Deborah Jones Merritt

Scholarly Influence in a Diverse Legal Academy: Race, Sex, and Citation Counts

This article explores sex and race differences in scholarly influence by examining logged citation counts for all 815 professors who began tenure‐track positions at accredited U.S. law schools between 1986 and 1991 and who remained on the tenure track in fall 1998. White men averaged significantly more citations than did women or minorities. The differences, however, were modest. Controlling for biographical variables through a series of regression equations, moreover, eliminated the citation gap between white men and both white and minority women, while substantially reducing the gap for minority men. The analyses suggest that most sex and race differences in citation counts are associated with differences in educational background, prestige of the institution at which a professor teaches, teaching assignments, and similar factors. As these differences diminish, already modest gaps in citation counts should decline as well.

What Happened to the Class of 2010? Empirical Evidence of Structural Change in the Legal Profession

Poor employment outcomes have plagued law school graduates for several years. Legal scholars have debated whether these outcomes stem from macroeconomic cycles or from fundamental changes in the market for legal services. This Article examines that question empirically, using a database of employment outcomes for more than 1,200 lawyers who received their JDs in 2010. The analysis offers strong evidence of structural shifts in the legal market. Job outcomes have improved only marginally for the Class of 2010, those outcomes contrast sharply with results for earlier classes, and law firm jobs have dropped markedly. In addition to discussing these results, the Article examines correlations between job outcomes and gender, law school prestige, and geography. In a concluding section, it offers four predictions about the future of the legal market and the economics of legal education.

Raising the Bar: A Social Science Critique of Recent Increases to Passing Scores on the Bar Exam

More than one quarter of all states have toughened bar exam standards in recent years, with other states poised to follow suit. About one-third of exam takers from ABA-accredited schools now fail the bar exam on the first attempt. Many of these students would have passed the bar five years ago, before states started raising their passing scores. These higher passing scores raise important policy issues about competition, diversity, and access in the legal profession. In many states, moreover, the new scores rest on a flawed statistical process. Bar examiners, unaware of these defects, are setting arbitrary passing scores that most likely exclude qualified applicants. This article explores both the policy issues surrounding recent increases to bar passing scores and the methodological defects in the statistical process used to set those scores. The analyses are important, not only for assuring fair access to the legal profession, but as a case study of the ways in which flawed statistical processes can affect policy outcomes.