Association of American Law Schools

Statistical Report on Law School Faculty And Candidates for Law Faculty Positions

2002-03

Prepared by Richard A. White, AALS Research Associate/Data Analyst

<<<Back to Table of Contents

New Law Faculty Listed in the Faculty Appointments Register, 1991-92 through 2002-03

Since the majority of successful Faculty Appointments Register candidates are hired as assistant and associate professors, the following analyses focus on this subgroup of new faculty. Table 8A shows that almost half (49.8%) of the new assistant and associate professors hired over the past twelve years had been listed in the Faculty Appointments Register in the year prior to their faculty appointments. Over only the past six years, the percentage is slightly lower (47.4%). The percentage of the new assistant and associate professors that had been in the previous year’s Register had been rising up through 1995-96 (57.4%); it dropped to 52.5 percent in 1996-97, and then even more to 43.4 percent in 1997-98. In 1998-99 the percentage rose to 47.6 percent; and in 1999-2000, it rose to the second highest level in the eleven-year period (56.8%). The percentage fell back to 47.5 in 2000-01 and further to 45.1 in 2001-02 and 45.0 in 2002-03. Note that this percentage has been fairly stable over the twelve-year period; it dropped below 45 percent in only one year (1997-98).

Table 8B stratifies the data by gender and shows that significantly higher percentages of the men hired as new assistant and associate professors had been listed in the Register. Over all twelve years, 56.9 percent of the men and 41.4 percent of the women had been Register candidates; and over the last six years the percentage difference is even greater, 55.6 percent for men and only 37.7 percent for women. The differences are statistically significant in both the twelve-year and the six-year comparisons (Chi-square test, P ≤.01).

The comparisons within individual years are remarkably consistent. In each of the twelve years, a higher percentage of the new faculty men had been listed in the Register. The percentage differences were highly significant (Chi-square test, P ≤.05) in six of the eleven years (1991-92, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 2000-01, and 2001-02). In the most recent year (2002-03) and three earlier years (1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95), the differences are significant at a lower level (Chi-square test, P ≤.1).

Table 8C shows that aggregated over all twelve years, a higher percentage of the new nonminority assistant and associate professors had been Register candidates (54.6%), compared to the new minority assistant and associate professors (49.4%). The twelve-year percentage difference is statistically significant (Chi-square test, P ≤.05). However, over the more recent six years, the percentage difference is smaller, 53.7 percent for the new nonminority faculty and 50.7 percent for the new minority faculty. The six-year percentage difference is not statistically significant.

Comparisons of the new minority and new nonminority faculty within individual years show mixed results. In seven of the twelve years, higher percentages of the new nonminority assistant and associate professors had been listed in the Register; in four years, higher percentages of the new minority faculty had been in the Register; and in one year (2001-02), the percentage was the same. The differences were statistically significant in only two years, 1998-99 (minority 30.6%, nonminority 60.0%) and 1999-2000 (minority 48.8%, nonminority 67.0%).

Although these comparisons show that over time, a smaller percentage of the new minority faculty used the Faculty Appointments Register, the results of the year-by-year comparisons have varied back and forth over the twelve-year period and the aggregate comparison over the last six years shows a relatively small percentage difference. There is no strong trend shown here.

Table 8D shows the twelve-year comparison of new assistant and associate professors who had been Register candidates categorized by ethnic/racial group. Comparisons within single years show varied results. Also, the small numbers in specific ethnic/racial groups make statistical comparisons difficult; Chi-square tests are not appropriate measures in most instances. The American Indian/Alaskan Native group is extremely small and is excluded from all analyses.

The groups with the highest percentages of new faculty listed in the previous year’s Register were Asian in five years (1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2001-02, and 2002-03), Black in three years (1992-93, 1995-96, and 2000-01), White in two years (1993-94 and 1994-95), and Hispanic in three years (1991-92, 1996-97, and 1997-98). Note that in 1996-97, Asians and Hispanics had the same “highest” percentage. The groups with the lowest percentages were Hispanic in six years (1995-96, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03), Asian in three years (1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95), Black in two years (1991-92 and 1996-97), and White in one year (1997-98).

Over all eleven years, the ethnic/racial group with the highest percentage of Register candidates among its new assistant and associate professors was the Asian/Pacific Islander group (58.4%), closely followed by the White (54.6%) and Black (50.6%) groups. Only 39.8 percent of the new Hispanic faculty had been Register candidates, significantly lower than each of the other three groups (Chi-square test, P ≤.05). The comparison over the most recent six years shows the same pattern with the Asian group distinguished even more prominently as having the highest percentage and the Hispanic group distinguished more prominently as having the lowest. From highest to lowest, the percentages are Asian (71.7%), White (53.7%), Black (49.4%), and Hispanic (22.9%). In the six-year comparison, the Asian percentage is significantly higher than the percentages for each of the other three groups (Chi-square test, P ≤.01); and the Hispanic percentage is significantly lower than those for each of the other three (Chi-square test, P ≤.01).

In the more recent years, the new Asian faculty were clearly the most likely to have been Register candidates. Even though they had the lowest percentage in the Register in 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95, having the highest percentage in five of the last six years has the Asian group with the highest twelve-year percentage.

Similarly, the new Hispanic faculty members have been most likely to have secured their positions through channels other than the AALS Faculty Appointments Register. The Hispanic group of new faculty had the lowest percentage in the Register in each of the past five years (1998-99 through 2002-03), as well as in 1995-96. Note, however, that the Hispanic group did have the highest percentage in 1991-92 and shared the highest percentage rank with the Asian group in 1996-97.

Comparing the new assistant and associate professors who had been Register candidates by minority/nonminority-gender group in Table 8E shows that the new nonminority men were most likely to have been Register candidates. The new nonminority men had the highest percentage in the Register in ten of the twelve years (1991-92 through 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2001-02, and 2002-03). Minority men had the highest percentage in the Register in the remaining two years (1997-98 and 2000-01) and had the next to the highest percentage in the aggregated twelve-year and six-year comparisons.

The nonminority women group of new faculty had the lowest percentages in the Register in seven of the twelve years (1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03); the minority women group had the lowest percentage in four years (1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1998-99); minority men had the lowest percentage in 1999-2000.

Statistically significant percentage differences (Chi-square test, P ≤.05) occur in the comparisons of nonminority men to nonminority women in six years (1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 2000-01, and 2001-02). Significant percentage differences (Chi-square test, P ≤.05) occur for nonminority men compared to minority women in three years (1991-92, 1993-94, and 1998-99). In 1997-98, the minority men percentage is significantly higher than the percentages of each of the other three groups; and in 2000-01, the minority men percentage is significantly higher than those for both minority and nonminority women (Chi-square test, P ≤.05).

Over all twelve years, 63.6 percent of the new assistant and associate professors who are nonminority men had been in the Register, compared to 53.9 percent of the minority men, 44.4 percent of the minority women, and 43.9 percent of the nonminority women. The percentage for nonminority men is significantly higher than the percentages for each of the other groups (Chi-square test, P ≤.01). And the percentage for minority men is significantly higher than the percentages for both minority and nonminority women (Chi-square test, P ≤.05).

Aggregated over the more recent six years, 63.2 percent of the new nonminority men faculty had been in the Register, compared to 58.0 percent of the minority men, 42.6 percent of the nonminority women, and 42.0 percent of the minority women. The percentage for nonminority men is significantly higher than the percentages for both minority and nonminority women (Chi-square test, P ≤.01). And the percentage for minority men also is significantly higher than the percentages for both minority and nonminority women (Chi-square test, P ≤.05).

These results are consistent with the analysis by gender shown previously (pages 27-29) and show that both minority and nonminority women have been more likely to have secured their positions through channels other than the Faculty Appointments Register.

Although over the entire twelve years, new assistant and associate professors who are nonminority men were more likely to have used the Register than any of the other three groups, over the last six years, new minority men have been nearly as likely to have been listed in the Register.

<<<Back to Table of Contents