Visualizing legal employment outcomes in California in 2018

This is the eighth and final in a series of visualizations on legal employment outcomes for the Class of 2018. Following posts on outcomes in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Florida, DC-Maryland-Virginia, and New York, here is a visualization for legal employment outcomes of graduates of law schools in California for the Class of 2018. (More about the methodology is available at the Illinois post.) Last year's California post is here.

Please note, of course, that “J.D.-advantage” jobs may differ significantly from school to school, which may alter how one views the “overall” rate. (USNWR treats them as equivalent, but there are good reasons to think they may not be equivalent; and here, there are significant disparities among some schools and their J.D.-advantage placement.) And recall that I sort the table below to include school-funded positions, while the chart only includes unfunded positions. (It’s a reason I try to display the information in different ways!) The California market presented a mixed but somewhat positive picture. The closure of Whittier meant I removed it from the chart. Comparing all other schools year-to-year, graduates increased slightly from 3761 to 3804. And bar passage-required jobs increased slightly, too, from 2353 to 2405. But J.D. advantage jobs climbed at a faster rate, from 322 to 354, and school funded positions increased slightly. Placement among these schools rose from 73.3% to 74.9% in all positions.

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

View fullsize

Peer Score	School	2018	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads	2017	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads
4.9	Stanford University	96.9%	3.0	165	12	10	193	93.9%	163	15	7	197
4.4	University of California-Berkeley	95.8%	1.0	276	4	16	309	94.8%	269	6	14	305
4.1	University of California-Los Angeles	92.5%	0.0	257	19	20	320	92.5%	283	17	31	358
3.7	University of Southern California	87.3%	-2.6	162	11	6	205	90.0%	179	4	5	209
3.5	University of California-Irvine	86.8%	0.4	85	3	11	114	86.5%	72	4	7	96
3.4	University of California-Davis	86.4%	2.0	135	8	10	177	84.4%	119	10	12	167
2.7	Loyola Law School-Los Angeles	85.7%	6.1	213	24	3	280	79.6%	204	31	3	299
3.1	University of California-Hastings	78.7%	11.2	178	28	12	277	67.5%	166	22	1	280
2.7	Pepperdine University	78.6%	2.8	114	18	0	168	75.8%	134	34	1	223
1.9	Chapman University	73.9%	5.6	75	24	0	134	68.2%	81	20	0	148
2.7	University of San Diego	72.3%	4.7	172	19	0	264	67.6%	121	17	0	204
2.5	Santa Clara University	68.7%	4.7	127	22	0	217	64.0%	77	10	0	136
1.9	McGeorge School of Law	63.9%	4.8	66	19	0	133	59.1%	62	16	0	132
1.8	Southwestern Law School	63.2%	4.6	128	39	1	266	58.6%	124	43	0	285
1.5	California Western School of Law	61.1%	-3.3	86	32	0	193	64.5%	106	21	0	197
1.1	Western State College of Law	57.0%	4.9	49	8	0	100	52.1%	32	6	0	73
1.5	Golden Gate University	48.2%	-3.5	27	11	2	83	51.7%	33	11	1	87
1.9	University of San Francisco	45.0%	-15.8	49	26	1	169	60.8%	75	18	0	153
1.2	University of La Verne	43.1%	6.3	13	12	0	58	36.8%	12	2	0	38
nr	Thomas Jefferson School of Law	29.9%	-2.3	28	15	0	144	32.2%	41	15	0	174

Visualizing legal employment outcomes in New York in 2018

This is the seventh in a series of visualizations on legal employment outcomes for the Class of 2018. Following posts on outcomes in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Florida, and DC-Maryland-Virginia, here is a visualization for legal employment outcomes of graduates of law schools in New York for the Class of 2018. (More about the methodology is available at the Illinois post.) Last year's New York post is here.

Please note, of course, that “J.D.-advantage” jobs may differ significantly from school to school, which may alter how one views the “overall” rate. (USNWR treats them as equivalent, but there are good reasons to think they may not be equivalent; and here, there are significant disparities among some schools and their J.D.-advantage placement.) And recall that I sort the table below to include school-funded positions, while the chart only includes unfunded positions. (It’s a reason I try to display the information in different ways!) The market showed improvement for the Class of 2018. Bar passage-required jobs rose from 2786 to 2882; J.D.-advantage rose slightly and school funded positions fell slightly. And while total graduates increased slightly to 3689, the improvement in bar passage-required positions helped increase placement from 84.5% to 86.1%.

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

View fullsize

Peer score	School	2018	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads	2017	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads
4.6	New York University	96.7%	-0.4	411	3	29	458	97.1%	429	11	30	484
4.7	Columbia University	96.4%	0.1	420	8	5	449	96.3%	401	2	13	432
4.3	Cornell University	93.4%	-0.2	178	4	1	196	93.6%	186	2	1	202
2.3	St. John's University	91.6%	9.8	186	21	0	226	81.8%	154	21	0	214
3.3	Fordham University	88.4%	10.8	302	24	2	371	77.7%	245	23	3	349
2.8	Cardozo School of Law	84.9%	-2.1	207	23	1	272	87.0%	234	20	0	292
2.2	Hofstra University	82.4%	1.4	186	11	0	239	81.0%	180	12	0	237
1.9	New York Law School	81.0%	6.7	167	52	2	273	74.3%	123	56	0	241
2.6	Brooklyn Law School	80.5%	0.3	245	48	0	364	80.2%	264	31	0	368
1.9	Pace University	79.5%	-5.2	118	14	0	166	84.7%	127	17	0	170
2.0	Albany Law School	79.0%	-1.0	86	8	0	119	80.0%	78	10	0	110
2.2	University of Buffalo-SUNY	78.1%	7.0	101	13	0	146	71.1%	93	15	0	152
2.3	Syracuse University	76.3%	-2.9	116	16	0	173	79.2%	103	15	0	149
2.2	City University of New York	74.0%	2.7	64	7	0	96	71.3%	65	2	0	94
1.5	Touro College	70.2%	-5.0	95	4	0	141	75.2%	104	11	0	153

Visualizing legal employment outcomes in DC-Maryland-Virginia in 2018

This is the sixth in a series of visualizations on legal employment outcomes for the Class of 2018. Following posts on outcomes in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, and Florida, here is a visualization for legal employment outcomes of graduates of law schools in Washington, DC; Maryland; and Virginia for the Class of 2018. (More about the methodology is available at the Illinois post.) Last year's DC-Maryland-Virginia post is here.

Please note, of course, that “J.D.-advantage” jobs may differ significantly from school to school, which may alter how one views the “overall” rate. And recall that I sort the table below to include school-funded positions, while the chart only includes unfunded positions. (It’s a reason I try to display the information in different ways!) The market showed improvement for the Class of 2018. Bar passage-required jobs rose from 2318 to 2367; J.D.-advantage and school funded positions both fell slightly. There were more than 100 fewer graduates in this class, helping raise the overal employment rate from 80.3% to 83.9%. (Of note are four schools with fewer than 70 graduates each.)

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

View fullsize

Peer score	School	2018	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads	2017	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads
4.4	University of Virginia	97.7%	1.0	277	3	12	299	96.6%	271	7	8	296
4.2	Georgetown University	91.2%	2.2	532	28	33	650	89.0%	504	40	40	656
3	University of Maryland	88.9%	11.1	138	37	1	198	77.8%	108	36	3	189
3.3	William & Mary Law School	88.2%	7.5	149	16	0	187	80.8%	158	10	0	208
3.2	Washington & Lee University	87.6%	3.8	98	1	0	113	83.8%	79	4	0	99
3.5	George Washington University	84.0%	1.4	376	58	3	520	82.6%	422	69	9	605
2.7	George Mason University	83.9%	3.0	90	22	3	137	80.9%	92	26	5	152
2.7	University of Richmond	81.2%	-0.7	118	29	0	181	81.9%	101	21	0	149
1.2	Liberty University	80.0%	11.0	32	4	0	45	69.0%	37	3	0	58
1.2	Regent University	77.3%	2.9	45	5	1	66	74.4%	46	10	2	78
2.1	University of Baltimore	77.0%	4.2	136	21	0	204	72.8%	136	27	0	224
2.6	Howard University	73.7%	3.8	80	17	1	133	69.9%	65	6	1	103
2.8	American University	73.6%	5.6	201	69	3	371	68.0%	197	56	0	372
1.5	District of Columbia	70.1%	4.0	26	20	1	67	66.2%	19	27	1	71
2.1	Catholic University of America	68.0%	4.1	56	10	0	97	64.0%	61	10	0	111
1.2	Appalachian School of Law	51.7%	-7.8	13	2	0	29	59.5%	22	3	0	42

Visualizing legal employment outcomes in Florida in 2018

This is the fifth in a series of visualizations on legal employment outcomes for the Class of 2018. Following posts on outcomes in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Ohio, here is a visualization for legal employment outcomes of graduates of Florida law schools for the Class of 2018. (More about the methodology is available at the Illinois post.) Last year's Florida post is here.

The Florida report is one of the most positive employment reports so far. Total bar passage-require jobs rose significantly, from 1364 in 2017 to 1430 in 2018. A small uptick in J.D.-advantage placement and a small drop in total graduates resulted in an improvement for placement from 69.8% to 74.5%, which brings placement more in line with others states.

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

View fullsize

Peer Score	School	2018	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads	2017	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads
3.3	University of Florida	88.4%	2.0	258	24	1	320	86.4%	246	33	1	324
3.1	Florida State University	85.8%	5.5	150	18	1	197	80.3%	150	21	0	213
2.8	University of Miami	84.3%	1.6	249	36	0	338	82.7%	195	20	0	260
2.1	Stetson University	83.3%	6.1	168	21	0	227	77.2%	167	36	0	263
2.1	Florida International University	82.9%	2.2	109	12	0	146	80.6%	112	13	0	155
1.2	Barry University	67.9%	6.2	91	38	0	190	61.7%	75	25	0	162
1.2	Ave Maria School of Law	65.7%	16.3	39	7	0	70	49.4%	32	8	0	81
1.5	St. Thomas University	64.3%	5.7	111	6	0	182	58.6%	99	7	0	181
1.2	Florida Coastal School of Law	60.8%	14.1	94	19	0	186	46.6%	97	14	0	238
1.6	Nova Southeastern University	57.5%	-4.9	109	17	0	219	62.4%	129	12	0	226
1.5	Florida A&M University	50.4%	-1.5	52	14	0	131	51.9%	62	7	0	133

Visualizing legal employment outcomes in Texas in 2018

This is the third in a series of visualizations on legal employment outcomes for the Class of 2018. Following posts on outcomes in Illinois and Pennsylvania, here is a visualization for legal employment outcomes of graduates of Texas law schools for the Class of 2018. (More about the methodology is available at the Illinois post.) Last year's Texas post is here.

Total jobs improved notably in bar passage required jobs, from 1321 to 1366. J.D.-advantage jobs declined. Total graduates increased to 1979, up from 1959. Placement improved from 75.8% to 76.3%.

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

View fullsize

Peer Score	School	2018	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads	2017	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads
4.1	University of Texas-Austin	92.8%	6.0	238	15	6	279	86.9%	259	18	7	327
2.4	Baylor University	89.0%	2.8	100	5	0	118	86.2%	107	4	1	130
2.7	Southern Methodist University	87.1%	4.0	192	17	0	240	83.1%	179	17	0	236
1.9	Texas Tech University	85.8%	7.6	125	8	0	155	78.2%	137	17	0	197
2.7	University of Houston	85.4%	7.9	171	22	0	226	77.5%	153	26	0	231
2.4	Texas A&M University	81.9%	7.6	93	20	0	138	74.3%	118	18	0	183
1.6	South Texas College of Law Houston	67.8%	6.0	160	24	1	273	61.7%	157	27	0	298
1.6	St. Mary's University	62.5%	-8.4	129	11	0	224	70.9%	118	20	1	196
nr	University of North Texas Dallas	57.9%	6.4	76	8	0	145	51.5%	17	0	0	33
1.4	Texas Southern University	48.6%	-17.0	82	6	0	181	65.6%	76	8	0	128

Visualizing legal employment outcomes in Pennsylvania in 2018

This is the second in a series of visualizations on legal employment outcomes for the Class of 2018. Following a post on outcomes in Illinois, here is a visualization for legal employment outcomes of graduates of Pennsylvania law schools for the Class of 2018. (More about the methodology is available at the Illinois post.) Last year's Pennsylvania post is here.

Total graduates were down slightly year-over-year, and the job picture improved a little, with 84.4% employed in bar passage required and J.D. advantage positions, including 11 school-funded positions. Total placement fell slightly, so the improvement is attributable to the slightly smaller number of graduates, from 1256 to 1238.

As always, please notify me of any corrections or errata. UPDATE: Duquesne’s employment data was accidentally overstated in an earlier post and has been edited to present the accurate data.

Peer Score	School	2018	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads	2017	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads
4.4	University of Pennsylvania	97.9%	-0.9	216	12	10	243	98.8%	232	16	5	256
2.5	Villanova University	88.2%	5.8	127	15	0	161	82.4%	120	11	0	159
2.2	Pennsylvania State - Dickinson Law	87.3%	8.6	51	4	0	63	78.7%	41	7	0	61
2.1	Drexel University	83.7%	2.3	95	13	0	129	81.5%	88	13	0	124
2.7	Temple University	83.3%	-3.4	161	13	0	209	86.6%	172	15	1	217
1.8	Duquesne University	80.0%	0.6	86	13	0	120	79.4%	80	20	0	126
2.3	Penn State Law	80.0%	1.9	86	13	1	125	78.1%	82	7	0	114
2.7	University of Pittsburgh	71.9%	-5.7	85	12	0	135	77.5%	87	20	0	138
1.7	Widener Commonwealth	62.3%	-4.9	32	1	0	53	67.2%	36	5	0	61

Visualizing legal employment outcomes in Illinois in 2018

Following up on a series of posts last year (and previous years), this is the first in a series visualizing employment outcomes of law school graduates from the Class of 2018. The U.S. News & World Report ("USNWR") rankings recently released, which include data for the Class of 2017, 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 "all jobs excluding positions funded by the law school or university that are full-time, long-term and for which a J.D. and bar passage are necessary or advantageous ." It does not give "full weight" in its metrics 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 actually as valuable as bar passage required jobs. (Some have further critiqued solo practitioners being included in the bar passage required statistics.) Nonetheless, as a top-level category, I looked at these “full weight” positions.

The top 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. 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 2017 and 2018, with relative overall changes year-over-year. Here, I used the employment rate including school-funded positions, which USNWR used to print but no longer does; nevertheless, because there are good-faith disputes, I think, about the value of school-funded positions, I split the difference—I excluded them in the sorting of the bar graphs, and included them comparatively in the tables. 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"). This year, I also added the total graduates. (My visualization is limited because the bar widths for each school are the same, even though schools vary greatly in size, and that means raw placement might be more impressive considering class size.)

The first state is Illinois (last year's visualization here). There were 1696 statewide grades, a 3% decline over last year's class. The total placement rate among the graduates was 82% (including a few school-funded jobs). It is, once again, a slight improvement over last year driven by the smaller class size. Placement in bar passage required jobs fell slightly again.

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	2018	YoY%	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads	2017	BPR	JDA	LSF	Grads
4.7	University of Chicago	98.1%	0.4	188	4	10	206	97.7%	197	4	8	214
4.2	Northwestern University (Pritzker)	96.9%	3.0	205	12	5	229	94.0%	204	24	5	248
3.2	University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign	91.9%	5.3	118	19	0	149	86.6%	111	12	0	142
2.6	Loyola University Chicago	85.5%	8.0	119	46	0	193	77.5%	138	34	0	222
2.6	Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago-Kent)	81.0%	7.0	149	39	0	232	74.0%	133	32	0	223
2.2	DePaul University	73.5%	3.9	126	40	0	226	69.6%	126	34	0	230
1.7	The John Marshall Law School	67.5%	-4.1	151	33	1	274	71.6%	161	43	0	285
1.6	Southern Illinois University-Carbondale	67.3%	8.7	63	11	0	110	58.6%	64	4	0	116
1.6	Northern Illinois University	66.2%	-10.9	43	8	0	77	77.1%	42	11	1	70

February 2019 MBE bar scores bounce back from all-time lows

After cratering to all-time record lows last year, scores on the February administration of the Multistate Bar Exam have bounced back. It’s good news, but modest—the rise returns to scores from February 2017, which were at that time the lowest in history. Scores have now bounced back to match the second-lowest total in history… which is slightly better.

To be fair (which is not to say I’ve been unfair!), part of this overall score is likely driven by the Uniform Bar Exam. It used to be that there were more test-takers who’d passed a previous bar exam and would have to take another test in another jurisdiction. Those who’d already passed were likely to score quite well on a second attempt on a new bar. But the National Conference of Bar Examiners has indicated that the rise of the UBE has dropped the number of people taking a second bar, which in turns drops the number of high scorers, which in turn drops the MBE scores. So the drop in the MBE scores itself isn’t entirely a cause of alarm. It’s a reflection that the UBE is reducing the number of bar test-takers by some small figure each year.

We now know the mean scaled national February MBE score was 134.0, up 1.8 points from last year's 132.8. We would expect bar exam passing rates to rise in most jurisdictions. Just as repeaters caused most of the drop last time, they are causing most of the rise this time. Repeaters’ scores simply appear to be more volatile as a cohort of test takers.

A couple of visualizations are below, long-term and short-term trends.

View fullsize

View fullsize

For perspective, California's "cut score" is 144, Virginia's 140, Texas's 135, and New York's 133. The trend is more pronounced when looking at a more recent window of scores.

The first major drop in bar exam scores was revealed to law schools in late fall 2014. That means the 2014-2015 applicant cycle, to the extent schools took heed of the warning, was a time for them to improve the quality of their incoming classes, leading to some expected improvement for the class graduating in May of 2018. But bar pass rates were historically low in July 2018. It’s not clear that law schools have properly adapted even after five years.

Until then, we wait and see for the July 2019 exam. For more, see Karen Sloan over at NLJ.

My advice to students looking to enroll in classes

I offered a few thoughts on Twitter recently about advice to students looking to enroll in classes. It became popular advice, and then some people added nuance or qualifications, so I thought an extended discussion here might be warranted. While I teach at a law school and think specifically about that, the advice can work well for higher education generally.

1. Take the professor, not the course. In my seven years of higher education, I never regretted a course I took with a professor I liked in an area outside of my specialties or interests; and I’d say all of my least-favorite courses came in courses I felt like I “had” to take or “ought” to take for one reason or another. The quality of the professor often makes or breaks a course. In my conversations with students about their favorite and least favorite courses, it usually turns on naming the professor rather than the contents of the course.

There is a risk that this becomes some kind of cult of personality around faculty. But I do think we are inclined to learn best from the people we best understand, or whose teaching style is most interesting to us.

There is a risk, too, that we ignore courses that are essential for our major or for an area of legal practice. But I don’t worry too much about that (but it does give me some pause). For one, if you like all the faculty in a different area—criminal law when you want to be a corporate attorney, for instance—maybe you picked the wrong field or the wrong school…. And there are some courses that are simply unavoidable, often because they are required. And there are courses I really valued taking as courses I felt would help my career—federal courts and criminal procedure in anticipation of my clerkship, for instance (even though I did like the professors!). But I advise students to be cautious when thinking about course selection.

2. Find courses with writing and substantial revision requirements. Who hasn’t been the student relieved that they have no exams and only paper courses? But school—particularly, again, I think of law school—is a tremendous opportunity to improve one’s writing ability without the pressures of, say, a demanding client or boss frustrated with your writing ability! Writing opportunities, then, are terrific places to improve this craft. But it’s not just dumping words onto a page at the end of the semester. Find courses that also include revision requirements—a draft due early, a professor’s feedback about the piece’s strengths and weaknesses, and an opportunity to improve it. In law school, this is an essential component of legal research and writing. But finding such opportunities in the upper-division curriculum requires you to seek them out—and requires faculty willing to incorporate draft revision in the syllabus rather than simply expecting some paper at the end.

3. Pick a schedule with course times that help your self-discipline. I loved 8 am courses in school. In college, they helped keep me on a disciplined schedule and ensured I didn’t skip breakfast on my meal plan. In law school, they kept me and my wife (who worked) on similar schedules. I liked morning courses because I paid attention best then; I liked doing homework in the afternoon. I liked scheduling classes every day because it forced me to get into school every day to study. In short, I found out what worked best for me and made sure I planned schedules around it. Too often, it’s tempting to develop schedules around what is convenient. Convenience may be important, but self-discipline—developing habits that will help you avoid your own weaknesses or temptations, like procrastination or laziness—is crucial to future success.

4. Do not assume an elective will be offered next year: take it now. You’re looking at the schedule, and you see a neat course with a professor you like. But it’s an inconvenient time, or it runs up against a requirement in your discipline, or whatever it is. And you think, “Well, I’ll just take it next year.” Don’t do that. Don’t! Schedules are fickle things. Faculty lateral to another institution, go on sabbatical, visit elsewhere, take parental leave, or retire. There’s a deficiency in another area, so faculty give up the elective to help teach something else. Research interests shift. Low interest means the course isn’t offered again. There are a thousand reasons that there is no guarantee that next year will allow this course to return. So take it now (if you can).

*

There are of course many, many factors to consider when scheduling courses. (Many on Twitter have been suggesting other considerations, too.) But these are four of my most common pieces of advice and things that can help improve one’s experience.