Recruiting 1Ls in their first semester is bad for law students, law schools, and law firms—but figuring out a solution to this collective-action problem isn’t easy.
Obviously every player in the game wants to shift the blame onto someone else. But law schools are easily the narrowest bottleneck — the T14 could easily agree on a start-of-1L-summer timeline that firms could follow on by declining to open their recruiting before then.
Regional firms and non-T14 law schools may still elect to start earlier to jump the queue, but as the article highlights, no credible firm is going to want to fill its class before T14 recruiting opens.
As applied to schools coordinating timelines, “antitrust concerns” are a joke and a bad excuse for inaction. What, is the curve somehow an antitrust violation because law schools conspire to restrict the number of A’s available?
We have two years of evidence that recruiting during 1L increases mismatches and detracts from students’ academic experience. It’s time for law schools’ career centers to play their part in supporting their schools’ academic mission and coordinate on a timeline for May and June recruiting.
The challenge is that the school-firm relationship is severed in the era of virtual screeners and direct applications--firms can simply go around schools in getting to students and vice versa. But schools are the only ones on both sides of the market.
One way schools *could* continue to be the bottleneck would be to restrict students rather than firms. T14 schools (or, let's be realistic and say maybe YLS) could prohibit students from taking law firm summer offers more than a year out as academically detrimental and backed by some kind of stick. Students would presumably still have enough confidence in the school's placement power to feel comfortable matriculating, while knowing with confidence that YLS or T14 students couldn't accept offers before a date certain would leave firms more comfortable holding spots open.
Yes, what you describe is what a school would have to do. Schools don’t have the same power that they did a few years ago, because of direct applications—but they could issue a prohibition that would govern their own students.
Even an unenforceable rule or a de minimis penalty would have positive effects, since in my experience, students would prefer to wait, and just need a coordinating mechanism to ensure that everyone else is starting at the same time.
About time someone said this because it is so true and yet so little tangible action or even the slightest bit of effort to work towards a solution hasn't happened yet. A common occurrence for collective action problems.
Like most institutions, the schools have voluntarily relinquished their power. They have the power to require their students to adhere to a process that is in everyone’s best interest. Which firm will give up its ability to recruit from a T14 school just to get a leg up on a 1L who has no idea what they want or at what they are good? It feels more like insecurity, a _____ measuring exercise rather than a necessary accommodation to the market.
The schools’ cowardice reminds me of the situation when I was at UChicago in the late 80s. Baker & McKenzie’s on campus interviewer said blatantly racist, sexist and antisemetic things to 2L interviewees. A significant portion of the class was outraged and the school said there was nothing they could do. After all, it was the largest firm in the world. The LSA president, Lori Lightfoot, was like a pit bull. Soon, BakerMac was banned from interviewing on campus. Not my favorite mayor, but she showed the power a school could exercise. They could do the same from the student side as opposed to the firm side.
Obviously every player in the game wants to shift the blame onto someone else. But law schools are easily the narrowest bottleneck — the T14 could easily agree on a start-of-1L-summer timeline that firms could follow on by declining to open their recruiting before then.
Regional firms and non-T14 law schools may still elect to start earlier to jump the queue, but as the article highlights, no credible firm is going to want to fill its class before T14 recruiting opens.
As applied to schools coordinating timelines, “antitrust concerns” are a joke and a bad excuse for inaction. What, is the curve somehow an antitrust violation because law schools conspire to restrict the number of A’s available?
We have two years of evidence that recruiting during 1L increases mismatches and detracts from students’ academic experience. It’s time for law schools’ career centers to play their part in supporting their schools’ academic mission and coordinate on a timeline for May and June recruiting.
The challenge is that the school-firm relationship is severed in the era of virtual screeners and direct applications--firms can simply go around schools in getting to students and vice versa. But schools are the only ones on both sides of the market.
One way schools *could* continue to be the bottleneck would be to restrict students rather than firms. T14 schools (or, let's be realistic and say maybe YLS) could prohibit students from taking law firm summer offers more than a year out as academically detrimental and backed by some kind of stick. Students would presumably still have enough confidence in the school's placement power to feel comfortable matriculating, while knowing with confidence that YLS or T14 students couldn't accept offers before a date certain would leave firms more comfortable holding spots open.
Yes, what you describe is what a school would have to do. Schools don’t have the same power that they did a few years ago, because of direct applications—but they could issue a prohibition that would govern their own students.
Even an unenforceable rule or a de minimis penalty would have positive effects, since in my experience, students would prefer to wait, and just need a coordinating mechanism to ensure that everyone else is starting at the same time.
About time someone said this because it is so true and yet so little tangible action or even the slightest bit of effort to work towards a solution hasn't happened yet. A common occurrence for collective action problems.
Like most institutions, the schools have voluntarily relinquished their power. They have the power to require their students to adhere to a process that is in everyone’s best interest. Which firm will give up its ability to recruit from a T14 school just to get a leg up on a 1L who has no idea what they want or at what they are good? It feels more like insecurity, a _____ measuring exercise rather than a necessary accommodation to the market.
The schools’ cowardice reminds me of the situation when I was at UChicago in the late 80s. Baker & McKenzie’s on campus interviewer said blatantly racist, sexist and antisemetic things to 2L interviewees. A significant portion of the class was outraged and the school said there was nothing they could do. After all, it was the largest firm in the world. The LSA president, Lori Lightfoot, was like a pit bull. Soon, BakerMac was banned from interviewing on campus. Not my favorite mayor, but she showed the power a school could exercise. They could do the same from the student side as opposed to the firm side.
I didn’t know that about Lori Lightfoot—very interesting, thanks for sharing!