You are currently browsing the archives for Deborah J. Merritt.
Straight Talk About JD Advantage Jobs
April 28th, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
Earlier this month, I expressed my concern about NALP‘s aggressive marketing of JD Advantage jobs to pre-law students. Last week NALP posted additional information about these jobs on its website. Although some of the data are interesting, NALP is still withholding key information it possesses about JD Advantage jobs: law graduates are much less satisfied with these jobs than with ones that require bar admission.
The omission is both regrettable and deceptive. NALP has published much of the data it collects on JD Advantage jobs, while ignoring some of the most negative–and relevant–information in its possession. This biased disclosure reflects poorly on NALP, but it also embarrasses us as legal educators and professionals. NALP is a membership organization composed of law schools and legal employers, so it speaks for us. The last thing that law schools need, after years of bad press about distorted job statistics, is publication of more misleading data.
As educators, we care about both our graduates’ welfare and the accuracy of data. NALP’s dissembling with respect to JD Advantage jobs raises real questions about whether it is capable of continuing to represent our interests. Perhaps it is time for law schools to create a different organization–or work solely with the ABA–to collect and publish unbiased data about the careers of law school graduates. We need that information, not only to advise prospective and current students, but to guide our own decisions about how to reshape legal education. Feel-good presentations that omit key facts will not help us confront the ongoing challenges to our schools and profession.
I summarize here some of the information we currently have about JD Advantage jobs, including the data omitted by NALP. I also suggest ways that we could begin collecting more objective data about these jobs. If JD Advantage jobs are going to play an important role in the future of legal education, we have to get serious about examining these positions.
Looking Back
There have always been law graduates who pursued careers outside of law practice. The information we have, however, suggests that most of those graduates embraced alternative careers after practicing law for at least a few years. An earlier statement by NALP, for example, acknowledges: “It is certainly true that people with JD degrees work in a wide variety of alternative careers. However, while that may be true down the road, lawyers most often choose a non-traditional path after practicing law for at least a few years.” (This statement still appears on the NALP website, but it is not connected to the pages promoting JD Advantage jobs as entry-level positions.)
This distinction is important. Graduates who take JD Advantage jobs after practicing law differ from those who seek these jobs immediately after law school. The historical record suggests that some employers value the JD plus law practice experience for certain jobs; the record tells us very little about the value of the JD alone for those career paths. When we advise current and prospective students about the value of JD Advantage jobs, we have to be careful to distinguish graduates who used their degrees plus practice from those who attempted to secure JD Advantage jobs immediately after law school. A graduate who takes a job in “compliance” right after graduation has a very different job from one who moves in-house to do compliance work after three years in a regulatory law practice. Their long-term career trajectories may also differ; we have little available information on that score.
Earlier graduates in non-traditional positions offer an important resource for gathering information about JD Advantage jobs and, if those jobs seem promising, developing career paths for current graduates. We have to seek that information, however, in a serious way. It’s not enough simply to talk with these graduates at reunions. We need to map law-related opportunities more systematically, seek feedback on which law school experiences are particularly valuable for those jobs, and analyze objectively how much a JD contributes to graduates obtaining those positions and advancing in them.
JD Advantage Today
As entry-level jobs in law practice have contracted and shifted to less attractive positions, law graduates have looked to alternative fields. NALP’s Detailed Analysis of JD Advantage Jobs shows how important those jobs have become. Among 2011 graduates who reported their job status, 12.5% took JD Advantage jobs. That represents one out of every eight graduates. As a percentage of all graduates, including those who did not report their job status, graduates in JD Advantage positions accounted for 11.7% of the class.
According to recently released ABA figures, the percentage went up for the class of 2012. Among those who reported their employment status, 13.2% held JD Advantage jobs. As a percentage of the full graduating class, these jobs accounted for 12.9% of graduates.
Those percentages are substantially higher than the rates reported during the century’s first decade. For the class of 2001, 5.9% of graduates reporting their employment status indicated that they held “JD Preferred” jobs; that category was the precursor for the contemporary “JD Advantage” one. For the class of 2004, the figure was 7.5%, and in 2007, it was also 7.5%. The percentage edged up to 7.8% for the class of 2008, then began jumping noticeably each year: to 8.8% for the class of 2009, 10.2% for the class of 2010, 12.5% for the class of 2011, and 13.2% for the class of 2012.
This pattern in itself suggests that law graduates are turning to JD Advantage jobs as a “Plan B” when they cannot find jobs in law practice. Interest in these jobs has not been “growing steadily” since 2001, as NALP suggests in its recent analysis. Instead, interest jumped significantly after the recession hit the legal market in 2009. We need to look seriously at graduates’ satisfaction with JD Advantage jobs. Do recent graduates hope to build a career in this work? Or are they using JD Advantage jobs as place-holders while looking for work in law practice? If the latter, how well can graduates make that transition?
Job Satisfaction
NALP already has data on some of these questions. As part of its annual survey of law graduates, NALP asks employed graduates whether they are “seeking a job other than the one” reported to their Career Services Office. The answers to this question shed important light on a graduate’s job satisfaction. Graduates answer this survey within nine months of law school graduation. If they are seeking another job that quickly after graduation, the reported job either lacks permanence or holds little appeal.
Responses to this question consistently suggest that law graduates prefer jobs that require bar admission over JD Advantage ones. In 2001, just 6.7% of graduates working in lawyering jobs (those that required a law license) were looking for other work; a full third (33.3%) of those with JD Preferred jobs were actively seeking another job. In 2004, the percentages were 8.5% (for those in jobs requiring bar admission) and 37.0% (for JD Preferred jobs). Three years later, in 2007, the percentages were virtually identical to the 2004 ones: 8.7% of graduates with lawyering jobs were seeking other work, while 37.7% of those with JD Preferred positions were on the job market.
NALP’s latest figures, from 2011, show the same pattern. With a tighter market and more ad hoc jobs, the percentages have risen in both categories. 16.5% of graduates with lawyering jobs were seeking other work, and 46.8% of those with JD Advantage jobs were doing so. For graduates with other types of professional employment, the percentage was even higher: more than half (52.1%) of those graduates were sufficiently dissatisfied with their jobs to be seeking a different one.
These figures further suggest that JD Advantage positions are fallback jobs, rather than affirmative career decisions, for many graduates. Some graduates may eagerly pursue jobs in this category, but a large number do not. Almost half are seeking other work as soon as they begin these positions. Even among JD Advantage workers who have temporarily withdrawn from the job market, at least some may hope to move into law practice eventually.
This is essential information to know about the job market, but you won’t find the data on NALP’s web page offering a “Detailed Analysis of JD Advantage Jobs.” A prospective law student or interested law professor would have to purchase NALP’s $90 book on Jobs and JDs to find that information. The student or professor, of course, would also have to know that the additional data exist.
We need to grapple with negative information about JD Advantage jobs, not selectively ignore those data. Which graduates are satisfied with JD Advantage jobs and why? What work are the other graduates doing? Will that work help them secure jobs that better fulfill their career ambitions?
Toward Better Data
As noted above, I’m not sure that NALP is the best organization to collect more data on JD Advantage jobs or other evolving facets of the job market. The organization’s recent treatment of JD Advantage jobs suggests that it is spinning data rather than providing objective information. The ABA might serve as a better resource for ongoing career information. That professional group is providing data more quickly than NALP, and it is publishing the data in both summary and detailed form. Law School Transparency is also offering rapidly updated, objective career information through its Score Reports.
Whatever organizations we work with in the future, here are some questions that we need to address about JD Advantage jobs:
1. What are these jobs? Both NALP and the ABA allow graduates and their schools to decide whether a job qualifies for this category. It is very easy for a JD graduate or a JD-granting institution to conclude that their degree confers a “demonstrable advantage in obtaining or performing” a particular job. These decisions, however, may overstate the value of the JD. Is a job as a substitute middle school teacher a “JD Advantage” one? What about a job as a police officer? Law graduates in these jobs probably would draw upon their legal training, but are these the type of jobs we envision as “JD Advantage” ones?
There’s no reason to debate these questions in the abstract. We should simply require schools to list the jobs they have counted as “JD Advantage” ones. The ABA could publish that information, both for individual schools and in the aggregate. Some students may find positions as middle school teachers or police officers attractive; others may decide that the JD is not the best route to those positions. By publishing the data, we can inform both students and ourselves about possible career paths for law graduates.
2. How many students take different types of JD Advantage jobs? Law schools count paralegal positions as “JD Advantage” ones, but they rarely tout those jobs. Instead, websites tend to refer to policy analysts and investment bankers. Following the previous suggestion would allow us to advise students (and ourselves) about the prevalence of graduates in these very different JD Advantage positions.
3. How do other degrees and experiences contribute to graduates’ success in pursuing JD Advantage positions? A JD offers an advantage for some accounting positions, but it is very unlikely that a law graduate could obtain an accounting job without also holding a degree in accounting. Similarly, some JDs in business hold an MBA along with the JD. To give our students good counsel, as well as to enhance our own understanding of legal education, we need to collect more granular data about the relationship of JD Advantage jobs to other degrees. This research might suggest that other degrees shoulder much of the weight in securing some “JD Advantage” positions. Alternatively, it might identify particular joint degrees as especially useful for law students. The research might also suggest that we could benefit our students by incorporating elements of other degree programs in the JD curriculum.
4. How do law graduates fare in fields dominated by graduates with college or master’s degrees? According to the Department of Labor, only 20% of arbitrators, mediators, and conciliators hold a professional or doctoral degree; both BA and MA degrees are more common in this field. The Department does not even mention the JD as an educational prerequisite for a Human Resources Manager; 73% of those workers have just an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, while 27% possess a master’s degree. What do we mean, then, when we say that the JD provides an advantage for these positions? Do law graduates enter these fields at higher levels of responsibility than graduates with other preparation? Do they advance further? Based on anecdotal information, my sense is that the answer to both of these questions is “no.” The JD plus practice experience gives graduates an advantage in these fields, but the JD alone may not. But that’s just an impression; we need hard data on this issue.
Answering questions like these will help us advise prospective and current law students. Equally important, this information will inform our own decisions about the future of legal education. Is a three-year necessary for these JD Advantage jobs? Would a one- or two-year degree serve equally well? What elements of legal education contribute to these jobs? Is it critical thinking skills? Knowledge of legal doctrine? Both? How large are the contributions? We have to be willing to ask these questions as researchers and to interpret the answers objectively. Armed with that information, we can make responsible and productive decisions about how to improve the value of legal education.
Nuts and Bolts
April 22nd, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
Should we teach law students the nuts and bolts of law practice, such as how to record a property deed or file a discovery request in a criminal case? Law schools traditionally disdain this type of teaching, arguing that graduates will master these tasks in practice and that the particulars vary from place to place. But there are at least four reasons why we need to teach students the nuts and bolts of lawyering, including how to file basic practice-related documents.
First, mastering these tasks gives students self-confidence as new lawyers. A lawyer who can’t file documents is like a doctor who doesn’t know how to use a stethoscope. Sure, you can learn on the job, but you’re not much of a professional until you do. One of our conventional claims in legal education is that we give students the tools and confidence to master new areas of law. The same rationale applies to giving students a basic set of practice tools. If we want graduates to be self-confident professionals who are eager to expand their learning, we should ground them in both theory and practice.
Second, these tasks are more complicated than most academics claim. The process for requesting criminal discovery may seem obvious: find a form request, adapt it to your case, take the request to the courthouse, and give it to someone. But these “obvious” steps raise a host of issues: Does it matter what form you use? Have there been any recent changes to the rules, which make some forms outdated? Exactly who is that “someone” who receives the request at the courthouse? Do you also have to serve the prosecutor directly? What type of response should you expect–documents, videos, electronic files? Will you have to make your own paper copies or bring a blank DVD to record the response? How soon will the discovery arrive? How will you know if the prosecutor has produced everything you’re entitled to? Do you need to renew your requests to obtain new materials? If the prosecutor is slow, what are the appropriate ways to nag the prosecutor for quicker compliance? If the discovery conflicts with your client’s claims, what are the best ways to discuss the conflicts with your client?
These challenges range from the mechanical (do I need to bring quarters for the copy machine?) to the legal (do I need to renew requests?) to the interpersonal (what’s the best way to handle a procrastinating prosecutor or recalcitrant client?). Some traditionalists may protest that schools can teach issues falling in the last two categories without attempting to replicate the first. We can teach the rules governing discovery in a criminal procedure course, and we already offer classes on client counseling and professional responsibility. Surely we can teach those parts of lawyering without educating students on the need to take a blank DVD to the courthouse for discovery.
Most of these more complex issues, however, become salient only after a student tries to file a specific document in the real world. In campus classrooms, it’s hard to remember all of these challenges, much less teach them. Real-world practice seems simple and straightforward–until we actually try to perform it. In my experience, as a professor who has taught both doctrinal courses and clinical ones, the nuts and bolts of law practice are harder and more complicated than doctrinal professors assume. Even when an initial step is straightforward, it quickly leads to more complicated issues that we rarely touch in doctrinal classrooms.
The third reason to teach the mechanics of lawyering is that students learn theory better when it’s linked to practice. It’s one thing to read Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(c), which imposes a continuing duty to disclose without renewed discovery requests. It’s another thing to file your own motion, wonder whether you need to renew that motion, check the rules in your own state, and discover (usually) that a single request is sufficient. Even putting quarters in the copy machine gives the abstract process of “discovery” a reality that makes learning easier.
Cognitive scientists have shown repeatedly that humans learn in part through three-dimensional experience. Our brains store information more efficiently when we can tie abstract concepts to real world actions, rather than simply spinning a web of shapeless principles. Professional expertise is like a climbing plant: it needs a three-dimensional trellis to support growth. The scaffold, in both learning and gardening, is usually a humble structure; but it’s just as essential as the showy leaves and fruits.
Finally, students who explore the nuts and bolts of practice learn important lessons about how contemporary lawyers streamline their work. Printing and filing individualized discovery motions is tedious and costly. Does the jurisdiction allow electronic filing? Does the prosecutor’s office have a shortcut for requesting discovery? After months of filing four-page discovery requests, the students in my criminal defense clinic learned that other lawyers were obtaining discovery by completing a one-page form available at arraignment. The particular process adopted in our courthouse may not matter in their future practice, but the general lesson will stick: In contemporary law practice, there’s often a faster and cheaper way to turn those nuts and bolts. The lawyers who keep up with those changes have a competitive advantage.
Yes, the nuts and bolts of law practice vary from state to state, and these practices shift over time. But the same is true of legal doctrine. We assume that educating students in a set of doctrinal principles will help them master new principles after graduation. The same is true of the nuts and bolts: students will have to master new processes constantly, but they will learn faster–and with more confidence–if they’ve fastened some nuts and bolts before graduation.
Pre-Law Attitudes
April 19th, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
The Kaplan Test Prep company has published the results of an online survey of pre-law students who have taken a Kaplan LSAT course. The results of this survey are more anecdotal than scientific; 228 students responded to the survey but Kaplan does not indicate how many were invited to participate. It is impossible, therefore, to determine how representative these respondents are–even of students who take Kaplan LSAT prep courses.
With that important caveat, the survey results contain more bad news for law schools. Forty-three percent of the respondents declared that they planned to use their JD in the “business world,” and forty-two percent indicated that “they’d likely pursue an MBA if they weren’t already pursuing a JD.” Some observers might interpret those responses to mean that pre-law students are grasping the versatility of the JD and actively planning to use their legal training in non-traditional fields. Unfortunately, though, the responses connote a much gloomier prospect.
Those responses suggest remarkably weak interest in legal careers, even among people who have plunked down money for an LSAT prep course. If these pre-law students are already thinking about business school, how likely are they to persevere through applications, admissions, and financial aid counseling–ultimately enrolling in law school?
Responses to another survey question underscore this low attachment to legal careers. Forty-three percent of the Kaplan respondents said they were likely to alter or postpone their law school plans if they did not get a favorable financial aid package. Again, these are pre-law students with the money and commitment to take an LSAT prep course; despite that commitment, they are remarkably noncommittal about law school.
The Kaplan survey is yet another indicator that the downturn in law school applications will last for at least several more years. Next fall’s college freshmen have had all of high school to absorb information about the high cost of law school and the uncertain job prospects. Would-be lawyers may have already turned to computer science, engineering, nursing, business, and other subjects; they may not even explore law as an option. If the college juniors and seniors who responded to the Kaplan survey are already this skeptical about law school, then how much enthusiasm will their younger siblings bring to campus?
Unconscionable Debt
April 18th, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
Third-year students with federal loans are completing their mandatory exit counseling. That online program shows students how much they have borrowed to finance their education, their current debt (with interest), estimated monthly payments, and other information designed to help them manage their loans. Some students have shown me their print-outs, and the numbers are shocking.
Here is just one example: A single, unmarried student attended a flagship public law school with the median scholarship offered by that school. He had no family support or other assets, so he borrowed to finance his discounted tuition and living expenses. He worked throughout his second and third years of law school, but was only able to obtain low-paid faculty research positions and unpaid internships. Over his three years of law school, he borrowed $123,865.
That amount, I predict, will be common among students graduating from public law schools this spring. It may not yet represent the average at public schools, but I estimate that at least a third of current 3Ls at public schools have borrowed $120,000 or more to finance law school. The average amount borrowed by private school graduates, of course, is already over $124,000. If you doubt these figures and you teach at a law school, you can ask your financial aid office how many of your graduating students have borrowed more than $120,000 to attend law school. The figure will be less than a third at some state schools with very low tuition, but it will be higher than a third at other public schools and most private ones.
But the amount borrowed is just the beginning. What does it mean to borrow $123,865 to finance law school? First, according to the federal counseling program, it means that you currently owe $133,869. About $10,000 of interest has accumulated just during law school. That debt level also means that you are continuing to accrue about $21 of interest a day. Since you’re unlikely to pay down any of your debt before completing the bar exam, another $2,184 of interest will accrue between now and then.
Exit counseling also advises that, if you attempt to repay this loan on the standard ten-year plan, you will owe $1,579 per month. And here’s the kicker: The government program counsels that, using guidelines published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this student should find a job with a minimum gross income of $236,850 to support those loan repayments! Even the students who obtain those BigLaw jobs won’t gross that amount.
I know (and this student knows) that you can get by on less money than the consumer guidelines suggest. He also knows that there are repayment plans like Income Based Repayment and Pay As You Earn that will tie his loan repayments to his salary. But the numbers generated by this debt counseling program illustrate how outlandish law school debt has become.
Remember that we’re talking here about a scholarship student at a public law school, one who paid about $22,750 per year for tuition and $18,250 (a bit over 150% of the federal poverty level) a year for living expenses. If a student like that needs $236,850 in gross income–or even $100,000 in gross income–to pay off his debt, then law schools are enrolling students in a clear financial trap. We know that incomes like that aren’t available for the vast majority of our graduates. The median pay for all lawyers, including those who have worked 40 or more years, is $112,760 per year. How many lawyers reach that pay level within their first ten or twenty years after graduation, when they are repaying student loans?
How can we possibly maintain access to the legal profession at these prices? How can we provide justice for clients? How can we in good faith enroll students in programs that will leave them financially strapped for years–or dependent upon taxpayer goodwill for reduced payment programs? How can we, as scholars who value public policy, impose those costs on the public?
We can’t. There are four steps that we, as law schools, should pursue aggressively to address this unconscionable situation: (1) Dramatically lower tuition, whatever that takes. (2) Restructure law school so that students can work close to full-time while completing their studies; there’s no other way to cover post-college living expenses for adults who choose not to live with their parents (or don’t have that option). (3) Publicize very clearly how much graduates will earn from average jobs after making average loan payments. (4) Lobby Congress to guarantee reduced payment plans like IBR and PAYE for loans that have already been disbursed, but to repeal those programs for professional students going forward. Those programs were never designed for professional students, and they are coninuing to inflate the cost of professional education. As a policy matter, the money would be better spent on almost any other line in the federal budget.
Meanwhile, the students I’ve talked to can’t spend too much time worrying about their debt: they’re still looking for jobs.
Obama’s Budget and Student Loans
April 17th, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
President Obama’s 2014 budget has two proposals that could affect law students who rely on federal loans. First, the President has proposed eliminating taxes on loan debts that are forgiven. Second, the proposed budget would change interest rates on student loans. Here’s more detail about both proposals, as well as an important caveat about the politics of educational loans and professional students.
Taxation of Forgiven Debt
The Department of Education offers several programs that allow law graduates to reduce their monthly debt payments. Both Income Based Repayment (IBR) and Pay as You Earn (PAYE) link repayment amounts to salary, capping payments to a percentage of the graduate’s discretionary income. The programs also forgive any remaining debt after 10 years (for graduates working in public service), 20 years (under PAYE), or 25 years (under IBR). For graduates falling in the first category, those working in public service, the value of the forgiven debt is not taxable. But for graduates in either of the other two categories, that value is taxable.
Taxation of the forgiven debt makes IBR and PAYE less attractive to graduates–especially those, like law students, who may still owe substantial amounts when their debt is forgiven. These graduates face the grim prospect of concluding one series of loan repayments only to begin a second series of structured payments to the IRS.
Obama’s proposed budget would eliminate that burdensome prospect, insulating all forgiven student debt from taxation. If adopted, the change could relieve some anxiety about student loan payments, although twenty years of repayment is still a daunting prospect.
Interest Rates
Law students qualify for two types of federal loans. First, they may borrow up to $20,500 per year in unsubsidized Stafford loans; those loans currently carry a 6.8% interest rate. Second, law students may borrow additional sums as Grad PLUS loans; the latter loans carry a 7.9% interest rate.
Both rates are quite high compared to other interest rates. The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bills has been depressed for years; it was just 1.75% earlier this week. Fifteen-year fixed-rate mortgages currently impose just 2.55% interest.
Higher rates for student loans partly reflect their increased risk; there is no collateral for an educational loan. The rates, however, also reflect the fact that Congress fixes these rates by statute rather than allowing them to shift with changes in the T-bill rate.
The President’s proposed budget would adjust interest rates on student loans by pegging them to the T-bill rate. Unsubsidized Stafford loans would charge the T-bill interest rate plus 2.93 percentage points. Grad PLUS loans would charge the T-bill rate plus 3.93 percentage points.
At current T-bill rates, this proposal would lower interest rates for law students. Interest on the unsubsidized Stafford loan would fall from 6.8% to 4.68%; interest on the Grad PLUS loan would decline from 7.9% to 5.68%. Those are both significant cuts.
As T-bill rates rise, however, so will interest rates for students. The long-term average interest rate on 10-year Treasury bills is 6.61%. At those rates, law students would pay 9.54% interest on the first $20,500 they borrowed and 10.54% on additional amounts. And that’s just the average T-bill rate; rates could move even higher.
Note that, under the Obama proposal, the interest rate for any loan would be fixed at the time of disbursal; these would not be adjustable rate loans. So, if the proposal passes, students currently enrolled in school will obtain lower-interest loans than the ones currently available; so will future students as long as T-bill rates remain low. Interest rates will rise only for students who enroll and borrow in the future, assuming that T-bill rates return to historical averages.
Politics and Professional Students
The changes outlined above are just proposals; Congress may not accept them. Both changes will cost the federal government money, at least in the short term, and there’s not a lot of money lying around on Capitol Hill. It’s too early to celebrate possible relief for students who depend on educational loans.
Professional students, in fact, face a special risk in the political debate over these proposals. Congress may decide that the President’s proposals are necessary changes for college students, but not for professional students. Professional school graduates, after all, are supposed to earn high enough salaries to repay their loans and profit handily from their educational investment; that’s what law schools and other professional schools have been telling prospective students. Why, then, should Congress spend limited funds to assist professional school graduates?
Congress, in fact, might decide to do what it has done in the past: Help college students by cutting benefits for professional ones. In the 2011 Budget Control Act, Congress eliminated subsidized loans for graduate/professional students and used that savings to improve funding for undergraduates. The upcoming debate raises the same risk: Will Congress accept the President’s proposal, which would offer benefits to current law students? Or will it worsen conditions for graduate and professional students in order to ease debt loads for undergraduates?
Hat tip to TaxProf Blog for noting these important proposals.
Decelerated Degrees
April 16th, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
Accelerated degree programs, which allow students to obtain a JD in two calendar years, are starting to spread. Law schools offering these programs include Northwestern, Vermont, Arizona State, and Regent. Students generally pay as much tuition as they would for a three-year JD, but they join the workforce a year earlier and save a year of living expenses. For some students, two-year programs offer a way to reduce the cost of a JD.
What about the opposite approach? What if students could spread their classwork over four or five years, while paying no more than they would for a three-year program? Students in a “decelerated degree program” could work year-round, defraying at least some living expenses and perhaps securing more meaningful work. Law schools could create these programs with relative ease; deceleration doesn’t require establishing a formal night program, making major curricular changes, or obtaining ABA approval. Deceleration just requires thinking about the JD from a different perspective.
Outdated Assumptions
Most law schools assume that it’s best for students to complete the JD in three full-time academic years. The standard three-year track promotes camaraderie; supports conventional moot court and law review programs; and moves students relatively quickly into the workplace. In the late twentieth century, the three-year model also gave students adequate opportunities to gain workplace experience and offset their expenses: they could work full-time over two summers, plus part-time in the second and third year.
Changes in the legal market, however, have sharply curtailed job opportunities for law students. The shifts haven’t just undercut post-graduate employment; they’ve affected summer and part-time work as well. Fewer paid jobs are available and, when they exist, employers have little interest in accommodating student schedules. Employees who work only 10-15 hours a week offer little value to most employers. The headaches of training, supervising, and scheduling such “low-time” workers quickly outweigh the benefits. As a result, students tell me that their employers press them to work 20 or more hours per week.
The ABA caps employment at 20 hours per week for students enrolled in more than twelve class hours. Even 20 hours, though, is challenging for students to juggle if they are taking a full load of classes and participating in co-curricular activities such as a journal or moot court. Some students have asked me why they can’t stretch their legal education out for an extra year–or take summer courses–without paying extra tuition for the degree.
The answer is that they can–if we let them.
Deceleration
Decelerating the JD is simple: we allow students to spread their degree work over as much as six years, paying for their classes by the credit. We also remove the obstacles (petitions to the academic affairs committee, special permission from the associate dean) that discourage students from extending their work in this manner. Students can choose the best way to integrate their classes with workplace opportunities.
One student might complete the first year full-time, then stretch the remaining two years over three part-time years while working 30-40 hours a week year round. Another might complete her degree in the standard three years by taking summer classes and a reduced academic-year load, while working 25 hours a week. Another might take a semester’s leave to work full-time for an employer, then continue working 30-40 hours a week with a reduced load.
We can even extend deceleration to the first year. Although we think of first-year courses as an integrated block of learning, the courses are less integrated than we assume. My school regularly accepts transfer students who have completed a different first-year curriculum; they make up the missing courses as 2Ls sitting in our first-year classes. We also allow academically challenged students to lightload during the first year; again, they make up the missing classes during the second year. We could offer this kind of schedule to more students, allowing them to split the first year into two halves–or into a 3/4 chunk followed by a few remaining classes integrated with upper-level offerings.
Deceleration Versus Night Programs
How does deceleration differ from traditional part-time or night programs? There are three major differences: (1) Deceleration does not require creation of a separate schedule or set of classes. Students who choose to decelerate enroll in the same curriculum as students who remain on the full-time track. (2) There is no separate admissions process. Deceleration is an option for all students in the JD program. (3) Students may change their course over time. A student might attend school full-time for a year, decelerate for a year and a half, and return to full-time study. The program adjusts to the student’s needs.
Deceleration depends upon a key assumption about today’s workplace: Employers want employees who can work more than 15 hours a week, but they are increasingly flexible about when and where those employees work. Students who decelerate to work may need some early morning, late afternoon, or evening classes, but they will not depend upon them to the same extent that part-time students have in the past.
Advantages
What’s the point of a program like this? As explained above, deceleration would give more students an opportunity to work during law school. Some students might keep the jobs they held before applying to law school; others might find new work while in school. Either way, students who can work 20 or more hours a week are likely to find better opportunities than those with less flexibility.
Those jobs could pay off in at least three ways. First, students will be able to pay some of their expenses, reducing the amount they borrow for law school. Second, serious jobs (those that require 20 or more hours per week) are more likely to lead to post-graduate employment. Finally, those jobs can complement classroom work by giving students the hands-on experience we used to expect from summer clerkships.
Based on my reading of ABA rules, deceleration raises no accreditation issues. ABA Standard 304 requires students to complete a minimum number of instructional hours in residence, but deceleration simply spreads those hours over more time. The same standard requires students to complete their degree within 84 months (7 calendar years); the deceleration I have proposed fits well within that time frame. ABA Interpretation 301-5, finally, requires schools “providing more than one enrollment or scheduling option” to give all students “reasonably comparable” educational and co-curricular opportunities. Deceleration programs would satisfy that requirement because all students could choose from any classes or activities.
Deceleration, finally, should not affect most students’ elibility for federal loans. The Direct Loan program requires students to register at least half- time, but the definition of half-time is very liberal for professional and graduate students. Students, however, would need special counseling if they dropped below half-time status; under those circumstances, they would lose both loan eligibility and deferment.
Negatives
What are the drawbacks? First and most important, deceleration doesn’t solve the major issues confronting law students today. It won’t create more jobs, and it won’t lower tuition below the cost of a standard six-semester program. Deceleration might give some students an advantage in finding available jobs, and it might help some students cope with the high cost of law school, but it doesn’t solve either of those serious systemic problems.
Second, the approach might help only a small number of students. There may be relatively few employers who are interested in hiring law students, even if those students can devote substantial time to the job. Students themselves may not be interested in prolonging the agony of law school. Three years and out may be better than four years and more.
Third, deceleration might raise the cost of law school for some students. Although students would pay by the credit, rather than the year, tuition has been rising faster than inflation. If that trend continues, students will pay more for credits earned later in their law school careers. Delaying entry into the full-time workplace can also be costly. A student who is confident of securing a high-paying job after bar admission has a financial incentive to secure that job as quickly as possible.
Finally, deceleration will work best if schools are willing to change some of their course offerings. The concept doesn’t require night courses, but some evening and night courses would help students pursuing this option. Schools might also need to beef up their summer programs to meet the needs of students spreading work and classes more evenly over the full calendar year. Those changes take administrative time–and may not appeal to some faculty.
Conclusion
Deceleration is a small change, but it’s an option that might appeal to some students, reduce their debt, and improve their job prospects. The approach also complements the growth of externships, distance learning, and other new modes of legal education. The contemporary workplace is in flux, but it seems to be moving toward an era in which individuals integrate education and work more flexibly than in the past. Decelerated JDs might be part of that evolution.
Update on Applications
April 14th, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
LSAC has posted its count of law school applicants through Friday, April 5. The number of applicants had reached 52,066 by then, which was 15.9% less than the number at the same time last year. Applications have fallen more than applicants; the application total was 20.0% less than last year. The current application season is drawing to an end: By April 5 of 2012, law schools had received 96% of their applications from 91% of all applicants.
The numbers prompt these observations:
1. If current trends hold, we will finish the season with about 57,215 applicants, 15.9% less than last year’s total. That’s a stark decline, although not quite as steep as numbers suggested earlier in the season.
2. Law schools admitted 55,800 students just two years ago, when they had 78,500 students to choose from. If we admit the same number of students this year, almost every applicant will receive an offer.
3. The sharper decline in applications, compared to applicants, is noteworthy. It suggests to me that this year’s applicants are pickier than those in previous years; they are applying to fewer schools. Will that choosiness persist? If it does, schools may see lower yields on their offers than in previous years. That could depress class sizes more than the 15.9% drop in applicants suggests.
NALP and the JD Advantage
April 7th, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
With contraction of the legal job market, law schools are touting “JD Advantage” jobs for graduates. According to NALP, the National Association for Law Placement, these are “jobs that do not require bar passage, an active law license, or involve practicing law in the traditional sense.” Instead, JD Advantage jobs are positions in which “a JD provides an advantage in obtaining or performing the job.”
NALP is now helping law schools promote these JD Advantage positions to prospective students. The organization has created a new webpage, What Is the JD Advantage?, as part of its Prelaw Portal. The page enthusiastically advises prospective law students: “It turns out that the JD degree prepares you for a variety of exciting jobs and careers. While many law school graduates go on to practice law, many others go on to play leadership roles in a variety of settings. Many law school graduates obtain positions for which Bar Passage, or even a JD, is not required, but their legal training is deemed to be an advantage or even necessary in the workplace. As the saying goes ‘you can do almost anything with a law degree!'”
The page then offers videos of five recent law graduates who are happily pursuing JD Advantage positions. The featured jobs are desirable ones: two of the graduates are Presidential Management Fellows; one is a communications director for a U.S. Congressman; one is a senior human resources manager; and the fifth is a vice president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. The graduates speak glowingly of their work and endorse the versatility of a law degree. Each video opens with the slogan: “you can do anything with a law degree.”
This is feel-good stuff designed to promote law school attendance. Some educators might dismiss the webpage as harmless puffery. We all know that it’s not possible to do “anything” with a law degree. Law school graduates can’t practice medicine, pilot planes, speak Urdu, or do hundreds of other things without training separately in those fields. And there are many things one can do with a law degree (sell coffee, scrub floors, go to prison), that most graduates prefer not to do.
Law schools, however, shouldn’t dismiss this webpage as puffery; they should demand that NALP take the page down. The page omits material, negative information about JD Advantage positions–information that NALP itself collects and has readily available. Rather than share the negative data through its Prelaw Portal, or elsewhere on its public website, NALP shelters most of that information in its annual Jobs and JDs book. Few prospective students know about that publication–or would spend the $90 that NALP charges for a copy.
At the same time that NALP omits material information from its “JD Advantage” webpage, the organization reassures prospective students that NALP is “the premier resource for information on legal employment and recruiting,” and that it is able to “provide comprehensive information” on topics related to entry-level jobs secured by law graduates. NALP, in other words, is trading on its reputation as an impartial data collection agency while providing biased information to prospective law students. Even worse, NALP must know that the information on its site is incomplete and overly rosy. Law schools shouldn’t tolerate this type of behavior from an organization that represents us.
What NALP Knows
NALP has four types of data that undermine the unalloyed enthusiasm of its “JD Advantage” webpage. First, and most important, NALP knows that many law graduates in these positions are actively seeking other work. Graduates with jobs that require bar passage, in contrast, are much less likely to be shopping for other work.
As part of its annual employment survey, NALP asks every law graduate to “indicate whether you are seeking a job other than the one described here.” To my knowledge, aggregate responses to this question appear nowhere on NALP’s website; they appear only in NALP’s Jobs and JDs report. Those reports consistently show that graduates with JD Advantage jobs (or “JD Preferred” ones, as NALP used to label this category) are much more likely to be seeking other work than are graduates in “Bar Passage Required” positions.
In 2001, for example, just 6.7% of law grads with Bar Passage Required jobs were seeking other work nine months after graduation; a full third (33.3%) of graduates in JD Preferred positions were doing so. The figures were similar in 2004: 8.5% of graduates in Bar Passage Required jobs were seeking other work, while 37.0% of those in JD Preferred positions were doing so. The same was true in 2007: only 8.7% of graduates in Bar Passage Required jobs were still on the job market, while 37.7% of those with JD Preferred positions were actively seeking work.
For the most recent year, 2011, graduates in both categories were less satisfied with their nine-month positiions. Even among graduates with jobs requiring bar passage, 16.5% were actively looking for other jobs. But a whopping 46.8% of graduates in JD Advantage jobs were looking for other work. Almost half of all graduates with “JD Advantage” jobs were dissatisfied enough to still be on the job market–just nine months after law school graduation. That fact belies the “you can do anything” cheerfulness of NALP’s JD Advantage pitch to prelaw students.
Second, NALP knows that contemporary JD Advantage jobs are much more likely than lawyering ones to be part-time. For the Class of 2011, 21.0% of JD Advantage jobs were part-time; just 8.0% of Bar Passage Required jobs fell in that category. A diligent searcher could find this information on NALP’s general website, but not on its JD Advantage webpage.
Third, NALP knows that a similarly high percentage of JD Advantage jobs are short-term temporary ones. A recent ABA Report shows that 25.2% of all JD Advantage jobs secured by the Class of 2011 were short-term positions. Just 9.7% of jobs requiring bar passage, in contrast, were temporary ones. NALP collects similar information about the short-term nature of JD Advantage jobs, but does not report it, either on the JD Advantage webpage or elsewhere on its site.
NALP, finally, knows that JD Advantage jobs pay less than ones requiring bar passage–and that holders of JD Advantage jobs are less likely to report their salaries. The difference in reported salaries is relatively small: the median for JD Advantage positions was $59,000 in 2011 while that for Bar Passage Required ones was $61,500. More significant, only 33.8% of JD Advantage workers reported their salaries–compared to 57.3% of graduates holding jobs that required bar passage. As NALP itself recognizes, reported salaries skew high. The dramatic under-reporting of JD Advantage salaries suggests significantly lower pay in that sector.
These four facts raise concerns about the desirability of JD Advantage jobs. Prospective students should know these facts, especially the fact about the number of JD Advantage job-holders who are still seeking other work. NALP should know better than to publish cherry-picked videos and cheery claims without disclosing the information it possesses about these “do anything” jobs.
What NALP Doesn’t Know
It’s very troubling that NALP is promoting JD Advantage positions without disclosing the key information it possesses about those jobs. Equally disturbing, NALP is pushing these positions despite its lack of essential information about this job sector. When I first saw NALP’s JD Advantage webpage, I assumed that the organization had gathered data about the full range of jobs labeled “JD Advantage.” I thought, for example, that NALP would know how many of those jobs are Presidential Management Fellowships, how many are compliance positions, how many are paralegal spots, and how many are primary school teaching positions. That type of information would give NALP some basis for promoting JD Advantage jobs as desirable ones–or at least for giving prospective students information about their different options.
After corresponding with NALP’s staff, however, I discovered that NALP does not know what kind of jobs appear in the JD Advantage category–much less the percentage of each type of job. NALP relies exclusively on graduates and law schools to categorize their jobs as “Bar Passage Required,” “JD Advantage,” “Other Professional,” or “Non-Professional.” When NALP tells prospective students that they “can do almost anything with a law degree,” NALP doesn’t know what graduates with JD Advantage, Professional, or Non-Professional positions really are doing with their degrees.
This strikes me as even more irresponsible than NALP’s omission of the facts it knows about JD Advantage positions. If NALP–or individual law schools–want to promote JD Advantage jobs, then we should collect more information about those jobs. How many of our graduates are Presidential Management Fellows and how many are paralegals? Are the graduates in HR positions doing advanced work, or are they taking jobs that are available to college graduates? If NALP or its member schools believe that JD Advantage jobs are important to the future of legal education, then we should collect and publish honest information about those positions. Without that information, statements that “you can do anything with a law degree” aren’t just glib–they’re disingenuous.
Lowering Tuition
April 6th, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law is reducing tuition for in-state residents by eleven percent. Non-residents are receiving an eight percent decrease. The Board of Trustees unanimously approved both reductions on Thursday. What does the reduction mean for Arizona and other law schools?
I welcome the tuition reduction, as I’m sure current and prospective students do. Arizona’s cost-cutting is just a small step in rolling back the steep rise in law school tuition, but it’s a worthwhile one. Arizona residents will pay $3,000 less per year for their legal education, while non-residents will pay $3,500 less. If students are borrowing that money, as most do, they will also save interest that accumulates at high rates. A non-resident who is borrowing money to attend the University of Arizona’s law school will save about $12,350 in tuition and interest over three years.
On the other hand, even a savings of $12,500 is relatively small given the overall cost of legal education. The University of Arizona estimates its current cost of attendance as $50,295 a year for residents and $65,306 for nonresidents. That’s a hefty $150,885 to $195,918 for three years. Cutting out $9,000 to $12,500 helps, but it’s a minor assist. As Brian Tamanaha commented, the reduction is not nearly enough to “align cost and economic return for the majority of students.”
The reduction, however, does have two other effects. First, it will help other schools gauge reactions to tuition cuts. Will prospective students respect Arizona’s move as one that, in addition to conveying modest financial benefit, signals a commitment to student interests? Will Arizona attract more and better students through its tuition reduction? Will alumni, employers, and the public similarly applaud Arizona’s attempt to rein in costs?
Or will these audiences see the reduction as a fire sale, suggesting desperation and cheapening Arizona’s reputation? Legal educators have speculated about the latter attitude during the last few years. Arizona’s decision will help test whether this is a realistic fear–or simply one of self interest in resisting tuition reductions.
Second, Arizona’s action represents a small step away from merit scholarships. The school has announced that it will pay for its tuition cuts partly by reducing scholarship awards. Some prospective students (those who would have received high scholarships) thus may pay more with the tuition “cut” than they would have under the status quo. Students who would not have received scholarships, however, will pay less. Overall, the program will ease the “reverse robin hood” effect that many have criticized in today’s law school admissions process. Students with lower LSAT scores may still subsidize higher scoring classmates at the University of Arizona, but the subsidy won’t be quite as large as it was before–or as it may be at other schools.
How will other schools respond to this step toward tuition equity? Many law faculty dislike the current scholarship system, which encourages the purchase of LSAT scores and GPAs to bolster US News rankings. Yet schools have resisted change, worrying that individual action would lead to a lower rank.
With this tuition reduction, Arizona seems willing to risk that step. Will Arizona’s bravery demonstrate that lower tuition, combined with lower scholarships, is possible without losing rank? If Arizona does suffer in the rankings game, will the school adhere to its policy–showing other schools that pedagogic mission sometimes must trump rank? Surely we would all be better off choosing students and awarding financial aid with less obsessive attention to LSAT scores. Either way, I await further reactions to Arizona’s move.
2012 Employment Outcomes
April 2nd, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt
The ABA has posted employment data for the Class of 2012. The figures are grim by any measure. The downturn in entry-level employment, which schools dismissed as temporary in 2009 and 2010, has persisted for four years–with a fifth year about to graduate. Only 56.2% of 2012 graduates had found full-time, long-term jobs requiring bar admission by nine months after graduation. More than a tenth of the class–10.6%–was still unemployed and actively seeking work at the nine-month mark. Those are shocking numbers for graduates with a professional degree.
The national unemployment rate was just 7.7% in February; the rate for law graduates was almost 3 points higher. Law schools, moreover, reported that another 2.2% of their graduates were “unemployed but not seeking work,” while still another 2.6% had an employment status that could not be confirmed. The graduates in those categories may belong with the plain old “unemployed”; lower ranked law schools have a suspiciously high number of graduates who either are not seeking work or refuse to disclose their job status.
All told, therefore, the unemployment rate for graduates of ABA-accredited law schools could be as high as 15.4%–more than one in every seven graduates.
Nor does the bad news stop there. Only 56.2% of graduates found full-time, long-term work that required a bar license. Another 9.5% reported full-time, long-term work for which the JD was an “advantage.” That’s a loosely defined category that includes paralegals and other positions that do not need graduate training. But even if we generously count all of those jobs as worthwhile outcomes for law graduates, less than two-thirds of all graduates (65.7%) secured a full-time, long-term job using their degree. And that’s nine months after law school graduation; more than six months after taking the bar.
Will the class of 2013 fare better? That seems unlikely. The class is larger than the class of 2012; it’s the largest class ever to move through ABA-accredited schools. There has been no noticeable upsurge in hiring at private firms, and government budgets are tighter than ever. My admittedly anecdotal sense is that law schools called in all of their remaining favors for the class of 2012. Alumni have already stretched to hire one more graduate; schools are running through funds for short-term jobs. When the class of 2013 joins their still under-employed peers from the classes of 2009 through 2012, the results won’t be pretty.
About Law School Cafe
Cafe Manager & Co-Moderator
Deborah J. Merritt
Cafe Designer & Co-Moderator
Kyle McEntee
Law School Cafe is a resource for anyone interested in changes in legal education and the legal profession.
Around the Cafe
Subscribe
Categories
Recent Comments
- on Scholarship Advice
- on ExamSoft: New Evidence from NCBE
- on COVID-19 and the Bar Exam
- on Women Law Students: Still Not Equal
- on Ranking Academic Impact
Recent Posts
- The Bot Takes a Bow
- Fundamental Legal Concepts and Principles
- Lay Down the Law
- The Bot Updates the Bar Exam
- GPT-4 Beats the Bar Exam
Monthly Archives
Participate
Have something you think our audience would like to hear about? Interested in writing one or more guest posts? Send an email to the cafe manager at merritt52@gmail.com. We are interested in publishing posts from practitioners, students, faculty, and industry professionals.