November 21, 2013

We are on track for there to be more new jobs for lawyers than there are new law school graduates...

...by 2016 or 2017.  Hopefully this will help some of those currently unemployed, but it is also probably quite good news for those starting law school now or next year.  (I commend Professor Young for taking the time to run the numbers, which in the current toxic cyber-environment where facts are never welcome [recall the irrational reception in cyberspace of the Simkovic & McIntyre study, even though it completely altered the terms of debate in the real world], requires considerable courage.   I also commend to the attention of readers Professor Young's profiles of graduates of the Appalachian School of Law, a nice snapshot of the important role legal education plays in communities throughout the nation.)

UPDATE:  Deborah Merritt (Ohio State) takes issue with some of the numbers.  For reasons that are unclear, she also discounts "JD Advantage" jobs.    Whereas Professor Young generally made optimistic assumptions given the available data, Professor Merritt makes pessimistic assumptions on the same data, though far as I can see, the available evidence is neutral as between them.

Posted by Brian Leiter on November 21, 2013 in Legal Profession, Student Advice | Permalink

November 09, 2013

Michigan's Undergraduate Career Services Center compiles a useful list of testimonials by students happy to have gone to law school...

...and who went to a wide variety of law schools.  Good to have a little reality-check on the insane cyber-ranting by individuals, many of whom are no doubt victims of circumstances and genuinely aggrieved, but who seem tragically confused about the causes of their suffering.

Posted by Brian Leiter on November 9, 2013 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Student Advice | Permalink

November 07, 2013

Trends in LSAT-taker, applications to law schools, and enrollments over 45 years

This is illuminating.  Of crucial significance about the recent drop (on all three fronts) is that there are more ABA-approved law schools now than there were just a dozen years ago.

UPDATE:  Here's a list of ABA-approved law schools by year of approval--we've seen an increase of roughly 10% in the total number of law schools in just the last dozen years.

Posted by Brian Leiter on November 7, 2013 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Student Advice | Permalink

October 03, 2013

The Labor Market for Law Professors

This is an empirical study of one year of it (2007-08) by Tracey George (Vanderbilt) and Albert Yoon (Toronto).  It confirms mostly what I would have expected.   This may be particularly noteworthy:

Despite the ink spilled on race and gender in legal academic hiring, we find, with limited exceptions, these factors have little effect.  After controlling for credentials, gender and race do not improve a candidate's chance of getting a screening interview.  The only stage where we find that race and gender have statistically significant effects are at the intermediate call-back interview stage where women and non-whites are statistically significant more likely to be invited for a job talk interview.  But, women and non-whites are no more likely than similarly situated men and whites to get a job offer or, if they get an offer, for the offer to come from a more elite school.

Among the metrics of comparison they look at are publications, fellowships, PhDs, school graduated from, clerkships and so on.  They do err, I think, in taking U.S. News a bit too seriously in viewing one metric as "graduation from Yale, Harvard, Stanford," even though the evidence suggests that while Yale is in a class by itself for teaching placement, the other two are not.  I've urged Professor Yoon to include some data on Chicago, Columbia, and Michigan, at least.  (Of course, this was only one year, and it is possible that the data for this one year do support the grouping.  In any case, hopefully the final version of the paper will include more evidence in support of the grouping.)

Posted by Brian Leiter on October 3, 2013 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice, Rankings, Student Advice | Permalink

October 02, 2013

Welcome to law school!

An excellent address to the first year class here by my colleague Anthony Casey, but I commend it to everyone.  The ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education would do well to read it as well!

Posted by Brian Leiter on October 2, 2013 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Student Advice | Permalink

September 17, 2013

Supreme Court Clerkships by Law School: 2003 through 2013 Terms

Here.

UPDATE:  Minnesota, in fact, had 2 Supreme Court clerks during this time, so makes the top 20 on both the "per capita" and the total clerks listing--that revision will be made shortly.

Posted by Brian Leiter on September 17, 2013 in Legal Profession, Rankings, Student Advice | Permalink

September 11, 2013

Survey of recent law school graduates: 37% are actually fine with three years of law school...

...which was a striking result, I thought.   Most seemed rather content with their legal education as well:  37% gave it an "A" (maybe the same 37% that liked all three years?), and 50% gave it a B.  (This is surprising given how many thought legal education needed to change in some unspecified way!)  One suspects that results vary quite a bit depending on where respondents went to school.

Posted by Brian Leiter on September 11, 2013 in Of Academic Interest, Rankings, Student Advice | Permalink

August 30, 2013

A new site for comparing employment outcomes for law schools

This looks to be useful.

Posted by Brian Leiter on August 30, 2013 in Legal Profession, Rankings, Student Advice | Permalink

July 30, 2013

Reflections on "The Economic Value of a Law Degree" and the Response to It

It has been a curious two weeks in the legal academic blogosphere.   Michael Simkovic, a law professor at Seton Hall (who, I learned, never went on the law teaching market, he was plucked out of practice at Davis Polk by a savvy hiring committee), and Frank McIntyre, a labor economist at the Rutgers Business School, produced a serious piece of empirical analysis of the economic outcomes for those earning a JD as opposed to those stopping with the BA.  The result was hardly surprising:  JDs do better, considerably better, at both the top and the bottom.

Although the result isn't surprising on reflection, it clearly created a problem for those heavily invested in the idea that it's stupid to go to law school.  Predictable know-nothings--like Elie Mystal (a nice guy, I hasten to add, but out of his depth with respect to almost any serious topic) at the Above the Law cesspool--did scandalous hatchet jobs and obviously didn't read the article.  All the bottom-feeders of cyberspace stick together, of course, so we find Matt Leichter, another benighted blogger, endorsing Mystal's mistakes and adding more of his own!  The Dunning-Kruger Effect is alive and well!  Certain familiar charlatans, like Paul Campos, were exposed once again as having no idea what they were talking about (we even had the remarkable spectacle of Campos, an actual academic fraud, calling an actual scholar (Stephen Diamond) an "academic fraud," even as both Simkovic and Bainbridge noted the correctness of Diamond's criticisms of Campos.)

Most disappointing, however, were Brian Tamanaha's badly confused interventions.  As someone who endorsed Tamanaha's book originally, I've been embarrassed by the arrival of serious research on the topic.  Tamanaha's work, in the areas where I have expert knowledge, has always been a bit notorious for its confusions and theoretical overreaching, especially in its desire to make startling claims, the evidence and the arguments be damned. I had thought his book on law schools was different.  (I suppose I should have been given pause by the way in which Tamanaha repeatedly tried to legitimize some of the most disgusting and deranged "scam" blogs out there, even posting encouraging comments on some of them.)  In any case, it now turns out that Failing Law Schools is consistent with the rest of his work, and I was mistaken in commending it. 

Well, maybe not wholly mistaken, since Tamanaha has scaled back his claims in the wake of the Simkovic & McIntyre analysis (also here--and see this reply).  It's not law schools, per se, that are failing, but just Thomas Jefferson, Phoenix, Southwestern, and a few others he singles out for calumny.   To be honest, I don't even know that they are failing, it really depends on whether the long-term economic outcomes for their graduates fall well below the 25th-percentile in the Simkovic & McIntyre study--Tamanaha has no evidence on that, nor do I.   As Stephen Diamond (Santa Clara) aptly put it in responding to another tissue of confusions about the paper:  "The challenge for an individual law student is to determine where they are likely to fall along the distribution. I don’t think the Simkovic/McIntyre paper was intended to be a calculator for prospective law students and so criticizing them for that issue is unfair. However, the paper does provide concrete evidence that such a distribution actually exists and that for most points on the distribution the present value of the earnings premium associated with a JD is positive."

Tamanaha's response to the Simkovic & McIntyre article has been, in short, a spectacular intellectual embarrassment and travesty:  the conclusion now seems inescapable that he has no idea what he is talking about.  (Naturally, the Cato Institute hacks thought his intellectual mess was brilliant!)  A colleague at another top law school put it to me aptly in an e-mail last week:

Tamanaha is embarrassing himself terribly.   His responses have the feel of someone desperate to defend a profitable franchise, and they are manifestly deficient on the merits.  Simkovic and McIntyre have comported themselves like true scholars.  The contrast is striking.

Tamanaha should apologize in public and simply admit that he was wholly out of his depth.  I certainly apologize to anyone who took Failing Law Schools seriously based on my opinion.  It has some good anecdotes, and some interesting history of law school regulation, but I should have been more cautious.  (I still agree with Tamanaha that the ABA ought to lighten up on regulation, to allow more models of legal education--that point is quite independent of the Simkovic & McIntyre analysis.)

So here's the amazing fact:  not a single meritorious criticism of the paper was voiced in the blogosphere despite nearly two weeks of intense discussion.*  It has all been careless, in some cases idiotic, mispresentations; technical and conceptual confusions; or irrelevant ranting by ignoramuses.  It all reminds me why, as I said long ago, blogs are bad for legal scholarship, since they provide a voice, sometimes--as with the ATL cesspool--a loud voice for people who literally have nothing to say because they have no relevant competence or skill.

Here's what I think we know and don't know after the first serious scholarly intervention in the debate about an economic value of a law degree:

1.  The vast majority of those who got a JD over the last two decades are better off, financially, than similar individuals who stopped with the BA.

2.  We don't know if other post-graduate degrees are more worthwhile, financially, than the JD; Simkovic & McIntyre did not attempt to address that systematically.

3.  We don't know if the economic pattern for JD-holders will hold for the future, though Simkovic & McIntyre adduce some evidence that it will.  [BL EDIT:  rather good evidence, I will add, in light of a recent dishonest misreading]

And that, I think, is a fair summary of where we are.  The critics of law schools, it turns out, simply do not understand the basic math behind valuation--net present value.  They think law school is a bad value because they apparently don't know how to value anything that pays off over time. 

We have had a massive downturn in applications to law schools the last three years, primarily as a result of ABA-induced better reporting of employment outcomes and New York Times coverage of the bad job market for new JDs.  That's fine, some of these individuals may have made the correct decision by foregoing law school.  But we've also had an hysterical cyber-reaction by miscreants and charlatans (like Campos), as well as by unemployed law school graduates desperate for someone to blame for the latest crisis of capitalism.  Journalists have generally done a poor job sorting the wheat from the chaff, though there have been honorable exceptions (I think especially of Debra Weiss at the ABA journal).

*Perhaps I missed an intelligent response to the Simkovic & McIntyre paper buried somewhere in the bowels of cyberspace.

UPDATE:  Predictably, Brian Tamanaha was not happy with the preceding, but I'll try to be succinct:  (1) it is false that he and I have "skirmished on various subjects over the past fifteen or so years"; the one time I engaged his work was in the review of his book three years ago (anyone interested in the actual objections should read the review essay); (2) he did not "challenge" my "interpretation of the formalists and realists"--on the formalists, because I have no views on the historical figures denominated formalists, and on the realists, because he did not engage seriously with either mine or Fred Schauer's readings of the Realists in his book; (3) he wholly misrepresents the contents of David Rabban's recent book and also misrepresents, by implication, Rabban's opinion of Tamanaha's book, which was the same as mine (Rabban agrees with me that Tamanaha stated a prima facie plausible case against the attribution of "vulgar" formalism to 19th-century writers, but that does nothing to resolve the issue of what other kinds of formalism were common in the 19th-century--again see my review essay); (4) anyone who reviews Tamanaha's postings can see how utterly ludicrous it is for him now to pretend that he acknowledged the evidence that Simkovic & McIntyre adduced in support of the proposition that the current recession in the legal market is well within the parameters of past economic cycles in the legal profession; (5) I am agnostic on Tamanaha's motives, and do not think my correspondent meant "profitable enterprise" literally.  I do think his work, in both legal theory and on legal education, exemplifies a pattern of careless scholarship, which is why I noted my one discussion of the former by way of evidence.

ANOTHER:  Apt comments by Frank Pasquale, also a blogger at the Balkinization site.

Posted by Brian Leiter on July 30, 2013 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice, Student Advice | Permalink

July 20, 2013

Diamond on Campos on the economic value of a law degree

This is amusing.

Posted by Brian Leiter on July 20, 2013 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Student Advice | Permalink