G. T. L. Rev. wrote:Vindication w/r/t at least Arizona, Washington, and Charleston. You don't know that I am wrong about Colorado, as there is no reason to think that their otherwise "out of place" number is any more valid than those for Arizona & Washington. So I think overall, it is no stretch to say that my initial suspicions --shared by many others -- were justified.
There is a broader message here, however. Law schools are frequently at least negligent and often reckless or malicious in their data reporting. That is, they put out employment, salary, clerkship, and other data that simply are not correct, and do so regularly. In many cases, as at Seton Hall or wherever (Villanova?), the improper reporting is intentional, but in such a way that the lie is difficult to detect. In others, it is the result of understandable confusion. But with applicants making very significant life- and financial-decisions in where they go to law school, the ABA and U.S. News should not tolerate either class of mistakes -- not, at least, on such a routine basis. It is easy to check these things and spot data points that look wrong. Why aren't the de jure and de facto regulators doing that?
Exactly. Data provided by law schools is TOTAL JUNK.
The current system where the ABA and/or US News do not verify the data and/or punish law schools for mistakes creates a huge incentive to provide positive, but misleading data, and a huge disincentive to provide honest, accurate data because honest schools would be in a competitive disadvantage. Why wouldn't a school lie about their numbers? If it gets caught, no biggie, but if it doesn't get caught, then school looks better and prospective students are misled.