Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Specialty rankings coming up

Coming up over the next couple of weeks:  election law; international law; intellectual property & cyberlaw; tax; law & economics; law & philosophy; law & social science; legal history; civil procedure; antitrust; torts; property; critical theories of law (including feminist jurisprudence and critical race theory); and perhaps others.  Thanks for feedback and corrections on the rankings posted so far.

August 21, 2018 in Rankings | Permalink

20 Most-Cited Constitutional Law Scholars in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017 (CORRECTED AND UPDATED 8/21)

Based on the latest Sisk data, here are the twenty most-cited constitutional law professors in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017 (inclusive) (remember that the data was collected in late May of 2018, and that the pre-2018 database did expand a bit since then).  This time around I've defined the "constitutional law" category a bit more carefully and also checked more carefully the percentages of citations that appear to be in the field for some highly-cited scholars; I will also be expanding the other public law coverage to reflect contributions that belong more clearly to, e.g., administrative law, legislation etc. (I will also be adding a separate ranking for election law).  Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.    Faculty for whom 75% or more of their citations (based on a sample) are in this area are listed; others with less than 75% of their citations in this field (but still a plurality) are listed in the category of "other highly cited scholars who work partly in this area."    

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2018

1

Erwin Chemerinsky

University of California, Berkeley

2570

65

2

Akhil Amar

Yale University

1600

60

3

Mark Tushnet

Harvard University

1590

73

4

Jack Balkin

Yale University

1580

61

5

Laurence Tribe

Harvard University

1480

77

6

Bruce Ackerman

Yale University

1445

75

7

Richard Fallon

Harvard University

1365

66

8

Reva Siegel

Yale University

1340

62

9

Robet Post

Yale University

1280

71

10

Eugene Volokh

University of California, Los Angeles

1205*

50

11

Michael McConnell

Stanford University

1170

63

12

Randy Barnett

Georgetown University

1055

66

13

Michael Dorf

Cornell University

1045

54

14

Martin Redish

Northwestern University

  975

73

15

Sanford Levinson

University of Texas, Austin

  935

77

16

Barry Friedman

New York University

  845

60

 

Lawrence Solum

Georgetown University

  845

64

18

David A. Strauss

University of Chicago

  820

66

19

Steven Calabresi

Northwestern University

  810

60

20

Douglas Laycock

University of Virginia

  750

70

   

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in constitutional and public law

   
 

Cass Sunstein

Harvard University

4900

64

 

Richard Epstein

New York University, University of Chicago

2165

75

 

William Eskridge, Jr.

Yale University

2160

67

 

Frederick Schauer

University of Virginia

1530

72

 

Adrian Vermeule

Harvard University

1385

50

 

Daniel Farber

University of California, Berkeley

1365

68

*Adjusted downwards by 5% based on a sample (to arrive at 1205) to reflect cites to blog posts unrelated to his scholarship (many blog posts were in fact related, those were not excluded).

August 21, 2018 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

25 Most-Cited Public Law Scholars (excluding Constitutional) in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017

 Based on the latest Sisk data, here are the twenty-five most-cited public law professors in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017 (inclusive) (remember that the data was collected in late May of 2018, and that the pre-2018 database did expand a bit since then). There isn't a fine line bettwen public law and constitutional law, obviously, but for purposes here "public law" includes administrative law, environmental law, legislation and legislative process, statutory interpretation, and regulatory law more generally (e.g., food and drug regulation, or telecommunications).  (Election law will be ranked separately.)  Given the large number of fields, I've listed 25 highly-cited scholars; several work in more than one of these sub-fields.  Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.    Faculty for whom 75% or more of their citations (based on a sample) are in this area are listed; others with less than 75% of their citations in this field (but still a plurality) are listed in the category of "other highly cited scholars who work partly in this area."     

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2018

1

John F. Manning

Harvard University

945

57

2

Jody Freeman

Harvard University

800

54

3

Richard J. Pierce, Jr.

George Washington University

785

75

4

Richard Revesz

New York University

735

60

 

Richard Stewart

New York University

735

78

6

Gary Lawson

Boston University

680

60

7

J.B. Ruhl

Vanderbilt University

625

60

8

Jonathan Adler

Case Western Reserve University

620

49

9

Lisa Bressman

Vanderbilt University

615

52

 

Gillian Metzger

Columbia University

615

53

11

Abbe Gluck

Yale University

580

43

12

Matthew Stephenson

Harvard University

575

44

13

Richard Lazarus

Harvard University

560

64

14

Thomas O. McGarity

University of Texas, Austin

500

69

15

Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt University

480

53

16

Robin Kundis Craig

University of Utah

450

54

17

Robert Glicksman

George Washington University

440

66

 

Sidney Shapiro

Wake Forest University

440

71

19

Cary Coglianese

University of Pennsylvania

430

54

20

Orly Lobel

University of San Diego

420

45

21

James Salzman

University of California, Los Angeles (part-time)

395

54

22

Douglas Kysar

Yale University

390

45

 

Mark Seidenfeld

Florida State University

390

64

 

Christopher Yoo

University of Pennsylvania

390

54

25

Jacob Gersen

Harvard University

375

45

   

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in these public law areas

   
 

Cass Sunstein

Harvard University

4900

64

 

William Eskridge

Yale University

2160

67

 

Thomas Merrill

Columbia University

1595

69

 

Adrian Vermeule

Harvard University

1385

50

 

Daniel Farber

University of California, Berkeley

1365

64

August 21, 2018 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

Monday, August 20, 2018

Chicago Alumni and Fellows on the teaching market 2018-19

This post is strictly for schools that expect to do hiring this year.

In order to protect the privacy of our candidates, please e-mail me at bleiter@uchicago.edu to get a copy of the narrative profiles of our candidates, including hyperlinks to their homepages.  All these candidates will be in the first FAR distribution.

We have an excellent group of eleven candidates this year (eight alumni, one of whom is also a Bigelow; two additional Bigelow Fellows; and one Behavioral Law & Economics Fellow), who cover many curricular areas including intellectual property, civil procedure, jurisprudence, evidence, federal courts, criminal law, criminal procedure, criminal justice, torts, antitrust, professional responsibility, trial advocacy, legislation, contracts, international law and organizations, human rights, immigration law, administrative law, remedies, bankruptcy, financial institutions, corporate law, corporate finance, empirical legal studies, federal income tax, tax policy, patents, securities regulation, and international business transactions, among other areas.

Our candidates include former federal appellate clerks; Law Review editors; VAPs and Fellows at leading law schools; JD/PhDs in Philosophy, Economics, Linguistics, Managerial Economics & Strategy, and Political Science; and accomplished practitioners as well as scholars.  Almost all have publications, sometimes multiple publications, and all have writing samples available upon request.

If when you e-mail, you tell me a bit about your hiring needs, I can supply some more information about all these candidates, since we have vetted them all at some point in the recent past.

August 20, 2018 in Faculty News | Permalink

Sunday, August 19, 2018

20 Most-Cited Criminal Law and Procedure Faculty in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017 (UPDATED AND CORRECTED)

 Based on the latest Sisk data, here are the twenty most-cited criminal law and procedure professors in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017 (inclusive) (remember that the data was collected in late May of 2018, and that the pre-2018 database did expand a bit since then).  Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.    Faculty for whom 75% or more of their citations (based on a sample) are in this area are listed; others with less than 75% of their citations in this field (but still a plurality) are listed in the category of "other highly cited scholars who work partly in this area." 

 

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2018

1

Orin Kerr

University of Southern California

1300

47

2

Rachel Barkow

New York University

  775

47

3

Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt University

  770

67

4

Brandon Garrett

Duke University

  750

43

5

Paul Robinson

University of Pennsylvania

  690

70

6

Michael Tonry

University of Minnesota

  585

73

7

Stephen Schulhofer

New York University

  535

76

8

Carol Steiker

Harvard University

  530

60

9

Jeffrey Fagan

Columbia University

  515

72

10

Franklin Zimring

University of California, Berkeley

  510

76

11

David Sklansky

Stanford University

  500

59

12

Ronald Wright

Wake Forest University

  490

59

13

Bernard Harcourt

Columbia University

  470

55

14

Nancy King

Vanderbilt University

  455

60

15

George Fletcher

Columbia University

  435

79

16

Richard McAdams

University of Chicago

  405

58

17

David Garland

New York University

  390

63

18

Erik Luna

Arizona State University

  375

47

19

Tracey Meares

Yale University

  360

51

20

Paul Butler

Georgetown University

  355

57

 

David Harris

University of Pittsburgh

  355

61

 

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in this area

 

   
 

Dan Kahan

Yale University

1025

55

 

Larry Alexander

University of San Diego

  680

75

 

Kent Greenawalt

Columbia University

  575

82

 

Gabriel (Jack) Chin

University of California, Davis

  530

54

 

Michael S. Moore

University of Illinois

  470

75

 

August 19, 2018 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

Friday, August 17, 2018

10 Most-Cited Commercial Law scholars in U.S., 2013-2017 (UPDATED AND CORRECTED)

Based on the latest Sisk data, here are the ten most-cited commercial law professors in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017 (inclusive) (remember that the data was collected in late May of 2018, and that the pre-2018 database did expand a bit since then).  "Commercial law" here also includes contracts and bankruptcy.  Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.    Faculty for whom 75% or more of their citations (based on a sample) are in this area are listed; others with less than 75% of their citations in this field (but still a plurality) are listed in the category of "other highly cited scholars who work partly in this area."  

Commercial Law (incl. contracts and bankruptcy)

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2018

1

Robert E. Scott

Columbia University

890

74

2

Steven Schwarcz

Duke University

615

69

3

Omri Ben-Shahar

University of Chicago

570

56

4

Alan Schwartz

Yale University

540

78

5

Douglas Baird

University of Chicago

515

65

6

Oren Bar-Gill

Harvard University

505

43

7

Adam Levitin

Georgetown University

475

42

8

Ronald J. Mann

Columbia University

375

57

9

Lynn LoPucki

University of California, Los Angeles

330

74

10

Jay Westbrook

University of Texas, Austin

300

75

   

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in this area

   
 

Eric Posner

University of Chicago

2330

53

 

Randy Barnett

Georgetown University

1055

66

 

Geoffrey Miller

New York University

  960

68

 

David Skeel

University of Pennsylvania

  630

57

 

David Hoffman

University of Pennsylvania

  415

42

August 17, 2018 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

Thursday, August 16, 2018

First FAR distribution: only 344 candidates!

I'm surprised there are so few, but that is good news for job seekers since it appears there will be even more schools hiring this year than last.

August 16, 2018 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News | Permalink

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

20 Most-Cited Corporate Law and Securities Regulation Scholars in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017

Based on the latest Sisk data, here are the twenty most-cited corporate law and securities regulation professors in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017 (inclusive) (remember that the data was collected in late May of 2018, and that the pre-2018 database did expand a bit since then).  Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.    Faculty for whom 75% or more of their citations (based on a sample) are in this area are listed; others with less than 75% of their citations in this field (but still a plurality) are listed in the category of "other highly cited scholars who work partly in this area."

CORPORATE LAW & SECURITIES REGULATION

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2018

1

John Coffee, Jr.

Columbia University

1310

74

2

Lucian Bebchuk

Harvard University

  985

63

3

Stephen Bainbridge

University of California, Los Angeles

  950

60

4

Ronald Gilson

Columbia University

  820

72

5

Reinier Kraakman

Harvard University

  735

69

6

Stephen Choi

New York University

  685

52

7

Donald Langevoort

Georgetown University

  670

67

8

Henry Hansmann

Yale University

  650

73

9

Jill Fisch

University of Pennsylvania

  625

58

10

Steven Davidoff Solomon

University of California, Berkeley

  600

47

11

Robert Thompson

Georgetown University

  585

69

12

Roberta Romano

Yale University

  580

66

13

James Cox

Duke University

  530

75

14

Thomas Hazen

University of North Carolilna, Chapel Hill

  520

71

 

Mark Roe

Harvard University

  520

67

16

Bernard Black

Northwestern University

  515

65

17

Jeffrey Gordon

Columbia University

  500

68

 

Marcel Kahan

New York University

  500

56

19

William Wilson Bratton

University of Pennsylvania

  480

67

20

Edward Rock

New York University

  445

62

 

Other high-cited scholars who work partly in this area

     
 

Jonathan Macey

Yale University

1140

63

 

David Skeel

University of Pennsylvania

   630

57

August 15, 2018 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Ten Most-Cited Law Faculty in the United States for the period 2013-2017

Based on the latest Sisk data, here are the ten most-cited law professors in the U.S. for the period 2013-2017 (inclusive) (remember that the data was collected in late May of 2018, and that the pre-2018 database did expand a bit since then).  Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Area(s)

Age in 2018

1

Cass Sunstein

Harvard University

4900

Constitutional, Administrative, and Environmental Law, Behavioral Law & Economics

64

2

Erwin Chemerinsky

University of California, Berkeley

2570

Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure

65

3

Eric Posner

University of Chicago

2330

Law & Economics, International Law, Commercial Law, Contracts

53

4

Mark Lemley

Stanford University

2180

Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw

52

5

Richard Epstein

New York University, University of Chicago

2165

Constitutional Law, Torts, Law & Economics

75

6

William Eskridge, Jr.

Yale University

2160

Constitutional Law, Legislation

67

7

Akhil Amar

Yale University

1600

Constitutional Law

60

8

Thomas Merrill

Columbia University

1595

Administrative, Constitutional, and Property Law

69

9

Mark Tushnet

Harvard University

1590

Constitutional Law, Legal History

72

10

Jack M. Balkin

Yale University

1580

Constitutional Law, Cyberlaw

62

 

August 14, 2018 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

Monday, August 13, 2018

Top 50 Law Schools Based on Scholarly Impact, 2018

Professor Gregory Sisk & colleagues have updated their scholarly impact ratings (last edition), looking at mean and median citations to tenured faculty scholarship for the years 2013-2017 inclusive, using fall 2018 faculty rosters as the benchmark.  (Sisk et al. rank 70 faculties; I print the top 50, below.)  The weighted score represents the sum of the mean citations for the tenured faculty times 2, plus the faculty median.  Where the median is low relative to the immediate competition that's an indicator that a few highly cited faculty are carrying the school; in other cases, where the median is quite high, it's an indicator of more across the boards scholarly output.  By noting age, one can see that some faculties are heavily dependent on their most senior members for their citations.  Ties reflect the normalized weighted scores.

The citation counts were done during a two-week window in late May of this year in the Westlaw database as follow:  TE(Brian /2 Leiter) and date (aft 2012) and date (bef 2018).  "TE" limited the results to the body of the text, thus eliminating references to names in acknowledgments.  Although the searches were done in May of 2018, it's clear the pre-2018 database expanded after May (e.g., I had 553 hits when Sisk & colleagues did the study, while the same search, today, yields 589--that's a higher increase than in some other cases that were checked).  Across whole schools this won't matter, since the database was relatively stable during the two-week window when the data was collected.

Citations to faculty scholarship in law journals is, of course, only one metric of scholarly distinction and accomplishment.  Still, it is a useful check on uninformed opinions, and tracks rather well the actual scholarly output of different schools.  I'll have a few more substantive comments on the 2018 results tomorrow.

Over the coming weeks, I will post new lists of the most-cited scholars by specialty utilizing the Sisk data.

Results below the fold:

Continue reading

August 13, 2018 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

SEALS planning on launching its own faculty hiring conference

I have only one comment on this terrible idea:  don't do it!   It will make the lives of job seekers much worse, and increase their out-of-pocket costs, since they may then feel the need to attend two separate hiring conferences (which belies all the blather in the proposal about "inclusiveness"--the cost (both financial and in terms of time away from work) of travelling to two separate conferences will be prohibitive, so only the candidates with the most resources and institutional support will be able to do it).  More importantly, I encourage all schools to boycott any alternative hiring convention for these same reasons.

ADDENDUM:  Let me comment on one particularly ludicrous reason given for the idea that what the world needs is another hiring convention for aspiring law teachers:

Many schools are “jumping the gun” in the sense that they are actively recruiting candidates well before the AALS recruitment conference. Indeed, some schools hold Skype interviews, invite candidates to campus, and even make offers, outside the AALS time frame. Indeed, some candidates receive multiple offers before the AALS conference. Some of these offers are “exploding offers” which require the applicant to make a decision in a relatively short period of time.

To start, this just isn't true.  In a given year, maybe one candidate in the entire market has an offer before the "meat market," if that.  More to the point, how in the world would having an earlier hiring convention help with this non-problem?  Obviously those looking to "beat the market" would simply accelerate their own process.

ANOTHER:  In this article, Prof. Weaver of SEALS admits they are trying to do something "positive" for their "member schools."   At least it is now clear this has nothing to do with the job seekers, although how it will be positive for the SEALS schools is mysterious, since those schools will have to send hiring committees to two difference conferences.  This really is shameful, and I hope schools hold fast on boycotting this if, in fact, SEALS pursues this foolish and pointless exercise.

August 13, 2018 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice | Permalink

New scholarly impact study coming this week

Greg Sisk (St. Thomas) and colleagues will be releasing a new scholarly impact study of law schools for the five-year period, 2013-2017 quite soon.   I'll post the results and a link to the study when it is available, and then, over the next few weeks, will post rankings of top scholars in various areas of scholarship.

August 13, 2018 in Rankings | Permalink

Friday, August 10, 2018

More than 100 law schools have constituted appointments committees so far...

...although only about 40 have shared that information at the Prawfs site.   This year is shaping up, as expected, to be the best year to be on the law teaching job market since the very early 2010s.   We won't get back to those levels, to be sure, but since a number of the schools hiring are looking to fill multiple positions, I am hopeful we'll see more than 100 rookie faculty hired by the end of this academic year (compare that to 160-180 before the collapse).   The main factor explaining this is, of course, the steady increase in LSAT-takers and applicants that we've seen for several years now, all occurring against the backdrop of the contraction by law schools during the prior five years.

August 10, 2018 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers | Permalink

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Should Online Education Come with an Asterisk on Transcripts? (Michael Simkovic)

The ABA recently voted to permit a dramatic expansion of online legal education.

Online education is controversial in higher education.  It is even more controversial in legal education, which relies more on classroom interaction and less on lectures than most forms of higher education. 

Widespread perceptions that online education is lower quality than live instruction in general—and may be particularly disadvantageous in legal education—are backed by numerous peer-reviewed empirical studies.[1] 

Proponents of online education argue that it is more convenient because students and faculty do not have to commute, or because students can learn at their own pace.  They argue that it is potentially more cost effective, either because physical facilities need not be used, or because it is scalable, or because an artisanal model of teaching through knowledgeable faculty can be replaced with a less expensive, industrial model of low-skill specialized workers who each handle particular aspects of course development and teaching.  Some argue that technology can be used to closely monitor and track students, and that the information gathered can be used to improve the quality of education. 

Critics of online education argue that it is lower quality, that most students learn and absorb less, and that the social dynamic of the classroom and learning from one’s peers and interacting with alumni is a critical part of education.  (In addition to multiple peer-reviewed studies, they point to recent examples of “online education” such as self-paced workplace training modules as examples of the low quality that can be expected.) 

Critics point to the failure of MOOCS—which have extremely low completion rates (see also here)—as evidence of the limits of scalability.  They point to the pricing and cost experience of most universities, which have seen high costs of developing and maintaining online courses and additional software licensing fees which have prevented them from charging much less for online classes than for those taught in person.  And they point to a rash of cheating and distracted learning, which anecdotally seem to be more prevalent online than in person.

Perhaps the most empirically rigorous (and recent) study of online education to date—which relied on an experimental design with random assignment of students to different versions of the same introductory economics course—found evidence that “live-only instruction dominates internet instruction . . . particularly . . . for Hispanic students, male students, and lower-achieving students.”  An earlier study which also used a quasi-experimental approach, found similar results, especially for complex conceptual learning:

“We find that the students in the virtual classes, while having better characteristics, performed significantly worse on the examinations than the live students. This difference was most pronounced for exam questions that tapped the students' ability to apply basic concepts in more sophisticated ways, and least pronounced for basic learning tasks such as knowing definitions or recognizing important concepts . . .

Choosing a completely online course carries a penalty that would need to be offset by significant advantages in convenience or other factors important to the student. . . . Doing as well in an online course as in the live alternative seems to require extra work or discipline beyond that demonstrated by our students, especially when it comes to learning the more difficult concepts.”

Continue reading

August 8, 2018 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Law in Cyberspace, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Science, Student Advice, Television, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (3)

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

ABA lives up to its reputation for being captured by special interests (in this case related to LSAC) and withdraws proposal to authorize tests other than LSAT for admission

Pathetic.  Law schools should continue offering the GRE option regardless, sooner or later, the ABA will have to catch up with reality.

August 7, 2018 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

Friday, August 3, 2018

Stanford Law Dean Liz Magill to return to UVA as new Provost in summer 2019

The UVA news release is here; Magill has been Dean at Stanford since 2012.  UVA will now be led by a President and Provost, both of whom are graduates of UVA's law school and former members of the UVA law faculty!

August 3, 2018 in Faculty News | Permalink

Thursday, August 2, 2018

NALP data: When there are fewer law school graduates, there are fewer law school graduates with jobs (Michael Simkovic)

NALP entry level starting salaries and employment don't predict much of anything about what will happen three to four years from now when those currently contemplating going to law school will, if they choose to attend, graduate into a quite possibly very different economy.  Nor is NALP data directionally very different from overall economic data like the employment population ratio  which is released sooner.1    And while those graduating into a stronger economy do earn more (at least for the first few years), these cohort effects fade over time, those who graduate in a recession still benefit from their educations, and attempting to time law school is a money-losing proposition because of the opportunity costs of delay.

Nevertheless, every year NALP data on last year's graduating class is released with great fanfare, including a press release.  In news that will surprise no one who has tracked the rise in the overall employment population ratio, it turns out that the class of 2017 had better employment outcomes than other classes since the recession. Or as NALP sexes it up for journalists, "Class of 2017 Notched Best Employment Outcomes Since Recession." (88.6% employed 9 months after graduation for the class for 2017, compared with 87.5% for the Class of 2016).

But, NALP unhelpfully informs us, there's a catch--the total number of law jobs for law graduates was lower even though the employment rate was higher.

This should not surprise anyone who is aware that the number of law school matriculants last peaked in 2010, and graduating class sizes have therefore been falling since 2013.  From 1994 through 2015, the correlation between annual % change in graduating class size and annual % change in number of law graduates with jobs has been 0.78 (i.e., class size explains 61 percent of the variation in number of law jobs for recent graduates.  (data here)  The correlation is even higher since 1999 when reporting started covering a higher percent of the class--0.91 correlation, meaning that class size explains 82% of the variation in the number of law graduates with jobs.

 

NALP jobs and class size

 

There aren't fewer jobs available for lawyers.  To the contrary, there are more lawyers working now than there were pre-recession according to both Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Data (BLS OES, ACS, and CPS).  There are fewer recent law graduates working as lawyers because there are fewer recent law graduates.

The employment market for educated workers is large and the number of law graduates is small relative to this market.  Law schools are too small to move the market much on the supply side by admitting more or fewer students.  Just as the typical investor could sell all of his or her shares of Apple without moving the market for shares of Apple (much less the S&P 500), the typical law school can admit as many or as few students as it wants without changing the overall percent of law graduates who will find jobs.  (However, there’s some evidence that at the national level, the share of recent law graduates working as lawyers varies inversely with class size).

The usefulness of NALP data is questionable (at least for many of the uses to which it is often put), but NALP could help by limiting its reporting to employment rates and starting salaries.  Discussing changes in the absolute number of law graduates with jobs is simply a confusing ways of telling people that fewer people entered law school 4 years ago than 5 or 6 years ago. 

NALP should also contextualize its employment ratios by comparing them to the overall U.S. employment population ratio during the same time period (i.e, March of 2018), which was 60 percent overall, and and 79 percent for those age 25-54 according to BLS and the OECD, compared to 89 percent for recent law graduates, according to NALP.

1 (Similarities are greatest when one restricts it to those who are both young and well-educated using CPS data.

 

UPDATE: 8/3/2018  The correlations and r-squared were originally reported based on levels rather than % change from previous year. The numbers have been updated to reflect a model based on differencing (% change from prior year), which brings the explanatory power from 1999 forward down from 96 percent to 82 percent.

 

August 2, 2018 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Legal Profession, Navel-Gazing, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice, Science, Student Advice, Weblogs | Permalink

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

On filling out the FAR form, Part III

(Part I is here and Part II is here.)

Under "Major Published Writings" you can list up to five items, though you can also include a "total publication" count greater than that.  If you have no published writings, or only one or two, you may also list your job-talk paper, but indicate that's what it is:  "(job-talk paper)"   Do not list articles for bar journals, or opinion pieces in newspapers--those can go on a CV, but are not "major" published writings for purposes here.  If you do list such ephemera, schools will draw the conclusion that you are simply "padding" since you lack real scholarly writing.

And now a word on the AALS's idiotic decision to add two new categories to the FAR form this year:  "Student Leadership" and "Community Servce."  Applying for a job in law teaching is not like applying for admission to college, where admissions officers expect everyone to demonstrate "leadership" and "community service" and other public-spiritedness.   Whoever at AALS made the silly decision to add these categories to the FAR form should be replaced with an adult familiar with the law teaching market!   Job seekers should feel free to leave these blank, unless they have something pertinent.   Most questions I'm getting seem to be about "community service":  this can include pro bono legal work, service on the boards of non-profits and other community organizations, and the like.  But don't take up too much space with this stuff, it isn't relevant, and hiring schools know it isn't relevant.

August 1, 2018 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers | Permalink

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Hiring committees for 2018-19 may announce themselves...

....here, thanks to the good offices of Sarah Lawsky (Northwestern).

July 26, 2018 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers | Permalink

Monday, July 23, 2018

Rostron & Levit update their guide to law review submissions

Professor Levit asked me to share this, which I'm happy to do:

Dear Colleagues,

We  just updated our charts about law journal submissions, expedites, and rankings from different sources for the Fall 2018 submission season covering the 202 main journals of each law school. 

For this round of revisions, we created hyperlinks for each law review to take you directly to the law review’s submissions page.

Again the chart includes as much information as possible about what law reviews are not accepting submissions right now and what dates they say they'll resume accepting submissions.  Most of this is not specific dates, because the journals tend to post only imprecise statements about how the journal is not currently accepting submissions but will start doing so at some point in the Fall.

The first chart contains information about each journal’s preferences about methods for submitting articles (e.g., e-mail, ExpressO, Scholastica, or regular mail), as well as special formatting requirements and how to request an expedited review.  The second chart contains rankings information from U.S. News and World Report as well as data from Washington & Lee’s law review website.

Information for Submitting Articles to Law Reviews and Journals:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1019029

We’d welcome you to forward the link to anyone who you think might find it useful.   We appreciate any feedback you might have.

Happy writing!

All the best,

Allen and Nancy

Professor Allen Rostron

Associate Dean for Students and William R. Jacques Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law

rostrona@umkc.edu

Professor Nancy Levit
Associate Dean for Faculty and Curators' Distinguished Professor and Edward D. Ellison Professor of Law

levitn@umkc.edu

UMKC School of Law
500 E. 52nd St.

I would urge faculty to ignore the Washington & Lee data, which is garbage.  Law review reputation/visibility tracks law school reputation/visibility, full stop.

July 23, 2018 in Of Academic Interest | Permalink