An ABA Accreditation Standard on Employment Outcomes? Part 2.

In my first post (August 3), I outlined the scope of the two major problems facing legal education today: too few law jobs for too many law school graduates; and the high cost of legal education and resulting severe debt burdens for graduates. In this post, I will focus on how law schools with persistently weak employment outcomes have responded to their numbers. In short, some of these schools have lowered admissions standards in order to minimize reduction in class sizes. In doing so, they almost inevitably exacerbate existing problems because their bar passage rates suffer and their graduates’ employment prospects are further diminished. In addition, many of the same schools with persistently weak employment outcomes and large declines in entering class credentials also report comparatively high average student debt amounts.

By “schools with persistently very weak employment outcomes,” I mean law schools that: (1) reported fewer than 40% of graduates in full-time (FT), long-term (LT) bar passage required (BPR) jobs at 9 months after graduation for the class of 2011, which was the low point for the percentage of law graduate employed in such jobs in the wake of the Great Recession; and (2) again reported fewer than 40% of graduates in FT, LT BPR jobs five years later for the class of 2016. There are 16 schools in this group, comprising about 8% of all ABA accredited schools. Four of these schools, 2% of all ABA schools, reported fewer than 30% of graduates in FT, LT BPR jobs at 9-10 months after graduation in 2011 and again in 2016.

How have these schools responded to their dismal graduate employment outcomes? The table below tells the story. In sum, most of the 16 law schools with persistently weak employment outcomes appear to have pursued admissions policies designed to minimize reductions in enrollment as law school applications have declined, rather than to improve graduate employment outcomes. Instead of increasing admissions requirements in order to boost bar passage and legal employment rates, most have increased acceptance rates and markedly reduced admissions criteria. The predictable result is that FT, LT BPR employment rates at many of the 16 schools have actually decreased, even as the LT, FT BPR employment rate across all law schools has increased by 6.9 percentage points between the classes of 2011 and 2016.

Here are the details. As reported in the table below, at all but one of the 16 schools, the 25^th percentile LSAT score has decreased, by between 1 and 7 points, with an average decrease of 3.9 points. (At one school, there was no change.) At all 16 schools, the 50^th percentile LSAT score has decreased from 2011 to 2016, by between 1 and 8 points, with an average reduction of 3.8 points. As a likely result, the FT, LT BPR employment rate decreased at 8 of the 16 schools, and the overall FT, LT BPR employment rate at the 16 schools increased by only 1.2 percentage points between 2011 and 2016. In the most extreme case, the school’s 25^th and 50^th percentile LSAT scores dropped by 7 points (from 148 to 141) and 8 points (from 151 to 143), respectively, while its FT, LT BPR employment rates for 2011 and 2016 were 26.7% and 21.9%, respectively.

Comparison of FT, LT BPR Employment Rates, Bar Passage Rates, 25^th Percentile LSAT Scores, and Average Debt at Schools with Persistently Weak Employment Outcomes, 2011 and 2015, 2016

School	2011 % FT, LT BPR	2016 %FT, LT BPR	2011 1st Time Bar Pass Rate	2015 1st Time Bar Pass Rate	Change in 1st Time Bar Pass	2011 25th % LSAT	2016 25th % LSAT	Change in 25th % LSAT	Avg. Debt 2015
1	15.5	13.7	55.05	53.66	-1.39	150	144	-6	N/A
2	17.1	29.7	56.54	38.07	-18.39	149	144	-5	$148K
3	20.5	34.0	64.29	47.35	-16.94	151	145	-6	$108K
4	22	26.8	62.09	38.89	-23.2	150	146	-4	$144K
5	26.7	21.9	45.85	48.23	+2.38	148	141	-7	$173K
6	30.8	35.7	67.19	58.14	-9.05	142	140	-2	N/A
7	32.2	31.9	78.88	52.25	-26.63	149	145	-4	$122K
8	34.2	37.5	63.19	66.39	+3.2	145	144	-1	N/A
9	34.2	32.9	72.06	48.11	-23.95	155	148	-7	$162K
10	34.6	38.9	60.69	50.64	-10.05	152	149	-3	N/A
11	36.5	36.4	87.77	67.95	-19.82	150	149	-1	$94K
12	36.6	36.1	76	61.56	-14.44	145	141	-4	$161K
13	36.8	33.6	67.13	64.29	-2.84	147	147	0	$137K
14	37.4	38.0	65.85	41.64	-24.21	146	140	-6	N/A
15	37.5	30.5	72.14	51.86	-20.28	143	138	-5	$138K
16	39.2	33.6	70.56	50.25	-20.31	147	146	-1	N/A
Avg.	30.74	31.95	66.58	52.46	-14.12	148.06	144.19	-3.87	$139K

[N/A in the Avg. Debt column means that the figure was not available because it was not reported by the school to US News.]

As also reported in the table, at 15 of the 16 schools, the first-time bar passage rate has fallen between 1.4 and 26.6 percentage points from 2011 to 2015 (the latest year for which bar passage data are now available). At the 1 school where the rate increased, it increased by 2.4 percentage points. The average decrease in first time bar passage rates across the 16 schools was about 14 percentage points, not quite twice the 8 percentage point decline nationally in bar passage rates since 2011. Moreover, further declines appear likely. The 2015 bar pass results capture mostly graduates who enrolled in 2012, and the entering class credentials at these schools have declined further since 2012.

Plainly, there is a gap in the ABA accreditation standards that permits schools with dismal employment outcomes to pursue policies that are directly at odds with improving those outcomes. In my next post, I will make the case for an ABA accreditation standard on employment outcomes based on the federal law and Department of Education regulations requiring accrediting agencies to measure program quality through one or more student outcomes standards.

Comments

[Anon]

You write:

“I outlined the scope of the two major problems facing legal education today: too few law jobs for too many law school graduates; and the high cost of legal education and resulting severe debt burdens for graduates.”

But legal education pays off quite handsomely over a career for the vast majority of JD holders.

And the number of employed lawyers and the income of those lawyers has steadily increased over more than two decades.

The only truly existential issue facing legal education today is the recent downturn in demand for law school after a long period of increased demand. Recent data on LSAT takers suggests this downturn has ended as perceptions about the potential value of a JD begin to sink in on college students.

[terry malloy]

"as perceptions about the potential value of a JD begin to sink in on college students."

- Anon
Regional Chair
SOPJA - Save Our Phony Baloney Jobs Association