and there go all my altsDesert Fox wrote:Can you search by email? I wonder how many myname+N@gmail.com accounts there are.aschup wrote:People start multiple accounts on TLS all the fucking time. Half my time modding is spent nuking alt accounts.180kickflip wrote: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.
Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw Forum
- patogordo
- Posts: 4826
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
- copingtrope
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:28 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.A. Nony Mouse wrote: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
Last edited by copingtrope on Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- patogordo
- Posts: 4826
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
while that may be the advice that most people give, i don't think that's the advice most people accept.copingtrope wrote: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.A. Nony Mouse wrote: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
- copingtrope
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:28 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Accept as in "understand to be correct."patogordo wrote:while that may be the advice that most people give, i don't think that's the advice most people accept.copingtrope wrote: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.A. Nony Mouse wrote: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
- ggocat
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.A. Nony Mouse wrote: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.
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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/nyreg ... wyers.htmlErica 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.
(Of course, there are also the obligatory quotes from hopeful law school graduates eager to begin their careers.)
edit: link fixed. Thanks Max324
Last edited by ggocat on Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
That link is broken for me. Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/nyreg ... wyers.html
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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
- Posts: 3633
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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?A. Nony Mouse wrote:...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.
@ScottRiqui: They just counted employment of any kind.
- star fox
- Posts: 20790
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.ScottRiqui wrote: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?A. Nony Mouse wrote:...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.
- ggocat
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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 wrote: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.
- ggocat
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.ScottRiqui wrote: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?A. Nony Mouse wrote:...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- ggocat
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Maybe $95K with bonus. More like $80K without. http://www.nalp.org/2007septnewlawyersTiago Splitter wrote: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 wrote: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.
- Pneumonia
- Posts: 2096
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:05 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Asterisks basically, and lying. They'd only request/report salary info from people making $$$, but included all jobs in the "employed" category.ScottRiqui wrote: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?A. Nony Mouse wrote:...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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).ggocat wrote: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.ScottRiqui wrote: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?A. Nony Mouse wrote:...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.
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
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.Tiago Splitter wrote: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.
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).
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.Tiago Splitter wrote: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.
Edit... now I'm just depressing myself. I should to head back over to jdu.
Last edited by ggocat on Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
- ChardPennington
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:18 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
LoooooooolAAJD2B wrote:This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.
-
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.
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.
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!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 695
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Yeah, because torts aren't real.downinDtown wrote: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.NYC-WVU wrote: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?AAJD2B wrote:This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.
-
- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.Paul Campos wrote: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.
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Ah, I overestimated (was going off alumni recollections). Lovely.Paul Campos wrote: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.
- ggocat
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
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.ScottRiqui wrote: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?A. Nony Mouse wrote:...but it was easier for schools to fudge that and proudly tout their 96% employment rate at graduation.
Reminds me of this gem from the paper discussed above re: "altering survey techniques":Paul Campos wrote: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.
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.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login