One thing I found interesting was a comment from Joanne A. Epps, the dean of Temple University Law School. From the article:
"Temple Law School dean JoAnne A. Epps said she welcomed the additional scrutiny but added that much of the criticism was a result of inadvertent imprecision. She said law schools had been criticized for including graduates with nonlegal jobs in their employment data.
Four or five years ago, when every graduate could find a job as a lawyer, that wasn't a problem, she said, so no one thought to make the distinction. But now, with a smaller legal job market, more graduates are working outside law.
'I think it is perfectly appropriate for people to ask law schools to make sense of the statistics they report. That is a completely fair question,' Epps said."
I never thought I would agree with a law school dean on this blog, but I think Epps has a point. In the past, the distinction between legal and non-legal employment within each category (private sector, public sector, academia) probably mattered much less than it does now. But things changed and it is incumbent upon the law schools to change with the times and report data that gives an accurate picture of the job prospects of their graduates. Hopefully Temple will change with the times and set a better example than its similarly ranked cross-town "rival."
While we are on the subject of Philadelphia and its ridiculously saturated legal market, here is an article (also from the Inquirer) which I missed a few days back. The article claims that, based on a study, Philly area law schools outperform their competitors in terms of number of Big Law partners. Choice quote:
"Philadelphia's strong legal market likely helps the region's schools usher alumni into law firms, Lennon said."
Is there anyone from the Philly area reading this blog willing to comment on the legal market in Philadelphia? My impression is that to call it a strong legal market is a bit of an exaggeration.