Search the Lounge

Categories

« Tired but Finished | Main | Why do the Initials Matter so Much? »

April 10, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kevin Outterson

The ABA, NALP and USNews should NOT count these funded programs as LT FT JD jobs.

It's fine to offer these fellowships - these experiences might well lead to jobs -- but we should not conflate these fellowships to real LT FT JD jobs.

GW and W&M were gaming the system to offer such low dollar fellowships to such a large percentage of their classes.

Anon

As the Anon from above, I agree that some of those fellowships may be OK to offer. However, every fellowship funded by a law school represents money that could be otherwise committed to reducing tuition, or some other purpose, and therefore the fellowships should only be offered when they present a reasonably strong likelihood of permanent employment, and not because they allow law schools to game the employment statistics system. However, I suspect that if law school-funded employment were expressly excluded from employment statistics most of those fellowships would likely dry up.

Anon

And, of course, as I've pointed out before, although they may be a reasonable use of a particular law student's tuition at a particular school if they offer a very strong chance of employment, they should not be regarded as a good thing for law students in general, because they are merely an exchange of employment between law schools rather than a means of creating true employment. Including them in employment statistics merely incentivizes law schools to engage in statistics manipulation. Rather, they should be discouraged, as they present the possibility of displacing real employment with law school-subsidized interns and they result in an unnecessary additional use of law student tuition when considered over the law school population as a whole.

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad