Jason W. Yackee (Associate Professor of Law, Wisconsin), Does Experiential Learning Improve JD Employment Outcomes?, 2015 Wis. L. Rev. 601 (blogged here):
[T]here is no statistical relationship between law school opportunities for skills training and JD employment outcomes. In contrast, employment outcomes do seem to be strongly related to law school prestige.
Keith Findley (Assistant Professor of Law, Wisconsin), Assessing Experiential Legal Education: A Response to Professor Yackee, 2015 Wis. L. Rev. 627 (blogged here):
[T]he rationale for clinical education is much more about effective pedagogy for adult learners (both about substance and skills) and the need to create effective lawyers, not just as beginning attorneys, but as life-long learners and reflective practitioners. ... [A]ssuming that Yackee is correct about the hiring disconnect, the real question is why aren't employers influenced by clinical education when (a) they vocally demand practice-ready lawyers and (b) it is so pedagogically valuable? I suggest that the problem does not reflect a lack of interest by employers in experientially trained and practice-ready graduates (and hence in clinics), but rather inadequacy in the hiring metrics and heuristics that are currently available to employers, and indeed a desire by private law firms for a broader range of clinical offerings (not fewer clinics).
Robert R. Kuehn (Associate Dean, Clinical Education, Washington University; Former President, Clinical Legal Education Association), Measuring Clinical Legal Education's Employment Outcomes, 2015 Wis. L. Rev. 645 (blogged here):
Professor Yackee’s ambitious effort to develop a model to explain the tens of thousands of employer decisions and prescribe how schools should best educate students fails to demonstrate a statistically significant link, positive or negative, between law clinics (or even law journal or skills competitions) and J.D. employment outcomes.