WhiskeynCoke wrote:Well, feel free to be an asshole about it, but the fact that the screwed Berkeley grads have to work at Starbucks and the screwed UVA grads work at Public Defenders offices as attorneys is an actual difference. 32 of 40 school funded UVA students from 2010 have real lawyer jobs now. I wonder how many of the screwed Berkeley grads whose school so nobly didn't game the system by paying them to work as lawyers are even using their law degrees. Cynicism is healthy on this stuff, but you can take it too far.
- Show me one "screwed Berkeley grad working at Starbucks."
- I agree that the school-funded jobs are certainly better than Starbucks (at least experience-wise). Its a lesser of many evils, sure. However, I disagree with your sentiment that UVA employing 15% of its own graduates is a positive statistic. You were presenting it as such. These kids fell into the safety net, they didn't hit a home run,
- The point I was trying to make is that bashing Berkeley as underperforming makes no sense in the context of the rest of the T14, who are obviously licking their wounds.
Non-indicative anecdote: The nonprofit where I work is hiring a paralegal, and I've received more than one application from a recent Berkeley Law grad.
I think the point is that, when students are facing the worst job market in a generation or more, some schools chose to help their students find a potential path to actual legal employment through school-funded PI positions (UVA, NYU) while some schools did not (Berkeley). Was it to game employment numbers? Did it make any real positive difference in the lives of graduates? We don't know that exactly, but it's still clear that some schools stepped up to help their grads and some (apparently) didn't (at least in this way).