The Plural of Anecdote is not Data...

I've…seen things you people wouldn't believe…lawyers doing traffic violation cases for $50. I watched JDs sling lattes in the dark at the local hipster coffee shop near the Golden Gate Bridge. All those…graduates…will be lost in time, like tears…in…rain. Time to do doc review…

...but when does it become data?  When N = 15?  N = 50?  N = 10,000 graduates per year?  When does someone finally agree that people are struggling to practice law, not because of their own ineptitude, but because they can't even get started?

By my count, I found that  N was approximately equal to 22 in the case of a thread on JDU that asked about whether anyone had ever practiced law.  The thread and link is reproduced below the break, but a couple of stand-out comments are here.  One is by "bittersweet":

bittersweet (Mar 4, 2015 - 5:40 pm)

'97 Grad. If you are not counting DR, never practiced. I disagree with that assessment BTW, but that's another discussion.

I looked for a "real" job as an attorney for 2+ years before doing doc review full time. By then I was so far behind I had no choice. Even during DR I continue to search for that unicorn - I mean "real" job. I can usually get as far as an interview about every other year or so, but it still hasn't happened.

At this point, looking for a "real" job as outside of law as I can afford while still owing 60K for law school.

The other is from "kansas", a long-time JDU participant, who had the following comment:


kansas (Mar 6, 2015 - 12:44 am)

I wish I had never practiced. I did though, was determined to do it. First: solo shop, split fee. He gave me every bad case that paid $500 up front, I got a few clients after the first year, but I made 13K in year 1 working 70 hours. Year 3, I told him I needed 36k plus a percentage of new biz, but then discovered he hadn't been paying the withholding for the staff (and me) and left. Corp temp for a while, shouldn't have left that probably. A disastrous stint as a state revenue agent (everyone in the remote office I was at was related, and trailer trash, except for me). Back to private practice, a small firm with ex biglaw-ish partners, $40k for me and 70 hours a week, no lie, and no client contact at all - they knew how it was done. Split for another little firm, a distant shirttail relative partner hired me. She died, I carried on for a couple years but the remaining partners decided to axe my practice area, they were PI litigators, I was RE and tax/regulatory, and they weren't ever going to make me a partner or let me develop the practice. So, solo. Did it for some years, it was always hard though I had a few decent business clients. Not enough unfortunately. Lot of small business tax controversy, and I can't recommend that, it somehow never ends up billing out. I managed to get a job with a company that does contracts management for a particular type of commercial real estate. It pays okay and I like the work. But not super stable, it's sort of boom and bust. I am applying for federal contracts mgt jobs like a boss. Wish me luck.

The comments all speak for themselves, but what is striking here is that kansas is the arguable "success" compared to the other posters in the thread, but even then the lack of opportunities, low pay and/or lack of paying clients, difficult working conditions and everything else led to one conclusion - getting out as soon as possible.  Bittersweet graduated long before the Great Recession, the favorite Cartel whipping-boy for why the market seems to refuse to absorb new lawyers at the current rate of production, yet even in the so-called "golden years" things were not rosy and there are still significant loans to pay.

For every ScamDean or LawProf that says that "a law degree is valuable" or "a law degree is versatitle," I would wager there are at least twenty graduates paying on their loans while working doc review, doing non-law jobs, or trying to get out of law altogether who would respond with a resounding "no way!" Valuable and versatile for the law schools themselves, perhaps; not so much for their graduates.

As applications decline, enrollments fall and law schools poach each other's students in internecine competition for income, it is truly gratifying to see actual data have its intended, corrective effects on the law school "market."  It's amazing what a little transparency can do.  0Ls, pay heed to these warnings before making your decisions.

Love in the Time of Scholara, featuring Seton Hall Law Prof. Paula Franzese's latest law review article.

Are you looking for love in all the wrong places? Perhaps you would feel differently if you attended Seton Hall School of Love, I mean School of Law, a second-tier bower of bliss located in lovely Newark, New Jersey, which features such earthly and spiritual delights as a credential allegedly worth a million dollars, human rights law plus tourist fun in Zanzibar, and the nurturance of multiple empathetic pathways to meaning. To wit: Simkovic, safari, and social justice.

Love, it is true, can quickly seize the gentle heart. And not only erotic love (eros) or sacrificial love (agape), but also the intense emotional bond that blossoms between an incoming law student and his or her own self-destructive illusions (atë). This form of love is most passionately celebrated in the moral and intellectual honeymoon that is as Seton Hall Law Prof. Paula Franzese’s first year Property course, specifically via an inspirational event she stages called Loving the Law Day. See Paula Franzese, Law Teaching for the Conceptual Age, 44 Seton Hall L.Rev 967 (2014).

"We provide pathways to meaning when we communicate to our students by words and actions the importance of heeding the call to service and when we help them to find ways to promote the common good. Time and again I remind my classes that the surest way out of our own pain is to help others find ways out of theirs.  Particularly now, when so many are denied access to the law. . . there has never been a more important time for us, the lawyers, to enter the fray. 

*** 

At bottom, the ability to derive meaning from our experiences as lawyers depends in significant measure on whether or not we are willing to believe that our profession is good and noble. I believe that it is, and I communicate that faith unabashedly. I ask my students to consider acting and speaking as if they love the law, and then to watch as their experiences begin to match their level of rhetoric. Teaching with meaning can transmute “the dull details into romance.” To that end, every February, right around Valentine's Day, my first year class celebrates Loving the Law. . . . In anticipation of the day, the group puts together a book of images, quotes, case law excerpts and literary references that hold particular meaning for them, as well as a video montage of inspiring law-related clips from celebrated speeches, oral arguments, films and documentaries that represent the best that lawyers can be. Each student is invited to bring in a guest(s) who has made a difference in that student's life (whether a parent, spouse, partner, dear friend, or mentor) to join us for the celebration, during which we hear from practitioners, judges, policy-makers, upper-class students and faculty on why they have chosen to love the law and how they treat it as if they love it.  The most satisfying part of the experience comes when each class member introduces his or her guest, indicating why that person matters so much. As lawyers, that is part of what I ask my students to do: to remember to see what needs to be seen and to remain anchored in gratitude for the people on whose shoulders they stand. 

History teaches that the principal cause of human suffering is forgetfulness. I want my students to remember where they come from and to call to mind the struggles and sacrifices made by those who came before them, in generations past and in more recent memory. They have been called to this craft to vindicate the hopes and dreams of those ancestors. They are here to use the formidable instrument of the law to be givers of hope and a voice for those who have yet to find their own. As lawyers, they will close the gap between what is and what ought to be."

          Franzese, at 1008, 1011-1012.

"Playin' a fool's game, hopin' to win/ And tellin' those sweet lies. . ." I wish I could be more tolerant of this well-intentioned nonsense, but how can its effect be anything other than to reinforce the hype that lured many naïve kids into six-figure indebtedness in the first place, and all for a chance to compete for scraps in a swamped and disillusioning profession?  

It may be unkind to say, but it does not surprise me that Professor Franzese (from what I could tell) has rather limited experience as a practitioner. Her faculty web page does not include a CV, but according to information on wikipedia and in a biographical squib, she was born in 1960 and became a law professor in 1986, at age 26. That is a very early start to an academic career, and a long time to remain within its well-compensated bubble. 

Contra Franzese, this is a profession for realists and cynics, not gushy idealists seeking to "vindicate the hopes and dreams of [their] ancestors"or be "givers of hope." Our fiduciary duty is to our clients rather than the common good. Moreover, practicing lawyers operate within a very tight set of formal and informal professional requirements and procedural constraints. As well, the truly voiceless usually cannot afford legal services, and private sector lawyers need to attract paying clients so that they can try to pay off their huge student loans, the ones that allow Seton Hall Law to set its tuition at $50,000 a year, thus making Franzese and her tenured colleagues rich. With only the rarest of exceptions, then, the relief that a lawyer obtains for a client, if any, comes from invoking law as is, not law as ought.

I won’t even address the struggles and constraints imposed upon the very substantial number of lawyers who are unable to carve out a place in the profession. (Due to law schools having graduated way too many lawyers for decades, thus making Franzese and her tenured colleagues rich).

Just about everybody in the profession understands these very basic points except self-deluded or scamming law professors. Who, with their six-figure salaries, light workloads, and classroom bully pulpits, can preach to their naive students about the noble goodness achieved through heroic struggle and sacrifice. They can preach love too, though none has yet offered to accept his or her salary in sonnets and red, red roses. Say what you will about Bernie Madoff, but he never pretended to be Victor Frankl or Martin Luther King. Some scam-loving law professors, on the other hand, seem to have a rather inflated sense of themselves as bringers of liberation and enlightenment.

University of Connecticut Law Dean Timothy Fisher provides reassuring context to the school's fall in the US News ranking: the only ranking component where the school suffered a significant decline is employment.

A correspondent has provided OTLSS with an email that University of Connecticut Law Dean Timothy Fisher sent to members of the UConn Law School community in order to soften the blow of the school’s decline from 58th to 63rd place in the annual US News rankings. (below)

The email notes that, notwithstanding the rankings hit, there are still many points of pride for those who love UConn Law. For instance, UConn has a well-regarded part-time program. And, unlike most law schools, UConn's LSAT score rose at the 25^th percentile, so UConn can boast some comparatively smart dummies. Also, UConn has recently hired a dynamic new leader for its Career Planning Center (someone who is a former partner at the same firm where Dean Fisher and his wife Dina were partners). 

According to Dean Fisher’s email, UConn Law experienced a significant decline in only one component among the many components that make up the overall US News ranking— namely, "employment numbers" for its graduating class. For the UConn Law graduating class of 2013, 41.2% of the class obtained full-time bar-required non-solo non-school-funded law jobs nine months out, compared to 52.8% of the class of 2012. Indeed, if UConn were ranked solely by employment score (full-time, bar-required, non-solo, non-school-funded), it would come in 157th place.

But again, a law school’s excellence is made up of many components, which US News itself recognizes by including in its ranking calculation such factors as faculty compensation and the number of volumes in the law library. And perhaps, as Fisher gently suggests, graduate employment is overemphasized as a component of quality assessment, especially when that single component drags down the ranking of an otherwise excellent cathedral of legal learning like UConn. 

The failure of recent graduates to find jobs is something that is happening outside the law school. Should not a law school's quality be judged only on what is happening inside its magnificent Gothic quadrangle, such as scintillating law review articles, symposiums, and moot court competitions? Is UConn Law's granite facade any less majestic, its archways any less pointed, or its windows any less lancet simply because a substantial proportion of its young graduates are contemplating huge debts and ruined lives?

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

Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:45 AM, UConn Law Office of the Dean <UConnLawCONNECT@law.uconn.edu> wrote:

Dear Friends:

We have received this year’s law school rankings from US News and World Report, which lowered our ranking to 63 among the country’s law schools. I want to assure you of our continued attention to the real issues on which the rankings are based. We know that rankings can be volatile and are not the best measure of a law school's quality. Nonetheless, we are going to use this report as a springboard for a period of self-reflection – when we can focus on what we do exceptionally well, and what we are going to do even better.

We take note that the only significant downward component of our rankings was the employment numbers for members of the graduating class of 2013. We are looking into the basis for the change in those figures. There are at the same time elements of the rankings for which we can be proud. Our overall score rose, we now have the 6th ranked part time program in the entire country, and the 25th percentile LSAT score of our current 1L class rose as well. We are pleased that our recent hire of James Ray, most recently a partner at Robinson & Cole, as leader of our Career Planning Center will bring innovative and aggressive approaches to career placement for our students.

The true value of UConn Law School and the education we provide is realized in our first-rate students and our first-rate faculty. This is an exciting place to study and work. We look forward to meeting with creativity and energy the challenges facing all law schools. As always, we invite input from our alumni on how we can do even better.

To all members of the UConn Law School community, I urge you to deepen your engagement with our school and our students. Your support is vital, and much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Timothy Fisher

Dean and Professor of Law

Northwestern Law Dean Daniel Rodriguez reports that law professors "in the trenches" are "remarkably resilient and positive" amidst the ongoing "war on law schools." (Updated)

Don’t you know there’s a war on? I hope you can spare a thought, or even a prayer, for the fighting men and women of the law professoriate, who have displayed such admirable fortitude through the long and arduous years of law school combat. Dug into 200 ABA-approved trenches, our faculty warriors are valiantly holding back the mighty onslaught of the scambloggers, those barbarians who are waging their relentless online "war on law schools." The law professors know that they are fighting to preserve our way of legal education, in all its successful constructiveness. 

These are the times that try men’s scams. The atmosphere is portentous, and the future contours of the battlefield none of us can predict exactly. Fortunately, former AALS Generalissimus Daniel Rodriguez, Commander of Northwestern and recipient of the coveted Order of the Forgivable Loan, has returned from a tour of the front with very encouraging news about faculty morale.  

True, our forces face a long hard slog. Reinforcements are few, as faculty hiring has been postponed. The supply lines which deliver essential consumables, also known as One-Ls, have been severely disrupted, and we have heard troubling reports of battlefield commanders foraging law students from each other. The cruel enemy is deploying its bottomless arsenal of screed and invective. (Nando, you magnificent bastard, I read your blog!) And worst of all are the casualties-- so many law professors have sustained grievous wounds to their egos and hurt to their feelings. (When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was a tenured professor’s ego, you will know what to do!) 

And yet in spite of everything, the law school heroes remain at their classroom posts, remarkably resilient and positive about their mission. And the legal scholarship continues largely unabated. 

You want to know who to thank for the luxury of your high-quality legal education that inculcates the value of a manifestly comprehensive and creative set of theoretical and experiential skills in a fluid marketplace? Thank a law professor. Thank a law dean. To quote Winston Churchill on the subject of non-dischargeable student loans: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few."

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

Highlights from Commander Rodriguez's dispatch ("Ambition and Anxiety in the Trenches"), June 9, 2014:

1.  "So, in the trenches are clear-eyed, smart, serious teacher-scholars, passionate about what they do, concerned about the challenges facing their law schools."

2.  "[T]he key threat from the war on law schools is that directed at the students who are investing, and the young alumni who have invested, in legal education is very much on the minds of our member school faculties."

3.  "Let the scamblogging games commence!! I should have added to above: law faculty with whom I meet are remarkably resilient and positive in the face of the bottomless pit of screed and invective that comes by way of (mostly) anonymous bloggers."

4. "The atmosphere of these visits reveals a high level of concern (of course) with the impact of the changing admissions structure and what it portends for law school benefits generally and faculty well-being particularly." 

5. "[T]here is a deep confidence, some might call it hubris, that the doing and disseminating of legal scholarship will continue largely unabated." 

6.  "[Law professors are] invested in preserving what is successful and constructive about the modern structure of legal education in the U.S.  In all, an encouraging picture, even if relentlessly under threat by those who reach a contrary conclusion (on much thinner evidence)."

7.  "[F]aculty members truly get that the core dilemma is how best to provide a high-quality education to the group of students, even as they come in often at smaller numbers, and, moreover, how to inculcate in them the value of a manifestly comprehensive, creative set of skills -- theoretical and experiential -- in a fluid marketplace, the future contours of which none of us can predict exactly."

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

UPDATE:  

On December 1, 2014, less than six months after the heartening assessment quoted above, Rodriguez relayed the alarming news that a civil war has broken out in loyalist ranks.  As quoted in the New York Times:  

""It's insane," Professor Rodriguez said. "We're in hand-to-hand combat with other schools.""

Fortunately, Rodriguez, ever the cool-headed warlord, assures us that "[W]e are taking all steps that urgent, not desperate, times call for."   

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/law-school-becomes-buyers-market-as-competition-for-best-students-increases/

So. Now we are engaged in a great law school war, testing whether this scam, or any scam, can long endure. 

Rankings Review: The UC-Irvine Problem

The complete 2016 U.S. News Rankings have come out.  Sardonically referred to as the "best law school rankings" the way one might refer to a list of "best totalitarian dictators" (Lukashenko?), the seriousness with which such list is taken in academic circles is the stuff of self-writing parody.  Every year, various well-meaning parties write a litany of criticisms of this thing only to be entirely ignored by the collective allure an eight-way tie for the 127th spot.

Despite the chidings of critics that comes like clockwork, people still give plenty of shits about this methodologically loose turd, so I find it necessary to post some sort of update here on the OTLSS site.

So here are the highlights from this years list:

• The T-14 remains the same.  Stop arguing over one-spot shifts.  Your little club is still intact.
• UC-Irvine debuts at number 30; I'd argue this was a controversial move to generate page views and discussion, except that it was totally predictable.
• By my calculations, among the biggest losers this year were Seattle, Lewis & Clark, Louisiana State, Rutgers-Camden, Penn State, Wayne State, Wake Forest, Indiana-Indianapolis, and Arkansas.
• By my calculations, among the biggest winners this year were St. Johns, Syracuse, Tennessee, Oregon, Hawaii, UNLV, SUNY-Buffalo, and Loyola-Marymount.
• If you can find any rational explanation for the identified winners and losers, there's a law school on line two wanting to hire you as assistant dean.
• Texas A&M makes the list in a tie for 149th, proving again that a new, more prestigious name can vault a school niceley.  Hamline and WM both dropped, but are poling their resources for a speed burst up the rankings next year.
• By my calculations, among schools in the top 100 last year, the average school dropped down about 1.3 spots.  I'll let you figure out how or why that happened.

If you still wanted for proof that these rankings are utterly baseless hogwash, UC-Irvine's immediate insertion into the 2nd tier should remove the last bits of the emperor's clothing.  Here we have a law school whose oldest graduates are in their third year of practice.  The school has little to no name recognition outside of California.  Indeed, the entire venture seemed to have the express purpose of gaming the U.S. News methodology and jump-starting a "top" law school.

U.S. News surely knows UC-Irvine was such a project.  And yet it gobbled up the bait anyway like the laziest fish in the ocean.  It ranked UC-Irvine higher than either UC-Davis or UC-Hastings, schools that ostensibly have been serving the same basic function for considerably longer.  It ranked UC-Irvine above the state flagship universities of Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, Illinois, Utah, Maryland, Florida, and a host of others.  Were it to move, it would instantly be the 2nd-highest ranked school in Texas.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is overall student outcomes. For the class of 2013, UC-Irvine's employment scores were around 50th and on par with Oklahoma and Wyoming, and UC-Irvine costs twice as much as either of those schools.  Their LST "Underemployment Score" puts it in company with Pepperdine, Cleveland-Marshall, Case Western, and Lewis & Clark.

So basically you have a school that's tailor-made to rank well and have a good reputation among academics, but with no proven track record of landing students well in debt-paying employment or producing alumni that contribute great things to the legal world.  While I obviously believe 30 to be way too high (doesn't this piss off the remainder of the 2nd tier?), it's also obvious the school is already on better footing than many of the lower-ranked established schools.

The difficulty of trying to place a school like UC-Irvine on a ranked list (even one with a generous use of six-way ties) basically undercuts the idea of a ranking entirely, if said idea wasn't undercut entirely already.  The criteria of an objective ranking normally cannot address a well-crafted plan to explicitly game that criteria.

Law School Transparency partially addresses these problems with its various metrics.  It seems  obvious that U.S. News has no interest in addressing these issues seriously, instead annually rolling out its old standbys with just enough alteration to cause consternation among the industry, before it  retreats back under the bridge of law school relevance.

While it's said more than enough this time of year, it's truly sad that law schools continue to pay any heed to this thing while there are much better metrics of a law school's success out there.

One can only hope that the dwindling pool of aspiring law students will make it to places like LST instead of using the U.S. News rankings as simple bias reinforcement.  Unfortunately, history suggests that law schools will continue to view this publication as more noteworthy than its own students' employment scores or default rates, and that a school like UC-Irvine will be comfortably ranked in the 25-35 range for some time to come.

Tracking the dramatic increase in law school acceptance rates, 2011-2014.

In my opinion, percentage of applicants accepted is the most important metric in tracking the decline in selectivity at ABA-accredited law schools, and the consequent devaluation of a JD degree. When a law school refuses to accept an applicant with substandard credentials, it is choosing its own reputation over the lucrative opportunity to monetize a dupe. But law schools are turning away far fewer applicants than they used to.

The decline in LSAT scores for incoming law students is important too, and we have discussed that. (See here and here) But law schools can "game" their LSAT numbers somewhat by enrolling likely applicants in LSAT prep courses, or by admitting a certain percentage of the class without an LSAT, which the ABA now allows.

The decline in GPAs for incoming law students is less important, though it may be worth a post at some point. Law schools do not have to game this stat, college students do that for themselves by taking easy courses or easy majors. (College flashback: An "American Studies" class where we piled into a vast lecture hall, standing room only, to watch reruns of "Green Acres" and then pretend to be intellectual by discussing the semiotics of it all. A reasonably coherent essay got you an "A." An unreasonably incoherent one got you a "B.")

In the tables below, I look at how many schools had particular acceptance rates for the incoming class of 2011 as compared with the incoming class of 2014. I then look at the the number of schools that have increased their acceptance rates and by how much during that three year period. I then list the law schools with the highest acceptance rates, the quasi-open enrollment ones that accept 70% or more. [1] Finally, I list the schools that have experienced the greatest percentage point increase in their acceptance rate between 2011 and 2014-- i.e. those schools that are most rapidly abandoning selectivity in the interest of keeping their gravy trains chugging a little longer.

% of applicants accepted	2011	2014
85+%	0	3
80-84%	1	7
75-79%	1	10
70-74%	5	14
65-69%	7	16
60-64%	5	23
55-59%	13	20
50-54%	15	26
45-49%	25	14
40-44%	26	25
35-39%	28	13
30-34%	18	10
25-29%	24	9
20-24%	20	4
15-19%	9	6
Under 15%	5	2

Law School	Acceptance Rate, 2014
Suffolk Univ.	87%
Thomas Cooley	85%
Southern Illinois Univ.	85%
Thomas Jefferson	84%
University of South Dakota	82%
Western New England	82%
Oklahoma City	82%
Mississippi College	81%
Capital Univ.	80%
New England Law	80%
Drake Univ.	78%
Florida Coastal	78%
Charleston School of Law	77%
Faulkner	77%
Valparaiso	77%
Samford	76%
Ave Marie	75%
Charlotte School of Law	75%
McGeorge	75%
Elon	75%
Indiana Univ.- Indianapolis	74%
Vermont Law School	74%
Whittier	74%
John Marshall (Chicago)	73%
Marquette Univ.	73%
Univ. of St. Thomas (Minnesota)	73%
Northern Kentucky	72%
Creighton	72%
Roger Williams	72%
Williamette	72%
Univ. of Louisville	70%
St. Mary’s	70%
Northern Illinois Univ.	70%
Hamline	70%

Change in Acceptance Rate, 2011-2014	# of Schools
Acceptance Rate up by 35-39%	2
Acceptance Rate up by 30-34%	3
Acceptance Rate up by 25-29%	15
Acceptance Rate up by 20-24%	24
Acceptance Rate up by 15-19%	31
Acceptance Rate up by 10-14%	32
Acceptance Rate up by 5-9%	29
Acceptance Rate up by less than 5%	14
Acceptance Rate down by less than 5%	8
Acceptance Rate down by 5-9%	1
Acceptance Rate down by 10-14%	3

Law School	Acceptance Rate, 2011	Acceptance Rate, 2014	Change in % accepted.
Univ. of Louisville	31%	70%	39%
McGeorge	39%	75%	36%
Southern Illinois	51%	85%	34%
Samford	42%	76%	34%
Univ. of Florida	29%	61%	32%
Univ. of Arkansas-Fayetteville	31%	60%	29%
Oklahoma City	53%	82%	29%
Elon	47%	75%	28%
Lewis and Clark	39%	67%	28%
Indiana Univ.-Bloomington	34%	62%	28%
Charleston	50%	77%	27%
Marquette	46%	73%	27%
Southern	38%	65%	27%
Univ. of Maryland	20%	47%	27%
North Carolina Central	18%	44%	26%
Indiana Univ.-Indianapolis	49%	74%	25%
Northern Illinois	45%	70%	25%
St. Mary’s	45%	70%	25%
Southwestern	36%	61%	25%
Univ. of Connecticut	29%	54%	25%
Drake	54%	78%	24%
Brooklyn Law School	29%	53%	24%
Univ. of South Dakota	59%	82%	23%
Mississippi College	58%	81%	23%
John Marshall (Chicago)	50%	73%	23%
DePaul	42%	65%	23%
Chicago-Kent	39%	62%	23%
Univ. of San Francisco	38%	61%	23%
South Texas	44%	66%	22%
Pace	40%	62%	22%
Catholic	33%	55%	22%
American	28%	50%	22%
Univ. of Illinois	20%	42%	22%
Univ. of North Carolina	18%	40%	22%
Ave Maria	54%	75%	21%
Univ. of Denver	41%	62%	21%
Faulkner	57%	77%	20%
Northern Kentucky	52%	72%	20%
Univ. of Nebraska	48%	68%	20%
Univ. of South Carolina	37%	57%	20%
Univ. of Puerto Rico	36%	56%	20%
Cardozo	30%	50%	20%
Univ. of California- Hastings	29%	49%	20%
Boston College	24%	44%	20%
Boston Univ.	20%	39%	19%
Suffolk	69%	87%	18%
St. Thomas (Minnesota)	55%	73%	18%
Louisiana State	44%	62%	18%
Hofstra	43%	61%	18%
Univ. of Baltimore	41%	59%	18%
Univ. of Kentucky	41%	59%	18%
Chapman	34%	52%	18%
Loyola-Chicago	34%	52%	18%
George Washington	27%	45%	18%

[1] Source:  The 2011 and 2014 spreadsheets available at the ABA "require disclosure" site. 

http://www.abarequireddisclosures.org