New employment stats by ABA's new rule

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
joetheplumber
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:23 pm

New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby joetheplumber » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:54 am


twiffy
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:07 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby twiffy » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:33 am

this seems to reaffirm the "t14 or bust" sentiment. more motivation to not fuck up undergrad/lsats i guess :/

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:11 am

I remember reading this awhile ago. I decided to drop out that week. The actual numbers were far more convincing than anything I had read on TLS.

Then again, maybe it was just the final straw.

User avatar
SaintsTheMetal
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:08 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby SaintsTheMetal » Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:24 am

Is this actually new data, compared to what's on LST?

edit: nvm, seems to be exactly the same data... nothing new here

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2835
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:07 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby haus » Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:39 am

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I remember reading this awhile ago. I decided to drop out that week. The actual numbers were far more convincing than anything I had read on TLS.

Then again, maybe it was just the final straw.

So what is the alternate plan? Pursue your fame and riches in the exciting field of...?

mr.hands
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:23 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby mr.hands » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:31 am

haus wrote:
SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I remember reading this awhile ago. I decided to drop out that week. The actual numbers were far more convincing than anything I had read on TLS.

Then again, maybe it was just the final straw.

So what is the alternate plan? Pursue your fame and riches in the exciting field of...?


Taxidermy

JetsFan1990
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:41 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby JetsFan1990 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:40 am

This has already been posted. The numbers are no different; there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric. I have learned nothing new. Thank you, and good day, sir.

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby nickb285 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:49 am

All the lower ranked schools are claiming it's related to bar passage. I would be curious to see what job numbers looked like six month after the bar exam, and see whether they have a point or they're just full of crap.
Last edited by nickb285 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JetsFan1990
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:41 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby JetsFan1990 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:53 am

Something tells me the latter is more likely.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby rayiner » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:55 am

JetsFan1990 wrote:This has already been posted. The numbers are no different; there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric. I have learned nothing new. Thank you, and good day, sir.


There's just a lot of "doom and gloom" numbers. A T1 like American university with 36% employed in jobs requiring a law degree? Half of schools having ~50% employed or less after nearly a year after graduation.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby rayiner » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:57 am

nickb285 wrote:All the lower ranked schools are claiming it's related to bar passage. I would be curious to see what job numbers looked like six month after the bar exam, and see whether they have a point or they're just full of shit.


9 months is ~4 months after bar passage for most people. E.g. graduate in May, bar 2 months later in July, bar results 5 months after graduation in October, data taken 9 months after graduation in February.

JetsFan1990
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:41 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby JetsFan1990 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:58 am

rayiner wrote:
JetsFan1990 wrote:This has already been posted. The numbers are no different; there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric. I have learned nothing new. Thank you, and good day, sir.


There's just a lot of "doom and gloom" numbers. A T1 like American university with 36% employed in jobs requiring a law degree? Half of schools having ~50% employed or less after nearly a year after graduation.


True, no doubt, but these numbers are generally the same as LST's. You're right, though; I would definitely agree these numbers paint a pretty grim picture.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:00 pm

mr.hands wrote:
haus wrote:
SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I remember reading this awhile ago. I decided to drop out that week. The actual numbers were far more convincing than anything I had read on TLS.

Then again, maybe it was just the final straw.

So what is the alternate plan? Pursue your fame and riches in the exciting field of...?


Taxidermy
Taxidermy is only worth it if you can land BigFur.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby 2014 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:01 pm

What category is missing from that chart? You would expect JD Required + JD Preferred + Any Job + Unemployed + Unknown would equal 100% but for many schools it is well off of it.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:04 pm

2014 wrote:What category is missing from that chart? You would expect JD Required + JD Preferred + Any Job + Unemployed + Unknown would equal 100% but for many schools it is well off of it.
Probably 'pursuing another degree'.

JohnV
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:29 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby JohnV » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:08 pm

2014 wrote:What category is missing from that chart? You would expect JD Required + JD Preferred + Any Job + Unemployed + Unknown would equal 100% but for many schools it is well off of it.


Unemployed and not seeking a job? They have unemployed and seeking a job and indeterminable, but that doesn't necessarily equate to "not seeking employment".

User avatar
splitbrain
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby splitbrain » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:08 pm

I knew I wanted to be an actor anyway.

--ImageRemoved--

Skump
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby Skump » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:53 am

there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric


"Rhetoric" isn't a synonym for "reality," bro. The ugly truth is that, absent a guaranteed job, choosing to attend most of America's law schools without something close to a full scholarship (with no stips) is demonstrably fucking insane.

Worse still, these numbers basically imply that admins and teachers at a substantial portion of America's law schools occupy the same moral plane as multi-level marketing hucksters, faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. They are value destroyers - a class of bourgeoisie parasites who exploit the naivete of young Americans and the broken system of federal education funding to enrich themselves while impoverishing the broader American economy. At best, their ethical status lies just slightly above that of the average drug dealer and most certainly below that of the average prostitute.

JetsFan1990
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:41 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby JetsFan1990 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:07 pm

Skump wrote:
there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric


"Rhetoric" isn't a synonym for "reality," bro. The ugly truth is that, absent a guaranteed job, choosing to attend most of America's law schools without something close to a full scholarship (with no stips) is demonstrably fucking insane.

Worse still, these numbers basically imply that admins and teachers at a substantial portion of America's law schools occupy the same moral plane as multi-level marketing hucksters, faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. They are value destroyers - a class of bourgeoisie parasites who exploit the naivete of young Americans and the broken system of federal education funding to enrich themselves while impoverishing the broader American economy. At best, their ethical status lies just slightly above that of the average drug dealer and most certainly below that of the average prostitute.


I mean yeah, you're right. But .. damn, that escalated quickly lol.

User avatar
ru2486
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:28 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby ru2486 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:19 pm

Skump wrote:
there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric


"Rhetoric" isn't a synonym for "reality," bro. The ugly truth is that, absent a guaranteed job, choosing to attend most of America's law schools without something close to a full scholarship (with no stips) is demonstrably fucking insane.

Worse still, these numbers basically imply that admins and teachers at a substantial portion of America's law schools occupy the same moral plane as multi-level marketing hucksters, faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. They are value destroyers - a class of bourgeoisie parasites who exploit the naivete of young Americans and the broken system of federal education funding to enrich themselves while impoverishing the broader American economy. At best, their ethical status lies just slightly above that of the average drug dealer and most certainly below that of the average prostitute.



i only object to your use of "bourgeoisie" [noun] when you meant to use "bourgeois" [adjective]

jeffyl00b
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:10 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Postby jeffyl00b » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:28 pm

Those numbers look the same as the percentages i'm figuring using the new ABA data.

They are a #%#$@ of a lot better than how many of us found jobs from undergrad at one of the two peaks of the economic crash. How is 50/50 bad exactly?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests