Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Law school transparency at the NALP conference, FJM style

At the NALP conference in April, a group of panelists discussed the issues around the increased transparency being demanded by the public. The fact that this panel was arranged shows that the law schools are still only paying lip service to the concept of transparency. Instead of being as open as possible with their employment numbers, law schools want to continue their manipulation of the stats to dupe unwitting students into buying a $200,000 lemon.
 
One of my favorite sports websites was Fire Joe Morgan. They would take Joe Morgan’s commentary and offer a line-by-line counterpoint. Some other websites have done it, referring to it as the FJM treatment. I will attempt to do so with the main points of this excellent summation by Above The Law. My comments will be in italics.

1. Checking employment status at nine months is unfair to us because we send a high number of our graduates to the types of employers who wait for bar exam results to hire entry-level attorneys or who are otherwise slow in their hiring (e.g., state government or small law firms).
If the law degree is as desirable as the law schools present them to be, then students should have little problem finding a job. You know why employers are able to wait so long to hire people? Because there are a thousand more people in line, ready to step in. Employers are in a buyer’s market that will continue to tilt further in their favor as long as law schools treat their students as ATM’s rather than future colleagues.



2. Some observers, such as U.S. News and Law School Transparency, don’t value part-time jobs as much as full-time jobs. But some of our graduates — e.g., parents or people with elder care responsibilities — actually prefer part-time jobs.
How many people go to law school and say, “I need to go spend another $50,000 this year so I can get those lucrative part time attorney jobs everyone is talking about”? This is the kind of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty necessary to continue with the status quo, despite all the evidence that graduates are not getting the outcomes they were promised. 

3. Some observers discount “J.D. advantaged” jobs compared to “J.D. required” jobs. But some of our graduates — e.g., people who want legal knowledge to help them in another field, like the entertainment industry — actually want to work in “J.D. advantaged” jobs as opposed to the practice of law.
Do doctors go to medical school so that they can work as accountants? The majority of people who go to law school expect to be lawyers. Often times, if a person is in a J.D. advantaged job, it’s because there are no lawyer positions out there to be had. Again, they point to a microscopic portion of people who go to law school.

4. There are many gray areas and judgment calls when it comes to responding to employment data inquiries from the various authorities. E.g., what is the date of “graduation” for purposes of “employed upon graduation — the date of the ceremony, or the date of the registrar certification? What do you do about a graduate who dies in the middle of a reporting period?
Gee, if it’s so hard to figure out how to respond to an employment data inquiry, then provide all of it in a correctly annotated form. Too burdensome you say? Seeing as how the main function of a law school career services office is to find jobs and track employment outcomes, this data should be ready. If it isn’t, then all the people in the career services office need to be fired, because they are wildly incompetent and undeserving of their jobs. We’re getting close to the real reason why law schools are so resistant to provide honest data.

5. We are not always in full control of our messaging and public statements about graduate job outcomes. Our deans and admissions offices pressure us to put the school in the best light. Sometimes what you see coming out of our school is actually a toned-down version; the dean or admissions office wanted to go out with something even more rosy, but we convinced them to tamp it down a bit.
Finally, we get to the actual reason why honest employment data cannot be openly available. When you have a product that is grossly misrepresented to the majority of consumers and a system that encourages continued dishonesty, deans have no incentive to act ethically. As long as there is no independent body overseeing this data, separate from the influences of the deans and the ABA, employment data will continue to be a pig’s ear disguised as a silk purse. The law schools and deans have abdicated their moral and ethical responsibilities to their students.

Law schools just don’t get it. There is no incentive for deans to reform our current system, which handsomely rewards immoral conduct. Panels like this one at NALP are only trying to figure out how to stay one step ahead of the mob and the pitchforks. It’s time for someone to step in and save our youth.

31 comments:

  1. It's easy to "discuss" issues when you are benefiting from the status quo all along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There is no incentive for deans to reform our current system, which handsomely rewards immoral conduct. Panels like this one at NALP are only trying to figure out how to stay one step ahead of the mob and the pitchforks. It’s time for someone to step in and save our youth."

      Absolutely right. The mechanisms of the Legal-Education Industrial Complex will not stop grinding students up until there are no more students to grind.

      Everyone in the system . . . everyone, all the way down to the underpaid, non-tenure-track, second-class legal-writing instructors . . . everyone is dependent upon the perpetuation of an unsustainable system.

      That law schools don't actually teach the law in any useful form is, to them, irrelevant.

      That firms take advantage of this by doing what they can and must--hiring only the ones who show, via the proxies of school and grades--that they're worth training, well, that's just how it is.

      That this entire Complex relies on the ingrained assumptions of smart, credulous, badly misled students, well, that's just how it's been.

      Thane.

      Delete
  2. Nice busting of their increasingly weak lies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As to point 1, if 9 months out is too little, then show us the employment stats at 1 year or 18 months. Something tells me that they won't be any better. What will the excuse be then? Some grads made it so big that they managed to retire?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Point 2 - yeah rrrrrrrright. I want a no-benefits part time job coming out of law school. If it pays $5,000 per hour!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely. These statements just go to show how many ScamDeans and LawProfs are completely out of touch with reality. Classism through and through.

      I guess if you have lived a pampered existence heretofor(and, honestly, how many academics come from pure, abject poverty? Precious few, I'll wager), then you wouldn't know any better. Not that building ivory walls to keep out the real world is any excuse.

      For those for whom money is no object, then a part-time gig might be nice outcome. For those who are actually looking to work for a living, it matters a great deal. I know many attorneys who work long hours to specifically pay for a nanny or elder care - that is part of the "point." WTF, ScamDeans?

      Delete
  5. One of the panelists at the NALP event was Eric Bono, Assistant Dean for Career Opportunities at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, a really brazen scammer.

    On April 17, 2012, Eric Bono issued a press release stating that he was "pleased" and "delighted" at his school's alleged Class of 2011 96.6% employment rate, of which 97% were professional jobs. The press release went on for two pages, crowing over the school's achievement as well as its "transparency" and "accuracy" in calculating the employment rate.

    http://www.law.du.edu/documents/career-development-and-opportunities/EricBonoClassOf2011.pdf

    Eric Bono forgot to mention that that only 136 of the 287 Sturm grads of the Class of 2011 obtained full-time, long-term non-solo, non-law school-funded, bar-required jobs within nine months of graduation (47%), an outcome even worse than the dismal national average of 51% for 2011.





    ReplyDelete
  6. I would love it if somebody could just simply track down a full law school class via FB or something and annotate exactly what each member is doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In pretty much every state (including mine) the state bar web site has a search function so you can search by school, year of graduation, etc as well as by name. It is interesting to look at the entries for the people I went to law school with. (Quite a few are not listed, so they either moved or dropped out of the law entirely.) Some are with firms, mostly small or medium sized. About a third are listed as being active/in good standing, but their address is a P.O. box or a residence, which would suggest they too have dropped out. And some are solos, with varying degrees of success.

      Anyone considering going to law school should do this type of search on the 2-3 most recent graduating classes of any school they are considering attending, and get an idea for how many graduates of said school actually get the type of jobs the applicant would want.

      Delete
    2. There are a few journalistic-types of investigations that I have wanted to work on as long-term side projects. I even have a few ideas of how to go about some of them. But I need help, as it is too time consuming for one person. If you are serious about a project like checking up on a sample T1 class two years post-grad, we should talk.

      I think it would interest an even wider readership outside of just this blog.

      Delete
    3. ^ Make a documentary film about it.

      Delete
  7. Dybbuk: "Professional jobs"? Is that the new line they're coming up with? "Come to Law School, and you'll become a Professional!"

    ReplyDelete

  8. These are really weak arguments, especially the later ones. Their basic reasoning is, "Filling out these forms is not just as easy as falling off a log."

    What college-educated person is stumped by this meager list of requirements? Don't they have phones or emails at the NALP? they probably could ask US News for clarification, if such a strategy occurred to them.

    Or, if they think these issues are real, why don't they do research? They could ask their students whether they plan to work full time or part time after graduation, and if 50% said "part time" (ha), maybe they'd have some ground to stand on.

    Actually, the arguments are just distractions. They are just "playing dumb" so they don't have to admit the reality of their situation. I guess it's better to appear dumb than greedy to the general public.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This article underscores a central problem with law school propaganda: they use exceptions to prove a rule.

    Sure, some students have kids and want part-time jobs to be a lawyer-mommy. Some want the JD to enhance their role as a consultant or tax accountant. Some want to go to graduate school or for the sake of learning.

    The schools always couch these statements in ambiguity, knowing full well that these exceptions do not apply to 90-95% of their students.

    In a typical law school, almost everyone is at or below their early 30s, almost everyone wants traditional JD-required work, and even the ones with kids and dying parents want to work full-time so they can get benefits and attempt repaying loans.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Number 3: The "JD-Advantage" Unicorn.

    Yep, I'm one of the few that thought a JD was a valuable asset in the marketplace...until it wasn't. Funny, I discovered that on the back-end of lol skool, after all the blood, sweat, and tears, and there was certainly no "full disclosure" on the front-end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a load of BS these cockroaches are peddling. I won't rest until these Toilets are shut down.

      Delete
  11. WHERE IS KEN TREMENDOUS?!?!?! Skip Schumaker is the greatest infielder of all time, at least in terms of Hustle Above Replacement.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excellent comments above. As others have mentioned, the law school swine are simply playing dumb. In reality, they simply do not give a damn about the students and recent grads. The CDO staffs, as well as the "professors" and deans, are FULLY AWARE of the glutted lawyer job market. They KNOW that many of their graduates are not finding attorney jobs. Which is why they do not want to furnish true data. Doing so would likely result in even larger drops in enrollment.

    Young mothers and fathers with extensive educations want full-time work, unless they are trust fund babies or married to a wealthy person. To those select few, the JD is simply an ego boost, and a way to pass the time. The academic credential may even impress the occasional dimwit.

    Again, who in their right mind would willingly incur $110K-$190K in non-dischargeable debt, with the intent to work part time - so that they can "balance" their home and "professional" lives?!?! MA, you decimated the pigs' weak arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excellent comments above. As others have mentioned, the law school swine are simply playing dumb. In reality, they simply do not give a damn about the students and recent grads. The CDO staffs, as well as the "professors" and deans, are FULLY AWARE of the glutted lawyer job market. They KNOW that many of their graduates are not finding attorney jobs. Which is why they do not want to furnish true data. Doing so would likely result in even larger drops in enrollment.

    Young mothers and fathers with extensive educations want full-time work, unless they are trust fund babies or married to a wealthy person. To those select few, the JD is simply an ego boost, and a way to pass the time. The academic credential may even impress the occasional dimwit.

    Again, who in their right mind would willingly incur $110K-$190K in non-dischargeable debt, with the intent to work part time - so that they can "balance" their home and "professional" lives?!?! MA, you decimated the pigs' weak arguments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nando, thank you. I am honored to receive such high praise from an innovator such as yourself.

      Delete
  14. Summary -- don't go to law school.

    Analysis -- Law school isn't worth the squeeze because of variety of issues (unemployment, high debt, but mostly employment outcomes).

    ReplyDelete
  15. I hate the lying law schools do, but if I were deciding which school to attend, I'd ask:

    What % have jobs at the time of graduation?
    What % have jobs within 30 days of bar passage results?

    Those two data points would tell me a lot more than just the one data point of "jobs within 9 months."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The structuralist in me believes that jobs within 9 months is a pregnancy metaphor. If you land a job, they gave birth to you and love you and send you cards. Otherwise, it's the awkward trip to the clinic that everyone pretends never happened.

      Curiously, Roe v. Wade hit about the same time the legal education sector gave its last gasp of honestly fulfilling its mission statement. 1972 saw the founding of six ABA-accredited law schools, including Cooley.

      Coincidence? I think not.

      Delete
    2. ".... 1972 saw the founding of six ABA-accredited law schools, including Cooley."

      And we're still desparately waiting for the Morning After pill.

      Delete
  16. Politically speaking, is the scamblog movement generally considered conservative?

    In light of Tamanaha bashing his liberal academic peers as so many hypocrites, and in light of Campos as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of the targets can be classified as "limousine liberals", but I don't think the movement self-identifies along political lines.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. While not the movement is not explicitly conservative, the targets generally 1.) are liberals and 2.) use liberalism to justify their scamming by saying they need tenure and barely existent workloads to "fight for justice." From their "home offices" of course.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. Student debt as a general issue is going to be dealt with regardless of whether it is motivated by small government conservatism ("get the government out of student loans") or a revitalized liberalism that sees higher education as another part of our lives overtaken by corporate fat-cats (or scam deans). Frankly, I don't care about which argument wins the day.

      By the way, another solid contribution by one of our new writers!

      Delete
    4. @3:00,

      Is the scamblog "movement" conservative?

      Well, one of their main goals is to force the taxpayers to pay off their loans for them ...

      That doesn't sound very "conservative" to me.

      The dirty little secret here is that the law school professors and the overwhelmed student debtors BOTH favor "privatizing profits and socializing losses."

      The only difference is that the law school professors won the game and the JD debtors lost it.

      Morally speaking, they are equally repellent.

      Delete
  17. It's pathetic to see ridiculous verbiage used to try to dress-up a bad situation: e.g., "Part-time lawyer jobs".... "JD Advantage jobs."

    But please, people, let's try to show some sympathy for these besieged law school administrators. There are obviously many gray areas and judgment calls when it comes to responding to employment data inquiries. These poor souls must attempt to answer the imposibly difficult question:

    What is the date of 'Graduation' for purposes of the reporting category, “Employed upon Graduation"?

    Could it be the date of the Graduation Ceremony?

    But if so, what happens if a graduate decides not to walk, but instead travels to Australia for rest and relaxation, thus being one day ahead when the graduation ceremony is conducted back in the States? What if he really tries to get back, but his plane is delayed, and as a result, he's crossing over the International Date Line precisely at the time of the graduation ceremony? Do we use the beginning of the ceremony or the closing remarks as the governing time?

    Also, what happens when Marty McFly is supposed to graduate, but just before the graduation ceremony, he gets into a time machine made from a Delorean and travels back to 1955 because the future of Law is so dismal? Is Marty's graduation date calculated as being 2013, or 1955? And what happens if Marty is unable to return to the present and remains stuck in 1955? Should he attempt to summer at Cravath in order to mitigate his loss, and if he's hired on, will his employment be attributed to the 2013 statistics, or is his law school allowed to retroactively amend its 1955 employment stats? What of the disparity between an 2013 OCI and a 1955 clerkship? And if Cravath's 1955 conduct includes unacceptable sexist, racism and/or homophobic discrimination, will this serve to invalidate any use of the clerking experience should he return to 2013?

    Or, do we use the date of the Registrar's certification? But does that mean the day the registrar signs the certification, or the date that the signed list is made public? What if the Registrar signs the list, but is then abducted by Marty McFly, and taken back to 1955 in the Delorean, before said list can be published? What then happens when Doc is given the list in good old 1955 and he 'publishes' it by placing it on the wall of the local diner? Is the date 1955, or is it deemed to be 2013?

    What if Bif actually gets it on with Marty's Mom in the car at the dance, but Marty is too busy clerking at Cravath so he can't intervene, and Marty's mom is ravished by Bif? Will the offspring of the union be considered a Legacy for purposes of the law school's admissions program? Will the illegitimacy be judged using 1955 mores, or those of 2013? What year will his student loans come due should he become a legacy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ It wouldn't matter. He would probably just use his knowledge of future #1 hits to become a 1950s rock star.

      Delete