Brian Leiter's Law School Reports

Brian Leiter
University of Chicago Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Northwestern Law to pick up one year of loan interest...

...for some graduates.  Interesting idea.


April 29, 2015 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

In Memoriam: Greg Lastowka

Professor Gregory Lastowka of Rutgers-Camden Law passed away last night, after a year-long battle with cancer.  He was 46.  Greg was a serious scholar - writing across areas of Cyberlaw and IP - but was also a particularly humane colleague.  He is missed.


April 28, 2015 in Memorial Notices | Permalink

Monday, April 27, 2015

New York Times relies on unrepresentative anecdotes and flawed study to provide slanted coverage of legal education (Michael Simkovic)

Just when you thought The New York Times was rounding the corner and starting to report responsibly about legal education based on hard data and serious labor economics studies, their reporting reverts to the unfortunate form it has taken for much of the last 5 years*—relying on unrepresentative anecdotes and citing fundamentally flawed working papers to paint legal education in a negative light.

Responsible press coverage would have put law graduate outcomes in context by noting that:

(1) law graduates continue to do better in terms of employment (both overall and full time) and earnings than similar bachelor’s degree holders, even in an economy that has generally been challenging for young workers

(2) law students, even from some of the lowest ranked and most widely criticized law schools, continue to have much lower student loan default rates than the national average across institutions according to standardized measurements reported by the Department of Education

(3) law graduate earnings and employment rates typically increase as they gain experience

(4) Data from After the JD shows that law graduates continue to pay down their student loans and approximately half of graduates from the class of 2001 paid them off completely within 12 years of graduation

Instead, The New York Times compares law graduate outcomes today to law graduate outcomes when the economy was booming.  But not all law graduates.  The Times focuses on law graduates who have been unusually unsuccessful in the job market or have unusually large amounts of debtFor example, The New York Times focused on a Columbia law school graduate working as an LSAT tutor** as if that were a typical outcome for graduates of elite law schools.  But according to the National Law Journal, two-thirds of recent Columbia graduates were employed at NLJ 250 law firms (very high paying, very attractive jobs),*** and the overwhelming majority of recent Columbia graduates appear to work in attractive positions.   (Columbia outcomes are much better than most, but the negative outcomes discussed in The New York Times are substantially below average for law graduates as a whole).

In Timing Law School, Frank McIntyre’s and I analyze long term outcomes for those who graduated into previous recessions, using nationally representative data and well-established econometric methods.  Our results suggest that law graduates continue to derive substantial benefits from their law degrees even when graduating into a recession.  The recent recession does not appear to be an exception. (See also here and here).  This analysis is not mentioned in the recent The New York Times article, even though it was cited in The New York Times less than a month ago (and alluded to in The Washington Post even more recently).

The implication of The New York Times’ story “Burdened With Debt, Law School Graduates Struggle in Job Market” is that there is some law specific problem, when the reality is that the recession continues to negatively affect all young and inexperienced workers and law graduates continue to do better than most.   Law school improves young workers’ chances of finding attractive employment opportunities and reduces the risk of defaulting on debt.  The benefits of law school exceed the costs for the overwhelming majority of law school graduates.

The New York Times relies heavily on a deeply flawed working paper by Professor Deborah Merritt of Ohio State.  Problems with this study were already explained by Professor Brian Galle:

“My problem is that instead DJM wants to offer us a dynamic analysis, comparing 2014 to 2011, and arguing that the resulting differential tells us that there has been a "structural shift" in the market for lawyers.  It might be that the data exist somewhere to conduct that kind of analysis, but if so they aren't in the paper.  Nearly all the analysis in the paper is built on the tend line between DJM's 2014 Ohio results and national-average survey results from NALP.  

Let me say that again.  Almost everything DJM says is built on a mathematical comparison between two different pools whose data were constructed using different methods.  I would not blame you if now stopped reading."

In other words, it is difficult to tell whether any differences identified by Professor Merritt are:

(1) Due to differences between Ohio and the U.S. as a whole

(2) Due to differences in methodology between Merritt, NALP, and After the JD

(3) Actually due to differences between 2011 and 2014 for the same group

After Professor Galle’s devastating critique, journalists should have been extremely skeptical of Merritt’s methodology and her conclusions.  Professor Merritt’s response to Galle’s critique, in the comments below his post, is not reassuring:

“Bottom line for me is that the comparison in law firm employment (62.1% for the Class of 2000 three years after graduation, 40.5% for the lawyers in my population) seems too stark to stem solely from different populations or different methods—particularly because other data show a more modest decline in law firm employment over time. But this is definitely an area in which we need much, much more research.”

Judging from this response and the quotes in The New York Times, Merritt appears to be doubling down on her inapposite comparisons rather than checking how much of her conclusions are due to potentially fatal methodological problems.  What Professor Merritt should have done is replicate her 2014 Ohio-only methodology in 2000/2001 or 2010/2011, compared the results for Ohio only at different points in time, and limited her claims to an analysis of the Ohio legal employment market.

There are additional problems with Professor Merritt’s study (or at least the March 11 version that I reviewed).**** 

  • Ohio is not a representative legal employment market, but rather a relatively low paying one where lawyers comprise a relatively small proportion of the workforce.  
  • A disproportionate share of the 8 or 9 law schools in Ohio (9 if you include Northern Kentucky) are low ranked or unranked, and this presumably is reflected in their employment outcomes. 
  • Merritt’s sample is subject to selection bias because of movement of the most capable law graduates out of Ohio and into higher paying legal markets.  Ohio law graduates who do not take the Ohio bar after obtaining jobs in Chicago, New York, Washington D.C., or other leading markets will not show up in Merritt’s sample.  
  • Whereas Merritt concludes that law graduate outcomes have not improved, the data may simply reflect the fact that Ohio is a less robust employment market than the U.S. as a whole. 
  • Merritt’s analysis of employment categories does not take into account increases in earnings within employment categories.  After the JD and follow-ups suggests that these within-category gains are substantial, as does overall increases in earnings from Census data. 
  • Merritt makes a biased assumption that anyone she could not reach is unemployed instead of gathering additional information about non-respondents and weighting the results to take into account response bias. Law schools may have been more aggressive in tracking down non-respondents than Professor Merritt was. 

For the benefit of those who are curious, I am making my full 8 page critique of Professor Merritt's working paper available here, but please keep in mind that it was written in mid March and Professor Merritt may have addressed some of these issues in more recent versions of her paper.  If that is the case, I trust that she’ll highlight any changes or improvements in a blog post response.

 

*    A few weeks ago I asked a research assistant (a third year law student) to search for stories in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal about law school.  Depending on whether the story would have made my research assistant more likely or less likely to want to go to law school when he was considering it or would have had no effect, he coded the stories as positive, negative, or neutral.  According to my research assistant, The New York Times reported 7 negative stories to 1 positive story in 2011 and 5 negative stories to 1 positive story in 2012.  In 2013, 2014, and 2015, The New York Times coverage was relatively balanced.  In aggregate over the five-year period The New York Times reported about 2 negative stories for every 1 positive story.  The Wall Street Journal’s coverage was even more slanted—about 3.75 negative stories for every positive story—and remained heavily biased toward negative stories throughout the five-year period.

**   Professor Stephen Diamond notes the LSAT tutor’s relatively high hourly wage, more lucrative opportunities the tutor claims he turned down, and how the tutor describes his own work ethic.

***  For the class of 2010, the figure at Columbia was roughly 52 percent 9 months after graduation, but activity in the lateral recruitment market suggests things may be looking up.

**** The comments that follow summarize a lengthy (8 page) critique I sent to Professor Merritt privately in mid March after reviewing the March 11 draft of her paper.  I have not had a chance to review Professor Merritt’s latest draft, and Professor Merritt may have responded to some of these issues in a revision.  

 

UPDATE:  Additional responses from Professors Galle and Merritt.


April 27, 2015 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Law in Cyberspace, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice, Science, Student Advice, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink

I call "bullshit" on this one...

...a story allegedly about a fearful closeted Christian law professor at an elite school?  The late William Stuntz at Harvard, Michael McConnell at Stanford, David Skeel at Penn, Stephen Bainbridge at UCLA all seem to have done rather well at elite schools, despite being quite openly religious.  (I'm sure there are others, but the preceding scholars have incorporated their religious commitments into at least some of their scholarly and popular writing.)  I invite the alleged subject of this article to contact me; I will also preserve his anonymity, but I'd like to pose some further questions about what it is about his institutional environment that would lead to the behavior described.  I'm afraid it just doesn't ring true to what I've seen at the institutions I've taught.  Yes, levels of religiosity among law professors are not high (though they are higher than among philosophy professors); but norms of collegiality and respect for differences have generally created environments in which no one would reasonably feel a need to go into the closet as described.  Maybe I've been lucky, but...


April 27, 2015 in Faculty News, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Apparently if you don't agree with Paul Campos about law schools...

...you're like a Holocaust denier.   This latest smear from Crazy Campos was directed at Michael Simkovic, whose grandparents, by the way, were Holocaust survivors.

Even when one disagrees with Prof. Simkovic, there's no doubt that a debate that had been far too dominated by clowns like Campos and various amateurs has been raised to a far more serious level by his systematic interventions, both on this blog and in the peer reviewed literature.  CC's latest smear job just gives more urgency to Dean Bales's question.


April 23, 2015 in Of Academic Interest | Permalink

LSAC reports applicants down just 2.6% as of April 17...

...here and see the chart, which suggests we've hit bottom in terms of the applicant pool (barring dramatic economic jolts, that is, which could move things either way).  Of course this is a bottom last  seen in the 1970s when there were 50 fewer law schools.  But given how many law schools have refrained from hiring faculty due to uncertainty about the future, my guesstimate is that we'll see a slight uptick in law school hiring next year, since many schools have unfilled needs.


April 23, 2015 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Six law professors elected to American Academy of Arts & Sciences

They are:  Noah Feldman (Harvard), David Garland (NYU), Jane Ginsburg (Columbia), Philip Hamburger (Columbia), Lewis Kornhauser (NYU), and Robin West (Georgetown). 


April 22, 2015 in Faculty News | Permalink

A somewhat more balanced piece on law schools and the legal profession...

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Standardized measurement and its discontents

At the faculty lounge, Professor Bernard Burk of the University of North Carolina echoes questions raised earlier by Professor Merritt of Ohio State about whether it is unethical or misleading for law schools to report employment using the international standard definition of employment.   I have discussed these issues extensively before.*

Employment statistics are primarily useful for purposes of comparing alternatives.  Comparison requires standard measurements.  Standardization is efficient because it reduces the number of definitions that must be learned to use data.  The standard definition of employment is meaningful and useful because, notwithstanding preferences for particular kinds of work, a job of some kind is generally preferable to no job at all.  This does not mean that employment is the only measurement one should consider, but rather that it is a useful measurement.

Because international standards exist, it is not necessary to explain to a college graduate what a centimeter means when describing the length of an object.  Similarly it is not necessary to explain to college graduates contemplating law school what employment means when using the international standard definition of employment.**

College educated individuals who are unfamiliar with standard terminology can easily look up or inquire about the relevant definitions, and once they have learned, can begin to understand a world of data. The standard definitions of employment and unemployment can be quickly discovered through intuitive internet searches. (see searches for unemployment and employment definitions) These definitions are neither obscure nor technically challenging. 

In addition, many law schools disclose bar passage rates that are lower than their employment rates.  It seems doubtful that many college educated adults contemplating law school—in particular, the subset basing their decisions on outcome data such as employment and bar passage rates—would assume that every law graduate who is employed shortly after graduation is working as a lawyer when many of those graduates cannot legally practice law.

Critiquing international standardized measurements as inherently immoral is not without precedent.   

According to Martin Gardner, during the 1800s, a U.S. group attacked the French metric system as atheistic and immoral. 

“The president of the Ohio group, a civil engineer who prided himself on having an arm exactly one cubit in length, had this to say . .  . : "We believe our work to be of God; we are actuated by no selfish or mercenary motive. We depreciate personal antagonisms of every kind, but we proclaim a ceaseless antagonism to that great evil, the French Metric System. . .The jests of the ignorant and the ridicule of the prejudiced, fall harmless upon us and deserve no notice. . . It is the Battle of the Standards. May our banner be ever upheld in the cause of Truth, Freedom, and Universal Brotherhood, founded upon a just weight and a just measure, which alone are acceptable to the Lord." “

“A later issue printed the words and music of a song, the fourth verse of which ran:

        

        Then down with every "metric" scheme

        Taught by the foreign school,

        We'll worship still our Father's God!

        And keep our Father's "rule"!

        A perfect inch, a perfect pint,

        The Anglo's honest pound,

        Shall hold their place upon the earth,

        Till time's last trump shall sound!”

 

A catchy tune, although I’m not sure it’s one many scientists, mathematicians or engineers would appreciate!

Many thoughtful people believe the U.S.’s non-standard approach to measurement undermines U.S. competitiveness in science, math, engineering, and industry.  Time is wasted learning and converting to and from a redundant and inefficient measurement system.  This entails opportunity cost and leads to unnecessary and avoidable errors.

Law schools, the American Bar Association, and the National Association for Law Placement would be better served by using standard definitions for labor market measurements when standard definitions are available and widely in use elsewhere, or at least labeling non-standard definitions with names that will not be readily confused with standard definitions.

The ABA currently requires law schools to describe individuals as “Unemployed” who under standard definitions would be defined as either “Not in Labor Force” or “Unemployed.”  In other words, “unemployment” as reported under ABA definitions will be higher than unemployment under the standard and most widely used government definition.  A number of people have been confused by this, incorrectly claiming that “unemployment” for law graduates is unusually high in comparison to everyone else.  In fact, under consistent measurements, the fraction of recent law graduates who are employed is higher than the overall proportion of the population that is employed.   (Law graduates also do relatively well on the percent employed full-time).

I agree with Professor Burk that additional information about occupational categories could be useful to some users of data.  However, I do not agree that presenting standard summary statistics is inherently misleading or unethical, particularly for the sophisticated audience using the data —college educated, internet savvy adults.

 

Continue reading


April 21, 2015 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice, Science, Weblogs | Permalink

I've joined Aeon Ideas...

...here, and have a couple of viewpoints up.


April 21, 2015 in Jurisprudence, Navel-Gazing | Permalink