Meaningful Sources of Career Advice for Law Students
Navigating career decisions can be one of the most challenging aspects of law school, and many students find themselves seeking advice to chart their path forward. Whether considering judicial clerkships, corporate law roles, public interest positions, or alternative legal careers, law students often feel a mix of excitement and uncertainty. Balancing academic demands with the pressure to make strategic choices about internships, networking, and future goals requires careful planning. And the guidance of mentors, professors, and peers can make all the difference.
Using 2023-2024 data from the LSSSE Student Services module, we examined the meaningful sources of career advice that law students draw upon to help with professional preparation. Interestingly, law students are more likely to seek out career advice from faculty or staff members not formally assigned as career advisors rather than from formal career advisors at their law school. Only about a third of law students receive meaningful advice from careers advisors available to any student, and only about a quarter receive meaningful advice from a career advisor assigned to them, which is equal to the percentage of students receiving meaningful advice from family members (26%).
Given that family input will vary widely across different student backgrounds, we compared the sources of career advice for first-generation and non-first-generation law students. For first-generation law students (those who do not have a parent with at least a bachelor's degree), family members are much less likely to be a meaningful source of career advice. However, troublingly, first-generation students are also less likely to receive meaningful career advice from other sources relative to their non-first-generation peers. In other words, law schools may not be filling the gaps for first-generation students to support their transition into the legal profession.
Digging deeper into the non-first-generation data, we wanted to know what impact having a parent with a law degree has on students’ sources of meaningful career advice. Among students who have a parent with a doctoral or professional degree, we see, not surprisingly, that students who have a parent with a JD are more likely to cite family members as a meaningful source of career advice than students who have a parent with a non-JD doctoral or professional degree. However, only around half (52%) of law students who have a parent with a JD note that they are receiving meaningful career advice from a family member. The students with a JD-holding parent are a little more likely to get advice from career advisors assigned to them and a little less likely to receive advice from faculty, staff, or career advisors who are not formally assigned to them.
These findings highlight critical gaps and opportunities in how law schools support students in their career preparation. While informal networks and personal relationships with faculty or staff often play a vital role, the data suggest that formal career advising structures may not be as effective as they could be, particularly for first-generation students. Law schools should consider rethinking how they engage with students in career advising, ensuring that resources are accessible and tailored to meet the diverse needs of their student body. By strengthening these systems and bridging the advice gap, particularly for those from underrepresented backgrounds, law schools can better prepare all students for the challenges and opportunities of the legal profession.
Assessment of ABA Standard 303(c)
The American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 303(c) mandates that law schools provide students with substantial education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism to ensure they are equipped to serve a diverse client base and uphold justice in an inclusive legal environment. This requirement, effective for all law schools accredited by the ABA, emphasizes integrating this training at critical junctures in a law student's education, such as during orientation and within a course prior to graduation. Standard 303(c) encourages schools to create meaningful, context-specific programs that prepare future lawyers to understand and navigate the societal and cultural complexities affecting the legal system.
To aid law schools in evaluating their success toward meeting the requirements of Standard 303(c), LSSSE began asking questions about bias and anti-racism education during the 2024 survey administration. The question asks “During the current school year, in which of the following ways, if any, has your law school provided education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism? (Select all that apply.)” and gives the following options:
- Orientation sessions for incoming students
- Lectures on these topics
- Courses incorporating these topics
- Other educational experiences incorporating these topics
Substantial numbers of law students are receiving bias, cross-cultural competency, and anti-racism training in each of the four venues. Orientations for incoming students and courses incorporating these topics were the most selected answers, encompassing 71% of students. Two-thirds (67%) of students had received lectures on these topics, and a little over half (52%) of students participated in other educational experiences incorporating these topics.
ABA Standard 303(c) represents a step toward fostering a more inclusive and culturally aware legal profession prepared to serve diverse communities with empathy, insight, and a commitment to equity. By mandating that law schools provide substantial education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism, this Standard ensures that future lawyers are equipped not only to recognize but also to challenge the social and cultural biases that can impact the justice system. LSSSE data show that the majority of law students are receiving this essential training through orientations, lectures, and integrated courses. To assess whether students at your law school are having these experiences and to compare your law students to the national averages, sign up for LSSSE 2025. Registration is now open.
Barriers to Choosing Public Interest Law Careers
Lawyers who practice public interest law are often driven by a desire to create positive social change and to advocate for marginalized or underserved communities. The work can be deeply rewarding as it allows lawyers to address issues like civil rights, environmental justice, housing, and access to healthcare. The sense of purpose and fulfillment from working on causes that align with personal values can be a significant motivator. However, there are potential barriers to pursing public interest work. To better understand these barriers, LSSSE partnered with Equal Justice Works in 2023 to survey students about how their law school supports public interest law, how their law school educates students on topics relevant to public interest law, and what barriers exist to pursuing a public interest law career. The joint final report that details the findings can be found here. In this blog post, we share some findings on the barriers to accepting a position in public interest law after graduation.
Law students were presented with a list of potential factors that would prevent them from taking a public interest law job after law school if they were offered one and instructed to select all the reasons that apply to them. Understandably, financial concerns were high on the list of reasons why students would choose not to accept a public interest law position. Nearly four out of five students (79%) cited low salary, and nearly half of students (45%) were concerned about their ability to pay off student debt. Interestingly, only about a third of students (34%) indicated they were motivated by more desirable opportunities in the private sector, and only a quarter (25%) cited a lack of interest in public interest law. This suggests students are attracted to public interest law, but their interest is tempered by financial considerations. One bright spot is that students do appear to be well-supported in law school guidance and resources for public interest careers. Only 7% of students cited a lack of this type of support as a barrier to pursuing a public interest career.
There are some notable gender differences in factors preventing students from taking a public interest law position. Men are more likely to see the private sector as more desirable and to have a lack of interest in public interest law. They are also more concerned than women and people of other gender identities about a lack of prestige and a lack of advancement opportunities or upward mobility in the public interest law sphere. People who do not identify as a man or a woman are less deterred by the prospect of a low salary, and they are less likely to see the private sector as more desirable or to cite a lack of interest in public interest law. However, they are the group most likely to be concerned about potential burnout or stress and to be concerned about elitism in the public interest field. Women tend to fall somewhere in between men and people of other gender identities in terms of which factors are most likely to deter them from taking a public interest job after law school. They are equally concerned about low salary as men, but they are less likely to cite a lack of interest or more desirable opportunities in the private sector as reasons not to pursue public interest. However, women are the least likely of all genders to cite a lack of opportunities in their desired issue area as a reason to avoid public interest.
Some barriers to working in public interest law—such as financial considerations—are concerns of a large majority of students. However, some concerns are more salient to certain subgroups of students. Employers interested in recruiting and retaining new public interest lawyers may consider tailoring their efforts to address these issues in order to increase their ability to attract potential future employees.
Joint Degree and Certificate Programs
Law students may choose to pursue a joint degree or a certificate to enhance their academic and professional credentials by acquiring specialized knowledge and skills that complement the standard legal education. A joint degree program allows a student to earn two degrees in less time and with fewer credits than if they pursued each degree separately. Joint degree programs, such as those combining a Juris Doctor (JD) with a Master of Business Administration (MBA) or a Master of Public Administration (MPA), offer a comprehensive understanding of related fields, which broadens career opportunities and provides a competitive edge. Similarly, certificate programs in areas such as intellectual property law, environmental law, or international human rights allow students to gain targeted expertise that can be applicable in their future legal practice.
Just under three percent of LSSSE respondents were completing a joint degree in 2023 and 2024. Joint degree programs are often quite specific to the unique offerings of a particular law school. In fact, the most popular joint degree program on the survey is “Other, specify.” Of the LSSSE-provided options, the combined JD/MBA is by far the most popular choice among joint degree students (30%), followed by the JD/LLM (13%), the JD/MA (7%), and the JD/MPA (6%). Only 2% of joint degree students are pursuing a JD/PhD.
Certificate programs can provide additional content knowledge without the commitment of another entire degree, which makes them a somewhat more popular option. Nearly 11% of LSSSE respondents were pursuing a certificate in 2023 and 2024. The most common certificate program specializations included Health Law, Intellectual Property Law, Business Law, and Environmental Law.
Law students appear to add on certificates as they progress through law school. Only 6% of 1Ls were pursuing a certificate, but among 3Ls, that number rose to 15%. It may be that 1L students do not realize the value, availability, or relative ease of completion of certificates during the course of completing their law degrees and only add them on once that has been made clear to them. This may signal that law schools could advertise their certificate offerings more clearly to prospective and incoming students. Interestingly, there is also a small difference in the percentage of students who are pursuing joint degrees across their years in law school. Around 2% of 1L students were completing a joint degree, compared to 3.2% of 3L students.
By completing joint degree programs and earning certificates, law students can demonstrate their commitment to interdisciplinary learning and their ability to integrate legal principles with other subject areas. These students ultimately enhance their versatility and effectiveness as practitioners in a complex legal landscape.
Learning to Think Like a Lawyer
Learning to think like a lawyer is crucial for developing essential analytical skills and a nuanced understanding of legal principles. This process involves honing the ability to critically assess legal issues, construct persuasive arguments, and anticipate counterarguments. Learning to think like a lawyer is challenging because it requires a shift in mindset and the development of complex analytical skills. Law students must master intricate legal concepts and apply them to varied contexts, often under pressure. This involves not only understanding the law but also critically analyzing case precedents and identifying subtle distinctions. Additionally, the emphasis on precision in language and argumentation can be daunting, as even minor errors can significantly impact legal outcomes. By the time they are ready to graduate, most law students have learned to cultivate a mindset that prioritizes logical reasoning and ethical considerations, which are vital for effective advocacy. Ultimately, mastering this way of thinking not only prepares students for successful careers in law but also equips them to navigate complex societal issues with integrity and insight.
LSSSE provides a Learning to Think Like a Lawyer (LTTLL) Engagement Indicator that is a succinct metric for understanding the degree to which students are engaging in this learning process. The LTTLL Engagement Indicator combines several individual survey questions that are statistically and conceptually related to one another. This makes Engagement Indicators meaningful for comparisons because they reduce the risk of relying too heavily on any individual survey question. The LTTLL Engagement Indicator combines the following questions from the main LSSSE survey:
During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following mental activities?
- Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth, and considering its components
- Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships
- Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions
- Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations
The response options are “very much,” “quite a bit,” “some,” and “very little.”
Of the four cognitive activities, students are most heavily engaged in analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory. Ninety percent of law students do this often or very often. Next comes applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations (85%) and synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships (84%). Three-quarters (75%) of law students frequently make judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions.
There are some interesting differences in how students respond to these questions across class years. 1L students are more likely to frequently engage in all the LTTLL mental activities compared to 2L and 3L students. For example, 93% of 1L students frequently analyze the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, compared to only 86% of 3L students. Generally, 1L students are somewhat more engaged with the law school experience and more enthusiastic overall relative to their more seasoned peers, so that might explain this discrepancy. However, it is also possible that 3L students have become so fluent with these processes that they do not necessarily note them in isolation from the type of legal thinking which has become automatic to them.
By applying legal theories and concepts to real-world scenarios, aspiring lawyers learn to navigate the intricacies of the law, develop strategic approaches, and ultimately advocate effectively for their clients. This comprehensive skill set is essential for rigorous legal thinking and practice. LSSSE provides customized tools to gauge how well your students are learning these crucial mental processes as well as ways to compare your students to selected peers and national averages. Contact us to learn more.
Artificial Intelligence and JD Students
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability of machines to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as reasoning, learning, or decision making. AI has been applied to various domains, including law, where it can assist in research, drafting, analysis, or prediction. However, the use of AI in the law is certainly not without controversy, particularly given the high-profile and embarrassing incidents in which lawyers who had not properly vetted their AI bot’s research included AI hallucinations in court filings.
Institutions of higher education are currently grappling with the question of whether artificial intelligence is an essential tool of the future workforce or a means by which students may attempt to bypass their own educational enrichment and critical thinking skill development. We wanted to know how often JD students are currently using AI in their law school coursework. In 2024, LSSSE added the following question:
How often do you use AI (ChatGPT or similar technology) to help prepare for class or complete class assignments, projects, exams, or papers?
- Never
- Sometimes
- Often
- Very often
Our analysis shows that most law students are not currently using AI in their coursework at all. Almost three-quarters (72%) never use AI to prepare for class or complete assignments. A quarter of law students (25%) sometimes use AI in their coursework, and only 4% use it often or very often.
There are only slight generational differences in AI usage, with students in the 23-30 age group a perhaps a tiny bit more likely to use AI than other students. Interestingly, law students who are 22 or younger are the least likely age group to use AI for class preparation or assignments, with only 22% doing so at least sometimes.
However, international law students are much more likely than domestic law students to use AI for their law school coursework. Almost half of international law students (48%) use AI at least sometimes compared to only 27% of domestic law students. This parallels a larger trend in undergraduate education in which U.S. college students are much less likely to use AI than their counterparts elsewhere in the world. International students attending U.S. law schools who speak English as a second language may be drawn to AI because of the ways it can be harnessed to support the unique needs of multilingual students, particularly in decoding complex texts. Whether AI usage for this or any other purpose is necessarily desirable remains to be seen, although it is useful to note that students are already accessing and using these tools.
AI usage among law students in the U.S. is currently quite low, with most students never using it for their coursework. There are some variations by age and nationality, particularly with international law students using AI tools at a much higher rate than domestic law students. Law schools would be wise to pay attention to both the potential benefits of AI for legal research and writing, as well as the challenges and limitations of AI in the legal domain. LSSSE will continue to track AI usage to understand the degree to which law students are using these tools in their pursuit of learning and understanding the law.
Law Student Stress Management Strategies
Law students must deal with high academic expectations, heavy workloads, competitive environments, and uncertain career prospects. They also must balance their studies with their personal and professional obligations, such as family, friends, jobs, or extracurricular activities. These sources of stress can affect the mental and physical health of law students, as well as their academic performance and satisfaction. Thus, law school presents the perfect opportunity for each law student to develop self-care and stress management strategies that they can use both during law school and to take forward into their future lives as lawyers.
In 2024, the LSSSE Student Stress module began asking students about specific coping strategies they use for stress and anxiety. Although some strategies provided on the survey are healthier than others, they all represent ways students may try to manage their stress and anxiety levels. Gathering these data can provide a starting point for law schools to take the pulse of their students’ mental health and to consider ways to support their students more effectively.
On the survey, students can select as many stress and anxiety management options as they wish. Exercise and seeking social support are the most commonly used stress management strategies, with 77% of students exercising to reduce stress and around 75% of students talking about their troubles with a friend or family member. A little more than half of students engage in procrastination (57%) to manage stress and 53% engage in a hobby. Negative self-talk and alcohol or other recreational drugs are the least common stress reduction techniques, with slightly more than a quarter (27%) of law students using them.
Law schools are increasingly concerned about making sure their students are learning healthy stress management and coping strategies and for good reason, given the substance use and mental health challenges that disproportionately affect lawyers, relative to the general population. Mindfulness and meditation in particular are gaining traction because they are proven techniques that can improve mental health, enhance focus, and promote well-being. Some law schools are offering workshops, courses, or online resources on mindfulness and meditation for their students, as well as creating spaces where students can practice these techniques. Whatever strategies law students adopt, law students who understand what they can do to regulate their negative emotions and stress responses will be better positioned to learn more deeply in law school and to perform their best as law students and as lawyers.
A Long-Term Look at Relationships with Law School Faculty and Administrators, 2004-2023
In our last post, we examined how peer relationships between law students have changed over the last twenty years. Now we will consider the relationships between law students and their faculty and administrators over the same period.
Generally, law students have better relationships with faculty than administrators. In 2023, 71% of law students were satisfied with their relationships with faculty (rated 5 or higher on a 7-point scale) compared to only 55% of students who were satisfied with their relationships with law school administrators.
Much like satisfaction with peer relationships, satisfaction with faculty relationships has fluctuated over the last twenty years and may be a bit on the decline in recent years. Satisfaction with relationships with faculty hit an all-time high in 2016 at 80% but has been below the average of 75% since 2021.
This next graph gives us the ability to look specifically at the difference between satisfaction with faculty relationships and the all-time average (75%) for all years since the inaugural LSSSE survey in 2004.
Students’ outlook on their relationships with administrators is even bleaker. The 2023 satisfaction rate of 55% is a full nine percentage points lower than the all-time average of 64%, and eighteen percentage points lower than the peak value of 73% in 2016. Although all law student relationships have been on a downward trajectory over the last few years, the relationships between students and administrators have been most strongly impacted and thus requires some special thought and attention by law schools. Perhaps the disruptions brought by COVID-19 have isolated students most severely from their administrators or perhaps the genesis of this discontent lies elsewhere.
Satisfaction with relationships with administrators has been on a precipitous decline since 2016.
It makes sense that students have stronger relationships with faculty since students see faculty on a regular basis and are likely to come to rely on faculty for academic guidance, feedback, and mentoring. Students and faculty are united in a common goal to study and understand the law, which can foster positive regard. Administrators, conversely, may be regarded as more impersonal given that their impact on the students' learning experience is more remote. Administrators may also be responsible for implementing rules and policies with which the students may not always agree. Hence, law students may understandably experience higher levels of rapport and satisfaction with their faculty than their administrators. However, given that law students’ relationships with administrators is currently at an all-time low, it may be worth some reflection to see how law school administrators came become more engaged to make a positive impact on the lives of their students.
A Long-Term Look at Relationships with Law School Peers, 2004-2023
A common misconception about law students is that their competition with each other for grades, jobs, and prestige creates a stressful and hostile law school environment. However, this is not the case for most law students who often find opportunities for support and friendship among their peers. Law students share common challenges and goals, and they can benefit from exchanging ideas and resources with each other. Many law schools also foster a culture of collegiality and mutual respect, where students are encouraged to help each other and celebrate each other's achievements. Rather than being a source of stress, peer relationships can be a source of resilience and well-being for law students. In fact, LSSSE data from 2023 show that only 38% of law students experienced quite a bit or very much stress or anxiety because of competition with peers. They are far more likely to be substantially stressed by academic performance (80% of students) and academic workload (79% of students).
Since the 2004 LSSSE inaugural survey, an average of 77% of law students have said that their overall relationships with other students are mostly positive (at least a 4 on a 7-point scale). This number has fluctuated over time, with 81% of students having mostly positive relationships in 2004 and 73% of students feeling similarly in 2023.
If we compare the percentage of students having an overall positive relationship with peers to the all-time LSSSE national average of 77%, we can see that the last several years have had slightly lower levels of peer satisfaction.
Although satisfaction with peer relationships was already on a somewhat downward trajectory before COVID-19, the notable decrease in relationship satisfaction during the 2020-2021 academic year may be largely driven by the decrease in relationship satisfaction among 1L students. In the spring of 2020 (largely before COVID-19 shutdowns started), 80% of 1L students were satisfied with their relationships with their fellow students. In the spring of 2021 after a year of huge disruptions in the law school environment including widespread online learning, only 72% of 1L students felt this way. However, 74% of 3L students were satisfied with their peer relationships in 2020 and again 74% of 3L students felt this way in 2021. Students who were introduced to law school in a time of necessary isolation were understandably somewhat less able to bond with their classmates. Orientation programs, study groups, moot courts, clinics, extracurriculars, and informal gatherings were either canceled, restricted, or moved online. These disruptions may have hindered the ability of 1L students to establish friendships and build rapport. Furthermore, online learning may have decreased the frequency and quality of interactions among students, as well as the sense of belonging and community that stems from being physically present in a shared space. Nevertheless, relationships among law students remained positive overall, showing that even the limitations of pandemic life did not prevent characteristically creative and resilient law students from forging relationships with each other. It will be interesting to examine how law students feel about their relationships with each other in future years now that life has largely returned to the pre-pandemic normal.
Focus on First-Generation Students, Part 2
In our last post, we shared some of the demographic characteristics of first-gen law students, which we define as law students who do not have at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree. In this post, we will dig deeper into the first-gen law student experience and how it differs from the experiences of non-first-gen law students.
Time Usage
LSSSE asks students to estimate the average number of hours they spend each week engaging in activities that are directly and indirectly related to the educational experience. Time usage is important because it reflects students’ academic engagement and overall priorities. First-gen students are more likely to attend law school part-time, which suggests that they have complicated schedules with competing demands, rather than a sole focus on law school. LSSSE data show that high percentages of first-gen students have familial obligations as caretakers for dependents living in their household. Forty-four percent (44%) of first-gen students spend time caring for dependents, compared to 33% of non-first-gen students.
First-gen students are just as engaged as their non-first-gen peers in academic pursuits outside of class, despite the fact that they have more responsibilities competing for their time. First-gen students work with students and faculty on group projects at equal or greater levels relative to non-first-gen students. Roughly equal percentages of first-gen students (19%) and non-first-gen students (18%) report that they frequently work with faculty members on activities other than coursework (including committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.). Likewise, 33% of first-gen (and 31% of non-first-gen) students frequently work with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments. The diligence of first-gen students is particularly impressive given their personal obligations. One third (33%) of first-gen students always come to class fully prepared despite their family duties and work schedules, the same percentage as non-first-gen students (who tend to work less and have fewer familial obligations).
Satisfaction
First-gen students, like law students overall, are overwhelmingly satisfied with their law school experience. Seventy-four percent (74%) of first-gen students evaluate the educational experience at their law school as “good” or “excellent,” similar to non-first-gen students (78%). Furthermore, 77% of first-gen (and 79% of non-first-gen) students report they would choose to attend the same law school again, with the benefit of hindsight. These trends are particularly noteworthy given the increased financial risks and other sacrifices made by first-gen students to attend law school.
First-gen students face unique challenges and responsibilities as they navigate legal education. Law schools should take the findings from this Annual Report, as well as their own school-specific LSSSE data, to craft targeted programs to support first-gen students. Better supporting them personally will free up time and resources for first-gen students to devote to not only academics, but other co-curricular pursuits so they are optimally placed to thrive as they enter the legal profession.