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

Monday, May 23, 2011

Entry Level Hiring: JD Schools

One of the questions this year's entry level hiring post addresses is, "How many people who got their JD from School X were hired on this year’s entry-level market?" Brian Leiter has done a definitive study on this question over time for graduates since 1995 who are teaching at the top 43 law schools. I thought it might be interesting to the look at this question for entry-level hiring reports from 2004 to this year. The below represents data pulled from Larry Solum's entry level hiring reports for 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and 2004 (I omitted 2010 because not much data was collected that year), and from this year's hiring report to date.

N.B.: This is as reported on the entry level hiring reports only. I cannot emphasize enough how incomplete this is. To get a real picture of entry level hiring over time, one would have to take Leiter's approach and look at the faculty of various law schools. This is a report on entry level hiring reports, not on entry level hiring.

That said, here's what I found (if you click on the picture, it will get bigger):

Jd_schools_comparison

Each year, Harvard and Yale together are the source of the initial JD of between 25% and 35% of the hires listed on the entry level hiring report; the group of NYU, Michigan, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, Berkeley, and Virginia (I selected these schools because these were the schools that had provided at least five hires in more than one year) provide the JDs for 30% to 40%; and all other schools represent 35% to 40%. All this seems pretty stable across the last seven years (though perhaps I am missing something).

Here's the spreadsheet I used to generate this graph. There are three tabs: some schools broken out, schools combined into the graph categories, and the graph itself. Some of the schools broken out (Texas, UCLA, Georgetown) ended up in the "other" category because they didn't represent more than five hires reported in more than one year. 

As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts, comments, suggestions, etc.

Also, remember: this is very incomplete and wrong as a report of entry level hiring, because it is based on years of incomplete data. 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 entry level hiring reports. 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 23, 2011 at 10:03 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Friday, May 20, 2011

Entry Level Hiring: Final Summary

Update, 5/20/2011: The charts and summaries below are accurate as of 5/20/2011. I will continue to add to the spreadsheet, but I will not update the charts or summaries. To be added to the spreadsheet, please email me, slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu. Also, a few entries say "Firstname Lastname," rather than the person's actual name, either by request or because the person currently has another job and I don't know whether he has notified that job of his new position. 

We have reports of 155 people being hired, at 99 different law schools. 

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

Here is the full spreadsheet.

The spreadsheet has lots of different worksheets, with lots of information--download it and see!

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions:

Q: How many people who got their JD from School X were hired on this year’s entry-level market?

JD School.20110519

Harvard 20; Yale 19; NYU 10; Michigan 10; Columbia 9; Stanford 9; Berkeley 6; Chicago 6; Duke 5; Cornell 4; Notre Dame 3; Penn 3; Boston College 3; Texas 3; Georgetown 3; Hastings 3; Other 39.

Schools in the "other" category with two JDs who were hired: Arkansas; British Columbia; Howard; USC; Virginia.

Schools in the "other" category with one JD who was hired: Barry; Cardozo; Connecticut; Florida; George Washington; Georgia State; Hebrew U; Lewis & Clark; LSU; Maine; Melbourne; None [no initial law degree]; Northwestern; Oregon; San Diego; Sao Paolo; Sorbonne; Suffolk; Sydney; Tel Aviv; Temple; Tennessee; Toronto; UCLA; University of Ljubljana; Vienna; Washington & Lee; Washington University; Wisconsin.

Q: How many people who got an entry level hiring job had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

107 (69%) had a fellowship; 77 (about 50%) had an advanced degree; 89 (about 57%) had a clerkship.

Nonproportional Venn diagram:

Hiring Venn.20110519
Q: Tell me more about these advanced degrees. 

Okay, but first a caveat: Although 18 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 77 "highest" advanced degrees broke down like this:

Type of Degree.20110519
D. Jur., SJD, or JSD (or SJD or JSD expected) 4; LL.M. (or LL.M. expected) 15; Ph.D. (or Ph.D. expected) 37; Masters (or Masters expected) 20; MD 1.

Topics ranged all over the map. For the 37 Ph.D.s, for example:

PhD Fields.20110519
For Ph.D.s: Economics or finance 7; history (including legal history) 6; political science (including political science and public policy) 5; law or law-related field (law, comparative law, JSP) 5.

"Other" fields (one each) include Cellular & Molecular Bio; Chemical Engineering; Clinical Psychology; Comparative Literature; Education; Educational Administration; English; Government; Philosophy; Pharmacology & Cell Biology; Public Policy & Sociology; Science & Tech Studies; and Sociology.

Masters degrees were similarly all over the place. Here (pop-up window) is a chart that breaks all this information down. (The same pivot chart is included in the spreadsheet if you want to mess around with it.)

Q: How long ago did these entry-level hires get their initial law degrees?

Years Since Grad.20110519
No Initial Law Degree 1; Zero to Four (Graduated 2007-2011) 25; Five to Nine (Graduated 2002-2006) 76;  Ten to 19 (Graduated 1992-2001) 46; Twenty or More (Graduated before 1992) 7.

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

Gender.20110519
Men 96 (about 62%); women 59 (about 38%). (Let's say this is right within +/-2 people.)

Q: Did we learn anything interesting about subject areas?

We definitely learned that the entry level hires this year had incredibly diverse specialities, from Criminal Law to Space Law to Tax to Law of the Sea to Law and Sexuality to Cross-Border Insolvency, and on and on--in fact, the hires named 108 different fields of specialty! (I did this differently from the "what kind of degrees" question--here, if someone listed three fields of speciality, I included all three.) You can see the full alphabetical list of specialties here (pop-up window)--it's pretty amazing. (We did not get information about the specialties of 17 people who were hired.)

As for which fields were most popular--15 people listed Civ Pro as an area of interest, 13 people listed Con Law, 11 people listed crim, and 10 people listed each of Legal History, Tax, and Contracts. In the single digits, Environmental had 9; International Law and Crim Pro, 8 each; IP and Corporations, 7 each; and so on down the line. You can see the full list organized by number of people who stated an interest here (pop-up window).

Q: This is all wrong! I know for a fact that more people from School Y were hired! Plus, you account for only 108 different law schools, and there are 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. (It is, however, in the ballpark of Larry Solum's reports--he generally seemed to get reports of around 150 or 160 entry-level hires--151 in 2009, for example.)

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. (For example, last time MB asked for a proportional Venn diagram, and one of the commenters knew of a site that generated them, so I ran one and posted it.)

Q: What does it all mean?

 I have no idea. But it's been fun! 

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 20, 2011 at 09:14 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Monday, May 16, 2011

The Anti-Entry Level Hiring Report

As an excellent counterpoint to the entry-level hiring report, I strongly recommend Samuel Buell, Becoming a Legal Scholar, 110 Mich. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012), and would  be very curious to hear what folks think about it. I looked for excerpts to pull, but I would have ended up excerpting the whole thing, so here's the abstract:

There is now a literature on how to become a law professor. The first book-length treatment of the subject, Becoming A Law Professor, displays a common fault of this literature in directing candidates’ focus on process at the expense of substance. The present body of material on the market for new legal academics does not persuade candidates of the necessity of locating their agendas and voices as scholars, much less does it show them how to go about that vital search. It also risks contributing to a tendency of credentialing processes to standardize resumes without improving outcomes. A second-generation literature is needed: on how to become a legal scholar. This Review explains the need for that literature and suggests some directions for it.

This article captures a lot of what makes me uncomfortable about the hiring report, notwithstanding how fun it was to put together. Although do note this excerpt from Buell's article:

I admit to a full share of responsibility in this process of standardizing teaching candidates. Few things irritate me more in the hiring process than candidates who evidence a failure to have consulted the resources on preparing for the law teaching market. If you can’t be bothered to do the basic legwork of using the internet to find out the fundamentals of the market in which you hope to compete, how serious can you be about doing the job you are trying to get? (Watch what I do, not what I say: Read the literature on how to handle the job market in spite of my criticisms of it.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 16, 2011 at 09:34 AM in Books, Entry Level Hiring Report, Life of Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Entry Level Hiring: Deadline/Reminder, Information, Question

Deadline and Reminder: I will post the final entry-level hiring summary on May 16. No information received after May 15 will appear in the summary or the spreadsheet. Please post information about entry level hires in the comments to the initial post, or email me directly at slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu. 

Information: If you want to know more about the schools entry level hires come from (i.e., where entry level hires obtained their JDs), Leiter has a nice report here. An 2009 Journal of Legal Education article by Daniel Martin Katz et al. takes a look at the same topic using social network analysis. 

Question: What is this report for?

For law professors, maybe it just satisfies curiosity: who's getting hired? For many people who were on the market this year, I would imagine it's a bit more than that, emotionally. 

For people considering going on the market, the summary and spreadsheet are more problematic, for many reasons. Just to name one: the summary appears to provide information about what a good candidate looks like, but we don't see the people who weren't hired, and without that, we're not getting much information about what folks should do to get an entry-level job. For example, if the chart shows that three people who had fellowships at Law School X were hired as entry-level professors and you're deciding whether to take a fellowship at Law School X, it matters a lot how many of those fellows were on the market: three? Or 50?

But maybe this report provides more than just a way to satisfy curiosity, or put closure on a difficult process, or get deeply problematic and misleading information about how to be a good job candidate--maybe it is potentially useful in some other way. I don't know, to be honest, and would love to hear folks' thoughts, in part just because I'm curious, and in part because knowing another use for this project could help me slice the data for the final report. 

And remember: May 15! Comment on the initial post, or email me, slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on May 5, 2011 at 09:57 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Entry Level Hiring 2011: Preliminary Summary

More information is available on the spreadsheet, but here’s where things stand as of April 20, 2011, first thing in the morning. (This is a preliminary report only. We are continuing to gather information. Please post new information in the comments to the original post, or email me directly, slawsky /at/ law /dot/ uci /dot/ edu.)

We have reports of 121 people having been hired, at 79 different law schools.

Five schools have reported doing no entry level hiring this year. 

Answers to some frequently asked questions:

Q: How many people who got their JD from School X were hired on this year’s entry-level market?

  JD Hiring Diagram

Harvard 17; Yale 14; NYU 10; Columbia 9; Michigan 9; Stanford 7; Berkeley 5; Chicago 4; Hastings 3; Notre Dame 3; Penn 3.

Schools in the “other” category with two JDs who were hired: Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Howard, U British Columbia, U Virginia.

Schools in the “other” category with one JD who was hired:  Barry, Cardozo, Florida, George Washington, Hebrew U, Lewis & Clark, LSU, Maine, None [no initial JD], Northwestern, Suffolk, Tel Aviv, Texas, U Arkansas, U Conn, U Melbourne, U San Diego, U Tennessee, U Toronto, UCLA, University of Ljubljana, USC, Washington & Lee, Washington University, Wisconsin.

Update: bar graph of the above information for all you pie chart haters:

JD Schools Bar

Q: How many people who got an entry level hiring job had a fellowship, degree, or clerkship?

87 had a fellowship; 57 had an advanced degree; 76 had a clerkship. Here’s how that broke down:

Hiring Venn

Q: How long ago did these entry-level hires get their initial law degrees?

Years Since Degree
No Initial Law Degree 1; Zero to Four (Graduated 2007-2011) 17; Five to Nine (Graduated 2002-2006) 64; Ten or more (Graduated before 2002) 39. [Update: see below for bar graph, with additional category broken out.]

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

Excellent! Please tell me, and I will add it to the spreadsheet. This is only a preliminary report; there are certainly people on the market this year whose information has not made it to this spreadsheet, and the information we have may be incomplete.We can report this information only if people send it to us. Comments on the blog are fine, or email me directly, slawsky /at/ law /dot/ uci /dot/ edu, if you would prefer not to comment on the blog. 

Q: How about Interesting Question Z?

"Interesting question Z"? What is that supposed to mean? Be more specific! The spreadsheet has lots more information—you can download it here and slice and dice this information however you want. If you find something interesting, post it in the comments, or let me know so I can post it to the blog. Or post your specific question in the blog comments, as either I or another reader will probably be willing to put together summaries of this information in a variety of ways. 

Update: Proportionate Venn for MB et al., courtesy of an anonymous poster and this website.

Proportionate Venn
 
Male/Female, for Anonymous | Apr 20, 2011 5:06:16 PM [let's say this is right within +/-2 people]:

Gender Pie

Updated Update: for ML, years since grad further broken out [now in two different graphical forms!]:

Years Since Grad 20 and More

Years Since Hiring Bar


 

Posted by Dan Markel on April 20, 2011 at 09:45 AM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Entry Level Hiring: The 2011 Report.

Just a reminder that you can find the entry level hiring thread for 2011 over here. Please send your info to the incomparable Sarah Lawsky or preferably enter it as a comment on that thread over here.

 

Also, although we're ten or so days late, happy belated anniversary to the PrawfsBlawg community. It may be just me, but I do think all my co-conspirators and all of the readers who comment and share information here have helped build a better community for legal academics. That topic of building a better  community for prawfs will actually be the subject of a panel at this summer's SEALS conference, with a particular focus on how blogs can improve things.  If you have any suggestions for things we can do here at Prawfsblawg to make your life as a prawf better, please feel free to send me or one of the other folks on the masthaed an email -- of course, if you're under 30, feel free to send me a text or FB message :-)

Last, on that subject of building community, I'm excited to announce that Brian Galle and Dave Fagundes along with some other folks will be using the Prawfs platform at some point in the near future to instigate a "law review review" series. There's a category archive under that name now and gradually we will fill that archive with interviews with law review editors, peer review journal editors perhaps, and threads in which you can boast and whine about the production and dissemination of legal scholarship.

 P.S. Here's evidence that the end of the semester is nigh: a flash mob breaks out in former Prawf guest Michael Helfand's contracts class at Pepperdine.  As Michael writes:" You'll notice I'm wearing a T-Shirt that my students made for me.  It's got my supposed look alike on the front (Bill Murray) and I promised to wear it in class.  The clip breaks after I've called on a student who poses the following question: "would you like to play the love game."  Here's what ensues (special connection for Lady GaGa fans).

Posted by Dan Markel on April 16, 2011 at 06:26 PM in Blogging, Entry Level Hiring Report, Law Review Review, Life of Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Monday, April 04, 2011

Entry Level Hiring: The 2011 Report.

NB. This post will get bumped to the front every now and then.

I've just been informed that, for understandable reasons, the inimitable Larry Solum will not be doing an entry level report this year; accordingly, in the interest of slaking the thirst for this information, we'll have an open thread where folks can report new hires to the tenure track at law schools. In order to ensure the information is accurate, I'm going to ask rising prawfs or folks from the schools where they are being hired to sign their names to comments to this post.

You should feel free to include the kind of information that Larry collected in the past. For example, just to pick the folks we hired here at FSU a couple years ago, here's what their info looks like as a template:

    Shawn J. Bayern, JD CALIFORNIA – Berkeley 2006, U.S. Court of Appeals Clerkship, VAP DUKE

    Tara Leigh Grove, JD HARVARD 2002, U.S. Court of Appeals Clerkship, Research and Teaching Fellowship HARVARD (Climenko Fellow & Lecturer on Law)

    Franita Tolson, JD CHICAGO 2005, U.S. District Court Clerkship & U.S. Court of Appeals Clerkship, VAP NORTHWESTERN

However, if you like, you can also add a brief area of interest and insert a link to the person's ssrn page or webpage with cv to help introduce the world of prawfs to these great new emerging voices.

To start things off, here are Florida State's two very talented new folks:

Jay Kesten, hired by Florida State, JD University of British Columbia, LL.M. Harvard, Wake Forest VAP (specializing in business law), British Columbia Supreme Court.  

Mark Spottswood, hired by Florida State, JD Northwestern, Northwestern VAP (specializing in the institutional design of dispute resolution and civil procedure), ND Ill., 6th Cir.

The information will be aggregated on this spreadsheet (which is reproduced below and which you can download); click on the spreadsheet and scroll across to see all of the information we will be aggregating. Please also include the year the person's JD was awarded.

Updated Update, 4/11/2011: Please rely on the spreadsheet, not the comments, for information about hires, as there is a fair amount of information in the spreadsheet not reflected in the comments, including some hires for whom the information was received via email. (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.) [fixed 4/16/2011 to be correct email address. Oy. --SBL.] 

Also, the new tab in the spreadsheet is now called Prelim Data Summary, rather than analysis. This is to emphasize that the spreadsheet just counts and summarizes the information we have. I strongly encourage people to download the spreadsheet and run whatever analysis they would like (e.g., compare number of hires from a particular law school to the size of the class at that law school, as someone suggested in the comments). If you would like us to post your analysis on the blog, email it to Sarah Lawsky at the above email address. 

Even more updated: No need to do any counting count by hand--I have added two new tabs. One has a chart listing each school that has hired at least on person, and the tab has a chart that lists all of the schools that were the source of hiring (i.e., initial JD), with the number of people hired who went to that school. E.g., if it says Harvard 16, 16 people who got their initial JD from Harvard got entry-level jobs this year. Pivot charts FTW!

 

Posted by Dan Markel on April 4, 2011 at 12:13 PM in Blogging, Entry Level Hiring Report, Life of Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (113) | TrackBack