(Or, Why At-Graduation Employment Rates Will Never Be the Measure of a Law School)

by James G. Leipold, Executive Director

NALP Bulletin, October 2010

It seems foolish to be writing about the US News law school rankings. What more can possibly be said? The ABA just published a report on the impact of the rankings on legal education and it includes an annotated bibliography that runs to more than 60 pages documenting everything that has been written about these law school rankings to date!

And yet, as another US News data gathering cycle begins, it is important to talk about the process once again. As surely as the sun rises in the east, CSO professionals across the country will again be asked this fall to provide employment data for the class of 2009. As part of that process, schools will be asked to provide an “at graduation” employment rate. In [the October 2010] issue of the NALP Bulletin Gary Greener has provided a very timely update on upcoming changes in the methodology for collecting that particular data point. I want to use this column to rail against the use of that data point altogether.

NALP has a long history of voicing strong opposition to the use of “at graduation” employment figures by US News in its ranking methodology because it does not provide good consumer information. NALP has collected data on each graduating class for more than 35 years, and invariably there are some employers — notably large law firms and federal judges hiring judicial clerks — that extend offers before graduation, but most other employers, including government agencies, public interest organizations, and smaller firms, do a substantial portion of their hiring after graduation. In a recession, this phenomenon is magnified. For instance, for the Class of 2009, only 62.6% of all job offers were received before graduation (this compares with 67.8% of all offers for the Class of 2008). (The table accompanying this article provides a breakdown of the timing of job offers by employer type for the Class of 2009.)

Timing of Employment Offers

And, taking private practice by itself, the destination of about 56% of the Class of 2009, while more than 96% of jobs at the largest firms were obtained before graduation, for very small firms of 2 to 10 lawyers, a category that accounts for more than a third of all private practice jobs, nearly half the jobs are obtained after graduation on an annual basis. This pattern of hiring has been relatively constant over time, despite fluctuations in the strength of the economy.

For most students seeking work in the government sector, as judicial clerks in state court systems, in small firms, or in public interest organizations, jobs continue to be found via a process that plays itself out after graduation. For that reason the use of “at graduation” employment statistics in the ranking methodology penalizes schools that have a mission of sending their graduates on to do public sector work, as well as penalizing schools that send most of their students into the private sector in small and medium sized firms. Significantly, of those members of Class of 2009 who took jobs in private practice, more than half took jobs with firms of 50 or fewer lawyers.

The other important reason that “at graduation” employment data does not provide good consumer information is the fact that it is unverifiable. The industry standard for collecting information about law school graduates’ employment has long been to measure the employment rate nine months after graduation. Specifically, NALP collects data about the employment status of graduates on February 15 following their graduation from law school. That statistic is the one that NALP collects and publishes, and it is the number that the ABA asks each school to report annually.

Because the “at graduation” figure is not collected by either the law schools’ accrediting body or by our association, the number is subject to misrepresentation when it is reported to US News. The enormous pressures created by this magazine’s law school rankings cause law schools to strain as they try to present themselves in the most favorable light possible, and, as a result, the use of this figure in particular is subject to manipulation — a phenomenon that certainly does not serve the consumers of legal education well.

In 2005, the NALP Board of Directors authorized me to make these arguments in writing to the editorial staff at US News, in an attempt to dissuade them from using at-graduation employment data. As a result of that effort, the magazine’s editors did change the formula they used to calculate the rankings in a way that lowered the weight of the at-graduation figures in the ranking methodology, but they continue to collect and weight this number (and, as Gary Greener notes in his article, they will be changing the way they treat law schools that do not provide this data).

I want to step back and note for the record that NALP is strongly opposed to the use of all ranking systems in evaluating law schools. NALP does not rank law schools and as a matter of policy discourages the use of rating systems or rank-ordered lists in evaluating law schools, legal employers, or individual candidates for employment. Law schools are defined by many different, yet often interrelated, characteristics whose significance and relationship at a particular institution may vary from year to year. No rigid ranking of law schools can quantify the subjective value of education available at each school. Nevertheless, we are realistic about the fact that law school rankings (and let’s face it, law firm rankings) are here to stay. And not only that, this magazine’s use of at graduation employment rates as part of the ranking formula is also likely here to stay, even though we understand that number is not a good measure of a law school’s worth.

The challenge for everyone involved in responding to the US News annual request for data and information is to use that survey instrument with honesty and integrity and in a way that provides the best consumer information possible for law school candidates.

In closing, it is worth noting the conclusions of the recent ABA report on the influence of the US News law school rankings on legal education:

1. The current methodology tends to increase the costs of legal education for students.

2. The current methodology tends to discourage the award of financial aid based upon need.

3. The current methodology tends to reduce incentives to enhance the diversity of the legal profession.

You can find the full report at: http://www.abanet.org/legaled/nosearch/Council2010/OpenSession2010/F.USNewsFinal%20Report.pdf.