Law School Graduates Continue to Face Brutal Entry-Level Market

LST has made Class of 2012 job outcome data (as of 9 months after graduation) available about the 200 ABA-approved law schools. School-specific profiles and regional comparisons can be viewed on the LST Score Reports, The Score Reports are a popular law school decision tool based on employment data. They are not rankings and aid students to make decisions on a local and regional basis, rather than on a meaningless national scale.

The Class of 2012 outcome data shed considerable light on how difficult the job market remains for law school graduates. These graduates fared 1% better than last year’s graduates in lawyer jobs: 56.2% of 2012 graduates were be employed in full-time, long-term lawyer jobs. Exclude jobs funded by the law schools from this figure and it is 55.1%. A devastating 27.7% were either underemployed (short-term or part-time job, or non-professional) or not employed (unemployed or pursuing an additional degree). The national non-response rate was 2.6%.

Full-time, Long-Term Legal Jobs:

The national full-time, long-term legal rate is 56.2%.

  • These jobs
    • require bar passage or are judicial clerkships; and
    • require 35+ hours per week and have an expected duration of at least one year.
  • At 66 law schools (33.0%), less than 50% of graduates had these legal jobs.
    • 26 schools (13.0%) had less than 40%;
    • 11 schools (5.5%) had less than 33%.
  • 95 schools (47.5%) exceeded the national rate of 56.2%.
    • 50 schools (25.0%) had more than 66%;
    • 20 schools (10.0%) had more than 75%;
    • 6 schools (3.0%) had more than 90%.

Last month, the ABA agreed to further disaggregate school-funded jobs data. The new format sheds light on how many of the school-funded jobs were Bar Passaged Required, J.D. Advantage, Professional, and Non-Professional. Like last year, these categories are also broken down by whether they are full- or part-time and long- or short-term.

The national full-time, long-term legal rate, excluding school-funded jobs, is 55.1%.

  • The richest schools were able to hire their struggling graduates full time and long term; only 15 schools (7.5%) had 5% or more of their graduates in long-term, full-time, school-funded jobs that required bar passage.
    • Many of these schools were top performers on the full-time, long-term rate.
    • Excluding the school-funded jobs from this rate caused five of the six schools over 90% to drop below that threshold; two of those five dropped below 80%.

Underemployed or Not Employed:

  • The national rate is 27.7%.
  • A graduate counts as underemployed when he or she in a non-professional job or employed in a short-term or part-time job.
  • A graduate counts as not employed when he or she is unemployed or pursuing an additional advanced degree.
  • 187 schools (93.5%) reported a rate greater than 10%.
    • 153 schools (76.5%) had more than 20%;
    • 112 schools (56.0%) had more than 25%;
    • 58 schools (29.0%) had more than 33%;
    • 27 schools (13.5%) had more than 40%;
    • 8 schools (4.0%) had more than 50%.
  • 24 schools had more underemployed and non-employed graduates than graduates employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs.

Large Firms (at least 101 attorneys):

  • 12.2% of graduates were employed at large firms in full-time, long-term positions
    • Graduates seek these jobs partly because they tend to pay the highest salaries.
    • Note that not all of these jobs are associate positions. An unknown number are paralegals, administrators, and staff attorneys.
  • At only 51 schools (25.5%) were more than 10% in these jobs.
    • 27 schools (13.5%) had more than 20%;
    • 14 schools (7.0%) had more than 33%;
    • 8 schools (4.0%) had more than over 50%.

Despite 2012 graduates taking 2,000 more long-term, full-time legal jobs than 2011 graduates, the percentage improvement was just 1% because there were 5.4% more 2012 graduates than in 2011. The Class of 2012 does not represent the apex for new J.D.’s either; only after the class of 2013 will the number of graduates drop, though the total still looks to be in substantial disproportion to the number of jobs available in our quickly evolving profession.

The students entering this fall (who graduate in 2016) will likely fare better on the job market because fewer prospective students are deciding to take the LSAT, to apply to law school, and to attend now that post-graduation realities are transparent. But even if every law school graduate obtained a job, the sky-high cost of legal education means that expected salaries for law school graduates portend economic hardship. For many, it will be impossible to fulfill their student loan obligations without gambling on the continuation of federal hardship programs.

Law School Transparency’s executive director, Kyle McEntee, urged caution to students planning to enroll this fall. McEntee said, “Law school is too expensive relative to job outcomes. If you plan to debt-finance your education or use hard-earned savings, seriously think twice about attending a law school without a steep discount. For the vast majority of prospective law students who have not received a sizable scholarship, it makes sense to wait for prices to drop.”

+ School profiles:
+ Comparison charts:

Established in 2009, Law School Transparency is a nonprofit legal education policy organization. Our mission is to improve consumer information and reform the traditional law school model. We operate independently of any legal institutions, legal employers, or academic reports related to the legal market.

Law School Transparency releases annual index of law school disclosure

The Transparency Index reflects Law School Transparency’s review of law school websites, through which we analyze the employment information that law schools use to market their programs. We measure not only whether law schools meet voluntary transparency standards, but also whether they meet the requirements from ABA Standard 509.

Our project has three important parts:

During the initial review period, we found that 78.4% (156/199) of ABA-approved law schools were not meeting the expectations set forth by Standard 509. We contacted ever school’s dean, admissions office, and career services office with an offer to help them meet our criteria. 102 law schools took us up on our offer, and to date 84 of these schools have updated the consumer information on their websites.

See also:

Class of 2012 NLJ 250 Statistics

The National Law Journal (NLJ) released its annual report this weekend on the law schools that send the most graduates to the 250 largest American law firms (NLJ 250). In this post we’ll answer a few basic questions about this important employment outcome measure. This is the first published Class of 2012 employment information.

What is the NLJ 250?

The NLJ 250 includes the 250 largest law firms headquartered in the United States. This is measured by the firm-reported annual average number of full-time and full-time equivalent attorneys working at the firm, in any office, in 2012. This does not include temporary or contract attorneys, though it does include non-partner track attorneys.

Where do the data come from?

Methodology via the NLJ:

Methodology: Data for this Go-To Law Schools special report were provided by the law firms surveyed for the NLJ 250, The National Law Journal’s annual survey of the nation’s 250 largest law firms by headcount. We received data from 190 firms. For firms that did not submit new associate numbers, we relied on data from ALM Media LLC’s RivalEdge database and independent reporting. We determined rankings by the percentage of 2012 juris doctor graduates who took associate jobs at NLJ 250 firms. The rankings do not reflect law graduates who took jobs as clerks following graduation. Our data do not include new associates at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison or King & Spalding.

What do these numbers tell us?

Large firm placement percentage is an important, albeit imperfect, proxy for the number of graduates with access to the most competitive and highest paying jobs. The percentage, accordingly, tell us which schools most successfully place students in these highly sought-after jobs. Successful large firm placement is best analyzed by looking at multiple years worth of data. (View the NLJ 250 from the class of 2010 here and from the class of 2011 here.)

What do these numbers not tell us?

First, self-selection controls all post-graduation outcomes. Nobody is coerced into a job they are offered (unless you consider debt pressure or other strong personal influences coercive), so these numbers do not provide more than a proxy for opportunities. Opportunities, after all, are prospective students’ real concern when analyzing employment information, and these rankings do not necessarily reflect a school’s ability to place students into NLJ 250 firms.

Many graduates, particularly at the top schools, choose to clerk after graduation instead of working for these law firms. While not all of these graduates would have secured employment at the NLJ 250 firms, some could have. For this reason, one popular technique used to understand a school’s placement ability is adding the percentage of graduates at NLJ 250 firms to the percentage of graduates clerking for Article III judges. This method is not perfect; read our white paper for a more detailed explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of this technique.

Second, NLJ 250 firm jobs are not the only competitive, high-paying firm jobs. Boutique law firms are also very competitive, with some paying New York City market rates and above. Additionally, the NLJ 250 does not include large, prestigious internationally-based law firms with American offices.

Third, not all NLJ 250 firm jobs are equally competitive. Law firms from different regions and of differing caliber have varying preferences for the students from different law schools, including how far into the class they are willing to reach. That is, two schools that place an equal percentage of graduates in NLJ 250 firms may do so for reasons other than similar preferences among equally competitive NLJ 250 firms.

Fourth, the rankings include data only about the law schools that placed at least 8.22% of its entire class in the NLJ 250 firms. All other American law schools placed a lower, unknown percentage at NLJ 250 firms. The remaining schools range from 0% to 8.22%, and probably do not fall into a normal distribution.

If you have more questions, please feel free to email or reply this post. We will update this as needed.

2012 placement into NLJ 250 firms by law school

Rank School NLJ 250
% of
1 University of Pennsylvania Law School 163 270 60.37%
2 University of Chicago Law School 119 216 55.09%
3 Columbia Law School 245 460 53.26%
4 New York University School of Law 253 478 52.93%
5 Northwestern University School of Law 144 280 51.43%
6 Harvard Law School 297 590 50.34%
7 Duke Law School 107 221 48.42%
8 Stanford Law School 86 182 47.25%
9 University of California, Berkeley School of Law 139 307 45.28%
10 Cornell Law School 85 192 44.27%
11 University of Virginia School of Law 151 357 42.30%
12 University of Michigan Law School 149 388 38.40%
13 Georgetown University Law Center 193 616 31.33%
14 Yale Law School 68 222 30.63%
15 University of California at Los Angeles School of Law 97 333 29.13%
16 University of Southern California Gould School of Law 63 220 28.64%
17 Vanderbilt University Law School 51 194 26.29%
18 University of Texas School of Law 96 372 25.81%
19 Fordham University School of Law 114 487 23.41%
20 University of California, Irvine School of Law 13 56 23.21%
21 George Washington University Law School 122 542 22.51%
22 Boston University School of Law 58 273 21.25%
23 Boston College Law School 54 256 21.09%
24 University of Illinois College of Law 40 213 18.78%
25 Washington University in St. Louis School of Law 49 300 16.33%
26 University of Notre Dame Law School 32 196 16.33%
27 Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law 44 280 15.71%
28 Emory University School of Law 39 253 15.42%
29 University of Houston Law Center 35 262 13.36%
30 College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law 27 206 13.11%
31 Howard University School of Law 19 148 12.84%
32 University of North Carolina School of Law 32 260 12.31%
33 University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law 17 141 12.06%
34 Washington and Lee University School of Law 15 129 11.63%
35 University of Washington School of Law 20 181 11.05%
36 University of Minnesota Law School 25 230 10.87%
37 Seton Hall University School of Law 32 310 10.32%
38 University of Kentucky College of Law 15 148 10.14%
39 Loyola Law School, Los Angeles 41 414 9.90%
40 University of California Hastings College of the Law 43 443 9.71%
41 Wake Forest University School of Law 15 155 9.68%
42 Villanova University School of Law 24 255 9.41%
43 University of Georgia School of Law 21 225 9.33%
44 Indiana University Maurer School of Law–Bloomington 19 208 9.13%
45 University of California, Davis School of Law 17 198 8.59%
46 Santa Clara University School of Law 26 306 8.50%
47 University of Wisconsin Law School 24 284 8.45%
48 Rutgers School of Law–Camden 23 274 8.39%
49 Loyola University Chicago School of Law 23 274 8.39%
50 University of Tennessee College of Law 12 146 8.22%

Complaint Filed With ABA Against Rutgers — Camden

On Monday, LST will file a complaint with the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar against Rutgers — Camden over a recruiting email sent earlier this year. You can view the complaint here.

We allege that Rutgers School of Law – Camden violated Standard 509 and Interpretation 509-4. A law school administrator made misleading statements about the successes of the school’s graduates. The same administrator also made a false statement about graduate salary outcomes when she asserted that many top graduates accepted jobs at firms making in excess of $130,000, when in fact zero graduates reported earning more than $130,000.

Timeline of Events

May 18, 2012. Above the Law story on email from Dean Camille Andrews to prospective students.

May 20, 2012. LST called for the resignation of Dean Andrews

May 22, 2012. Insider Higher Ed published a story with a response from the dean of Rutgers – Camden, Rayman Solomon.

May 22, 2012. LST responds to Dean Solomon.

Late May. Dean Solomon commissions a report by three senior faculty members to be delivered to LST.

June 8, 2012. LST receives the faculty report from Rutgers — Camden.

June 11, 2012. LST does an open records request and eventually obtains records that confirm the faculty report and that the original email contained false statements in addition to misleading statements.

Table of Contents for Complaint

I. Misleading and False Statements
A. Employment Data
B. Responses by Rutgers – Camden to LST Allegations
C. Analysis
II. Aggravating Factors
III. Mitigating Factors
IV. Conclusion

New Alternative to U.S. News Law School Rankings

Today, Law School Transparency announces an alternative to the U.S. News law school rankings: The LST Score Reports.

LST has developed the Score Reports in an effort to produce a tool to help prospective students make application and enrollment decisions, keeping in mind that each person has a different risk tolerance, financial situation, and set of career aspirations.

The Score Reports are user-friendly tools for sorting law school employment outcomes, projected costs, and admissions stats. There is a Score Report for every state (includes only schools that place graduates there), every school (called a profile), and job types. They measure job outcomes, use a regional scope, and use real terms about the outcomes to allow prospective students to make an educated decision about not just which school to attend, but whether any school happens to meet their needs.

The Score Reports are not rankings, although they do serve as an alternative to conventional law school rankings. But unlike rankings, the Score Reports do not reduce complex data to a single metric. Instead, the Score Reports focus on observable relationships to specific legal markets and job types. Only a small handful of schools have a truly national reach in job placement. The rest have a regional, in-state, or even just local reach. A decision tool should not obfuscate this reality; it should embrace it.

You can view the Score Reports, and read more about them, by following these links:

The Score Reports:
Guide to Using the Score Reports:
The Value of the U.S. News rankings:
Methodology, Published in the Journal of Legal Metrics:

Founded in 2009, Law School Transparency is a nonprofit legal education policy organization dedicated to improving consumer information and to reforming the traditional law school model. LST and its administrators operate independently of any legal institutions, legal employers, or academic reports related to the legal market. The LST Score Reports are a new project from LST Reform Central.

TJSL Responses to Media Reports on Past Admin’s Admitted Fraud

Update: Added additional court filings by TJSL. See below.

Last week, we broke the news of a former employee of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in a sworn testimony, admitting that she falsified data and alleging that she was instructed to do so by her direct supervisor. Since that time, TJSL has made a number of on-the-record responses to Karen Grant’s admission and allegations.

To the ABA Journal:

In an interview with the ABA Journal, Thomas Jefferson School of Law dean Rudy Hasl called the allegations a “crock of crap.”

To the National Law Journal:

Grant’s declaration not a smoking gun, Thomas Jefferson law dean Rudy Hasl said when asked about the statement. He reiterated the school’s position that it did nothing wrong.

“This is the action of a counsel desperate to find any hook to create embarrassment for Thomas Jefferson,” Hasl said.

To the Wall Street Journal:

Thomas Jefferson Dean Rudy Hasl said that the school presented accurate data about its graduates’ employment, and that ”no employee was every directed to falsify information.” The school also denies misleading students, saying it has always complied with reporting requirements.

On the TJSL website (but note that TJSL incorrectly indicates that 25 law schools have been sued — the correct number is 15):

Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL) is one of over 25 law schools across the country that has been sued by a few former students who claim that their post-graduate employment opportunities were more limited than they were led to believe when they applied to attend law school. We believe that this litigation is meritless and will be decided in our favor.

Recent media accounts have drawn attention to a declaration filed last week in the litigation. In the declaration, an ex-employee of TJSL claims that six (6) years ago her former supervisor (who departed TJSL in 2007) instructed her to classify graduates as “employed” in reports to the National Association of Law Placement in cases where those students were employed at some point post-graduation, but were not employed on a specific reporting date. She does not specify how often this change in employment actually occurred.

Claims of false reporting are serious and we take them seriously. TJSL policy has always been to report accurate employment data, and the declaration is the first time the declarant, or anyone else, has made such an assertion.

By way of background, the declarant worked at TJSL only briefly in 2006 and 2007, without ever raising this issue to the Dean or senior staff. Moreover, we have also found no other document or witness who corroborates the declarant’s new contention.

Notably, TJSL was recently praised for the transparency of our publicly available placement data. See, e.g., (Law School Transparency lists TJSL as one of only six schools earning its “good” rating for transparency); see also (National Jurist giving TJSL an “A” grade and ranking the school in the top 15 law schools for transparency).

In sum, as we have consistently stated, we do not believe that there is any legitimate basis for this lawsuit. Accordingly, we will continue to vigorously defend TJSL against these meritless claims.

Updated Court Filings from TJSL

TJSL has passed on to us three of their filings in this case.

Breaking: Ex-CSO assistant director from Thomas Jefferson admits to fraud, alleges deliberate scheme by law school

In a sworn statement, Karen Grant, a former career services assistant director at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, admits that she fabricated graduate employment outcomes for the class of 2006. Grant alleges that her fraud was part of a deliberate scheme by the law school’s administration to inflate its employment statistics. She also claims that her direct supervisor, Laura Weseley, former Director of Career Services, instructed her on multiple occasions to improperly record graduate employment outcomes and justified the scheme because “everybody does it” thus “it is no big deal.” TJSL could face sanctions from the American Bar Association as severe as losing accreditation.

Grant was Assistant Director of Career Services at TJSL from September 2006 to September 2007, during which she was tasked with tracking and recording employment outcomes of recent graduates. Grant is a licensed California attorney and made her sworn declaration on August 2, 2012 in connection to the class action lawsuit filed by Anna Alaburda, et al. against TJSL in 2011. (Complaint; Original Story.) Grant’s statement was filed in court last week in connection to Alaburda’s motion for sanctions.

Specifically, Grant admits that she “routinely recorded currently unemployed students as ‘employed’ if they had been employed at any time since graduation,” which is a violation of both ABA and NALP reporting guidelines. Graduates should only be recorded as employed if they are employed as of February Exhibit B, A handwritten note by Karen Grant from a meeting with Laura Weseley on Oct. 16, 2006. 15 following graduation.

Grant’s admitted actions likely mean that TJSL violated ABA Standard 509 and Interpretation 509-3. Possible sanctions under Rule 16 for violating Standard 509 include monetary penalty, censure, probation, and losing accreditation.

Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School, says that “the ABA ought to be pursuing an investigation vigorously.” He continued, “if the ABA is at all serious about transparency, they will have to crack down on this.” The ABA is preparing its public comments, which will be available shortly. (Update: see below for ABA comments.)

In addition to her own admission, Grant alleges that Weseley, her then-boss, instructed her to misrecord graduate employment outcomes and justified the actions based on a belief that such practices were widespread throughout the legal education community. From Ms. Grant’s testimony (emphasis added):

4. … I was instructed to “probe” graduates because “they may say no,” meaning that graduates may indicate they were currently unemployed and I therefore needed to ask whether they had been employed any time prior to graduation.

5. … Ms. Weseley instructed me to “update ERSS prior to Feb if [unemployed] & become [employed] but not vice-versa.” … I expressed my concern at the time that it did not seem right to update graduates’ employment data only if the graduate became employed, but not if they became unemployed.

Grant continues by explaining her data recording process and Weseley’s alleged influence on it:

6. Ms. Weseley later reiterated that, when talking to students, I was to first ask if they were currently employed. If the graduate indicated he or she was not currently employed, I would then inquire whether he or she was employed at any time after graduation. If the graduate indicated he or she was employed at any time after graduation (even though currently unemployed), I was instructed to record the graduate as “employed” in TJSL’s Excel software.

7. I again expressed my concern and told Ms. Weseley that it not seem right to report currently unemployed students as “employed” merely because they had been employed at some point after graduation. Ms. Weseley responded by saying “it is no big deal, everybody does it.”

8. I followed Ms. Weseley’s instructions. I routinely recorded currently unemployed students as “employed” if they had been employed at any time since graduation. As a result, the employment data that I entered into the Excel files included currently unemployed students who were inaccurately categorized as “employed.”

It is the nature of the process that schools do not follow up with certain graduates before submitting data to NALP by the end of February. Schools begin collecting post-graduation job outcome data shortly before graduation and continue through the February 15 reporting deadline. Once a school knows that a graduate has a job, career services staffers will often cease follow-ups because they believe their time is better spent elsewhere.

However, Grant alleges that the accepted practice in the TJSL career services office, at least during her tenure, went beyond cherry picking which students to follow up with. She alleges that she participated in a scheme that guaranteed that TJSL’s employment stats would be better than the reality by affirmatively ignoring new, true, and proper outcomes of graduates whose jobs were terminated or ran their course before the reporting deadline. Grant admits that TJSL submitted false information to NALP, U.S. News, and the American Bar Association as a result of her counting as employed at nine-months any student who was employed at any time after graduation regardless of whether they had a job at that time.

A look at the statistics TJSL reported to the ABA for the class of 2006 confirms that the numbers from Grant’s spreadsheet, Exhibit D of her declaration, were submitted to the ABA. These numbers were not submitted to the ABA until after her termination in September 2007.

In an email to LST, Rudy Hasl, dean of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, questioned Grant’s reliability, disputing the accuracy of her sworn testimony and her motivations. “The law school stands behind the accuracy of the data that we submitted to the American Bar Association.” Sources report that Grant was terminated in 2007, though when asked for clarification, Dean Hasl would not comment on internal personnel matters beyond suggesting that LST “do a due diligence analysis … including the reasons for her departure from the School of Law.”

Grant’s admission marks the first on-the-record account of a law school administrator falsifying employment data. It remains to be seen whether she was a rogue employee, or whether there was a deliberate scheme by the law school to inflate the appearance of its employment outcomes. Nevertheless, her allegations of a culture within American legal education where fraudulent reporting is a legitimate strategy are sure to reignite concerns about the quality of data that schools report, how schools present data to the public, and whether the current level of public investment in legal education is appropriate in light of this culture.

UPDATE: Comment from ABA

The ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar is fully committed to ensuring that law schools comply with the letter and spirit of the Standards for Approval of Law Schools and all reporting requirements. We take seriously our responsibilities for collecting and disseminating law school data, including employment data.

The actions of a few schools have called into question the integrity of all. As a consequence, the Section has been called upon to play a greater role in investigating possible non-compliance with our rules and in sanctioning non-complying schools. We regularly follow up on reports and other communications regarding possible non-compliance with the Standards that come to our attention.

Under our rules, all matters concerning the accreditation of an individual school must be confidential. Thus, we cannot comment on the matter that is now being reported. Given the confidentiality requirement, no one should assume that a matter has not been, or is not being, addressed.

Last year, in an effort to increase clarity, accuracy and accountability in the reporting of employment data, the Section began requiring law schools to report employment data directly to the Section; in the past, schools reported this information to NALP. We have established detailed definitions and instructions for the reporting of employment data. The Section is fully committed to the clarity and accuracy of law school placement data. By vigorously enforcing the Standard that requires fair and accurate reporting of consumer information, and by having law schools report more comprehensive, specific consumer information, as a result, those students who choose to enter law school will be better informed about the prospects for employment than ever before.

UPDATE: Context of Court Filing

LST received a copy of the evidence as it was filed last Thursday by Anna Alaburda’s attorneys. It was filed in connection to her latest motion, a motion for sanctions.

ABA House of Delegates Approves Standard 509 and Rule 16

Comment from LST’s executive director, Kyle McEntee:

Approval of the improved Standard 509 and Rule 16 represent an important step for law school transparency. I hope that the ABA vigorously pursues violations of Standard 509 and exacts serious, swift punishment on law schools that continue to seek unfair advantages over peer schools and prospective students. To date, no school has been punished for a violation of Standard 509, and it should be impossible for this continue.

Our work is not finished. The Interpretations need additional fine-tuning and the standard form schools will use pursuant to Standard 509(e) has significant flaws. We look forward to working with the Council to make those improvements in the coming months and years.

You can view the resolution here.

LST Requests Class of 2011 NALP Reports

Following our success in collecting NALP reports from schools last year, we are asking schools to now make their reports for the class of 2011 available.

For the class of 2010, we managed to collect 50 NALP reports. These reports helped us expand our data clearinghouse so that we could become the place to go for the most thorough and easy-to-compare employment information. This year, our goal is to double the number of reports we collect.

Even with the improvements to law school transparency, thanks to immense pressure on the ABA, these reports contain helpful data that schools are not required to be make public.

  • Salary Data (aggregated in categories)
  • Job Source (e.g., OCI, networking, direct mailings)
  • Job Offer Timing (before graduation, before bar results, after bar results)
  • Job Status (employed graduates who are still seeking or not seeking)
  • Job Region and Job States
  • Job Type Breakdowns by Employer Type (e.g., government JD Advantage)

Check out Seattle University School of Law’s Class of 2011 NALP report, which the school sent to us unprompted, to see what schools have to offer this year.

We hope that schools share our sense of urgency and help us put comparable employment information into the hands of consumers. Check out the full letter after the jump.

Continue reading LST Requests Class of 2011 NALP Reports