New employment stats by ABA's new rule Forum

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
Post Reply

twiffy

New
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:07 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by twiffy » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:33 am

this seems to reaffirm the "t14 or bust" sentiment. more motivation to not fuck up undergrad/lsats i guess :/

SchopenhauerFTW

Gold
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by SchopenhauerFTW » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:11 am

I remember reading this awhile ago. I decided to drop out that week. The actual numbers were far more convincing than anything I had read on TLS.

Then again, maybe it was just the final straw.

User avatar
SaintsTheMetal

Bronze
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:08 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by SaintsTheMetal » Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:24 am

Is this actually new data, compared to what's on LST?

edit: nvm, seems to be exactly the same data... nothing new here

haus

Gold
Posts: 3896
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:07 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by haus » Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:39 am

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I remember reading this awhile ago. I decided to drop out that week. The actual numbers were far more convincing than anything I had read on TLS.

Then again, maybe it was just the final straw.
So what is the alternate plan? Pursue your fame and riches in the exciting field of...?

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


mr.hands

Silver
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:23 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by mr.hands » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:31 am

haus wrote:
SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I remember reading this awhile ago. I decided to drop out that week. The actual numbers were far more convincing than anything I had read on TLS.

Then again, maybe it was just the final straw.
So what is the alternate plan? Pursue your fame and riches in the exciting field of...?
Taxidermy

JetsFan1990

Bronze
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:41 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by JetsFan1990 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:40 am

This has already been posted. The numbers are no different; there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric. I have learned nothing new. Thank you, and good day, sir.

nickb285

Silver
Posts: 1499
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by nickb285 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:49 am

.
Last edited by nickb285 on Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

JetsFan1990

Bronze
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:41 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by JetsFan1990 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:53 am

Something tells me the latter is more likely.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


User avatar
rayiner

Platinum
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by rayiner » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:55 am

JetsFan1990 wrote:This has already been posted. The numbers are no different; there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric. I have learned nothing new. Thank you, and good day, sir.
There's just a lot of "doom and gloom" numbers. A T1 like American university with 36% employed in jobs requiring a law degree? Half of schools having ~50% employed or less after nearly a year after graduation.

User avatar
rayiner

Platinum
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by rayiner » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:57 am

nickb285 wrote:All the lower ranked schools are claiming it's related to bar passage. I would be curious to see what job numbers looked like six month after the bar exam, and see whether they have a point or they're just full of shit.
9 months is ~4 months after bar passage for most people. E.g. graduate in May, bar 2 months later in July, bar results 5 months after graduation in October, data taken 9 months after graduation in February.

JetsFan1990

Bronze
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:41 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by JetsFan1990 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:58 am

rayiner wrote:
JetsFan1990 wrote:This has already been posted. The numbers are no different; there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric. I have learned nothing new. Thank you, and good day, sir.
There's just a lot of "doom and gloom" numbers. A T1 like American university with 36% employed in jobs requiring a law degree? Half of schools having ~50% employed or less after nearly a year after graduation.
True, no doubt, but these numbers are generally the same as LST's. You're right, though; I would definitely agree these numbers paint a pretty grim picture.

SchopenhauerFTW

Gold
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by SchopenhauerFTW » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:00 pm

mr.hands wrote:
haus wrote:
SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I remember reading this awhile ago. I decided to drop out that week. The actual numbers were far more convincing than anything I had read on TLS.

Then again, maybe it was just the final straw.
So what is the alternate plan? Pursue your fame and riches in the exciting field of...?
Taxidermy
Taxidermy is only worth it if you can land BigFur.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
2014

Platinum
Posts: 6028
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by 2014 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:01 pm

What category is missing from that chart? You would expect JD Required + JD Preferred + Any Job + Unemployed + Unknown would equal 100% but for many schools it is well off of it.

SchopenhauerFTW

Gold
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by SchopenhauerFTW » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:04 pm

2014 wrote:What category is missing from that chart? You would expect JD Required + JD Preferred + Any Job + Unemployed + Unknown would equal 100% but for many schools it is well off of it.
Probably 'pursuing another degree'.

JohnV

Bronze
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:29 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by JohnV » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:08 pm

2014 wrote:What category is missing from that chart? You would expect JD Required + JD Preferred + Any Job + Unemployed + Unknown would equal 100% but for many schools it is well off of it.
Unemployed and not seeking a job? They have unemployed and seeking a job and indeterminable, but that doesn't necessarily equate to "not seeking employment".

User avatar
splitbrain

Silver
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by splitbrain » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:08 pm

I knew I wanted to be an actor anyway.

--ImageRemoved--

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Skump

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by Skump » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:53 am

there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric
"Rhetoric" isn't a synonym for "reality," bro. The ugly truth is that, absent a guaranteed job, choosing to attend most of America's law schools without something close to a full scholarship (with no stips) is demonstrably fucking insane.

Worse still, these numbers basically imply that admins and teachers at a substantial portion of America's law schools occupy the same moral plane as multi-level marketing hucksters, faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. They are value destroyers - a class of bourgeoisie parasites who exploit the naivete of young Americans and the broken system of federal education funding to enrich themselves while impoverishing the broader American economy. At best, their ethical status lies just slightly above that of the average drug dealer and most certainly below that of the average prostitute.

JetsFan1990

Bronze
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:41 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by JetsFan1990 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:07 pm

Skump wrote:
there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric
"Rhetoric" isn't a synonym for "reality," bro. The ugly truth is that, absent a guaranteed job, choosing to attend most of America's law schools without something close to a full scholarship (with no stips) is demonstrably fucking insane.

Worse still, these numbers basically imply that admins and teachers at a substantial portion of America's law schools occupy the same moral plane as multi-level marketing hucksters, faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. They are value destroyers - a class of bourgeoisie parasites who exploit the naivete of young Americans and the broken system of federal education funding to enrich themselves while impoverishing the broader American economy. At best, their ethical status lies just slightly above that of the average drug dealer and most certainly below that of the average prostitute.
I mean yeah, you're right. But .. damn, that escalated quickly lol.

User avatar
ru2486

Bronze
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:28 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by ru2486 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:19 pm

Skump wrote:
there's just a lot of "doom and gloom" rhetoric
"Rhetoric" isn't a synonym for "reality," bro. The ugly truth is that, absent a guaranteed job, choosing to attend most of America's law schools without something close to a full scholarship (with no stips) is demonstrably fucking insane.

Worse still, these numbers basically imply that admins and teachers at a substantial portion of America's law schools occupy the same moral plane as multi-level marketing hucksters, faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. They are value destroyers - a class of bourgeoisie parasites who exploit the naivete of young Americans and the broken system of federal education funding to enrich themselves while impoverishing the broader American economy. At best, their ethical status lies just slightly above that of the average drug dealer and most certainly below that of the average prostitute.

i only object to your use of "bourgeoisie" [noun] when you meant to use "bourgeois" [adjective]

jeffyl00b

New
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:10 am

Re: New employment stats by ABA's new rule

Post by jeffyl00b » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:28 pm

Those numbers look the same as the percentages i'm figuring using the new ABA data.

They are a #%#$@ of a lot better than how many of us found jobs from undergrad at one of the two peaks of the economic crash. How is 50/50 bad exactly?

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Post Reply

Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”