« Upcoming Conference: Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law | Main | Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2012: Fellowships Over Time »

Sunday, May 06, 2012

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report: Reporting Rate

In the comments to the last post, Brian suggested comparing the self-reported placement with the number of alumni from each school on the market this year, as reported on Leiter's Law School Reports last fall. 

This is a really great suggestion. The graph below thus gives the self-reported hiring rate (the "reporting rate") for each of the schools listed in Leiter's chart. This is calculated by dividing the number of reported hires for a given school by the number of alumni from that school on the market this year based on the first two FAR distributions, as reported by Leiter.

For example, the SSRELHR (Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report) shows that 21 reported hires received their JD from Harvard, and Leiter reports that Harvard had 54 alumni in the first two FAR distributions, so Harvard has a rate of 21/54, approximately 39%. 

This is all subject to a lot of caveats, of course--here are three, and I'm sure I'm missing some. There are both numerator and denominator issues: 

(1) Numerator: I don't know whether the apparently "unsuccessful" candidates weren't hired, or were hired but weren't reported to the SSRELHR.

(2) Numerator: Some schools tend to report their alumni to the SSRELHR very faithfully, so the reporting rate might well differ by school.

(3) Denominator: The "number of people on the market" is drawn from the first two FAR form distributions. There is a third, albeit smaller, distribution, and some people hired were not in the FAR pool at all.

Keeping all that in mind (graph updated 5/24/12):

Reporting Rate.20120524
Virginia 6/8 (75%); Yale 18/32 (56%); NYU 15/31 (48%); Chicago 5/11 (45%); Yale 14/32 (44%); Stanford 7/17 (41%); Harvard 21/54 (39%); Chicago 4/11 (36%); Georgetown 11/36 (31%); Berkeley 5/18 (28%); Penn 3/11 (27%); Texas 3/11 (27%); Columbia 6/24 (25%); Duke 3/12 (25%); Northwestern 3/14 (21%); Michigan 2/18 (11%); Cornell 1/12 (8%); UCLA 0/6 (0%).

The full sortable chart is a tab on the main spreadsheet (labeled "Reporting Rate").  

Updated 5/10/12, 7:40am Pacific Time, to reflect that one person who was a Virginia grad had been miscounted. This increases Virginia's reporting rate.

Updated 5/24/12, 7:54am Pacific Time, to reflect a large number of hires who got their JDs from Yale who were just reported.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 6, 2012 at 07:06 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0168eb3d0878970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report: Reporting Rate:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks! This was clearly a tough job market year. The standout performer was clearly NYU, relative to recent years.

Posted by: Brian | May 6, 2012 7:18:45 PM

Does anyone have info on how many males/females were listed in the register as being on the market this year? (Since more men than women were hired, per the report...)

Posted by: anon | May 8, 2012 9:31:03 AM

anon, I don't have that information--it would be very interesting to know.

For previous years, we do have some information from AALS, available at http://www.aals.org/resources_statistical.php

2006-2007 FAR forms: 65% of candidates were men
2007-2008 FAR forms: 61% of candidates were men
2008-2009 FAR forms: 61% of candidates were men

FAR has a chart of success rate of male and female candidates from 1991-1992 to 2004-2005: http://www.aals.org/statistics/0506/0506_T13A_E_14yr-7yr.html#b

And Tom Bell provided some graphs of this data here:
http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2007/01/law-prof-diversity-hiring-and-tenure.html

The comments to the Tom Bell post are very interesting and helpful as well.

But all this information is old-ish (the Tom Bell graphs are five years old), and of course current information would be very helpful, if anyone has it.

Posted by: Sarah Lawsky | May 8, 2012 9:52:58 AM

I don't see how this is meaningful data. There's nothing that accounts for quality of the placement or the quality of the candidate. A candidate who lands a top-tier job reflects differently on a school than a candidate who ends up a marginal school (define that how you will). Likewise, there are candidates who have JDs from good schools, but they got them 30 years ago and haven't written a lick since. There are others who are just plain weird and with awful interview skills. It's not fair to hold them against the school.

Posted by: Adam | May 14, 2012 10:29:23 PM

Post a comment