Why not? Law school is vocational school. I don't find the presumption that employment statistics would be related to that vocation to be even remotely unexpected. I know I made such presumptions when I went to law school.
What the hell would the point of paying extra specialized legal training be if I was just going to get a job as, for example, a biology teacher?* And employment as something as amazing as a biology teacher is a pipe dream for many TJ grads.
*this is not a knock on biology teachers, and I realize that it could be read that way. I was just trying to think of something for which knowing the effects of changes in USSC makeup on the application of strict scrutiny would be professionally irrelevant.
People use statistics to their advantage all the time. If you can make your numbers look better by including everyone who has a job I am not surprised that schools choose to do that. Especially given what others have said about this school. I have never heard of it and know nothing about it. However I highly doubt they were the only school using the numbers that worked best for them, even if they were misleading. Based on what others have said a better breakdown of the numbers is now required so it seems like this should not be as big an issue today.
It's one thing to spin true statistics. It's another to use false statistics. Every law school did the former to an extent. The allegations against TJ is that it did the latter. And it sounds like there's witness testimony to that effect.
Looks like it's >$400 this year. Also, CA employers are generally required to pay for necessary work expenses. (LC 2802). Makes me wonder if it was a paralegal job instead of an attorney position.
New report out today (reported by my local news, so no link) of the top paying jobs in the US. Lawyer is number 2 at $144,500. :?
Where's that "yeah right" JLaw gif? :-#
I found a report released yesterday from Glassdoor link with BS methodology "job titles must receive at least 75 salary reports shared by US based employees over the past year (1/24/15-1/23/16). The number of job openings per job title represents active job listings on Glassdoor as of 2/23/16..."
New report out today (reported by my local news, so no link) of the top paying jobs in the US. Lawyer is number 2 at $144,500. :?
Looks like this is based on data from Glassdoor. Not an accurate data set for lawyer jobs as (I assume) it's not catching small legal employers or government employers. Also, it's an average, not a median. There are definitely lawyer jobs out there that pay $250k+ that can skew an average.
Looks like it's >$400 this year. Also, CA employers are generally required to pay for necessary work expenses. (LC 2802). Makes me wonder if it was a paralegal job instead of an attorney position.
So steep, but not terrible.
I was wondering that, too. I'd also guess that if they're not going dues, they're also probably not paying for CLEs.
The Good Wife had a similar episode recently, only it was dental hygienist suing her school.
I also entered law school with a very different idea of what life would be like post-grad. Thankfully, I landed on my feet and was lucky enough that I didn't have to take out a million dollars in loans, but looking back I had a much rosier view of what a lawyer's life was like. I graduated in a tough time (9/11 happened just 3 weeks into my 1L year).
I was lucky and secured a job before graduation. But I had more than one friend who was still searching months after. I have a tough time believing any one of them would have turned down a legit legal job simply because their bar dues wouldn't be paid or they needed to travel for a month to undergo training.
Post by sugarglider on Mar 25, 2016 8:37:16 GMT -5
I was hoping to catch some of that trial. I actually have a couple cases assigned to that judge, so I had a good excuse, too, just not the time.
Anyway, though I'm typically happy about defense verdicts, from my understanding of the evidence, I think she had some good evidence that she was wronged, though I'm it sure if it was credible. I wonder if any jurors stuck around to give insight on why they voted the way they did (it was 9-3, so not unanimous). I'm also curious about the jury instructions. I'm guessing there was a causation piece that she was missing, but that's purely speculative.
I copied b/c I thought it was interesting that the article seems to think this was the wrong decision since it didn't hold TJ Law School to any reporting errors.
Verdict Reached In The Alaburda v. Thomas Jefferson Law Landmark Case Over Fraudulent Employment Statistics
In May 2011, Anna Alaburda, a 2008 honors graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, filed a class-action lawsuit against her alma mater, alleging that the law school had committed fraud by publishing deceptive post-graduation employment statistics and salary data in order to bait new students into enrolling. Alaburda claimed that despite graduating at the top of her class and passing the California bar exam, she was unable to find suitable legal employment, and had racked up more than $150,000 in student loan debt.
Almost five years later, after inspiring more than a dozen other class-action lawsuits against law schools, Anna Alaburda has had her day in court. Never before had a law school been forced to stand trial for allegedly inflating its employment statistics.
Today, we have a verdict. Which side prevailed in this historic trial?
The jury in the case was unsympathetic to the plight of downtrodden law school graduates, as it found for Thomas Jefferson School of Law on all counts in a 9-3 verdict. The San Diego Union-Tribune has additional details on the information presented at trial that could have swayed the jury:
“ While the employment rate of graduates appeared in some rankings to be about the same as other law schools, Alaburda’s attorney during the trial said the school didn’t disclose that some of those graduates were working in book stores, restaurants, hair salons and even selling tractors.
An attorney for the school rejected the claims and said Alaburda never proved them. The attorney also reminded jurors that she had turned down a job offer, and that many Thomas Jefferson alumni have had successful careers.
Alaburda sought $92,192 in lost income and $32,475 in reimbursement of tuition and fees. She won’t receive a cent of that. Instead, her name will be dragged through the mud. She’ll be mercilessly mocked by people across the nation for daring to file suit against a law school where graduates’ chances of employment are essentially no better than a crapshoot. This is incredibly unfair, but it’s what we do to people we deem to have “absurd” legal claims. As members of the legal profession know, however, Alaburda’s claims were anything but absurd.
The public doesn’t understand just how common it was — and perhaps still is, at some law schools — for employment information to be so grossly misrepresented for financial gain. If only people had known the true employment figures at schools like Thomas Jefferson Law, not as many of them would have signed up in droves to throw six figures of federally backed loan dollars at a school for the chance of putting the “bar” in “barista,” for want of better job opportunities after graduation.
Congratulations to Anna Alaburda for her willingness to be the public face of a lawsuit that desperately needed to be brought. It’s a true shame that Thomas Jefferson School of Law won’t be held accountable for its past transgressions, but it’s even more despicable to know that law schools may now believe they’ve received a free pass to continue putting forth untrue statements about their graduates’ job prospects.
We encourage law school hopefuls to look at the numbers, and to ask questions when things seem too good to be true — as they were at Thomas Jefferson School of Law for years and years. Until the public uses the information that’s widely available to them when choosing which law school to attend, schools like Thomas Jefferson School of Law will continue to be able sell pipe dreams to budding lawyers at way too high a price.
UPDATE (3/25/2016, 11:15 a.m.): For additional insight into this case, see ATL columnist Jeff Bennion’s post-trial interview with one of the jurors.
New report out today (reported by my local news, so no link) of the top paying jobs in the US. Lawyer is number 2 at $144,500. :?
LOL. I made 35K practicing law my first year out of school. I would have died for a 60K salary. Not the point, I know.
But is the number quoted above for 1st year associates? I would think that $144K would be some kind of median for all lawyer jobs nation-wide, including people who are top in-house counsel at big corporations and higher-level associates, etc.
I'm actually kind of bummed she lost, mostly because I think that school is a fucking joke. My bestie doesn't have a law job nearly two years after graduating from there. I wish they had to answer for some of the shit they pull.
Post by imojoebunny on Mar 25, 2016 15:22:39 GMT -5
I wish that people would act more consumer oriented toward education in general. I don't think the suit had a ton of merit, it isn't like it is a surprise the school was not good. My cousin has a law degree, she does not work in anything that uses law or any of her other 2 degrees, and barely makes ends meet. Many of the people she works with barely graduated high school, if they did. Honestly, she made a crappy choice in going to law school, particularly the one she went to, but in general, it was not a great career choice for her particular set of personal attributes. Some career counseling and testing would have saved her a lot of money and pain. We try not to limit peoples dreams in America, but sometimes, dreams are just that, and being given more realistic options based on personal skill sets is not always a bad thing.