Showing posts with label National Jurist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Jurist. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Another day, another misleading study from industry apologists

With everything that has been going on in my life over the past few weeks, I missed this trash when it came out a couple of weeks ago.

If you have been keeping up with the blogs recently, you have seen that we have been inundated with articles and studies pointing out that salaries are falling for new attorneys, and that the legal industry is losing jobs.  You might be surprised to find anyone ballsy enough to pretend that there is good news for recent law graduates.

Enter NaTTTional Juri$t.  This sickening publication should be familiar to all current law students or recent grads.  At my school, there were bins of it all over the place for people to read between classes.  Sandwiched between advertisements for foreign study programs and LLM programs ($$$) you will find the occasional article.  Since I graduated I have not had the misfortune of encountering one of these, but someone passed along this article from the website.  Here's the intro, and it is quite a hook:

"Recent law school graduates on average have more disposable income than they did ten years ago, this despite higher student loan debt and a worsened job market, according to an exclusive study by National Jurist magazine."

Really??  Despite higher student loan debt and a worsened job market, I should have more disposable income than law grads ten years ago???  THERE  IS HOPE!  Tell me more, tell me more... like, can I buy a car?

Not so fast:
"But that is not true for graduates who get jobs at the smallest law firms, or for those underemployed or unemployed. Students entering private practice with a law firm between two and ten attorneys saw an 8 percent decline in standard of living from 1998 — largely because salaries dropped from the Class of 2008 to 2009. But, if the students take advantage of the income-based loan repayment plan that took effect in 2009, their standard of living actually increases by 26 percent." 
So basically their point is this:  if you land a job at a big firm, your standard of living will be significantly higher than similarly placed law graduates ten years ago.  True or not, this issue is moot for the vast majority of recent graduates.  Their second point is that if you work in public interest or government, your standard of living will be a modest 6% better than similarly situated graduates a decade ago.  I am almost willing to believe that. Many schools now have loan repayment options for recent graduates in public service (if you can qualify for them), so it is a possibility.

But the misleading conclusion that the study draws is that recent law graduates in general have more disposable income.  When so many recent law graduates are either unemployed or flipping burgers, how can that possibly be the case?

I do not doubt that the new loan repayment options have helped some people.  But what about the unemployed?  Don't they count?  You can't publish a study that almost completely ignores an entire, substantial demographic and expect to draw anything meaningful from it.  As the NY Times pointed out, the unemployed have become invisible.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Missing the big picture...

Like most current law students, I flip through “The National Jurist” when I'm bored It is usually right there between classes. One of their features is called “Good and Bad.” In this feature the editors name people or institutions who had either a good or bad month and why. Apparently, January was a good month for prospective law students. Before you get too excited, I checked and this does NOT mean that they are shutting down TTTs, lowering tuition, or providing more transparency in employment statistics.

According to the National Jurist, prospective law students had a good month for two reasons: the University of Delaware announced that it hopes to enroll students in a new law school by 2015, and Kaplan is going to open up a law school in Washington, D.C. Because when I think of American cities and metro areas that don't have enough law schools, D.C. is the first city to spring to my mind. And Delaware... while I'm not 100% familiar with the Delaware market, I know that in addition to Widener the Philadelphia area law schools send a fair number of their graduates to Wilmington. So I'm not sensing a huge unmet need for lawyers there.

Neither of these two stories are breaking news, but this is just an example of how out of touch people in the industry really are. Just because it will now be easier for prospective law students to get into law school does not mean that is a good thing for them. So I guess among other things it was a bad month for long term perspective.

In case anyone is curious, it was also a good month for “World Domination” due to the ABA considering accrediting foreign law schools. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

NOTE: I could not find the “Good and Bad” feature online. It could be that it is only in the hard copy of the magazine.