tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post4318298084056815207..comments2023-10-30T08:41:06.178-07:00Comments on Inside the Law School Scam: The kind of thing that gives anti-intellectualism a good nameLawProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-91971861593263193662012-03-12T03:17:23.333-07:002012-03-12T03:17:23.333-07:00All the big 10 educational institutions (exception...All the big 10 educational institutions (exception being Northwestern, Michigan) are all enormous barriers. The quantity of SAs arriving out of some of these educational institutions is extremely TTT little despite the educational status and desirability that the Big 10 normally requires. <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.eduberry.com/eduberryschool_overview/" rel="nofollow">School ERP Software</a>Eduberry ERP Softwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13469865575643171780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-48648476794769130512012-02-19T19:07:58.224-08:002012-02-19T19:07:58.224-08:00Buchanan is a former economics professor, and writ...Buchanan is a former economics professor, and writes about debt, deficits, and responsibility to future generations. He must understand the structural issues he ignores, and is obviously just writing to protect his economic position. <br /><br />http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=11219Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-23672443932279049892012-02-18T07:20:52.124-08:002012-02-18T07:20:52.124-08:00"This raucous atmosphere might have the effec..."This raucous atmosphere might have the effect of reducing the number of people who are [-potentially-] (AND FOR THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED?] interested in attending law school. We have[-,in fact,-] (HAVE SOME NEED TO STRESS YER YAMMERING IS BASED "IN FACT"? OR DOES THE BULLSHITTER PROFESS TOO MUCH?] seen a pronounced drop in law school applications this year, which could [-certainly-] (YOU SUBJUNCITVELY CERTAIN SHITHEAD] be a response to the idea that law school is nothing but a "scam" [-or-] (IF IT'S A SCAM IT'S OBVIOUSLY A WAST OF MONEY YOU BRILLIANT TURD) a waste of students' borrowed money. Of course, there are multiple [-explanatory-] (GEEEAWD WE HATE YOUR SHAMELESSLY ARROGANT DUMB ASS) factors at work, most obviously the continued recession-level employment prospects for [-far-] (THERE'S TOO MANY OF YOU- WE'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO PONDER THE PLACE-HOLDING, USELESS, SUPERFLUOUS QUESTION OF WHETHER IT'S "FAR TOO" MANY) too many law graduates. Potential students need not believe [-any of-] [BULLSHITTER PROTESTING TOO MUCH AGAIN W HIGH SCHOOL GRAMMAR- BUT HE DOES NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY DISBELIEVE EVERY GODDAMN WORD AS THEY'RE PRETTY FUCKING BAD, BC THEY'RE TRUE] the nonsensical attacks on the case method, nor pay [-any-] (UGHH, THIS FUCKHEAD IS EXASPERATING) heed to the false claim that law professors are writing useless articles, [-to conclude that their individual best choice today is to delay applying to law school (or even to choose never to attend).-] (I DISAGREE WITH THIS LITTLE PART THE LEAST ONLY BC I DON'T UNDERSTAND WTF HE'S SAYING).” <br /><br />Fuck the legal profession!<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />A bright, hard-working, experienced, conscientious, and homeless attorney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-75615874503057144892012-02-15T01:59:24.825-08:002012-02-15T01:59:24.825-08:00Amazing how simple it can be to communicate with p...Amazing how simple it can be to communicate with people and have them understand a certain topic, you made my day.National Help Center Law Grouphttp://nhclawgroupscams.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-42860724090822948942012-02-13T20:25:44.017-08:002012-02-13T20:25:44.017-08:00Excellent post, LawProf. Nothing more to say. So...Excellent post, LawProf. Nothing more to say. So glad someone of your caliber has taken the time to discuss these issues. I can't imagine what the situation would have been like had you not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-54537450478276465602012-02-13T04:01:23.823-08:002012-02-13T04:01:23.823-08:00Okay, DJM, I am jumping the gun. We would have to ...Okay, DJM, I am jumping the gun. We would have to know what the summer associate pool looked like the year before these folks went out. Is that why you think these numbers will be dismal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-8417032496405833942012-02-12T19:55:08.179-08:002012-02-12T19:55:08.179-08:00@DJM -- these changes have been here for a good wh...@DJM -- these changes have been here for a good while. Fewer people will apply to law schools. Schools will hire fewer faculty. Programs will be cut back. When you say, think about what they are doing. What specific proactive thing do you have in mind?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-73816553738657296442012-02-12T17:56:20.049-08:002012-02-12T17:56:20.049-08:00Reasons for going to law school - eating a chinese...Reasons for going to law school - eating a chinese takeout<br /><br />I opened the fortune cookie and it said <br /><br />:-) You would make a good lawyer :-)<br /><br />Hmmmmm,<br /><br />MacKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-49317143963423840182012-02-12T17:46:21.661-08:002012-02-12T17:46:21.661-08:00@DJM--as always, it will depend on the school. You...@DJM--as always, it will depend on the school. You can gauge some of it from summer associate numbers. One report suggested the numbers were up.<br /><br />http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New_York/News/2012/02_-_February/Summer_law-firm_jobs_on_the_rebound,_but_slowly/<br /><br />As I said, there is no reason to think it will go back to crazy time. But I suspect people will, as they should, look at more years than 2010, and pay attention to the economy as a whole. Looking at stats alone makes no sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-36249540923704012652012-02-12T17:12:42.989-08:002012-02-12T17:12:42.989-08:003:30/3:50, I agree that information from the next ...3:30/3:50, I agree that information from the next cycle is crucial. But here is the interesting thing: Schools will have that information by the end of next week. The reporting day for 9-month figures is Feb. 15, next Wednesday. So schools are already finalizing their information on the 9-month outcomes for the class of 2011.<br /><br />Traditionally, schools have been very slow to report these 9-month figures; they often wait until sometime in the late summer or early fall. It's not clear why--each school has its own information in February.<br /><br />Now, if the 2011 numbers are better than 2010, then I assume schools will eagerly post those updated figures. Why try to recruit the class of 2015 with the worrisome 2010 numbers if those numbers represent a low point from which we're recovering?<br /><br />But my prediction is that the 2011 numbers are worse--probably much worse--at most law schools. If that's the case, will law schools keep those numbers back until the fall? I suspect they will try to do so, but that strikes me as fraudulent even within the current deceptive reporting. It will be very, very interesting to see if schools start publishing those 2011 numbers (or even sharing them with admitted students during recruiting visits) over the next month.<br /><br />My prediction that the 2011 numbers will be worse than 2010 rests on two things. In part it's based on my personal familiarity with grads of those two classes (as well as current 3Ls, who seem to be facing yet dimmer prospects). But even more important, I base this prediction on what is happening with law practice technology. That is the elephant in the room that so few people discuss.<br /><br />Every month, technology is reducing the number of lawyers needed to do legal jobs. I'm not talking here about routine legal work, although that's clearly affected. I'm talking about "bet the company" work on both litigation and transaction matters. Firms are creating very sophisticated document management systems (for litigation) and document assembly systems (for transactional work). These systems don't eliminate the need for lawyers, but they greatly reduce the number of lawyers needed. <br /><br />It's sort of like moving from paper and pencil computations to excel. If you're handling a bet-the-company case under a pencil/paper regime, you need a lot of lawyers to do the computations, double check the computations, and triple check the computations. Once you move to excel, you still need a few smart lawyers to choose the right program, keep updating, and make sure the calculations make sense. But you don't need armies of associates any more.<br /><br />The point about this technology is that it is only starting to kick in; most of the effects will come on top of the declines we've already seen in the legal job market. Rather than a rebound, I strongly suspect we're in for continuing (and perhaps escalating) declines. I don't say that to be a worry mongerer, but because I think law schools really, really, really need to start thinking about what they are doing. The levels of denial are extraordinary.<br /><br />The 2011 numbers will give some clue about where this is all going. I do hope I'm wrong, in which case we'll probably see those numbers quite quickly. If not, be very, very wary (even more than before) about going to law school.DJMhttp://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=38noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-311712350844013432012-02-12T16:58:25.437-08:002012-02-12T16:58:25.437-08:00@ 4:49
Nope, life is too short.@ 4:49<br /><br />Nope, life is too short.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-81459601476591679612012-02-12T16:49:51.292-08:002012-02-12T16:49:51.292-08:00"ome of the threads discussing problem of rel..."ome of the threads discussing problem of relying on just self- reports of employment and salaries. There were other discussions, including one in the context of why more people fail to report, or report employment, but not salaries. "<br /><br />Please quote and link to the relevant comments. TIA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-57932750909918891302012-02-12T16:00:27.140-08:002012-02-12T16:00:27.140-08:00DJM - when you do that study of law school pay rep...DJM - when you do that study of law school pay reporting and medians - it would be tremendously interesting if you could compare it with BLS data. Despite a lot of the complaints, BLS pay data is pretty reliable since it uses tax reporting to gather it. There has long seemed to me to be a clear mis-match between BLS data and law school data<br /><br />MacKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-76920608654277019582012-02-12T15:51:10.020-08:002012-02-12T15:51:10.020-08:00"got blasted""got blasted"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-87591601223475132152012-02-12T15:51:08.884-08:002012-02-12T15:51:08.884-08:00@3:30 PM
I am not denying that GW places some of ...@3:30 PM<br /><br />I am not denying that GW places some of its graduates at firms making $160,000 - it is strong in IP. But (and since IP is a lot of what I do I can say this) a MEDIAN salary of $160,000 given that this is the top of the scale, and a round number, is implausible - a mode might just be plausible since even say 10-20% getting into such firms would tend to coincide at $160,000 - but you know, the mode can be just two if every other number has just one graduate on it. Getting the same number 3 years running, look out for falling pig-shit!<br /><br />MacKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-23341083007993184282012-02-12T15:50:22.746-08:002012-02-12T15:50:22.746-08:003:30 cont. DJM, the numbers do not look great, but...3:30 cont. DJM, the numbers do not look great, but everyone go blasted in 2009 and 2010. The rebound that is taking place now will not likely bring things back to the crazy days when firms were hiring too many people--everyone paying serious attention knew that what they were doing was not sustainable. It will be interesting to see what the next cycle brings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-72222548719831757062012-02-12T15:36:21.385-08:002012-02-12T15:36:21.385-08:00One more post using GWU's numbers as an exampl...One more post using GWU's numbers as an example. The decline in top-paying jobs, and the way that schools have hidden that, is very important. But perhaps even more important is the decline in both pay and conditions of jobs in the bottom portion of the class at each school. I deliberately use the word "portion" because it may range from less than 10% at the top few schools to almost all the class at the bottom ranking schools.<br /><br />Anyway, I think many law professors blithely assume that, even if the pool of $160,000 jobs is shrinking, that's fine because graduates will be happier working in smaller firms, government, public interest, etc. Many faculty disliked working in Biglaw, so this makes sense to them--and it allows them to continue in their current state of ostrich-like behavior. The faculty don't stop to think that (a) law practice is very hierarchical, so that as GWU's "second sixth" (the ones who used to get top salaries) move down into smaller firms, government, and public interest, the students who used to get those jobs move still further down; and (b) the bottom jobs probably are worse than they were 5 years ago (e.g., many more contract positions).<br /><br />The published statistics, unfortunately, make it even harder to trace the fortunes of these bottom portions of every class. But we can get some clues from GWU's numbers. First, they almost certainly have a program for hiring their own grads. The percentage of grads working in "academia" jumped from 2% in 2008 to 6% in 2009 and 2010.<br /><br />Second, those grads in academia earn very little. Note that GWU doesn't report any of their salaries! This probably means that the grads in academia weren't working full-time. Another little trick of reporting is that schools report part-time employment as "employed" but only include full-time workers in salary calculations. Deceptive, I know.<br /><br />Third, GWU's grads working in public interest earn very little. The percentage in that work has increased just slightly (from 4% to 5%) but only one person reported his salary in 2009 and non reported a salary in 2010!<br /><br />Fourth, it's not clear what GWU's grads in "Business and Industry" do. That percentage has jumped from 7% in 2008 and 8% in 2009 to 14% in 2010. The percentage doubled in just two years? That's worrisome. Especially when you combine that jump with the fact that GWU reports no salary information at all for grads working in Business and Industry. There are more grads in that sector than in either public interest or clerkships, so why not report salary information? It's either not there (embarrassingly low for grads to report, not full-time jobs) or GWU isn't making that public.<br /><br />In sum, we have one quarter of the 2010 class (25%!) in job categories for which there are no salary data. These are the grads in academia (6%), public interest (5%), and business/industry (14%). We must conclude that the salary story (and perhaps job description story) for these grads is very, very grim. We also lack salary data for a significant percentage of grads in private practice; I'm trying to figure out a way to calculate that from the given numbers (although, of course, GWU actually knows that figure).<br /><br />Add to this, finally, that even among the very reduced percentage of 2010 grads reporting salaries, the 25th percentile has dropped markedly--yet another red flag.<br /><br />It's good to be back among the commenters! I've been reading every single day, and agreeing with almost everything I read here, but had stopped posting for a while to deal with some personal stress in my life plus figure out other ways to work on these issues. Those two concerns are still there, but I really enjoy reading even when I don't post--and I try to use info from this site to shape arguments for others. Buchanan, as you can tell, really irritated me to the extreme!DJMhttp://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=38noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-88608394189952477502012-02-12T15:30:34.825-08:002012-02-12T15:30:34.825-08:00Again, I have NO stake in GWU, but this thread is ...Again, I have NO stake in GWU, but this thread is making it sound as if it is rare for anyone from there to get jobs in big firms. I just looked at the Skadden site and the Covington site just to see whether I would find any GW graduates there. After reading the comments, I did not expect to find any-- or just one or two. Skadden has a good number of GW partners and associates, as does Covington where I found quite a few associates, including some in the classes between 2008 and 2011. Maybe GW has problems with its reporting, but this is not a school that has no real access to law firms. There are plenty of places like that. Anytime you have partners at a place, multiple ones, they are going to try to bringtheir people in if it is at all possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-55075047302342681742012-02-12T15:05:38.051-08:002012-02-12T15:05:38.051-08:00Here is a little more probing behind GWU's pos...Here is a little more probing behind GWU's posted numbers. What is the minimum number of graduates that GWU claims earned $160,000 in each of the last three years? Given their claim of a $160,000 median, we look at half the number of reported salaries. <br /><br />So in 2008, GWU says that at least 180 grads were earning $160,000. That's 34% of their graduating class. (I'm looking at the full graduating class for all percentages here, not at the number of employed grads. The more accurate statistic--if we can even use that word here--from an applicant's point of view is the percentage of the full class.)<br /><br />In 2009, GWU reported that at least 163 of their grads earned $160,000. That was just 29% of the class. The drop is hidden by a larger class combined with lower percentages reporting their salaries.<br /><br />Then in 2010, GWU reported that at least 94 of their grads were earning $160,000. That represents just 18% of the graduating class.<br /><br />MacK may be right that all of these numbers are implausible--to get a sense of that, I'd have to calculate the minimum number of grads claimed to be earning $160,000 from a number of other schools (a project I think I will undertake). But the drop--if only it can be revealed to incoming students--should be alarming in itself. The number of graduates earning $160,000 was cut in half over just two years. And, while one-third of GWU's class may have gotten these top-paying jobs in 2008, the percentage now is about one sixth (18%). Kids will still fool themselves about their chance of being in the top sixth, as well as about the longevity of these Biglaw jobs, but suppose that schools disclosed the percentage of their grads earning the top market salary (currently still $160,000) rather than these ridiculous medians? <br /><br />The schools actually know the percentage I'm referring to, because they surely know every $160,000-plus salary in their graduate class--either through student reporting or public availability of those salaries.<br /><br />The published numbers are very deceptive, but even with these partial numbers, there's a pretty dark story to trace. Imagine what the story would like like with more transparent numbers. And it would be very interesting to know if Buchanan, whose post motivated all of this, is aware even of this much info about his students' post-JD employment.DJMhttp://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=38noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-84418809968645451942012-02-12T14:56:41.547-08:002012-02-12T14:56:41.547-08:00Thanks DJM. GWU's stats are indeed an excellen...Thanks DJM. GWU's stats are indeed an excellent illustration of some of the ways in which very partial transparency can be as problematic as no transparency at all.LawProfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-4888562987925537002012-02-12T14:47:10.569-08:002012-02-12T14:47:10.569-08:00Welcome back, DJM. Nice to see you here again!Welcome back, DJM. Nice to see you here again!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-70369885302960894122012-02-12T14:44:16.135-08:002012-02-12T14:44:16.135-08:00I hope that Orin Kerr is reading. Your school suc...I hope that Orin Kerr is reading. Your school sucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-6995302175837083622012-02-12T14:27:34.739-08:002012-02-12T14:27:34.739-08:00The going rate for first-year associate jobs at V1...The going rate for first-year associate jobs at V100 firms in NY, DC, LA, Chi, Boston, and other big cities is 160K. Those firms do the bulk of the associate hiring. Go to NALP Directory, do a search for firms in NYC or DC and just browse the profiles to see that they almost all pay 160K and the firms that are at 145K in those markets usually have very small summer classes. Obviously getting a 160K or even 145K job from GW is rare, but to say that 160K is rare for a first-year biglaw associate in DC is just wrong.bored3Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-79283830725209039182012-02-12T14:14:50.300-08:002012-02-12T14:14:50.300-08:00Just for fun, here are some of the ways we can tea...Just for fun, here are some of the ways we can tease apart GWU's statistics (looking now at GWU's own website)--slanted though they are:<br /><br />1. The percentage of grads employed in jobs requiring a JD has dropped from 87.8% for 2008 grads to 81.4% in 2010. That's a substantial decline.<br /><br />2. GWU does not disclose either the number of grads it hired or the number working in part-time jobs, statistics that some other schools now report--and that are well known trends. This should be a red flag for students considering GWU: Distrust sites that don't provide this information. This is especially true because the school-based and part-time jobs sometimes require bar passage. <br /><br />3. The percentage of students obtaining law firm jobs declined precipitously between 2008 grads and 2010 ones: From 66% of those employed to 45% of those employed. Or to be a little more stark, from 64% of the 2008 graduating class to 42% of the 2010 graduating class. That's a decrease of more than a third! <br /><br />4. The percentage of students reporting salaries has declined even more precipitously. In 2008, 68% of the class reported salaries; in 2009, 58% did; and in 2010, only 37% did. Even the 2008 number is worrisome for reasons that have been discussed on this blog, but the drop raises a very big red flag of its own. Salaries almost certainly declined during these years, leading to lower and lower reporting. Combined with that, grads probably were taking more marginal jobs for which GWU had no ready salary info--and no incentive to collect that info. Another explanation is that GWU progressively pissed off its graduating classes, so that they refused to fill out forms--as an applicant, I'd want to know about that. But given other facts we know, it's very likely that a decline in reported salaries tracks significant declines in the salaries and jobs themselves. <br /><br />Another mark against GWU here is that they publish *numbers* reporting salary, rather than percentages, which tends to mask the dramatic decline. <br /><br />I have a few other thoughts along the same lines, but have to go for now. I wanted to share these ideas because LST, LawProf, and some others have done some excellent work unmasking the bleak employment story behind the published numbers. The first priority is getting full, honest numbers. But teasing the dark side out of the current, misleading stats can also help current applicants.DJMhttp://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=38noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-50513596847279806132012-02-12T13:53:51.831-08:002012-02-12T13:53:51.831-08:00DJM -
Thanks for that point - I did not actually...DJM - <br /><br />Thanks for that point - I did not actually look behind the numbers at the TLS site - too busy trying to catch up on an overload of work. I see you point - but even given the small sample responding the $160,000 median number does not make sense - it cannot be.<br /><br />MacKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com