Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
Snooker
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:50 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby Snooker » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:17 am

jayzon wrote:
Snooker wrote:The NALP data combined with NLJ's data should lead us to believe that the median salary is $60,000, not $160,000. NALP is saying there's 2 salary poles, the 60k one and the 160k one, the 160k offers coming from NLJ250 firms. The NLJ survey's say that around 30% of Fordham graduates, in most years, place into NLJ250 firms; Fordham's own statistics say instead that about 80% of their private sector graduates place into NLJ250 firms. So, when Fordham reported to the NYT that their 25-75 stats were 155k/160k for salaries, it was because they claimed virtually everyone in the private sector worked in the biggest law firms. In short, they pretended their employment stats were as good as Columbia's for the private sector.

Since you're speaking of fraud, how would it be reasonable to rely on a claim of the "median salary is $160,000?"


This is an interesting argument. I think it would be reasonable for two reasons:

1. There are 17 law schools which could accurately make this claim about past employment, and Fordham is generally perceived as being very close in quality to those schools.
2. As a major university, Fordham enjoys a level of credibility surpassing that of any private organization, or even the government. In Academic culture, material published in a University's periodicals are supposed to have "authority" - being under the aegis of the University implies the information has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. If their publications about Civil War statistics are to be trusted, then a reasonable person would conclude that the university is publishing accurate information about its own graduates, a relatively simple project. Academic rigor, not outright deception, is expected of major universities.

More importantly: why do I feel this is a major issue?

Fraudulent reporting of law school graduates' salaries raises the perceived value of the JD as an investment, and therefore increases students' willingness to pay higher rates. Even if we're personally aware that the reporting is not accurate, we can't escape tuition inflation.


Realistically, you're absolutely right. More than likely, they've manipulated the original data set (willingly or not) so that the 13% not reporting are the 13% at the very bottom, which can drastically affect any average. It is likely that these people self-selected (who wants to fill out the "I am unemployed" survey?") and some of them may have been "lost in the mail."

With 100% reporting, median is 50%. With 13% not reporting, median is 37% -- a HUGE difference. In that case, Fordham needs only to place slightly more than a third of their grads into big money to be totally justified in pretending that is the "average."

I'll bet anything a university full of mathematicians and lawyers triple-check that what they're doing -- while...ahem...morally questionable -- is legal.


This still doesn't explain how 70%+ of their grads are reported to be in NLJ250 firms, indexed to the salary data, but the NLJ250 itself reports only about a third of Fordham's graduates in such firms. Even if 13% didn't report, that wouldn't account for the doubling of the NLJ figure.

Fordham has not only reported its median on that site, but reported 25-75 salary statistics to third parties (i.e. NYT) that represent the school's 25th percentile salary as being extremely high. No doubt that the 25th percentile figure for the school has been consistently drawn from the above 70% in NLJ figure.

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby rondemarino » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:21 am

Snooker wrote:
rondemarino wrote:^^ This. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming - Fordham Fraud.


Good bumpage for what will probably be my craziest thread ever. Nobody would ever think of accusing a major research university of fraud. Universities are supposed to be the good guys, but then the school is running around reporting to USNews and the NYT that their 25th percentile salary is six figures, and their median is 160k! Average salaries almost as high!

I mean, a major expose or some sort of attention should be cast on the fraudulent reporting issue. You don't run into people telling you how fake these statistics are until you start looking through what people on forums are saying. This should really be something every law applicant has in mind when going into school. The University is pulling the wool over your eyes and raiding your pockets for money so deeply that you have to get loans from four different sources to cover the difference.


Without a reporting standard, revenue mills ... I mean, law schools, have every incentive to cook the books.

LawDog3
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby LawDog3 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:24 am

On LSD, I suggested that law schools were committing fraud by misreporting figures and everyone thought I was nuts. Law schools are committing fraud. And the funny thing is, they would ruin us if we lied on our applications.
Last edited by LawDog3 on Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

Leeroy Jenkins
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby Leeroy Jenkins » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:25 am

LawDog3 wrote:On LSD, I suggested that law schools were committing fraud by misreporting figures and everyone thought I was nuts.

I'd think anyone on LSD to be nuts.

JJim1919
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:33 am

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby JJim1919 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:25 am

jayzon wrote:
Snooker wrote:The NALP data combined with NLJ's data should lead us to believe that the median salary is $60,000, not $160,000. NALP is saying there's 2 salary poles, the 60k one and the 160k one, the 160k offers coming from NLJ250 firms. The NLJ survey's say that around 30% of Fordham graduates, in most years, place into NLJ250 firms; Fordham's own statistics say instead that about 80% of their private sector graduates place into NLJ250 firms. So, when Fordham reported to the NYT that their 25-75 stats were 155k/160k for salaries, it was because they claimed virtually everyone in the private sector worked in the biggest law firms. In short, they pretended their employment stats were as good as Columbia's for the private sector.

Since you're speaking of fraud, how would it be reasonable to rely on a claim of the "median salary is $160,000?"


This is an interesting argument. I think it would be reasonable for two reasons:

1. There are 17 law schools which could accurately make this claim about past employment, and Fordham is generally perceived as being very close in quality to those schools.
2. As a major university, Fordham enjoys a level of credibility surpassing that of any private organization, or even the government. In Academic culture, material published in a University's periodicals are supposed to have "authority" - being under the aegis of the University implies the information has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. If their publications about Civil War statistics are to be trusted, then a reasonable person would conclude that the university is publishing accurate information about its own graduates, a relatively simple project. Academic rigor, not outright deception, is expected of major universities.

More importantly: why do I feel this is a major issue?

Fraudulent reporting of law school graduates' salaries raises the perceived value of the JD as an investment, and therefore increases students' willingness to pay higher rates. Even if we're personally aware that the reporting is not accurate, we can't escape tuition inflation.


Realistically, you're absolutely right. More than likely, they've manipulated the original data set (willingly or not) so that the 13% not reporting are the 13% at the very bottom, which can drastically affect any average. It is likely that these people self-selected (who wants to fill out the "I am unemployed" survey?") and some of them may have been "lost in the mail."

With 100% reporting, median is 50%. With 13% not reporting, median is 37% -- a HUGE difference. In that case, Fordham needs only to place slightly more than a third of their grads into big money to be totally justified in pretending that is the "average."

I'll bet anything a university full of mathematicians and lawyers triple-check that what they're doing -- while...ahem...morally questionable -- is legal.


True but if the top 40% or so of the class is getting market salary from a T30 school like fordham, that is pretty awesome.

Even if you look at this chart, it shows about 40% in nlj250 + clerkships. Then there are also some non NLJ250 firms that pay market. Obviously this was from the boom years, but if you cant make a T14 and want biglaw in NYC, fordham is not that bad an bad option.
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf

This chart shows almost 44% in NLJ250 from fordham. So if you add in clerkships, that means top 50% of students probably have a shot at 160k. There are worse things you could invest in.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePr ... 2428438260

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby 98234872348 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:28 am

JJim1919 wrote:
jayzon wrote:
Snooker wrote:The NALP data combined with NLJ's data should lead us to believe that the median salary is $60,000, not $160,000. NALP is saying there's 2 salary poles, the 60k one and the 160k one, the 160k offers coming from NLJ250 firms. The NLJ survey's say that around 30% of Fordham graduates, in most years, place into NLJ250 firms; Fordham's own statistics say instead that about 80% of their private sector graduates place into NLJ250 firms. So, when Fordham reported to the NYT that their 25-75 stats were 155k/160k for salaries, it was because they claimed virtually everyone in the private sector worked in the biggest law firms. In short, they pretended their employment stats were as good as Columbia's for the private sector.

Since you're speaking of fraud, how would it be reasonable to rely on a claim of the "median salary is $160,000?"


This is an interesting argument. I think it would be reasonable for two reasons:

1. There are 17 law schools which could accurately make this claim about past employment, and Fordham is generally perceived as being very close in quality to those schools.
2. As a major university, Fordham enjoys a level of credibility surpassing that of any private organization, or even the government. In Academic culture, material published in a University's periodicals are supposed to have "authority" - being under the aegis of the University implies the information has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. If their publications about Civil War statistics are to be trusted, then a reasonable person would conclude that the university is publishing accurate information about its own graduates, a relatively simple project. Academic rigor, not outright deception, is expected of major universities.

More importantly: why do I feel this is a major issue?

Fraudulent reporting of law school graduates' salaries raises the perceived value of the JD as an investment, and therefore increases students' willingness to pay higher rates. Even if we're personally aware that the reporting is not accurate, we can't escape tuition inflation.


Realistically, you're absolutely right. More than likely, they've manipulated the original data set (willingly or not) so that the 13% not reporting are the 13% at the very bottom, which can drastically affect any average. It is likely that these people self-selected (who wants to fill out the "I am unemployed" survey?") and some of them may have been "lost in the mail."

With 100% reporting, median is 50%. With 13% not reporting, median is 37% -- a HUGE difference. In that case, Fordham needs only to place slightly more than a third of their grads into big money to be totally justified in pretending that is the "average."

I'll bet anything a university full of mathematicians and lawyers triple-check that what they're doing -- while...ahem...morally questionable -- is legal.


True but if the top 40% or so of the class is getting market salary from a T30 school like fordham, that is pretty awesome.

Even if you look at this chart, it shows about 40% in nlj250 + clerkships. Then there are also some non NLJ250 firms that pay market. Obviously this was from the boom years, but if you cant make a T14 and want biglaw in NYC, fordham is not that bad an bad option.
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf

This chart shows almost 44% in NLJ250 from fordham. So if you add in clerkships, that means top 50% of students probably have a shot at 160k. There are worse things you could invest in.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePr ... 2428438260


Credible in a boon economy (i.e. 2006/7 when these folks interviewed)... Not now... Not even a chance :(

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby rondemarino » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:30 am

Snooker wrote:
Lxw wrote:
Snooker wrote:The NALP data combined with NLJ's data should lead us to believe that the median salary is $60,000, not $160,000. NALP is saying there's 2 salary poles, the 60k one and the 160k one, the 160k offers coming from NLJ250 firms. The NLJ survey's say that around 30% of Fordham graduates, in most years, place into NLJ250 firms; Fordham's own statistics say instead that about 80% of their private sector graduates place into NLJ250 firms. So, when Fordham reported to the NYT that their 25-75 stats were 155k/160k for salaries, it was because they claimed virtually everyone in the private sector worked in the biggest law firms. In short, they pretended their employment stats were as good as Columbia's for the private sector.

While I do agree with you that there seems to be something fishy with Fordham's employment data, there are plenty of non-NLJ firms that pay market.


Another interesting point, this is especially true in the south, but I haven't been able to find as much about these mini-market paying firms in NYC. The NLJ actually extends into midlaw, as well. The smallest firm I found reported on an NLJ250 list was 160 attorneys. If you look on the Fordham site, the employment statistics are manipulated to say well over 70% of their graduates work at 250+ attorney firms, i.e. NLJ250 firms paying high salaries, and this is the source of the salary data. That is false, according to the NLJ data on Fordham.

It's not only Fordham which falsifies data. I am sure every T1 and T2 school is up to the same tricks.


If they didn't, they are sure as hell are going to start now. Reporting actual numbers would put much needed downward pressure on tuition rates. I'm torn on what needs to be done. Ideally someone (USNWR, Uncle Sam, ABA) would step in compel reporting of this data, but no one seems to care. USNWR and Uncle Sam have the incentive (consumer demand and GradPLUS write-offs/IBR). The ABA is pretty much useless. Not sure why it exists.

p.s: If USNWR charged $100 for a booklet reporting (accurate) salary information for law school graduates, I'd pay for it (or downloand the torrent :D ).

JJim1919
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:33 am

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby JJim1919 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:33 am

jayzon wrote:Location, location, location.


Well of course. But if you want NYC biglaw, then by all means take advantage of it. I thought it was kind of impressive.

mistergoft wrote:Credible in a boon economy (i.e. 2006/7 when these folks interviewed)... Not now... Not even a chance


Those numbers will decrease, but top 1/3 should still be in pretty decent shape.

User avatar
Neverknowsbest
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:12 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby Neverknowsbest » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:35 am

jayzon wrote:
Snooker wrote:The NALP data combined with NLJ's data should lead us to believe that the median salary is $60,000, not $160,000. NALP is saying there's 2 salary poles, the 60k one and the 160k one, the 160k offers coming from NLJ250 firms. The NLJ survey's say that around 30% of Fordham graduates, in most years, place into NLJ250 firms; Fordham's own statistics say instead that about 80% of their private sector graduates place into NLJ250 firms. So, when Fordham reported to the NYT that their 25-75 stats were 155k/160k for salaries, it was because they claimed virtually everyone in the private sector worked in the biggest law firms. In short, they pretended their employment stats were as good as Columbia's for the private sector.

Since you're speaking of fraud, how would it be reasonable to rely on a claim of the "median salary is $160,000?"


This is an interesting argument. I think it would be reasonable for two reasons:

1. There are 17 law schools which could accurately make this claim about past employment, and Fordham is generally perceived as being very close in quality to those schools.
2. As a major university, Fordham enjoys a level of credibility surpassing that of any private organization, or even the government. In Academic culture, material published in a University's periodicals are supposed to have "authority" - being under the aegis of the University implies the information has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. If their publications about Civil War statistics are to be trusted, then a reasonable person would conclude that the university is publishing accurate information about its own graduates, a relatively simple project. Academic rigor, not outright deception, is expected of major universities.

More importantly: why do I feel this is a major issue?

Fraudulent reporting of law school graduates' salaries raises the perceived value of the JD as an investment, and therefore increases students' willingness to pay higher rates. Even if we're personally aware that the reporting is not accurate, we can't escape tuition inflation.


Realistically, you're absolutely right. More than likely, they've manipulated the original data set (willingly or not) so that the 13% not reporting are the 13% at the very bottom, which can drastically affect any average. It is likely that these people self-selected (who wants to fill out the "I am unemployed" survey?") and some of them may have been "lost in the mail."

With 100% reporting, median is 50%. With 13% not reporting, median is 37% -- a HUGE difference. In that case, Fordham needs only to place slightly more than a third of their grads into big money to be totally justified in pretending that is the "average."

I'll bet anything a university full of mathematicians and lawyers triple-check that what they're doing -- while...ahem...morally questionable -- is legal.


I'm pretty sure that math isn't right. Maybe some math should be on the LSAT, maybe that would cut back on the number of lawyers the law schools pump out. Anyway, 43.5% of the class would have to make 160 for the median stat to be true, which is still a lot of the class and deserving of some skepticism. Its not like its impossible in NYC though.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:03 am

Um... Fordham is love, folks.

Where is Opera.

Disclaimer: fuck Fordham.

User avatar
blondie
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby blondie » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:04 am

You can't sue for shit. Salary/employment statistics are provided for informational purposes only and are NOT intended as a guarantee. I can't believe a bunch of future lawyers wouldn't be able to understand something that fucking basic.

User avatar
MrOrange
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:54 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby MrOrange » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:08 am

blondie wrote:You can't sue for shit. Salary/employment statistics are provided for informational purposes only and are NOT intended as a guarantee. I can't believe a bunch of future lawyers wouldn't be able to understand something that fucking basic.

:roll: on a bunch of levels.

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby 98234872348 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:12 am

Orange I understand where you are coming from, but, I still don't believe that students at Fordham have legitimate standing to sue...

Not to contradict your eye roll!

I believe that it is bullshit as well, although, I am sure that under the ABA rules it is completely legal. I mean, if NYLS can report a median of 160k with 25% of students reporting and legitimize it, then, I am sure Fordham can do it :-/

LawDog3
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby LawDog3 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:47 am

Lxw wrote:
LawDog3 wrote:On LSD, I suggested that law schools were committing fraud by misreporting figures and everyone thought I was nuts.


I'd think anyone on LSD to be nuts.


Wow...ur really funny. How'd u come up with that one? :roll:

LawDog3
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby LawDog3 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:48 am

MrOrange wrote:
blondie wrote:You can't sue for shit. Salary/employment statistics are provided for informational purposes only and are NOT intended as a guarantee. I can't believe a bunch of future lawyers wouldn't be able to understand something that fucking basic.

:roll: on a bunch of levels.


No. But I can see the DOJ getting into it if this is a widespread trend across graduate schools and even colleges.

Action Jackson
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:46 am

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby Action Jackson » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:52 am

LawDog3 wrote:
MrOrange wrote:
blondie wrote:You can't sue for shit. Salary/employment statistics are provided for informational purposes only and are NOT intended as a guarantee. I can't believe a bunch of future lawyers wouldn't be able to understand something that fucking basic.

:roll: on a bunch of levels.


No. But I can see the DOJ getting into it if this is a widespread trend across graduate schools and even colleges.

You think this is the first year this has happened? You think this is the first DECADE this has happened?

LawDog3
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby LawDog3 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:16 am

Action Jackson wrote:
LawDog3 wrote:
MrOrange wrote:
blondie wrote:You can't sue for shit. Salary/employment statistics are provided for informational purposes only and are NOT intended as a guarantee. I can't believe a bunch of future lawyers wouldn't be able to understand something that fucking basic.

:roll: on a bunch of levels.


No. But I can see the DOJ getting into it if this is a widespread trend across graduate schools and even colleges.

You think this is the first year this has happened? You think this is the first DECADE this has happened?


Of course not. But let's be real, there were no rankings in the 60's, and greed reached a crescendo in the 90's; that's what's driving this insane behavior. If people make a big enough deal about it, the gov will at least pretend to do something, as is the case with steroids. DOJ or Congress gets involved when it becomes a big enough problem. I am not the least bit naiive about it. People will have to complain. but don't think there isn't already some talk in academic circles about this very thing.

Action Jackson
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:46 am

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby Action Jackson » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:25 am

LawDog3 wrote:Of course not. But let's be real, there were no rankings in the 60's, and greed reached a crescendo in the 90's; that's what's driving this insane behavior. If people make a big enough deal about it, the gov will at least pretend to do something, as is the case with steroids. DOJ or Congress gets involved when it becomes a big enough problem. I am not the least bit naiive about it. People will have to complain. but don't think there isn't already some talk in academic circles about this very thing.

Are you 12 years old? I'm guessing you're 12 years old.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby OperaSoprano » Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:15 am

Neverknowsbest wrote:I'm pretty sure that math isn't right. Maybe some math should be on the LSAT, maybe that would cut back on the number of lawyers the law schools pump out. Anyway, 43.5% of the class would have to make 160 for the median stat to be true, which is still a lot of the class and deserving of some skepticism. Its not like its impossible in NYC though.


Good morning, TLS. I just got home from a lovely night of drinking and karaoke with good friends. I can see that I was missed.

As others have pointed out, 99.15% of the Class of 2008 reported employment information, and 87% reported salary data. Fordham placed 43.7% of this same class into NLJ 250 firms. The school could not compel all graduates to divulge salary information, and it is indeed probable that many among the 13% who didn't feel like sharing were not making biglaw money. However, as salary surveys go, 87% reporting is quite respectable. Fordham had to make its calculation based on the available data, and the school noted the degree to which said data was incomplete.

This actually represents an unusual degree of candor. Many schools draw salary data from a much smaller percentage of each graduating class, and the skewing of medians at these schools is a huge problem.

I don't believe Fordham has anything to hide. It is indisputably the best non T14 for NYC placement (perhaps tied with Vandy). No rational person will argue that the school places as well as NYU or Columbia, but 43.7% is quite remarkable for a T30 school. It is *gasp* possible for a school outside the T14 to provide good options and employment outcomes to its students.

I'm not certain why OP has this particular beef with Fordham. There are indeed schools that cook the books and send extremely misleading messages about salary and employment to students, and this issue needs to be addressed. Fordham, however, is admirably transparent. (The school does everything short of publishing actual lists of employers, which I would love to see them do. I know last year's class went off to many fascinating places.)

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby thesealocust » Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:50 am

Edit: n/m
Last edited by thesealocust on Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

vyper
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:28 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby vyper » Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:03 am

Seton Hall and Rutgers have high clerkship rates because of the astounding number of state clerkships in NJ. The state has 480 clerk positions between the Superior Court, Appellate Division, and Supreme Court. Those positions go primarily to graduates of the three NJ schools.

When Yale lists their clerkship percentage, almost all of those graduates are at the federal level.

When Seton Hall or Rutgers lists their clerkship percentage, almost all of those graduates are at the state level.

1474292940502124
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby 1474292940502124 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:35 am

vyper wrote:Seton Hall and Rutgers have high clerkship rates because of the astounding number of state clerkships in NJ. The state has 480 clerk positions between the Superior Court, Appellate Division, and Supreme Court. Those positions go primarily to graduates of the three NJ schools.

When Yale lists their clerkship percentage, almost all of those graduates are at the federal level.

When Seton Hall or Rutgers lists their clerkship percentage, almost all of those graduates are at the state level.

So? It's still a clerkship. It isn't as prestigious, but it is a clerkship after all. Do you suggest Seton Hall and Rutgers not report these numbers, despite them being exactly what they are supposed to report - "clerckships"?

Snooker
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:50 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby Snooker » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:52 am

JJim1919 wrote:
jayzon wrote:
Snooker wrote:The NALP data combined with NLJ's data should lead us to believe that the median salary is $60,000, not $160,000. NALP is saying there's 2 salary poles, the 60k one and the 160k one, the 160k offers coming from NLJ250 firms. The NLJ survey's say that around 30% of Fordham graduates, in most years, place into NLJ250 firms; Fordham's own statistics say instead that about 80% of their private sector graduates place into NLJ250 firms. So, when Fordham reported to the NYT that their 25-75 stats were 155k/160k for salaries, it was because they claimed virtually everyone in the private sector worked in the biggest law firms. In short, they pretended their employment stats were as good as Columbia's for the private sector.

Since you're speaking of fraud, how would it be reasonable to rely on a claim of the "median salary is $160,000?"


This is an interesting argument. I think it would be reasonable for two reasons:

1. There are 17 law schools which could accurately make this claim about past employment, and Fordham is generally perceived as being very close in quality to those schools.
2. As a major university, Fordham enjoys a level of credibility surpassing that of any private organization, or even the government. In Academic culture, material published in a University's periodicals are supposed to have "authority" - being under the aegis of the University implies the information has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. If their publications about Civil War statistics are to be trusted, then a reasonable person would conclude that the university is publishing accurate information about its own graduates, a relatively simple project. Academic rigor, not outright deception, is expected of major universities.

More importantly: why do I feel this is a major issue?

Fraudulent reporting of law school graduates' salaries raises the perceived value of the JD as an investment, and therefore increases students' willingness to pay higher rates. Even if we're personally aware that the reporting is not accurate, we can't escape tuition inflation.


Realistically, you're absolutely right. More than likely, they've manipulated the original data set (willingly or not) so that the 13% not reporting are the 13% at the very bottom, which can drastically affect any average. It is likely that these people self-selected (who wants to fill out the "I am unemployed" survey?") and some of them may have been "lost in the mail."

With 100% reporting, median is 50%. With 13% not reporting, median is 37% -- a HUGE difference. In that case, Fordham needs only to place slightly more than a third of their grads into big money to be totally justified in pretending that is the "average."

I'll bet anything a university full of mathematicians and lawyers triple-check that what they're doing -- while...ahem...morally questionable -- is legal.


True but if the top 40% or so of the class is getting market salary from a T30 school like fordham, that is pretty awesome.

Even if you look at this chart, it shows about 40% in nlj250 + clerkships. Then there are also some non NLJ250 firms that pay market. Obviously this was from the boom years, but if you cant make a T14 and want biglaw in NYC, fordham is not that bad an bad option.
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf

This chart shows almost 44% in NLJ250 from fordham. So if you add in clerkships, that means top 50% of students probably have a shot at 160k. There are worse things you could invest in.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePr ... 2428438260


One razor-thin, ultra tiny detail here: Fordham never reported '08 stats. Whoever got those extra jobs in '08 lost them in '09. If they had to report a salary survey today, it'd probably be 20% or something really miserable.

The second remaining issue is that it doesn't account for the 25% range they've been giving. Fordham hasn't only said that the median gets biglaw, they say 75% get biglaw.

User avatar
TheBigMediocre
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:53 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby TheBigMediocre » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:54 am

I'm late to the party and this is a complete aside, but at my UG the year a marketing major was drafted into the NBA the department factored his salary into the starting salaries of graduating marketing majors. The average skyrocketed ~$40,000 for that year and marketing majors were the belle of the ball.

Just a funny aside based on the median/mean argument a page or two back.

de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?

Postby de5igual » Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:00 am

4 pages and OS has yet to make an appearance...




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mattclew23 and 6 guests