Josh Wright over at Truth on the Market links to a study that I have heard about (and been skeptical of), but had not yet seen in print: “Do Economists Make Better Lawyers? Undergraduate Degree Field and Lawyer Earnings.” The comments float some rival hypotheses. In the hope of seeing a novel research design, I am adding this paper to my summer reading pile.
One reason why I am interested in this topic is that labor markets for new lawyers appear to follow a pretty simple pattern: higher paying jobs go to students with higher grades from higher ranked schools. (For evidence that geography also plays a key role, see Henderson & Morriss (2006)). I know of only limited anecdotal evidence that employers are willing to forgo school rank or grades for specialized substantive training (e.g., I have heard persuasive accounts from two law profs that employers will dig a little deeper into the class during OCI for students who completed a business law certificate program; another example is the $15K bonuses being paid at some firms for JD/MBA grads).
Imagine how the law school universe would be turned on its head if it could be shown empirically that individual law schools, through a well-designed curriculum, added sufficient enhancements in human capital that prestigious employers would trade down a few notches in USNWR (which correlates at .90 with median LSAT scores) to hire those graduates. If anyone has additional anecdotal evidence on this issue, please post a comment.
Sarah,
The news is not good. As the saying goes, "You cannot serve two masters." Most admissions personnel are judged by their numbers. At the vast majority of law schools, "whole person review" only exists after locking in median LSAT and UGPA (or 25th percentiles figures, because these are the benchmarks for some rankings systems, such as BC's website). This process takes a fair amount of mathematical competence, especially to deal with issues like yields, wait lists, etc. When diversity is added to the mix, there is not much room left for other non-quantifiable attributes.
The data strongly suggests that the increasing emphasis on rankings has reduced the relevance of other admissions criteria. LSAT and UGPA ranges are much more stratified and compressed than they were 10 or 15 years ago. In my opinion, it's a problem because valuable information is getting ignored.
Posted by: William Henderson | 01 June 2006 at 10:32 PM
On a sort-of-related point, I wonder whether the law professors on the list could provide some insight to the political scientists in terms of general training for law school. In other words, do admission committees prefer an economics degree or an English degree or any particular degree? Are law studies options or concentrations useful? Is experience on a Mock Trial team relevant? I know you're looking for high GPAs and LSATs as well as diversity -- is there anything else an erstwhile undergrad can do to better his/her chances of admission into his/her law school of choice? And anything we can do to get our students admission at strong programs?
Posted by: Sara Benesh | 01 June 2006 at 03:28 PM