This past July, LST requested that all ABA-approved law schools provide employment data to LST for public consumption. At that time, the vast majority of law schools declined to respond or comment. In November, we finalized our official guidelines and made a second request from all ABA-approved law schools. While schools still have time to respond to our request and potentially commit to the LST Standard in time for the first wave of data, we thought it was time to issue a report on where things currently stand. Once again, the vast majority of schools have declined to respond or comment. The responses from the schools that did choose to respond were much the same.
Initial Request Responses
| Law School | Stance | Primary reason for declining |
|---|---|---|
| American University | Maybe | Waiting for finalized Guidelines to decide |
| Ave Maria | Yes | |
| Creighton University | No | Compliance costs are too great |
| Northwestern University | No | LST is not well-established |
| Santa Clara University | No | Compliance costs are too great |
| University of Colorado | No | Compliance costs are too great |
| University of Florida | No | Prefer other means of improving information |
| University of Michigan | Maybe | Should make open records request instead |
| University of Tennessee | No | Violates privacy of students and employers |
| Vanderbilt University | Maybe | Waiting to examine impact on privacy |
| William Mitchell | No | No reason provided |
Second Request Responses
| Law School | Stance | Primary reason for declining |
|---|---|---|
| Loyola University Chicago | No | “most of the same [reasons] as the other deans who have declined” |
| University of Kansas | No | “not in a position to participate at this time” |
| Duquesne University | No | Violates privacy of students |
| Nova Southeastern University | No | Compliance costs are too great |
| University of Louisville | Maybe | see below |
University of Louisville’s response to our second request was of particular note.
Via email:
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. I think we agree on the value of reporting employment data accurately. I think we also agree on some of the potential challenges with LST Standard compliance. At this point, the University of Louisville Law School can commit to reviewing our 2010 data with the LST Standard in mind. As we discussed, our challenges are going to be with salary determination, reporting, privacy and resources. Perhaps we can have another conversation after February 15. My goal, like yours, is to ensure that prospective consumers of law school education have complete and accurate information upon which to make a decision.
We will be following up with University of Louisville Law School next week. It’s good to see the school thinking critically about how they report information to prospective law students. Louisville is among the few schools in the recent months to act publicly on the notion that prospective students need more information to make informed decisions. We hope that Louisville and other schools promptly provide 2010 employment information after it is available.
In the meantime, if you are affiliated with a school that has yet to respond and you support the cause, we encourage you to contact the school’s administration. We’ve heard from a number of current and prospective students over the last month who are doing just that, so please check back as we report more on those initiatives.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Law School Transparency » Law School Transparency Reports: The Second Request -- Topsy.com