Thursday, May 24, 2018

Who Stopped Hiring?

In 2011, 155 entry-level law professors were hired. In 2018, 76 entry-level law professors were hired. Who stopped hiring?

The answer is perhaps not surprising: lower-ranked law schools. In the top 30 (very loosely defined to include many more than 30 law schools), hiring remained steady. In the lower-ranked law schools, hiring dropped off significantly.

Hires by Ranking.20180524
Hires by Ranking.20180524

The key jumps to look at are 2012 to 2013, and then again 2013 to 2014.

Here's another way to look at it: in 2011, schools in the top 30 and above represented 23% of the law schools overall, and did 30% of the hiring. In 2018, those same schools did 45% of the hiring. (And some years it was even starker: in 2016, those schools did 53% of the hiring.)

Schools Grouped Hiring.20180524

My list of law schools with ranking categories (which I drew loosely from the US News rankings this year, keeping in mind that the US news rankings are very stable over time) is available here. I'm sure one can quibble around the edges that a particular school should be higher or lower ranked, but moving a school or two shouldn't change the overall result above.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 24, 2018 at 05:23 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

2018 Hiring Report - Subject Areas Over Time

Jeremy Bearer-Friend commented: "I wonder whether there are certain patterns over time for entry-level hiring by area of law. For example, whether tax hiring is constant even when total number of hires dips, or whether civ pro is generally 20% of the hires each year, etc. Some categories may be more consistently coded over time so this could be tricky to do but thought worth asking!"

I went through and cleaned up the data a little so that the categories were consistently coded over time and then did a cross-year comparison of hiring areas. Results follow. Note that these are the results for U.S., tenure track hires only--the same group on which I usually run the data aggregation.

Each year, candidates can list between zero and four subject areas in which they work. (In 2011 they were allowed to list a maximum of three; in all other years, a maximum of four.) 

First, I looked at all subject areas ("All Areas") that candidates listed in a given year. For example, if Candidate A listed "Tax, Con Law, Civ Pro" (interesting candidate!), then this person would be responsible for three entries in the below compilation. As you can see, Crim and Civ Pro lead the pack each year. Other 1L subjects are also very popular. (Click for bigger graphics.)

All Subject Areas Count.20180523
All Subject Areas Count.20180523
All Subject Areas Count.20180523

I did not see any areas where the raw number of hires stayed fixed across time, though the percentage of hires did seem to remain roughly steady.

Second, I looked at just Area 1 -- that is, the subject area that the candidate listed first. So, for example, Candidate A, our "Tax, Con Law, Civ Pro" candidate, would be responsible for only one entry on in this compilation: Tax. This might represent the person's main area of interest. The results were similar here. (Click for bigger graphics.)

Area 1 Count.20180523
Area 1 Count.20180523
Area 1 Count.20180523

Below the fold, a list of every subject area listed in any year. And for those of you who really want to play around with this, here is a link to the raw data, cleaned up a little. It is yearning for more pivot charts.

All Areas, All Years

Academic Success

Accounting

Admin

Admiralty

Advertising

Agency & Partnership

Agricultural

American Indian Law

American Legal History

Antidiscrimination Law

Antitrust

Appellate Practice

Arbitration

Arctic Law

Art Law

Banking

Banking

Bankruptcy

Behavioral Law & Econ

Bioethics

Biotech

British Legal History

Bus Orgs

Business Ethics

Business Law

Business Reorgs

Capital Markets Regulation

CED

Child/Family & State

Chinese Law

Civ Pro

Civil Litigation

Civil Rights

Civil/Comparative Law

Climate Change

Clinical

Collateral Consequences

Commercial Arbitration

Commercial Law

Community Property

Comparative Con Law

Comparative Law

Complex Litigation

Con Law

Conflicts of Law

Constitutional Design

Consumer Finance

Consumer Law

Contracts

Copyright

Corporate

Corporate Finance

Corporate Fraud

Corporate Governance

Corporations

Crim

Crim

Crim Justice Administration

Crim Pro

Criminal Defense

Critical Legal Studies

Critical Legal Theory

Critical Race Theory

Cross-Border Business

Cross-Border Insolvency

Cultural Property

Cyber Law

Cybersecurity

Death Penalty

Debtor and Creditor

Disability Law

Disaster Law

Dispute Resolution

Diversity & Law

Domestic Violence

Education

Elder Law

Election Law

Empirical Legal Studies

Empirical Methods

Employee Benefits

Employment Disc

Employment Law

Energy Law

English Legal History

Enivronmental

Entertainment Law

Entrepreneurship

Environmental

Ethics

Evidence

Experiential Learning

Experimental Methods in Law

Extradition

Family Law

FDA Law

Fed Courts

Federal Sentencing

Federalism

Feminist Legal Theory

Finance

Financial Institutions

Financial Reform

Financial Regulation

Financial Stability

Financial Transactions

First Amendment

Food Law & Policy

Foreign Relations

Freedom of Expression

Gender & Law

Genetics and the Law

Health Care

Health Care Financing

Health Care Reg

Health Law

Healthcare

History of Common Law

Housing Finance

Housing Law

Human Rights

IBT

Immigration

Immigration

Indigent Defense

Information Law

Information Privacy

Institutional Structures

Insurance Law

International Law

International Trade

Internet Law

Int'l Arbitration

Int'l Business Transactions

Int'l Civil Litigation

Int'l Con Law

Int'l Crim

Int'l Development

Int'l Economic Law

Int'l Economics Law

Int'l Energy Law

Int'l Financial Reg.

Int'l Human Rights

Int'l Humantarian Law

Int'l IP

Int'l Law & Dispute Settlement

Int'l Orgs

Int'l Trade and Investment

Investment Funds

Investment Law

IP

Islamic Law

Judicial Administration

Judicial Behavior

Judicial Writing

Jurisdiction

Jurisprudence

Juvenile Justice

Labor & Employment

Labor Law

Land Use

Law & Anthropology

Law & Development

Law & Econ

Law & Finance

Law & Gender

Law & Lit

Law & Neuroscience

Law & Philosophy

Law & Psychology

Law & Religion

Law & Science

Law & Sexuality

Law & Social Movements

Law & Social Science

Law & Society

Law & Sociology

Law & Statistics

Law & Tech

Law & the Economy

Law and Citizenship

Law Firm Management

Law of Democracy

Law of the Sea

Law of War

Law of Warfare

Legal Anthropology

Legal Ethics

Legal History

Legal Philosophy

Legal Profession

Legal Theory

Legal Writing

Legislation

Litigation

Local Government

Machine Learning

Maritime Law

Media & Communications Law

Media Law

Mediation

Medieval Law

Mergers and Acquisitions

Military Law

National Security

Natural Resources

Negotiation

Neuroscience & the Law

Nonprofits

Oil & Gas

Patent Law

Police Accountability

Political Theory

Post-Conflict Justice

Post-Conflict Obligations

Post-Conviction Crim Pro

Poverty Law

Poverty, Inequality, Race & the Law

Presidential Powers

Prison Law and Policy

Prisoner's Rights

Privacy

Private Int'l Law

Prof Resp

Property

Public Int'l Law

Public Law

Race & the Law

Real Estate Law

Real Property

Refugee Law

Regulation

Regulation of Police

Regulation of Risk

Regulation of Vice

Remedies

Roman Law

Rule of Law

Rural Development

Science & Law

Sec Reg

Secured Transactions

Sentencing

Sentencing Reform

Separation of Powers

Social Enterprise

Social Welfare Law

Sociology

South Asian Law & Politics

Statutory Interpretation

Tax

Tax Exempt Orgs

Technology Law

Telecommunications

Torts

Torts

Trade Law

Trademarks

Transnational Litigation

Trial Ad

Trusts & Estates

Venture Capital

Veterans Law

Water Law

White Collar Crime

Wills & Trusts

Work & Family

Workplace Law

Wrongful Convictions

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 23, 2018 at 07:22 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (6)

Monday, May 21, 2018

Entry Level Hiring 2018 - PhDs and Clinical Hires

In the comments below, Orin Kerr raises two interesting questions. First, "One interesting question to see would be percent of hires over time that have a doctorate degree. "

Here, I've broken out the degrees by law doctorates (not counting JDs, of course) and other doctorates. In recent years the Yale PhD has come on the scene, thus increasing the law doctorates. (Click for larger image.)

There are indeed a higher percentage of PhDs, both law and otherwise, over the last two years. It will be interesting over the next few years to see whether this is a trend.

Percent PhDs.20180521

Orin also asks: "Am I right that these numbers are for all tenure-track hiring, whether for clinical positions or for non-clinical positions? I ask that because I have a vague impression of a trend toward making entry-level clinical positions tenure-track instead of non-tenure track. If that trend is happening -- a big if, of course --I wonder how that may be changing the tenure-track numbers you find." Below I've broken out the clinical tenure track hires over the years. There doesn't seem to me to be a notable change in this percentage in the last few years.

Clinical Percent.20180521

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 21, 2018 at 10:48 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (3)

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2018

Following is a data summary of the Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report for 2018. To remain consistent with past years, while the spreadsheet contains all hiring information received, the data analysis includes only tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools. (The data analysis also includes one hire requested not to be included in the spreadsheet at the date of this posting, although the person will eventually be included in the spreadsheet.)

Here is the full spreadsheet:

The data includes 77 tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools, at 57 different law schools.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions:

Q: How does 77 reported hires compare to past years?

A: This is an improvement from 2017, and with this last year, it begins to look like we hit the “new normal” in 2014 and have seen fluctuations from around that level since then. The average number of hires per year since 2014 is 73. (I omit 2010 in this and all subsequent cross-year comparisons because insufficient data was collected that year.)

Hires over Time.20180528

The ratio of hires to first-round FAR forms is also up slightly (click chart for bigger version):

Hires per FAR.20180524

Hires per FAR Chart.20180528


Q: You say the hires were at 57 different schools. How does that compare to previous years?

A: Many more schools hired this year than last year. The number of schools hiring was comparable to previous years since 2014.

Schools Hiring.20180524

Hires per school per year may also be of interest:

Hires per School.20180528

Q: How many reported hires got their JD from School X?

JD School.20180528

Yale 18; Columbia 8; NYU 8; Harvard 6; Stanford 4; Vanderbilt 3.

Schools in the “other” category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: BYU, Chicago, Georgetown.

Schools in the “other” category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: American, Belarusian State U, Berkeley, Boston College, Boston University, Chicago-Kent, Cologne, Duke, Fordham, Georgia, Hebrew University, Kentucky, Lisbon, LSU, Michigan, Northeastern, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn, Texas, Queensland, UBC, UCLA, USC.

This information comes with two related caveats.

First, the spreadsheet reports the number of hires who received a JD from a particular school who accepted a tenure-track job, but not the number of JDs on the market who received a tenure-track job offer.

Second, the spreadsheet reports the count of JDs from a particular school, but not the rate at which JDs received (or accepted) offers. A smaller school with a high placement rate thus might not appear on the chart, whereas a larger program with a low placement rate might appear. This caveat means that smaller schools may be undervalued if one relies only on this data, while larger schools might be overvalued. 

Q: How many reported hires had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

56 (about 74%) had a fellowship; 42 (about 55%) had a clerkship; 54 (about 70%) had a higher degree. Three reported hires didn’t have either an advanced degree or a fellowship.

Venn diagram:

Venn Diagram.20180528

Q: Not as many fellowships...

A: Yes, the rate of fellowships remains high, though lower than it has been since 2012.

Fellowship Rate.20180528


 Q: From what law schools  did people get these fellowships?

I count here any law school at which a person reports having a fellowship. So one person could account for two schools’ being listed here. For example, if a single individual had a fellowship at Columbia followed by a fellowship at NYU, that would be reflected below as +1 to Columbia and +1 to NYU.

Fellowship School.20180524

Columbia 10; NYU 8; Yale 7; Harvard 6; Chicago 4; Georgetown 4; Other 25.

This information comes with the same two caveats as the JD numbers.

First, the spreadsheet reports the number of hires who received a fellowship from a particular school who accepted a tenure-track job, but not the number of fellows who received a tenure-track job offer. This caveat likely applies to all or nearly all fellowship programs. Presumably, someone choosing between fellowships cares more about how many people received tenure-track job offers than about how many people accepted those offers.

Second, the spreadsheet reports the count of fellows, but not the rate at which fellows received (or accepted) offers. A smaller program with a high placement rate thus might not appear on the chart, whereas a larger program with a low placement rate might appear. This caveat means that smaller programs may be undervalued if one relies only on this data, while larger programs might be overvalued.

Q: Tell me more about these advanced degrees. 

Okay, but first a caveat: Although some people had more than one advanced degree, the following looks only at what seemed to me to be the "highest" degree someone earned. For example, someone with a Ph.D. and an LL.M. would be counted only as a Ph.D. for purposes of this question. (This tracks the "Other Degree (1)" column.)

That said, looking only at what seemed to be the most advanced degree, and including expected degrees, the 52 "highest" advanced degrees broke down like this:

Highest Degree.20180528

Ph.D., SJD, JSD, D.Phil. 36; Masters 7; LL.M. 9; MBA 1.

Topics ranged all over the map. For the 32 Ph.D.s, 7 had degrees in History or US History; 4 in Philosophy, 3 in Law, 2 in economics, 2 in sociology, and the other Ph.D./D.Phil. topics, each of which had only hire, were Anthropology, Comp Lit, Ethnomusicology, Government, JSP, Law and Economics, Law & Society, Literature, Policy Studies, Political Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, and Statistics in Law and Government.

Q: How long ago did these reported hires get their initial law degrees?

Year of JD.20180528

Zero to Four Years (Graduated 2014-2018) 24; Five to Nine Years (Graduated 2009-2013) 31; Ten to 19 Years (Graduated 1999-2008) 20; Twenty or More Years (Graduated before 1999) 2.

Q: How do the "time since initial degree" numbers compare to previous years?

A: They are very similar.

Hires by JD Year Chart.20180528

Q: Could you break the reported hires out by men/women?

MenWomen.20180528

Men 38 (49%); women 39 (51%). (Let’s say this is right within +/-2 people.)

Based on a quick count of a number of years of spreadsheets that I happen to have, gender hiring over time follows. (I’ve left out the data labels because I am even less sure than usual of the exactness of the numbers, but they’re roughly right as reflections of self-reported hiring each spring—first Solum’s reports, then mine. And as always, 2010 is left out due to missing data for that year.) 

Gender Over Time.20180528

Q: More slicing! More dicing! Different slicing! Different dicing!

Sure--you can do it yourself, or ask questions in the comments and I'll see what I can do, or we'll work it out as a group.

Q: This is all wrong! I know for a fact that more people from School Y were hired!

Yes, this spreadsheet is certainly missing some information. Repeat: this spreadsheet is incomplete. It represents only those entry-level hires that were reported to me, either through the comments on this blog or via email. It is without question incomplete. 

If you want to know about real entry level hiring, I commend to you Brian Leiter's report (hiring 1995-2011), the Katz et al. article (all law professors as of 2008), the George and Yoon article (entry level, 2007-2008 hiring year), and the Tsesis Report (entry level, 2012-2013 hiring year). This is just a report about self-reported entry level hires as of the spring before the school year starts. 

Q: Is this available in an easy-to-print format?

A: Why, as it happens, yes!

Originally posted 5/21/2018; revised 5/24/2018 and 5/28/2018 to add one hire each time and fix some errors; revised 7/12/2018 to make the written numbers under the graph for "Year of JD" match the graph (the PDF was already correct).

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 21, 2018 at 10:43 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (4)

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Entry Level Hiring: The 2018 Report - Final (?) Call for Information

This is, I think, the final call for information for the Entry Level Hiring Report. I currently plan to close reporting on Friday, May 18. If, however, you know that there is ongoing hiring, please let me know, and I will extend that date. Absent any such information, though, I will close the report on Friday, May 18.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, or know that there are outstanding entry-level offers that will not be resolved until after May 18, please either email me directly (sarah *dot* lawsky *at* law *dot* northwestern *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 10, 2018 at 01:28 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Entry Level Hiring: The 2018 Report - Second Call for Information

This a reminder of the Entry Level Hiring Report.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, please either email me directly (sarah *dot* lawsky *at* law *dot* northwestern *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 10, 2018 at 10:01 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, March 02, 2018

Entry Level Hiring: The 2018 Report - Call for Information

Time once again for the entry level hiring report.

I will gather the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

The information will be aggregated on this spreadsheet (which is reproduced below and which you can view and download by clicking on this link); scroll across to see all of the information we will be aggregating.

Please leave the information in the comments, and, to protect those on the job market, please sign the comment with your real name. (Ideally, the reporting person would be either the hired individual or someone from the hiring committee at the hiring school.) If you would like to email information instead of posting it, please send it to Sarah Lawsky at sarah *dot* lawsky *at* law *dot* northwestern *dot* edu. Remember: you can't edit the spreadsheet yourself. To get your information into the spreadsheet, you must either post in the comments or email me.

I will also gather the names of schools that are doing no entry-level hiring this year (that's the second tab on the spreadsheet), so if you know for sure that your school is not doing entry-level hiring, please post that in the comments or email me.

If you see any errors, or if I have incorporated your information into the spreadsheet but you are not yet ready to make it public, please don't hesitate to email me, and I will take care of the problem as soon as I can.

Clarifications:

The list does not include people who were full-time non-tenure track clinicians who are now moving to a tenure track job at a different school, as these don't seem like true entry-level hires to me. This is the situation where a person is at a school that does not provide tenure to clinicians, and then moves to a school that does provide tenure to clinicians.

The list does include people who had a non-professor job in a law school and then moved to a professor job that was tenure track. Thus a person may have worked at a law school for many years, but still be considered an entry level hire. To indicate this situation, I will put their previous job at a law school in the "fellowship" category, and note "non-TT to TT" in the "Notes" category. This is not to indicate that this isn't an entry-level hire, but rather to give information about the nature of the item listed as a fellowship. (I.e., not a temporary position, as fellowships usually are.)

Other links:

This report follows in the tradition of Larry Solum's excellent work over many years.

2017 initial post, 2017 spreadsheet, 2017 report (with graphs).

2016 initial post, 2016 spreadsheet, 2016 report (with graphs). 

2015 initial post, 2015 spreadsheet, 2015 report (with graphs).

2014 initial post, 2014 spreadsheet, 2014 report (with graphs).

2013 initial post, 2013 spreadsheet, 2013 report (with graphs).

2012 initial post, 2012 spreadsheet, 2012 report (with graphs).

2011 initial post, 2011 spreadsheet, 2011 report (with graphs).

All PrawfsBlawg entry level hiring report tagged posts.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on March 2, 2018 at 04:01 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (11)

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2017

Following is a data summary of the Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report for 2017. To remain consistent with past years, while the spreadsheet contains all hiring information received, the data analysis includes only tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools. (The data analysis also includes one hire requested not to be included in the spreadsheet.)

Here is the full spreadsheet:

The data includes 62 tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools, at 42 different law schools.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions:

Q: How does 62 reported hires compare to past years?

A: Fewer than any year previously reported.

Reported Hires.20170601

The ratio of hires to first-round FAR forms also fell:

Hires per FAR.20170601
  Hires per FAR Chart.20170601

Q: You say the hires were at 42 different schools. How does that compare to previous years?

A: Also lower.

Schools Hiring.20170601

Hires per school per year may also be of interest:

Hires per School.20170601

Q: How many reported hires got their JD from School X?

JD From.20170601

NYU 9; Harvard 9; Yale 9; Northwestern 4; Columbia 3; Michigan 3.

Schools in the “other” category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: Berkeley; Georgetown; Hebrew; Penn; Stanford; Virginia.

Schools in the “other” category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: Duke; Cardozo; Catholic (Portugal); Emory; Fordham; Genoa; ITAM; Seoul National; Texas; Vanderbilt; University of Washington.

This information comes with two related caveats.

First, the spreadsheet reports the number of hires who received a JD from a particular school who accepted a tenure-track job, but not the number of JDs on the market who received a tenure-track job offer.

Second, the spreadsheet reports the count of JDs from a particular school, but not the rate at which JDs received (or accepted) offers. A smaller school with a high placement rate thus might not appear on the chart, whereas a larger program with a low placement rate might appear. This caveat means that smaller schools may be undervalued if one relies only on this data, while larger schools might be overvalued. 

Q: How many reported hires had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

51 (about 82%) had a fellowship; 32 (about 52%) had a clerkship; 42 (about 68%) had a higher degree. Only one reported hire didn’t have either an advanced degree or a fellowship.

Nonproportional Venn diagram:

Venn Diagram.20170601

Q: A lot of fellowships!

A: Yes.

Fellowship Rate.20170601


 Q: From what law schools  did people get these fellowships?

I count here any law school at which a person reports having a fellowship. So one person could account for two schools’ being listed here. For example, if a single individual had a fellowship at Columbia followed by a fellowship at NYU, that would be reflected below as +1 to Columbia and +1 to NYU.

Fellowship School.20170601

Harvard 10; NYU 9; Georgetown 6; Penn 5; Columbia 4; Other 30.

This information comes with the same two caveats as the JD numbers.

First, the spreadsheet reports the number of hires who received a fellowship from a particular school who accepted a tenure-track job, but not the number of fellows who received a tenure-track job offer. This caveat likely applies to all or nearly all fellowship programs. Presumably, someone choosing between fellowships cares more about how many people received tenure-track job offers than about how many people accepted those offers.

Second, the spreadsheet reports the count of fellows, but not the rate at which fellows received (or accepted) offers. A smaller program with a high placement rate thus might not appear on the chart, whereas a larger program with a low placement rate might appear. This caveat means that smaller programs may be undervalued if one relies only on this data, while larger programs might be overvalued.

Q: Tell me more about these advanced degrees. 

Okay, but first a caveat: Although some people had more than one advanced degree, the following looks only at what seemed to me to be the "highest" degree someone earned. For example, someone with a Ph.D. and an LL.M. would be counted only as a Ph.D. for purposes of this question. (This tracks the "Other Degree (1)" column.)

That said, looking only at what seemed to be the most advanced degree, and including expected degrees, the 42 "highest" advanced degrees broke down like this:

Highest Degree.20170601

Ph.D., SJD, JSD, D.Phil. 26; Masters 8; LL.M. 7; MBA 1.

Topics ranged all over the map. For the 26 Ph.D.s and expected Ph.Ds, 4 had degrees in Economics; 2 in sociology; and the other Ph.D./D.Phil. topics, each of which had only hire, were American History; American Studies; Comparative Law; Criminology; Finance and Economics; History; History of American Civilization; JSP; Law; Law and Economics; Near Eastern Languages and Civilization; Neuroscience; Philosophy; Political Science; Rhetoric; Social Anthropology and Law & Society.

Q: How long ago did these reported hires get their initial law degrees?

Year of JD.20170601

Zero to Four Years (Graduated 2012-2016) 13; Five to Nine Years (Graduated 2007-2011) 28;  Ten to 19 Years (Graduated 1997-2006) 20; Twenty or More Years (Graduated before 1996) 0.

Q: How do the "time since initial degree" numbers compare to previous years?

A: They are very similar.

Years Since Grad Chart.20170601

 

Q: Could you break the reported hires out by men/women?

Gender.20170601

Men 30 (about 48%); women 32 (about 52%). (Let’s say this is right within +/-2 people.)

Based on a quick count of a number of years of spreadsheets that I happen to have, gender hiring over time follows. (I’ve left out the data labels because I am even less sure than usual of the exactness of the numbers, but they’re roughly right as reflections of self-reported hiring each spring—first Solum’s reports, then mine. And as always, 2010 is left out due to missing data for that year.) 

Percent Male.20170601

Q: More slicing! More dicing! Different slicing! Different dicing!

Sure--you can do it yourself, or ask questions in the comments and I'll see what I can do, or we'll work it out as a group.

Q: This is all wrong! I know for a fact that more people from School Y were hired!

Yes, this spreadsheet is certainly missing some information. Repeat: this spreadsheet is incomplete. It represents only those entry-level hires that were reported to me, either through the comments on this blog or via email. It is without question incomplete. 

If you want to know about real entry level hiring, I commend to you Brian Leiter's report (hiring 1995-2011), the Katz et al. article (all law professors as of 2008), the George and Yoon article (entry level, 2007-2008 hiring year), and the Tsesis Report (entry level, 2012-2013 hiring year). This is just a report about self-reported entry level hires as of the spring before the school year starts. 

Q: Is this available in an easy-to-print format?

A: Why, as it happens, yes!

Originally posted 6/1/2017.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on June 1, 2017 at 01:06 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (23)

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Entry Level Hiring: The 2017 Report - Final Call for Information

This is the final call for information for the Entry Level Hiring Report. I will close reporting on Thursday, June 1. 

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, please either email me directly (sarah *dot* lawsky *at* law *dot* northwestern *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 30, 2017 at 12:01 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 08, 2017

Entry Level Hiring, The 2017 Report - Not Last Call for Information

The hiring season is not yet over, so I will not be closing the Entry Level Hiring report today. Rather, I will leave it open until the end of May.  As always, please submit information regarding entry-level hiring to me via email or the original post.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 8, 2017 at 10:27 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 01, 2017

Entry Level Hiring: The 2017 Report - Final (?) Call for Information

Update, 5/5/17: It appears that the hiring process at several schools will not be over until at least the end of the month, so I will hold off closing the report until then.

 

This is, I think, the final call for information for the Entry Level Hiring Report. I currently plan to close reporting on Monday, May 8. If, however, you know that there is ongoing hiring (last year, for example, I was told that some schools were working on hiring until mid-May), please let me know, and I will extend that date. Absent any such information, though, I will close the report on Monday, May 8.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, or know that there are outstanding entry-level offers that will not be resolved until after May 8, please either email me directly (sarah *dot* lawsky *at* law *dot* northwestern *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 1, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Entry Level Hiring: The 2017 Report - Second Call for Information

This a reminder of the Entry Level Hiring Report.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, please either email me directly (sarah *dot* lawsky *at* law *dot* northwestern *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Entry Level Hiring: The 2017 Report - Call for Information

Time once again for the entry level hiring report.

I will gather the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

The information will be aggregated on this spreadsheet (which is reproduced below and which you can view and download by clicking on this link); scroll across to see all of the information we will be aggregating.

Please leave the information in the comments, and, to protect those on the job market, please sign the comment with your real name. (Ideally, the reporting person would be either the hired individual or someone from the hiring committee at the hiring school.) If you would like to email information instead of posting it, please send it to Sarah Lawsky at sarah *dot* lawsky *at* law *dot* northwestern *dot* edu. Remember: you can't edit the spreadsheet yourself. To get your information into the spreadsheet, you must either post in the comments or email me.

I will also gather the names of schools that are doing no entry-level hiring this year (that's the second tab on the spreadsheet), so if you know for sure that your school is not doing entry-level hiring, please post that in the comments or email me.

If you see any errors, or if I have incorporated your information into the spreadsheet but you are not yet ready to make it public, please don't hesitate to email me, and I will take care of the problem as soon as I can.

Clarifications:

The list does not include people who were full-time non-tenure track clinicians who are now moving to a tenure track job at a different school, as these don't seem like true entry-level hires to me. This is the situation where a person is at a school that does not provide tenure to clinicians, and then moves to a school that does provide tenure to clinicians.

The list does include people who had a non-professor job in a law school and then moved to a professor job that was tenure track. Thus a person may have worked at a law school for many years, but still be considered an entry level hire. To indicate this situation, I will put their previous job at a law school in the "fellowship" category, and note "non-TT to TT" in the "Notes" category. This is not to indicate that this isn't an entry-level hire, but rather to give information about the nature of the item listed as a fellowship. (I.e., not a temporary position, as fellowships usually are.)

Other links:

This report follows in the tradition of Larry Solum's excellent work over many years.

2016 initial post, 2016 spreadsheet, 2016 report (with graphs). 

2015 initial post, 2015 spreadsheet, 2015 report (with graphs).

2014 initial post, 2014 spreadsheet, 2014 report (with graphs).

2013 initial post, 2013 spreadsheet, 2013 report (with graphs).

2012 initial post, 2012 spreadsheet, 2012 report (with graphs).

2011 initial post, 2011 spreadsheet, 2011 report (with graphs).

All PrawfsBlawg entry level hiring report tagged posts.

Originally posted 3/16/17.

 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on March 16, 2017 at 12:30 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (57)

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2016

Following is a data summary of the Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report for 2016. To remain consistent with past years, while the spreadsheet contains all hiring information received, the data analysis includes only tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools.

Here is the full spreadsheet:

The spreadsheet includes 83 tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools, at 55 different law schools.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions:

Q: How does 83 reported hires compare to past years?

A: Better! (I omit 2010 in this and all subsequent cross-year comparisons because insufficient data was collected that year.)

  01 Reported Hires.20160508

Not only were more people hired, but there were also fewer people in the first round of the FAR forms, so the ratio of hires to first-round FAR forms was better this year than in recent years:

02 Hires Per FAR.20160508
 

03 Hires Per FAR Chart.20160508

Q: You say the hires were at 55 different schools. How does that compare to previous years?

A: About the same as the last two years.

04 Schools Hiring.20160508

Hires per school per year may also be of interest:

05 Hires Per School.20160508

Q: How many reported hires got their JD from School X?

06 JD School.20160508

Yale 18; Harvard 11; NYU 9; Stanford 8; Columbia 6; Chicago 6; Other 25.

Schools in the “other” category with three JD/LLBs who reported hires: Berkeley.

Schools in the “other” category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: GW, Michigan, UCLA, Virginia.

Schools in the “other” category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: Ain Shams Faculty of Law, Boston College, Brooklyn, Cambridge, Cornell, Georgetown, Hastings, Hebrew University, Iowa, Nebraska, Pittsburgh, Thomas Jefferson, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, USC.

This information comes with two related caveats.

First, the spreadsheet reports the number of hires who received a JD from a particular school who accepted a tenure-track job, but not the number of JDs on the market who received a tenure-track job offer.

Second, the spreadsheet reports the count of JDs from a particular school, but not the rate at which JDs received (or accepted) offers. A smaller school with a high placement rate thus might not appear on the chart, whereas a larger program with a low placement rate might appear. This caveat means that smaller schools may be undervalued if one relies only on this data, while larger schools might be overvalued. 

Q: How many reported hires had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

66 (about 80%) had a fellowship; 41 (about 49%) had an advanced degree; 44 (about 53%) had a clerkship.

Nonproportional Venn diagram:

07 Entry level hiring Venn.20160508

Q: A lot of fellowships!

A: Yes.

08 Fellowship Rate.20160508
 Q: From what law schools  did people get these fellowships?

I count here any law school at which a person reports having a fellowship. So one person could account for two schools’ being listed here. For example, if a single individual had a fellowship at Columbia followed by a fellowship at NYU, that would be reflected below as +1 to Columbia and +1 to NYU.

Fellowship School.20160508

NYU 12; Columbia 11; Harvard 9; Stanford 6; UCLA 5; Penn 4; Other 28.

This information comes with the same two caveats as the JD numbers.

First, the spreadsheet reports the number of hires who received a fellowship from a particular school who accepted a tenure-track job, but not the number of fellows who received a tenure-track job offer. This caveat likely applies to all or nearly all fellowship programs. Presumably, someone choosing between fellowships cares more about how many people received tenure-track job offers than about how many people accepted those offers.

Second, the spreadsheet reports the count of fellows, but not the rate at which fellows received (or accepted) offers. A smaller program with a high placement rate thus might not appear on the chart, whereas a larger program with a low placement rate might appear. This caveat means that smaller programs may be undervalued if one relies only on this data, while larger programs might be overvalued.

The Bigelow Program at the University of Chicago illustrates these two related points, though it is by no means unique. This year, all Bigelows on the market received tenure-track job offers. But (1) the Bigelow is a small program and (2) not all Bigelows who received offers accepted an offer. Thus only two Chicago fellows appear on the spreadsheet. But the relevant information for someone considering fellowships isn’t the raw count, but rather the overall success rate of Bigelow fellows on the job market: according to Brian Leiter, every Bigelow since at least 2008 has received at least one tenure-track offer. (Leiter has been at Chicago only since 2008, and believes this is true going back to the early 2000s, but isn’t certain.)

Q: Tell me more about these advanced degrees. 

Okay, but first a caveat: Although some people had more than one advanced degree, the following looks only at what seemed to me to be the "highest" degree someone earned. For example, someone with a Ph.D. and an LL.M. would be counted only as a Ph.D. for purposes of this question. (This tracks the "Other Degree (1)" column.)

That said, looking only at what seemed to be the most advanced degree, and including expected degrees, the 41 "highest" advanced degrees broke down like this:

10 Highest Degree.20160508

Ph.D., SJD, JSD, D.Phil. 21; Masters 16; LL.M. 3; MBA 1.

Topics ranged all over the map. For the 21 Ph.D.s, five had PhDs in Law (one JSD, one SJD, and three Yale Law Ph.D.s); History had three hires; Economics and Philosophy each had two hires; and the other Ph.D./D.Phil. topics, each of which had only hire, were Business, Criminology, English and Comparative Literature, Evidence-Based Social Intervention, Financial Economics, German, Medieval English, Psychology, and Sociology.

Q: How long ago did these reported hires get their initial law degrees?

Zero to Four Years (Graduated 2012-2016) 6; Five to Nine Years (Graduated 2007-2011) 49;  Ten to 19 Years (Graduated 1997-2006) 28; Twenty or More Years (Graduated before 1996) 0.

11 JD Year.20160508

Q: How do the "time since initial degree" numbers compare to previous years?

A: They are very similar.

12 Years Since Hire Over Time.20160508

Q: Could you break the reported hires out by men/women?

13 Male Female.20160508

Men 44 (about 53%); women 39 (about 47%). (Let’s say this is right within +/-2 people.)

Based on a quick count of a number of years of spreadsheets that I happen to have, gender hiring over time follows. (I’ve left out the data labels because I am even less sure than usual of the exactness of the numbers, but they’re roughly right as reflections of self-reported hiring each spring—first Solum’s reports, then mine. And as always, 2010 is left out due to missing data for that year.) This year, unlike the last two years but like every year before that for which I have data, there were more men hired than women.

14 Percent Male.20160508

Q: More slicing! More dicing! Different slicing! Different dicing!

Sure--you can do it yourself, or ask questions in the comments and I'll see what I can do, or we'll work it out as a group.

Q: This is all wrong! I know for a fact that more people from School Y were hired!

Yes, this spreadsheet is certainly missing some information. Repeat: this spreadsheet is incomplete. It represents only those entry-level hires that were reported to me, either through the comments on this blog or via email. It is without question incomplete. 

If you want to know about real entry level hiring, I commend to you Brian Leiter's report (hiring 1995-2011), the Katz et al. article (all law professors as of 2008), the George and Yoon article (entry level, 2007-2008 hiring year), and the Tsesis Report (entry level, 2012-2013 hiring year). This is just a report about self-reported entry level hires as of the spring before the school year starts. 

Q: Is this available in an easy-to-print format?

A: Why, as it happens, yes!

Originally posted 5/11/16; updated 5/11/16 to reflect accurately the areas of Ph.D.s.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 11, 2016 at 01:14 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (11)

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

Entry Level Hiring: The 2016 Report - Final (?) Call for Information

This is, I think, the last call for information for the 2016 Entry Level Hiring Report. I currently plan to close reporting on Wednesday, May 11. If, however, you know that there is ongoing hiring, please let me know, and I will extend that date. Absent any such information, though, I will close the report on Wednesday, May 11. 

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, or know that there are outstanding entry-level offers that will not be resolved until after May 11, please either email me directly (slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 3, 2016 at 11:58 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Entry Level Hiring: The 2016 Report - Second Call for Information.

This a reminder of the Entry Level Hiring Report.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, please either email me directly (slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 12, 2016 at 05:25 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 14, 2016

Entry Level Hiring: The 2016 Report - Call for Information

Time once again for the entry level hiring report.

I will gather the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

The information will be aggregated on this spreadsheet (which is reproduced below and which you can view and download by clicking on this link); scroll across to see all of the information we will be aggregating.

Please leave the information in the comments, and, to protect those on the job market, please sign the comment with your real name. (Ideally, the reporting person would be either the hired individual or someone from the hiring committee at the hiring school.) If you would like to email information instead of posting it, please send it to Sarah Lawsky at slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu. Remember: you can't edit the spreadsheet yourself. To get your information into the spreadsheet, you must either post in the comments or email me.

I will also gather the names of schools that are doing no entry-level hiring this year (that's the second tab on the spreadsheet), so if you know for sure that your school is not doing entry-level hiring, please post that in the comments or email me.

If you see any errors, or if I have incorporated your information into the spreadsheet but you are not yet ready to make it public, please don't hesitate to email me, and I will take care of the problem as soon as I can.

Other links:

This report follows in the tradition of Larry Solum's excellent work over many years. 

2015 initial post, 2015 spreadsheet, 2015 report (with graphs).

2014 initial post, 2014 spreadsheet, 2014 report (with graphs).

2013 initial post, 2013 spreadsheet, 2013 report (with graphs).

2012 initial post, 2012 spreadsheet, 2012 report (with graphs).

2011 initial post, 2011 spreadsheet, 2011 report (with graphs).

All PrawfsBlawg entry level hiring report tagged posts.

Added 3/21/15: Some clarification: the list does not include people who were full-time non-tenure track clinicians who are now moving to a tenure track job at a different school, as these don't seem like true entry-level hires to me. This is the situation where a person is at a school that does not provide tenure to clinicians, and then moves to a school that does provide tenure to clinicians.

The list does include people who had a non-professor job in a law school and then moved to a professor job that was tenure track. Thus a person may have worked at a law school for many years, but still be considered an entry level hire. To indicate this situation, I will put their previous job at a law school in the "fellowship" category, and note "non-TT to TT" in the "Notes" category. This is not to indicate that this isn't an entry-level hire, but rather to give information about the nature of the item listed as a fellowship. (I.e., not a temporary position, as fellowships usually are.)

[Originally posted 3/14/16; edited 3/21/15.]

 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on March 14, 2016 at 09:00 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (25)

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2015

Following is a data summary of the Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report for 2015. To remain consistent with past years, while the spreadsheet contains all hiring information received, the data analysis includes only tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools.

Here is the full spreadsheet:

We have reports of 70 people being hired, at 52 different law schools.

(As of May 18, 2015, one person is not listed on the spreadsheet but is included in the data. This person will certainly receive a job this year, and at a school that is not otherwise hiring. The only question is which school. Thus I am able to incorporate this person's information into the analysis below.)

In general, this year’s report looks incredibly similar to last year’s.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions:

Q: How does 70 reported hires compare to past years?

A: Bad, but not much worse than last year. (I omit 2010 in this and all subsequent cross-year comparisons because insufficient data was collected that year.)

A.HiresOverTime.20150516

Q: It would also be good to know the percentage of those who registered with the AALS who got jobs. 

Good question. I don't quite have the necessary information, but I do know the number of forms in the first distributions of the FAR AALS forms, which probably isn't a terrible proxy. In this graph and chart, I compare the hiring in Year X to the number of forms in the first distribution in Year (X - 1) (because those are the people who were hired in Year X).

HiresFirstYearFAR.20150519

HiresFirstYearFARChart.20150519

Q: You say the hires were at 52 different schools. How does that compare to previous years?

A: Slightly more than last year’s report, and, of course, much less than other years'.

B.SchoolsHiring.20150516

Hires per school per year may also be of interest:

C.HiresPerSchool.20150516

Q: How many reported hires got their JD from School X?

D.JD From.20150516

Harvard 21; Stanford 6; Yale 6; Berkeley 5; Chicago 5; NYU 5; Other 21.

Schools in the "other" category with three JD/JJBs who reported hires: Georgetown.

Schools in the "other" category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: Columbia, Virginia.

Schools in the "other" category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: BYU; Cambridge; Davis; Duke; Florida; Illinois; Iowa; Loyola-Chicago; Loyola-LA; Michigan; New Hampshire; Penn; Pittsburgh; Tulane.

Q: How many reported hires had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

58 (about 83%) had a fellowship; 36 (about 51%) had an advanced degree; 42 (60%) had a clerkship.

Nonproportional Venn diagram:

E.Entry level hiring Venn.20150516

This is similar to last year’s Venn diagram.

Q: That seems like a lot of fellowships. How does it compare to previous years?

A: It's a lot of fellowships, though comparable to 2014.

F.FellowshipRate.20150516

Q: Tell me more about these advanced degrees. 

Okay, but first a caveat: Although some people had more than one advanced degree, the following looks only at what seemed to me to be the "highest" degree someone earned. For example, someone with a Ph.D. and an LL.M. would be counted only as a Ph.D. for purposes of this question. (This tracks the "Other Degree (1)" column, for the two people out there who are actually following along on the spreadsheet.)

That said, looking only at what seemed to be the most advanced degree (apologizing in advance for mischaracterizing the relative advancement of anyone's multiple degrees), and including "expected" degrees, the 35 "highest" advanced degrees broke down like this:

G.Highest Degree.20150516

Ph.D. 18; LL.M. 8; Masters 10.

Topics ranged all over the map. For the 18 Ph.D.s, for example, Economics had three hires; History, JSP, and Political Science each had two hires; the other Ph.D. topics, each of which had only hire, were American Culture, Anthropology, Chemistry, Ethics and Health Policy, Government, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Social Psychology, and Sociology.

Q: How long ago did these reported hires get their initial law degrees?

Zero to Four Years (Graduated 2011-2015) 14; Five to Nine Years (Graduated 2006-2010) 36;  Ten to 19 Years (Graduated 1996-2005) 19; Twenty or More Years (Graduated before 1996) 1. The year-by-year break-out is on the spreadsheet ("Years Since Hire" tab).

H.YearofJD.20150516

Again, this is very similar to 2014.

Q: Could you break the reported hires out by men/women?

Women 39 (about 56%); Men 31 (about 44%). (Let's say this is right within +/-2 people.) 

I.MaleFemale.20150516

Based on a quick count of nine years of spreadsheets that I happen to have, gender hiring over time follows. (I've left out the data labels because I am even less sure than usual of the exactness of the numbers, but they're roughly right as reflections of self-reported hiring each spring--first Solum's reports, then mine. And as always, 2010 is left out due to missing data for that year.)

J.GenderOverTime.20150517

Q: More slicing! More dicing! Different slicing! Different dicing!

Sure--you can do it yourself, or ask questions in the comments and I'll see what I can do, or we'll work it out as a group.

Q: This is all wrong! I know for a fact that more people from School Y were hired!

Yes, this spreadsheet is certainly missing some information. Repeat: this spreadsheet is incomplete. It represents only those entry-level hires that were reported to me, either through the comments on this blog or via email. It is without question incomplete. 

If you want to know about real entry level hiring, I commend to you Brian Leiter's report (hiring 1995-2011), the Katz et al. article (all law professors as of 2008), the George and Yoon article (entry level, 2007-2008 hiring year), and the Tsesis Report (entry level, 2012-2013 hiring year). This is just a report about self-reported entry level hires as of the spring before the school year starts. 

Originally posted 5/19/15 9 a.m.; edited 5/19/15 11:40 a.m. to add Hires/First Round FAR Forms.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 19, 2015 at 09:00 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (61)

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Entry Level Hiring: The 2015 Report - Actual Final Call for Information

This is the actual final call for information for the 2015 Entry Level Hiring Report. I will close reporting on Monday, May 18.

If you know that you will be hired this year but haven't yet decided where you'll work (that is, you are considering multiple offers and won't have things resolved by Monday, May 18), please send me your information (other than "hiring school") anyway. I will leave you off the public spreadsheet, but I can still include the information in the data analysis.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job (or knows that they will accept a job) but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me, either in the comments to the original post or at by email, at slawsky*at*law*dot*uci*dot*edu.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 13, 2015 at 01:59 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 27, 2015

Entry Level Hiring: The 2015 Report - Final (?) Call for Information

This is, I think, the final call for information for the 2015 Entry Level Hiring Report. I currently plan to close reporting on Friday, May 1. If, however, you know that there is ongoing hiring (last year, for example, I was told that some schools were working on hiring until mid-May), please let me know, and I will extend that date. Absent any such information, though, I will close the report on Friday, May 1.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, or know that there are outstanding entry-level offers that will not be resolved until after May 1, please either email me directly (slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 27, 2015 at 01:46 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 06, 2015

Entry Level Hiring: The 2015 Report - Second Call for Information

This is a reminder of the Entry Level Hiring Report. The numbers will be low this cycle, but the spreadsheet as it stands as of April 6 is certainly not anywhere near the final list.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, please either email me directly (slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 6, 2015 at 02:18 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 02, 2015

Entry Level Hiring: The 2015 Report - Call for Information

Time once again for the entry level hiring report.

I will gather the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

The information will be aggregated on this spreadsheet (which is reproduced below and which you can view and download by clicking on this link); scroll across to see all of the information we will be aggregating. 

Please leave the information in the comments, and, to protect those on the job market, please sign the comment with your real name. (Ideally, the reporting person would be either the hired individual or someone from the hiring committee at the hiring school.) If you would like to email information instead of posting it, please send it to Sarah Lawsky at slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu. Remember: you can't edit the spreadsheet yourself. To get your information into the spreadsheet, you must either post in the comments or email me.

I will also gather the names of schools that are doing no entry-level hiring this year (that's the second tab on the spreadsheet), so if you know for sure that your school is not doing entry-level hiring, please post that in the comments or email me.

If you see any errors, or if I have incorporated your information into the spreadsheet but you are not yet ready to make it public, please don't hesitate to email me, and I will take care of the problem as soon as I can.

Other links:

This report follows in the tradition of Larry Solum's excellent work over many years. 

2014 initial post, 2014 spreadsheet, 2014 report (with graphs).

2013 initial post, 2013 spreadsheet, 2013 report (with graphs).

2012 initial post, 2012 spreadsheet, 2012 report (with graphs).

2011 initial post, 2011 spreadsheet, 2011 report (with graphs).

All PrawfsBlawg entry level hiring report tagged posts.

[Originally posted 3/2/15]

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on March 2, 2015 at 01:55 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink | Comments (20)

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Who Would Hire Kingsfield?

KingsfieldOver the years, it has become widely discussed that seasoned lawyers are continuing to have a tough time with getting hired as law faculty.  It seems that many very experienced lawyers who would offer valuable work experience are, surprisingly, viewed as somehow less desirable candidates than the under-35 set.  With the myriad discussions currently afoot about the importance of graduating “practice-ready” lawyers, aren’t some of the best teachers the ones who have been out in the world using their law degrees, either in practice or in alternative legal careers?  Are seasoned lawyers wasting their time by going on the market?  If Charles W. Kingsfield were on the market today, which schools (if any) would extend him an offer?

Posted by Kelly Anders on December 9, 2014 at 01:28 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market, Life of Law Schools, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (35)

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

"For Prospective Fellows and VAPs"

The below comment to the hiring report post deserves to be excerpted it in its own post. (The commenter was anonymous--if you are the author of this comment and would like me to credit you in this post, please email me.)

Perhaps the biggest limitation [of this report] is that the denominators of the categories - fellowships, clerkships, advanced degrees, Yale JDs, etc. - are essentially unknown....
So, for example, we see that 85% of those who got a teaching job had at least a fellowship.... But nobody knows how many fellows were on the market this year, so we can't figure out what a prospective fellow would really want to know, which is what percentage of fellows got jobs.... It might be that 25% of fellows got jobs this year, which would be helpful for a prospective fellow to know....
We can say that not having a fellowship is a massive disadvantage, because only 15% of those hired got their jobs without it. But if you're weighing your career options, that doesn't really tell you whether to take a fellowship if you don't know what proportion of fellows are getting jobs.
In short, it would be wise to ask your prospective program about their outcomes, and to do as much research as you can on fellowships that offer a roughly comparable experience (not just eliteness of school, but mentors and support).

(Emphasis added.)

Necessary and sufficient are different, and pay attention to base rates: words to live by!

More specifically, as the commenter suggests, while it would be nice to know the percentage of fellows/VAPs on the market that received jobs, if you're considering taking a fellowship, that isn't too interesting to you. What matters to you is how many fellows from the fellowship you are considering got jobs over the past few years. 

Some fellowship programs (NYU's tax Acting Assistant ProfessorshipChicago's Bigelow program, along with others, I am sure--feel free to provide additional helpful links in the comments!) provide this information right on their web pages in an easy-to-digest fashion, so it's easy to see that they have excellent placement rates. If the fellowship you are considering doesn't provide you with historical placement information, including percentage of fellows hired, you should ask. 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 6, 2014 at 12:43 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink | Comments (8)

Friday, May 02, 2014

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring 2014 - JD Schools, All Law Schools

Here is the breakout of what schools hires went to for their initial law degree for all tenure-track law school hires (i.e., not limited to U.S. law schools):

JD School Global.20140502

Yale 20; Harvard 12; Columbia 8; NYU 7; Stanford 6; Chicago 4; Michigan 4; Berkeley 3; Other 17.

Schools in the "other" category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: Northwestern; UCLA.

Schools in the "other" category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: Ateneo de Manila (Phillipines); Cornell; Duke; Florida State; Fordham;  ITAM (Mexico); North Dakota; Thomas Jefferson; Tulane; Universidad Torcuato Di Tella; Virginia; no JD.

And here is the break-out for all tenure-track hires, whether or not in a law school, and whether or not in the United States:

JDSchoolTenureTrack.20140503

Yale 22; Harvard 12; Columbia 8; NYU 7; Stanford 6; Chicago 5; Michigan 4; Berkeley 3; Other 17.

Schools in the "other" category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: Northwestern; UCLA.

Schools in the "other" category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: Ateneo de Manila (Phillipines); Cornell; Duke; Florida State; Fordham;  ITAM (Mexico); North Dakota; Thomas Jefferson; Tulane; Universidad Torcuato Di Tella; Virginia; no JD.

Originally posted 5/2/14; edited 5/3/14 to reflect additional hire and to add second graph (of all tenure-track hires); edited 5/4/14, 5/6/14 to reflect three additional hires.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 2, 2014 at 08:09 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink | Comments (6)

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2014 - Men/Women over Time

Orin asked in the comments below about the split between male and female hires over time. Based on a super-quick count of what is, disturbingly, nine years of spreadsheets that I happen to have, here's what I found. I've left out the data labels because I am even less sure than usual of the exactness of the numbers, but they're roughly right as reflections of self-reported hiring each spring (first Solum's reports, then mine). And as always, 2010 is left out due to missing data for that year.

For what it's worth, I consider last year and this year to represent essentially equal splits of men and and women--last year it was 54% men, this year it was 49% men, both in very small pools.

GenderTime.20140502

Edited 5/4/14, 5/6/14 to add two hires and reclassify one person.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 2, 2014 at 07:11 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink | Comments (1)

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2014

Following is a data summary of the Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report for 2014. To remain consistent with past years, while the spreadsheet contains all hiring information received, the data analysis includes only tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools.

Here is the spreadsheet:

73 people were reported hired, at [between 50 and 52] different law schools. 

[As of May 1, 2014, two people, one Yale JD and one Harvard JD, are not listed on the spreadsheet but are included in the data. These two people will certainly have jobs this year—the only question is where. Thus I am able to incorporate their information into the analysis below. I will add them to the spreadsheet when they decide where they will be working.]

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions.

Q: 73 self-reported tenure-track hires? What the…?

A: Yes, even worse than last year. (I omit 2010 in this and all subsequent cross-year comparisons because insufficient data was collected that year.)

ReportedHires.20140501

Q: How many reported hires got their JD from School X?

JD School.20140501
Yale 20; Harvard 11; Columbia 8; NYU 6; Chicago 4; Michigan 4; Stanford 3; Berkeley 3; Other 14.

Schools in the "other" category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: Northwestern; UCLA.

Schools in the "other" category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: Cornell, Duke, Florida State, ITAM (Mexico), North Dakota, Thomas Jefferson, Tulane, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Virginia, no JD.

Q: How many reported hires had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

61 (about 84%) had a fellowship; 37 (51%) had an advanced degree; 44 (about 60%) had a clerkship.

Venn diagram:

Venn Diagram.20140501

Q: That seems like a lot of fellowships. How does it compare to previous years?

A: It's a lot of fellowships.

FellowshipsOverTime.20140501

Q: Tell me more about these advanced degrees. 

Although some people had more than one advanced degree, the following looks only at what seemed to me to be the "highest" degree someone earned. For example, someone with a Ph.D. and an LL.M. would be counted only as a Ph.D. for purposes of this question. (This tracks the "Other Degree (1)" column.)

That said, the 37 "highest" advanced degrees broke down like this:

AdvDegrees.20140501

D.Phil or Ph.D. 18; D.Phil. (Law), SJD, or JSD 1; LL.M. 4; Masters 13. 

Topics ranged all over the map. For the 19 Ph.D.s, for example: 

PhDSubject.20140501

Q: How long ago did these reported hires get their initial law degrees?

Zero to Four Years (Graduated 2010-2014) 16; Five to Nine Years (Graduated 2005-2009) 37;  Ten to 19 Years (Graduated 1995-2004) 17; Twenty or More Years (Graduated before 1995) 2; Blank 1. The year-by-year break-out is on the spreadsheet ("JD/LLB Year" tab).

YearsSinceHire.20140501

Q: Could you break the reported hires out by men/women?

Men 36 (about 49%); Women 37 (about 51%). (Let's say this is right within +/-2 people.) 

MF.20140501

Q: There were 31% fewer reported hires in 2014 than 2013 (a drop of 33 reported hires, from 106 to 73). How do you account for that drop?

There are a bunch of different ways to think about this. Here I compare the percentage change of various categories to the overall percentage change (click for larger version):

  PercentChange2013.20140502

Notwithstanding the 31% drop in hires compared to 2013, certain raw numbers stayed roughly the same or increased, including PhDs and Yale JDs.

There was a disproportionate drop in hires of people who had fellowships only. While fellowships continue to be extremely common among hires (84% of hires have fellowships), a fellowship was, even more so than in the past, no guarantee of a job. 

Comparing 2014 to 2012, the last pre-contraction year (again, click to enlarge):

PercentChange2012.20140502

Notice the stability in the number of PhDs and Yale JDs, and also the contraction in clerkship-only, degree-only, and fellowship-only hires between 2012 and 2014. 

Q: More slicing! More dicing! Different slicing! Different dicing!

Sure--you can do it yourself, or ask questions in the comments and I'll see what I can do, or we'll work it out as a group.

Q: This is all wrong! I know for a fact that more people from School Y were hired!

Yes, this spreadsheet is certainly missing some information. Repeat: this spreadsheet is incomplete. It represents only those entry-level hires that were reported to me, either through the comments on this blog or via email. It is without question incomplete.

If you want to know about real entry level hiring, I commend to you Brian Leiter's report (hiring 1995-2011), the Katz et al. article (all law professors as of 2008), the George and Yoon article (entry level, 2007-2008 hiring year), and the Tsesis Report (entry level, 2012-2013 hiring year). This is just a report about self-reported entry level hires as of the spring before the school year starts. 

Originally posted 5/2/14; edited 5/4/14, 5/6/14 to add two additional hires and reclassify one person already included in data.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 2, 2014 at 02:57 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink | Comments (31)

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Entry Level Hiring: The 2014 Report - Final (?) Call for Information

This is, I think, the final call for information for the 2014 Entry Level Hiring Report. I currently plan to close reporting on Thursday, May 1. If, however, you know that there is ongoing hiring (last year, for example, I was told that some schools were working on hiring until mid-May), please let me know, and I will extend that date. Absent any such information, though, I will close the report next Thursday, May 1.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, or know that there are outstanding entry-level offers that will not be resolved until after May 1, please either email me directly (slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 24, 2014 at 03:38 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Entry Level Hiring: The 2014 Report - Second Call for Information

This is a reminder of the Entry Level Hiring Report. The numbers will be low this cycle, but the spreadsheet as it stands as of April 9 is certainly not the final list.

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, please either email me directly (slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

(Comments are closed on this post in order to drive comments to the original post.)

 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 9, 2014 at 10:50 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, March 06, 2014

The 2013 Full Hiring Report

Alexander Tsesis, of Loyola-Chicago Law School, has individually contacted all 180 law schools that are members of the AALS and collected all of the hiring data for entry-level law school hires who began in 2013 (i.e., last year's report: this year will be the 2014 hiring report). 

I run some analysis of this information below, but let's be absolutely clear: all of the work on this project was done by Tsesis, to whom, if you are interested in this sort of thing, you owe a big thanks. (I'll start: Thank you!)Tsesis

Following is a data summary that compares the Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report for 2013 (i.e., last year's report) to the full data set for 2013 (last year).

To remain consistent with previous analyses, while the Tsesis data spreadsheet contains all hiring information he received, the data analysis includes only tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools.

In the self-reported version, there were reports of 106 tenure-track hires, at 74 different law schools. The complete data set has 127 tenure-track hires, at 83 law schools. So the self-reported version got about 83% of the new hires.  

We had only two schools have been reported as doing no entry level hiring in 2013. In contrast, the complete data set has 86 schools reported as doing no entry level hiring.

(86 schools did no entry level hiring; 83 schools hired entry-level tenure-track professors, perhaps in addition to non-tenure-track long-term-contract entry-level hires; and 11 schools did not hire entry-level tenure-track professors, but did hire long-term-contract entry-level hires. This is a total of 180 schools.)

The two sets are quite similar. The biggest difference is in the percentage of fellowships: in the self-reported set, 78% of the hires had fellowships, and in the complete data set, 71% have fellowships. 

Compare.20140310

Here are the schools from which people got their JDs in the complete data set, with the increase in number of reports in parentheses. 

Q: How many tenure-track hires in 2013 got their JD from School X?

JD School.20140310

Yale 21 (+4); Harvard 18 (+2); NYU 13 (+1); Chicago 6; Duke 6 (+1); Berkeley 5 (+2); Michigan 5; Northwestern 4 (+1); Virginia 4; Columbia 4 (+2); Cornell 3; Georgetown 3; ; Other 35.

Schools in the "other" category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: Stanford; Texas; UCLA.

Schools in the "other" category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: American; Boston U; Brooklyn; College of Mgmt Acad Stud; Diego Portales; Duquesne ; Florida; Fordham; George Mason; Hastings; Kansas; Louisana State; Melbourne; Mexico; Miami; Montana; New Mexico; North Carolina; Oklahoma; Penn; Phillipines (U of); Puerto Rico (+1); Russian University; Rutgers-Camden; SMU; Tulane; UC Davis; Washington (St. Louis); West Virginia.

Here is the full spreadsheet. This includes sheets with (1) All tenure-track and long-term clinical hires; (2) tenure track hires only (this is the data on which I ran the comparison, to be consistent with previous reports); (3) a list of schools that did not do entry-level hiring in 2013; and (4) a comparison of the self-reported data and the full data set. Hires that were not on the self-reported sheet are indicated by a  yellow highlight.

Three cheers for Alexander Tsesis!

[Originally posted 3/6/14; edited 3/6/14, 3/7/14 to remove four hires erroneously included; edited 3/9/14 to add one hire erroneously mischaracterized as non-tenure track; edited 3/10/14 to add one clinical and one tenure track hire and to remove Cardozo from non-hiring list.]

Update, 3/7/14: Brian Leiter provides updated placement rates.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on March 6, 2014 at 04:59 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Monday, March 03, 2014

Entry Level Hiring: The 2014 Report - Call for Information

Time once again for the entry level hiring report.

I will gather the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

The information will be aggregated on this spreadsheet (which is reproduced below and which you can view and download by clicking on this link); scroll across to see all of the information we will be aggregating. 

Please leave the information in the comments, and, to protect those on the job market, please sign the comment with your real name. (Ideally, the reporting person would be either the hired individual or someone from the hiring committee at the hiring school.) If you would like to email information instead of posting it, please send it to Sarah Lawsky at slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu. Remember: you can't edit the spreadsheet yourself. To get your information into the spreadsheet, you must either post in the comments or email me.

We will also gather the names of schools that are doing no entry-level hiring this year (that's the second tab on the spreadsheet), so if you know for sure that your school is not doing entry-level hiring, please post that in the comments or email me.

If you see any errors, or if I have incorporated your information into the spreadsheet but you are not yet ready to make it public, please don't hesitate to email me, and I will take care of the problem as soon as I can.

Other links:

This report follows in the tradition of Larry Solum's excellent work over many years. 

2013 initial post, 2013 spreadsheet, 2013 report (with graphs).

2012 initial post, 2012 spreadsheet, 2012 report (with graphs).

2011 initial post, 2011 spreadsheet, 2011 report (with graphs).

All PrawfsBlawg entry level hiring report tagged posts.

[Originally posted 3/3/14]

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on March 3, 2014 at 09:47 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack

Monday, December 30, 2013

Law School Hiring, 2013-2014 - Reminder

Please submit information about hiring (e.g., callbacks, a school that isn't hiring, etc.), here, on Thread Two of our Law School Hiring information. The information will be gathered on this spreadsheet.

I will post the "offers" thread, but not until February at the earliest.

[Update, 1/2/14: Link to spreadsheet fixed.]

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on December 30, 2013 at 03:13 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, May 27, 2013

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report: Reporting Rate 2013

As last year, I here compare 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. 

The graph below  gives the self-reported hiring rate (the "reporting rate") for tenure-track U.S. law school jobs for each of the schools listed in Leiter's chart. This is calculated by dividing the number of reported tenure-track U.S. law school hires for a given school by the number of alumni from that school on the market this year based on the first FAR distribution, as reported by Leiter.

For example, the SSRELHR (Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report) shows that 16 reported hires received their JD from Harvard, and Leiter reports that Harvard had 57 alumni in the first FAR distribution, so Harvard has a rate of 16/57, approximately 28%. 

This is all subject to a lot of caveats, of course--here are four, 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) Numerator: The data analysis includes only tenure-track, U.S. positions. Some people received other sorts of jobs. For example, seven Chicago hires were reported--one at a non-U.S. law school. If that hire were included in the data analysis, the Chicago percentage would go from 6/12 = 50% (already very high) to 7/12=58% (even higher!).

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

Keeping those caveats in mind:

Reporting Rate.20130527

Virginia 4/7 (57%); Chicago 6/12 (50%); Yale 18/37 (49%); NYU 12/31 (39%); Duke 5/13 (38%); Michigan 5/13 (38%); Penn 1/3 (33%); Harvard 16/57 (28%); UCLA 2/8 (25%); Northwestern 3/14 (21%); Cornell 3/14 (21%); Texas 2/11 (18%); Georgetown 3/18 (17%); Stanford 2/13 (15%); Berkeley 3/20 (15%); Columbia 2/18 (11%).

This is also available on the spreadsheet, on the tab labeled "Reporting Rate."

Originally posted 5/27/13; edited 5/28/13 to reflect change in Michigan.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 27, 2013 at 04:27 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2013

Following is a data summary of the Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report for 2013. To remain consistent with past years, while the spreadsheet contains all hiring information received, the data analysis includes only tenure-track hires at U.S. law schools.

Here is the full spreadsheet:

We have reports of 106 people being hired, at 74 different law schools. 

Two schools have been reported as doing no entry level hiring this year.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions:

Q: 106 self-reported tenure-track hires? How does that compare to previous years?

A: Yeah. Not good. (I omit 2010 in this and all subsequent cross-year comparisons because insufficient data was collected that year.)

Reported Hires per Year
Q: How many reported hires got their JD from School X?

School From.20130527

Yale 18; Harvard 16; NYU 12; Chicago 6; Duke 5; Michigan 5; Virginia 4; Cornell 3; Georgetown 3; Northwestern 3; Berkeley 3; Other 26.

Schools in the "other" category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: Columbia; Texas; Stanford; UCLA.

Schools in the "other" category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: Brooklyn; College of Mgmt Acad Stud; Diego Portales; Fordham; Hastings; Kansas; Louisana State; Melbourne; Miami; Montana; New Mexico; North Carolina; Oklahoma; Penn; Phillipines (U of); Russian University; SMU; Tulane; Washington (St. Louis); West Virginia.

Q: How many reported hires had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

83 (about 78%) had a fellowship; 59 (about 56%) had an advanced degree; 53 (about 50%) had a clerkship.

Nonproportional Venn diagram:

Venn Diagram.20130527


Q: That seems like a lot of fellowships. How does it compare to previous years?

A: It's a lot of fellowships.

Fellowship Rate.20130527


Q: Tell me more about these advanced degrees. 

Okay, but first a caveat: Although some people had more than one advanced degree, the following looks only at what seemed to me to be the "highest" degree someone earned. For example, someone with a Ph.D. and an LL.M. would be counted only as a Ph.D. for purposes of this question. (This tracks the "Other Degree (1)" column, for the two people out there who are actually following along on the spreadsheet.)

That said, looking only at what seemed to be the most advanced degree (apologizing in advance for mischaracterizing the relative advancement of anyone's multiple degrees), and including "expected" degrees, the 59 "highest" advanced degrees broke down like this:

LL.M. (or LL.M. expected) 10; Masters (or Masters expected) 23; D.Phil. (Law), SJD, or JSD (or SJD or JSD expected) 6; D.Phil or Ph.D. (or Ph.D. expected) 20.

Adv Degrees.20130527
Topics ranged all over the map. For the 20 Ph.D.s, for example:

PhD Subject.20130527

Q: How long ago did these reported hires get their initial law degrees?

Zero to Four Years (Graduated 2009-2013) 20; Five to Nine Years (Graduated 2004-2008) 59;  Ten to 19 Years (Graduated 1994-2003) 21; Twenty or More Years (Graduated before 1994) 3; Blank 3. The year-by-year break-out is on the spreadsheet ("Years Since Hire" tab).

Year of Grad.20130527
Q: Could you break the reported hires out by men/women?

Women 49 (about 46%); Men 57 (about 54%). (Let's say this is right within +/-2 people.) 

Gender.20130527
Q: Did we learn anything interesting about reported speciality subject areas?

The self-reported entry level hires had diverse specialities--in fact, the hires named 116 different fields of specialty! (I did this differently from the "what kind of degrees" question--here, if someone listed four fields of speciality, I included all four.) 

As for which fields were most popular:

Popular Subjects.20130527
You can see the full list, sortable either by number of people who stated an interest or alphabetically by interest, here (on the tab labeled "Subject Summary").

Q: More slicing! More dicing! Different slicing! Different dicing!

Sure--you can do it yourself, or ask questions in the comments and I'll see what I can do, or we'll work it out as a group.

Q: This is all wrong! I know for a fact that more people from School Y were hired! Plus, you account for only 76 different law schools, and there are over 200!

Yes, this spreadsheet is certainly missing some information. Repeat: this spreadsheet is incomplete. It represents only those entry-level hires that were reported to me, either through the comments on this blog or via email. It is without question incomplete. 

If you want to know about real entry level hiring, I commend to you Brian Leiter's report and the Katz et al. article. This is just a report about self-reported entry level hires as of the spring before the school year starts. 

Q: What does it all mean?

Not much. But it's been fun!  

Originally posted 5/27/13; edited 5/28/13 to reflect misclassified hire from original spreadsheet.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 27, 2013 at 03:10 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Entry Level Hiring: The 2013 Report - Final Call for Information (For Real)

This is (honestly) the last call for information for the Entry Level Hiring Report. The data collection will close on Friday, May 24. I am aware that I will miss some hires because of this closing date. C'est la report. (And yes, I am also aware that I do not know French.)

At any rate, if you have information about entry-level hires for this year, please either email me directly (slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Er, Not So Final

I claimed earlier today that I was issuing the final call for the entry-leveling hiring report. But I now think it's too early for that--apparently hiring committees at more than one school will be meeting through mid-May. So, not so final. I'll issue the final call in a few weeks. But of course, if you've got the info, post it! Send it!

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Entry Level Hiring: The 2013 Report - Final Call for Information [Update: Not So Final!]

This is the [not-so-]final call for information for the Entry Level Hiring Report. I will close the report on Thursday, April 26 in mid-May. [Update, 4/18/13, 9:42a: I have been advised by several people that hiring at certain schools will be ongoing until mid-May, and I don't want to jump ahead of things when it comes to compiling the information. But still! If you have the information, let me know now! Let's fill up this spreadsheet!]

If you have information about entry-level hires for this year, please either email me directly (slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu), or add a comment to the original information-gathering post.

Please encourage anyone you know who has accepted a job but isn't reflected on the spreadsheet to contact me.

As a reminder, I am looking to collect the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 18, 2013 at 09:51 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, April 08, 2013

Mismatch between expressed subject matter interest and actual appointments in law faculty hiring

Last week at the Faculty Lounge, Dan Filler tabulated the first and second subject matter preferences of the entry level hires reported on Sarah Lawsky's Entry Level Hiring Spreadsheet.  I've compared Prof. Filler's list of subject matter for new hires with Prof. Lawsky's earlier "hiring committees" spreadsheet, in which schools expressed interest in considering candidates in particular subject matter areas.

I calculated the difference between the number of schools that expressed interest in a particular subject area, and the number of new hires that Prof. Filler identifies as focusing on that subject area. 

If there were many more schools interested in a subject matter than hires in that area, this might indicate potential unfulfilled demand for teachers and help identify next year's "hot" areas.  The comparison might also reveal something interesting about how law schools consider subject matter in their actual hiring decisions.

Caveats are in order -- this comparison ignores lateral hires; the information here is self-reported by schools and candidates and may miss some hires; some schools expressed no subject matter preferences (even though they may have had one); some schools expressed many more subject matter interests than they had slots to fill; Prof. Filler's list only includes first and second teaching preferences, so candidates may have met subject matter preferences in their other identified listings.

The tabulation is available in spreadsheet form here and appears below.

Some observations. The biggest mismatch was in tax. Fourteen schools expressed an interest in hiring a tax teacher, but only three schools hired in that area (-11). This suggests there may be continued interest in tax next year.

The next two largest differences were for Commercial Law and Evidence. Eight schools expressed interest in hiring in each of those fields, but there were no hires in those areas on Prof. Filler's calculation. 

An explanation in both cases may be that candidates were hired to fill those teaching needs even though they had expressed other subject area preferences first/second.  Only five schools expressed an interest in hiring Civil Procedure teachers, but there were ten hires in that area (+5).  Perhaps those candidates are being reoriented towards an Evidence teaching load.  Similarly, only two schools expressed an interest in hiring contracts but there were five hires in the area (+3). Perhaps candidates interested in teaching Contracts are expected to cover related Commercial Law needs. 

In two areas -- T & E/Wills and Torts, there were a number of expressions of interest (six and five, respectively), and no hires (-6 and -5).  In Con Law, only two schools expressed interest, but there were six hires (+4).

The success of civil procedure and con law candidates even in the face of relatively lower expressed interested in those fields may be an indication of the relative strength of candidates in those subject matter areas (at least relative strength as perceived by hiring faculties).  My own school has hired in the con law or civil procedure areas in each of the last three years, and I can say that in each year there have been many more appealing candidates than we had on-campus interview slots to accommodate.

 

Posted by Geoffrey Rapp on April 8, 2013 at 09:39 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack

Friday, March 01, 2013

Entry Level Hiring: The 2013 Report - Clinical and LRW Hires

Following a suggestion from a commenter, the entry level hiring report will now include non-tenure track entry-level clinical and legal research and writing hires. For this to work, submitted information should clearly indicate whether the position is tenure-track or non-tenure track. If clinical or legal research and writing is your area, just list that as the first item on your "Areas."

So, to review, please submit:

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four)  (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track  (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

And this is still only for full-time, entry-level positions.

For those people who have already submitted information, I will assume that these are tenure-track hires unless the person has clearly stated that they are a clinical hire, in which case I will assume that it is not a tenure-track hire. I am aware that this may be incorrect--at my school, for example, both clinicians and LRW folks are tenure-track--so please reach out to me if I have you characterized incorrectly.

I have updated the original post to reflect these changes.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on March 1, 2013 at 02:32 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Entry Level Hiring: The 2013 Report - Call for Information

Time once again for the entry level hiring report.

I will gather the following information for tenure-track, clinical, or legal writing full-time entry-level hires: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship, VAP, or Visiting Professorship: Institution and Type (e.g., VAP, name of fellowship, etc.)

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four) (if you are a clinical or LRW hire, please list this as your first Area of Specialty)

Type of Position: Tenure Track or Non-Tenure Track (if you are clinical or LRW and also tenure-track, please indicate this)

The information will be aggregated on this spreadsheet (which is reproduced below and which you can view and download by clicking on this link); scroll across (using the little triangle-looking thing at the bottom of the spreadsheet) to see all of the information we will be aggregating. 

Please leave the information in the comments, and, to protect those on the job market, please sign the comment with your real name. (Ideally, the reporting person would be either the hired individual or someone from the hiring committee at the hiring school.) If you would like to email information instead of posting it, please send it to Sarah Lawsky at slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu. Remember: you can't edit the spreadsheet yourself. To get your information into the spreadsheet, you must either post in the comments or email me.

We will also gather the names of schools that are doing no entry-level hiring this year (that's the second tab on the spreadsheet), so if you know for sure that your school is not doing entry-level hiring, please post that in the comments or email me.

If you see any errors, or if I have incorporated your information into the spreadsheet but you are not yet ready to make it public, please don't hesitate to email me, and I will take care of the problem as soon as I can.

Other links:

This report follows in the tradition of Larry Solum's excellent work over many years. 

2012 initial post, 2012 spreadsheet, 2012 report (with graphs).

2011 initial post, 2011 spreadsheet, 2011 report (with graphs).

All PrawfsBlawg entry level hiring report tagged posts.

[Originally posted 2/27/13; updated 3/1/13  to include clinical and LRW hire information]

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on February 27, 2013 at 03:24 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBack

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2012: Data Summary

The charts and summaries below are accurate as of 5/6/2011 5/13/12 5/24/12. I will continue to add to the spreadsheet, but I will not update the charts or summaries. Seriously, I will not. 

Having been persuaded that all this is no more dangerous than sports, following is a data summary of the Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report for 2012. 

Here is the full spreadsheet:

We have reports of 142 people being hired, at 96 different law schools. 

One school has been reported as doing no entry level hiring this year.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions:

Q: How many reported hires got their JD from School X?

JD School.20120524
Harvard 21; Yale 18; NYU 15; Georgetown 11; Stanford 7; Columbia 6; Virginia 6; Berkeley 5; Chicago 5; Texas 3; Duke 3; Penn 3; Northwestern 3; Other 36.

Schools in the "other" category with two JD/LLBs who reported hires: Iowa; George Mason; Michigan; Tel Aviv; Washington; Wisconsin.

Schools in the "other" category with one JD/LLB who reported hires: Cornell; East China University; Florida; Hebrew University; Hofstra; Idaho; Indiana-Bloomington; Kentucky; LSU; Nat'l Law School of India; New Mexico; North Carolina; Northeastern; Notre Dame; Passau (Germany); Pittsburgh; Queen's University; Queensland; Sorbonne; Temple; Tennessee; UNLV; Vanderbilt; Whittier.

Q: How many reported hires had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

97 (about 68%) had a fellowship; 63 (about 45%) had an advanced degree; 81 (about 57%) had a clerkship.

Nonproportional Venn diagram:

Venn.20120524


Q: Tell me more about these advanced degrees. 

Okay, but first a caveat: Although 10 people had more than one advanced degree, the following looks only at what seemed to me to be the "highest" degree someone earned. For example, someone with a Ph.D. and an LL.M. would be counted only as a Ph.D. for purposes of this question. (This tracks the "Other Degree (1)" column, for the two people out there who are actually following along on the spreadsheet.)

That said, looking only at what seemed to be the most advanced degree (apologizing in advance for mischaracterizing the relative advancement of anyone's multiple degrees), and including "expected" degrees, the 62"highest" advanced degrees broke down like this:

LL.M. (or LL.M. expected) 12; Masters (or Masters expected) 27; D.Phil. (Law), SJD, or JSD (or SJD or JSD expected) 7; D.Phil or Ph.D. (or Ph.D. expected) 16; MD 1.

Advanced Degrees.20120524
Topics ranged all over the map. For the 16 Ph.D.s, for example:

PhD Subject.20120524
Q: How long ago did these reported hires get their initial law degrees?

Zero to Four Years (Graduated 2008-2012) 12; Five to Nine Years (Graduated 2003-2007) 86;  Ten to 19 Years (Graduated 1993-2002) 36; Twenty or More Years (Graduated before 1993) 7. The year-by-year break-out is on the spreadsheet ("Years Since Hire" tab).

Years Since Grad.20120524
Q: Could you break the reported hires out by men/women?

Women 64 (about 45%); Men 78 (about 55%). (Let's say this is right within +/-2 people.)

Male Female.20120524
Q: Did we learn anything interesting about reported speciality subject areas?

We definitely learned that the self-reported entry level hires this year had incredibly diverse specialities --in fact, the hires named 122 different fields of specialty! (I did this differently from the "what kind of degrees" question--here, if someone listed four fields of speciality, I included all four.) (We did not get information about the specialties of two people who were hired.)

As for which fields were most popular:

Popular Specialties.20120524
You can see the full list, sortable either by number of people who stated an interest or alphabetically by interest, here (on the tab labeled "Subject Summary").

Q: More slicing! More dicing! Different slicing! Different dicing!

Sure--you can do it yourself, or ask questions in the comments and I'll see what I can do, or we'll work it out as a group.

Q: This is all wrong! I know for a fact that more people from School Y were hired! Plus, you account for only 98 different law schools, and there are over 200!

Yes, this spreadsheet is certainly missing some information. Repeat: this spreadsheet is incomplete. It represents only those entry-level hires that were reported to me, either through the comments on this blog or via email. It is without question incomplete. 

If you want to know about real entry level hiring, I commend to you Brian Leiter's report and the Katz et al. article. This is just a report about self-reported entry level hires as of the spring before the school year starts. 

Q: Why were there fewer reports this year?

We had only 142 reports this year, 13 fewer than last year. This might be because there were fewer entry-level hires this year, but my suspicion is that it's because we started the report too soon, before more entry-level hiring was done. Next year I'll start it later (early April) and see if that makes a difference. 

Q: What does it all mean?

Not much. But it's been fun!  

Updated 5/10/12, 7:43pm Pacific Time, to reflect that a person with a JD from Virginia had been miscounted.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 24, 2012 at 01:30 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack

Sunday, May 06, 2012

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report 2012: Fellowships Over Time

Current as of 5/24/12.

In comments to the original data summary, Orin asked about the percentage of reported hires with fellowships over time. Here's what I found, looking at Larry Solum's reports since 2006 (I omit 2010 because there wasn't enough data for that year; prior to 2006 information about fellowships wasn't collected) and my reports from 2011 and 2012. The percentage here is reported hires with fellowships/total reported hires.

Fellowship Rate.20120524
This is subject to all the usual caveats: these are self-reported hires as of the spring before each year, etc. 

This information, including the actual numbers and not just percentages, is now a tab on the main spreadsheet; it's called "Fellowships over Time."

Update, 5/6/12, 8:19pm Pacific Time: A commenter makes a quite astute point: "There are different kinds of fellowships.  For example, I was a VAP at School Q, but it was definitely not a fellowship, at least in the sense that certain top schools have fellowships.  Treating all fellowships the same makes it appear that institutional credentialing and support plays a bigger or different role than it actually does. In my case, my fellowship at Top School Y was a lot more helpful than School Q. I get the impression that fellowships properly so called come with a good deal of faculty support."

This strikes me exactly right. For more on the distinction between types of fellowships, see, e.g., Glenn Cohen, Rick Swedloff, though neither makes the commenter's precise point that some fellowships and VAPs, such as the Bigelow and the Climenko, may involve teaching but are very focused on supporting candidates on the market, while other positions involve primarily a heavy teaching load and little or no support for going on the market. (I feel like I have read a blog post making this point, but I can't track it down now--if someone knows of such a post, please post the link in the comments!)

Update 2, 5/7/12, 10:17am Pacific Time: Another distinction: the two higher numbers are from when I was collecting the data, and the lower numbers are from when Solum was collecting it. It's not immediately apparent to me why this would make a difference (at least in later years, Solum collected data with a SurveyMonkey poll that specifically asked for fellowship information), but it might.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 6, 2012 at 07:40 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

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 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Upcoming Conference: Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law

Having browsed through the 2012 Entry Level Hiring Report, I am delighted that so many talented individuals will be joining our ranks as tenure-track law professors.  I look forward to meeting, learning from, and collaborating with the newest members of our community.  I am particularly pleased to see several names on the list, including that of Robert J. Smith.  Rob -- who worked under Charles Ogletree at Harvard's Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice before serving as a DePaul VAP this academic year -- will be heading to UNC School of Law this fall.

When I went on the market last year, I talked to a number of people who were instrumental in helping me secure a tenure-track faculty position.  Rob was one of them.  In addition to providing me with guidance and support, he introduced me to Justin Levinson (Hawaii).  Justin single-handedly put me in the right frame of mine to succeed at the AALS Conference.  Having completed my first year at New Mexico, I very much appreciate, and am honored by, the opportunity to be a law professor.  I can honestly say that I may not have had this position were it not for Rob and Justin's generous help. 

While some first-year law professors, myself included, hope to escape their first year on the job without asking anyone where the bathroom is and without setting their law school on fire, Rob, by contrast, is already doing amazing things.  Specifically, Rob and Justin co-edited a book, "Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law" (just published by Cambridge University Press), that explores implicit racial bias in a number of major legal contexts, such as capital punishment, education, and intellectual property.  Next month, the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute will be hosting a conference centered around the book.  I encourage readers to consider attending.  Details are below the fold:

Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law: A Book Conference

Date: Thursday, June 14, 2012, 9:00 AM
Location: Austin Hall, Ames Courtroom, Harvard Law School
Address: 1515 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Speakers include: Michele Goodwin (Minnesota), Melissa Hart (Colorado), Jerry Kang (UCLA), Ogletree (Harvard), Song Richardson (American), Eli Wald (Denver), Eric Yamamoto (Hawaii), and current and former federal judges.

From the conference web page:

"Despite cultural progress in reducing overt acts of racism, stark racial disparities continue to define American life. This conference considers what emerging social science can contribute to the discussion of race in American law, policy, and society. The conference will explore how scientific evidence on the human mind might help to explain why racial equality is so elusive. This new evidence reveals how human mental machinery can be skewed by lurking stereotypes, often bending to accommodate hidden biases reinforced by years of social learning. Through the lens of these powerful and pervasive implicit racial attitudes and stereotypes, the conference, designed to coincide with the launch of the book “Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law”, examines both the continued subordination of historically disadvantaged groups and the legal system's complicity in the subordination.

"The conference will bring together scholars, judges, practitioners, and community leaders to explore the issues surrounding implicit racial bias in law and policy. It will begin with a compelling overview of the social science. What does science teach us about automatic biases? And what do we still not know? Leaders in the areas of criminal justice, housing law and policy, education, and health care will then present overviews of the impact of implicit bias in their fields. Attendees will hear federal judges’ and leading scholars’ perspective on implicit bias claims in the courtroom and hear experts’ assessment of the future of implicit bias in the law. A lively afternoon session will include simultaneous break-out sessions and roundtable discussions of specific implicit bias related topics. Audience participation will be welcomed and encouraged. The conference will close with a discussion of setting a forward looking and collaborative implicit bias agenda."

Those interested may RSVP for the conference here:

Posted by Dawinder "Dave" S. Sidhu on May 6, 2012 at 08:34 AM in Books, Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Saturday, May 05, 2012

Spring Self-Reported Entry Level Hiring Report: What Is It Good For?

It is time once again not for the entry level hiring report, but for the entry level hiring report disclaimer. As I have stated before, and will state many times again, this is not a report of entry-level hires who will begin in the upcoming school year. This is a report of self-reported entry-level hires as of the spring before the upcoming school year starts.  

As I have also said before, if you want to know about real entry level hiring, I commend to you Brian Leiter's report and the Katz et al. article. Or, feel free to make a real entry level hiring report yourself. There are many possible approaches to creating a real report: as one commenter suggested, call all 200 law schools in the fall and ask who they hired; or go through the AALS directory; or spend some time this fall on all the law school webpages. I'm sure there are other approaches too.

So why bother doing this self-reported stuff? Well, folks seem to like it; they liked it when Larry Solum did it from 2004 to 2010, and they seemed to like it last year too. Maybe candidates like it because it puts some closure on the hiring season for them; maybe some people like it because it has a "breaking news" element to it; maybe there's some other reason. I think there's no harm in putting together a list of self-reported names.

I feel more worried about the data summary. If we're just comparing various years' spring self-reported entry level hiring reports, then there's no harm at all in the charts and graphs and percentages. But perhaps charts and graphs and percentages are somehow intrinsically convincing, so perhaps the data summary makes people feel that they have information about actual entry level hiring, and that is, as I have said many times, certainly not true. 

I'm happy to post the data summary--we have 138 reports, which is about 20 shy of what we got last year, but still enough that I'm willing to run the information. (In fact, I will do it for myself whether or not I post it, just as I used to compile Larry Solum's data into spreadsheets and then make various charts, graphs, etc. for my own consumption.) My feeling has been that people are grown-ups and can read my explicit statements that this is not a true report of entry level hires and then decide for themselves how to use the pretty pictures. But perhaps that is not true, in which case I'm also happy not to post the summary. 

 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 5, 2012 at 11:47 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Thursday, May 03, 2012

Entry Level Hiring Report: Last Call

N.B. Bumped to the front for a couple days, but new content appears below.

This is the last call for information for the Entry Level Hiring Report. Please post entry-level hiring information in the comments to the hiring report thread, or email me directly, slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu.

I will include in the final report information I receive by Friday, May 4. Repeat: this coming Friday is the last day to submit information for the entry level hiring report.

By information, I mean:

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship: Institution and Type of Fellowship

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four)

(I am closing comments on this post to drive the information to the original post or to email.)

 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 3, 2012 at 04:15 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Waiting out the Professor and Clerkship Markets

Prawfsblawg's entry-level hiring report is about to shut down, so my last post as a guest blogger seems like a good time to discuss a strategy that I suspect is underemployed by both faculties hiring assistant professors and judges hiring law clerks.  The strategy is waiting for the market to "clear" and then hiring the most talented people who have fallen through the cracks.  I want to posit here that the strategy is underutilized in both the law professor and clerkship hiring markets.

Chicago is the relatively rare elite law school that does a lot of entry-level hiring.   In a typical year we will interview 20-25 candidates and read work by perhaps 80 more candidates. As a result, we vet almost all of the very strongest candidates on the market each year.  Sometimes, our own assessments of someone's work or our tastes will differ sharply from those of a peer school.  Sometimes, a school will hire someone who isn't officially on the market.  But even accounting for those cases we will usually vet most of the entry-level candidates who are getting hired at the "top" schools (however defined).  Every year we will also interview talented candidates who aren't offered tenure track positions at any law school.  And those folks are the ones I want to focus on.

To the best of my knowledge, there are very few non-elite schools that try to wait out the market, figure out who is unjustifiably "dropping on draft boards," and snap that person up.   Instead, a number of non-elite schools shy away from candidates who look high-end at the outset.  Other schools set up interviews with bullet-proof candidates very early in the process and then suffer cancellations when the candidates get too many great AALS interview requests.

I recognize that a lot of schools are slot / subject matter constrained, and with narrow and technical subjects there may not be enough plausible candidates in the pool to justify a waiting strategy.  But when a school that has trouble getting its first choices is looking for best athletes or hiring in an area where there are a few dozen candidates in the FAR registry with the right set of interests, I suspect there is a lot to be gained by waiting, and reaching out to candidates a month or so after AALS.  

A related fascinating aspect of the entry level hiring market is the structural hole that exists in the social network of appointments committee chairs.  Peer schools talk to each other and share information about who each school is seeing and how particular candidates did in interviews.  But appointments committee chairs are evidently much less likely to speak with counterparts at schools whose rankings differ sharply.  That is a missed opportunity for the less elite schools.  Within a week or so of the AALS, an appointments committee chair from an elite school is likely to have a good sense of which "Rashard Lewis" candidates have a lot to offer but are nevertheless likely to drop on draft boards for whatever reason.  Yet these conversations, as best I can tell, rarely occur.   

The same thing happens with federal clerkship hiring.  Every year each law school that produces a lot of clerks can probably identify a couple of really outstanding students who had  interviews with great judges but wound up with no clerkship when the music stopped.   I am sure that on September 14 of this year, there will be terrific clerkship candidates at every top law school who were not offered a clerkship.  Some will have subpar interviewing skills, but most will be victims of bad luck.  Federal judges who wish to remain "on plan" but hate the madness that is September 13 would do really well to call up law schools on September 14 or 15 and say, "Who is your best person who got shut out on the 13th?"  I for one would be be delighted to field such calls and help judges find the right match.

There is a potentially important distinction between the two markets.  Clerkships are a one- (or sometimes two-) year gig.  A clerk who is dejected after striking out on September 13 is going to be extremely loyal to a late-mover judge and will be motivated to do wonderful work.  With professors, there is some danger that the candidate who dropped will not want to stick around at the school that hired him or her for that long.  Having said that, I suspect that a law school is much more likely to engender loyalty in a rising star by waiting out the market and coming to the rescue than by making an exploding offer that a candidate feels forced to accept.  So I do think that for a school that wants to hire ambitious but loyal professors, trying to wait out the market is a smart approach.

Like many strategies, waiting out the market won't work well if most schools try it.  But right now, my impression is that almost no law faculties and few judges are pursuing the strategy.  It's a market failure that smart "Moneyball" employers would do well to explot.    

That'll be my sign-off.  Thanks to Dan and the gang for inviting me to return to Prawfsblawg.  And thanks for reading.

Posted by Lior Strahilevitz on May 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report, Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market, Life of Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Monday, April 16, 2012

Entry Level Hiring Report - More Info, Please!

We are way short on reports for the Entry Level Hiring Report. We should end up with about 150 reports, give or take, and we fewer than 100 right now. By this time, hiring should basically be done. 

So, a plea: please send in your information, or tell people you know to send in their information. You can post it in the comments to the hiring report thread, or email me directly, slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu.

I will feel extremely uncomfortable compiling the data if we don't get around 150 people--given that even the usual list of 150 or 160 omits many people, analyzing and compiling a mere 100 reports strikes me as even more irresponsible than usual. (I think the problem is that we started collecting the information too early--I won't make the same mistake next year.)

So, whether by comments or email--information, please!

By information, I mean:

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship: Institution and Type of Fellowship

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to four)

(I am closing comments on this post to drive the information to the original post or to email.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on April 16, 2012 at 06:20 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Entry Level Hiring: The 2012 Report

NB. Bumped to the front.

Time once again for the entry level hiring report. Woo hoo!

We will report the following information: 

Basic Information: Name, Hiring School, JD Institution, JD Year of Graduation

Other Degrees: Type of Degree,  Degree Granting Institution, Degree Subject

Fellowship: Institution and Type of Fellowship

Clerkship: Court (e.g., 9th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, etc.)

Areas of Speciality (up to three)

The information will be aggregated on this spreadsheet (which is reproduced below and which you can view and download by clicking on this link); scroll across (using the little triangle-looking thing at the bottom of the spreadsheet) to see all of the information we will be aggregating. 

Please leave the information in the comments, and, to protect those on the job market, please sign the comment with your real name. (Ideally, the reporting person would be either the hired individual or someone from the hiring committee at the hiring school.) If you would like to email information instead of posting it, please send it to Sarah Lawsky at slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu. Remember: you can't edit the spreadsheet yourself. To get your information into the spreadsheet, you must either post in the comments or email me.

We will also gather the names of schools that are doing no entry-level hiring this year (that's the second tab on the spreadsheet), so if you know for sure that your school is not doing entry-level hiring, please post that in the comments or email me.

If you see any errors, or if I have incorporated your information into the spreadsheet but you are not yet ready to make it public, please don't hesitate to email me, and I will take care of the problem as soon as I can.

Other links:

This report follows in the tradition of Larry Solum's excellent work over the course of many years. 

Here is last year's initial post, and here is last year's spreadsheet.

At the end of the whole process, there will be pretty pictures, like this.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on March 27, 2012 at 03:47 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (55) | TrackBack

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Entry Level Hiring: U.S. Advanced Law Degrees

At request, I've broken out U.S. law schools from which entry level candidates received (or expected to receive) higher law degrees: LL.M.s, SJDs, or JSDs. (Unlike the other summary of degrees, this includes both Other Degree (1) and Other Degree (2).)

LLM SJD
LL.M. or LL.M. expected: Georgetown 6; NYU 3; Yale 3; Florida 2; Harvard 2; Duke 1; JAG School 1; Penn 1; Temple 1; U Conn 1; Wisconsin 1. (The high number of Georgetown LL.M.s may be due at least in part to the fact that some of the Georgetown teaching fellowships also result in an LL.M.)

SJD, JSD  (or expected): Cornell 1; Harvard 1; Michigan 1; Penn 1; Yale 1.

Update 5/25/2011, 2:17pm: The Berkeley JSP program does not issue advanced law degrees (it grants PhDs), but the PhDs it issues are higher degrees granted by a U.S. law school. This year, there were two entry level hires who had or were expecting a PhD in JSP from Berkeley Law.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 25, 2011 at 01:17 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack