Chicago: Kent, DePaul, John Marshall and Loyola Forum

[Tiago Splitter]

This talbert kid is really firing on all cylinders.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

[Samara]

Contrary to tfleming's original assertion, this necro turned out to be a worthy one.

[flem]

Contrary to tfleming's original assertion, this necro turned out to be a worthy one.

You're right I stand corrected

[trollhunter2]

Let's break these numbers down...

Of the 216 people employed full-time, 7 are solos, 55 are in firms of 2-10, and 17 are in firms of 11-25. 47 are in "business and industry." 18 are in “academia,” so who knows what that means. Of your 80%, we just accounted for 67% of the class. A lot of these 2-10 firm folks are probably students who grouped up and hung a shingle. These “business and industry” jobs are typically crappy non-law jobs that don’t require a JD, and if I recall correctly, it also includes doc review.

I’ll concede that some of these jobs I just counted might be okay (like a solid small firm or a consulting gig or something), but we basically just counted up 50-60% of your employed FT grads who have shitty jobs, many of which don’t even require a JD. And this is before we’ve even touched the government and PI numbers.

Awesome for a school that costs over $200,000 to attend.

Thank you for actually speaking to any of these numbers. That said, 47 Business and Industry plus 55 from the 2-10 category equals 102. While I'll concede that 17% seems a bit high for business and industry, unless of course, this category captures a business and industries’ legal department, next door at U of Illinois, this figure is 9%, which is rather close if you ask me. How is doc-review categorized as Long-term employment? Furthermore, many schools have similar numbers of those entering academia. For instance Washington and Lee had 6 people go into this field with a class nearly half the size. So just because we don't know what academia means does not mean it's bad. You are lumping the 2-10 folks with the business/industry and academia folks to conclude that of "my" 80 percent of FT/LT people employed, 50-60 percent are in "shitty jobs". I've just shown that that conclusion is constructed on the shaky assumption that all work from all these categories is all bad, which it is not so because there are many, much better schools that have comparable numbers in these fields. Moreover, if you compare that 80% to other schools, that's still higher than the 141 schools surveyed. So while a paying job is optimal, I'd rather have a "shitty job" from Kent than no job from GW.

[flem]

How is doc-review categorized as Long-term employment?

It's a catch-all category, but I'm not sure. You could feasibly permanently work for a temp agency. The agency employs you, not the temp job that you're doing.

That said, 47 Business and Industry plus 55 from the 2-10 category equals 102.

No one is landing in-house counsel gigs as a fresh grad from a T2 law school, so the "business and industry" category is vague at best and deceptive at worst. 2-10 attorney firms could be anything from actual, quality firms with room for advancement to slip n' fall/insurance defense "eat what you kill" scenarios or jobs that pay 45K a year with no benefits. There's far more of the latter out there.

Also, please see my previous post RE: salary distribution.

next door at U of Illinois, this figure is 9%, which is rather close if you ask me.

It's half as much. That's pretty significant if you ask me.

Furthermore, many schools have similar numbers of those entering academia. For instance Washington and Lee had 6 people go into this field with a class nearly half the size. So just because we don't know what academia means does not mean it's bad.

Just because you don't know what academia means doesn't mean it's good. Last I checked, law professors were coming out of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, not T2 schools. Academia could mean employed by the school, a high school history teacher, or law librarian.

Also, pointing out the fact that higher ranked schools are similar should show you how fucked things are.

You are lumping the 2-10 folks with the business/industry and academia folks to conclude that of "my" 80 percent of FT/LT people employed, 50-60 percent are in "shitty jobs". I've just shown that that conclusion is constructed on the shaky assumption that all work from all these categories is all bad, which it is not so because there are many, much better schools that have comparable numbers in these fields. Moreover, if you compare that 80% to other schools, that's still higher than the 141 schools surveyed. So while a paying job is optimal, I'd rather have a "shitty job" from Kent than no job from GW.

This just shows that you have massively missed the point.

[Tiago Splitter]

tbalbert you keep suggesting that Kent is as good or nearly as good as other schools that aren't close to being worth sticker. It isn't helping your case.

[rayiner]

Please don't think you'll be fine at one of the TT or TTT Chicago schools as long as you want to be a public defender or prosecutor. I heard anecdotally that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office hired about 20 people last year: 10 up front and 10 from the waiting list. That was out of several hundred applicants. It is very brutal.

You think Chicago and Northwestern grads would be a near-lock for jobs in the state's attorney office? If so, have they changed the pension plans?

Hell no. The folks at NU getting these jobs could have gotten big law.

[Ludo!]

Just because you don't know what academia means doesn't mean it's good. Last I checked, law professors were coming out of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, not T2 schools. Academia could mean employed by the school, a high school history teacher, or law librarian.

Also - community college teacher. You can teach paralegal classes or business law classes at CC with a JD. Going through CC in LA I had a few Southwestern grads as teachers. Wouldn't be surprised if that's where some Kent students were ending up.

[rayiner]

IIT placed about 20% of it's class in firms of 25+. Starting salary for a 25-50 attorney NALP firm averages about $85k, or about $5,000 after taxes. With $43k/year in tuition, you'll end up with about $200k in debt at graduation, with a monthly loan payment of about $2,500, leaving $2,500 a month after taxes and loan payments, equivalent to about a $40k/year salary. That's a good outcome--one you have only a 20% chance of achieving (substantially less now because the C/O 2010 data doesn't fully reflect the recession).

[trollhunter2]

IIT placed about 20% of it's class in firms of 25+. Starting salary for a 25-50 attorney NALP firm averages about $85k, or about $5,000 after taxes. With $43k/year in tuition, you'll end up with about $200k in debt at graduation, with a monthly loan payment of about $2,500, leaving $2,500 a month after taxes and loan payments, equivalent to about a $40k/year salary. That's a good outcome--one you have only a 20% chance of achieving (substantially less now because the C/O 2010 data doesn't fully reflect the recession).

I think besides the 20% chance of achieving your purported scenario, you're critique applies to going to law school in general. Per the semper eadem of TLS, a starting salary is citied assuming that it will remain static. Meanwhile, the median salary for lawyers in the US is $112,760 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Legal/Lawyers.htm.

Now, if the most common salary (after all, that's a median) is $112,760 per year and the top law schools account for a liberal estimate of 15% of the 40,000 graduating JD's out there, how does this 15% translate into the most common salary figure? It doesn't. The remaining 85%, even from shitty Cooley make up that stat. I can buy that people lie and serve a self-selecting bias in reporting their income to their school, but who would actually be egomaniac enough to over report on their earnings to the government only to be taxed more?

[freaknroll]

IIT placed about 20% of it's class in firms of 25+. Starting salary for a 25-50 attorney NALP firm averages about $85k, or about $5,000 after taxes. With $43k/year in tuition, you'll end up with about $200k in debt at graduation, with a monthly loan payment of about $2,500, leaving $2,500 a month after taxes and loan payments, equivalent to about a $40k/year salary. That's a good outcome--one you have only a 20% chance of achieving (substantially less now because the C/O 2010 data doesn't fully reflect the recession).

I think besides the 20% chance of achieving your purported scenario, you're critique applies to going to law school in general. Per the semper eadem of TLS, a starting salary is citied assuming that it will remain static. Meanwhile, the median salary for lawyers in the US is $112,760 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Legal/Lawyers.htm.

Now, if the most common salary (after all, that's a median) is $112,760 per year and the top law schools account for a liberal estimate of 15% of the 40,000 graduating JD's out there, how does this 15% translate into the most common salary figure? It doesn't. The remaining 85%, even from shitty Cooley make up that stat. I can buy that people lie and serve a self-selecting bias in reporting their income to their school, but who would actually be egomaniac enough to over report on their earnings to the government only to be taxed more?

[rayiner]

IIT placed about 20% of it's class in firms of 25+. Starting salary for a 25-50 attorney NALP firm averages about $85k, or about $5,000 after taxes. With $43k/year in tuition, you'll end up with about $200k in debt at graduation, with a monthly loan payment of about $2,500, leaving $2,500 a month after taxes and loan payments, equivalent to about a $40k/year salary. That's a good outcome--one you have only a 20% chance of achieving (substantially less now because the C/O 2010 data doesn't fully reflect the recession).

I think besides the 20% chance of achieving your purported scenario, you're critique applies to going to law school in general. Per the semper eadem of TLS, a starting salary is citied assuming that it will remain static. Meanwhile, the median salary for lawyers in the US is $112,760 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Legal/Lawyers.htm.

Now, if the most common salary (after all, that's a median) is $112,760 per year and the top law schools account for a liberal estimate of 15% of the 40,000 graduating JD's out there, how does this 15% translate into the most common salary figure? It doesn't. The remaining 85%, even from shitty Cooley make up that stat. I can buy that people lie and serve a self-selecting bias in reporting their income to their school, but who would actually be egomaniac enough to over report on their earnings to the government only to be taxed more?

The median salary includes all lawyers, including those who graduated 20 years ago. Back then, career prospects for lower-ranked law school grads was completely different.

Also, it's important to remember that the median salary for practicing lawyers does not include all of those people who got JD's but never managed to get legal jobs.

[flem]

I think besides the 20% chance of achieving your purported scenario, you're critique applies to going to law school in general. Per the semper eadem of TLS, a starting salary is citied assuming that it will remain static. Meanwhile, the median salary for lawyers in the US is $112,760 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Legal/Lawyers.htm.

If you want an actual answer:

Salaries at the 160K end as well as market paying salaries of 100K+ in secondary markets, plus underreporting at the lower end, couldn't be skewing the median at all.

Try this one instead, keeping in mind that the 40-60K hump is larger in reality due to underreporting.

[flem]

Now, if the most common salary (after all, that's a median) is $112,760 per year and the top law schools account for a liberal estimate of 15% of the 40,000 graduating JD's out there, how does this 15% translate into the most common salary figure? It doesn't. The remaining 85%, even from shitty Cooley make up that stat. I can buy that people lie and serve a self-selecting bias in reporting their income to their school, but who would actually be egomaniac enough to over report on their earnings to the government only to be taxed more?

lolol this is sublime idiocy

[trollhunter2]

tbalbert you keep suggesting that Kent is as good or nearly as good as other schools that aren't close to being worth sticker. It isn't helping your case.

No, I am not suggesting that at all. What I am pointing to, however, is that higher ranked schools have similar numbers in these categorical regards as Kent, but they are not blasted on this forum. Rather, it is assumed that since a school's higher ranked it is substantively better, until proven over wise. Merely on rankings, the converse seems true on here for low ranked T-1 and high-end T-2s. We all know that the rankings are based on subjective survey responses from law professors. This doesn’t directly translate to employment, which everybody on here, including myself, is obsessed with. I am suggesting that we look at T-1s as critically as the T-2s and even T-3s on here and let the data speak for itself. Kent ranks better than 141 schools out there for LT employment. That’s a fact but then this figure of 80% is attacked in its qualitative breakdown of jobs within vague categories, assuming of course, that this vagueness is "better" for higher ranked schools. These jobs are assumed to be bad even though if we were talking about the same category from higher ranked school, it is accepted as a quality indicator of how worthy the school is of such a high ranking. There is really no other reason for this except the axiom that ranked higher means a better qualitative distribution within these categories.

[flem]

tbalbert you keep suggesting that Kent is as good or nearly as good as other schools that aren't close to being worth sticker. It isn't helping your case.

No, I am not suggesting that at all. What I am pointing to, however, is that higher ranked schools have similar numbers in these categorical regards as Kent, but they are not blasted on this forum. Rather, it is assumed that since a school's higher ranked it is substantively better, until proven over wise. Merely on rankings, the converse seems true on here for low ranked T-1 and high-end T-2s. We all know that the rankings are based on subjective survey responses from law professors. This doesn’t directly translate to employment, which everybody on here, including myself, is obsessed with. I am suggesting that we look at T-1s as critically as the T-2s and even T-3s on here and let the data speak for itself. Kent ranks better than 141 schools out there for LT employment. That’s a fact but then this figure of 80% is attacked in its qualitative breakdown of jobs within vague categories, assuming of course, that this vagueness is "better" for higher ranked schools. These jobs are assumed to be bad even though if we were talking about the same category from higher ranked school, it is accepted as a quality indicator of how worthy the school is of such a high ranking. There is really no other reason for this except the axiom that ranked higher means a better qualitative distribution within these categories.

Bravo waterman, bravo

buseyclapping.gif

[Samara]

higher ranked schools have similar numbers in these categorical regards as Kent, but they are not blasted on this forum. Rather, it is assumed that since a school's higher ranked it is substantively better, until proven over wise.

Kent ranks better than 141 schools out there for LT employment.

So, if there are 200 accredited law schools, better than 141 schools would be a ranking of 59. Let's see...what it IIT's USNWR ranking...Look at that! It's 62. Sounds like it's ranked right where it should be.

Are there other schools in the T1 that have worse job prospects? Possibly. But I'd say that, generally speaking, the experienced users on here treat schools below about rank 30 or so pretty much the same. I see a lot more hate for schools like George Mason and American than I do IIT. And at least schools like OSU and CU-B have a sizable natural market that they are able to have a local hold on. Though even they are very risky at sticker.

[trollhunter2]

IIT placed about 20% of it's class in firms of 25+. Starting salary for a 25-50 attorney NALP firm averages about $85k, or about $5,000 after taxes. With $43k/year in tuition, you'll end up with about $200k in debt at graduation, with a monthly loan payment of about $2,500, leaving $2,500 a month after taxes and loan payments, equivalent to about a $40k/year salary. That's a good outcome--one you have only a 20% chance of achieving (substantially less now because the C/O 2010 data doesn't fully reflect the recession).

I think besides the 20% chance of achieving your purported scenario, you're critique applies to going to law school in general. Per the semper eadem of TLS, a starting salary is citied assuming that it will remain static. Meanwhile, the median salary for lawyers in the US is $112,760 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Legal/Lawyers.htm.

Now, if the most common salary (after all, that's a median) is $112,760 per year and the top law schools account for a liberal estimate of 15% of the 40,000 graduating JD's out there, how does this 15% translate into the most common salary figure? It doesn't. The remaining 85%, even from shitty Cooley make up that stat. I can buy that people lie and serve a self-selecting bias in reporting their income to their school, but who would actually be egomaniac enough to over report on their earnings to the government only to be taxed more?

The median salary includes all lawyers, including those who graduated 20 years ago. Back then, career prospects for lower-ranked law school grads was completely different.

Also, it's important to remember that the median salary for practicing lawyers does not include all of those people who got JD's but never managed to get legal jobs.

Maybe so, maybe not, but this stat also captures the plethora of graduates graduating each year, who I argue far out-number the old careers who are still practicing. Simple fact remains, according to this stat, the majority of lawyers out there make a six figure salary. This dovetails with my experience of meeting tons of UB graduates a dispictable T-3, who are quite wealthy.

The second point could only be proven if there were stats showing the ratio between people who went to law school and those who chose to continue to work as attorneys.

[trollhunter2]

Now, if the most common salary (after all, that's a median) is $112,760 per year and the top law schools account for a liberal estimate of 15% of the 40,000 graduating JD's out there, how does this 15% translate into the most common salary figure? It doesn't. The remaining 85%, even from shitty Cooley make up that stat. I can buy that people lie and serve a self-selecting bias in reporting their income to their school, but who would actually be egomaniac enough to over report on their earnings to the government only to be taxed more?

lolol this is sublime idiocy

Really, seems pretty logical to me. Care to explain?

[Ludo!]

Maybe so, maybe not, but this stat also captures the plethora of graduates graduating each year, who I argue far out-number the old careers who are still practicing.

You think there are more people graduating every year than there are all other lawyers combined?

[flem]

Really, seems pretty logical to me. Care to explain?

Because, as previously mentioned, it takes ALL LAWYERS into account. Including, for example, equity partners at NLJ250 firms that clear 1-1.5 million dollars a year. Non-equity partners clearing 500K a year. 4th year associates clearing 250K a year.

And bros who make 40-60K are WAY less likely to report their salaries in the first place.

Look at THIS FUCKING GRAPH WHICH YOU KEEP IGNORING for a more accurate depiction. Notice the two clusters at 40-60K and 160K. Keep in mind the 40-60K part is underreported so it's actually much larger.

You're either a great troll (in which case, bravo) or you are so dense that you shouldn't be going to law school as you don't know how to pick apart and critically analyze information. You are so uninformed despite relevant data being thrown at you that it's amazing.

[Ludo!]

This dovetails with my experience of meeting tons of UB graduates a dispictable T-3, who are quite wealthy.

How many of those "dispictable" grads that you know graduated in the last 2-3 years?

[Tiago Splitter]

IIT placed about 20% of it's class in firms of 25+. Starting salary for a 25-50 attorney NALP firm averages about $85k, or about $5,000 after taxes. With $43k/year in tuition, you'll end up with about $200k in debt at graduation, with a monthly loan payment of about $2,500, leaving $2,500 a month after taxes and loan payments, equivalent to about a $40k/year salary. That's a good outcome--one you have only a 20% chance of achieving (substantially less now because the C/O 2010 data doesn't fully reflect the recession).

I think besides the 20% chance of achieving your purported scenario, you're critique applies to going to law school in general. Per the semper eadem of TLS, a starting salary is citied assuming that it will remain static. Meanwhile, the median salary for lawyers in the US is $112,760 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Legal/Lawyers.htm.

Now, if the most common salary (after all, that's a median) is $112,760 per year and the top law schools account for a liberal estimate of 15% of the 40,000 graduating JD's out there, how does this 15% translate into the most common salary figure? It doesn't. The remaining 85%, even from shitty Cooley make up that stat. I can buy that people lie and serve a self-selecting bias in reporting their income to their school, but who would actually be egomaniac enough to over report on their earnings to the government only to be taxed more?

The median salary includes all lawyers, including those who graduated 20 years ago. Back then, career prospects for lower-ranked law school grads was completely different.

Also, it's important to remember that the median salary for practicing lawyers does not include all of those people who got JD's but never managed to get legal jobs.

Maybe so, maybe not, but this stat also captures the plethora of graduates graduating each year, who I argue far out-number the old careers who are still practicing. Simple fact remains, according to this stat, the majority of lawyers out there make a six figure salary. This dovetails with my experience of meeting tons of UB graduates a dispictable T-3, who are quite wealthy.

The second point could only be proven if there were stats showing the ratio between people who went to law school and those who chose to continue to work as attorneys.

Even granting you this ridiculous idea that you are sure to make 112K mid-career, you won't start that high. Meanwhile, interest on 200K worth of debt is $15,000 per year. $15,000 worth of after-tax income just to avoid an increase in the principal! Somebody starting out making 50K and getting annual raises until they are making six figures 20 years out is never going to be able to get ahead of that skyrocketing debt.

This is why people take issue with your analysis. Starting out at 50K and building up to 100K+ is a "good" outcome from a school like Kent, and it would lead to a decent lifestyle if it worked out that way. But not with 200K in debt just to get there.

[trollhunter2]

higher ranked schools have similar numbers in these categorical regards as Kent, but they are not blasted on this forum. Rather, it is assumed that since a school's higher ranked it is substantively better, until proven over wise.

Kent ranks better than 141 schools out there for LT employment.

So, if there are 200 accredited law schools, better than 141 schools would be a ranking of 59. Let's see...what it IIT's USNWR ranking...Look at that! It's 62. Sounds like it's ranked right where it should be.

Are there other schools in the T1 that have worse job prospects? Possibly. But I'd say that, generally speaking, the experienced users on here treat schools below about rank 30 or so pretty much the same. I see a lot more hate for schools like George Mason and American than I do IIT. And at least schools like OSU and CU-B have a sizable natural market that they are able to have a local hold on. Though even they are very risky at sticker.

Kent would rank as the 39th highest according to LT job placement, which is far off from 62nd. I think too much weight is placed on that first job. Sure a better school puts you higher up the latter to start, but it doesn't mean the latter vanishes if you don't start high up. The demand for lawyers is shrinking, and this is freaking everybody out. But it is still growing and is projected to grow by 10% by 2012, despite 40,000 JDs a year. Should people be weary of borrowing blindly? Of course, but you need to have a plan and be realisitc. There are programs like http://www.finaid.org/loans/publicservice.phtml and other ways to satify loan debt without big law. Biglaw is the fastest, yes, but not the exclusive way to do so.

And it's true that chances at BigLaw shrink proportionately as you move lower down the rankings. But there are plenty of successful, wealthy lawyers who did not make up that 1% who go into big law.

[Paul Campos]

IIT placed about 20% of it's class in firms of 25+. Starting salary for a 25-50 attorney NALP firm averages about $85k, or about $5,000 after taxes. With $43k/year in tuition, you'll end up with about $200k in debt at graduation, with a monthly loan payment of about $2,500, leaving $2,500 a month after taxes and loan payments, equivalent to about a $40k/year salary. That's a good outcome--one you have only a 20% chance of achieving (substantially less now because the C/O 2010 data doesn't fully reflect the recession).

I think besides the 20% chance of achieving your purported scenario, you're critique applies to going to law school in general. Per the semper eadem of TLS, a starting salary is citied assuming that it will remain static. Meanwhile, the median salary for lawyers in the US is $112,760 per year http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Legal/Lawyers.htm.

Now, if the most common salary (after all, that's a median) is $112,760 per year and the top law schools account for a liberal estimate of 15% of the 40,000 graduating JD's out there, how does this 15% translate into the most common salary figure? It doesn't. The remaining 85%, even from shitty Cooley make up that stat. I can buy that people lie and serve a self-selecting bias in reporting their income to their school, but who would actually be egomaniac enough to over report on their earnings to the government only to be taxed more?

The median salary includes all lawyers, including those who graduated 20 years ago. Back then, career prospects for lower-ranked law school grads was completely different.

Also, it's important to remember that the median salary for practicing lawyers does not include all of those people who got JD's but never managed to get legal jobs.

Maybe so, maybe not, but this stat also captures the plethora of graduates graduating each year, who I argue far out-number the old careers who are still practicing. Simple fact remains, according to this stat, the majority of lawyers out there make a six figure salary. This dovetails with my experience of meeting tons of UB graduates a dispictable T-3, who are quite wealthy.

The second point could only be proven if there were stats showing the ratio between people who went to law school and those who chose to continue to work as attorneys.

http://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress ... -very-bad/