Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw Forum

[patogordo]

There may be similarities between AAJD and Blaqbella's writing style, but their posting/join dates seem to overlap. Unless it is also believed that she was at one point posting under two SNs in anticipation of a ban (well ahead of the actual ban), then I'm inclined to believe they are two different users.

People start multiple accounts on TLS all the fucking time. Half my time modding is spent nuking alt accounts.

Can you search by email? I wonder how many myname+N@gmail.com accounts there are.

and there go all my alts

[copingtrope]

Since biglawbust has graduated and is working, I also think it's entirely possible that at the time s/he was deciding where to go, the advice was different

That's definitely a possibility I hadn't considered. I guess the point is that OP's advice--while valuable--is basically what many of us already accept: that it is sometimes the best option to attend a regional school with money if your situation calls for it.

[patogordo]

Since biglawbust has graduated and is working, I also think it's entirely possible that at the time s/he was deciding where to go, the advice was different

That's definitely a possibility I hadn't considered. I guess the point is that OP's advice--while valuable--is basically what most of us already accept: that it is sometimes the best option to attend a regional school with money if your situation calls for it.

while that may be the advice that most people give, i don't think that's the advice most people accept.

[copingtrope]

Since biglawbust has graduated and is working, I also think it's entirely possible that at the time s/he was deciding where to go, the advice was different

That's definitely a possibility I hadn't considered. I guess the point is that OP's advice--while valuable--is basically what most of us already accept: that it is sometimes the best option to attend a regional school with money if your situation calls for it.

while that may be the advice that most people give, i don't think that's the advice most people accept.

Accept as in "understand to be correct."

[ggocat]

Yes and no. I'm sure people who are still here now are giving better advice than in 2006/07 and obviously being out of school helps, but I don't think it's just that. Scamblogs, if they even existed, weren't well-publicized (not sure there ever were any - Third-Tier Reality started posting in 2009 and I think that was one of the very first), Paul Campos hadn't written about this, Brian Tamanaha hadn't written about this, the NYT hadn't written about this. I know people were underemployed pre-ITE, but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation. I'm sure people (including me) should have dug deeper, but I think there was a lot more excuse for not doing so then than now.

Yeah, I agree with everything you're saying about publicity. I guess ITE spawned that movement, in particular helping to mitigate the horrible effect that U.S. News had on deluding many people into believing that $125K was the median salary you could expect as a lawyer.

I do recall several NYT articles, though without statistics as strong as today, questioning the value of a law degree. I recall one talking about lawyers working as legal secretaries. And just from Googling, I saw another article from 1997; does any of this sound familiar?

lawyers are nearly four times as likely to be depressed than average Americans, according to The Legal Intelligencer, a trade publication.

Partnership opportunities at big firms are down, and working hours are up, The National Law Journal says, and polls taken by various bar groups show that record numbers of lawyers would do something else if given the choice.

The situation is so bleak that . . . once students graduated from law school, the majority ''will be left with an enormous student loan, no job and no practical knowledge about how to practice law.''

Erica Fine, editorial director of the New York office of BAR/BRI, the nation's foremost cram course, is not so sure. She voices worry that some of the 6,300, mostly 20-something students taking her company's New York summer course are overly coddled by their families and are unrealistic.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/nyreg ... wyers.html

(Of course, there are also the obligatory quotes from hopeful law school graduates eager to begin their careers.)

edit: link fixed. Thanks Max324

[03152016]

That link is broken for me. Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/nyreg ... wyers.html

[A. Nony Mouse]

I agree that people have been saying that law school doesn't teach you anything about practice for yonks. I guess the thing about the concerns in 1997, though, is that tuition at that point was significantly less (even taking into account inflation). In-state tuition for my law school was something like $7000/yr in 1997. It's currently $31,548. I mean, obviously prices have gone up since 1997, but not that much (according to the very scientific "first inflation calculator I found on google," $7000 in 1997 is the equivalent of $10,204.08 today. Sigh). So there have probably always been some naysayers, but I think it's taken on a different slant with increasing tuition/student indebtedness.

[ScottRiqui]

...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.

Just out of curiosity, how did the schools do this? Was there some fucked-up metric they used that actually 'justified' the claim, were there a ton more school-funded jobs, or were they just lying out of their asses?

[Tiago Splitter]

Law school has been a pretty bad idea for quite a while. JD Underground existed at least since 2007, and there were probably others before it. There's no sympathy for people going to TTT's these days, but it's hard to muster much for the people who blindly paid 180k for Thomas Jefferson pre-crash.

@ScottRiqui: They just counted employment of any kind.

[star fox]

...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.

Just out of curiosity, how did the schools do this? Was there some fucked-up metric they used that actually 'justified' the claim, were there a ton more school-funded jobs, or were they just lying out of their asses?

Starbucks barista and big law associate were both employed. They just ask the big law guy for salary info when they report a "median salary" of 100K.

[ggocat]

No one can argue with tuition being completely ridiculous right now. But even that article pointed out the "majority" of grads would face "enormous student loan" debt and "no job." I guess "enormous" is relative.

[Tiago Splitter]

No one can argue with tuition being completely ridiculous right now. But even that article pointed out the "majority" of grads would face "enormous student loan" debt and "no job." I guess "enormous" is relative.

And biglaw only paid 95k. Attorneys back then would tell horror stories of their colleagues who had to pay $1,000 a month toward student loans.

[ggocat]

...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.

Just out of curiosity, how did the schools do this? Was there some fucked-up metric they used that actually 'justified' the claim, were there a ton more school-funded jobs, or were they just lying out of their asses?

I'll have to pull out my 2005 US News copy, but I think it had to do largely with how US News defined "employed." Even then, I think 96% was optimistic for at-graduation. It wasn't uncommon to see 96-99% for 9-months, though.

[ggocat]

No one can argue with tuition being completely ridiculous right now. But even that article pointed out the "majority" of grads would face "enormous student loan" debt and "no job." I guess "enormous" is relative.

And biglaw only paid 95k. Attorneys back then would tell horror stories of their colleagues who had to pay $1,000 a month toward student loans.

Maybe $95K with bonus. More like $80K without. http://www.nalp.org/2007septnewlawyers

[Pneumonia]

...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.

Just out of curiosity, how did the schools do this? Was there some fucked-up metric they used that actually 'justified' the claim, were there a ton more school-funded jobs, or were they just lying out of their asses?

Asterisks basically, and lying. They'd only request/report salary info from people making $$$, but included all jobs in the "employed" category.

[A. Nony Mouse]

...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.

Just out of curiosity, how did the schools do this? Was there some fucked-up metric they used that actually 'justified' the claim, were there a ton more school-funded jobs, or were they just lying out of their asses?

I'll have to pull out my 2005 US News copy, but I think it had to do largely with how US News defined "employed." Even then, I think 96% was optimistic for at-graduation. It wasn't uncommon to see 96-99% for 9-months, though.

Yeah, I was exaggerating a little - 9 months after is more likely. And I agree that someone paying $180K for TJU pre-crash wasn't making a good move, either, and that was pretty clear at the time. I do think, though, that the number of schools where consensus would predict a "good" outcome has narrowed ITE/post-LST (not just because people here have gone through law school).

And Scott, as well as counting all employment as jobs, they did things like not make clear that e.g. salary data was based on those who responded to employment surveys rather than being based on all graduates' outcomes.

[ggocat]

Law school has been a pretty bad idea for quite a while. JD Underground existed at least since 2007, and there were probably others before it. There's no sympathy for people going to TTT's these days, but it's hard to muster much for the people who blindly paid 180k for Thomas Jefferson pre-crash.

@ScottRiqui: They just counted employment of any kind.

I'm 50-50 on sympathy for pre-crash Thomas Jefferson matriculates. The lawsuit against them is still ongoing, right? There was actually evidence of intentional misrepresentation of the employment stats. That introduces a whole new element into the picture, despite common sense suggesting such schools are a bad idea.

It's also like saying no sympathy for students enrolling in any for-profit "universities." These companies have been praying on the bottom of the barrel for quite some time, with no evidence of the value of their degrees, and governments are actually starting to pay attention to these places (or at least, take the problem seriously).

[Tiago Splitter]

I didn't say I have no sympathy. It's just that you were still pretty stupid for putting down six figures without knowing what you were getting into. As you've rightly pointed out there was a lot of information out there, it just wasn't as easy to find as it is now.

[ggocat]

I didn't say I have no sympathy. It's just that you were still pretty stupid for putting down six figures without knowing what you were getting into. As you've rightly pointed out there was a lot of information out there, it just wasn't as easy to find as it is now.

My own lack of sympathy comes from the knowledge that you and me and every other taxpayer will end up paying for the boondoggle, meanwhile administration and profs (to a lesser extent) will suffer no consequences. A la financial crisis of 2007.

Edit... now I'm just depressing myself. I should to head back over to jdu.

[ChardPennington]

I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.

This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.

Looooooool

[Paul Campos]

A.Nony: Tuition was $4,953 at your law school in 1997.

Here's a nice little story about "employment rates:" Prior to 2011 US News disregarded graduates categorized as "unemployed not seeking employment" when calculating employment rates. At one fairly high ranked law school, the dean told OCI to categorize anybody who was unemployed and who either didn't respond to a request to meet with OCI to discuss their situation or refused to do so as "unemployed not seeking" nine months after graduation. One year this resulted in nearly 20% of the class being categorized as "unemployed not seeking," which allowed the school to report a 97% "employment rate," even though more than one in five grads didn't have jobs of any kind (let alone legal jobs) nine months after graduation.

[BeenDidThat]

I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.

This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.

I really don't know anything about this subject. But perhaps the terms of a credit agreement are part of the litigation, or maybe the entire litigation is about the credit agreement? Isn't that possible?

Absolutely possible. If not for the corporate department screwing something up or one of the parties breaching [fill in the type of document], litigation would not exist.

Yeah, because torts aren't real.

[09042014]

A.Nony: Tuition was $4,953 at your law school in 1997.

Here's a nice little story about "employment rates:" Prior to 2011 US News disregarded graduates categorized as "unemployed not seeking employment" when calculating employment rates. At one fairly high ranked law school, the dean told OCI to categorize anybody who was unemployed and who either didn't respond to a request to meet with OCI to discuss their situation or refused to do so as "unemployed not seeking" nine months after graduation. One year this resulted in nearly 20% of the class being categorized as "unemployed not seeking," which allowed the school to report a 97% "employment rate," even though more than one in five grads didn't have jobs of any kind (let alone legal jobs) nine months after graduation.

While that is egregious. I'd estimate that at least 5% and as high as 10% of any given class are squibs who barely try to gain employment. Then again it's not like there are open jobs for them.

[A. Nony Mouse]

A.Nony: Tuition was $4,953 at your law school in 1997.

Here's a nice little story about "employment rates:" Prior to 2011 US News disregarded graduates categorized as "unemployed not seeking employment" when calculating employment rates. At one fairly high ranked law school, the dean told OCI to categorize anybody who was unemployed and who either didn't respond to a request to meet with OCI to discuss their situation or refused to do so as "unemployed not seeking" nine months after graduation. One year this resulted in nearly 20% of the class being categorized as "unemployed not seeking," which allowed the school to report a 97% "employment rate," even though more than one in five grads didn't have jobs of any kind (let alone legal jobs) nine months after graduation.

Ah, I overestimated (was going off alumni recollections). Lovely.

[ggocat]

...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.

Just out of curiosity, how did the schools do this? Was there some fucked-up metric they used that actually 'justified' the claim, were there a ton more school-funded jobs, or were they just lying out of their asses?

I wrote a paper on the 9-month and at-garduation employment rate variables used by USNWR. This was in 2009/2010. Some of the "known strategies" included: (1) employing graduates directly through fellowships (at paltry wages); (2) enrolling graduates in advanced degree programs (for free or significantly reduced cost); (3) establishing a part-time program; and (5) altering survey techniques.

A.Nony: Tuition was $4,953 at your law school in 1997.

Here's a nice little story about "employment rates:" Prior to 2011 US News disregarded graduates categorized as "unemployed not seeking employment" when calculating employment rates. At one fairly high ranked law school, the dean told OCI to categorize anybody who was unemployed and who either didn't respond to a request to meet with OCI to discuss their situation or refused to do so as "unemployed not seeking" nine months after graduation. One year this resulted in nearly 20% of the class being categorized as "unemployed not seeking," which allowed the school to report a 97% "employment rate," even though more than one in five grads didn't have jobs of any kind (let alone legal jobs) nine months after graduation.

Reminds me of this gem from the paper discussed above re: "altering survey techniques":
Dean of New York Law School Richard Matasar suggests the survey technique of “calling graduates, and leaving them messages that if they do not call back, you will assume that they are employed.” Richard A. Matasar, Ya Gotta Pay the Pig, 37 U. TOL. L. REV. 109, 112 (2005) (noting that “tricks of the trade have become legendary: like employing one's own graduates in ‘jobs’ before and just after graduation”).

edit: also one caveat, in the 2009 edition USNWR did exclude "unemployed not seeking" grads from the calculus.