Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects Forum

[blsingindisguise]

The 45% is for a single school, presumably either Davis or Hastings. Prior to seeing the 2009 data I didn't realize it was that bad either (at least for NorCal specifically), but it makes sense and kind of bears out that NorCal is far worse off than the rest of the country (look at the 2009 data then compare Davis/Hastings to their peers and compare SCU/USF to their peers and it shows it pretty clearly).

I'm not trying to say things are rosy, but at least read it correctly.

Sorry, you're correct, I switched up two numbers. Replace the "45%" with "62% including temp positions"

[bk1]

Sorry, you're correct, I switched up two numbers. Replace the "45%" with "62% including temp positions"

To be honest, that didn't really shock me.

[aliarrow]

62% for all schools isn't that bad. Well... its bad, but not shockingly so.

[bk1]

62% for all schools isn't that bad. Well... its bad, but not shockingly so.

This. Though I wonder what happens when you cut out part time. It may actually drop to around 50% or even less.

[blsingindisguise]

62% for all schools isn't that bad. Well... its bad, but not shockingly so.

This. Though I wonder what happens when you cut out part time. It may actually drop to around 50% or even less.

You mean cut out temporary. The number does exclude part-time.

However those are class of '09 stats. The first really bad OCI year was class of '11 (first OCI that took place after the financial crisis had reached full steam). Even '10 may show some impact from no-offers and deferrals-turned-layoffs, but I'd guess '11 will be the year that really defines the new reality.

[FF55]

The 45% is for a single school, presumably either Davis or Hastings. Prior to seeing the 2009 data I didn't realize it was that bad either (at least for NorCal specifically), but it makes sense and kind of bears out that NorCal is far worse off than the rest of the country (look at the 2009 data then compare Davis/Hastings to their peers and compare SCU/USF to their peers and it shows it pretty clearly).

I'm not trying to say things are rosy, but at least read it correctly.

I'm confused - where in the article does it suggest the that "this particular top-50 law school" is in CA?

[aliarrow]

This. Though I wonder what happens when you cut out part time. It may actually drop to around 50% or even less.

You mean cut out temporary. The number does exclude part-time.

However those are class of '09 stats. The first really bad OCI year was class of '11 (first OCI that took place after the financial crisis had reached full steam). Even '10 may show some impact from no-offers and deferrals-turned-layoffs, but I'd guess '11 will be the year that really defines the new reality.

I wouldn't call rock bottom of the recession the 'new reality'. Things won't go back to 07 levels anytime soon, but it isn't eternal darkness either.

[bk1]

You mean cut out temporary. The number does exclude part-time.

However those are class of '09 stats. The first really bad OCI year was class of '11 (first OCI that took place after the financial crisis had reached full steam). Even '10 may show some impact from no-offers and deferrals-turned-layoffs, but I'd guess '11 will be the year that really defines the new reality.

Oh I thought it had part time, my bad.

[bk1]

I'm confused - where in the article does it suggest the that "this particular top-50 law school" is in CA?

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=150681

Look at the full-time/part-time data. I guess it could any one of Davis/Hastings/ASU/Alabama but those 4 schools eclipse the others in the sheer number of grads they place into part time.

[rose711]

Which of these schools would have about 183 graduates who would complete the forms? Why are we assuming this school put more people into part time? I don't follow that. I thought he would choose a school that has about average employment stats for say schools 20-50.

Anyway, I was surprised by how many of the permanent positions are in fact temporary.

So he says that the overall number of attorneys employed in fulltime permanent positions is less than 45%- his whole point is to explain why the 62% figure for all schools is incorrect. He puts the overall employment at less than 45% of graduates with fulltime "permanent" jobs.

When we take temporary employment into account, it appears that approximately 45 percent of 2010 graduates of this particular top-50 law school had real legal jobs nine months after graduation. And the overall number is likely lower, since it seems probable that the temporary employment figures for the graduates of almost any top 50 school would be better than the average outcome for the graduates of the 198 ABA-accredited law schools as a whole.

(emphasis added)

Then he goes on to say that even this number may be inflated because people self-report having better jobs than they actually do.
There is no auditing of these numbers at any point in the system ( though you would think that a school's career service could do that.)

In the course of my research, I audited a representative sample of individual graduate responses and found several instances of people describing themselves as employed permanently or full-time, when in fact they had temporary or part-time jobs (I found no instances of inaccuracies running in the other direction). Perhaps some graduates exaggerate their employment status out of embarrassment, or for strategic reasons, but, whatever their reasons might be, this apparently not uncommon practice suggests that the true employment rate should be lowered even further.

[rose711]

This. Though I wonder what happens when you cut out part time. It may actually drop to around 50% or even less.

You mean cut out temporary. The number does exclude part-time.

However those are class of '09 stats. The first really bad OCI year was class of '11 (first OCI that took place after the financial crisis had reached full steam). Even '10 may show some impact from no-offers and deferrals-turned-layoffs, but I'd guess '11 will be the year that really defines the new reality.

I wouldn't call rock bottom of the recession the 'new reality'. Things won't go back to 07 levels anytime soon, but it isn't eternal darkness either.

Given the amount of manipulation of data I wonder how reliable the 07 levels are - I think this kind of deceptive reporting of employment figures predated the recession. The problem with the lag in data is that people have to make decisions now on what they think the market will be, maybe it is prudent to assume these low numbers are valid when deciding to go to school? If they improve, your outlook will only get better.

[aliarrow]

Given the amount of manipulation of data I wonder how reliable the 07 levels are - I think this kind of deceptive reporting of employment figures predated the recession. The problem with the lag in data is that people have to make decisions now on what they think the market will be, maybe it is prudent to assume these low numbers are valid when deciding to go to school? If they improve, your outlook will only get better.

Its pretty difficult to manipulate firms reporting 80 person entering SA classes pre-recession and 10 post-recession. It was much, much better in 07 using data the schools didn't touch.

[rose711]

Given the amount of manipulation of data I wonder how reliable the 07 levels are - I think this kind of deceptive reporting of employment figures predated the recession. The problem with the lag in data is that people have to make decisions now on what they think the market will be, maybe it is prudent to assume these low numbers are valid when deciding to go to school? If they improve, your outlook will only get better.

Its pretty difficult to manipulate firms reporting 80 person entering SA classes pre-recession and 10 post-recession. It was much, much better in 07 using data the schools didn't touch.

Yes, you are right about that. I was wondering if the 90+% employment reported for schools was ever true, even in 2007, for top 50 schools? The article mentions schools reporting rates of 95%, 97% and 99.8%.

[aliarrow]

Given the amount of manipulation of data I wonder how reliable the 07 levels are - I think this kind of deceptive reporting of employment figures predated the recession. The problem with the lag in data is that people have to make decisions now on what they think the market will be, maybe it is prudent to assume these low numbers are valid when deciding to go to school? If they improve, your outlook will only get better.

Its pretty difficult to manipulate firms reporting 80 person entering SA classes pre-recession and 10 post-recession. It was much, much better in 07 using data the schools didn't touch.

Yes, you are right about that. I was wondering if the 90+% employment reported for schools was ever true, even in 2007, for top 50 schools? The article mentions schools reporting rates of 95%, 97% and 99.8%.

I'm sure that was still off, just not to the same extent since there weren't as many grads going into temporary and part time work.

Remember the Duke 100% employment rate?

[romothesavior]

62% for all schools isn't that bad. Well... its bad, but not shockingly so.

This. Though I wonder what happens when you cut out part time. It may actually drop to around 50% or even less.

You do know what part-time legal work usually means, right? Tons of those are temp attorneys. Not sure why you guys would look at 62% and think that is an appropriate metric. Cut out those part-timers (which he does to the best of his ability by looking at the Davis/Hastings data), and let's focus on people in full-time, permanent, J.D.-required jobs. In other words, REAL lawyering jobs... the kind that people go to law school for. We can quite reasonably conclude that that number, based on this article, is under 50%.

I'm also not sure why some people keep saying "Oh it's only for one school." The only part that he used the Davis/Hastings data for was when he hit a barrier (the full-time vs. part-time distinction). The rest of the data is based on everyone as a whole. And while yes, things are bad in California, I'm guessing that Davis and Hastings have far better job prospects than the majority of law schools, so when he goes from 62% to sub-50% based on the Davis/Hastings data on part-time v. full-time, I don't think it is at all a stretch to apply that to law schools as a whole. Again, I think it is very reasonable to conclude based on this data that the percentage of students who landed full-time, permanent, J.D.-required jobs in 2010 was less than 50%.

[rose711]

62% for all schools isn't that bad. Well... its bad, but not shockingly so.

This. Though I wonder what happens when you cut out part time. It may actually drop to around 50% or even less.

You do know what part-time legal work usually means, right? Tons of those are temp attorneys. Not sure why you guys would look at 62% and think that is an appropriate metric. Cut out those part-timers (which he does to the best of his ability by looking at the Davis/Hastings data), and let's focus on people in full-time, permanent, J.D.-required jobs. In other words, REAL lawyering jobs... the kind that people go to law school for. We can quite reasonably conclude that that number, based on this article, is under 50%.

I'm also not sure why some people keep saying "Oh it's only for one school." The only part that he used the Davis/Hastings data for was when he hit a barrier (the full-time vs. part-time distinction). The rest of the data is based on everyone as a whole. And while yes, things are bad in California, I'm guessing that Davis and Hastings have far better job prospects than the majority of law schools, so when he goes from 62% to sub-50% based on the Davis/Hastings data on part-time v. full-time, I don't think it is at all a stretch to apply that to law schools as a whole. Again, I think it is very reasonable to conclude based on this data that the percentage of students who landed full-time, permanent, J.D.-required jobs in 2010 was less than 50%.

Based on this data it seems to me that it is reasonable to conclude that slightly under 45% of students landed full-time, JD required jobs. I completely agree that rationalizing this data as being "for only one school" misses the point of the article.

[romothesavior]

I completely agree that rationalizing this data as being "for only one school" misses the point of the article.

It absolutely does, you're right. I could maybe see where people are coming from if he had used Widener or Golden Gate or something. But he used a T1 school. If anything his conclusions are going to be on the high end relative to all the other schools out there.

[aliarrow]

I completely agree that rationalizing this data as being "for only one school" misses the point of the article.

It absolutely does, you're right. I could maybe see where people are coming from if he had used Widener or Golden Gate or something. But he used a T1 school. If anything his conclusions are going to be on the high end relative to all the other schools out there.

To be completely honest, if I can tap into the psyche of Bk (since I think he's on the same thought train as myself), we're both just trying to keep it a somewhat justifiable decision to attend a T1 [for personal reasons].
Yes, if you look at law schools as a whole it probably is about 40-50% or worse working full time legal jobs.
If you just look at T1 it's probably much moderately higher. Obviously not the point of the article, but I'm self-centered and am primarily concerned with how this affects me as a 0L.

[swc65]

I completely agree that rationalizing this data as being "for only one school" misses the point of the article.

It absolutely does, you're right. I could maybe see where people are coming from if he had used Widener or Golden Gate or something. But he used a T1 school. If anything his conclusions are going to be on the high end relative to all the other schools out there.

To be completely honest, if I can tap into the psyche of Bk (since I think he's on the same thought train as myself), we're both just trying to keep it a somewhat justifiable decision to attend a T1 [for personal reasons].
Yes, if you look at law schools as a whole it probably is about 40-50% or worse working full time legal jobs.
If you just look at T1 it's probably much moderately higher. Obviously not the point of the article, but I'm self-centered and am primarily concerned with how this affects me as a 0L.

it doesn't yet.You still have time to save yourself!!!!

[romothesavior]

I completely agree that rationalizing this data as being "for only one school" misses the point of the article.

It absolutely does, you're right. I could maybe see where people are coming from if he had used Widener or Golden Gate or something. But he used a T1 school. If anything his conclusions are going to be on the high end relative to all the other schools out there.

To be completely honest, if I can tap into the psyche of Bk (since I think he's on the same thought train as myself), we're both just trying to keep it a somewhat justifiable decision to attend a T1 [for personal reasons].
Yes, if you look at law schools as a whole it probably is about 40-50% or worse working full time legal jobs.
If you just look at T1 it's probably much moderately higher. Obviously not the point of the article, but I'm self-centered and am primarily concerned with how this affects me as a 0L.

I don't blame you, and I don't think you're wrong for feeling this way. For schools like BU/WUSTL/BC/UIUC/other T30 peers, the number is likely well over 50% of people in full-time, permanent, J.D.-required jobs (although obviously there is a lot of variety in how good these jobs are... everything from small town, low paying insurance defense all the way up to NLJ jobs). For T14s, the number is probably well over 75%. Beyond that, it really varies a lot... some T2 schools probably outplace T1 schools, and some T3s are better than T2s and so on and so forth. But generally, my guess is that once you get out of the T1, the number is generally 50% or less, and I'd guess most T4s place under a quarter of their students into real lawyering jobs.*

*These numbers are more or less pulled out of my ass, and are based on my perception of hiring in conjunction with the data in this article.

[kublaikahn]

The legal market is going to come back. T4 grads are gonna need counsel when they get jacked knocking off the Gas n Sip.

[scammedhard]

*These numbers are more or less pulled out of my ass, and are based on my perception of hiring in conjunction with the data in this article.

Duly noted.

[rose711]

I completely agree that rationalizing this data as being "for only one school" misses the point of the article.

It absolutely does, you're right. I could maybe see where people are coming from if he had used Widener or Golden Gate or something. But he used a T1 school. If anything his conclusions are going to be on the high end relative to all the other schools out there.

To be completely honest, if I can tap into the psyche of Bk (since I think he's on the same thought train as myself), we're both just trying to keep it a somewhat justifiable decision to attend a T1 [for personal reasons].
Yes, if you look at law schools as a whole it probably is about 40-50% or worse working full time legal jobs.
If you just look at T1 it's probably much moderately higher. Obviously not the point of the article, but I'm self-centered and am primarily concerned with how this affects me as a 0L.

The T1 he studied in the article has a 45% rate of permanent full time jobs. What makes you think other T1's are better? (I'm not arguing, I really want to know.)

The way this affects you as an 0L is that you need to find out the quality of jobs the 3Ls from your school have - are the jobs temporary or permanent? are the jobs full time or part time? You need to be aware that a number of the "full-time" jobs are really temporary positions that won't last more than a year. Those temporary jobs need to be discounted just the same as the part time jobs, when determining how many 3L's have permanent full-time jobs. Then that number needs to be reduced a bit because people over inflate their self-reporting.

I am starting to think that the number may be closer to 50% at many T1's. Hell, even 60% is really bad if you are looking for a job.

[aliarrow]

The T1 he studied in the article has a 45% rate of permanent full time jobs. What makes you think other T1's are better? (I'm not arguing, I really want to know.)

The way this affects you as an 0L is that you need to find out the quality of jobs the 3Ls from your school have - are the jobs temporary or permanent? are the jobs full time or part time? You need to be aware that a number of the "full-time" jobs are really temporary positions that won't last more than a year. Those temporary jobs need to be discounted just the same as the part time jobs, when determining how many 3L's have permanent full-time jobs. Then that number needs to be reduced a bit because people over inflate their self-reporting.

I am starting to think that the number may be closer to 50% at many T1's. Hell, even 60% is really bad if you are looking for a job.

Yeah I already did all that to the point of exhaustion.

Some T1s perform more like lower end T14s, some perform like T2s. It just depends.

[swc65]

I completely agree that rationalizing this data as being "for only one school" misses the point of the article.

It absolutely does, you're right. I could maybe see where people are coming from if he had used Widener or Golden Gate or something. But he used a T1 school. If anything his conclusions are going to be on the high end relative to all the other schools out there.

To be completely honest, if I can tap into the psyche of Bk (since I think he's on the same thought train as myself), we're both just trying to keep it a somewhat justifiable decision to attend a T1 [for personal reasons].
Yes, if you look at law schools as a whole it probably is about 40-50% or worse working full time legal jobs.
If you just look at T1 it's probably much moderately higher. Obviously not the point of the article, but I'm self-centered and am primarily concerned with how this affects me as a 0L.

I don't blame you, and I don't think you're wrong for feeling this way. For schools like BU/WUSTL/BC/UIUC/other T30 peers, the number is likely well over 50% of people in full-time, permanent, J.D.-required jobs (although obviously there is a lot of variety in how good these jobs are... everything from small town, low paying insurance defense all the way up to NLJ jobs). For T14s, the number is probably well over 75%. Beyond that, it really varies a lot... some T2 schools probably outplace T1 schools, and some T3s are better than T2s and so on and so forth. But generally, my guess is that once you get out of the T1, the number is generally 50% or less, and I'd guess most T4s place under a quarter of their students into real lawyering jobs.*

*These numbers are more or less pulled out of my ass, and are based on my perception of hiring in conjunction with the data in this article.

This really is scary. If this keeps up, it will eventually effect all law students, even the T14 or T6. If there are thousands of BC/BU etc grads looking for work, how long will it make sense to hire a CLS/HLS/NYU grad at 160K? Eventually firms/clients will stop paying for the name and just go after the cheapest candidate with satisfactory work.