degrees in obtaining employment is that the various ratios for any particular school are often fairly close to one another.  There are a number of possible reasons for this, which I would guess vary according to what portion of the “food chain” a particular school occupies.  But what I perceive at least at first glance is more similarity among the ratios for each school than I might have predicted.

 

• As we all really knew already, the job market is still genuinely terrible.  The aggregate average %FTLT for all accredited law schools is only 54%; the aggregate average Adjusted Weighted ratio is 58%.  80 of the roughly 200 accredited law schools have %FTLT of 50% or less; nearly 60 have an adjusted weighted ratio this low.  This means that nearly half of the Class of 2011 has been unable to find a full-time, long-term job requiring a law license within nine months after graduation.  Perhaps another 30% have found some kind of work, but it is mostly part-time, short-term, or non-legal.  It turns out to be difficult to figure out how this compares with pre-Great Recession hiring, as these kind of statistics became more easily available only after the layoffs, deferrals and other troubles began in 2008.  But it seems very likely that this is by far the worst job market for new lawyers in the history of the American legal profession.  My own unhappy prediction (elaborated here) is that the job market will remain very weak for some years to come, and expand only gradually after that.

Your thoughts, observations, analyses, challenges and predictions are welcome.

--Bernie

Here’s a table, ordered by US News ranking: 

School Name	USN Rank	2011 Graduates	% School- Funded	% FTLT	% Adjusted FTLT	% Weighted FTLT Law Jobs	% Adjusted Weighted FTLT Law Jobs
YALE UNIVERSITY	1	205	12%	88%	79%	90%	81%
STANFORD UNIVERSITY	2	192	2%	91%	91%	93%	93%
HARVARD UNIVERSITY	3	583	6%	90%	86%	92%	88%
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY	4	456	8%	94%	87%	95%	88%
CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF	5	203	12%	88%	77%	92%	81%
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY	6	466	12%	90%	79%	92%	80%
CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY, UNIVERSITY OF	7	310	5%	80%	83%	81%	84%
PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF	7	274	4%	84%	84%	88%	88%
VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF	7	377	17%	95%	79%	95%	79%
MICHIGAN, UNIVERSITY OF	10	379	3%	75%	76%	81%	81%
DUKE UNIVERSITY	11	207	5%	82%	83%	85%	85%
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY	12	287	4%	77%	78%	81%	82%
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY	13	644	13%	63%	60%	67%	65%
CORNELL UNIVERSITY	14	201	13%	76%	77%	76%	77%
CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, UNIVERSITY OF	15	344	19%	61%	63%	63%	65%
TEXAS AT AUSTIN, UNIVERSITY OF	16	382	3%	70%	73%	73%	76%
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY	16	198	16%	74%	75%	75%	76%
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF	18	207	5%	65%	67%	67%	70%
MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	19	261	9%	59%	61%	63%	65%
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY	20	518	16%	81%	67%	85%	70%
WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF	20	182	1%	53%	55%	58%	61%
NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF	22	190	23%	62%	64%	64%	66%
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY	23	317	9%	59%	64%	63%	68%
EMORY UNIVERSITY	24	225	12%	69%	58%	72%	62%
WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY	24	129	9%	55%	57%	60%	62%
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY	26	201	9%	68%	65%	70%	67%
BOSTON UNIVERSITY	26	273	22%	51%	53%	54%	56%
INDIANA UNIVERSITY MAURER SCHOOL OF LAW	26	195	4%	64%	62%	68%	67%
ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF	29	164	0%	78%	75%	83%	80%
BOSTON COLLEGE	29	285	11%	68%	70%	70%	72%
CALIFORNIA-DAVIS, UNIVERSITY OF	29	195	10%	56%	58%	58%	61%
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY	29	428	13%	57%	59%	59%	60%
IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF	29	183	1%	66%	67%	69%	71%
GEORGIA, UNIVERSITY OF	34	227	2%	61%	64%	64%	67%
ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF	35	190	10%	51%	47%	53%	50%
WILLIAM AND MARY SCHOOL OF LAW	35	204	0%	55%	57%	62%	64%
WISCONSIN, UNIVERSITY OF	35	254	1%	63%	60%	66%	64%
NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF	38	247	0%	68%	70%	73%	75%
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY	39	148	9%	51%	50%	54%	53%
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY	39	170	6%	60%	58%	69%	67%
MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY OF	39	297	11%	47%	48%	55%	56%
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY	39	231	5%	58%	61%	64%	67%
ARIZONA, UNIVERSITY OF	43	158	0%	75%	77%	77%	79%
CALIFORNIA-HASTINGS, UNIVERSITY OF	44	411	10%	46%	46%	49%	48%
COLORADO, UNIVERSITY OF	44	176	9%	56%	56%	60%	60%
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY	44	158	6%	56%	55%	61%	60%
UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF	47	134	3%	69%	64%	72%	67%
FLORIDA, UNIVERSITY OF	48	409	5%	59%	62%	62%	65%
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY	49	467	6%	36%	39%	42%	46%
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY	49	229	5%	43%	41%	47%	45%
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY	51	157	0%	70%	71%	72%	73%
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY	51	279	1%	70%	70%	74%	76%
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY-LOS ANGELES	51	403	7%	43%	43%	45%	45%
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY	51	272	2%	63%	66%	66%	69%
TULANE UNIVERSITY	51	241	0%	58%	60%	61%	63%
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY	56	380	9%	52%	55%	54%	57%
HOUSTON, UNIVERSITY OF	57	281	1%	60%	60%	68%	68%
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY	58	186	0%	65%	67%	71%	74%
LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE	58	233	4%	46%	45%	49%	48%
RICHMOND, UNIVERSITY OF	58	166	0%	60%	60%	68%	69%
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY	58	319	9%	55%	55%	61%	61%
CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF	62	179	0%	48%	51%	54%	58%
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY	62	332	5%	51%	49%	54%	52%
KENTUCKY, UNIVERSITY OF	62	135	0%	72%	71%	77%	76%
BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL	65	455	3%	47%	51%	51%	55%
SAN DIEGO, UNIVERSITY OF	65	318	5%	47%	46%	51%	50%
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY	67	201	11%	47%	47%	51%	51%
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-CHICAGO	67	251	3%	50%	50%	55%	56%
CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF	69	120	5%	53%	49%	60%	56%
DENVER, UNIVERSITY OF	69	287	9%	49%	50%	53%	54%
MIAMI, UNIVERSITY OF	69	385	11%	55%	57%	58%	60%
NEW MEXICO, UNIVERSITY OF	69	103	0%	66%	63%	68%	65%
PITTSBURGH, UNIVERSITY OF	69	253	0%	54%	56%	61%	64%
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY	69	293	0%	63%	63%	67%	67%
TENNESSEE, UNIVERSITY OF	69	146	0%	62%	60%	65%	62%
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY	76	182	10%	49%	51%	52%	54%
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY	76	179	4%	60%	63%	61%	65%
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA - LAS VEGAS	76	128	0%	66%	66%	69%	69%
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY	79	176	0%	81%	82%	83%	84%
MISSOURI-COLUMBIA, UNIVERSITY OF	79	141	4%	67%	64%	70%	67%
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY	79	276	11%	48%	49%	51%	53%
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA	82	261	0%	44%	42%	55%	54%
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	82	283	11%	44%	40%	52%	49%
OKLAHOMA, UNIVERSITY OF	82	163	1%	62%	64%	68%	70%
OREGON, UNIVERSITY OF	82	174	2%	41%	40%	45%	44%
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NEWARK	82	248	1%	56%	57%	60%	60%
SEATTLE UNIVERSITY	82	315	1%	40%	40%	45%	45%
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO	82	245	0%	52%	52%	56%	56%
ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF	89	116	1%	61%	62%	69%	71%
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY	89	319	1%	40%	40%	46%	45%
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY	89	297	3%	41%	42%	44%	46%
INDIANA UNIVERSITY - INDIANAPOLIS	89	252	0%	54%	53%	59%	58%
KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF	89	168	2%	52%	50%	57%	55%
LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF	89	142	1%	67%	64%	77%	74%
NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF	89	130	1%	65%	61%	70%	67%
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY	96	230	0%	58%	54%	62%	59%
SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY	96	296	3%	43%	49%	47%	54%
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY	96	193	0%	50%	53%	55%	59%
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-CAMDEN	99	242	1%	58%	59%	62%	63%
TULSA, UNIVERSITY OF	99	120	2%	66%	65%	69%	69%
MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW	101	303	15%	44%	42%	45%	44%
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY	101	272	4%	53%	56%	60%	64%
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY	101	200	4%	64%	63%	68%	68%
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY	101	252	1%	52%	54%	56%	58%
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY	101	125	1%	69%	68%	74%	73%
DRAKE UNIVERSITY	106	155	0%	61%	56%	66%	61%
HAWAII, UNIVERSITY OF	106	101	0%	48%	53%	51%	57%
SAN FRANCISCO, UNIVERSITY OF	106	222	10%	34%	35%	38%	39%
SOUTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF	109	222	0%	55%	57%	57%	60%
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY	110	177	3%	40%	45%	44%	49%
MERCER UNIVERSITY	110	130	1%	63%	66%	65%	68%
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY	110	203	0%	51%	49%	54%	53%
ALBANY LAW SCHOOL	113	236	1%	50%	52%	53%	55%
BALTIMORE, UNIVERSITY OF	113	298	1%	48%	48%	56%	56%
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK	113	111	13%	37%	37%	39%	39%
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL	113	173	5%	61%	59%	64%	62%
GONZAGA UNIVERSITY	113	160	0%	56%	58%	60%	63%
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY	113	133	6%	35%	34%	40%	39%
AKRON, UNIVERSITY OF	119	116	0%	55%	52%	63%	60%
ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK, UNIVERSITY OF	119	150	0%	63%	63%	69%	69%
DREXEL UNIVERSITY	119	131	6%	44%	44%	47%	48%
HOWARD UNIVERSITY	119	157	0%	48%	49%	53%	54%
MAINE, UNIVERSITY OF	119	90	0%	42%	42%	46%	46%
STETSON UNIVERSITY	119	322	1%	57%	56%	61%	61%
UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS	119	134	0%	44%	42%	52%	51%
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL	119	174	0%	49%	53%	56%	60%
WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW	127	282	1%	44%	41%	49%	47%
WYOMING, UNIVERSITY OF	127	74	3%	62%	66%	64%	68%
IDAHO, UNIVERSITY OF	129	102	0%	51%	53%	52%	54%
JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL	129	401	2%	43%	42%	50%	49%
SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL	129	298	0%	35%	35%	43%	45%
TOLEDO, UNIVERSITY OF	129	115	2%	37%	33%	41%	38%
WASHBURN UNIVERSITY	129	142	0%	50%	50%	53%	53%
WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY	129	129	5%	47%	43%	48%	44%
CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY	135	185	0%	50%	45%	58%	53%
CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY	135	153	1%	60%	59%	65%	63%
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-NEW ORLEANS	135	231	1%	46%	47%	53%	54%
MISSISSIPPI, UNIVERSITY OF	135	151	1%	55%	55%	58%	59%
MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY, UNIVERSITY OF	135	154	3%	61%	58%	66%	63%
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL	135	515	6%	36%	36%	41%	42%
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY	135	502	1%	38%	38%	44%	43%
PACE UNIVERSITY	142	222	8%	36%	35%	43%	42%
SAMFORD UNIVERSITY	142	148	0%	66%	64%	70%	69%
MONTANA, UNIVERSITY OF	145	85	0%	66%	72%	67%	74%
NORTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	145	81	1%	49%	48%	56%	54%
PUERTO RICO, UNIVERSITY OF	NA	244	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
APPALACHIAN SCHOOL OF LAW	U	91	0%	31%	29%	35%	32%
ATLANTA'S JOHN MARSHALL LAW SHOOL	U	132	2%	41%	31%	47%	38%
AVE MARIA	U	88	1%	33%	35%	39%	42%
BARRY UNIVERSITY	U	209	0%	39%	36%	44%	40%
CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW	U	285	0%	39%	39%	41%	40%
CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY	U	133	0%	71%	64%	73%	66%
CAPITAL UNIVERSITY	U	175	1%	40%	37%	44%	41%
CHARLESTON SCHOOL OF LAW	U	193	1%	51%	53%	55%	57%
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW	U	97	7%	43%	39%	46%	42%
DAYTON, UNIVERSITY OF	U	171	0%	51%	49%	56%	54%
DETROIT MERCY, UNIVERSITY OF	U	209	0%	37%	37%	42%	42%
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	U	78	0%	21%	20%	28%	29%
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY	U	206	1%	45%	44%	50%	50%
ELON UNIVERSITY	U	99	0%	56%	53%	57%	54%
FAULKNER UNIVERSITY	U	101	0%	56%	52%	61%	57%
FLORIDA A&M	U	152	0%	34%	30%	36%	33%
FLORIDA COASTAL	U	451	14%	37%	37%	39%	40%
GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY	U	191	14%	22%	21%	26%	25%
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY	U	205	0%	50%	52%	60%	63%
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY	U	90	3%	31%	28%	36%	33%
MEMPHIS, UNIVERSITY OF	U	129	1%	60%	56%	62%	58%
MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE	U	166	1%	75%	70%	78%	73%
NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW	U	308	2%	34%	31%	39%	36%
NEW HAMPSHIRE, UNIVERSITY OF	U	147	14%	48%	46%	51%	50%
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY	U	170	0%	44%	39%	51%	47%
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY	U	97	2%	55%	51%	57%	54%
NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY	U	179	1%	36%	36%	47%	47%
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY	U	302	0%	58%	59%	63%	64%
OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY	U	97	2%	57%	56%	58%	57%
OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY	U	176	0%	60%	53%	67%	61%
PHOENIX SCHOOL OF LAW	U	131	17%	37%	34%	46%	43%
REGENT UNIVERSITY	U	118	2%	53%	51%	55%	53%
ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY	U	158	0%	50%	50%	53%	54%
SOUTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	U	55	0%	38%	38%	42%	42%
SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW	U	402	0%	64%	61%	69%	66%
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY-CARBONDALE	U	111	1%	59%	53%	64%	58%
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY	U	143	1%	37%	30%	43%	37%
ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY	U	249	0%	78%	69%	81%	71%
ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY	U	221	1%	49%	45%	52%	48%
TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY	U	163	1%	53%	38%	56%	40%
TEXAS WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY	U	223	0%	49%	41%	51%	43%
THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL OF LAW	U	236	0%	27%	26%	29%	29%
THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL	U	999	0%	38%	31%	41%	35%
TOURO COLLEGE	U	221	0%	59%	59%	62%	61%
UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE	U	116	1%	33%	34%	36%	38%
VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY	U	181	0%	42%	43%	46%	46%
WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY	U	153	0%	30%	27%	38%	35%
WESTERN STATE	U	90	0%	32%	30%	36%	33%
WHITTIER COLLEGE	U	123	2%	17%	18%	20%	21%
WIDENER UNIVERSITY	U	252	0%	47%	47%	51%	51%
WIDENER UNIVERSITY-HARRISBURG	U	124	0%	44%	46%	51%	54%
TOTAL Number		43979
MEAN Percentage			4%	54%	53%	58%	57%
MEDIAN Percentage			1%	53%	53%	58%	58%

 



Comments

[Alfred Brophy]

Thanks for this, Bernie -- lots of information to digest here. Is it possible to get the table re-ranked according to, say, the final column. Looks like that's your preferred variable and I'd be very curious to see how the schools look when ranked that way, instead of with US News overall score. Also, I'd be interested in seeing this list broken down into state vs. private schools.

[anon]

Penn State is not unranked

[Bernie Burk]

Anon, you are absolutely right, and I apologize for our data entry mistake. I'm correcting the chart now.

--Bernie

[Ben Barros]

Bernie, I understand the need (or desire) to find data points that can give prospective students meaningful information about job placement at various schools. I worry about excluding JD Advantaged and other professional jobs. You are correct that these categories are blurry, but there are two reasons to take them seriously. First, many of these jobs are desirable. Second, ignoring these categories will hurt schools with evening programs and help those that do not have evening programs. Some evening students continue on after graduation with their employers, and some intended to do so when they came to law school. Could you clarify how these categories are being reflected in your numbers? Thanks, Ben

[Jonathan Silber]

I'm having second thoughts about having enrolled in law school
at the University of Puerto Rico.

[Bill Turnier]

JD Advantaged is really tough to sort out. I am most familiar with these jobs in situations where JDs take jobs with accounting firms. In the case of some hires, the student is regarded as a highly desirable asset by the accounting firm (e.g. where the accounting firm wishes to deal with estate planning and being a lawyer/accountant is virtually required for the position) whereas in other circumstances a JD who is also a CPA finds he/she cannot obtain a job that requires a JD and basically takes an accounting job that could have been theirs without ever having entered law school. The problem is that one must have intimate knowledge of each hire to make a judgment, a real impossibility.

[Steve Diamond]

Is data for the last decade or more available? Otherwise these numbers are not meaningful. Granted, there is clear anecdotal evidence that the last few years have been worse than in earlier downturns, but is this worse than, let's say, post-dot com? or post-91?

[cas127]

And the fact that these bleak outcomes may have been going on for *years* (why else did the schools and the ABA have to be forced - 16 *years* into the internet era - to disclose this vital data) gets you very close to the black, hypocritically evil heart of American legal education.

[cas127]

re: "Excluding too many jobs/making law school outcomes look worse than reality"

If this were the case, law schools would be beating one another silly to post complete *salary* data. They would not be creating confusing sub-categories in a pathetic attempt to muddy the water.

The fact that law schools are resisting *salary disclosure* like cornered, syphilitic rats on a sinking ship - more or less tells *everyone*...precisely what they don't want to tell *anyone*.

Things are much worse than even the *finally* disclosed statistics indicate.

[nike shox running shoes]

f this were the case, law schools would be beating one another silly to post complete *salary* data. They would not be creating confusing sub-categories in a pathetic attempt to muddy the water.

The fact that law schools are resisting *salary disclosure* li

[Steve Diamond]

I asked my school to provide me with data that goes back to 2001. Indeed, it turns out that the single year data do not paint a complete picture. Although there are some problems in the different methods used to collect the data, it is clear that the post dot-com downturn was as bad as the current downturn, but it did not last as long. It is also clear that the credit boom through 2007 helped erase the impact of the bursting of that bubble. It also appears that 2011 is better than both 2009 and 2010. In other words, law firms and law schools have never been immune from the ups and downs of the wider economy. This does not suggest that the law school "model" is broken as some argue.

[Bernie Burk]

Steve,

It's usually dangerous to respond to analysis based on what you think may be inadequate data with an even more limited sample than the one you're criticizing. One school's employment data (yours, limited by the very overinclusive categories of employment the ABA prescribed until this year) out of 200 law schools is unlikely to be especially informative about the legal economy as a whole. Without carrying on too long about this, let me make a couple of quick observations:

It is not at all clear that "the post dot-com downturn was as bad as the current downturn," whether in the legal sector or generally. In fact, that statement is clearly wrong. Unemployment in the general economy never got anywhere close to 10% during the dot-com bust, or even the 8.2% we see today--in fact, I believe it topped out around 4.9%. As for the legal sector, in the early 2000s, lawyer headcount at larger firms continued to rise despite the recession. So did the overall number of lawyers employed in the United States, as well as the number of people employed in the legal sector of the economy. Large-firm lawyer headcount fell about 10% in 2009 and 2010; the number of people employed in the legal sector overall also fell during this period for the first time in I don't know how long, but at least 20 years.

Your overall contention appears to be that what we are seeing in the legal employment market is merely cyclical, and everything will go back to (the old) normal once the storm blows over. That is debatable, but not nearly as debatable as you seem to be assuming, and again your data is seriously incomplete. The growth rate of lawyers and the legal sector has exhibited some variability related to cyclical conditions, but the number of lawyers has consistently grown, and grown more rapidly than the economy as a whole, since at least the 1970s. The only time lawyer headcount at larger firms fell at all before 2009 was in 1990-91, where it fell about 0.5% in 1990 and in 1991. It did not fall in the early 80s (the worst recession since the Depression until this one) or the early 2000s, though it grew less rapidly. It fell ten times that much in each of 2009 and 2010. So it is nowhere close to correct to suggest that lawyer employment has ever moved closely in tandem with the overall US economy.

And as you know, past results are no guarantee of future performance. Currently large firms are hiring entering classes that are 30-50% smaller than earlier in this decade. You can believe that this is merely cyclical if you wish. It is hard to find anyone who has spent any time with the data who actually thinks this today. A detailed qualitative and quantitative case for the proposition that what we are seeing reflects not only the cyclical downturn, but structural changes in the staffing and pricing of legal services that will influence hiring of new graduates for years to come is made in the article I published with Dave McGowan at 2010 Columbia Business Law Review 1 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1680624). Bill Henderson similarly believes that legal employment was "stagnating" for several years before the Great Recession as a result of accumulating structural pressures.

Does this mean the law school "model" is broken? My problem is that I don't know what piece of the picture people are referring to when they refer to the "model." What I do know is that there are currently a very large number of people going to law school--1/3 or more of the current census of about 130,000--who will not be able to find full-time legal employment when they graduate. That has, to the best of my knowledge, never been true before, ever. There is ample room for debate regarding what to do about it. But those who profess there is nothing to address do so not only at their own peril, but at the peril of those whose welfare we as educators we should be safeguarding.

--Bernie