Law School Employment Data Under Fire

A National Jurist story examines the omission, misrepresentation and manipulation of some law schools’ law grad work statistics.  The story says:

“U.S. News changes rankings to avoid manipulation over employment data.  But critics argue that the data is ‘junk’ to begin with and change is needed.  ‘It’s clear that more law schools have decided whether to report their graduation employment based on how their actual percentage will compare to the estimate U.S. News will make for them,’ wrote Robert Morse [Director of Data Research at U.S. News]  . . .  . Morse said that 74 law schools did not report their at-graduation employment, up from 38 … in 2005.”

Back to School?

Roger Simon, author of a critique of higher education called “Tenured Radicals” has a post about the upcoming burst of the higher education bubble.  Four years at America’s so-called “top colleges” (Harvard, Yale & Princeton) now cost over $200,000 in tuition alone.  Add room, board, books and incidentals and the total for four years at these schools is $250,000 – $300,000.  How is it possible that schools can charge such high tuition and why are there suckers parents and students willing to pay such outrageous amounts?

“the housing bubble resulted from about a 4-time increase in home prices between 1978 and 2006, and college tuition has now increased by more than twice that amount since 1978 —  it’s gone up by more than a factor of ten times.”

See also Michael Baron’s story in the Washington Examiner called “Higher education bubble poised to burst.”

Are Law School Faculties Part of the Problem with Legal Education?

Wall St. Journal:  “It’s often struck us as an obvious question: how can law schools provide better real-world training to students when their faculties are made up of article-writing academics? The answer: they can’t, at least according to a new article called “Preaching What They Don’t Practice: Why Law Faculties’ Preoccupation with Impractical Scholarship and Devaluation of Practical Competencies Obstruct Reform in the Legal Academy.”  Here’s the abstract of the article:

“In response to decades of complaints that American law schools have failed to prepare students to practice law, several prominent and respected authorities on legal education, including the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, recently have proposed significant curricular and pedagogical changes in order to bring American legal education into the twenty-first century. It will not be possible to implement such proposed curricular and pedagogical reforms if law schools continue their trend of primarily hiring and promoting tenure-track faculty members whose primary mission is to produce theoretical, increasingly interdisciplinary scholarship for law reviews rather than prepare students to practice law. Such impractical scholars, because they have little or no experience in the legal profession and further because they have been hired primarily to write law review articles rather than primarily to teach, lack the skill set necessary to teach students how to become competent, ethical practitioners. The recent economic recession, which did not spare the legal profession, has made the complaints about American law schools’ failure to prepare law students to enter the legal profession even more compelling; law firms no longer can afford to hire entry-level attorneys who lack the basic skills required to practice law effectively. This essay proposes significant changes in both faculty composition and law reviews aimed at enabling law schools to achieve the worthy goals of reformists such as the Carnegie Foundation. “

The author, Brent Evan Newton, adjunct Georgetown law professor, says:

Especially at law schools in the upper echelons of the U.S. News & World Report rankings, the core of the faculties seem indifferent or even hostile to the concept of law school as a professional school with the primary mission of producing competent practitioners.”

How Debt Can Destroy a Budding Relationship

I’ve said many times that one of the problems that arises from running up large student loan debt is that the debt can scare off prospective marriage partners.  A lot of single people do not want to marry a person who has $100,000, $150,000, $200,000 or more in school loans that will require a lifetime to repay.  For many, marrying into a big school loan debt means the couple may never be able to qualify for a home loan – the school loans replace a thirty year mortgage.

The New York Times has a article on the sad, but all too common topic.  The article is “How Debt Can Destroy a Budding Relationship.”  The article is a must read for everybody who is contemplating going into big debt to pay for school.

“At a time when even people with no graduate degrees . . . often end up six figures in the hole and people getting married for the second time have loads of debt from their earlier lives, it should come as no surprise that debt can bust up engagements.”

Go to Top