Why Are Schools Still Misleading People?? Forum

[JCougar]

$120,000 is the median of people who reported their income who are working in the private sector. Which is 38%. The total salary data is around 50% if I remember correctly.

In other words, the Top 19% of the class is making $120K or above. That sounds about right...maybe even a bit optimistic by today's standards. You gotta be in the top 20% to make that much these days.

[TommyK]

How is UMN misleading people? Do you feel a rational consumer would look at 99% employment rate and assume they mean legal employment?

I think most non-TLS people would assume that a 99% employment figure from a law school trying to sell itself refers to legal employment. I also don't think most people think about the sample - they assume it refers to all grads, not just the ones who responded to the school's survey.

People can be rational but ignorant.

Pretty broad definition of misleading people, don't you think? I'm not arguing that they should be held to the same low standard of a retailer trying to sell a product, but to what level should they owe it to the prospective students to dissuade them from applying?

To their credit, I think it's pretty transparent: *These statistics are prepared and reported according to the definitions set forth by NALP and the ABA and include: part-time, full-time, contract, temporary, and permanent positions.

Even as an ignorant, but rational and critically-thinking prospective student, I would interpret this caveat as saying that not all 99% are making big bucks and some are in crummy shape. To UMN's credit they don't put this in fine print. It's the same size as the rest of the type.

[minnbills]

$120,000 is the median of people who reported their income who are working in the private sector. Which is 38%. The total salary data is around 50% if I remember correctly.

In other words, the Top 19% of the class is making $120K or above. That sounds about right...maybe even a bit optimistic by today's standards. You gotta be in the top 20% to make that much these days.

Another thing to remember is that most of the Minnesota market paying firms were paying 120,000 in 2008, but dropped to 110,000 during the crash. So that private sector median has certainly dropped.

[TommyK]

I'm pretty sure the 99% (which is an average across 5 years) is accurate according to LST, but after UIUC who knows.

Fair enough. I'm concerned about UIUC's rampant misrepresentation of statistics as well, but unless I see something showing that it's widespread beyond UIUC, I'll (perhaps naively) trust that the data is correct.

[TommyK]

However, if they do slip graduates $2k in assistance to call them employed, that's pretty shady. I would agree then.

(as seen on atl --LinkRemoved--)

[NiccoloA]

If you're reporting 50% of Minnesota's graduating class that is what? ~100 people? Randomly that shouldn't be a problem.



I don't see how you're ever going to fix the wage problem. Schools can only poll students what they make. If students don't want to admit that they're making nothing, then what is the school going to do?

Posting the number reported would be nice, but what person not already on TLS is going to look at that number infer anything from it?

Sometimes people don't think and there's no way to help them. I don't blame the law schools 100%

[BeerMaker]

$120,000 is the median of people who reported their income who are working in the private sector. Which is 38%. The total salary data is around 50% if I remember correctly.

In other words, the Top 19% of the class is making $120K or above. That sounds about right...maybe even a bit optimistic by today's standards. You gotta be in the top 20% to make that much these days.

Does the data also mean that 97 people are starting out making $101,250?

[minnbills]

Does the data also mean that 97 people are starting out making $101,250?

For the class of 2009 that sounds about right.

[NiccoloA]

$120,000 is the median of people who reported their income who are working in the private sector. Which is 38%. The total salary data is around 50% if I remember correctly.

In other words, the Top 19% of the class is making $120K or above. That sounds about right...maybe even a bit optimistic by today's standards. You gotta be in the top 20% to make that much these days.

Another thing to remember is that most of the Minnesota market paying firms were paying 120,000 in 2008, but dropped to 110,000 during the crash. So that private sector median has certainly dropped.

Crash is over. The cream of the economy are doing well again.

Middle class not so much, but they don't use biglaw.

[BeerMaker]

Does the data also mean that 97 people are starting out making $101,250?

For the class of 2009 that sounds about right.

Would you assume that the class of 2010 is near or close to the same?

[minnbills]

Does the data also mean that 97 people are starting out making $101,250?

For the class of 2009 that sounds about right.

Would you assume that the class of 2010 is near or close to the same?

No, the class of 2010 bore the brunt of the crash. This data, compiled by the ABA, should have been released by now. That it hasn't suggests how bad it is.

Some schools have some c/o 2010 data on their websites, I think UMN is one of them. I think the common story on TLS is that 2011 was fairly better than 2010 but still not good.

Until we see the data it's just hard to say.

[NiccoloA]

Does the data also mean that 97 people are starting out making $101,250?

For the class of 2009 that sounds about right.

Would you assume that the class of 2010 is near or close to the same?

No, the class of 2010 bore the brunt of the crash. This data, compiled by the ABA, should have been released by now. That it hasn't suggests how bad it is.

Some schools have some c/o 2010 data on their websites, I think UMN is one of them. I think the common story on TLS is that 2011 was fairly better than 2010 but still not good.

Until we see the data it's just hard to say.

I meant the crash of the economy. I'm no expert so I'm talking out of my ass. But I could see the situation like this in the next few years,

Biglaw services big business. Big business is doing pretty good, so biglaw should ramp up hiring soon. Employment lags, so 2012 I think will be better. 2013-2014 even moreso. 2015 We could crash again. 2016 we will crash again. So I'll be screwed, but everyone else already in law school should be good.

But again. My ass.

[BeerMaker]

Why do you see another crash in 2015 and 2016?

[scammedhard]

Since you guys are discussing law school employment stats, I find this ATL story very appropriate:

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/10/the-99-p ... tatistics/


--ImageRemoved--

[JCougar]

For the class of 2009 that sounds about right.

Would you assume that the class of 2010 is near or close to the same?

No, the class of 2010 bore the brunt of the crash. This data, compiled by the ABA, should have been released by now. That it hasn't suggests how bad it is.

Some schools have some c/o 2010 data on their websites, I think UMN is one of them. I think the common story on TLS is that 2011 was fairly better than 2010 but still not good.

Until we see the data it's just hard to say.

I meant the crash of the economy. I'm no expert so I'm talking out of my ass. But I could see the situation like this in the next few years,

Biglaw services big business. Big business is doing pretty good, so biglaw should ramp up hiring soon. Employment lags, so 2012 I think will be better. 2013-2014 even moreso. 2015 We could crash again. 2016 we will crash again. So I'll be screwed, but everyone else already in law school should be good.

But again. My ass.

There's something you're missing.

The Biglaw business model has changed. Clients are actively resisting paying the bills for 1st and 2nd-year associates, forcing Biglaw to hire less. Associates in Biglaw aren't there to do ingenious work and solve novel problems. Theyre there to do busywork to run up the tabs on billable hours. Partners had associates doing tons of document review before the crash, and yet charged clients $300 an hour for that work. You could basically have someone with a high school diploma do document review. It becomes obvious when you understand the Biglaw business model: the more work associates do, the more profits the partners make. And if there's not meaningful work, they'll find busywork. And they were hiring more associates simply for the purpose of doing even more busywork. The incentive is to be just inefficient enough to not piss off your client.

Clients got mad and demanded that stuff like doc review be outsourced (some of it to India, some of it to temp workers here in the US) and that no 1st year associates work on their cases. So basically, Biglaw is hiring less. This change is permanent. It's not a result of the economic slowdown, and thus, there is not likely to be a full recovery ever.

[JCougar]

Does the data also mean that 97 people are starting out making $101,250?

For the class of 2009 that sounds about right.

Would you assume that the class of 2010 is near or close to the same?

Class of 2010 was almost half what class of 2009 was employment-wise. Hiring was significantly down.

Minnesota only placed 12% of their c/o 2010 into NLJ 250 firms (whereas in 2009, it was 19.4%). There's probably only an additional 5% or so maybe that made "six figures" or got prestigious clerkships after that.

The remaining 83% of their class probably had to scrounge around for jobs at plaintiff's firms or insurance defense mills. Perhaps 5% of these people were lucky enough to get good PI jobs or work in-house somewhere. A good chunk probably are doing part-time document review. To be fair, some of these people probably killed it in their small firm jobs (or like it there) and will end up being promoted/lateraled in the future, making a decent amount of money. But I think a safe bet is that 1/3rd of them are already not practicing law.

[minnbills]

Does the data also mean that 97 people are starting out making $101,250?

For the class of 2009 that sounds about right.

Would you assume that the class of 2010 is near or close to the same?

Class of 2010 was almost half what class of 2009 was employment-wise. Hiring was significantly down.

Minnesota only placed 12% of their c/o 2010 into NLJ 250 firms. There's probably only an additional 5% or so maybe that made "six figures" or got prestigious clerkships after that.

The remaining 83% of their class probably had to scrounge around for jobs at plaintiff's firms or insurance defense mills. Perhaps 5% of these people were lucky enough to get good PI jobs or work in-house somewhere. A good chunk probably are doing part-time document review. To be fair, some of these people probably killed it in their small firm jobs (or like it there) and will end up being promoted/lateraled in the future, making a decent amount of money. But I think a safe bet is that 1/3rd of them are already not practicing law.

I'd agree with the caveat that most market-paying firms UMN places in aren't NLJ-250. Those these firms are small enough that they probably dropped off hiring quite a bit with the crash.

[JCougar]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... r_gc_says/

Fed-up with “sky-high” fees at outside firms, Jones Lang LaSalle general counsel Mark J. Ohringer says he now spends 75 percent of his budget on non-law firm resources.

“I’m law firms’ biggest competitor,” Ohringer said during a program at the 2011 Futures Conference on Friday, “and I don’t think they see it that way.”

Jones Lang, a global real estate and investment management firm, has boosted its in-house capabilities by 60 lawyers in the past few years, and Ohringer says he won’t hesitate to add more as the company’s needs increase. Speaking at the conference held at Chicago-Kent Law School on the future of the legal profession, he noted the average cost to employ an experienced in-house lawyer—easy to come by these days given the tough legal job market—is $125 an hour, a bargain compared to many firm rates.

In fact, if were up to Ohringer, his company would keep all its legal budget out of the coffers of outside firms.

Clients don't think the same as they used to about Biglaw.

[NiccoloA]

Clients got mad and demanded that stuff like doc review be outsourced (some of it to India, some of it to temp workers here in the US) and that no 1st year associates work on their cases. So basically, Biglaw is hiring less. This change is permanent. It's not a result of the economic slowdown, and thus, there is not likely to be a full recovery ever.

I've seen claims of that. But LPO's seem tiny, honestly.

I highly doubt that was the problem. If the claim is that India is making structural changes in the US legal market, it requires some convincing proof. Otherwise I'm going to assume that this is like most things - market driven.

[paul34]

.

[daniel3.14]

lolUMNLaw

Damn, this school became a punchline fast. Was it the photojournalism piece documenting the UMN Law dungeon where the chairs are chained down so the students can't steal them that set things off?

I think it has more to do with the school doors being left open all the time (so students can utilize the space) that forced the school to take measures to protect its assets.

So... by your reasoning, the school chaining down its cheap, plastic furniture is not a sign of dysfunction, but rather a selling point? Nary has such spin been seen outside of a political campaign.

Another thing to remember is that most of the Minnesota market paying firms were paying 120,000 in 2008, but dropped to 110,000 during the crash. So that private sector median has certainly dropped.

Wow. You sure like commenting authoritatively on topics, of which you have no discernable expertise. And by the way, the school is not "left open all the time (so students can utilize the space)." The building and the classrooms are locked after hours, just like at any other law school. Indeed, just like any other law school, which doesn't distrust its own students so much it feels the need to chain down its ratty old furniture.

Of course, I suppose you'd have to actually be a UMN law student to know that about UMN Law. And I guess that's why the usual flow of information goes from current law students and grads toward prospectives interested in attending the school, rather than the other way around. But feel free to swim against the current, rebellious minnow. Care to tell me what classes I should take next semester?

And by the by, UMN is a great punchline. Look:

Joe: Knock Knock!
Mary: Who's there?
Joe: UMN Law Grad.
Mary: UMN Law Grad who?
Joe: UMN Law Grad can't get a goddamn job, got screwed by an incompetent administration repeatedly, went to school in a dungeon, was taught legal writing by bottom-feeders-in-the-MN-legal-market adjuncts, subjected to P&P torture, hates his life and is ready to jump off a tall building. Oh, and by the way, here's your fucking pizza; thanks for choosing Papa Johns.

thunderous laughter ensues

[niceopposum]

Clients got mad and demanded that stuff like doc review be outsourced (some of it to India, some of it to temp workers here in the US) and that no 1st year associates work on their cases. So basically, Biglaw is hiring less. This change is permanent. It's not a result of the economic slowdown, and thus, there is not likely to be a full recovery ever.

I've seen claims of that. But LPO's seem tiny, honestly.

I highly doubt that was the problem. If the claim is that India is making structural changes in the US legal market, it requires some convincing proof. Otherwise I'm going to assume that this is like most things - market driven.

absolutely, none of what jcougar said has been sufficiently demonstrated. it doesn't matter how many column inches have been written agreeing with your assessment, until we have hard data the claim you're making is dubious.

Sort of. Because of the weird system fueled by the ABA, JD-mill law schools, and biglaw, combined with govt-backed loans, we've got a strange market situation. We've created a market scenario that is distorted, and leads to prices higher than it would be otherwise. This is one of the classic scenarios that often leads to pushing jobs offshore.

. . .

In addition, partners don't feel a real need to really train up these new associates, especially because they're already upset they have to lose $160k of their money to these new associates. So basically you have the newbies running around into walls, so to speak.

It is an inefficient and unsustainable model. I think people (outside law) are beginning to recognize that.

lol