What matters in the ABA employment data?

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.