Chicago: Kent, DePaul, John Marshall and Loyola Forum

[trollhunter2]

How clumsy of me, sorry that Iowa is a T-30 and not a T-25, well look at some others chum. Emory only placed 20% of its graduates in your coveted big law. Your counter argument is myopic. It assumes that the ONLY way you can pay off your loans is to land a Big Law job immediately following graduation. You can't possible believe this, do you?

Well how else are you gonna pay down 150-200K in loans in a timely fashion, herp derpington?

Well, the median annual wage of lawyers was $112760 in May 2010 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Legal/Lawyers.htm

Probably with some of that

Oh FYI, there’s a 10% forecasted increase in the legal industry. I guess that wouldn’t matter since everything is going to change by next year.

You're right bro. 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.

That's why I included the median, not the MEAN smart guy.

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

Which is classified as Long Term work?

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.

[Tiago Splitter]

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.

So the demand for lawyers will increase in spite of an increase in the supply of lawyers? Good god man.

[basilseal]

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.

People, this is just a really good flame. Stop fanning it.

[flem]

Outed for being a BearsGrl alt

[flem]

People, this is just a really good flame. Stop fanning it.

It would be the rare, but not unseen, long con

[Ludo!]

If this is flame then it's one of the best executed I've seen because it hits every single right naive 0l note.

[09042014]

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

It's cute to see the kind of poor logical reasoning that causes someone to get a poor LSAT and thus have to attend Shitcago Kent, ITT technical institute of law.

[romothesavior]

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

It's cute to see the kind of poor logical reasoning that causes someone to get a poor LSAT and thus have to attend Shitcago Kent, ITT technical institute of law.

And then to use the same reasoning in defending the decision. The circle of life.

[timbs4339]

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.

We do. There are 45,000 legal grads each year for an estimated 25,000 legal jobs. Do the math.

[romothesavior]

It is incredible that he can continue to defend the school despite the atrocious Kent data from the ABA placement summary. Even more incredible is that he uses the placement summary to claim that the school is actually good. "Hey, 80% employed full time! Never mind that half of them hung a shingle, took doc review work, are working in "academia" as a community college assistant soccer coach, or painting lines on I-55 as a construction worker! Better some job than no job, amirite guys?"

[trollhunter2]

It's funny because that's the best you, the troll squad can do. Your stock response of don't go to law school may have actually been at last substantiated, albeit by accident. If going to law school means people are surrounded by you assholes, than damn, that is discouraging! Nicely done. But since all you can do is posit specious arguments without ever engaging the content of others, you haven proven to me what I already know.

[trollhunter2]

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.

So the demand for lawyers will increase in spite of an increase in the supply of lawyers? Good god man.

When did I ever say supply will increase? You don't like it call the department of labor. That was from their website jackass.

[trollhunter2]

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

It's cute to see the kind of poor logical reasoning that causes someone to get a poor LSAT and thus have to attend Shitcago Kent, ITT technical institute of law.

Hey d-bag I am not even going to kent. Meanwhile, while everyone is challenging my logic, very few of you have actually engaged the content of any of my arguments. That's okay, I am sure that "crushing" the LSAT will take you far in life nevertheless, despite your mental laziness.

[trollhunter2]

It is incredible that he can continue to defend the school despite the atrocious Kent data from the ABA placement summary. Even more incredible is that he uses the placement summary to claim that the school is actually good. "Hey, 80% employed full time! Never mind that half of them hung a shingle, took doc review work, are working in "academia" as a community college assistant soccer coach, or painting lines on I-55 as a construction worker! Better some job than no job, amirite guys?"

Haven't I already flogged you enough? Dude, how can you look at the same category and fill in the vagueness as you want? Do you even work/live in the Chicago market, how do you know?

[Ludo!]

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

It's cute to see the kind of poor logical reasoning that causes someone to get a poor LSAT and thus have to attend Shitcago Kent, ITT technical institute of law.

Hey d-bag I am not even going to kent. Meanwhile, while everyone is challenging my logic, very few of you have actually engaged the content of any of my arguments. That's okay, I am sure that "crushing" the LSAT will take you far in life nevertheless, despite your mental laziness.

Everybody engaged the contents of your arguments and you were shot down time and time again. But you refuse to listen to anyone so I guess all that's left is to just make fun of you for being dumb.

[trollhunter2]

Outed for being a BearsGrl alt

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like you. When you are caught up in group think it can be hard, I know. Try addressing my points abstractly instead of attacking me.
Perhaps if you addressed people's counterpoints this forum could be useful to more than the five of you who post the same response ad nausiam. It's pretty bad when I know what you're going to say just by seeing your avatar.

[trollhunter2]

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.

This graph just shows what salaries look like right out of school, which we all agree are higher for higher ranked schools, so?

[trollhunter2]

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

It's cute to see the kind of poor logical reasoning that causes someone to get a poor LSAT and thus have to attend Shitcago Kent, ITT technical institute of law.

Hey d-bag I am not even going to kent. Meanwhile, while everyone is challenging my logic, very few of you have actually engaged the content of any of my arguments. That's okay, I am sure that "crushing" the LSAT will take you far in life nevertheless, despite your mental laziness.

Everybody engaged the contents of your arguments and you were shot down time and time again. But you refuse to listen to anyone so I guess all that's left is to just make fun of you for being dumb.

Funny coming from someone who haven't replied to single point until I handed it to you on a silver plater. So what makes me dumb? Continuing to try and actually get advice from you, or actually challenging the near theological shrewdness of those who "shot me down?"

[romothesavior]

Everybody engaged the contents of your arguments and you were shot down time and time again. But you refuse to listen to anyone so I guess all that's left is to just make fun of you for being dumb.

Pretty much this.

[trollhunter2]

Everybody engaged the contents of your arguments and you were shot down time and time again. But you refuse to listen to anyone so I guess all that's left is to just make fun of you for being dumb.

Pretty much this.

Answer me this: how do you know what the specific job postings are under the categories listed? Beyond speculation, nobody has actually provided any concrete evidence to back the claim that all these jobs are the ones designated as "shitty." I invite your evidence.

[rayiner]

Everybody engaged the contents of your arguments and you were shot down time and time again. But you refuse to listen to anyone so I guess all that's left is to just make fun of you for being dumb.

Pretty much this.

Answer me this: how do you know what the specific job postings are under the categories listed? Beyond speculation, nobody has actually provided any concrete evidence to back the claim that all these jobs are the ones designated as "shitty." I invite your evidence.

Look at year-to year data for schools that provide them. At the T14, the business/industry category doubled from 2007-2009 to 2011. If those were desirable jobs, why would that be the case?

[romothesavior]

47 in LT business and industry
62 in LT firms of 1-10
5 in LT "academia"
27 are employed short term
25 who are unemployed or in grad school (which is almost always a result of not finding a job)

These categories account for 68% of the c/o 2010. It will be even worse for the c/o 2011.

Business and industry is basically "non-legal jobs." Firms of 1-10 are 9 times out of 10 going to pay shit, and I'll bet you about half of the people in that category are either solos or groups of students who banded together to start their own firm. Academia? Umm, okay.

Again, I concede that some of these might be good outcomes (not many). I wish I could tell you how many people at Kent got JD-required jobs based on this data, but the ABA doesn't require or report it anymore. I also wish I could tell you what the hell "business and industry" means, but its an amorphous term. It usually means bad jobs or jobs that one could have gotten without a JD; guess why the top schools send so few students into it? Sorry, but when you are a "law school" that purportedly trains people to be lawyers, there is a presumption that your placement sucks if half your students can't even get a full-time job that uses that JD. For you to just assume all these "business and industry" people are going into finance or consulting or working in-house for some big company is just asinine.

Finally, we're not just bashing Kent. We're equal opportunity. All four of the schools mentioned in the OP are terrible options. Law school is a bad investment right now, and these schools have been bad for decades. I am even wary about my own school, and I often advise people to go elsewhere as a result of job prospects. Schools with terrible employment outcomes get bad reputations on TLS. That's just the way it is. Sorry your school sucks at placement, bro. That's no reason to deny reality.

[flem]

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like you. When you are caught up in group think it can be hard, I know. Try addressing my points abstractly instead of attacking me.

So did you actually read anything I said?

[Ludo!]

What the fuck? How did he get a name change?

[Tiago Splitter]

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.

So the demand for lawyers will increase in spite of an increase in the supply of lawyers? Good god man.

When did I ever say supply will increase? You don't like it call the department of labor. That was from their website jackass.

You can't be this stupid. You said demand will increase despite all of the JDs coming out. Demand has nothing to do with supply dipshit.