November 2, 2010
This update reports the data-gathering I conducted in the Fall of 2010. I'm posting it as an addendum to my long-term trends posted in 2011 because
- The data shows an upward blip for 2010 that needs explaining, and
- most of the data published in 2012 and relied on for admission in the fall of 2012 and 2013 is based on this overly-optimistic blip.
So before you place too much reliance on published job rates from 2010, consider the consensus of answers from admissions officers at the 2010 Law Forums:
- Part-Time Programs
We can't afford to let part time programs drag us down in the USNews rankings more than necessary. If we have a strong institutional commitment to helping the local working population, we'll take applicants with lower numbers, but only if they actually need a part-time program. Part-time with lower LSAT and GPA as a back door into our law school isn't happening unless we need the revenue and feel our ranking numbers can take the hit.
What that means to you is that any published data about part time programs is wrong -- overly optimistic. If the school publishes a GPA and LSAT grid, cut the number of admits below the 25th percentile in half. If the school doesn't publish such a grid, rely on full-time GPA and LSAT info.
- Overenrolled
A surprising number of schools reported being overenrolled, even those who went to their wait lists. This is primarily the result of a lot of last-minute deposits and higher yields on waitlist calls.
- Without jobs, fewer people chose to enter the work force rather than the law school;
- Without offers from higher-ranked law schools, more people jumped to accept that wait list call.
- Deferred Seats The phenomenon of law schools' offering seats for next year to people who applied this year at the law school's initiative is not prevalent or even enough of a factor to consider. Most law schools have kept their same deferral policy at the students' request as they had before, whatever that was.