Why does LST include school-funded into overall employed %? Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

Just because they are paying you more doesn't mean it's a real job.

But it means you can afford to live and get relevant experience while looking for a real job.

So does living in your moms basement. It's not a job and shouldn't count if you are trying to deduce employment percentages.

I mean, I get that it's designed to game the rankings, and that if you can afford to volunteer during that period you get the same benefit. But it still helps people who can't afford to spend the time volunteering. I've seen a lot of decent outcomes from these positions, and all else equal, would rather go to a school that offered them than that didn't.

Although lol at the idea that they're legit if they pay for bar prep. There are lots of legal jobs that don't pay for bar prep.

(I'll admit they would probably be better described as "bridge funding" or something similar, rather than jobs, but LST makes it pretty easy to break them out from the total, right?)

[dixiecupdrinking]

How is it not a "real job?"

[Desert Fox]

How is it not a "real job?"

Because your employer isn't paying you.

[worldtraveler]

How is it not a "real job?"

Because your employer isn't paying you.

Except that's true for every PI fellowship. I get your general point but that's dumb metric.

[Desert Fox]

How is it not a "real job?"

Because your employer isn't paying you.

Except that's true for every PI fellowship. I get your general point but that's dumb metric.

I'm not totally sure I'd call a fellowship a job either, but at least in private fellowship you are selected by an independent party. Just getting some money because you failed to find a real job should not count.

And if it does, why even bother looking at employment stats?

[timbs4339]

I don't consider school-funded fellowships real jobs for the simple reason that the vast majority of applicants, when told that "in three years you will be earning $15/hr in GW's Pathways to Practice program" would run away as fast as their legs could take them. There may be some small group of students for whom the school fellowship provides a much needed way to get their foot in the door at a small non-profit or in government because the recession has cut funding levels, but most take them like they would temp or part-time work.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

It's a good internship.

Shouldn't be in the LST score, totally agree.

[Yukos]

How is it not a "real job?"

Because your employer isn't paying you.

Except that's true for every PI fellowship. I get your general point but that's dumb metric.

I'm not totally sure I'd call a fellowship a job either, but at least in private fellowship you are selected by an independent party. Just getting some money because you failed to find a real job should not count.

And if it does, why even bother looking at employment stats?

I was taking a look at the bios of the people who got my school's fellowships this year. Just at a glance I counted two C.D. Cal. clerks, an S.D.N.Y. and a COA clerk (I guess the fellowship kicks in the year after the clerkship?). I'm gonna guess they probably could've gotten just about any biglaw job they wanted.

[kingfish10]

Funny how big law people always feel compelled to speak about a field they know little to nothing about. Fellowships can be an nearly necessary first step to employment for a lot of PI people (esp. nonprofit people) at top schools. Lots of nonprofits can't afford to hire an inexperienced lawyer and train them, unlike big law firms (and, as has been mentioned, can't afford to hire someone before they have passed the bar). Fellowships give PI graduates a chance to get valuable work experience that qualifies them for jobs with 1-2 years of experience required. At top law schools fellowships are also very competitive, not a 'back up option,' and pay similar money to what you may get in a lot of smaller nonprofits as an entry-level hire. People who have them are doing full time real work at a nonprofit. And I don't think they care much whether their salary is coming from the school or the nonprofit itself, as long as they are getting a salary. Some fellowships may indeed be noncompetitive, paper pushing 'filler' jobs. And $12,000 a year is another question entirely. But it's ridiculous to write them all off without understanding the field or the purpose they serve.

[Desert Fox]

Funny how big law people always feel compelled to speak about a field they know little to nothing about. Fellowships can be an nearly necessary first step to employment for a lot of PI people (esp. nonprofit people) at top schools. Lots of nonprofits can't afford to hire an inexperienced lawyer and train them, unlike big law firms (and, as has been mentioned, can't afford to hire someone before they have passed the bar). Fellowships give PI graduates a chance to get valuable work experience that qualifies them for jobs with 1-2 years of experience required. At top law schools fellowships are also very competitive, not a 'back up option,' and pay similar money to what you may get in a lot of smaller nonprofits as an entry-level hire. People who have them are doing full time real work at a nonprofit. And I don't think they care much whether their salary is coming from the school or the nonprofit itself, as long as they are getting a salary. Some fellowships may indeed be noncompetitive, paper pushing 'filler' jobs. And $12,000 a year is another question entirely. But it's ridiculous to write them all off without understanding the field or the purpose they serve.

It's still not a job.

[kingfish10]

I give up. Point is, when serious PI people look into law schools, having serious fellowships is a major plus. So maybe the rankings need to figure out a way to differentiate between fellowships, but having solid ones SHOULD be a positive in the rankings, unless the rankings are only meant to be relevant for Big Law interested applicants.