Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Mike Zimmer on From the other side at AALS . . .

    • Mike Zimmer on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Mike Zimmer on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • M.G.M on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • A.J. Sutter on Lawyers: Don’t Trade on Inside Information!

    • No Load Funds on Consumer Financial Product Safety?

    • grad student on Princeton and the Behavioral Revolution

    • Anon321 on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Steven Kaminshine on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Alex Kreit on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • Alex Kreit on Election Night 2009

    • mikeb302000 on Election Night 2009

    • Neal Goldfarb on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Orin Kerr on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • MYarnell on Curricular Reform Revisited

  •  

    Site Meter

More Statistics on Law Professor Hiring

posted by Daniel Solove

Last week, I posted data about the success percentage of law professor teaching candidates who obtained their JDs from particular law schools for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 hiring seasons. This data was based on applicant totals by law school from AALS and applicant hired totals compiled by Larry Solum. Although Solum’s data is incomplete (it is based on reports he receives from applicants and others), it is currently the best (and only) data about hiring I could find.

The data I posted last week focused on schools with a US News ranking of between 1 and 29. Here is data on schools not included in last week’s data. In Table 1 below, I’ve included all schools (not already included in my previous post and charts) with 10 or more applicants combined for 2006-08 – an average of 5 or more per year. In Table 2 (after the continuation break), I list schools with fewer than 10 applicants for 2006-08 that had successful applicants.

What these tables show is that any school regardless of US News ranking can have successful applicants. Some of the schools below have placed more successful applicants than a number of schools in the top 20.

TABLE 1

Table 1 includes all schools not included in my previous post (i.e. those having a US News ranking below 29) with 10 or more applicants combined for 2006-08 – an average of 5 or more per year.

LAW SCHOOL TOTAL JD APPLICANTS 2006-08 JD APPLICANTS HIRED 2006-08 % HIRED 2006-08
Tulane 25 5 20%
Case Western 15 2 13%
Florida 18 2 11%
Cincinnati 10 1 10%
Texas Southern 10 1 10%
Howard 11 1 9%
Rutgers (Camden, Newark) 15 1 6%
Wisconsin 16 1 6%
Syracuse 10 0 0%
Northeastern 11 0 0%
UNC 12 0 0%
Brooklyn 12 0 0%
Hofstra 12 0 0%
Ohio State 14 0 0%
Temple 15 0 0%
Suffolk 17 0 0%
U.C. Hastings 19 0 0%
Indiana 22 0 0%
American University 27 0 0%

TABLE 2

Table 2 contains a list of schools that had under 10 total law professor teaching candidates in 2006-08 – an average of less than 5 per year – but that had one or more graduates hired during this time. I list these schools separately because they have sent so few to the teaching market that any one hire will have a dramatic effect on their success percentage. With numbers so low, the success percentage has little indicative value.


LAW SCHOOL TOTAL JD APPLICANTS 2006-08 JD APPLICANTS HIRED 2006-08 % HIRED 2006-08
Hawaii 2 1 50%
Georgia 7 3 43%
Villanova 3 1 33%
Connecticut 4 1 25%
U. Washington 4 1 25%
West Virginia 4 1 25%
Willamette 4 1 25%
Seton Hall 5 1 20%
Chicago Kent 5 1 20%
St. Thomas 5 1 20%
Kansas 6 1 17%
Arizona 6 1 17%
Brigham Young 6 1 17%
Denver 6 1 17%
St. Louis 6 1 17%
CUNY 7 1 14%
Albany 7 1 14%
William & Mary 9 1 11%


 May 26, 2008 at 8:07 pm   Posted in: Law School, Law School (Hiring & Laterals)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (5)

  1. Alfred - May 26, 2008 at 10:57 pm

    Dan–thanks for this. You’re doing a great service, as always.

    These data are sobering. And I hope we’ll talk some about what this means to our profession.

    One question, though, did you think about using the AALS directory instead of Solum’s report? My thought is that you might go through all the people in the 2006-07 registry and see who appears in the 2007-08 AALS directory.

    That obviously won’t pick up people who’re hired in 2007-08, but for the earlier years, I’d imagine it’s a complete record of who’s been hired. Also, it would pick up some people who obtained visiting positions and I’d think that would be desirable to include them in your tables, to give a fuller sense of who’s able to “break into” the academy.

  2. anon - May 26, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    “Some of the schools below have placed more successful applicants than a number of schools in the top 20.”

    Given that GW and Wash-St. Louis placed exactly zero, that is not hard. I think the more intuitive take from these numbers is that, unless you went to a top twenty school (really a top top 20 school), your chance of breaking into the legal academy is no more than 10% at most. The fact that that abysmal chance is true of several top twenty schools also, is cold comfort.

  3. anon - May 27, 2008 at 8:26 am

    A brief point–could you be double-counting candidates? That is, if someone was on the market in 06-07, and then again in 07-08, would you have counted them twice, making it look like there were more candidates from a school than there actually were? This could skew your results slightly. (This may be what Alfred was alluding to.)

  4. tom - May 27, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Hmm…actually, you repeated a school that you had in your previous post…namely, Boston College, which is still within the top 30 US News Report (26? or something like that).

    Why was that?

  5. Daniel J. Solove - May 27, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Tom — my mistake. I’ve now deleted BC from the table in this post.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress