U.S. News Pledges to Publish More Law School Employment Data

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Law schools are, first and foremost, in business to make money. Never let their commentary on their desire to educate the next generation of legal minds fool you. It is a massive cash cow for every university that has a law school. And this fact is the reason why law schools have a built-in incentive to hide the realities of legal employment from prospective students.
What do the law schools have to lose? Absolutely nothing. Prospective students become enamored of the idea of "being a lawyer," along with its supposed prestige and wealth, and they sign up in droves for law school. The overwhelming majority of them will take on debt burdens of anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000 in the pursuit of this law school-created mirage.
And what do they find upon graduation? One of the most severely crushed job markets of any industry in America. Thousands upon thousands of experienced lawyers laid off nationwide, with law firms skimming the top 30%-40% of graduating classes for new indentured servants. They will pay them $75k to $150k per year (a fraction of what they paid the experienced lawyers that they just laid off), work their fingers to the bone 3,000 to 3,500 hours per year and, when the indentured student-servant is burned out and finally leaves (usually within 3-4 years), they just hire another one just like them out of law school.
Building an honorable profession? Hardly. But they are generating tens of millions of dollars on the backs of the new graduates, who will still carry the burden of the debt they racked up while in law school, the money from which debt went into the pockets of the universities operating the law schools and AGGRESSIVELY marketing their law schools as islands of development for endless prestige and opportunities. Take a look around several of the law schools nationwide (look at a sampling from the top 100, for a start). You will find extensive mention of opportunity, prestige, and fame, with nary a word about the horrific employment market that exists for lawyers TODAY.
A final note for those who doubt the reality of these FACTS: an overwhelming majority of law schools have programs through which they will pay law students "who have not yet found permanent employment" a stipend if they will volunteer their services to a non-profit organization or a government agency. The stipend is usually something insignificant (compared to what the law school has just finished taking in tuition and fees from the student), such as $500-$1,000 per month. But here's the kicker: it only lasts for 6-9 months after graduation.
Coincidence? Don't be a fool. The law schools count these "student-volunteers" as being "employed" when they report their numbers to U.S. News. "Wow!! Law School X shows that 98% of its students are employed within 9 months of graduation. Impressive!!" Or not. A good number of those students are unemployed at month 10.
The BUSINESS of law school desperately needs to be exposed for what it is.

Sandra of CA 12:30PM January 06, 2011

Please consider ranking joint degree MD-PhD programs in your next grad school release. These are of the most competitive graduate programs in the world and each year the number of applicants applying to government funded Medical Scientist Training Programs increases. The mix between graduate school and medical school should make these programs the quintessential examples of what US News is trying to rank. For years, many applicants have been searching for ways to compare and contrast programs that are independent from straight medical school research rankings and straight graduate school rankings at corresponding schools. Futhermore, some programs include multiple universities under one program (ie., Harvard-MIT, Pitt-CMU, Cornell-Rockefeller-Sloan Kettering, among others). It would be a huge help to many of us applicants.

Dennis of MI 7:22PM December 19, 2010

Mr. Morse, have you considered factoring tuition in the college rankings? In light of the massive student loan burden and skyrocketing tuition costs, I think this would be a very relevant factor.
In short, schools that take steps to reduce their costs and budget more efficiently should be rewarded. Conversely, schools that just throw money at a problem - usually at the expense of students should be punished.
I realize that factoring tuition may unfairly favor richer and more established schools. However, I am sure that as discussion on the topic develops, solutions can be developed that will level the playing field.

Steven of TN 1:39PM December 17, 2010