emhellmer wrote: NoJob wrote:
theantiscalia wrote:Part of me is very upset with law schools like Thomas Jefferson for misleading people into a lifetime of debt servitude. But an even larger - and slightly cynical - part of me thinks these kids got what they deserved. A basic Google search - five minutes worth of research - would have alerted them of the questionable value of a law degree. These aren't idiots that need to be protected by society... they have a college degree.
I do feel sorry for people who make smart decisions (good law school, with a scholarship, living a spartan lifestyle) and then find themselves in over their head. But to me, attending one of these schools is rarely a smart decision.
I think the schools need to be policed. I can easily see a 0L relying on them to tell the truth about their employment data. If some company tried to massage the numbers this way to its shareholders, there would be a shareholder class action coming at them.
If a person with a BA doesn't know how to read between the lines on the employment data reported by law schools, they need to be reserving at least part of their wrath for their alma mater. There is no excuse for an educated person to think "99% employed nine months after graduation, median starting at $70,000. Wow. Guess I've done all the digging I need to do!" Just ridiculous.
paints a really nice picture, especially for Northwestern and UF.
Here in lies why even the best informed students cannot be wholly blamed for thinking they are making a reasonable investment in law school. Consider where the information for lawschooltransparency.com's analysis of all but a couple of schools is coming from, US News and World Report. The analysis of data from such a dubious source is pointless and to an extent falsely assures well intentioned prospective students that they are making a sound decision. Law schools ought to be forced to provide real data, accounting for every graduate, consisting of salary, market, position, firm/company/government agency/non-profit, and levels of debt their students take on in an anonymous, graph or list based fashion. Put this information out there in a Department of Education report, the agency ultimately allowing the ABA to accredited schools, and let prospective students suffer the consequences or reap the rewards. No more of employment figures that appear simple but are calculated like this:
* The U.S. News nine-month employment rate does not reflect the percentage of the class employed at nine months. It is a figure computed by a formula:
Employment Rate =
graduates known to be employed OR enrolled in FT degree program + 25% of graduates whose employment status is unknown
total graduates – graduates who are unemployed and not seeking work
* This formula makes it difficult to deduce the exact percentage of the class whose salaries are known.
Assumptions Required to Make These Charts:
* ALL graduates' employment statuses are known.
* NO gradautes are enrolled in a full-time degree program.
* NO graduates are unemployed and not seeking work.
* ALL graduates work full-time positions.
These assumptions may be true for some schools, but the charts that appear on this webpage may display better-than-actual outcomes. For example, if a school could not determine the employment status of 10% of the class for a given year, it is possible that the unemployed figure is 2.5% higher than displayed on this chart. Based on data provided in LSAC's Official Guide, this can be extremely problematic at certain law schools. As such, we are working with U.S. News to correct how they publish the information. If U.S. News makes the changes we've suggested, we could relax most of these assumptions and substitute genuine employment data.
(taken from Law School Transparency's "key facts and assumptions" and found at lawschooltransparency.com )