Sorting law school matriculants by major, LSAT, & UGPA

UPDATE: For the latest data, with an interactive visualization, please see this post about applicants, and this post about matriculants.

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.

View fullsize

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	n≥150	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: For the latest data, with an interactive visualization, please see this post about applicants, and this post about matriculants.

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.

View fullsize

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

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%.

Preliminary three-year average and 2013 federal clerkship graduate placement figures

Law schools were required to report their nine-month employment figures for the Class of 2013 on March 15, 2014. Many schools have already disclosed that data individually on their own sites. Some places have begun to aggregate that data. Unfortunately, the data is fairly inaccessible: it is in PDF format in idiosyncratic on individual law school websites, and the ABA will not provide access to the data in a meaningful format for a few months.

But I went ahead and gleaned the data for placement in federal judicial clerkships among law school graduates for schools that had disclosed data on their sites as of March 19. (A handful of schools, including Berkeley, Texas, Georgia, and Irvine, had not yet disclosed their data.)

Below is a chart ranking the schools based upon the three-year average of their federal judicial clerkship placement, using data from the classes of 2011, 2012, and 2013. It also breaks out the 2013 figures separately. Schools with at least an average 5% placement over the last 3 years were included. It includes only full-time, long-term federal clerkships. Schools that had not disclosed their 2013 data as of March 19, 2014 were excluded.

Note: This is obviously a preliminary chart; only once I have the comprehensive data from all 202 law schools could I evaluate all schools.

Three-Year Average Federal Clerkship Graduate Placement from excessofdemocracy.com
	Three-year	Three-year	2013	2013
School	Percentage	Placement	Percentage	Placement
YALE UNIVERSITY	34.3%	216	35.0%	71
STANFORD UNIVERSITY	27.0%	153	29.4%	57
HARVARD UNIVERSITY	17.0%	298	17.0%	98
VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF	11.9%	132	12.9%	47
CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF	11.4%	72	10.2%	22
DUKE UNIVERSITY	10.8%	73	8.7%	21
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY	9.8%	59	9.2%	19
PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF	9.6%	77	9.3%	24
ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF	9.4%	47	10.2%	17
MICHIGAN, UNIVERSITY OF	8.9%	104	7.8%	31
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY	8.4%	125	8.8%	47
CORNELL UNIVERSITY	8.4%	49	10.9%	21
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY	7.4%	64	7.7%	22
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY	7.0%	95	4.8%	21
NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF	6.7%	38	5.4%	10
WILLIAM AND MARY LAW SCHOOL	5.6%	35	3.7%	8
CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, UNIVERSITY OF	5.4%	54	6.9%	23
WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY	5.2%	21	3.5%	5
KENTUCKY, UNIVERSITY OF	5.1%	21	5.3%	7
IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF	5.0%	28	6.3%	12
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF	5.0%	33	3.8%	9
Chart includes data for schools with at least 5% graduate placement in full-time, long-term federal judicial clerkships averaged over 2011, 2012, and 2013. Schools that had not disclosed 2013 employment data as of March 19, 2014 were excluded.

LSAT takers declined this year, but not as rapidly as you might expect

Earlier this year, I blogged about the "sharp" decline in LSAT takes for the fourth year. But by the end of the cycle, with the February 2014 results just released, LSAC actually saw a small year-over-year increase in February tests administered. LSATs administered are down to 105,532, down 6.2% over last year and down 38.5% over the 2009-2010 test-taking cycle (which was the record high). An updated chart from by previous blog is posted below.

View fullsize

Admittedly, LSATs are down. But the decline is not as sharp as one might expect--particularly given that the October tests were down 10.9% over the previous year and 45% over October 2009. I had earlier projected about 101,000 LSATs administered if we followed last year's trends, which suggests that there was a slowing of the decline by the end of the cycle. But whether the more modest decline in LSAT takers also translates to a more modest decline in matriculants, as discussed earlier, is another matter.

If U.S. News rankings were a cake, you wouldn't want to follow the recipe

UPDATE: the methodology described in this post is from the 2014 rankings. The 2015 use substantially the same methodology with some minor differences in application.

Imagine you want to bake a cake. Usually, you would want a recipe: the list of ingredients, the quantities of each, and the order and manner in which they are mingled.

Law school rankings are like that. But for the U.S. News & World Report rankings, the recipe does not match the cake you see. And that should disturb you.

Here are the items used in the methodology from 2014.

Quality assessment
Peer assessment score (0.25) [63% response rate]
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (0.15) [9% response rate, two-year average]

Selectivity
Median LSAT scores (0.125)
Median undergrad GPA (0.10)
Acceptance Rate (0.025)

Placement success
Employment rates at graduation (0.04) [variously weighing 22 of 35 different post-J.D. jobs and durations]
Employment rates nine months after graduation (0.14) [variously weighing 22 of 35 different post-J.D. jobs and durations]
Bar passage rate (0.02) [based on ratio of passage in jurisdiction]

Faculty resources
Average instruction, library, and supporting services expenditures per student (0.0975)
Financial aid expenditures per student (0.015)
Student-faculty ratio (0.03)
Library resources (0.0075)

The first problem is this: USNWR doesn't disclose all of the data it uses above. The second problem is this: USNWR discloses data it doesn't even use in its overall score.

If you opened up the magazine, then, the "recipe" would have a bunch of missing ingredients, and a bunch of useless ingredients.

You could figure out some of this data on you own, such as obtaining the ABA median LSAT and UGPA data. And you could understand why some of it is kept in the dark: for instance, keeping expenditures per student private to avoid an arms race, or to minimize the secret formula for weighing employment rates to avoid schools gaming the employment statistics as they had for years. Some try to reverse-engineer the scores to reveal the data that's otherwise hidden.

But it's notable that the final score--and final ordinal rank--has a majority of its data concealed from the public eye. Indeed, its glossy print edition includes six columns of data that the magazine itself deems irrelevant to its overall score. It's one reason why professors like Brian Leiter constantly implore commentators to focus on the data, not the ranking--and it should call into question why so much data is concealed.

Tomorrow, U.S. News & World Report will disclose its ordinal rankings, likely with a slightly modified methodology. But it's important to recognize that this ranking--this cake--was baked with ingredients we don't have the pleasure of seeing.

Is there a "law school brain drain"? Yes, with a but.

Paul Caron, citing work from Keith Lee, notes, "Law School Applicants from Top Colleges Plunge 36%." Mr. Lee explains, "Top University Students Avoiding Law School."

True. But, there's a baseline problem: it's not just top students avoiding law school; all students are avoiding law school. The relevant question is, are top university graduates avoiding law school at a higher rate?

Intuitively, one would expect that top graduates would avoid law school at a higher rate. Students who attend elite universities have more options at their disposal upon graduation; the prospect of law school may be less attractive given a bevy of other sound options. Indeed, some have noted that a law degree provides upward mobility--and, presumably, there's less need for such mobility if one already has an elite undergraduate degree.

I looked at a slightly different metric than Mr. Lee to answer the question. Using LSAC data of the top 240 undergraduate "feeder schools," I compared data for 25 "elite" institutions, all top-20 schools in the U.S. News & World Report National Universities or National Liberal Arts Colleges rankings (Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, Pennsylvania, Duke, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Washington University, Cornell, Vanderbilt, Rice, Notre Dame, Cal, Emory, Georgetown; Amherst, Wellesley, Washington & Lee, Wesleyan, Colgate).

Since 2008-2009, law school applicants from this group of colleges declined 39.7%, from 7169 to 4326. It declined 13.4% since 2011-2012, from 4995 applicants.

For the other 215 law schools, the decline since 2008-2009 was not as steep: it was a 29.2% decline, from 46,379 applicants to 32,833. It declined 12.6% since 2011-2012, from 37,574--a decline much closer to the elite group of colleges year-over-year.

Another way of measuring the decline is the rate of decline. Was the rate of decline worse in from 2010-2011, or worse from 2011-2012?

For 132 institutions, the rate of decline in 2010-2011 was worse than 2011-2012, including 16 of the "elite" institutions. (For these schools, there was a slower rate of decline in the most recent application cycle, or more improvement.) For the other 108 institutions, the rate of decline in 2011-2012 was worse than 2010-2011, including 9 of the "elite" institutions. (For these schools, there was a faster rate of decline in the most recent applicant cycle, or less improvement.)

It's something of a mixed bag, then--yes, elite undergraduates are avoiding law school, and yes, it's at a higher clip than other feeder institutions, but in the most recent cycle it's not dramatically higher than other schools year-over-year, and the rate of decline is slowing more quickly at elite institutions.

Further, Jerry Organ looks at the data and emphasizes how much scores have declined among matriculants in the entering class of 2013 over the class of 2012. Fewer applicants have translated into fewer high LSAT scores, and schools have not been shrinking their class sizes to accommodate.

But, it's important to note an unmentioned trend this cycle: the best applicants are applying at a higher rate than the last couple of cycles, and the worst applicants are applying at a lower rate.

Consider the data from 2012, at a point late in the cycle. Applicants with scores over 170 had dropped nearly 20%; applicants with scores below 145 had dropped just about 5%. And the headline was, "The Wrong People Have Stopped Applying to Law School."

Or, consider the data from 2013, at a point slightly earlier in the cycle. There was around a 25% decline in applicants with scores over 170; the decline was lowest among applicants with scores under 140.

But the data from 2014 tells a dramatically different story. From Mike Spivey, applicants with scores from 175 to 180 are up--up--6.0% Applicants with scores from 170 to 174 are up--up--1.2%. The highest applicant decline as of February 21? Below 140, with a 21.5% decline.

Granted, the universe of 175-and-up applicants is small to begin with, only several hundred. And yes, applicants may now retake the LSAT as many times as they want, and schools are only required to report the highest score, which may skew the usefulness of the metric.

But it does reflect that, this year, at least, the "brain drain" is no more among 170-and-up applicants (assuming, of course, they actually matriculate).

Law school microranking: federal judicial clerkship placement

Following up on my microranking of elite public interest legal employment, here is a microranking of federal judicial clerkship placement of law school graduates. This ranking is based upon the American Bar Association data, self-reported by schools. "Federal clerkships" is an admittedly broad category, but it's still a useful one for comparison of schools.

As usual, part of this microranking (i.e., ranking on a single, narrow metric) is a "score," which scores the school on a 20-80 scale based upon its relative performance. The top school, on a percentage basis, will score an 80; the schools who placed none will score a 20; and others will fall on a spectrum based upon their relative performance. Like many rankings, this will illustrate that there is a "pyramid" of placement: the farther down the ranking one goes, the more compressed the schools are among the scores.

I thought a three-year average for clerkships (over 3600 clerks) would be a useful metric. It does not include clerkships obtained by students after graduation; it only includes clerkships obtained by each year's graduating class.

The "placement" is the three-year total placement; the "percentage" is the three-year placement divided by the three-year graduating class total. Thoughts posted below the table.

Three-Year Average Federal Clerkship Graduate Placement from excessofdemocracy.com
Score	School Name	Placement	Percentage
80	YALE UNIVERSITY	207	32.6%
73*	CALIFORNIA-IRVINE, UNIVERSITY OF	16	28.6%
69	STANFORD UNIVERSITY	147	26.9%
51	HARVARD UNIVERSITY	296	16.8%
43	DUKE UNIVERSITY	79	12.2%
42	CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF	74	12.1%
40	VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY	65	10.9%
	VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF	122	10.9%
38	PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF	81	9.9%
36	COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY	116	8.6%
	MICHIGAN, UNIVERSITY OF	101	8.9%
	NEW YORK UNIVERSITY	129	8.9%
	TEXAS AT AUSTIN, UNIVERSITY OF	99	8.6%
35	ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF	41	8.1%
	GEORGIA, UNIVERSITY OF	56	8.3%
34	CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY, UNIVERSITY OF	71	7.7%
	NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY	65	7.5%
	WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY	30	7.9%
32	CORNELL UNIVERSITY	37	6.3%
	EMORY UNIVERSITY	49	6.6%
	NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF	35	6.3%
	WILLIAM AND MARY LAW SCHOOL	40	6.4%
31	KENTUCKY, UNIVERSITY OF	25	6.2%
30	MONTANA, UNIVERSITY OF	13	5.3%
	NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF	41	5.5%
	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF	34	5.5%
29	RICHMOND, UNIVERSITY OF	22	4.7%
28	CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, UNIVERSITY OF	47	4.6%
	GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY	73	4.5%
	MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	35	4.5%
27	BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY	16	3.6%
	GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY	77	4.0%
	IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF	22	3.8%
	TULANE UNIVERSITY	30	3.9%
	WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY	18	3.8%
	WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY	14	3.6%
26	ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF	12	3.1%
	BOSTON COLLEGE	28	3.5%
	FLORIDA, UNIVERSITY OF	34	3.0%
	FORDHAM UNIVERSITY	43	3.1%
	ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF	20	3.3%
	MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY OF	29	3.2%
	MISSISSIPPI, UNIVERSITY OF	16	3.3%
	OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY	22	3.4%
	RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-CAMDEN	24	3.0%
	SOUTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF	22	3.3%
	TEMPLE UNIVERSITY	31	3.5%
	WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY	29	3.3%
25	AMERICAN UNIVERSITY	37	2.7%
	ARIZONA, UNIVERSITY OF	12	2.6%
	BOSTON UNIVERSITY	21	2.6%
	CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY	12	2.6%
	GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY	16	2.6%
	LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY	16	2.8%
	PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY	16	2.5%
	WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF	15	2.8%
24	BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL	32	2.3%
	CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK	8	2.1%
	COLORADO, UNIVERSITY OF	13	2.4%
	GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY	14	2.4%
	HOUSTON, UNIVERSITY OF	16	1.9%
	HOWARD UNIVERSITY	9	2.0%
	LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF	9	2.2%
	MEMPHIS, UNIVERSITY OF	9	2.4%
	MERCER UNIVERSITY	10	2.4%
	NEVADA - LAS VEGAS, UNIVERSITY OF	10	2.3%
	OKLAHOMA, UNIVERSITY OF	11	2.1%
	OREGON, UNIVERSITY OF	10	1.9%
	SAMFORD UNIVERSITY	10	2.1%
	SAN DIEGO, UNIVERSITY OF	21	2.2%
	SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY	20	2.4%
	TENNESSEE, UNIVERSITY OF	9	1.9%
	UTAH, UNIVERSITY OF	8	2.0%
	VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY	17	2.3%
23	ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK, UNIVERSITY OF	6	1.5%
	BAYLOR UNIVERSITY	9	1.9%
	CALIFORNIA-DAVIS, UNIVERSITY OF	9	1.5%
	CALIFORNIA-HASTINGS, UNIVERSITY OF	19	1.5%
	CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY	6	1.6%
	CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW	20	1.7%
	CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA	12	1.5%
	CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF	6	1.5%
	CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF	9	1.5%
	FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY	15	1.9%
	HAWAII, UNIVERSITY OF	5	1.7%
	INDIANA UNIVERSITY - BLOOMINGTON	10	1.5%
	INDIANA UNIVERSITY - INDIANAPOLIS	14	1.8%
	LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE	9	1.4%
	LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY-LOS ANGELES	22	1.8%
	LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-CHICAGO	13	1.6%
	LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-NEW ORLEANS	14	1.8%
	MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE	7	1.4%
	NEBRASKA, UNIVERSITY OF	6	1.6%
	SETON HALL UNIVERSITY	16	1.7%
	WYOMING, UNIVERSITY OF	4	1.9%
22	ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY	6	1.0%
	CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY	6	1.0%
	CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY	5	1.0%
	DAYTON, UNIVERSITY OF	4	0.8%
	DETROIT MERCY, UNIVERSITY OF	6	1.0%
	DRAKE UNIVERSITY	4	0.9%
	DREXEL UNIVERSITY	5	1.3%
	IDAHO, UNIVERSITY OF	3	1.0%
	JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL	13	1.1%
	KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF	4	0.8%
	MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY	6	0.9%
	MIAMI, UNIVERSITY OF	11	0.8%
	MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	11	1.2%
	MISSOURI, UNIVERSITY OF	5	1.2%
	NEW MEXICO, UNIVERSITY OF	3	1.0%
	NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY	5	0.8%
	NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY	5	1.0%
	PITTSBURGH, UNIVERSITY OF	9	1.3%
	REGENT UNIVERSITY	4	1.1%
	SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY	8	0.9%
	SEATTLE UNIVERSITY	8	0.8%
	ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY	11	1.3%
	ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY	7	0.9%
	STETSON UNIVERSITY	10	1.0%
	SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY	6	1.1%
	TOLEDO, UNIVERSITY OF	4	0.9%
	VERMONT LAW SCHOOL	5	0.9%
	WASHBURN UNIVERSITY	4	0.9%
	WISCONSIN, UNIVERSITY OF	9	1.1%
21	ALBANY LAW SCHOOL OF UNION UNIVERSITY	5	0.7%
	AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW	1	0.3%
	BALTIMORE, UNIVERSITY OF	5	0.5%
	BUFFALO-SUNY, UNIVERSITY OF	3	0.4%
	CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW	3	0.4%
	CHARLESTON SCHOOL OF LAW	4	0.7%
	CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW-IIT	4	0.5%
	CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY	4	0.7%
	DENVER, UNIVERSITY OF	5	0.5%
	DEPAUL UNIVERSITY	4	0.4%
	DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY	2	0.3%
	FAULKNER UNIVERSITY	2	0.7%
	FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW	8	0.6%
	FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY	3	0.6%
	GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY	2	0.4%
	HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY	6	0.6%
	LA VERNE, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.3%
	MAINE, UNIVERSITY OF	2	0.8%
	MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW	7	0.8%
	NEW ENGLAND LAW | BOSTON	4	0.4%
	NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL	9	0.6%
	NORTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.4%
	NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY	1	0.3%
	OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY	1	0.3%
	PACE UNIVERSITY	2	0.3%
	PENN STATE UNIVERSITY	2	0.4%
	ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY	2	0.4%
	RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NEWARK	5	0.7%
	SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY	5	0.6%
	SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW	4	0.3%
	SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY-CARBONDALE	2	0.5%
	ST. THOMAS, UNIVERSITY OF (MINNESOTA)	3	0.7%
	TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY	2	0.4%
	TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY	5	0.8%
	VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY	4	0.8%
	WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY	4	0.8%
	WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY	2	0.4%
	WHITTIER LAW SCHOOL	2	0.5%
	WIDENER UNIVERSITY-DELAWARE	5	0.6%
	WIDENER UNIVERSITY-HARRISBURG	2	0.5%
20	AKRON, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.3%
	APPALACHIAN SCHOOL OF LAW	0	0.0%
	ARIZONA SUMMIT LAW SCHOOL	1	0.3%
	ATLANTA'S JOHN MARSHALL LAW SHOOL	0	0.0%
	BARRY UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	CAPITAL UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW	1	0.2%
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	0	0.0%
	ELON UNIVERSITY	0	0.0%
	FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	GONZAGA UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	HAMLINE UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	LIBERTY UNIVERSITY	0	0.0%
	MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH, UNIVERSITY OF	0	0.0%
	MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.2%
	NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.2%
	NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY	0	0.0%
	NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY	1	0.1%
	OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY	1	0.3%
	SAN FRANCISCO, UNIVERSITY OF	0	0.0%
	SOUTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	0	0.0%
	SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL	1	0.1%
	ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY (FLORIDA)	0	0.0%
	SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY	4	0.3%
	TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY	0	0.0%
	THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL OF LAW	0	0.0%
	THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL	2	0.1%
	TOURO COLLEGE	1	0.2%
	TULSA, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.3%
	WESTERN STATE COLLEGE OF LAW	0	0.0%
	WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY	0	0.0%
	WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW	2	0.2%
	*denotes only one year's data

Note: due to rounding, some schools may appear to have similar percentages but have different ranks, or vice versa.

Yale's placement, as expected, dwarfs all others. Irvine placed its first class well, but it is, of course, deceptive given that it is a single year's data. The "score" also reflects that beyond the first six or eight schools, it is highly compressed among institutions on the way down. Finally, 14 schools did not place a federal clerk in the last three graduating classes.

Law school microranking: elite public interest employment

I've been aggregating data from a handful of law school data sets, and I thought it might be useful to provide some "microrankings" derived from that data. The first: elite public interest employment.

Public interest employment is perhaps the most underdiscussed aspect of law school employment outcomes. It may be because it doesn't pay well, like elite law firms. Or it may be a skepticism from many that anyone "chooses" public interest work given debt loads.

But there are thousands who enter the legal work force each year in public interest work, and many of them who don't choose it as a "fallback" position but who are genuinely interested in such work. (In a prestige-obsessed legal culture, it can be hard for some to accept.) One way to measure that, I thought, would be through a measurement of "elite" public interest work--which, I guess, is a concession to a prestige-obsessed legal culture.

The Skadden Fellowship Foundation awards one of the most prestigious and coveted public interest-related positions one can obtain--so prestigious, David Lat meticulously tracks the placement each year alongside the placement of Bristow Fellows or Supreme Court clerks.

Another set of coveted fellowships come from Equal Justice Works, which helps place students in Equal Justice Works Fellowships and as AmeriCorps Legal Fellows.

Fortunately, each site maintains comprehensive records of recent placement. I looked at each school's placement for these fellowships over the last three years (Skadden, 2012-2014; EJW, 2011-2013).

Part of this microranking is a "score," which scores the school on a 20-80 scale based upon its relative performance. The top school, on a percentage basis, will score an 80; the schools who placed none will score a 20; and others will fall on a spectrum based upon their relative performance. Like many rankings, this will illustrate that there is a "pyramid" of placement: the farther down the ranking one goes, the more compressed the schools are among the scores.

I thought a three-year average for two sets of fellowships (nearly 400 in all) would be a useful metric. Admittedly, these are not many positions, but they are not few, either. Certainly, one may quibble as to whether these, and these only, are "elite" public interest positions. These and other usual caveats apply.

The "placement" is the three-year total placement; the "percentage" is the three-year placement divided by the three-year graduating class total. I thought I'd call this a "microranking," as it is a ranking of a single, narrow metric. Thoughts posted below the table.

Three-Year Average Elite Public Interest Graduate Placement from excessofdemocracy.com
Score	School	Placement	Percentage
80	YALE UNIVERSITY	15	2.4%
65*	CALIFORNIA-IRVINE, UNIVERSITY OF	1	1.8%
63	HARVARD UNIVERSITY	30	1.7%
62	STANFORD UNIVERSITY	9	1.6%
59	CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY, UNIVERSITY OF	14	1.5%
	NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY	9	1.5%
55	CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, UNIVERSITY OF	14	1.4%
54	CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK	5	1.3%
50	ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF	7	1.2%
	NEW YORK UNIVERSITY	17	1.2%
48	WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF	6	1.1%
46	CALIFORNIA-DAVIS, UNIVERSITY OF	6	1.0%
	SOUTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	2	1.0%
44	COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY	13	1.0%
	MICHIGAN, UNIVERSITY OF	11	1.0%
40	CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF	3	0.8%
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	2	0.8%
39	PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF	6	0.7%
38	TOLEDO, UNIVERSITY OF	3	0.7%
37	CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF	4	0.7%
	GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY	13	0.7%
36	NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY	3	0.6%
34	BUFFALO-SUNY, UNIVERSITY OF	4	0.6%
33	BOSTON COLLEGE	4	0.5%
	IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF	3	0.5%
	LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-CHICAGO	4	0.5%
	SEATTLE UNIVERSITY	5	0.5%
	SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY	3	0.5%
	TEXAS AT AUSTIN, UNIVERSITY OF	6	0.5%
	VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY	3	0.5%
	WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY	2	0.5%
	WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY	2	0.5%
32	OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY	3	0.5%
	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF	3	0.5%
30	CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY	2	0.4%
	DEPAUL UNIVERSITY	4	0.4%
	MIAMI, UNIVERSITY OF	5	0.4%
	MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	3	0.4%
	WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY	2	0.4%
	WISCONSIN, UNIVERSITY OF	3	0.4%
29	AMERICAN UNIVERSITY	5	0.4%
	APPALACHIAN SCHOOL OF LAW	1	0.3%
	BOSTON UNIVERSITY	3	0.4%
	CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY	2	0.3%
	GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY	2	0.4%
	NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY	1	0.3%
28	CALIFORNIA-HASTINGS, UNIVERSITY OF	4	0.3%
	INDIANA UNIVERSITY - BLOOMINGTON	2	0.3%
27	ARIZONA SUMMIT LAW SCHOOL	1	0.3%
	AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW	1	0.3%
	CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW	3	0.3%
	EMORY UNIVERSITY	2	0.3%
	ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY	2	0.3%
	TULANE UNIVERSITY	2	0.3%
	VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF	3	0.3%
26	CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW	2	0.2%
	CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	DREXEL UNIVERSITY	1	0.3%
	HOWARD UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.2%
	LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY-LOS ANGELES	3	0.2%
	MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY OF	2	0.2%
	SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY	2	0.2%
	ST. THOMAS, UNIVERSITY OF (MINNESOTA)	1	0.2%
	TEMPLE UNIVERSITY	2	0.2%
	WHITTIER LAW SCHOOL	1	0.2%
25	BALTIMORE, UNIVERSITY OF	2	0.2%
	FORDHAM UNIVERSITY	3	0.2%
	KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.2%
	MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	2	0.2%
	NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.2%
	NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY	2	0.2%
	OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	OKLAHOMA, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.2%
	ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL	2	0.2%
	STETSON UNIVERSITY	2	0.2%
24	ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL	2	0.1%
	CORNELL UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	DETROIT MERCY, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.2%
	DUKE UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	HAMLINE UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL	2	0.2%
	LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE	1	0.2%
	PACE UNIVERSITY	1	0.1%
	PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY	1	0.2%
	SAN FRANCISCO, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.2%
	SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW	2	0.2%
	THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL OF LAW	1	0.1%
	WILLIAM AND MARY LAW SCHOOL	1	0.2%
23	CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA	1	0.1%
	CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW-IIT	1	0.1%
	DENVER, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.1%
	GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY	2	0.1%
	HOUSTON, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.1%
	INDIANA UNIVERSITY - INDIANAPOLIS	1	0.1%
	LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-NEW ORLEANS	1	0.1%
	MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW	1	0.1%
	NEW ENGLAND LAW | BOSTON	1	0.1%
	NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.1%
	RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-CAMDEN	1	0.1%
	SAN DIEGO, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.1%
	SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY	1	0.1%
	SETON HALL UNIVERSITY	1	0.1%
	SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY	2	0.1%
	VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY	1	0.1%
	WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY	1	0.1%
	WIDENER UNIVERSITY-DELAWARE	1	0.1%
22	FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW	1	0.1%
	FLORIDA, UNIVERSITY OF	1	0.1%
	NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL	1	0.1%
21	THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL	1	0.0%
20	(remainder)	0	0.0%
	*denotes only one year's data

Note: due to rounding, some schools may appear to have similar percentages but have different ranks, or vice versa.

A few thoughts.

First, the top public interest schools are, perhaps unsurprisingly, the top "overall" schools.

Second, UC-Irvine's rank as #2 overall is awfully deceptive, given that it placed one student from an extremely small graduating class of 56. But I thought it would be unfair to exclude the school entirely.

Third, Northeastern's placement is notable. It not only has one of the highest public interest placement rates in the country, but its novel first-year curriculum orients students toward public interest. Its placement is high even among "elite" public interest opportunities.