Number of 2010 Columbia and NYU grads who the National Law Journal confirmed were working in such jobs nine months after graduation:
No more than 448 (the real number is lower to the extent that any grads in associate track positions at NLJ250 firms were working at firms of less than 251 attorneys).
Total number of missing BigLaw jobs represented by these numbers:
(At least) 107
Explanation given by the two schools for this discrepancy to New York Post reporter Christine Parker when she requested one:
Comparable numbers of missing BigLaw jobs at other top ten law schools:
Number of 2010 NYU grads employed by the law school nine months after graduation, i.e., during the NALP employment reporting window:
Monthly salary of these jobs:
Average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan:
Number of 2010 Fordham law school graduates employed by the law school nine months after graduation:
Number of 2010 Columbia Law School graduates employed by the law school nine months after graduation:
Unknown "While Columbia acknowledged that it offers fellowships to students seeking employment, the school
I'll say this for Columbia: the place doesn't lack for chutzpah. When it comes to fundraising they probably use NSA data bases to secure their alums' cellphone numbers and GPS nanotechnology to track their exact locations, but somehow the answer to the question of the exactly the extent to which they're fluffing their "98%" employment number with law school-created "jobs" remains a deep and abiding mystery, even when one of the nation's largest newspapers (as opposed to a mere blogger) asks them point blank.
Speaking of which, at least NYU has disclosed -- when asked to do so by a large newspaper -- that it was employing eight per cent of its own graduates during the NALP reporting window. It thus joins UVA (11%) as the only other top ten school to reveal this fascinating number.
The Fordham number is the kind of thing that should get even students currently still within the 1L bubble stirred up. Simple math suggests that current Fordham law students are paying about a thousand bucks apiece to fund essentially fictitious jobs for Fordham grads, to fluff up the school's employment rate. (No doubt this money is for accounting purposes coming out of the sort of discretionary slush fund that sloshes around deans' offices, rather than directly from student tuition. But money is fungible).
And what's up with Harvard's BigLaw placement? While the discrepancy in its numbers isn't nearly as egregious as that at Columbia and NYU -- percentage-wise it's about a third as large -- it's still big enough that a nascent Woodward and Bernstein at the Crimson could find a worse use of their time than trying to look into it.
BTW some commenters responding to the original thread on this topic assumed I was accusing Columbia and NYU of intentionally cooking their numbers. I didn't and I'm not. What I'd like to know is why one out of every five BigLaw jobs that Columbia and NYU reported to NALP in 2010 has gone missing in the NLJ stats. There are lots of possible explanations for this that don't include outright fraud by the schools themselves (For instance one possibility is that unusually large percentages of Columbia and NYU grads are taking new non-partner track associate positions, which the NLJ doesn't count when surveying firms).
Simply refusing to answer the question, however, isn't a very good way of getting people to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Deep Throat ca. 2012: Follow the [student loan] money.ReplyDelete
Great job, keep shining that magnificent spotlight on them.
"even when one of the nation's largest newspapers (as opposed to a mere blogger) asks them point blank"ReplyDelete
Perhaps, not being from New York, you are unfamiliar with the work and reputation of the New York Post (and the other members of the Murdoch media empire).
To quote Francis Xavier Slatterly from 25th hour:ReplyDelete
"Fuck the Times, I read the Post."
Thank you so much for all of the work you're doing. I think you've been instrumental in an ongoing sea-change in how the public views the entire enterprise of law school (absent you, I don't think we'd see--as we did today--the class action schools suit as front-page news on the NY Daily Metro handed out for free at all the city's subway stations!) I also wanted to thank you for addressing the LSAT in a recent post; it's at the heart of the ratings system which is itself a key driver of the entire scam.
It'd be great if you could do a feature on alternatives to law school -- I see a lot of commenters talking about the foolishness of people who've done history or poli-sci undergrads and then want to go to law school to get a job, but disdain isn't enough to discourage these people from these pursuits (nor does it help all those folks who've already got the history degree...). It might be of great use if there were something to point to as other paths to a middle-class lifestyle and a decent amount of prestige for people who are very bright but aren't drawn to engineering or medicine or the Ivy-Goldman Pipeline.
Keep up the good work!
A thank you again to Prof. Campos for his work. It's enormously helpful in the optics of these articles for the reporter to be able to write "but some legal academics question..." The optics and message are much stronger coming from a law prof - plus, the NYU/Columbia missing jobs is (potentially) a very big deal.ReplyDelete
Great post, LawProf. Maybe those 107 jobs were lost in the couch cushions, the way one sometimes misplaces a cell phone or $5 bill.ReplyDelete
You are getting into heaven Mr. Campos.ReplyDelete
Thank you for doing God's work!
What are the chances of recovery for someone who graduated in 2002? Could an argument be posited that 'the fraud' was recently discovered [in NY to say otherwise would be a basis for failure to satisfy the SOL]? Clearly, this (fraud) has been going on for a looooooooong time.ReplyDelete
I really think you should write a book about your findings. Of course, most of the information you have presented has already been talked about before, but you have a wonderful way of convincing your readers of the absurdity that is the law school scam. I'd certainly buy it.
While I, too, am reluctant to believe outright fraud is involved I have yet to see an explanation that is not either:ReplyDelete
1. Wildly implausible, such as that 100 NYU & CU grads (and no one else) dropped out in the few months between the reporting deadlines for the two surveys (perhaps they were kidnapped by pirates on the Hudson River ferry.); or
2. Literally true but misleading, such as counting temps, doc reviewers, part timers etc
The NLJ didn't "confirm" anything about BigLaw job placement. I'm surprised you accept their stats at face value, given your suspicions about all other data sources. The simple fact is that a significant number of BigLaw firms do NOT respond to the NLJ survey question about first-year associate hiring.ReplyDelete
Thanks to the honorable efforts of Law Prof and others, the job placement stats are getting better-- but the law schools are still puffing in various ways.ReplyDelete
One thing that bothers me, on the law schools' new and improved employment data stats, is the category of "JD Preferred"-- See e.g.
Washington and Lee Law asserts that 23 of its 123 law grads from the class of 2010 were employed, nine months out, in a "JD Preferred" job (as opposed to a JD required job)
Rutgers-Camden Law asserts that 28 or its 288 law grads from the class of 2010 were employed, nine months out, in a "JD Preferred" job.
Does the category of "JD Preferred" exist in reality, or just in the scamming imagination of career services deans? Many in the scamblog movement assert--and I believe as well-- that white collar nonlegal employers rarely, if ever, "prefer" a JD. Rather, they consider it to be a degree that represents elite expectations, but no skills whatsoever.
Columbia law school has an unusually low number of graduates employed in smaller firms (2-100 attorneys). Could these graduates have been "mis-coded" into the wrong size firms?ReplyDelete
8:06: Per the NLJ very few firms don't report their numbers in regard to associate hiring. For those firms, the NLJ does its own reporting, which is fairly simple to do via firm web sites. In addition, the NLJ asks individual schools for information regarding how many grads obtained jobs at those few firms that do not report their numbers, and cross-checks this against the info published by the firms themselves.ReplyDelete
Again, you ignore that the numbers basically zero out for all other elite law schools (with the interesting exception of HLS).
8:12: Columbia's numbers in that regard are not unusual. Very few graduates of elite schools go to firms of less than 100 attorneys.ReplyDelete
Small schools for the win, apparently.ReplyDelete
I, too, find the disdain for history/poli sci and other liberal arts majors disheartening. Everyone has to major in "STEM" fields to get jobs! So, 20-30 years from now, we will have a populace that understands nothing of history or the political system, can't write a coherent sentence, and doesn't have any interest in the arts. Then there will be no questioning or rebellion against whatever the powers that be want to with our political system. How convenient.ReplyDelete
In 2010, about 9% of Chicago law graduates went to work in smaller firms (2-100). Only 3% of Columbia graduates went to work at smaller firms according to their statistics. That seems like a significant difference.ReplyDelete
Saw the same thing this morning. There were literally thousands of NYC Daily Metro newspapers littering the subway featuring the law school scam right on the cover. I wonder what your average Brooklyn Law School schlep paying 70 grand a year and carrying heavy casebooks for a dead end degree will think of this? Not that your average BLS professor or administrator would know anything about this, as most of them haven't stepped foot inside of a subway car in the past 15 years. In fact, Joan Wexler used to have a customized garage on Boerum Place that she used to pull her Mercedes into on the days that she would show up to "work," made it that much easier to avoid the riff raff.ReplyDelete
@8:06 / LawProf - Also, the NLJ doesn't have an incentive to lie or obfuscate the truth regarding employment numbers. Law schools obviously have that perverse incentive. Hence the reduced need for skepticism.ReplyDelete
8:47: Chicago's numbers made a big jump in 2010 in that regard. If you look at the previous two years, around 3%-4% of grads were employed in firms of less than 100 lawyers (comparable to Columbia's and NYU's reported rates). Of course that jump in itself is significant.ReplyDelete
Duke also placed over 10% of it's 2010 graduates in smaller firms (2-100).ReplyDelete
The New York Post is one of America's largest newspapers in the same way that Cooley is America's largest law school.ReplyDelete
looks like the law school scam hit the Metro (the free paper)ReplyDelete
Law Schools Accused of Inflating Job Prospects
8:40: A good STEM program will include training in technical writing, how to read articles, studies, and reports. No, it won't be fluffing about Shakespeare or Melville, but to act like STEM majors are illiterate is hugely insulting to people who made a smarter decision than most law school students (my decision to become a history major came down to questions like: how can I do the least work, drink a lot, sleep through class, and still get a decent GPA?.)ReplyDelete
The K-12 schools should be teaching students how to write anyway. They should also be teaching them the basics of history and political science (why is civics not a required course in public high schools anymore?)
And the arts (I'm assuming you mean theater, paintings of cans in different colors, and classical music as opposed to the drivel us proles watch and listen to) have always been the province of the rich and upper-middle class. If the younger generation rapidly loses wealth, the "arts" will suffer as a result.
And I still see ways students can learn about history and political science outside of a 4 year degree program in a STEM heavy society- attending interesting night classes at the hopefully widely expanded, low-cost community college system, visiting the local library, or listening to online lectures provided by universities with $10 billion, tax-free endowments. Ok, I'm dreaming with the first and last ideas, but I still think that people who care about those things will find a way to learn about them.
To expand further on a comment someone made in another thread...ReplyDelete
1. There aren't enough jobs
I think the first chart presented in the above article should be a standard part of the argument....and it is not just for law school. Look at how much higher Tuition prices compare to Inflation....and look how close the rise in home prices was compared to inflation (even with the famous bubble!), as opposed to the huge difference between Tuition and Inflation
re LawProf response to 8:06 AM:ReplyDelete
Actually, no. A *LOT* of firms don't answer the associate hiring question for NLJ. And MOST firms don't list associates until they've been ADMITTED to the bar - which can take 9 mos. to 1.5 year after hiring. So, NLJ can't just troll the firm web sites and get an accurate count. And NLJ can ask schools to verify numbers, but all a school can legally do is tell NLJ generally where numbers may be off because of FERPA (heard of it?) -- otherwise, they would be (a) releasing personally identifiable info about students or (b) ticking off law firms who made the decision not to disclose the info to NLJ.
And to 8:49 AM response to 8:06 AM:
If you are so naive as to think LawProf has no incentive for -- how did he put it? --"intentionally cooking" the numbers in reports by decreeing which numbers have validity and which don't based solely on HIS opinions and suspicions, then I have some lovely land to sell you near the Amundsen Sea.
10:56: You aren't dealing with the inconvenient fact that CLS and NYU are the only schools that have a serious mismatch between their NALP numbers and the NLJ numbers (HLS has a mismatch but to nowhere near the same extent).ReplyDelete
On top of that do you really think CLS and NYU would let the NLJ understate how many of their grads big firms hire by 20%? Prospective students pay close attention to the NLJ list.
Also, what's your basis for the claim that "a LOT" of firms don't answer the associate hiring question? My source is the NLJ's editors: what's yours?
This is a great line of inquiry. A minor quibble: the point about "Average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan: $3000" is a bit much. Presumably it's not too much to ask 25 year-olds to get a roommate, live in a studio, move to Brooklyn, or all of the above.ReplyDelete
@10:56 -- naïveté is a continuing theme here...ReplyDelete
@10:56 (8:49 here) - Last time I checked, LawProf doesn't have any advertising on this site. LawProf has no economic incentive to lie, unlike law schools. Life is all about making choices and living with consequences. I've made my choice regarding who is telling the truth. Thousands of 0Ls will make their choice based on unaudited or verified numbers provided by law schools. I wish them the best of luck in resolving the life-altering consequences of that action.ReplyDelete
10:56: I'm a current CLS student. I have an incentive to inflate my school's employment numbers to make us look good. I'm wondering why CLS and NYU have such a large disparity and other "peer" schools do not. The fact that this is a question at all and the school refuses to give an explanation either suggests 1) they do not know why, 2) they know, it's bad, and they don't want to tell, 3) they don't really give a shit. All of those don't really fit in with CLS's reputation as an Elite Law School where every graduate goes on to do Very Big Things. They do fit in with my experiences at the law school and with this administration.ReplyDelete
Anyone from CLS or NYU who is trolling this site doing damage control needs to get off the internet and go find out what happened to the c/o 2010. Then figure out how you can stop it from happening to 2013 and on. You're supposed to be Elite Law School Admins, after all.
I was thinking the same thing. Otherwise a great article though.
With regard to Harvard, is it possible some of their students had their offers rescinded prior to starting? Also, it's possible some of their grads were deferred by their firms. The students probably listed their firm when they filled out their info as 3L's and found out they were deferred later on and never updated.
Bored 3L: Your first explanation, they don't know, doesn't wash (to use an expression people at Elite Law Schools used to use). You see, they know who their graduates are and what they reported. Almost a year after graduation that information can be cross checked against law firm web sites, press releases and client announcements (which most firms post), bar directories etc. If they don't know its because they don't want to know.ReplyDelete
@ Bored3L 10:31ReplyDelete
The comment you're responding to is hyperbolic & overly emotional, but you're not much better off on that score:
STEM majors are... people who made a smarter decision than most law school students (my decision to become a history major came down to questions like: how can I do the least work, drink a lot, sleep through class, and still get a decent GPA?.)
I'm sorry you made such a poorly-thought-out decision -- personally, as a non-lawyer employed in a technical field, I chose a history major because of the fascinating subject matter & intellectual rigor -- but talking about how green the grass is in STEM-world isn't fixing anything. Maybe studying engineering would be a better move for any individual student, but there are not & never will be that many STEM jobs. And if we had a lot more STEM grads, it'd just drive down the pay and cause more STEM unemployment.
The job market right now is like playing musical chairs: "just be faster" might be a winning strategy for an individual, but the only way to improve the outcome for everyone is to change the nature of the game.
I meant it when I asked for advice for the liberal-arts majors: if you're in a position where taking your shot at the law school craps game seems like the only hope for a middle-class life and a modicum of prestige, then transparency can't fix it; you take whatever shot you can get, even if the odds are terrible. I'd love to know what, realistically, to tell law school applicants as an alternative. I would love to discourage people from being lawyers, but they have to be something other than secretaries. Is that really all there is?
On a separate point,
(why is civics not a required course in public high schools anymore?)
Mainly budget cuts, and also it tends to give kids inappropriate ideas about being part of a community and having the power to effect political outcomes contrary to the interests of the ruling moneyed classes...
This is good work law prof. As I've said many times, law school transparency isn't just about the lower tier schools promising 99% employment, when it's really more like 25%. It's also about top schools promising 99% employment, when it's really more like 75% or even 50%.ReplyDelete
Applicants need honest information so they can make the right choice between (a) the decision to go to law school and (b) the decision to pay for a higher ranked school vs. taking a scholarship at a low ranked school.
Yes, Bored 3L, art is only for the rich. Van Gogh was rich. William Shakespeare was rich. What are you talking about?ReplyDelete
I guess you've proved your point that liberal arts majors can also be intellectually incurious and culturally dead inside. I stand corrected. Well done.
1:37: Everyone can enjoy art. Everyone does enjoy art in some form or another, just not the art you seem to be concerned about. That kind of art relies on the rich (and on the federal government) for financial support.ReplyDelete
And the idea that going to state school and majoring in political science or sociology and then suddenly you appreciate fine art is just ludicrous. You can do that on your own time. Intellectual curiosity is something you can have without four years and tens of thousands of dollars.
So American -- book learnin' in some darn thang called college ain't worth it.ReplyDelete
1:05: My advice for most liberal arts grads is to go to a low-cost a college as possible (this usually means state school) and immediately start looking for work while in school (this usually means going in a populated area, not the rural land grant college campuses). Try to get in on the ground floor of a business or company and work your way up. Build a resume and some skills. Many of my friends who worked during college returned to those same jobs in retail after graduation and are now working full-time for places that were willing to hire them without a college diploma. People are trying to "jump the line" by getting shinier degrees that the other guy. This may make sense for an individual student but the model is unsustainable.ReplyDelete
When speaking to HS students I stress that there are alternatives to college. You could start working out of HS. You could go into the military. You could go into a vocational or technical program. My cousin started working at a big box retail store when he was 16. A decade later he's now the manager of a regional distribution center. His company paid for him to get a degree. He may not have impressed many people along the way but his family is now comfortably middle class and he has skills that could translate even if he loses his job.
So elitist- only people who spend four years in assisted living for post-high school grads are capable of intellectual curiosity and cultural appreciation.ReplyDelete
Since you have such strong opinions on anyone being "stupid" enough to study anything that isn't science-based, it's kind of curious that you are throwing your life away in law school, Bored3L. Why not drop out and go to school for engineering instead? You'll surely make enough money to pay back all your law school debt doing that anyway, according to your claims, right?ReplyDelete
In Re arts education:ReplyDelete
see, the sad thing about a guy like you is in fifty years you're gunna start doing some thinkin' on your own, and you're gunna' come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and, two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
Their are other options besides science/engineering and the liberal arts. Business, accounting, actuarial science, to name a few.ReplyDelete
Why don't I drop out? Because I'm a 3L at a T6 school with a pretty good LRAP who had a big scholarship. If I go back to college I will be 200K in the hole 5 years from now and that will take me another 10 years to pay off after that. Now, I can graduate 100K in the hole and have that paid off in 10. Does my situation apply to most law students?
Not if you went to one if those inexpensive colleges you recommend to other people. They do not cost 50k per year.ReplyDelete
Um, yeah, I think quite a few students are graduating with similar levels of debt (100k). But I'm sure you will be the one to grab that brass ring. I guess it's one more instance of "do as I say, not as I do." You got to pursue your interests and passions; now everyone else should sign up for a lifetime of drudgery doing something they hate (so you can get the jobs they would have competed with you for?).ReplyDelete
2:40: Law school is not an "interest and passion" of mine. It is a means to an end. Based on my available options 3 years ago, my LSAT/GPA and my skill set/academic profile I thought I could make a go in law.ReplyDelete
2:35: 100K law school debt + (25K cheap school tuition, fees, living expenses per year * 4)
You ought to be able to do better than 25k per year.ReplyDelete
These numbers have no effect on 0Ls who think that hiring is better now and will continue to improve. These 0Ls won't be doing OCI for a couple of years. These 2010 associates did OCI in 2008. So the idea is that these revised numbers are low for the current economy.ReplyDelete
Where are the 2011 numbers? They must be worse, right, or they would be disclosed?
I don't know what to say....
2:58: You're right that it's rather suspicious that nobody seems to be posting 2011 numbers. The NALP reporting deadline was three weeks ago, so . . .ReplyDelete
2:52/2:40/2:35/any other boomers/lawprofs: So let me get this straight.ReplyDelete
Let's say you go to Cooley. You graduate with 150K in debt and no job. You then tell people not to go to Cooley. Then I come along and tell you that you shouldn't tell people not to go to Cooley, since you went to Cooley yourself. Do you see a problem with that?
2:52 here, @Bored3L-- sorry for being snarky. This is a serious issue for you.ReplyDelete
Since reading this site I'm now firmly committed to not donating to my law school even though I do have a good job. Had I received a scholly I might feel differently, but I've already paid more than a lot of other people so I'm not inclined to give more.ReplyDelete
Re LawProf / 3:01 PM:ReplyDelete
It's no mystery about why school's haven't published 2011 data yet. The NALP deadline you mentioned is for voluntary data sharing. Reporting to the ABA is not optional; however, and law schools aren't going to publish anything until they (1) give the ABA the required questionnaire responses by March 15, and (2) receive the official guidelines from the ABA standards committee about what law schools are required to publish. Yes, law schools are still waiting on the latter, which come from a different committee than the questionnaire.
5:12: Thanks for the info.ReplyDelete
RE LawProf 11:03 AM response to 10:56ReplyDelete
No school has a choice about what NLJ reports in its Go-To Law Schools Ranking. No school "lets" them publish something that is wrong, the NLJ just does it -- knowingly.
This was the first year the NLJ even asked schools to review the data they compiled, and this was only after years of schools pointing out discrepancies to NLJ and urging them to simply disclose the number of law firms that do NOT respond to the question about first-year associate hiring.
And yes, I've spoken the NLJ reporter who compiled this year's data (and last year's data, and the data from the year before). And yes I've spoken to the editor (and to a publisher).
Would you like to know their responses? To paraphrase: We know some law firms don't answer this question; tell us the names of the students and the law firms where they work and we'll check it out.
Well, there's a little something called FERPA that makes it impossible for law schools to disclose personally identifiable info like this without express written permission from each individual student. All schools can do is alert NLJ that there's a discrepancy.
NLJ's response (again paraphrasing): Then we'll just go with the numbers as we have them.
If a law firm chooses not to divulge info about their first-year associate hiring, neither schools nor NLJ can change that. What NLJ can do is disclose the number of firms that don't answer the question.
So, since you've got such an "in" with the NLJ editors, you tell me EXACTLY how many law firms did NOT answer the question about first-year associate hiring.
Bored3L, 2:40 here. I'm neither a Boomer nor a law prof. I graduated 11 years ago, which to you probably makes me seem extremely old anyway. But your last post made me really sad so I'm sorry for beating up on you. I can't imagine choosing and sticking to a career because I thought that was the only viable option, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. I chose my undergrad major and the practice of law because that was what I really wanted to do at the time. I considered a number of things (library school, getting a Ph.D in poli sci and teaching or working at a think tank, working on capitol hill, etc.) and chose law because I really did have a passion for it. Of course, I didn't know what the practice of law was actually like, and was naive. But I can't imagine sticking all the way through law school because I really thought I had no other options. That's really depressing!ReplyDelete
5:26: Given that Columbia and NYU know (or should know if they have minimally competent OCS personnel) how many of their 2010 grads had partner track associate positions with NLJ firms nine months after graduation, the schools could have issued a simple correction of the published NLJ numbers if they're actually wrong. There's nothing in FERPA that would interfere with a school doing this.ReplyDelete
I don't know EXACTLY how many firms didn't respond to the NLJ survey, but neither do you. That didn't stop you from implying you did, however.
Again, why do CLS's and NYU's numbers vary wildly with the NLJ numbers, when just about everybody else's match up almost exactly? You won't respond to that question, either because, as a current Columbia student pointed out earlier in this thread, you don't know the answer (which is unlikely), you know the answer but don't want to reveal it, or you just don't care enough to figure out whether 50% or 70% of your grads are getting big firm jobs.
@5:12, I don't think that's a complete explanation. The ABA requires the schools to publish certain information, but that's just a floor. Schools can choose to publish other information on their websites, and they frequently do. Many schools currently report on their websites 2010 job outcomes "as reported to NALP in February 2011." Those schools now have 2011 job outcomes "as reported to NALP in February 2012." If they wanted to update their websites to reflect those 2011 numbers, they certainly could.ReplyDelete
In fact, if the 2011 numbers were better than the 2010 ones, I think schools would hasten to make those changes. Why leave outdated, poor numbers on the site if you have more recent, better ones? Especially when 0Ls are visiting the school and deciding whether to plunk down tuition money?
The absence of 2011 data may stem partly from inertia. But I think it's also consistent with the only 2011 information that has been publicly released so far: the NLJ 250 information. Two weeks ago, the NLJ reported that hiring dipped still further in 2011 at big firms. If individual schools can reassure admitted students that their own 2011 numbers held even (or improved) compared to 2010, I think we will start seeing those numbers.
The absence of those numbers suggests that the NLJ 250 may be a bellwether for the rest of the market.
@5:26, speaking as a CLS alum, I think your protests are counterproductive. Legitimate questions have been raised about the CLS and NYU numbers; I had seen comments about them on an applicant website even before LawProf noted the issue. CLS and NYU should respond to the questions. No law requires them to do so, but common sense and a desire for transparency should motivate them to do so. They're educators, for goodness's sake; they should be willing to educate potential students and the public about what is going on.ReplyDelete
I have a lot of personal feeling for Columbia Law School: My father was a professor there for more than 40 years; he, my husband, my sister, my father-in-law, and I are all graduates. I've sent an email, as a concerned alum, to the current Dean of Career Services. In that email, I ask her to explain to alumni and others why the discrepancy occurred. I think that's the kind of question alumni, potential students, and others are entitled to ask. If my father were still alive, I know that he--as a faculty member--would ask as well.
Oh.....those tickly Tickles!
DJM: At least one Columbia Law student thanks you for your efforts on behalf of us. This administration is arrogant to the point of being counterproductive. Instead of trying to engage alumni with more than just a pitch for donations (like maybe considering hiring one or two CLS grads) they refuse to engage with us on any level. Perhaps action by alumni might make them sing a different tune.ReplyDelete
In New York it can take quite a while to get admitted to the bar. You don't have to submit your character and fitness materials some time after you pass the bar exam. And then it takes a few more months before you actually get sworn in.ReplyDelete
I myself was not sworn in until nearly 3 years after I took the New York bar.
Perhaps that explains some of the discrepancy.
A disturbing look at how some of those with legal jobs practiced in JP Morgan Chase's Credit Card litigation department. This is what law has become?ReplyDelete
A lot of us unemployed attorneys probably would've loved to have landed there (it's probably where the missing Columbia and NYU graduates went and being the model of ethics and decency, the schools were too embarrassed to admit this.)
I wonder how many new and low level attorneys just took the money and looked the other way, happy to have a job.
This is just disgusting. If I didn't have my loans, I'd probably give up on law altogether.
I graduated from law school 15 or so years ago and still practice in a law firm as a partner. Tuition seemed awfully expensive then, but the numbers now make me ill. Until I came to this site, I also did not realize the extent of the cynical games that schools play with scholarships.ReplyDelete
I [stupidly] paid full-freight tuition and have never given to my law school. I overpaid as it was. Seeing the information on this site has led me to encourage others not to donate too. Anyone who donates money to a law school is a fool. I cannot think of a less worthy cause.
What data are you using as your reference point here? Are you using the graduates employed at firms of 250 attorneys or more category typically used in school employment statistics or some other dataset? This is a relevant question in all respects as there are NLJ250 firms that do not have 250+ attorneys.ReplyDelete
Your data is starting to make future law students worried:ReplyDelete
If enough people start talking about this, Columbia and company will have to say something.
NYU says you're doing it wrong, Paul:ReplyDelete
At first blush, GULC's stats look pretty recession-proof. Everybody got 160K after graduation as planned, except for a few stragglers in government and academia:ReplyDelete
Despite this, there has evidently been a sudden, unexplained surge of interest in "small to medium" firms, which apparently have yet to reciprocate with offers:
Finally, when the bullshit job they counted you as having for their stats falls through, there is this invaluable resource:
Now, go back to the first link and look at those stats again.
Those that are not familiar with the area will treasure this information above all else, and it will help them enjoy your wedding more thoroughly.ReplyDelete
This is the perfect chance to send a wedding announcement. Out of town guests will feel especially welcome if
you give them special attention at the reception.
Take a look at my blog post :: the knot wedding website amanda isgate and brandon hicks
There are also many reputed facebook fan page design and fan providersReplyDelete
who sell their products for a price. Buy facebook fans are actually referred to now as Facebook, but often are used interchangeably.
One way of looking at the cost of the purchase of fans for fan pages is whether to place an ad, you would have to pay for
My blog ... buy google plus one votes cheap
Also, we need to determine the rounds of the quiz according toReplyDelete
it. At the end of each round read out the cumulative scores.
Her father, Bruce Paltrow, produced the critically acclaimed TV series that is considered the
precursor to many medical shows today, St.
Here is my homepage ... easy pub quiz and answers