The new ABA employment summary report for the class of 2013 appeared recently, and the data prompted a flurry of analysis on blogs and elsewhere (see collected analysis here.)
A great deal of the analysis deals with sorting out which of the reported categories are important (and indeed, which of them are even "good" and "bad"). The report includes approximately 150 categories of employment and unemployment, many overlapping with one another. So what really counts in the ABA employment data? We know that full-time long-term jobs in bar passage required positions are good. But we don't know, for example, whether a higher number in the "JD Advantage" category is a good thing or a bad thing (for the pros and cons of JD advantage jobs, see Derek Muller's analysis).
Instead of droning on with my own take on the various categories, I thought I'd take a quantitative look at the data. One can probably assume that outcomes that are found most often in the T-14 are better outcomes, and those found in lower-ranked schools are worse outcomes. So which categories of employment and unemployment are found at schools with better employment outcomes versus schools with worse employment outcomes? To answer this question, I performed a principal components analysis on the employment data categories (minus the columns that are totals of other columns). This reduces 111 pieces of employment data down to a single dimension.
Some tables summarizing the data are below. If numbers scare you, here are the highlights:
- Schools with better employment outcomes tend to have more:
- Employment in full-time long-term in bar passage required jobs
- Employment full-time long-term in large law firm positions
- Employment in a different state from the school's home state
- Employment in the federal government or public interest
- Schools with worse employment outcomes tend to have more:
- Unemployment (obviously)
- Employment in the same state as the school's home state
- Employment in small firms or solo practice
- Employment in "JD advantage" or "professional positions
The data therefore suggest that a high number of "JD advantage" jobs is not typically an indicator of good outcomes. Of course there are exceptions, such as investment banking jobs, management consulting jobs, and the like, and some schools such as Northwestern have a disproportionate number of "JD advantage" jobs that appear to have great prospects. In general outside the top few schools, however, a disproportionate number of "JD advantage" jobs is not a positive indicator.
The interesting thing about the numbers is that "full-time long-term" jobs are asssociated with both the "best" and the "worst" job outcomes. In other words, full-time long-term jobs in large law firms or bar passage required positions are associated with better outcomes, and full-time long-term jobs in small firms or solo practice are associated with worse outcomes. In contrast, part-time and short-term jobs are not as highly associated with the worse outcomes, perhaps counterintuitively.
Several of the outcomes are somewhat suspect as a measure of how "good" an outcome is. In most cases, it would be better to be employed in the law school's home state or in a firm of 2-10 lawyers than to be unemployed, but this analysis suggests that in-state and small firm jobs are more associated with bad outcomes than unemployment! In some cases, this may be accurate, as some people may choose to remain unemployed rather than "settle" for a small firm job, but in most cases it probably just reflects patterns arising from differences among the presitge of law schools themselves.
In addition, even school funded full-time long-term bar passage required jobs are associated with the better outcomes, although this may reflect the greater resources of higher ranked schools. Indeed, much of this analysis simply indicates the categories of employment and unemployment that higher ranked schools tend to have compared to lower ranked schools.
Top Eight “Good” Employment Outcomes |
||
Bar Passage Required |
Full-Time Long-Term |
0.642126 |
Law Firm with 501+ Lawyers |
Full-Time Long-Term |
0.493514 |
Employment in Second State |
|
0.154351 |
Federal Government |
Full Time Long Term |
0.143215 |
Employment in Third State |
|
0.115463 |
Funded Bar Passage Required |
Full Time Long Term |
0.089313 |
Law Firm with 251-500 Lawyers |
Full Time Long Term |
0.07145 |
Public Interest |
Full Time Long Term |
0.059293 |
Top Eight “Bad” Employment Outcomes |
||
Employment in Home State |
|
-0.37295 |
Law Firm with 2-10 Lawyers |
Full Time Long Term |
-0.21807 |
Unemployed Seeking |
|
-0.19099 |
Business and Industry |
Full Time Long Term |
-0.11769 |
JD Advantage |
Full Time Long Term |
-0.10296 |
Profession Position |
Full Time Long Term |
-0.08361 |
Employment Status Unknown |
|
-0.05079 |
Solo Practice |
Full Time Long Term |
-0.04449 |
I know what you're thinking. Could a person somehow use these scores to construct a ranking of law schools based on this data? And should a person do such a highly irresponsible thing? The answer to both questions is obviously yes, as there can never be too many random rankings of law schools. Below is a plot of employment outcome composite scores using this method versus 75th percentile LSATs in each school. First, this shows that the scores are capturing differences in the quality of schools, as there is a clear relationship between the employment scores and LSAT. Interestingly, this plot shows a fairly evident and distinct "T-15" category rather than the standard "T-14" classification (note that two schools are almost on top of one another so it looks like only 14 dots). Yes, I know there are no labels on the schools, but I predict that a subsequent post will contain them.
Comments