Do They Deserve Gold Stars or Red Flags? Which Law Schools are Promulgating Questionable Claims of Placement Success?

In 2011, the ABA revised its consumer information provision (Standard 509) to require accredited law schools to conduct nine-months-out employment surveys of graduates and provide segmented data. These surveys revealed, beyond any residual doubt, that law schools had been massively inflating their job placement success rates on their websites and in their promotional literature. Revealed that our oh-so-progressive legal educators-- our profession's very own "Republic of Conscience"-- are little more than a gang of puffed-up quick buck artists, with approximately the same regard for their students as tobacco manufacturers have for their customers or military contractors have for the troops. 

The survey requirement was unquestionably a watershed reform. But these surveys are not 100% precise. Not every newly minted JD fills out the placement survey, and law schools are permitted to guess the employment status of non-responsive grads from publicly available information, such as Linked-In or Facebook profiles, from resumes uploaded to Symplicity or other resume collection sites, or from a google search.

http://www.nalp.org/lseotf_bestpract [1]


If you think about it, this guesswork leaves ample room for law school career service functionaries to present a false picture of employment outcomes, even if they cannot scam as brazenly as in their pre-survey glory days. That firm listed on a recent grad’s Facebook profile-- is it a legitimate JD-required small firm job or is it an empty shell of a solo practice conjured up in an effort to save face by some kid whose true status is "JD/Mom’s Basement"? That vaguely white-collarish job snagged by a recent grad--is it a true JD-Advantage job or did the kid obtain a nonlaw job in spite of, not because, of his or her law degree?  

In June, 2014, a mere three years after revised Standard 509 went into effect, the ABA adopted a protocol for reviewing law graduate employment data. One may applaud the ABA’s adoption of reform or oversight measures, however piecemeal and snail-paced, and I do. Though there is the little matter of the thousands of young lives being destroyed in the meantime by the law school scam. 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx6Von5RNu-hMHhodlJiSmNRSUE/edit

According to the new ABA protocol, 10 schools are selected at random for review of their reported employment data. Additionally, the ABA will do a "red flag review" of schools with "significant inconsistencies or anomalies in their data reporting" or which are the subject of "credible reports of incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading reporting."  Whether the review is "random" or "red flag," the ABA has the same three levels of auditing, always beginning at Level One and advancing, at the ABA's discretion, to Levels Two or Three. Level One is not serious, as it grants the law school a presumption that its data is complete and accurate. Level Two (independent verification of some placement data) and Level Three (independent review and confirmation of all placement data) look okay, but I wonder how often they will be conducted. (for more detail on what each auditing level involves, click the link above, and go to p. 4-5).


Which schools deserve close scrutiny? I would say schools that have reported dramatic increases in the percentage of grads obtaining bar-required jobs and those that report an unusually high percentage of grads obtaining JD-Advantage jobs. I am listing these schools below. I have used the excellent employment rate calculator at the "Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers" site. 

http://educatingtomorrowslawyers.du.edu/law-jobs/calculator

I make no accusations. It may that these schools have found innovative ways to achieve placement success or have benefited from advantageous local conditions. It may be that these schools deserve praise even from scamblogging types. But law schools in general have a filthy history of deceiving prospective students and others with deliberately misleading claims. So before handing out gold stars, I would suggest waving a few red flags. 

Percentage of Grads Who Obtained JD-Advantage Jobs (Full-time, Long-Term, Nonfunded), Class of 2013.

1	QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY	27.7%
2	HAMLINE UNIVERSITY	24.3%
3	NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY	23.1%
4	GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY	22.4%
5	CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA	21.8%
6	SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY	21.4%
7	BALTIMORE, UNIVERSITY OF	20.3%
8	ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY	19.6%
9	CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY	19.5%
10	WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY	19.2%
11	ATLANTA'S JOHN MARSHALL LAW SHOOL	18.8%
12	INDIANA UNIVERSITY - INDIANAPOLIS	18.7%
13	MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	17.9%
14	TULSA, UNIVERSITY OF	17.9%
15	OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY	17.8%
16	ST. THOMAS, UNIVERSITY OF (MINNESOTA)	17.7%
17	MAINE, UNIVERSITY OF	17.7%
18	CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF	17.6%
19	CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW	17.1%
20	MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY	17.0%
21	SOUTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	16.9%
22	FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY	16.3%
23	MISSOURI, UNIVERSITY OF	16.0%
24	HOWARD UNIVERSITY	15.9%
25	DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY	15.1%
26	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	15.0%
27	LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF	14.8%
28	CINCINNATI, UNIVERSITY OF	14.8%
29	ELON UNIVERSITY	14.8%
30	LOYOLA UNIVERSITY-CHICAGO	14.7%

Percentage of Grads Who Obtained JD-Required Jobs (Full-Time, Long-Term, Nonfunded), Class of 2011 v. Class of 2013.

School	2011 Rate	2013 Rate	Change from 2011 Rate to 2013 Rate
SOUTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	38.2%	62.0%	23.8
NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY OF	47.6%	69.2%	21.5
APPALACHIAN SCHOOL OF LAW	30.8%	50.0%	19.2
ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF	46.3%	64.1%	17.8
WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF	51.6%	67.8%	16.1
WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW	43.6%	59.1%	15.5
TOLEDO, UNIVERSITY OF	34.8%	50.0%	15.2
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY	50.0%	64.6%	14.6
WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY	47.3%	61.8%	14.5
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY	45.8%	59.9%	14.1
SOUTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF	55.0%	68.2%	13.2
COLORADO, UNIVERSITY OF	54.0%	67.0%	13.1
WASHBURN UNIVERSITY	50.0%	62.9%	12.9
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY	59.6%	72.4%	12.8
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY-CARBONDALE	59.5%	72.1%	12.6
KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF	51.8%	64.2%	12.4
DAYTON, UNIVERSITY OF	51.5%	63.7%	12.2
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY	41.0%	53.1%	12.0
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK	36.9%	48.6%	11.6
IDAHO, UNIVERSITY OF	51.0%	62.4%	11.4
NORTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	48.1%	59.5%	11.3
IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF	65.6%	76.3%	10.7
UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO-SUNY	51.8%	62.2%	10.4
CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF	76.4%	86.5%	10.2
BOSTON UNIVERSITY	50.9%	61.2%	10.2
WIDENER UNIVERSITY-HARRISBURG	44.4%	54.5%	10.2
BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL	47.3%	57.3%	10.1
OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY	56.7%	66.7%	10.0
ALBANY LAW SCHOOL OF UNION UNIVERSITY	50.0%	59.7%	9.7
NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF	61.1%	70.7%	9.6
WHITTIER LAW SCHOOL	17.1%	26.7%	9.6
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL	35.0%	44.5%	9.5
OREGON, UNIVERSITY OF	41.4%	50.3%	9.0
MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	59.4%	68.2%	8.9
CALIFORNIA-DAVIS, UNIVERSITY OF	56.4%	65.3%	8.9

----------------------------------------------

Note:

[1]  This link describes NALP data collection "best practices." However, it is clear that the ABA has adopted NALP's guidelines. The following link, to a memo issued by ABA honchos Barry Currier and Scott Norberg in 2012, indicates that the ABA views the "existing NALP Best Practices Guide for Managing Law School Employment Outcomes" as setting forth the "requirements that schools must follow in collecting, maintaining and reporting this [employment] data."

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/december_2012_council_meeting/2012_draft_proposal_auditing_of_employment_data.authcheckdam.pdf