Morse Code: Inside the College Rankings

ABA Falls Short in Efforts to Improve Law School Placement Data

September 1, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

The American Bar Association's initial efforts to collect and then eventually publish more robust data on post J.D. employment and job placement data are falling far short in some cases. That conclusion is based on an examination of the American Bar Association 2011 Annual Questionnaire's new questions on employment and salaries, which is the required survey that ABA accredited law schools have to fill out each year. The data that the ABA is currently collecting is for the J.D. graduating class of 2010. These new questions are the ABA's first effort to significantly improve the accuracy, transparency, and usefulness of law placement data.

[Read U.S. News's stance about law school employment data standards.]

The ABA's new placement questions are lagging on what is still needed, based on a July 27 ABA memo on Reporting Placement Data on Annual Questionnaire.

1. The ABA says it will not publish school specific salary data, but instead will publish salaries by state and region not linked to the performance of any school. These state and region results are not limited to the data from any particular law school. Prospective students want to know the average salaries of the graduates from each law school as part of being able to determine the economic viability of earning a J.D. degree from that school. The ABA should have the power to get law schools to report accurate salary data on a school-by-school basis and should trust law students to be able to understand the meaning and limits of such data.

2. In terms of employment data, the ABA is currently not asking law schools to report to them whether a graduate's job is full time or part time or whether a new J.D. graduate's job requires bar passage, whether a J.D. is preferred, or whether the job is a nonprofessional one. This is vital information that prospective students and current students need to be able to make a truly realistic assessment about the job prospects of graduates at each law school. Without it students can't determine the likelihood that their new J.D. degree will get them a full-time job in the legal field or a part-time position or a job where going to law school didn't matter. The ABA says it will add these questions for the class of 2011 graduates, but not for the 2010 graduates.

The ABA is going in the right direction in some areas:

1. The new questions do ask law schools to break down the status of whether each graduate is working in a position that is short term (which has a definite term of less than one year) or long term, that has a definite term of longer than one year. This means that for the first time, short-term and long-term employment will be unbundled.

2. For the first time law schools will have to report whether students have jobs that are law school funded. A job is law school funded, according to the ABA, if the law school or university is directly or indirectly paying for any part of the position. This is very important to know since it will show how many new J.D. grads are getting jobs in the real world.

U.S. News will collect the new ABA questions in fall 2011 and early 2012 for 2010 graduates. In addition, we are studying the possibility of asking the questions that the ABA is not asking in terms of full-time and part-time employment and J.D. required job or non-J.D. required job. U.S. News will continue to publish salaries on a school-by-school basis. There is some likelihood we will use this new jobs data to change the methodology used to calculate employment rates for the 2013 edition of the Best Law Schools rankings, to be published in 2012. Until U.S. News finishes collecting the new data, we are unable to specify how the methodology will change.

Searching for a law school? Get our complete rankings of Best Law Schools.

Tags:
law,
rankings,
ABA,
law school

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

What about U.S. News? Don't you use this information in calculating your rankings? Rankings many law schools are desperate to move up in. U.S. News gives them an incentive to misrepresent their information.

transparencylol of CA 4:08AM September 04, 2011

The ABA is derelict in their duty. The ABA panders to law schools way too much. Law schools have intentionally been misrepresenting and lying about employment for years. It is a shame.

Joey of MA 11:38AM September 02, 2011

Thank you for this post. Indeed I sometimes wonder if the ABA is like a co-conspirator in the law school scam. You are especially correct that we need accurate salary information. Salary information is the best way to guage the quality of jobs attained by law school grads. For anyone new to this world, let me show you how law schools manipulate that salary data.

Here is Loyola Law School's career placement statistics. http://intranet.lls.edu/careerservices/stats/employmentstats.pdf

It says that 94% if its graduates were employed within nine months. That sounds great. The trouble is, there is a big asterix by that number stating, "According to definitions established by the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) and employed by the American Bar Association, graduates are counted as employed if engaged full-time or part-time in legal or non-legal jobs."

Well, that "94% employed" number isn't informative if anyone gets to be counted as employed. You have to go to the salary information to see the quality of the jobs attained by this 94%. Based on the salary information on page 3, you have a very solid chance of earning $80,000 and the absolute minimum is around $40,000. So it turns out that those 94% are all working in good or at least acceptable jobs. $40,000 per year is nothing to sneeze at in the real world, and it qualifies as a job.

The problem is that, according to LST, only 41.1% of Loyola's graduates reported a non-zero salary (39.6% plus 1.5%)! So, of that 94% working in "jobs" (which per the NALP definition can include anything), 52.9% (94% minus 41.1%) didn't report a salary and could be earning $0 at their "jobs" for all we know. http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=loyola

Here is my question. Where on Loyola's statement do they disclose that the salary information represents less than half of their graduates? If it's not in their statement, then wouldn’t a reasonable person assume that the salary information applies to the 94% of their graduates who are “employed” and not only to 41.1% of their graduates?

That's how you turn 50% employed into 90% employed. By counting anyone as employed, regardless of what they do or what they make, and hiding the salaries you don't want the world to see.

lawschoolscam of CA 10:06AM September 02, 2011

Morse Code: Inside the College Rankings

Robert Morse is director of data research for U.S.News & World Report and has worked at the company since 1976. He develops the methodologies and surveys for the Best Colleges and Best Graduate Schools annual rankings, keeping an eye on higher-education trends to make sure the rankings offer prospective students the best analysis available. Morse Code provides deeper insights into the methodologies and is a forum for commentary and analysis of college, grad, and other rankings.

advertisement

College Search

Within miles of Advanced Search

Knowledge Centers

Looking at colleges? Find out what you need to know.

advertisement