Re: Should Fordham Law be Sued for Fraud?
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:07 am
You didn't look very hard.f0bolous wrote:4 pages and OS has yet to make an appearance...
(Hint: Last page)
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79842
You didn't look very hard.f0bolous wrote:4 pages and OS has yet to make an appearance...
OS: Fordham is an excellent school, but if you take these stats as fact, then you're seriously deluding yourself.OperaSoprano wrote: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.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.
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.)
1. Were Fordham graduates uniquely vulnerable to layoffs? This seems to be a criticism that could have been levelled at every law school in the 2008 employment cycle. Everything else in your point 1 is speculation.Snooker wrote:@Opera:
1. The 2008 employment stats are nothing to be impressed with, considering how brutally attorneys were laid off shortly after. What's the point of biglaw if you can only work there for a year? When the next NLJ250 stats come out, the reportage is going to be much more shocking and dismal. The NYU/Columbia grads are going to cannibalize Fordham's class; it's not like employers are having to choose between dismal Columbia students and the best Fordham grads anymore. The competition is fierce now.
2. The 87% reporting rate you cite is quite respectable, however, the fact that the statistics have been falsified is not. There's no way that the number of biglaw associates in your statistics doubles after you cut 13% from your stats. Second, Fordham gives no disclaimer for the "The median salary was $160k" claim it likes to throw around. It does not say, "The median salary among graduates who were able to report this data was $160k"
3. As for why I discuss Fordham, it's only because it's the most expensive law school and the most notorious book cooker. It would weigh down my argument to bring in fifty more law schools doing the same thing but to a lesser extant. If Fordham is wrong in principle, then like offenders will be wrong, too. My main interest in all this is to stop the tuition inflation war among law schools. They cram us into a room of 100 people for three years and charge $150k for the service.
4. Fordham is a fine school, but they're playing the same game every other school is - inflate the prospects.
+1 that's what i'm wondering too. i don't see why fordham is being singled out for a career numbers-playing game every law school does.Kohinoor wrote: 4. Then why bother mentioning it?
Cranium wrote: Yes, the median is the middle number and the mean is the average.
Extremes can have a greater impact on the median than mean which is why I bet they are reporting the median
No, I think you don't see it !!!
TITCRKohinoor wrote: 3. Actually, the consensus is that either Brooklyn Law School or New York Law School are the most expensive especially considering the average ROI.
PI and government jobs pretty much are self selecting, or at least they were, before the current economic shitshow. The vast majority of law school grads want and expect to go to firms, and do so even if they can't get biglaw. Fordham in particular has this reputation, despite excellent PI resources; the numbers going into government and PI jobs are small. If I elect to join their ranks as soon as I graduate, I will certainly be doing so of my own volition, and against the advice of nearly everyone I know. The biglaw siren song is strong, and it certainly is a "badge of honor" to get so selective a position.danquayle wrote:Cranium wrote: Yes, the median is the middle number and the mean is the average.
Extremes can have a greater impact on the median than mean which is why I bet they are reporting the median
No, I think you don't see it !!!
Other way around. The median completely nullifies the effect of outliers. The median is purely positional - the mean integrates every available data point.
Whats far more egregious in my opinion is that law schools get away with reporting only private law salaries (which are on average higher paying than PI, Gov or Business) and then deflect the remaining 30-60% of their graduates as 'self-selecting' for non-private firm jobs. That seriously skews every school's employment data upward.
Kohinoor, thank you for your eloquent and well reasoned defense. I don't have much to add to this, since you've sliced Snooker's arguments neatly to pieces. The fact that he calls Fordham the most egregious "cooker of books" is so ludicrous that it doesn't even merit a response. Has he not even bothered to view the percentages reporting salary at other schools? Has he never performed a basic Martindale search to find out where Fordham grads are actually working? The sad thing is that his ridiculous misstatements completely discredit an argument that might actually be useful: schools should publish full employment lists. Such a list would vindicate Fordham and put an end to this idiotic thread.Kohinoor wrote:1. Were Fordham graduates uniquely vulnerable to layoffs? This seems to be a criticism that could have been levelled at every law school in the 2008 employment cycle. Everything else in your point 1 is speculation.Snooker wrote:@Opera:
1. The 2008 employment stats are nothing to be impressed with, considering how brutally attorneys were laid off shortly after. What's the point of biglaw if you can only work there for a year? When the next NLJ250 stats come out, the reportage is going to be much more shocking and dismal. The NYU/Columbia grads are going to cannibalize Fordham's class; it's not like employers are having to choose between dismal Columbia students and the best Fordham grads anymore. The competition is fierce now.
2. The 87% reporting rate you cite is quite respectable, however, the fact that the statistics have been falsified is not. There's no way that the number of biglaw associates in your statistics doubles after you cut 13% from your stats. Second, Fordham gives no disclaimer for the "The median salary was $160k" claim it likes to throw around. It does not say, "The median salary among graduates who were able to report this data was $160k"
3. As for why I discuss Fordham, it's only because it's the most expensive law school and the most notorious book cooker. It would weigh down my argument to bring in fifty more law schools doing the same thing but to a lesser extant. If Fordham is wrong in principle, then like offenders will be wrong, too. My main interest in all this is to stop the tuition inflation war among law schools. They cram us into a room of 100 people for three years and charge $150k for the service.
4. Fordham is a fine school, but they're playing the same game every other school is - inflate the prospects.
2. Shouldn't intelligent people assume that the data they report only provides information on the people that responded? It seems that it would be a logical impossibility for them to do otherwise.
3. Actually, the consensus is that either Brooklyn Law School or New York Law School are the most expensive especially considering the average ROI.
4. Then why bother mentioning it?
Oh, AP, it's true. I had such a wonderful time last night, and I want to see the DC kids for brunch before they leave. I'll have to abandon this discourse for a few hours. I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.awesomepossum wrote:man..... creating a thread like this automatically generates work for OS to do.
160k median salary type assertions?OperaSoprano wrote: I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.
My post was in response to this post:betasteve wrote: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"?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.
I was trying to show that Rutgers wasn't fudging clerkship numbers... there's just a ton of NJ state clerkships going primarily to the NJ schools... which is where their high clerkship % comes from.In line with OP's question -- should Rutgers be sued as well for claiming in the letter they sent me today that they are second only to Yale in getting their students federal and state clerkships?
I mean srsly? Are they? I found that hard to believe, but maybe I'm misguided?
broken_imageOperaSoprano wrote:I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.
0L, not a grad.Mel Zelaya wrote:broken_imageOperaSoprano wrote:I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.
Please knock down the assertion that this Fordham grad will ever become a "polished, professional attorney."
Doyle, you have seen the numbers. The school works with the best data available to calculate the median, and honestly explains the nature of said data (ie: 87% reporting.) Unless the school were to borrow some Death Eaters and put all new graduates under the Imperius curse, forcing them to reveal their starting salaries, there would be no way to get a "better" median.doyleoil wrote:160k median salary type assertions?OperaSoprano wrote: I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.
More importantly, why can't Fordham seem to break the LEWW market in its own city? Now that's embarrassing.doyleoil wrote:160k median salary type assertions?OperaSoprano wrote: I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.
And you base these assertions off your accumulated zero hours of law school experience combined with your accumulated zero hours of law practice?OperaSoprano wrote:PI and government jobs pretty much are self selecting, or at least they were, before the current economic shitshow. The vast majority of law school grads want and expect to go to firms, and do so even if they can't get biglaw. Fordham in particular has this reputation, despite excellent PI resources; the numbers going into government and PI jobs are small. If I elect to join their ranks as soon as I graduate, I will certainly be doing so of my own volition, and against the advice of nearly everyone I know. The biglaw siren song is strong, and it certainly is a "badge of honor" to get so selective a position.danquayle wrote:Cranium wrote: Yes, the median is the middle number and the mean is the average.
Extremes can have a greater impact on the median than mean which is why I bet they are reporting the median
No, I think you don't see it !!!
Other way around. The median completely nullifies the effect of outliers. The median is purely positional - the mean integrates every available data point.
Whats far more egregious in my opinion is that law schools get away with reporting only private law salaries (which are on average higher paying than PI, Gov or Business) and then deflect the remaining 30-60% of their graduates as 'self-selecting' for non-private firm jobs. That seriously skews every school's employment data upward.
My point is that in an economy even marginally less fucked than this one, people don't take government or PI jobs unless they want them. These jobs aren't somehow magically easier to get than non market paying firm jobs, and they tend to pay even less than insurance defense type work.
I agree with you that Business as a category is problematic. Whenever I see a school with a high percentage of grads working in Business, it's a red flag. They could be in corporate legal departments, or they could be at Starbucks. We just don't know.
I absolutely would like to see all law schools held to a higher degree of accountability. However, I am satisfied that Fordham is as good as it gets for a school outside the T14 and UCLA/Vandy/UT tier. Short of hunting down every last graduate and forcing them to divulge salary information at gunpoint, I don't see how the school can get more accurate information.
Why is it so shocking to people that the #3 school in NYC is able to place students well? Are we all so wed to the T14 or bust mythology that it is impossible to accept any facts that don't fit that particular paradigm? A simple Martindale search should be enough to put this kind of thing to rest. Fordham does not place as well as a T14, obviously, but it's one of the best regional schools in the nation. I don't think anyone on here would even bother to dispute that.
Also, what is up with the collective mathematical difficulties experienced by members of this forum? I was a fashion merchandising major and I understand the difference between median and mean.
Off to brunch. I'll be around later if anyone needs me.
perhaps a lesbian couple with an aristocratic background would do the tricklex talionis wrote:More importantly, why can't Fordham seem to break the LEWW market in its own city? Now that's embarrassing.doyleoil wrote:160k median salary type assertions?OperaSoprano wrote: I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.
zanda wrote:0L, not a grad.Mel Zelaya wrote:broken_imageOperaSoprano wrote:I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.
Please knock down the assertion that this Fordham grad will ever become a "polished, professional attorney."
http://abovethelaw.com/law_schools/2008/05/
"I would like to send a sincere apology to friends, family, colleagues and members of the Fordham community who have been offended by this poll and would like to confirm that I have officially withdrawn from the contest.
What started as a silly dare has garnered more attention than I ever thought it would. There are no nude photos of myself, online or elsewhere, nor did I ever intend for there to be. I had no expectations of winning in a pool of 25+ contestants, nor did I plan to actually go through with the shoot if I had won. It was purely the thrill of participating in such a contest and trying to get out the last bit of "wild child" in me while I'm still a student, before facing the reality of "becoming a grown-up."
This just happened to be the wake up call I needed to make me realize that I should already be acting like an adult and that, even though I never posed for nude photographs, this sort of behavior is unacceptable.
It was a stupid thing to do and I take full responsibility for it. I can only hope that those close to me whom I have offended will forgive me for my serious lapse in judgment."