There’s an interesting report from June 2013 highlighting strategies for U.S. law schools and their non-J.D. operations. It sticks out to me for two main reasons: (1) I graduated from my J.D. program in June 2013 and launched my career in Non-J.D. Programs and (2) ABA website J.D./Non-J.D. Enrollment statistics go back to 2013.

In a broad sense, J.D. programs are generally comparable. They serve as an entry into the legal profession. The 1L curriculum is relatively similar at law schools. 1Ls at different schools will talk about their experiences in comparable ways (memos, curves, cold calls, etc.). While there are differences in employment outcomes, bar passage rates, academic attrition, and other important considerations, J.D. degrees offer a good comparison across schools.

Not true of Non-J.D. Programs, a term which complicates the various programs under that umbrella. Just under degree programs, you have:

• Residential degree programs for foreign-educated lawyers/legal professionals
• Residential degree programs for domestic-educated lawyers/legal professionals
• Online degree programs for foreign-educated lawyers/legal professionals
• Online degree programs for domestic-educated lawyers/legal professionals
• Degree programs for professionals outside the legal profession (“non-lawyers”)

And this does not even include programs that don’t lead to degrees (e.g., certificates, short courses, exchanges, etc.).

A lot has changed in the Non-J.D. world since 2013! Look at the size of the 10 largest Non-J.D. programs in 2013 and then compare with the 2021 statistics. By cross-referencing with law school websites, you’ll see a divergence as schools try different Non-J.D. strategies. There’s a lot more room to be different in the Non-J.D. world than the J.D. world.

Since the pandemic started, I’ve looked at the relationship between U.S. law schools and their Non-J.D. operations. That is because schools focused on welcoming residential international LL.M. students have faced challenges in bringing students to the United States (among other challenges). I wanted to see what was happening for schools where Non-J.D. Programs = residential international LL.M. students, compared with schools that offered online programs, domestic-focused programs, and programs that focused on residential international LL.M. students. It’s hard to find information, but the ABA Non-J.D. statistics page has been helpful with cross-reference to school degree offerings.

As U.S. law schools brace for a possible down year for J.D. applications, Non-J.D. programs may become more visible this year in the larger overall operation of U.S. law schools. Professor Derek Muller, on his Excess of Democracy blog, recently wrote about “Are law schools prepared for a multi-year cycle of substantial declines in 1L enrollment?“

Those in legal education will note a common phrase: “it depends.” It is important to not just look at the J.D. numbers without taking a step back to see the Non-J.D. numbers. For schools with robust Non-J.D. programming, I’d venture to say that the answer is yes, they are prepared. Smaller J.D. class sizes will also help them on the metrics for USNWR.

Law schools will need to reassess their Non-J.D. operations, especially if it’s been a few years since the last review. What programs make sense to continue, to grow, to close? How will Non-J.D. offices change? And how will the ABA, USNWR and others react to the growing visibility and importance of these programs to the overall stability of law schools?