QuoteLaw schools face lawsuits over job-placement claims
By Sylvia Wood, msnbc.com
Adam Bevelacqua graduated from Brooklyn Law School last year with $100,000 in debt but high hopes for his future.
He passed the bar on his first try in New York and had internships to highlight on his resume. And, according to his research, the school's job placement rate for new graduates was between 90 to 95 percent.
But Bevelacqua, 29, is no longer as optimistic.
"I've been looking for work ever since," Bevelacqua told msnbc.com. "The jobs aren't really there."
On Wednesday, Bevelacqua joined 50 other law school graduates from across the country who sued their alma maters, alleging they were misled about job prospects and burdened with huge amounts of student debt.
The 12 lawsuits mark the latest round of litigation against law schools for allegedly misrepresenting their employment data. Last year, similar lawsuits were filed against New York Law School, Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
"We believe that some in the legal academy have done a disservice to the profession and the nation by saddling tens of thousands of young lawyers with massive debt for a degree worth far less than advertised," said David Anziska, a New York City attorney for the plaintiffs in three of the lawsuits filed.
He said the goal was to get law schools "to take responsibility, provide compensation and commit to transparency."
The issue of transparency has gotten national attention beyond the lawsuits.
Last year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. , asked the Department of Education to investigate the "job placement rates of American law school graduates; indicating whether such jobs are full- or part-time positions, whether they require a law degree, and whether they were maintained a year after employment." A call Thursday by msnbc.com to Sen. Boxer's office was not immediately returned.
The American Bar Association has already taken some steps to improve accountability among the law schools it accredits. In January, an ABA committee approved rules that could force law schools to disclose more detailed information about graduate job placement.
A call to the ABA by msnbc.com wasn't immediately returned on Thursday.
Bevelacqua, who lives in Long Island, said he decided to join the lawsuit against Brooklyn Law in hopes of pushing the schools to provide more accurate data, especially as they continue to increase their tuitions and enrollments. The current tuition at Brooklyn Law, not including housing and living expenses, is more than $48,000 annually. "Schools won't take people seriously unless there is an economic threat," he said.
Besides Brooklyn Law, the schools named in the latest round of lawsuits are Albany Law School, Albany, N.Y.; Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, N.Y.; California Western, San Diego, Calif., Golden Gate University, San Francisco; Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, Calif.; University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco; IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago; DePaul University College of Law, Chicago; The John Marshall Law School, Chicago; Florida Coastal School of Law, Jacksonville, Fla.; and Widener University School of Law, in Wilmington, Del.
A spokeswoman at Brooklyn Law told msnbc.com that the school had just gotten the complaint and was unable to comment on it. She did point out employment statistics for the class of 2010, reflected on the school's website, which showed an overall job placement rate of 88.1 percent.
Bevelacqua hopes he'll be sworn into the bar next month, when he plans to start taking cases as a solo practitioner. In the meantime, he's been making ends meet with temporary jobs, including a babysitting job this week that promises to pay him $150.
While he's always wanted to be a lawyer, working on criminal and family court cases, he says he'd tell prospective students think twice before making that investment.
"If they're going to law school because they think it will open up a lot of employment doors for them, " he said, "I'd tell them to forget it."
Yes. Higher Ed is a huge ass bubble, especially in stuff like law because the market's saturated and been satureted for years. Something to think about before tossing in scores of thousands of bucks on a degree.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 03, 2012, 11:05:37 AM
Yes. Higher Ed is a huge ass bubble, especially in stuff like law because the market's saturated and been satureted for years. Something to think about before tossing in scores of thousands of bucks on a degree.
You can't put a price on higher education. :)
Reason 1: Learning in a rigorous, supported educational environment
Reason 2: Socializing and developing a network of friends and contacts
Reason 3: Status
Reason 4: Self-discovery
Reason 5: Attaining a marketable degree and developing earning potential
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/why-go-to-college-at-all
48k? Seriously, america. :shame
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 03, 2012, 11:54:01 AM
48k? Seriously, america. :shame
:mad: Law school professors are hard working middle class Americans.
Hard? :lol:
Law school and other institutional education made Abraham Lincoln into one our greatest Presidents. :mad:
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 03, 2012, 11:57:06 AM
Hard? :lol:
By definition everyone is either a millionaire/billionaire or a hard working middle class American. :)
Quote from: Phillip V on February 03, 2012, 11:46:32 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 03, 2012, 11:05:37 AM
Yes. Higher Ed is a huge ass bubble, especially in stuff like law because the market's saturated and been satureted for years. Something to think about before tossing in scores of thousands of bucks on a degree.
You can't put a price on higher education. :)
Reason 1: Learning in a rigorous, supported educational environment
Reason 2: Socializing and developing a network of friends and contacts
Reason 3: Status
Reason 4: Self-discovery
Reason 5: Attaining a marketable degree and developing earning potential
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/why-go-to-college-at-all
No argument, but it is a ton of money adn shouldn't be dived into without some serious thought. I know people who are 30 something and haven't been out of school since they started First Grade. I think it should be looked at with an aim to supporting oneself after graduation as well as all that other stuff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2012, 11:59:20 AM
By definition everyone is either a millionaire/billionaire or a hard working middle class American. :)
This is true. The definition's ridiculous. I saw that Romney clip talking about how he's not concerned about the very poor. But what I found weird was that he identified the middle class as 90-95% of Americans. Presumably unless you're crippled in the poor house hospice then you're middle class and nothing short of diamonte encrusted private jets counts as rich :blink:
Heh.
Well-timed suits. This is application season.
I just hope they get to discovery.
As I understand, this will not be the last of the class actions. I've seen it reported that Strauss and Anziska intend to sue 20-25 law schools every few months.
For my part, I'm not the most typical graduate you could find and thus not a good representative plaintiff, but if I get bounced by any state's C+F, I intend to sue USC in my individual capacity.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 03, 2012, 11:57:21 AM
Law school and other institutional education made Abraham Lincoln into one our greatest Presidents. :mad:
:D
While I'm sympathetic to Ide and his plight, young people and their choice of higher education generally sucks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2012, 11:59:20 AM
By definition everyone is either a millionaire/billionaire or a hard working middle class American. :)
What about the guys of foodstamps?
I hear ya though. It's the same soundbite over here, except they say hard working families.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2012, 12:03:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2012, 11:59:20 AM
By definition everyone is either a millionaire/billionaire or a hard working middle class American. :)
This is true. The definition's ridiculous. I saw that Romney clip talking about how he's not concerned about the very poor. But what I found weird was that he identified the middle class as 90-95% of Americans. Presumably unless you're crippled in the poor house hospice then you're middle class and nothing short of diamonte encrusted private jets counts as rich :blink:
The issue of class makes we Americans nuts. Basically when we hear class it almost like we think people are talking about bonded peasants and landed aristocrats so essentially everybody who neither of those things is a good middle class American(tm). Oh and even mentioning the word means you are a commie, I believe Santorum said something similar to that when Romney even brought up the middle class.
'We have no classes in America, sir!'
Quote from: Gups on February 03, 2012, 12:43:19 PM
What about the guys of foodstamps?
The elibility requirements for food stamps is pretty freakin low. Plenty of hard working middle class Americans qualify.
They also switched from Monopoly money to a fake credit card so people don't feel register shame.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 12:42:14 PM
While I'm sympathetic to Ide and his plight, young people and their choice of higher education generally sucks.
I started asking around to see what companies needed EE degreed peeps and man...I realized I have no idea WTF I am talking about or doing. Fortunately I still have a couple years out before I have to do this in earnest. We students really have no fucking idea...and worse we do not know we have no fucking idea until we actually start getting serious about employment.
Richland County DSS will fuck with you though. The very first contact I had with their office was a letter informing me I'd missed my interview. :rolleyes:
I've got to refile anyway since my income has changed, and when I move at the end of the month I'll probably be ineligible--I don't know if they'll attribute the income of my friend and his mom to our "household," if I live in their attic, but they might.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2012, 12:55:15 PM
They also switched from Monopoly money to a fake credit card so people don't feel register shame.
Isn't easier to track the money and see what it is being spent on that way? I mean I presume they did it for reasons other than the self esteem of food stampers.
I loved the food stamp monopoly money. THAT'S RIGHT! YOU ARE PAYING FOR MY MICRO MAGIC HAMBURGERS! HA HA!
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 12:56:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 12:42:14 PM
While I'm sympathetic to Ide and his plight, young people and their choice of higher education generally sucks.
I started asking around to see what companies needed EE degreed peeps and man...I realized I have no idea WTF I am talking about or doing. Fortunately I still have a couple years out before I have to do this in earnest. We students really have no fucking idea...and worse we do not know we have no fucking idea until we actually start getting serious about employment.
You are studying Electrical Engineering?
Quote from: Iormlund on February 03, 2012, 01:00:26 PM
You are studying Electrical Engineering?
Yep. Second career. My history degree (and even getting that was a fluke) didn't work out for some reason.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 01:01:42 PM
My history degree (and even getting that was a fluke) didn't work out for some reason.
Huh.
I'm not picking on you Val. :)
History degree? LOL
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 03, 2012, 12:00:26 PMI know people who are 30 something and haven't been out of school since they started First Grade. I think it should be looked at with an aim to supporting oneself after graduation as well as all that other stuff.
My wife is having trouble at work with people like this. They are being super selective about hiring because of the economy, so they're hiring people with more degrees. Problem is, those people have spent so much time in an academic environment, they have no skills with getting things done in the corporate world. Some catch on, and some don't. There has been a bunch of turnover due to this.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 01:03:29 PM
Huh.
I'm not picking on you Val. :)
I know you weren't but I was totally agreeing with you :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 03, 2012, 10:52:59 AM
QuoteA spokeswoman at Brooklyn Law told msnbc.com that the school had just gotten the complaint and was unable to comment on it. She did point out employment statistics for the class of 2010, reflected on the school's website, which showed an overall job placement rate of 88.1 percent.
This is kind of a funny response, because the principal allegation of the complaint is that the job placement rates are misleadingly calculated and reported.
Quote from: The Brain on February 03, 2012, 01:03:58 PM
History degree? LOL
I only ended up with it because I was too emo to finish my senior physics project :blush:
My life really has been nuts since that fateful year. Too long in school had officially driven me insane.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 01:06:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 03, 2012, 01:03:58 PM
History degree? LOL
I only ended up with it because I was too emo to finish my senior physics project :blush:
My life really has been nuts since that fateful year. Too long in school had officially driven me insane.
School sucked.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
This is kind of a funny response, because the principal allegation of the complaint is that the job placement rates are misleadingly calculated and reported.
What is it one of our grads was a law temp for a week so that counts? Or does it even have to be legal work?
I'd rage that this is a sign that our country is way too litigious, but that would seem doubly cruel to the unemployed law grads.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
This is kind of a funny response, because the principal allegation of the complaint is that the job placement rates are misleadingly calculated and reported.
What is it one of our grads was a law temp for a week so that counts? Or does it even have to be legal work?
I don't know what the truth really is but the complaint alleges that they are counting things like non-legal temp work. It also alleges that the reported salary averages are based on a much smaller subet of people.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 12:42:14 PM
While I'm sympathetic to Ide and his plight, young people and their choice of higher education generally sucks.
Assholes going for their MBA straight out of undergrad need to floss their teeth with my ass hair.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 01:05:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 01:03:29 PM
Huh.
I'm not picking on you Val. :)
I know you weren't but I was totally agreeing with you :P
:)
I could see getting a AAS in History at a community college. At ~100/credit hr, you could do that on pell grants alone.
Going to even a state school for 4 years+ for History? Pshaw. Silly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2012, 01:15:15 PM
I don't know what the truth really is but the complaint alleges that they are counting things like non-legal temp work. It also alleges that the reported salary averages are based on a much smaller subet of people.
Well obviously if you are doing temp work you do not have a salary. So in the glorious tradition of misleading statistics it is like:
Here is the total number of grads who are actually working (at all)
Here is the average salary (of our grads who actualy have salaried employment)
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
I could see getting a AAS in History at a community college. At ~100/credit hr, you could do that on pell grants alone.
Going to even a state school for 4 years+ for History? Pshaw. Silly.
I was actually a Physics student I just took lots of HIstory for...um...stupidity? But it turned out to be how I was able to leave school with both a degree and my sanity. Of course the fact I was stupidly taking extra courses was the reason I was losing it in the first place. I took a history course every semester just for a break from the math and science you see.
But in my defense people were always feeding me all this crap about getting a well rounded education or some BS when it should have been: get skills and get a job.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 03, 2012, 01:16:17 PM
Assholes going for their MBA straight out of undergrad need to floss their teeth with my ass hair.
:D
I think the origin of that phenomenon was the boom in banking and finance. The problem was that too many Ivy League high-fliers coming out of college didn't know how to use Excel or run a DCF analysis.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 01:06:57 PM
I only ended up with it because I was too emo to finish my senior physics project :blush:
My life really has been nuts since that fateful year. Too long in school had officially driven me insane.
I hated school so much that I quit after I started working.
I quit school after two years. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 12:56:34 PM
I started asking around to see what companies needed EE degreed peeps and man...I realized I have no idea WTF I am talking about or doing. Fortunately I still have a couple years out before I have to do this in earnest. We students really have no fucking idea...and worse we do not know we have no fucking idea until we actually start getting serious about employment.
Don't I know it. In my last semester and only now feel like I'm getting the picture. Man I wish I had taken some database courses now.
Quote from: Maximus on February 03, 2012, 03:23:10 PM
Man I wish I had taken some database courses now.
:cool:
I hear grumblings sometimes that going to law school isn't a very good investment.
The arguments I usually hear are that a small handful of prestigious law schools are responsible for the overwhelming majority of lawyers that end up making really good money, the rest end up making middle class ($45-80k) a year but with far higher student loan payments than many who can earn similar wages with only a bachelor's degree.
However, at least as I can tell that doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. The BLS reports employment of attorneys is expected to increase 13% over the ten year period 2008-2018, which is about an average rate compared to other occupations. It reports the median income for attorneys in the United States is $110k which is solidly upper middle class, and while not what it used to be breaking six figures isn't easy for many who only have bachelor's degrees, even for accountants and engineers. Accountants median is $60k and with engineers it varies wildly based on type of engineering but none of the subcategories of engineering have median wages over $100,000. So the $110k median earning for an attorney is higher than the best paid jobs out there that require only a bachelor's degree. Since we're talking about median numbers, we also can't say that the numbers are skewed by the small cabal of ultra-wealthy lawyers who graduated highly ranked from the very best schools (since that defies how medians work.)
The only X factor is, the BLS doesn't seem to have good information (any?) on how many new law school graduates there are versus that 13% growth rate in open positions. Nor does it have figures on how many persons who graduate law school can expect to attain permanent, gainful employment as attorneys. Realistically considering the time, effort, and financial costs of going through law school that number better be damn near 100% or there's serious troubles with the value proposition.
The country would be much better off if there were less law school graduates and more humanities graduates.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2012, 03:11:38 AM
The country would be much better off if there were less law school graduates and more humanities graduates.
-_-
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2012, 02:09:21 AM
I hear grumblings sometimes that going to law school isn't a very good investment.
The arguments I usually hear are that a small handful of prestigious law schools are responsible for the overwhelming majority of lawyers that end up making really good money, the rest end up making middle class ($45-80k) a year but with far higher student loan payments than many who can earn similar wages with only a bachelor's degree.
However, at least as I can tell that doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. The BLS reports employment of attorneys is expected to increase 13% over the ten year period 2008-2018, which is about an average rate compared to other occupations. It reports the median income for attorneys in the United States is $110k which is solidly upper middle class, and while not what it used to be breaking six figures isn't easy for many who only have bachelor's degrees, even for accountants and engineers. Accountants median is $60k and with engineers it varies wildly based on type of engineering but none of the subcategories of engineering have median wages over $100,000. So the $110k median earning for an attorney is higher than the best paid jobs out there that require only a bachelor's degree. Since we're talking about median numbers, we also can't say that the numbers are skewed by the small cabal of ultra-wealthy lawyers who graduated highly ranked from the very best schools (since that defies how medians work.)
The only X factor is, the BLS doesn't seem to have good information (any?) on how many new law school graduates there are versus that 13% growth rate in open positions. Nor does it have figures on how many persons who graduate law school can expect to attain permanent, gainful employment as attorneys. Realistically considering the time, effort, and financial costs of going through law school that number better be damn near 100% or there's serious troubles with the value proposition.
The last paragraph of your post imo hits the nail on its head. From anecdotal evidence, many many more law graduates end up working in jobs that are only remotely related to legal work than is the case for, say, accountants or engineers. Many end up working as clerks, public employees, paralegals and the like. Or politicians.
Also, I don't know about cost, but my impression is that time and effort needed to get a law degree is significantly lower than getting a medical or engineer degree. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on February 04, 2012, 04:29:29 AM
Also, I don't know about cost, but my impression is that time and effort needed to get a law degree is significantly lower than getting a medical or engineer degree. :huh:
Untrue regarding engineering. A law degree in the US is another 3 years of school after a 4-year bachelor's degree. An engineer can begin a career with just the bachelor's degree, and even if they get a master's degree that's just another 1 year worth of classes and/or thesis.
The medical degree, of course, takes forever and you have to touch icky things with your hands.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 01:19:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
I could see getting a AAS in History at a community college. At ~100/credit hr, you could do that on pell grants alone.
Going to even a state school for 4 years+ for History? Pshaw. Silly.
I was actually a Physics student I just took lots of HIstory for...um...stupidity? But it turned out to be how I was able to leave school with both a degree and my sanity. Of course the fact I was stupidly taking extra courses was the reason I was losing it in the first place. I took a history course every semester just for a break from the math and science you see.
But in my defense people were always feeding me all this crap about getting a well rounded education or some BS when it should have been: get skills and get a job.
There's something to be said about getting a well-rounded education, especially when roughly 1/3 of the people who graduate college ultimately wind up working in different fields than the field in which they hold their undergraduate degree. OTOH, if there was more focus on acquiring job skills, maybe fewer people would end up working in different fields. And at any rate, if you really want a well-rounded education, you can get an engineering degree and read history, philosophy, etc. as a hobby.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
Going to even a state school for 4 years+ for History? Pshaw. Silly.
Hey now! I actually kinda do work that requires my history degrees.
Quote from: PDH on February 04, 2012, 01:52:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
Going to even a state school for 4 years+ for History? Pshaw. Silly.
Hey now! I actually kinda do work that requires my history degrees.
All Hail PDH The Unique!
:)
Quote from: PDH on February 04, 2012, 01:52:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
Going to even a state school for 4 years+ for History? Pshaw. Silly.
Hey now! I actually kinda do work that requires my history degrees.
By teaching history courses that 90% of those enrolled will not use, and the remaining 10% will use to teach history courses that 90% of those enrolled will not use?
Quote from: ulmont on February 04, 2012, 11:11:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 04, 2012, 04:29:29 AM
Also, I don't know about cost, but my impression is that time and effort needed to get a law degree is significantly lower than getting a medical or engineer degree. :huh:
Untrue regarding engineering. A law degree in the US is another 3 years of school after a 4-year bachelor's degree. An engineer can begin a career with just the bachelor's degree, and even if they get a master's degree that's just another 1 year worth of classes and/or thesis.
The medical degree, of course, takes forever and you have to touch icky things with your hands.
Here engineering is much, much harder than law.
"Hard" isn't necessarily a measure of time. Engineering school here is four years but is undergraduate (starting right after High School.) Becoming a PE is harder and requires extra study after undergraduate. A lot of engineers pick up a master's degree but it isn't "necessary" to be successful in the field, and engineering graduate school is only 2 years.
In total becoming a lawyer here takes around 7 years (I'm going on the assumption you graduate undergraduate in 4 years, though I think the numbers suggest most people take 5 years now), with 4 years undergraduate and 3 years of law school. But the 4 years of undergraduate can literally be complete fluff, you can major in political science, physical education, sports marketing etc and still get into the best law schools, so I wouldn't say that here in the United States law school is "harder" than getting a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, because Mech. Eng takes 4 years of extremely hard classes while law school takes a total of 7 years, three of which are considered very difficult and four of which can be complete fluff.
Law is just make-believe stuff. My unbleached anus can do that shit in its sleep.
As an aside, I'm loving Stanford's Machine Learning course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxYlbK2c7E). If my classes were like that back in the day I might have stayed long enough to complete my degree.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 02:41:17 PM
By teaching history courses that 90% of those enrolled will not use, and the remaining 10% will use to teach history courses that 90% of those enrolled will not use?
10% is a wee bit generous...
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2012, 04:10:04 PM
Law is just make-believe stuff. My unbleached anus can do that shit in its sleep.
The practice of law is one in which you become an expert in extremely arcane rules and regulations, that through the government essentially all persons in a society to some degree have to contend with (creating a guaranteed base of customers who need such experts services.) Further, the arcane rules and regulations are by and large created by practitioners of law, thus insuring they become ever more arcane and thus creating sub-specialties in which persons can command higher fees for being expert in highly arcane rules specialized to certain subsets of the overall rules.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2012, 04:01:56 PM
"Hard" isn't necessarily a measure of time. Engineering school here is four years but is undergraduate (starting right after High School.) Becoming a PE is harder and requires extra study after undergraduate. A lot of engineers pick up a master's degree but it isn't "necessary" to be successful in the field, and engineering graduate school is only 2 years.
In total becoming a lawyer here takes around 7 years (I'm going on the assumption you graduate undergraduate in 4 years, though I think the numbers suggest most people take 5 years now), with 4 years undergraduate and 3 years of law school. But the 4 years of undergraduate can literally be complete fluff, you can major in political science, physical education, sports marketing etc and still get into the best law schools, so I wouldn't say that here in the United States law school is "harder" than getting a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, because Mech. Eng takes 4 years of extremely hard classes while law school takes a total of 7 years, three of which are considered very difficult and four of which can be complete fluff.
I am not sure if you are right that the 3 years of law is really hard. There is a lot of stuff to memorize, sure, but that's not rocket science - most of it is rote memorization. Even a monkey can do it. Compare that to stuff like advanced mathematics where if you don't get it, you don't get it, no matter how much time you spend reading and memorizing the books.
It really depends I suppose. As with most of the service academies, at West Point the engineering program is one of the largest (perhaps largest) on campus, so I went to school with a lot of engineering students. I definitely think a great many lawyers would not have been able to pass their classes. But I also know a lot of the engineers I went to school with had very questionable ability to do things like study past court cases and really understand the arguments and how they could apply to other situations. Which, my understanding is that at least in the U.S. reading past court cases is a huge part of law school. Engineers aren't all reading comprehension deficient, but as with most things stereotypes exist for a reason. A huge portion of the guys I knew who were engineering majors struggled mightily with any class where they had to do extensive writing or research.
I did a science degree in undergrad (geology), and then a law degree.
It's only my own personal experience, but I found that my B.Sc. was much much harder than my LL.B. Like orders of magnitude harder.
I took a law course once (we had to take some non-science courses, I took law and economics). It was a pretty good course btw, I liked it. Completely different subject from the math, quantum physics etc stuff that I did normally.
In law you're right as long as you get some meatbags to agree with you. In science/engineering it's fuck or walk.
Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2012, 07:03:25 PM
I did a science degree in undergrad (geology), and then a law degree.
It's only my own personal experience, but I found that my B.Sc. was much much harder than my LL.B. Like orders of magnitude harder.
Well, I think any of the four true sciences (P/B/C/G) are going to be very hard four year degrees, and I'd bet are definitely harder than law school. But they also don't have anywhere near as many students as engineering undergraduate programs or law programs, mainly because unless you're doing something like you did and following it up with a more profitable post-BS career path like law, or medicine for a lot of biology majors, majoring in a natural science is extremely hard work for very little financial gain.
FWIW in ranking majors by difficulty (based on GPA), no engineering degree shows up in the top 10 for undergraduate. Chemistry is #1, and physics, biology, and geology are all in the top 10.
So essentially I'm not sure comparing a natural science degree to a law degree is the same as comparing an engineering degree to a law degree.
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2012, 07:17:34 PM
In law you're right as long as you get some meatbags to agree with you. In science/engineering it's fuck or walk.
I'm not sure you get to just lump engineering in with science. Any real scientist I've known has always talked down on engineers as being the manual laborers of the scientific community, who chose an easier, more profitable path than working with the more difficult subject matter of real science.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2012, 07:17:34 PM
In law you're right as long as you get some meatbags to agree with you. In science/engineering it's fuck or walk.
I'm not sure you get to just lump engineering in with science. Any real scientist I've known has always talked down on engineers as being the manual laborers of the scientific community, who chose an easier, more profitable path than working with the more difficult subject matter of real science.
Easy or difficult, in both science and engineering you have to be right (as determined by the uncaring laws of nature). Law is just words.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2012, 07:17:34 PM
In law you're right as long as you get some meatbags to agree with you. In science/engineering it's fuck or walk.
I'm not sure you get to just lump engineering in with science. Any real scientist I've known has always talked down on engineers as being the manual laborers of the scientific community, who chose an easier, more profitable path than working with the more difficult subject matter of real science.
We do take a lot of shortcuts. But that's simply because otherwise nothing would get done. For example, in the real world it rarely makes sense to spend an hour solving Laplace transforms when you can fix the problem just as well with a simple PID and a little experience.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 03:57:08 AM
Easy or difficult, in both science and engineering you have to be right (as determined by the uncaring laws of nature). Law is just words.
Sure, but science involves extrapolation to solve for unknowns. Engineering abhors unknowns, and is strictly application of principles gleaned through the scientific method.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 05, 2012, 08:24:22 AMEngineering abhors unknowns, ...
When in doubt, just throw in a bigger coefficient.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 05, 2012, 08:24:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 03:57:08 AM
Easy or difficult, in both science and engineering you have to be right (as determined by the uncaring laws of nature). Law is just words.
Sure, but science involves extrapolation to solve for unknowns. Engineering abhors unknowns, and is strictly application of principles gleaned through the scientific method.
What's your point?
Engineers are assholes.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 12:56:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2012, 12:42:14 PM
While I'm sympathetic to Ide and his plight, young people and their choice of higher education generally sucks.
I started asking around to see what companies needed EE degreed peeps and man...I realized I have no idea WTF I am talking about or doing. Fortunately I still have a couple years out before I have to do this in earnest. We students really have no fucking idea...and worse we do not know we have no fucking idea until we actually start getting serious about employment.
Are you finding it difficult to find interest?
Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2012, 07:03:25 PM
I did a science degree in undergrad (geology), and then a law degree.
It's only my own personal experience, but I found that my B.Sc. was much much harder than my LL.B. Like orders of magnitude harder.
Yeah, I understand that U of Manitoba law is somewhat similar to kindergarden ... :P
[/Ducks, runs for cover]
But seriously ... the difficulty in law school is not 'doing the work', but rather in doing it (and all sorts of semi-mandatory "extra curricular" activities) well enough to stand out, sufficient to make you attractive to employers - while competing with a whole bunch of really motivated and very intelligent students. It isn't sufficient to just understand the stuff.
It is a lot easier to "shine" in undergraduate work. Law schools (well, at least the top law schools :P ) are very selective in who they let in - meaning the students are mostly those who got straight A's already as undergraduates. So the competition is tough.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 03:57:08 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2012, 07:22:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2012, 07:17:34 PM
In law you're right as long as you get some meatbags to agree with you. In science/engineering it's fuck or walk.
I'm not sure you get to just lump engineering in with science. Any real scientist I've known has always talked down on engineers as being the manual laborers of the scientific community, who chose an easier, more profitable path than working with the more difficult subject matter of real science.
Easy or difficult, in both science and engineering you have to be right (as determined by the uncaring laws of nature). Law is just words.
BS. Remember I come from geology. I*t's all a bunch of assumptions and guesswork. You look at a couple of outcroppings, and a handful of core samples, and you're trying to figure out what happened several hundred million years ago. Everyone can look at the same data and come to some wildly varying conclusions.
Quote from: Malthus on February 07, 2012, 03:53:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2012, 07:03:25 PM
I did a science degree in undergrad (geology), and then a law degree.
It's only my own personal experience, but I found that my B.Sc. was much much harder than my LL.B. Like orders of magnitude harder.
Yeah, I understand that U of Manitoba law is somewhat similar to kindergarden ... :P
[/Ducks, runs for cover]
But seriously ... the difficulty in law school is not 'doing the work', but rather in doing it (and all sorts of semi-mandatory "extra curricular" activities) well enough to stand out, sufficient to make you attractive to employers - while competing with a whole bunch of really motivated and very intelligent students. It isn't sufficient to just understand the stuff.
It is a lot easier to "shine" in undergraduate work. Law schools (well, at least the top law schools :P ) are very selective in who they let in - meaning the students are mostly those who got straight A's already as undergraduates. So the competition is tough.
:zzz
Quote from: Barrister on February 07, 2012, 04:34:14 PM
:zzz
You set yourself up for that. ;) Anyway, teasing you about U of M never gets old, right? :D
Quote from: Malthus on February 07, 2012, 04:42:11 PM
Anyway, teasing you about U of M never gets old, right? :D
:zzz
I know I never tire of hearing you tease BB about the U of M.
QuoteFeb 10 (Reuters) - Class-action lawsuits recently filed against fifteen law schools for fraud are "credit negative" because they could cause reputational damage and a decline in tuition revenue, according to a report released this week by the ratings agency Moody's Investors Service.
The analysis of credit ratings for law-school bonds was released on Monday as part of the agency's weekly credit outlook.
Law-school graduates sued three schools in 2011, and twelve more on Feb. 1, alleging they committed fraud by publishing misleading job-placement statistics. The wave of litigation comes at a bad time for law schools -- especially those that are lower ranked, the report said.
"The outlook in general is that law schools are looking at fewer applications," said Emily Schwarz, who authored the report. "Students are starting to question the value of the degree because of high tuition rates and more limited job prospects. They're concerned they won't get their money's worth."
Moody's maintains credit ratings for eight of the fifteen schools sued, including: Southwestern Law School; California Western School of Law; Brooklyn Law School; New York Law School; Golden Gate University; DePaul University; Hofstra University; and the University of San Francisco.
None of the fifteen law schools facing lawsuits are among the top 50 in the latest US News & World Report rankings, and six are not ranked by the magazine at all.
Experts in legal education said they agreed with Moody's findings.
"In general, my sense is that credit agencies are not reliable, as their track record prior to the Great Recession amply confirms," Brian Leiter, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School who runs a popular blog on legal education, said in an email. "But in this case, the diagnosis seems to me exactly right."
STANDALONE SCHOOLS AT RISK
The report noted that standalone law schools -- including New York Law School and Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles -- are more likely to suffer the negative effects of the lawsuits than those that are part of a larger university. Standalone schools have less operating revenue and smaller balance sheets than those attached to universities, the report said.
Brian Tamanaha, a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, agreed on this point.
"Standalone law schools are especially vulnerable because there is no institutional support behind them to help out in difficult financial times," said Tamanaha. "At lower-ranked law schools ... the situation can quickly deteriorate if they experience year-after-year double digit declines in the numbers of applicants."
There are already troubling signs for some standalone law schools.
In January, Moody's revised its outlook on New York Law School from "stable" to "negative," reflecting "recent enrollment volatility" -- a 25-percent decrease in the size of the 2011 entering class -- and uncertainty about the outcome of the pending lawsuit. (The agency affirmed an underlying "A3" rating on New York Law School's bonds, the lowest grade of "A" bonds with above-average creditworthiness.)
Carol A. Buckler, interim dean of New York Law School, did not respond specifically to the Moody's reports, but said the lawsuit filed against the law school last year is without merit. "We are vigorously pursuing it in court and believe that we will prevail ," she wrote in an email.
Leslie Steinberg, associate dean for public affairs at Southwestern Law School, said that the lawsuit against the school is also without merit.
"Southwestern carries insurance to protect against financial instability and to preserve institutional resources," Steinberg said.
(Reporting by Moira Herbst)
LOL.
Quote from: Malthus on February 07, 2012, 03:53:34 PMBut seriously ... the difficulty in law school is not 'doing the work', but rather in doing it (and all sorts of semi-mandatory "extra curricular" activities) well enough to stand out, sufficient to make you attractive to employers - while competing with a whole bunch of really motivated and very intelligent students. It isn't sufficient to just understand the stuff.
It is a lot easier to "shine" in undergraduate work. Law schools (well, at least the top law schools :P ) are very selective in who they let in - meaning the students are mostly those who got straight A's already as undergraduates. So the competition is tough.
I don't doubt that this is true, but hard sciences are even harder when it comes to attaining career success. Pretty much any professional chemist, biologist, geologist, or physicist is going to have a Ph.D., the people who make good livings with those degrees alone at the undergraduate level are not very great in number, and most of them have probably gone into "ancillary" careers that aren't directly scientific (e.x. maybe a chemistry undergrad gets a job at a chemical plant and works his way into management.)
To become a "real" scientist requires a terminal degree and a long time working on it. Then, once that is finished you basically enter the hyper competitive world of academia. The truth of the matter is, getting a Ph.D. in a hard science is bad for almost every person who does it. At universities the current tenured professors essentially "use" young Ph.D's as cheap labor more or less indefinitely. There have been many articles in the past few years about newly minted Ph.D's in even the hardest of fields that have very little chance of ever getting a tenure-track job. So they go from university to university doing adjunct professor work and being research grunts, making paltry salary.
Some can go into the private sector, but even there, the number of jobs compared to the number of candidates is crazy.
Law school is definitely somewhat unique in that the top graduates go on to very lucrative careers while mid-tier and lower can and often do end up not making anywhere near the money of their higher achieving classmates. But the hard sciences have career paths that are almost totally controlled by a guild-like system dominated by people who get into a position and stay in until they die of old age.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 13, 2012, 09:16:34 AMPretty much any professional chemist, biologist, geologist, or physicist is going to have a Ph.D., the people who make good livings with those degrees alone at the undergraduate level are not very great in number, and most of them have probably gone into "ancillary" careers that aren't directly scientific (e.x. maybe a chemistry undergrad gets a job at a chemical plant and works his way into management.)
Yup; the vast majority of the big wigs I've met in the energy business all started off climbing utility poles back in the day, or running a substation control board, or kept the turbines going. Degrees in Geography, Electrical Engineering, even Physics: all still lunch-pail guys who traded in their goggles and hard hats for a tie and short-sleeved dress shirts.
QuoteTo become a "real" scientist requires a terminal degree and a long time working on it. Then, once that is finished you basically enter the hyper competitive world of academia. The truth of the matter is, getting a Ph.D. in a hard science is bad for almost every person who does it. At universities the current tenured professors essentially "use" young Ph.D's as cheap labor more or less indefinitely. There have been many articles in the past few years about newly minted Ph.D's in even the hardest of fields that have very little chance of ever getting a tenure-track job. So they go from university to university doing adjunct professor work and being research grunts, making paltry salary.
Yes, that certainly explains all the 24 year old PhDs with no money at Hopkins and RPI and all the other scientific/medical/engineering schools, working their asses off for peanuts, going from grant assignment to grant assignment, working from fellow to fellow. Complete bodies of research knowledge, yet no applicable experience. Just in the queue forever.
QuoteLaw school is definitely somewhat unique in that the top graduates go on to very lucrative careers while mid-tier and lower can and often do end up not making anywhere near the money of their higher achieving classmates. But the hard sciences have career paths that are almost totally controlled by a guild-like system dominated by people who get into a position and stay in until they die of old age.
Yeah, law school is one of the few advanced graduate programs where how you perform and what you do there is directly proportional to where you land. Medical and science, not so much.