Law School Transparency.org Forum

[Anonymous User]

--LinkRemoved--

Is it me or does this come off as a snotty brat, D-bag approach to the schools?

Although I agree transparency would be nice, this just doesn't strike me as the politic way to go about it. Does he really think threats will generate a response?

Thoughts anyone?

[General Tso]

yeah...the tone of the letter is more like "comply with us now...or else" when it should be more like "here's this great new project to inform law applicants, and here is a list of schools already on board"

[Anonymous User]

I doesn't come off that way to me, I think they are trying to be as polite as possible. What threat are you talking about? If it's publishing schools that don't respond and their reasons, I think that is fair. There are many legitimate reasons a school might not want to respond, such as student privacy, and by including these responses they are trying to be fair and give schools the opportunity to avoid a negative inference (they didn't respond because their employment #s suck).

[California Babe]

yeah...the tone of the letter is more like "comply with us now...or else" when it should be more like "here's this great new project to inform law applicants, and here is a list of schools already on board"

If you decide not to commit to disclosing according to the LST Standard, we respectfully request that you provide your reasons for declining to disclose. We recognize that not all schools will share our view that there is a need for greater transparency. If your school disagrees with our position, we would like to have an open, on-the-record dialogue to debate the merits of our respective positions.

That definitely sounds like "comply with us now... or else."

[Person]

yeah...the tone of the letter is more like "comply with us now...or else" when it should be more like "here's this great new project to inform law applicants, and here is a list of schools already on board"

If you decide not to commit to disclosing according to the LST Standard, we respectfully request that you provide your reasons for declining to disclose. We recognize that not all schools will share our view that there is a need for greater transparency. If your school disagrees with our position, we would like to have an open, on-the-record dialogue to debate the merits of our respective positions.

That definitely sounds like "comply with us now... or else."

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but that is about as polite and reasonable as I can imagine. That title "Law Schools Are on Notice" is a little over the top, though.

[ggocat]

Thoughts anyone?

Why so anonymous?

[observationalist]

I'm curious about what people think... as a voluntary request we've tried to create and present a new standard in a way that appeals to the schools, so I'm sorry some people are viewing it otherwise. I've gotta get back to bar study but if you have questions you can PM JeNeSaisLaw (or just continue this thread). Thanks for taking the time to check out the website (though I should point out it's http://www.lawschooltransparency.com, not .org).

-obs

[miamiman]

Obs,

There was a flurry of press surrounding the dissemination of your official request. Approximately two weeks later, have any schools beyond Vanderbilt, Chicago, and/or Duke provided information? I check the site every so often and haven't seen anymore 2009 data...

Thanks

[bk1]

Thoughts anyone?

Why so anonymous?

[Anonymous User]

I'm the OP-

no particular reason for the "Anonymous" label, just that in this case, who I am is not important, and this board tends to get snarky, so I figured I'd avoid the potshots. I do post with attribution most of the time- FWIW

To Observationalist- if you are a non profit- I think you should be using .org- but sorry for the error.

And as I said above, I love what you guys are doing, I just thought (IMHO) that the letter came off a little heavy handed. I can just envision HLS or YLS saying FU asshole and throwing your letter in the garbage. Keep at it for the benefit of all of us.

PS jenesaispas- loved your TLS avatar in the pre LS days. Was that a self portrait?

[bk1]

no particular reason for the "Anonymous" label, just that in this case, who I am is not important, and this board tends to get snarky, so I figured I'd avoid the potshots. I do post with attribution most of the time- FWIW

So you get potshots for using anonymous, see how stupid using anonymous is?

Snark on TLS is unavoidable, stop doing dumb things trying to avoid it.

[sumus romani]

The letter has to be heavy-handed, I would guess. This is so because pretty much all law schools already practice deceptive tactics. You don't put on kid gloves when you deal with a mangy, rabid dog. Having said that, I would be for a lighter touch if I thought it would work.

[sumus romani]

The letter has to be heavy-handed, I would guess. This is so because pretty much all law schools already practice deceptive tactics. You don't put on kid gloves when you deal with a mangy, rabid dog. Having said that, I would be for a lighter touch if I thought it would work.

+1. OK, just joking.

But seriously, I think that the full time/part time distinction is good, but that there should be a further distinction in this area. Some schools are starting bridge-to-work programs, etc. These are are temporary, full time jobs. No job is permanent, of course, so the best contrast category to temporary is "indefinite". So, there needs to be a temporary/indefinite distinction in the data. This would sort out the short term employment that law schools use deliberately to distort the data.

I think that the project is great, and I don't mean to nit pic (sp?).

[miamiman]

The letter has to be heavy-handed, I would guess. This is so because pretty much all law schools already practice deceptive tactics. You don't put on kid gloves when you deal with a mangy, rabid dog. Having said that, I would be for a lighter touch if I thought it would work.

+1. OK, just joking.

But seriously, I think that the full time/part time distinction is good, but that there should be a further distinction in this area. Some schools are starting bridge-to-work programs, etc. These are are temporary, full time jobs. No job is permanent, of course, so the best contrast category to temporary is "indefinite". So, there needs to be a temporary/indefinite distinction in the data. This would sort out the short term employment that law schools use deliberately to distort the data.

I think that the project is great, and I don't mean to nit pic (sp?).

I'm sorry but did you just quote yourself and then +1 it?

[sumus romani]

The letter has to be heavy-handed, I would guess. This is so because pretty much all law schools already practice deceptive tactics. You don't put on kid gloves when you deal with a mangy, rabid dog. Having said that, I would be for a lighter touch if I thought it would work.

+1. OK, just joking.

But seriously, I think that the full time/part time distinction is good, but that there should be a further distinction in this area. Some schools are starting bridge-to-work programs, etc. These are are temporary, full time jobs. No job is permanent, of course, so the best contrast category to temporary is "indefinite". So, there needs to be a temporary/indefinite distinction in the data. This would sort out the short term employment that law schools use deliberately to distort the data.

I think that the project is great, and I don't mean to nit pic (sp?).

I'm sorry but did you just quote yourself and then +1 it?

+1.

[jenesaislaw]

I'm the OP-
To Observationalist- if you are a non profit- I think you should be using .org- but sorry for the error.

And as I said above, I love what you guys are doing, I just thought (IMHO) that the letter came off a little heavy handed. I can just envision HLS or YLS saying FU asshole and throwing your letter in the garbage. Keep at it for the benefit of all of us.

PS jenesaispas- loved your TLS avatar in the pre LS days. Was that a self portrait?

Ha, no. I Google'd "French beret" because of my username, a play on "je ne sais quoi." I do love how many people think it's actually a self-tar. On .com vs. .org, we will eventually buy the .org and have it forward to the .com, but this distinction hasn't had any significant importance in years. Between lacking significance, cost (we are totally self-funded for now, so we our policy is 'only the necessities'), and .com being the default people try when they try to remember a domain, the .org just didn't make sense.

But seriously, I think that the full time/part time distinction is good, but that there should be a further distinction in this area. Some schools are starting bridge-to-work programs, etc. These are are temporary, full time jobs. No job is permanent, of course, so the best contrast category to temporary is "indefinite". So, there needs to be a temporary/indefinite distinction in the data. This would sort out the short term employment that law schools use deliberately to distort the data.

I think that the project is great, and I don't mean to nit pic (sp?).

There are a lot of things that would be really great to include, and I'm really happy that people are seriously thinking about what the standard does/should include.

If there were a list of components next to be added, the temporary job component would probably be at the top. We've tried to set the right balance with the chosen components. One of the reasons we chose not to include this is that we do not want to disincentivize schools from setting students up with these jobs (e.g. some fellowships) or facilitating relationships that help (e.g. clerkships). "Temporary" has a bad connotation - for some evidence, see --LinkRemoved--, titled "25 percent of Class of 2009 got temporary jobs" (subscription required, I think).

Turns out it's been covered elsewhere too (I haven't had internet all day, I just knew the Chicago Law Bulletin covered it because I spoke to them). Other coverage: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... _stats_sh/.

[legalease9]

I don't think this is a bad letter at all. Its respectful and pointed. I don't think anything in it comes across as threatening. It is certainly a challenge to the law schools, but whats wrong with a respectful challenge to their policies? There's nothing rude here.

[jenesaislaw]

^ I'm watching Watchmen right now (people of the future, his avatar is Dr. Manhattan).

[bwv812]

.

[Fark-o-vision]

Cool idea, but useless. Law schools have no reason to comply. What do they get out of it? Are any of us going to be more likely because a certain law school has decided to make it's poor employment prospects public? Sometimes you want the villain you do know over the one you don't, but I would bet students won't see it that way when it comes to sending in deposits. Maybe the elite, t3 or t6, gain something from this. A kind of feather in the cap when everyone knows they are undeniably the best. Still, do you think either NYU or Chicago want to settle the debate swirling around them?

Tone of the letter doesn't matter. They may get a few institutions to reply, but I would doubt if they get heavy responses regardless of how they word it. The only effective way to press this is to the ABA, but few really care enough to go that route.

[legalease9]

Cool idea, but useless. Law schools have no reason to comply. What do they get out of it? Are any of us going to be more likely because a certain law school has decided to make it's poor employment prospects public? Sometimes you want the villain you do know over the one you don't, but I would bet students won't see it that way when it comes to sending in deposits. Maybe the elite, t3 or t6, gain something from this. A kind of feather in the cap when everyone knows they are undeniably the best. Still, do you think either NYU or Chicago want to settle the debate swirling around them?

Tone of the letter doesn't matter. They may get a few institutions to reply, but I would doubt if they get heavy responses regardless of how they word it. The only effective way to press this is to the ABA, but few really care enough to go that route.

This isn't a half bad idea. It seems the people over at LST certainly care enough. You would need law schools to support the plan first though.

And why is everyone so negative. Change happens slowly and often overcomes impossible odds. If you oppose the goals of LST thats fine, but saying its impossible and throwing up your hands seems unproductive.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the OP-

no particular reason for the "Anonymous" label, just that in this case, who I am is not important, and this board tends to get snarky, so I figured I'd avoid the potshots. I do post with attribution most of the time- FWIW

To Observationalist- if you are a non profit- I think you should be using .org- but sorry for the error.

And as I said above, I love what you guys are doing, I just thought (IMHO) that the letter came off a little heavy handed. I can just envision HLS or YLS saying FU asshole and throwing your letter in the garbage. Keep at it for the benefit of all of us.

PS jenesaispas- loved your TLS avatar in the pre LS days. Was that a self portrait?

Why so anonymous was a rhetorical question. We all know you didn't want to be identified. The point is that the anon function doesn't exist to shield you from criticism and attribution.

[Action Jackson]

I think this is all an enormous waste of time. Applications are up across the board, law schools don't need to do ANYTHING to make their current or prospective students feel more shiny or happy about their choices. They don't need us. They don't care. Just come to terms with that and move on with your life.

[ggocat]

Why so anonymous was a rhetorical question. We all know you didn't want to be identified. The point is that the anon function doesn't exist to shield you from criticism and attribution.

lol says anon

[Sell Manilla]

I think this is a great idea. My only criticisms are:

1) Finalize everything before you send it to Law Schools and expect them to reply meaningfully. This could be accomplished by spreading the rough version among law students in various forums, getting feedback, revising etc. They are asking for a response by September when the final version hits November.... ?!?!

2) Get a petition going among law students, soon-to-be law students, alums etc. before you send it to Law Schools. People would eat it up. Get grassroots momentum so the schools recognize it when they first see it.

3) Send it to Law Schools.

I guess this criticism is a little late, but they would have been taken more seriously. Seems like they got excited with an awesome idea and jumped the gun.