Visualizing legal employment outcomes in New York in 2015

Following up on yesterday's post on outcomes in DC-Maryland-Virginia, and last year's post on outcomes in New York, here is a visualization for legal employment outcomes of graduates of New York law schools for the Class of 2015. (More about the methodology is available at the DC-Maryland-Virginia post.)

The number of graduates dropped significantly, from about 4500 for the Class of 2014 to just under 4100 for the Class of 2015. Law school-funded positions have never been very popular, but they declined slightly, from 93 to 73. And as has been the case, the improvements are largely because classes are smaller. There were 3407 full-time, long-term, bar passage required and J.D. advantage jobs, including school-funded positions, for the Class of 2014. That raw figure actually declined somewhat, to 3237 positions for the Class of 2015. But the percentage of the Class of 2015 securing such jobs improved, from to 75.2% to 79.3%.

As always, please notify me of any corrections or errata.

View fullsize

Peer score	School	2015	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	2014	BPR	JDA	LSF
4.6	Columbia University	98.8%	3.0	360	10	28	95.7%	408	9	31
4.5	New York University	96.7%	0.0	424	14	31	96.7%	412	12	39
4.2	Cornell University	95.5%	-0.8	164	3	3	96.3%	172	1	11
2.1	St. John's University	81.9%	8.7	173	29	1	73.2%	158	32	0
1.9	Albany Law School	80.3%	7.8	119	25	3	72.5%	127	21	0
2.7	Cardozo School of Law	76.8%	9.7	246	32	0	67.1%	221	41	1
3.1	Fordham University	76.1%	2.0	274	37	1	74.1%	311	29	0
1.9	Pace University	75.5%	6.8	93	17	1	68.7%	122	22	5
2.2	Hofstra University	73.8%	2.8	201	17	4	71.0%	180	41	4
2.4	Brooklyn Law School	73.2%	9.3	215	31	0	63.9%	200	44	0
2.2	University of Buffalo-SUNY	70.7%	1.0	115	20	0	69.6%	114	19	0
1.9	New York Law School	67.6%	3.5	171	66	1	64.1%	179	85	2
2.3	Syracuse University	65.6%	-6.4	104	20	0	72.0%	121	31	0
2.1	City University of New York	64.0%	13.3	66	5	0	50.7%	73	3	0
1.5	Touro College	60.4%	-3.9	105	8	0	64.3%	111	15	0

Visualizing legal employment outcomes in DC-Maryland-Virginia in 2015

Following up on my post from last year, here are the employment outcomes for law schools in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia for the Class of 2015. The U.S. News & World Report rankings recently released, which include data for the Class of 2014, are already obsolete. The ABA will release the information soon, but individualized employment reports are available on schools' websites.

The USNWR prints the "employed" rate as "the percentage of all graduates who had a full-time job lasting at least a year for which bar passage was required or a J.D. degree was an advantage." But it does not give "full weight" in its internal ranking metric to jobs that were funded by the law school. USNWR gives other positions lower weight, but these positions are not included in the ranking tables. And while it includes J.D. advantage positions, there remain disputes about whether those positions are really as valuable. (Some have further critiqued solo practitioners being included in the bar passage required statistics.)

The chart is sorted by non-school-funded jobs (or "full weight" positions). The visualization breaks out full-time, long-term, bar passage required positions (not funded by the school); full-time, long term, J.D.-advantage positions (not funded by the school); school funded positions (full-time, long-term, bar passage required or J.D.-advantage positions); and all other outcomes. This year, I included a breakdown in the visualization slightly distinguishing bar passage required positions from J.D.-advantage positions, even though both are included in "full weight" for USNWR purposes (and I still sort the chart by "full weight" positions).

The table below the chart breaks down the raw data values for the Classes of 2014 and 2015, with relative overall changes year-over-year, and is sorted by total placement (as USNWR prints). The columns beside each year break out the three categories in the total placement: FTLT unfunded bar passage required ("BPR"), FTLT unfunded J.D. advantage ("JDA"), and FTLT law school funded BPR & JDA positions ("LSF"). Total jobs in these bar passage-required and J.D.-advantage positions declined somewhat, from 3119 to 2825. Part of this was undoubtedly fueled by a significant decline in school-funded positions, from 271 to just 90--many schools have rather dramatically slashed such positions. There were about 250 fewer graduates, from 3992 to 3740. Nevertheless, overall prospects for graduates became worse: the overall employment rate was 75.5% (including all funded positions), down from 78.1% last year. More granular data is available at each school's website.

As always, if I made a mistake, please feel free to email me or comment; I confess there are always risks in data translation, and I am happy to make corrections.

View fullsize

Peer score	School	2015	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	2014	BPR	JDA	LSF
4.3	University of Virginia	95.4%	-1.2	311	9	30	96.6%	296	7	34
2.7	George Mason University	86.8%	6.9	94	34	4	79.9%	95	45	7
3.0	Washington and Lee University	82.2%	7.4	131	11	1	74.8%	81	13	1
4.1	Georgetown University	80.2%	-7.0	456	50	38	87.2%	436	38	72
3.3	George Washington University	78.3%	-10.9	301	55	8	89.2%	383	60	78
3.2	William and Mary Law School	75.8%	-6.5	118	17	0	82.3%	137	16	24
3.0	University of Maryland	75.3%	0.0	156	47	1	75.3%	169	52	2
2.0	University of Baltimore	74.2%	3.8	142	56	0	70.4%	161	60	0
2.4	University of Richmond	74.2%	-7.7	97	21	0	81.9%	88	34	0
2.1	Catholic University of America	70.4%	-0.5	63	37	0	70.9%	82	45	0
1.3	Regent University	65.3%	2.2	67	10	0	63.1%	58	19	0
1.2	Appalachian School of Law	63.3%	21.2	32	4	2	42.1%	34	5	1
2.7	American University	61.4%	-8.8	205	76	4	70.2%	207	68	48
2.3	Howard University	59.5%	-6.0	57	12	0	65.5%	61	12	1
1.2	Liberty University	54.1%	-2.5	31	1	1	56.6%	35	7	1
1.4	District of Columbia	51.5%	6.8	15	19	1	44.7%	27	17	2

February 2016 MBE bar exam scores drop to lowest point since 1983

I've written extensively about the bar exam, including the significant decline in bar exam scores, specifically the Multistate Bar Exam, and the corresponding the decline in pass rates in most jurisdictions. The February 2016 results are the fourth consecutive exam to display a significant decline in MBE scores. In fact, it's the lowest score on the February test since 1983--even worse than the July 2015 results, which were the lowest since 1988. Below is a visualization of February test scores since 2005--note the precipitous drop in the last two tests. (I may visualize results since 1983 in the future.)

View fullsize

This will likely mean a decline in pass rates in most jurisdictions, news of which will trickle out over the next several weeks. The decline in scores continues to correlate with declines in student quality, as law schools admitted classes with an increased number of students at risk of failing the bar exam. Whether other factors contribute to the decline remains an open question. But this helps illustrate that the problems are not one-time issues as the result of ExamSoft--they are structural and long-term issues with significant consequences. I'll blog more about this in the near future.

One in ten law school enrollees is not a part of a JD program

A couple of years ago, I visualized the rather significant increase in non-JD enrollment at many American law schools after identifying this rising trend at many law schools. The ABA did not disclose figures for the Class of 2014. But the figures for 2015-2016 (PDF) are even more dramatic.

ABA-accredited schools reported 13,086 non-JD enrollees, up from 11,1132 just two years ago. Visualizing the overall non-JD enrollment over time displays the rather recent sharper uptick on the heels of some slow increases over the years.

View fullsize

But one comparison that's even more stark is the number of non-JD enrollees as a percentage of total law school enrollment. As JD programs shrink, non-JD enrollees are not simply a larger number of students in the seats, but a larger percentage of the law school programming overall.

View fullsize

In the Fall of 2012, 7.4%, or about 1 in 14 law school enrollees, were non-JD students. In the Fall of 2013, that rose to 8.0%, or about 1 in 12. This year, it's 10.3%, or about 1 in 10.

That's a rather dramatic shift in the overall composition of legal education in the period of a few years. How long it lasts, where the trend goes, and what impact non-JD programming has on the JD programming remains to be seen.

Display note: I did start the y-axis for non-JD percentage at a non-zero number to avoid excessive white space, but as it displays relative changes in value as a percentage, I think it is not terribly deceptive. It's a reason I started the overall numbers at zero, despite the white space below.

As full-time law faculty numbers shrink, law school administrator numbers grow

On the heels of Matt Leichter's recent work on law school faculty sizes, I looked at some of the data myself. I limited myself to 2011 to the present, because that's the only data disclosed by the ABA in a usable format. (Older 509 data is available but is bound in isolated PDFs until some good soul helps liberate it.)

Adding to the complexity are methodological changes by the ABA. It used to separate "full-time" tenured and tenure-track faculty from "other full-time" faculty, such as clinicians. In 2014, it did not separate those categories, but it also yielded a fairly significant one-year decline in that category, suggesting confusion or misreporting of data. And further adding to the complexity are seemingly-random fluctuations in faculty sizes from year to year, or stark differences between fall and spring terms, likely because the data is not serious accounted for and leaves errors.

View fullsize

For each year, I averaged the faculty sizes of the reported fall and spring terms among the ABA data, excluding the Puerto Rico schools. Full-time faculty (including "others" before 2014) declined from 9,028 in 2011 to 7,932 in 2015, almost a 14% decline in four years. That is hardly surprising. Part-time faculty, including adjuncts, remained fairly flat, hovering around 9,100.

But "deans, librarians, and other who teach"? It's a somewhat nebulous category, identified by one recent ABA key as "law school administrators who teach at least half-time. Administrators who neither teach nor hold faculty rank are not included in these numbers. Administrators who teach are typically at the school and available to students during the entire year." It's this category that's seen a 16% increase, from 1,752 personnel in 2011 to 2,032 in 2015.

Averaged out, the typical law school has lost about five faculty in the last four years, but the typical law school has also gained a teaching administrator or two in that same period.

UPDATE: A few have wondered whether it's a terribly useful consideration as the category includes "librarians." True, but recall that the definition extends to "administrators who teach at least half-time." Librarians who do not teach at least half-time would not be included. But I suppose it's possible that one could conclude that there has been a surge in law librarians as part-time faculty in the last few years.

UPDATE: Several commenters have offered alternative inferences to be derived from the data. I encourage you to consider their thoughtful perspective.

Total law school enrollment at lowest point since 1977; 1L class size lowest since 1973

The ABA has recent released its statistics for the Class of 2018, or matriculation and law school enrollment for 2015. First-year matriculants totaled 37,058 at 204 ABA-accredited law schools. That's down from 52,488 in 2010. And that's the lowest number since 1973, when 37,018 matriculated to 151 law schools.

View fullsize

Additionally, total law school enrollment declined from 119,775 to 113,900, as smaller and smaller 1L classes enter and the larger classes graduate. That's the smallest number since 1977, which had a total JD enrollment of 113,080 among 163 ABA-accredited law schools.

View fullsize

(As a brief note about the visualizations, I chose not to begin the Y-axis at 0 in order to represent the relative changes over the class sizes.)

Heat and light, LSAT scores and bar passage data

If you at all frequently read this blog, you're undoubtedly aware that what largely began as my idiosyncratic thoughts about election law have given way to a significant amount of content on legal education and the bar exam.

Recently, many pixels have been used to discuss the utility of the LSAT, and the relationship between LSAT scores and bar pass rates, which has spurred many larger discussions about the nature of legal education. They are easily discoverable.

Bernie Burk several months ago used the metaphor of heat and light in the midst of some such discussions, which I found quite useful. And I commend to all readers Jerry Organ's comments at the Legal Whiteboard, The Opaqueness of Bar Passage Data and the Need for Greater Transparency. Measured, careful, thoughtful analysis is the analysis I find most useful in such discussions--ones that not only concede limitations, but do not minimize such concessions. I remain deeply grateful for the thoughtful contributors in this space who have spurred me to think carefully and critically on all fronts. And I hope my posts remain useful.

Law school applicants up slightly, but quality up significantly

Last year, I noted there was some premature celebration in some legal education circles as applicants to law schools were relatively unchanged. This, some thought, signified the "bottom" of the demand for legal education. But I explained that despite relatively flat demand, the quality of applicants had declined significantly. A chart visualizing the year-end data shared by LSAC is here (which updates a version of the chart I had in that post, late in the applicant cycle).

View fullsize

As you can see, the applicant pool may have been relatively flat, but the quality declined significantly as applicants with high LSAT scores declined at a high rate, but those with low predictors increased somewhat.

This year, we saw some uptick in LSAT test-takers, and I wondered what it might ultimately mean. Again, caution is appropriate for such data--raw LSAT test-takers alone, for instance, do not reflect the quality of the applicant pool.

LSAC discloses that applicants are up about 0.6% as of November 27, 2015. And, as of this time last year, we had about 25% of the law school applicant pool. Limited data, to be sure. But we can see a fairly dramatic change in the quality of the applicant pool, at least year-to-date.

View fullsize

Whether these trends hold steady is, of course, the most uncertain element of this process. But so far this cycle, it's not simply the marginal uptick in applicants; it's a pretty sizeable improvement in that cohort's predictors.

Roundup of recent news about legal education and the bar exam

I've been mentioned in a couple of outlets recently regarding legal education and the bar exam, and thought I'd link to those pieces here and include a brief roundup of news and events in this areas across this blog. You can find me on Twitter @derektmuller.

• Elizabeth Olson, Study Cites Lower Standards in Law School Admissions, New York Times DealBook
• Dina Kleiner, "Are Today's Emerging Lawyers Unfit for the Task?", 88.9 WERS FM

For quick access to categories of interest, check out the Legal education or Bar exam categories on this blog.

Running totals of state bar exams in July 2015 are available here, and an analysis of the 27-year low in the Multistate Bar Exam scores here.

My July 2014 bar exam results wrap-up is here. Summaries of the National Conference of Bar Examiners data in 2014 is here. Finally, my perspective in November 2014 anticipating this and future bar exam score declines: the bleak short-term future for law school bar passage rates.

And I even write about subjects other than the bar exam and legal education! For my scholarly interests--primarily election law--see the remainder of this blog, and my SSRN page.