Legal employment outcomes in 2013

Earlier I blogged about the legal employment outcomes in California in 2013. Now that the ABA has released all of its data, I can run the same analysis for every law school (and update the now-out-of-date figures in a certain magazine's rankings). Like the California list, it includes the "full weight" positions as determined by U.S. News & World Report, which are full-time, long-term, bar passage-required or J.D.-advantage positions. It includes the 2015 USNWR peer score, the 2013 full-time, long-term, bar passage-required and J.D.-advantage positions, along with the year-over-year increase or decline in points from the 2012 rate. It then lists the raw number of students who obtained such positions, along with a parenthetical notation of how many of those positions were school-funded. The same is listed for 2012.

A few notes follow the table.

Peer score School 2013 YoY% raw 2012 raw
4.6 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 97.0% 0.0 424 (29) 97.0% 455 (38)
4.3 VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF 97.0% -0.3 353 (59) 97.3% 354 (55)
4.3 PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF 96.5% -0.5 250 (13) 97.0% 262 (8)
4.6 CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF 96.3% -0.5 207 (15) 96.7% 208 (17)
4.4 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 95.5% -0.3 513 (42) 95.9% 462 (62)
4.8 HARVARD UNIVERSITY 94.5% 0.4 546 (21) 94.1% 555 (19)
3.4 EMORY UNIVERSITY 94.2% 15.6 275 (64) 78.6% 209 (17)
4.7 STANFORD UNIVERSITY 92.8% -3.3 180 (5) 96.1% 174 (4)
4.1 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 90.8% 5.1 258 (5) 85.8% 253 (1)
3.8 VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 90.8% 16.3 187 (17) 74.5% 146 (0)
4.4 CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY, UNIVERSITY OF 90.4% 2.2 272 (26) 88.1% 275 (0)
4.1 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 89.8% 5.4 579 (80) 84.3% 528 (60)
4.1 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 89.6% 3.8 173 (16) 85.8% 163 (1)
3.4 GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 89.1% -1.9 537 (89) 91.0% 523 (128)
4.8 YALE UNIVERSITY 88.7% -2.3 180 (14) 91.0% 202 (20)
4.2 DUKE UNIVERSITY 87.6% 0.4 211 (2) 87.1% 196 (1)
3.1 ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF 86.7% 0.7 144 (1) 86.0% 148 (3)
4.0 TEXAS AT AUSTIN, UNIVERSITY OF 86.2% 4.7 326 (12) 81.5% 304 (2)
3.0 ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 84.3% 12.1 172 (6) 72.2% 153 (4)
4.4 MICHIGAN, UNIVERSITY OF 84.2% -2.4 336 (3) 86.6% 336 (3)
2.5 KENTUCKY, UNIVERSITY OF 84.2% 0.5 112 (1) 83.7% 123 (0)
3.2 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW SCHOOL 83.9% -1.4 182 (48) 85.3% 174 (41)
1.8 SOUTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF 83.1% 4.2 59 (3) 78.9% 60 (0)
3.2 IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF 82.6% 5.3 157 (1) 77.3% 143 (0)
3.9 CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, UNIVERSITY OF 82.2% 5.1 273 (34) 77.2% 257 (9)
2.9 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 81.0% 3.7 192 (2) 77.3% 221 (0)
2.5 OKLAHOMA, UNIVERSITY OF 81.0% 3.3 149 (0) 77.7% 146 (2)
2.2 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 80.7% -3.1 176 (1) 83.9% 187 (0)
2.6 SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY 80.6% 0.4 199 (0) 80.2% 235 (0)
3.4 NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF 80.4% 3.4 148 (2) 77.0% 151 (3)
3.1 WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF 80.3% 1.3 147 (0) 79.0% 143 (1)
3.2 INDIANA UNIVERSITY - BLOOMINGTON 80.1% 15.4 181 (3) 64.7% 132 (0)
2.2 LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF 79.7% 0.2 102 (0) 79.5% 101 (0)
3.2 OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 79.6% 7.5 179 (3) 72.1% 160 (0)
2.3 ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF 79.5% -6.1 105 (0) 85.6% 113 (0)
3.1 ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF 78.8% 11.2 182 (24) 67.6% 144 (9)
2.5 MISSOURI, UNIVERSITY OF 78.6% -0.3 103 (2) 78.9% 116 (0)
3.5 MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF 78.5% 3.2 215 (5) 75.2% 173 (7)
3.0 COLORADO, UNIVERSITY OF 78.4% 14.4 138 (7) 64.0% 112 (3)
1.8 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY-CARBONDALE 78.3% 23.6 101 (0) 54.7% 70 (0)
1.6 OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY 78.2% 6.3 133 (0) 72.0% 149 (1)
2.8 UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF 77.9% 6.3 113 (0) 71.6% 96 (1)
2.6 HOUSTON, UNIVERSITY OF 77.8% 2.6 207 (2) 75.2% 197 (0)
2.0 TULSA, UNIVERSITY OF 77.7% -1.4 87 (2) 79.1% 106 (3)
2.3 SETON HALL UNIVERSITY 77.7% 1.9 240 (0) 75.8% 235 (0)
2.0 WYOMING, UNIVERSITY OF 77.6% 12.3 59 (0) 65.3% 49 (1)
1.7 SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW 77.3% 2.0 307 (1) 75.3% 284 (0)
1.7 FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 77.1% 1.0 128 (2) 76.1% 140 (4)
2.1 WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY 76.9% -4.1 100 (0) 81.0% 115 (0)
2.6 KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF 76.9% 2.2 133 (0) 74.7% 115 (3)
1.9 NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY OF 76.6% 8.5 82 (0) 68.1% 94 (0)
2.5 NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF 76.6% -5.4 95 (0) 82.0% 105 (3)
2.4 NEW MEXICO, UNIVERSITY OF 76.3% 6.6 87 (0) 69.7% 83 (0)
2.9 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY 76.2% -2.0 112 (0) 78.2% 115 (1)
2.6 TENNESSEE, UNIVERSITY OF 76.0% 3.8 127 (0) 72.3% 112 (0)
3.6 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 75.7% 0.7 227 (4) 75.0% 225 (4)
2.3 SOUTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF 75.6% -0.5 164 (1) 76.1% 172 (1)
3.5 NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF 75.4% 3.1 187 (4) 72.3% 185 (4)
1.8 DAYTON, UNIVERSITY OF 75.3% 16.7 110 (0) 58.6% 102 (0)
3.1 GEORGIA, UNIVERSITY OF 75.2% -0.8 176 (0) 76.0% 174 (1)
1.5 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY 75.0% 8.3 72 (0) 66.7% 64 (0)
2.0 WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY 74.8% 2.8 92 (0) 72.0% 90 (0)
1.9 DRAKE UNIVERSITY 74.6% -0.2 103 (0) 74.8% 104 (0)
2.7 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 74.5% 1.8 190 (7) 72.7% 160 (6)
2.5 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY 74.4% -2.0 145 (1) 76.4% 152 (0)
2.4 BAYLOR UNIVERSITY 73.9% 0.7 130 (1) 73.2% 120 (2)
3.3 WISCONSIN, UNIVERSITY OF 73.8% 1.3 186 (2) 72.5% 206 (5)
3.4 CALIFORNIA-DAVIS, UNIVERSITY OF 73.5% 5.6 144 (10) 67.8% 137 (2)
1.9 NORTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF 73.0% -4.8 54 (0) 77.8% 70 (0)
3.1 FLORIDA, UNIVERSITY OF 72.9% 9.8 258 (0) 63.1% 210 (2)
1.9 WASHBURN UNIVERSITY 72.8% -1.5 110 (0) 74.4% 116 (0)
2.0 MONTANA, UNIVERSITY OF 72.8% 9.4 59 (0) 63.4% 52 (0)
2.0 IDAHO, UNIVERSITY OF 72.6% 7.3 85 (1) 65.4% 68 (1)
1.6 ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY 72.4% -3.4 207 (1) 75.7% 203 (2)
1.3 FAULKNER UNIVERSITY 72.3% 8.8 73 (1) 63.5% 66 (0)
2.2 GONZAGA UNIVERSITY 72.0% 3.4 116 (0) 68.7% 114 (0)
2.0 MERCER UNIVERSITY 72.0% -6.2 113 (0) 78.2% 111 (2)
3.3 BOSTON UNIVERSITY 71.9% 3.8 200 (17) 68.1% 186 (0)
2.5 RICHMOND, UNIVERSITY OF 71.8% -5.2 102 (0) 77.0% 114 (0)
1.8 WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW 71.7% 4.0 233 (0) 67.7% 205 (0)
2.3 UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA - LAS VEGAS 71.2% 7.9 94 (0) 63.4% 102 (0)
2.4 MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY 71.1% 3.2 167 (0) 67.9% 148 (0)
2.0 TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 71.0% -0.2 169 (1) 71.2% 153 (1)
3.5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF 71.0% -1.4 169 (12) 72.4% 160 (0)
2.4 INDIANA UNIVERSITY - INDIANAPOLIS 70.8% 9.1 182 (2) 61.7% 182 (5)
3.2 BOSTON COLLEGE 70.8% -0.4 179 (0) 71.2% 185 (0)
3.1 ARIZONA, UNIVERSITY OF 70.7% -4.4 104 (0) 75.2% 112 (0)
2.1 STETSON UNIVERSITY 70.7% 1.8 227 (0) 68.9% 235 (1)
2.6 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY 70.7% 9.1 164 (0) 61.6% 106 (2)
2.7 MIAMI, UNIVERSITY OF 70.5% 1.7 303 (5) 68.8% 317 (2)
2.7 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY 70.2% 5.9 207 (1) 64.3% 178 (0)
1.9 CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY 69.6% 0.5 87 (0) 69.1% 114 (0)
2.3 UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO-SUNY 69.5% 9.2 162 (0) 60.3% 126 (0)
2.2 MISSISSIPPI, UNIVERSITY OF 69.5% 3.4 132 (0) 66.1% 109 (1)
1.8 HAMLINE UNIVERSITY 69.2% -3.4 128 (0) 72.6% 138 (0)
2.4 CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF 69.1% 5.6 103 (0) 63.6% 89 (0)
2.5 BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL 69.0% 11.7 330 (0) 57.3% 267 (0)
1.6 NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY 68.8% 3.2 209 (0) 65.5% 232 (0)
2.3 CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 68.5% 5.9 163 (0) 62.6% 154 (2)
2.0 ALBANY LAW SCHOOL OF UNION UNIVERSITY 68.4% 7.0 134 (2) 61.4% 143 (2)
3.2 FORDHAM UNIVERSITY 68.2% -0.7 328 (0) 68.9% 335 (2)
2.6 PITTSBURGH, UNIVERSITY OF 68.2% 3.8 165 (3) 64.4% 143 (0)
1.8 DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY 67.8% 2.1 139 (0) 65.7% 132 (0)
2.9 MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY OF 67.7% -1.0 197 (16) 68.7% 219 (7)
2.1 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY 67.4% -5.7 203 (0) 73.2% 202 (1)
2.5 CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW-IIT 67.4% 2.1 190 (0) 65.2% 184 (2)
2.2 ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY 67.3% 6.5 208 (1) 60.9% 171 (0)
1.9 CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY 67.3% 7.1 107 (0) 60.2% 106 (0)
nr CALIFORNIA-IRVINE, UNIVERSITY OF 66.7% -19.0 56 (0) 85.7% 48 (0)
2.3 SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 66.7% 11.0 136 (0) 55.7% 103 (0)
1.8 MEMPHIS, UNIVERSITY OF 66.1% -1.0 82 (0) 67.2% 90 (0)
2.4 LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE 66.0% 1.9 165 (16) 64.1% 134 (0)
2.2 HOWARD UNIVERSITY 65.9% 9.7 91 (1) 56.3% 85 (0)
1.6 MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE 65.8% -13.5 123 (0) 79.3% 130 (1)
1.8 SAMFORD UNIVERSITY 65.6% -2.5 101 (0) 68.1% 113 (0)
2.4 RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-CAMDEN 65.6% -2.6 181 (1) 68.1% 184 (0)
2.1 VERMONT LAW SCHOOL 65.5% 7.2 131 (0) 58.3% 120 (0)
1.8 WIDENER UNIVERSITY-HARRISBURG 65.3% 12.8 79 (0) 52.5% 64 (0)
3.0 TULANE UNIVERSITY 65.2% -7.0 159 (2) 72.1% 194 (1)
2.5 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-CHICAGO 65.0% 1.6 186 (0) 63.5% 172 (0)
2.6 DENVER, UNIVERSITY OF 64.9% 5.9 174 (1) 59.0% 187 (0)
2.4 RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NEWARK 64.8% -0.2 175 (6) 65.0% 158 (1)
1.7 JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL 64.8% 6.8 289 (0) 58.0% 240 (1)
2.6 PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY 64.8% 6.6 138 (0) 58.2% 124 (1)
2.0 BALTIMORE, UNIVERSITY OF 64.6% -8.8 201 (0) 73.5% 252 (4)
1.2 REGENT UNIVERSITY 64.5% 5.4 89 (0) 59.1% 75 (0)
3.2 WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY 63.6% 5.9 91 (0) 57.7% 75 (0)
2.3 VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY 63.3% 4.0 152 (0) 59.4% 152 (0)
1.8 AKRON, UNIVERSITY OF 63.3% -5.8 105 (0) 69.1% 96 (0)
2.2 ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK, UNIVERSITY OF 62.9% -5.4 90 (0) 68.3% 95 (2)
2.7 OREGON, UNIVERSITY OF 62.9% 13.8 95 (0) 49.1% 79 (0)
1.8 ST. THOMAS, UNIVERSITY OF (MINNESOTA) 62.7% 3.0 99 (0) 59.6% 96 (0)
2.4 HAWAII, UNIVERSITY OF 62.5% -3.5 65 (2) 66.0% 70 (2)
3.1 WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY 62.3% -14.7 99 (2) 76.9% 120 (0)
1.9 QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY 62.2% -6.0 92 (0) 68.2% 103 (0)
2.1 WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY 62.1% -2.8 108 (3) 64.9% 109 (0)
1.6 NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY 61.9% -2.3 99 (0) 64.2% 104 (0)
2.8 CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW 61.6% 1.1 245 (0) 60.5% 234 (0)
1.6 NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY 61.5% -3.3 72 (1) 64.8% 59 (0)
1.5 CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY 61.5% -16.4 83 (0) 77.9% 113 (0)
1.8 TOLEDO, UNIVERSITY OF 61.0% -3.6 72 (1) 64.6% 95 (0)
2.2 MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY, UNIVERSITY OF 60.8% -14.4 93 (0) 75.2% 115 (1)
2.8 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY 60.6% 7.0 307 (54) 53.6% 248 (10)
2.2 HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY 60.5% 2.7 193 (0) 57.9% 210 (1)
1.3 CHARLESTON SCHOOL OF LAW 60.4% 2.8 136 (1) 57.6% 132 (0)
2.2 MAINE, UNIVERSITY OF 60.4% 12.1 58 (0) 48.3% 42 (0)
2.7 SAN DIEGO, UNIVERSITY OF 60.1% 8.4 191 (0) 51.7% 169 (0)
2.8 CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF 59.9% -10.5 112 (0) 70.4% 140 (1)
2.0 DREXEL UNIVERSITY 59.4% 2.6 82 (2) 56.8% 88 (0)
2.6 LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY-LOS ANGELES 59.1% 10.5 230 (4) 48.7% 200 (2)
1.4 ATLANTA'S JOHN MARSHALL LAW SHOOL 58.5% 0.4 137 (0) 58.2% 103 (0)
2.3 DEPAUL UNIVERSITY 58.5% 6.5 166 (2) 51.9% 191 (0)
1.9 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL 58.4% 3.1 328 (5) 55.2% 332 (4)
1.8 WIDENER UNIVERSITY-DELAWARE 58.1% 8.3 162 (0) 49.8% 134 (0)
1.4 ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY (FLORIDA) 57.4% 9.2 132 (1) 48.1% 104 (0)
1.6 TOURO COLLEGE 57.4% -1.2 132 (0) 58.6% 143 (0)
2.3 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 56.8% -1.6 171 (3) 58.4% 170 (9)
2.1 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-NEW ORLEANS 56.6% 3.4 145 (1) 53.2% 148 (1)
1.2 ARIZONA SUMMIT LAW SCHOOL 56.6% -3.6 158 (3) 60.2% 109 (0)
2.4 SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY 56.2% -0.2 181 (1) 56.4% 168 (1)
2.0 CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 55.8% -3.8 77 (0) 59.6% 84 (1)
1.3 APPALACHIAN SCHOOL OF LAW 55.7% 1.8 49 (0) 53.8% 49 (1)
1.5 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY 55.1% -2.7 102 (0) 57.9% 114 (0)
1.7 TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 55.1% -9.6 97 (0) 64.7% 134 (0)
2.3 NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY 55.0% 3.4 120 (1) 51.6% 111 (0)
1.5 NEW ENGLAND LAW | BOSTON 55.0% 5.7 188 (2) 49.3% 167 (0)
1.4 TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY 54.7% -7.3 87 (0) 62.0% 116 (0)
2.3 SEATTLE UNIVERSITY 54.7% -6.3 170 (2) 61.0% 197 (1)
1.2 CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW 54.3% 6.4 190 (9) 47.9% 112 (2)
1.9 PACE UNIVERSITY 52.7% -2.5 155 (7) 55.2% 127 (4)
2.4 PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 52.0% -12.9 104 (0) 64.9% 126 (2)
1.9 SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL 52.0% -4.5 156 (0) 56.5% 183 (1)
1.7 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY 50.6% -4.0 83 (2) 54.7% 94 (2)
2.0 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY 50.3% -1.1 241 (0) 51.5% 266 (0)
1.4 SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY 50.0% -12.3 103 (0) 62.3% 101 (0)
1.4 WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY 49.6% -1.6 66 (0) 51.3% 82 (0)
1.3 FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY 49.3% -3.2 109 (0) 52.5% 84 (1)
1.1 AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW 48.4% 0.8 77 (1) 47.6% 79 (0)
1.4 DETROIT MERCY, UNIVERSITY OF 47.9% 6.8 101 (0) 41.0% 87 (0)
1.2 BARRY UNIVERSITY 47.8% -4.7 96 (1) 52.5% 105 (0)
1.6 ELON UNIVERSITY 47.5% -9.6 58 (0) 57.1% 64 (0)
2.1 SAN FRANCISCO, UNIVERSITY OF 47.5% 15.4 95 (1) 32.1% 71 (1)
1.7 ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY 47.4% -8.9 83 (0) 56.4% 102 (1)
3.1 CALIFORNIA-HASTINGS, UNIVERSITY OF 47.2% -4.5 176 (2) 51.7% 229 (0)
1.9 MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW 46.9% 3.1 149 (3) 43.8% 134 (0)
1.2 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY 46.2% -13.8 43 (2) 60.0% 54 (1)
1.8 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY 45.7% -2.1 85 (0) 47.8% 85 (0)
1.2 WESTERN STATE COLLEGE OF LAW 43.9% 4.1 54 (0) 39.8% 33 (0)
1.6 CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW 41.6% -7.8 117 (0) 49.5% 140 (0)
1.4 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 41.3% 3.6 33 (1) 37.6% 35 (0)
1.3 THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL OF LAW 41.0% 4.8 120 (0) 36.2% 94 (0)
nr UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE 40.7% 4.2 35 (0) 36.5% 38 (0)
nr UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH 39.8% -3.4 41 (3) 43.2% 19 (3)
1.2 FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW 37.9% -3.3 213 (1) 41.2% 210 (0)
1.2 THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL 36.3% -3.7 415 (1) 40.0% 432 (0)
1.4 WHITTIER LAW SCHOOL 30.5% -15.4 64 (0) 45.9% 78 (0)
1.6 GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY 28.9% 1.5 66 (1) 27.4% 51 (0)
1.5 NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY 27.2% -11.6 46 (0) 38.8% 64 (0)

First, law school-funded positions for these types of jobs increased nearly 40%, from 659 school-funded positions in 2012 to 908 in 2013.

Second, if you wanted to be among the top schools, you had to fund jobs. The top 15 schools each funded at least 5 such positions; the top 26 schools each funded at least 1 such position.

Third, the California market is still suffering. A full 50% of the lowest-performing schools are in California. Only 5 of the California law schools make the top half of this list.

Sorting law school matriculants by major, LSAT, & UGPA

My previous post on the LSAT and UGPA of law school applicants generated a lot of discussion, both here and elsewhere at places like the TaxProf and Above the Law.

It's almost certainly the case that some majors overrepresent certain groups, schools, or privileges. "Policy studies," for instance, is an interdisciplinary major found at places like Duke, Rice, and Syracuse--it is probably not overly common elsewhere. The same goes for a major like Classics. And, of course, absent any other controls, these are, as Ted Seto noted in a comment, little more than "cocktail-party interesting."

But I've got more.

Here are the LSAT and UGPA for matriculants to law school. As with the applicants post, majors with at least 150 self-reported matriculants are included. And, of course, these are self-identified and may include multiple majors. Per a suggestion in one of the comments, I made the size of the bubbles correlate to the number of matriculants per major. I squeezed in labels for each one, too.

As you can see, the top performers overall are the Economics and Philosophy majors, given the relatively high number in both. A few niche areas like Policy studies, International relations, and Music do well. Political science is the giant circle in the middle. The actual figures are listed in the table below.

Major n150 LSAT UGPA
POLICY STUDIES 151 161.8 3.461
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 605 159.5 3.410
GOVERNMENT/SERVICE 298 159.5 3.417
ECONOMICS 1499 159.3 3.365
BIOLOGY, SPECIALIZATION 230 159.0 3.276
LITERATURE 154 159.0 3.391
MUSIC 175 158.9 3.486
PHILOSOPHY 1328 158.8 3.351
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 369 158.6 3.469
ANTHROPOLOGY 253 158.5 3.419
RELIGION/RELIGIOUS STUDIES 150 158.2 3.474
HISTORY 2170 157.7 3.389
ENGLISH 2309 156.7 3.387
INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES 328 156.5 3.330
ARTS & HUMANITIES - OTHER 1175 156.2 3.366
FINANCE 976 155.7 3.374
BIOLOGY, GENERAL 404 155.5 3.170
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 219 155.3 3.280
POLITICAL SCIENCE 8094 155.2 3.352
SPANISH 209 155.0 3.442
SOCIAL SCIENCES - OTHER 268 154.9 3.330
PSYCHOLOGY 2114 154.8 3.308
JOURNALISM 455 154.8 3.413
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 200 154.6 3.373
ACCOUNTING 618 154.3 3.378
COMMUNICATIONS 986 154.1 3.334
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 714 153.7 3.256
LIBERAL ARTS 701 153.5 3.227
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 808 153.4 3.199
SOCIOLOGY 880 153.2 3.271
MARKETING 539 152.9 3.228
LAW 221 152.3 3.335
ANY AREA NOT LISTED - OTHER 1957 152.1 3.254
CRIMINOLOGY 403 151.9 3.293
PRE-LAW 445 151.3 3.304
BUSINESS MGMT./ADMIN. 197 149.9 3.154
CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1632 149.2 3.267

The best prospective law students read Homer

UPDATE: This post chronicles stats for law school applicants; the data for matriculants has been posted here.

Several years ago, Professor Michael Nieswiadomy (North Texas) released a paper (available on SSRN) on the LSAT scores of economics majors. I thought I'd make some inquiries with LSAC for some data on this subject to follow up.

I asked for all data of 2013 applicants and matriculants to law school. Applicants self-identified one of 142 majors; they could select more than one if they so desired. I obtained the median LSAT scores, and the median GPA scores, for these groups.

Below is a chart identifying the median LSAT scores and GPA scores based on self-identified major, for majors with at least 150 students taking the exam, among all law school applicants. A few majors are labeled on the chart.

Perhaps 150 is too low a figure for categorization (other studies typically require 400 to 450 students), but I thought a slightly more inclusive sample might be of interest.

As you can see, the best prospective law students were the Classics majors. Even though there were just 190 of them, they achieved a 159.8 LSAT and a UGPA of 3.477--the highest in both categories.

Among the rest, there is a pretty good correlation between LSAT and UGPA. As expected, some of the majors with disproportionately low UGPAs but high LSATs were in the sciences (I labeled Biology, specialization; Biology, general; Electrical Engineering; Mechanical Engineering; and Mathematics on the chart.) Among majors with disproportionately low LSATs but high UGPAs were Accounting, Law, Social Work, and Spanish.

Professor Brian Leiter has noted that other studies, which often link Philosophy and Religion into a single category, may distort the quality of Philosophy majors. The chart reflects a significant difference between the two. Philosophy majors (n=1773) achieved a 156.8 LSAT, good for sixth-highest in this set, but suffered from a slightly lower UGPA than would be expected, 3.308. Religion and Religious Studies majors (n=230) were a far smaller group with a lower LSAT score (154.6) but a much higher UGPA (3.434).

The chart below includes the comprehensive list of all majors with at least 150 applicants, sorted by LSAT score. Some very small majors (e.g., Art History, Music, and Policy Studies) scored quite well.

Among those majors with at least 1000 takers, the top major was Philosophy, followed by Economics, History, English, and Political Science.

Granted, one cannot identify causation based upon these scores. Students self-identify majors, sometimes more than one, or sometimes none at all; others self-select into taking the LSAT altogether (opting for medical school, business school, or a lucrative career instead of law school).

Major n>150 LSAT UGPA
CLASSICS 190 159.8 3.477
POLICY STUDIES 209 158.8 3.435
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 850 157.3 3.382
ART HISTORY 155 157.1 3.453
MATHEMATICS 203 157.0 3.332
PHILOSOPHY 1773 156.8 3.308
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 507 156.6 3.421
GOVERNMENT/SERVICE 408 156.3 3.352
ECONOMICS 2185 156.2 3.307
BIOLOGY, SPECIALIZATION 328 155.8 3.217
MUSIC 256 155.6 3.432
HISTORY 2943 155.4 3.339
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 186 155.0 3.192
ANTHROPOLOGY 358 154.7 3.365
RELIGION/RELIGIOUS STUDIES 230 154.6 3.434
FOREIGN LANGUAGES 154 154.4 3.379
LITERATURE 226 153.6 3.284
ENGLISH 3287 153.2 3.307
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 297 152.7 3.255
POLITICAL SCIENCE 11441 152.3 3.274
CHEMISTRY, GENERAL 194 152.1 3.267
INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES 510 151.9 3.235
SPANISH 297 151.9 3.394
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 191 151.8 3.196
ARTS & HUMANITIES - OTHER 1734 151.7 3.275
FINANCE 1497 151.7 3.297
JOURNALISM 653 151.5 3.315
BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT - OTHER 239 151.1 3.171
PSYCHOLOGY 3056 150.6 3.226
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 330 150.5 3.266
BIOLOGY, GENERAL 647 149.7 3.096
COMMUNICATIONS 1551 149.3 3.213
SOCIAL SCIENCES - OTHER 465 148.4 3.168
ACCOUNTING 1024 148.3 3.283
CRIMINOLOGY 652 148.2 3.206
LIBERAL ARTS 1193 148.1 3.113
SOCIOLOGY 1404 148.0 3.165
MARKETING 880 147.9 3.140
LAW 333 147.6 3.256
PRE-LAW 728 147.1 3.172
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 1204 146.7 3.142
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 1443 146.6 3.098
BUSINESS MGMT./ADMIN. 395 145.8 3.052
ANY AREA NOT LISTED - OTHER 3595 145.0 3.122
SOCIAL WORK 208 143.4 3.257
CRIMINAL JUSTICE 3102 143.1 3.144

Colorado files petition for rehearing en banc in Guarantee Clause case

I've blogged about the Tenth Circuit's decision on Kerr v. Hickenlooper, which extended legislative standing and found the Guarantee Clause justiciable for legislators challenging an initiative that requires tax increases to be approved by the voters before taking effect. (I wrote a piece for Jurist on the matter here.) The Governor has petitioned the Tenth Circuit for rehearing en banc; the petition is available at Scribd here.

How does Congress evaluate the qualifications of federal candidates?

This is the second in a series of posts about my forthcoming article, Scrutinizing Federal Electoral Qualifications, 90 Indiana Law Journal (forthcoming), available on SSRN. Comments, critiques, and feedback are welcome.

I asked whether states have the power to evaluate qualifications of candidates for federal office. Before asking whether they have that power, however, it's useful to consider how Congress evaluates candidates.

Congress has a robust power to evaluate the qualifications of its own members. Cases like Powell v. McCormack assure Congress that, as long as it is evaluating the constitutional qualifications of its members and not adding to them, it has broad--even exclusive--power to evaluate qualifications. There is a long history of Congress making judgments, such as deferring on an underage candidate until the candidate comes of age, or investigating the length of time the candidate has been a citizen.

The power of Congress to evaluate presidential and vice-presidential candidates is less clear. Congress itself has debated whether it could review the votes cast by electors. Some have argued that Congress's sole role is ministerial; it only has the power to add up the electors' votes, and the electors judge qualifications. The only time Congress has actually declined to count votes cast by electors took place in 1872, when it declined to count three votes cast for the deceased vice-presidential candidate Horace Greeley. But Congress has at other times assumed it has that power; consider the Senate's 2008 resolution reflecting the sense of the Senate that John McCain is a natural born citizen, which apparently reflected its intent to count electoral votes for Mr. McCain because he was qualified.

Scrutiny of qualifications differs because of the context. For the legislature, there was a deep concern that intermediary parties would interfere, so the power was great, and essentially exclusive. For the executive, however, the power to scrutinize qualifications is not immediately clear from the text of the Constitution. As the primary responsibility for the selection of the executive resides in several other parties--the electors themselves; the state legislatures, which are given the task of selecting the manner of appointment of electors; and the voters, given the power by the state legislature to select electors. The uncertainty over Congress's power to scrutinize qualifications reflects the possibility that such power might reside elsewhere--and perhaps in the state legislatures themselves.

Does it even matter if Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen"?

This is the first in a series of posts about my forthcoming article, Scrutinizing Federal Electoral Qualifications, 90 Indiana Law Journal (forthcoming), available on SSRN. Comments, critiques, and feedback are welcome.

Senator Ted Cruz is an American. But he was born to a Cuban father and an American mother in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He may run for president one day. But the office of president is limited to "natural born citizens." Is Mr. Cruz one?

Questions about the qualifications of presidential candidates are nothing new--but they certainly reached new frenzied heights as conspiracy theorists wondered whether Barack Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya, and had manufactured a fraudulent (or concealed a nonexistent) Hawaiian birth certificate. They persisted for John McCain, too, as he was born in the American-controlled Panama Canal Zone. They lingered for Dick Cheney, who prior to moving to Wyoming resided in Texas, George W. Bush's home state, which would have precluded Texan presidential electors from voting for both candidates. And they've lingered for many other prospective candidates.

And although these election disputes seem like distant memories, they are still being litigated today--and their results could impact future hopefuls like Mr. Cruz. Indeed, the Alaska Supreme Court, in an unpublished decision Lamb v. Obama, and the Alabama Supreme Court, in McInnish v. Bennett, both addressed these issues in March; the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Peace & Freedom Party v. Bowen on these issues in February.

Litigants bring these questions on the merits. A candidate is included on the ballot whom a litigant believes is not qualified and should be excluded; or an election official excludes a candidate on the ballot because she believes the candidate is not qualified and the candidate sues to obtain ballot access. And most of the public debates on this issue arise on the merits of whether a candidate is or is not qualified.

But there is a predicate question: can the litigant even sue in court? This question is asked less regularly, but there are usually barriers to justiciability, particularly standing, in federal court, which means that courts often don't even answer the question on the merits.

But there's a predicate question even to this inquiry. What power do states have in evaluating the qualifications of candidates for federal office? And if they have power, where does it come from? If states have no power to evaluate qualifications for federal office, then courts need not even adjudicate these questions. In that sense, it may not "matter" whether Mr. Cruz is a "natural born citizen" for purposes of ballot access (sorry for the provocative headline); it may be simply a question reserved to other parties. Or, if states do have some power to scrutinize qualifications, is that a constitutional question or a statutory question? And what are the contours of their power?

My forthcoming article addresses these questions. Courts have been inconsistent in their approach. Sometimes, they refuse to answer the question and argue that scrutiny of qualifications is a question left to Congress or other political actors. At other times, they approve the inclusion or exclusion on the ballot, concluding that the state had the power to scrutinize qualifications.

I'll look at what qualifications are, and who has the power to examine qualifications for federal office--for Congress, and for president. I'll then figure out what role, if any, states have in scrutinizing those qualifications, and how courts should approach those questions of scrutiny.

Legal employment outcomes in California in 2013

The ink is hardly dry on the 2015 U.S. News & World Report rankings--which, for branding purposes, are for 2015, but, for data purposes, include the Class of 2012 employment data--and they're already obsolete. That's because the Class of 2013 employment data has been released for most schools.

Some deans at California schools have complained bitterly about how USNWR calculates its employment formula. They argue it penalizes California schools, because the economy in California has recovered at a slower rate than the rest of the country. What do the new figures show about California in 2013?

The USNWR methodology gives "full weight" to "graduates who had a full-time job lasting at least a year where bar passage was required or a J.D. degree was an advantage." They also use this figure in the ranking tables. They give other positions lower weight, but these positions are not included in the ranking tables.

Imperfect a measure as it may be, I took this metric and calculated the differences in 2012 and 2013 data for 18 of the 19 California ABA-approved schools and 2 California provisionally-accredited schools. Here's what the data show.

(Note: Berkeley has not released its data as of March 30, 2014, so figures are for all California schools except Berkeley. Figures may be updated when Berkeley discloses. SEE UPDATE BELOW.)

First, there were more graduates. Total graduates from these 20 schools increased 1.7%, from 4802 graduates in 2012 to 4884 graduates in 2013.

Second, more graduates obtained full-time, long-term, bar passage-required or J.D.-advantage positions. In 2012, there were 2575 who obtained such employment, for a 53.6% employment rate. In 2013, there was a 4% increase, with 2679 who obtained such employment for a 54.9% employment rate. (Of course, this does not indicate where such positions existed, in California or elsewhere in the country; it only indicates the rate of placement for the California schools, regardless of where the employment took place.)

Third, law school funding for these types of positions tripled. There were 24 school-funded full-time, long-term bar passage-required or J.D.-advantage positions in 2012; that number jumped to 75 in 2013. Leading the way were UCLA (from 9 to 34), USC (from 0 to 12), and UC-Davis (from 2 to 10), which accounted for virtually all of the increase. The USNWR rankings consider gives these positions full weight in its employment report, but recently NPR (via The Faculty Lounge) has noted this factor.

Below is a chart reflecting the 2012 and 2013 data, with links to the school's underlying data. It includes the 2015 USNWR peer score, the 2013 full-time, long-term, bar passage-required and J.D.-advantage positions, along with the year-over-year increase or decline in points from the 2012 rate. It then lists the raw number of students who obtained such positions, along with a parenthetical notation of how many of those positions were school-funded. The same is listed for 2012. (Due to the format of some schools' disclosures, the nature of school-funded positions was not always entirely clear, and I did the best I could to ascertain which funded positions to include in the count.)

Peer score School 2013 YoY% raw 2012 raw
4.7 STANFORD UNIVERSITY 92.8% -3.9 180 (5) 96.7% 175 (4)
4.4 CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY, UNIVERSITY OF 90.4% 2.3 272 (25) 88.1% 275 (0)
3.9 CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, UNIVERSITY OF 82.2% 5.1 273 (34) 77.2% 257 (9)
3.4 CALIFORNIA-DAVIS, UNIVERSITY OF 73.5% 5.6 144 (10) 67.8% 137 (2)
3.5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF 71.0% -1.4 169 (12) 72.4% 160 (0)
nr CALIFORNIA-IRVINE, UNIVERSITY OF 66.7% -19 56 (0) 85.7% 48 (0)
2.6 PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY 64.8% 6.6 138 (0) 58.2% 124 (1)
2.7 SAN DIEGO, UNIVERSITY OF 60.1% 8.4 191 (0) 51.7% 169 (0)
2.6 LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY-LOS ANGELES 59.1% 10.4 230 (5) 48.7% 200 (5)
2.4 SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY 56.2% -0.2 181 (1) 56.4% 168 (1)
1.9 SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL 52.0% -4.5 156 (0) 56.5% 183 (1)
2.1 SAN FRANCISCO, UNIVERSITY OF 47.5% 14.9 95 (1) 32.6% 72 (1)
3.1 CALIFORNIA-HASTINGS, UNIVERSITY OF 47.2% -4.5 176 (2) 51.7% 229 (0)
1.9 MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW 46.9% 3.1 149 (3) 43.8% 134 (0)
1.8 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY 45.7% -2.1 85 (0) 47.8% 85 (0)
1.2 WESTERN STATE COLLEGE OF LAW 43.9% 4.1 54 (0) 39.8% 33 (0)
1.6 CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW 41.6% -7.8 117 (0) 49.5% 140 (0)
1.3 THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL OF LAW 41.0% 4.8 120 (0) 36.2% 94 (0)
nr LA VERNE, UNIVERSITY OF 40.7% 4.2 35 (1) 36.5% 38 (0)
1.4 WHITTIER LAW SCHOOL 30.5% -15.4 64 (0) 45.9% 78 (0)
1.6 GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY 28.9% 1.8 66 (1) 27.1% 51 (0)

UPDATE: I've discovered that some of these 2012 figures do not perfectly align with the actual figures reported on USNWR. For a few schools where the numbers differed, I used the actual ABA data on the linked forms.

UPDATE 2: I have added Berkeley. With their 25 school-funded positions (up from zero last year), such positions have now quadrupled among California schools over the last year. Graduates increased from 5114 to 5185, a 1.4% increase. The employment rate increased from 55.7% to 56.9%.

Fictional Attorney of the Month: Willie Stark

All the King's Men is an extraordinary novel. Robert Penn Warren is one of the very best writers of the twentieth century, and his prose in this work earned him the 1947 Pulitzer. He wrote this great Southern novel about Willie Stark, a politician inspired by the life of Louisiana's Huey Long. Stark is a gifted speaker whose righteous indignation and populist outrage inspires broad political support among the people of Louisiana. He climbs from a lowly local office to the governor's mansion. (The novel has twice been adapted to film--the actor portraying Stark in the 1949 version was Broderick Crawford.)

The story is narrated by Jack Burden, a law school drop-out turned journalist who becomes a part of Stark's machine. There are a number of legal themes throughout the work, ranging from a corrupt judge to commentary on the bar exam. And the implications of lawlessness are thought-provoking for anyone with an inclination to law.

There are too many good things to discuss in this book for a small Fictional Attorney of the Month post. But allow me to share one of my favorite quotations in the book, Stark's description of what law is and its perceived underinclusiveness:

"No," the Boss corrected, "I'm not a lawyer. I know some law. In fact, I know a lot of law. And I made me some money out of law. But I'm not a lawyer. That's why I can see what the law is like. It's like a single-bed blanket on a double bed and three folks in the bed and a cold night. There ain't ever enough blanket to cover the case, no matter how much pulling and hauling, and somebody is always going to nigh catch pneumonia. Hell, the law is like pants you bought last year for a growing boy, but it is always this year and the seams are popped and the shankbone's to the breeze. The law is always too short and too tight for growing humankind. The best you can do is do something and then make up some law to fit and by the time that law gets on the books you would have done something different."