Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
Capitol A
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby Capitol A » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:37 pm

CG614 wrote:
Capitol A wrote:I believe that this is important information, and that there are probably a lot of people that still think a law degree (ANY law degree) is a ticket to fame and fortune. Those people would definitely benefit from a wake up call before taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt pursuing a path in which the odds are stacked against them ever securing gainful employment.
All this being said, I don't think I have a similar reaction to this type of info that most TLSers seem to. You see a lot of TLS posts that say things like: "If you attend school X you only have a 1 in 10 chance at BigLaw" as if there is some type of raffle at the school to determine who gets the 'good' jobs. It doesn't work like that. This same logic would have given the same advice to me and to George Clooney regarding pursuing careers in acting: "don't do it. You have a 1 in a million chance of actually making money." When the truth is that he is talented and good looking. I, on the other hand am just good looking-no talent. So we don't each have an equal shot as in the case of some type of lottery system.
My point is, if you are going to Cooley or to Phoenix SOL, you are making a terrible investment; but if you are going to Ohio State, or Alabama, or some other mid-range T50 where they are realistically putting 40% or so of their grads into full time legal employment, then it is at least in part up to you, and your talent and your work ethic to determine whether you are in the group that makes the school proud or you are in the group that they report as being employed even though you are walking behind the elephants at the local circus. No one is going to hand you anything on a silver platter or write you check just because you have a JD, but if you are willing to bust your butt to ensure you are a standout perfomer in class and in your internships/externships etc. Some people are getting good jobs, and you can be one of those people.

And the problem with your analysis is that it assumes that "busting your butt" can give you an advantage. Don't you think everyone is "busting their butt?" Since you can't reasonably predict grades/employment (outside of some other factors like work experience), it is reasonable to use the 1 in 10 (numbers depending on school) model for success.

Of course everyone is busting their butt, but not everyone is equally talented, and everyone will not shine equally well in their internships, OCI,and networking opportunities. Just like every college football player is busting their butt at the combine, but everyone will not be a first round draft pick. That doesn't mean that everyone other than Cam Newton is wasting his time.
Of course these aren't perfect analogies, but chances of success from a given school are not as simple as a raffle where every single incoming 1L has the exact chances of getting job they wanton 3yrs from now. I know a guy who went to Hamline University and is now (5 years after graduating) a lead in-house for a big international corporation. He had work experience and he made himself standout in many ways.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby bk1 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:41 pm

Capitol A wrote:Of course everyone is busting their butt, but not everyone is equally talented, and everyone will not shine equally well in their internships, OCI,and networking opportunities. Just like every college football player is busting their butt at the combine, but everyone will not be a first round draft pick. That doesn't mean that everyone other than Cam Newton is wasting his time.
Of course these aren't perfect analogies, but chances of success from a given school are not as simple as a raffle where every single incoming 1L has the exact chances of getting job they wanton 3yrs from now. I know a guy who went to Hamline University and is now (5 years after graduating) a lead in-house for a big international corporation. He had work experience and he made himself standout in many ways.


Yes but people aren't that different in these attributes and probably all fall around a similar capacity for it (see: bell curve), plus you don't know whether you will be able to do this so talking about it is pointless.

When people say you have a 1/10 shot of getting job X, it is because the vast majority of the time you are roughly equivalent to your classmates in most regards and to assume you would have an edge over them is patently foolish.

aliarrow
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby aliarrow » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:44 pm

bk1 wrote:
Capitol A wrote:Of course everyone is busting their butt, but not everyone is equally talented, and everyone will not shine equally well in their internships, OCI,and networking opportunities. Just like every college football player is busting their butt at the combine, but everyone will not be a first round draft pick. That doesn't mean that everyone other than Cam Newton is wasting his time.
Of course these aren't perfect analogies, but chances of success from a given school are not as simple as a raffle where every single incoming 1L has the exact chances of getting job they wanton 3yrs from now. I know a guy who went to Hamline University and is now (5 years after graduating) a lead in-house for a big international corporation. He had work experience and he made himself standout in many ways.


Yes but people aren't that different in these attributes and probably all fall around a similar capacity for it (see: bell curve), plus you don't know whether you will be able to do this so talking about it is pointless.

When people say you have a 1/10 shot of getting job X, it is because the vast majority of the time you are roughly equivalent to your classmates in most regards and to assume you would have an edge over them is patently foolish.


Easy to say, but I'd bet anything you feel you're going to at least end up in the top half. I'm not afraid to say that's how I feel, even if I do know its illogical.

At least most TLS regs seem to do better than average, at least the vocal ones. I've met a lot of uninformed 0Ls at the ASDs, and if they haven't taken the time to really research everything thoroughly regarding law schools and legal employment I have that little glimmer of hope that they won't put enough time into exams (or study the most effective way/focus on the right things) to give them an edge over me. Again, probably completely illogical, but its still all in the back of my mind.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby bk1 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:47 pm

aliarrow wrote:Easy to say, but I'd bet anything you feel you're going to at least end up in the top half. I'm not afraid to say that's how I feel, even if I do know its illogical.


You'd be right. It is hard, probably impossible, to completely shake that feeling. That being said, I'm going to at least give myself a 50% chance of not being fucked by debt.

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby Lasers » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:49 pm

the employment statistics thread made a while back was a lot more useful than this vague article.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby bk1 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:52 pm

Lasers wrote:the employment statistics thread made a while back was a lot more useful than this vague article.


While this is generally true for people who have a clue. For the naive kids (like I used to be) who don't know any better, this does a better job at initially explaining the bleak situation than a graph does.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby jenesaislaw » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:02 am

scammedhard wrote:
aliarrow wrote:
scammedhard wrote:
aliarrow wrote:TBF, 2010 data is expected to be the worst data of all.

Also, what exactly do you propose the ABA does? If they just shut down schools and take away accreditation they run into anti-trust issues.

I don't see/hear the AMA, APA, ADA, or other prefessional organzitions running into anti-trust issues.
The ABA should FORCE schools to release accurate and honest employment data and have the data audited regulalry. They should also raise the bar passage standards and close down schools that have awful attrition rates, like Cooley, Jefferson, Barry, and half the other TTTs. I see no anti-trust issues there. Just preventing stupid people from being scammed.


You have to take into consideration that the ABA doesn't deal with reasonable benign organizations and people, they deal with lawyers.

Yes. But the ABA is the most powerful legal organization in the US. This is madneess, and if it doesn't get stopped, things are gonna end badly. You and I know that this cannot continue for long-time. There will be serious repercusions for the legal profession. If the ABA can't do it, fine, get rid of them and have someone else be the regualtor of legal education.


I'm certain that the ABA is going to do something; they don't have a choice at this point. The question is whether it will be enough, i.e. whether the ABA does the unexpected and ratchets up the standard to something like this: --LinkRemoved--

Here is the current proposal being discussed right now: --LinkRemoved--
Here is LST's take on it: --LinkRemoved--

User avatar
nOO law
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:31 am

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby nOO law » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:36 am

DoubleChecks wrote:
nOO law wrote::D

Just glancing over the numbers they don't seem as bad as I thought. 200 law schools and 45000 grads ~50-60% isn't a bad number. Also, aren't these percentages similar or even substantially better than other professional schools (not medical).


wait what? ~50-60% chance of not having a full time legal job after dumping 3 yrs and $150k-200k in tuitions is not a bad number? lol man vegas roulette for you son! i vote EVENS (30/70 split if you win it).


:lol:

I am not saying that these are good odds. I am saying that these are not as bad as I thought.

There are hundreds of online degree mills and just plain crappy schools that offer MBA, MPA, Phd ( I think Cooley offers a few dual degree programs) and other degrees that are worthless. Not to mention some auxillary professional designations that look fancy on a resume but add nothing to your knowledge or career prospects (CGFM, CDFM, etc).

Nobody is forced to pay for/attend these programs but people choose to and very few people will see the benefits.

Taking into account that a service industry has limited jobs and an abundance of graduates to the profession, it doesn't surprise me that not everyone can get a job (especially at TTTTs).

If the article said ~50-60% of T14/T1 grads were unemployed 9 months after grad I would be surprised, but the stats in the article include the Cooleys and People's also.

Capitol A
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby Capitol A » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:51 am

the stats in the article include the Cooleys and People's also.



Exactly.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:53 am

nOO law wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
nOO law wrote::D

Just glancing over the numbers they don't seem as bad as I thought. 200 law schools and 45000 grads ~50-60% isn't a bad number. Also, aren't these percentages similar or even substantially better than other professional schools (not medical).


wait what? ~50-60% chance of not having a full time legal job after dumping 3 yrs and $150k-200k in tuitions is not a bad number? lol man vegas roulette for you son! i vote EVENS (30/70 split if you win it).


:lol:

I am not saying that these are good odds. I am saying that these are not as bad as I thought.

There are hundreds of online degree mills and just plain crappy schools that offer MBA, MPA, Phd ( I think Cooley offers a few dual degree programs) and other degrees that are worthless. Not to mention some auxillary professional designations that look fancy on a resume but add nothing to your knowledge or career prospects (CGFM, CDFM, etc).

Nobody is forced to pay for/attend these programs but people choose to and very few people will see the benefits.

Taking into account that a service industry has limited jobs and an abundance of graduates to the profession, it doesn't surprise me that not everyone can get a job (especially at TTTTs).

If the article said ~50-60% of T14/T1 grads were unemployed 9 months after grad I would be surprised, but the stats in the article include the Cooleys and People's also.


I don't think it counts the People's, buuuut unlike online degree mills, law schools are misleading about their employment stats. while online degree mills != professional schools, I would still say the average person knows the probable worth of an online MBA (which btw, does not cost anywhere near $200,000)...but the average person would overestimate the value of a JD, esp. ITE. imo, the system is somewhat broken, with misleading practices and lack of actual regulation. hmm sounds like something else i know...

also, tbf, he did sample one T50 (?) and found it to be ~45%...probably a bit biased, but I have a feeling there are plenty of T1s that are close (personally i dont think T14s are so dire that 50% can't find full time legal employment lol, but then again, most future JDs arent going to T14s...)

User avatar
nOO law
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:31 am

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby nOO law » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:06 am

DoubleChecks wrote:
nOO law wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
nOO law wrote::D

Just glancing over the numbers they don't seem as bad as I thought. 200 law schools and 45000 grads ~50-60% isn't a bad number. Also, aren't these percentages similar or even substantially better than other professional schools (not medical).


wait what? ~50-60% chance of not having a full time legal job after dumping 3 yrs and $150k-200k in tuitions is not a bad number? lol man vegas roulette for you son! i vote EVENS (30/70 split if you win it).


:lol:

I am not saying that these are good odds. I am saying that these are not as bad as I thought.

There are hundreds of online degree mills and just plain crappy schools that offer MBA, MPA, Phd ( I think Cooley offers a few dual degree programs) and other degrees that are worthless. Not to mention some auxillary professional designations that look fancy on a resume but add nothing to your knowledge or career prospects (CGFM, CDFM, etc).

Nobody is forced to pay for/attend these programs but people choose to and very few people will see the benefits.

Taking into account that a service industry has limited jobs and an abundance of graduates to the profession, it doesn't surprise me that not everyone can get a job (especially at TTTTs).

If the article said ~50-60% of T14/T1 grads were unemployed 9 months after grad I would be surprised, but the stats in the article include the Cooleys and People's also.


I don't think it counts the People's, buuuut unlike online degree mills, law schools are misleading about their employment stats. while online degree mills != professional schools, I would still say the average person knows the probable worth of an online MBA (which btw, does not cost anywhere near $200,000)...but the average person would overestimate the value of a JD, esp. ITE. imo, the system is somewhat broken, with misleading practices and lack of actual regulation. hmm sounds like something else i know...

also, tbf, he did sample one T50 (?) and found it to be ~45%...probably a bit biased, but I have a feeling there are plenty of T1s that are close (personally i dont think T14s are so dire that 50% can't find full time legal employment lol, but then again, most future JDs arent going to T14s...)


That's fair. Misinformation is misinformation.

But I dont believe that the demand in the legal education market will improve simply by enforcing accurate employment statistics. The industry is obsessed with prestige and the schools as well as the employers will still seek it, as well as students hoping to cash in.

For those with the goal of Biglaw (and the stats/sense to attend a decent school), closing a few schools won't hurt. But for those with other goals, the schools will become more competitive and likely more expensive for everyone.

Capitol A
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby Capitol A » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:15 am

DoubleChecks wrote:
nOO law wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
nOO law wrote::D

Just glancing over the numbers they don't seem as bad as I thought. 200 law schools and 45000 grads ~50-60% isn't a bad number. Also, aren't these percentages similar or even substantially better than other professional schools (not medical).


wait what? ~50-60% chance of not having a full time legal job after dumping 3 yrs and $150k-200k in tuitions is not a bad number? lol man vegas roulette for you son! i vote EVENS (30/70 split if you win it).


:lol:

I am not saying that these are good odds. I am saying that these are not as bad as I thought.

There are hundreds of online degree mills and just plain crappy schools that offer MBA, MPA, Phd ( I think Cooley offers a few dual degree programs) and other degrees that are worthless. Not to mention some auxillary professional designations that look fancy on a resume but add nothing to your knowledge or career prospects (CGFM, CDFM, etc).

Nobody is forced to pay for/attend these programs but people choose to and very few people will see the benefits.

Taking into account that a service industry has limited jobs and an abundance of graduates to the profession, it doesn't surprise me that not everyone can get a job (especially at TTTTs).

If the article said ~50-60% of T14/T1 grads were unemployed 9 months after grad I would be surprised, but the stats in the article include the Cooleys and People's also.


I don't think it counts the People's, buuuut unlike online degree mills, law schools are misleading about their employment stats. while online degree mills != professional schools, I would still say the average person knows the probable worth of an online MBA (which btw, does not cost anywhere near $200,000)...but the average person would overestimate the value of a JD, esp. ITE. imo, the system is somewhat broken, with misleading practices and lack of actual regulation. hmm sounds like something else i know...

also, tbf, he did sample one T50 (?) and found it to be ~45%...probably a bit biased, but I have a feeling there are plenty of T1s that are close (personally i dont think T14s are so dire that 50% can't find full time legal employment lol, but then again, most future JDs arent going to T14s...)

It's true that misleading stats and possibly blatant dishonesty is certainly a problem, but I have always been a 'buyer beware' type of guy. This info exists, its up to buyers to use it properly. Before taking out a massive loan for my house I sought out every source of info that I could in order to ensure that I was making the best investment for me and for my family. I approach the decision to attend law school in the same way.
RE: sampling a single T50 and reporting 45% employment could probably be classified as a similar tactic to what the schools are doing: Looking for the statistics that will impress your audience most, then present in a way that benefits you. Is it really wrong to do this? Maybe not. Is it purposely misleading? Probably.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:46 am

Capitol A wrote:It's true that misleading stats and possibly blatant dishonesty is certainly a problem, but I have always been a 'buyer beware' type of guy. This info exists, its up to buyers to use it properly. Before taking out a massive loan for my house I sought out every source of info that I could in order to ensure that I was making the best investment for me and for my family. I approach the decision to attend law school in the same way.
RE: sampling a single T50 and reporting 45% employment could probably be classified as a similar tactic to what the schools are doing: Looking for the statistics that will impress your audience most, then present in a way that benefits you. Is it really wrong to do this? Maybe not. Is it purposely misleading? Probably.


I also have a buyer beware approach to many things in life, but unfortunately most people do not. couple that with the fact that a lot of law schools are misleading with their data...many prospective students wanting JDs will start and end their research there. i mean, information from a school, on its face, seems safe and accurate, right? it's sad that these schools misuse their image, or the initial goodwill (or rather trust) people have in them.

like i said, i have a buyer beware approach to life, but im also a realist. most people do not have that approach. yeah, i think they do need to be protected, and thats what regulation is for. when you buy a house, it is no longer buyer beware for problems that are not obvious -- the same should apply for law schools (they both cost about the same! lol)

Capitol A
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby Capitol A » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:31 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
Capitol A wrote:It's true that misleading stats and possibly blatant dishonesty is certainly a problem, but I have always been a 'buyer beware' type of guy. This info exists, its up to buyers to use it properly. Before taking out a massive loan for my house I sought out every source of info that I could in order to ensure that I was making the best investment for me and for my family. I approach the decision to attend law school in the same way.
RE: sampling a single T50 and reporting 45% employment could probably be classified as a similar tactic to what the schools are doing: Looking for the statistics that will impress your audience most, then present in a way that benefits you. Is it really wrong to do this? Maybe not. Is it purposely misleading? Probably.


I also have a buyer beware approach to many things in life, but unfortunately most people do not. couple that with the fact that a lot of law schools are misleading with their data...many prospective students wanting JDs will start and end their research there. i mean, information from a school, on its face, seems safe and accurate, right? it's sad that these schools misuse their image, or the initial goodwill (or rather trust) people have in them.

like i said, i have a buyer beware approach to life, but im also a realist. most people do not have that approach. yeah, i think they do need to be protected, and thats what regulation is for. when you buy a house, it is no longer buyer beware for problems that are not obvious -- the same should apply for law schools (they both cost about the same! lol)

I can't argue with your points. I am however rather hesitant to push for regulation of a product or service that people are voluntarily buying, and that is not a life/death decision. Particularly when the truth is available if one is willing to do the research. Market forces may eventually cause schools to be more honest if prospective students were more demanding of transperancy. At this point, sites like LST are making the information available for those intelligent enough to seek it out. I think LST is doing the right thing by putting pressure on the schools and encouraging students to do the same.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:33 pm

Capitol A wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
Capitol A wrote:It's true that misleading stats and possibly blatant dishonesty is certainly a problem, but I have always been a 'buyer beware' type of guy. This info exists, its up to buyers to use it properly. Before taking out a massive loan for my house I sought out every source of info that I could in order to ensure that I was making the best investment for me and for my family. I approach the decision to attend law school in the same way.
RE: sampling a single T50 and reporting 45% employment could probably be classified as a similar tactic to what the schools are doing: Looking for the statistics that will impress your audience most, then present in a way that benefits you. Is it really wrong to do this? Maybe not. Is it purposely misleading? Probably.


I also have a buyer beware approach to many things in life, but unfortunately most people do not. couple that with the fact that a lot of law schools are misleading with their data...many prospective students wanting JDs will start and end their research there. i mean, information from a school, on its face, seems safe and accurate, right? it's sad that these schools misuse their image, or the initial goodwill (or rather trust) people have in them.

like i said, i have a buyer beware approach to life, but im also a realist. most people do not have that approach. yeah, i think they do need to be protected, and thats what regulation is for. when you buy a house, it is no longer buyer beware for problems that are not obvious -- the same should apply for law schools (they both cost about the same! lol)

I can't argue with your points. I am however rather hesitant to push for regulation of a product or service that people are voluntarily buying, and that is not a life/death decision. Particularly when the truth is available if one is willing to do the research. Market forces may eventually cause schools to be more honest if prospective students were more demanding of transperancy. At this point, sites like LST are making the information available for those intelligent enough to seek it out. I think LST is doing the right thing by putting pressure on the schools and encouraging students to do the same.


arent most things that are regulated not life or death services? that being said, i dont see why for practical purposes law schools should not be regulated like how, for example, dental schools are

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby rundoxierun » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:37 pm

Capitol A wrote:
like i said, i have a buyer beware approach to life, but im also a realist. most people do not have that approach. yeah, i think they do need to be protected, and thats what regulation is for. when you buy a house, it is no longer buyer beware for problems that are not obvious -- the same should apply for law schools (they both cost about the same! lol)

I can't argue with your points. I am however rather hesitant to push for regulation of a product or service that people are voluntarily buying, and that is not a life/death decision. Particularly when the truth is available if one is willing to do the research. Market forces may eventually cause schools to be more honest if prospective students were more demanding of transperancy. At this point, sites like LST are making the information available for those intelligent enough to seek it out. I think LST is doing the right thing by putting pressure on the schools and encouraging students to do the same.[/quote]

Asymmetrical information is what we are dealing with here. It is an elementary example of a market failure. Some info. is available online but almost all of it is likely too extreme (too far positive or too far negative) or out of context. It is hard to really make an accurate assessment without full information. Schools are investment decisions and therefore should be regulated as such.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby scammedhard » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:41 pm

Capitol A wrote:I can't argue with your points. I am however rather hesitant to push for regulation of a product or service that people are voluntarily buying, and that is not a life/death decision. Particularly when the truth is available if one is willing to do the research. Market forces may eventually cause schools to be more honest if prospective students were more demanding of transperancy. At this point, sites like LST are making the information available for those intelligent enough to seek it out. I think LST is doing the right thing by putting pressure on the schools and encouraging students to do the same.

Sorry to jump in, but I take issue with you point. The truth is not available. LST helps, but it is also incomplete. Can you be kind enough to tell me where I can do this research? What is the site/journal/etc that disseminates accurate, transparent data regarding employment prospects for particular schools?
I, and others, are not asking the ABA to force schools to close, at least not yet. I believe the market will take care of the problem. We just want the ABA, as the designated regulator of legal education in the US, to force schools to provide basic consumer information and stop them from presenting "massaged" employment data because that, to me, constitutes false representation of facts.

Capitol A
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby Capitol A » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:42 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
Capitol A wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
Capitol A wrote:It's true that misleading stats and possibly blatant dishonesty is certainly a problem, but I have always been a 'buyer beware' type of guy. This info exists, its up to buyers to use it properly. Before taking out a massive loan for my house I sought out every source of info that I could in order to ensure that I was making the best investment for me and for my family. I approach the decision to attend law school in the same way.
RE: sampling a single T50 and reporting 45% employment could probably be classified as a similar tactic to what the schools are doing: Looking for the statistics that will impress your audience most, then present in a way that benefits you. Is it really wrong to do this? Maybe not. Is it purposely misleading? Probably.


I also have a buyer beware approach to many things in life, but unfortunately most people do not. couple that with the fact that a lot of law schools are misleading with their data...many prospective students wanting JDs will start and end their research there. i mean, information from a school, on its face, seems safe and accurate, right? it's sad that these schools misuse their image, or the initial goodwill (or rather trust) people have in them.

like i said, i have a buyer beware approach to life, but im also a realist. most people do not have that approach. yeah, i think they do need to be protected, and thats what regulation is for. when you buy a house, it is no longer buyer beware for problems that are not obvious -- the same should apply for law schools (they both cost about the same! lol)

I can't argue with your points. I am however rather hesitant to push for regulation of a product or service that people are voluntarily buying, and that is not a life/death decision. Particularly when the truth is available if one is willing to do the research. Market forces may eventually cause schools to be more honest if prospective students were more demanding of transperancy. At this point, sites like LST are making the information available for those intelligent enough to seek it out. I think LST is doing the right thing by putting pressure on the schools and encouraging students to do the same.


arent most things that are regulated not life or death services? that being said, i dont see why for practical purposes law schools should not be regulated like how, for example, dental schools are

The fact that a lot of things or even "most things" are regulated in a certain way in no way supports creating more regulations of other things.
tkgrrett wrote:
Capitol A wrote:
like i said, i have a buyer beware approach to life, but im also a realist. most people do not have that approach. yeah, i think they do need to be protected, and thats what regulation is for. when you buy a house, it is no longer buyer beware for problems that are not obvious -- the same should apply for law schools (they both cost about the same! lol)

I can't argue with your points. I am however rather hesitant to push for regulation of a product or service that people are voluntarily buying, and that is not a life/death decision. Particularly when the truth is available if one is willing to do the research. Market forces may eventually cause schools to be more honest if prospective students were more demanding of transperancy. At this point, sites like LST are making the information available for those intelligent enough to seek it out. I think LST is doing the right thing by putting pressure on the schools and encouraging students to do the same.


Asymmetrical information is what we are dealing with here. It is an elementary example of a market failure. Some info. is available online but almost all of it is likely too extreme (too far positive or too far negative) or out of context. It is hard to really make an accurate assessment without full information. Schools are investment decisions and therefore should be regulated as such.[/quote]
You make a very good point about the disparity in extremes of information. It can still be up to prospective students to decide what information they consider reliable. We could also get into a separate discussion about the appropriate level of regulation for other investments and whether law school is truly the same as say a mutual fund investment, but that's not the subject of this thread.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby bk1 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:43 pm

scammedhard wrote:What is the site/journal/etc that disseminates accurate, transparent data regarding employment prospects for particular schools?


I think paid subscrip to USNWR online is the est you can do.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby bk1 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:44 pm

Can you fuckers fix your quotes? Bugging the hell out of me.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby scammedhard » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:46 pm

bk1 wrote:
scammedhard wrote:What is the site/journal/etc that disseminates accurate, transparent data regarding employment prospects for particular schools?


I think paid subscrip to USNWR online is the est you can do.

And isn't that sad. A for-profit MAGAZINE is what gives prospective law students the "best" data. Data that affects how they spend up to 250K for a product.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby scammedhard » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:48 pm

I also think law schools should more regulated because their product has direct public implications. After all, do you want a bunch of awful, incompetent lawyers running around? Like Joseph Rakofsky?

Capitol A
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby Capitol A » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:49 pm

Can you fuckers fix your quotes? Bugging the hell out of me.[/quote]
What do you mean?

Capitol A
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby Capitol A » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:49 pm

scammedhard wrote:I also think law schools should more regulated because their product has direct public implications. After all, do you want a bunch of awful, incompetent lawyers running around? Like Joseph Rakofsky?

Market forces can force awful lawyers to stop practicing due to lack of clients.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Article: How Law Schools Misrepresent Employment Prospects

Postby scammedhard » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:50 pm

Capitol A wrote:
scammedhard wrote:I also think law schools should more regulated because their product has direct public implications. After all, do you want a bunch of awful, incompetent lawyers running around? Like Joseph Rakofsky?

Market forces can force awful lawyers to stop practicing due to lack of clients.

Yes, but only after they caused some harm...




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: whyjay, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests