Top Law Schools

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

jayzon wrote:Location, location, location.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

on a bunch of levels.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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