Over the last two years, pressure has mounted for law schools to disclose more detailed employment statistics. High-profile incidents also generated concern about inaccurate—and even intentionally falsified—admissions data released by law schools. These events led most law schools to embrace a new era of transparency, one in which they attempt to publish more accurate and extensive statistics.
Recent events, however, have demonstrated that transparency creates as many issues as it resolves. Should the ABA audit statistics published by law schools? How should new ABA rules be interpreted and enforced? Should the AALS publish best practices for schools to follow? Does (or should) publishing misleading data violate legal ethics rules? Do law schools have an obligation to move beyond existing data and gather longitudinal information about the success of their graduates? As schools attempt to tap new applicant pools (such as foreign students, second-career, and dual-degree candidates), what information should they provide to those prospective students? What information should accompany scholarship offers? Should NALP, the ABA, or individual law schools publish job outcomes differentiated by race, gender, age, and/or disability status? And how might new disclosures actually affect the behavior of prospective law students—what information matters to applicants?