ILNews

ABA council adopts changes in collection of law school data

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Council of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has approved changes in the collection and publication of graduate placement data provided by law schools. The changes are aimed at enhancing the accuracy, timeliness and level of detail law schools must report to the ABA.

The changes – recommended by the Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar Section’s Questionnaire Committee – were adopted at its annual meeting Dec. 3. Law schools will have to gather more detailed information, which includes graduate employment status, salary, whether the position is short or long term and whether the position is funded by the school itself. Schools will also have to report on whether the graduate’s job required passing the bar, is full time or part time, and if there is an advantage to having a J.D. for the position.

The data law schools collect will be reported directly to the Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar section, and this information will be posted online the year after it’s collected. Right now, data on specific classes are often posted two years later.

Section chair John O’Brien, New England Law/Boston dean, said in a news release that these changes will better inform future law students about the prospects of employment.

The announcement this summer by the ABA regarding the changes in the collection of data caused tension between the bar association and NALP. NALP keeps postgraduate employment data for law schools and was surprised by the ABA’s announcement that it would begin collecting its own data. In the past, placement data was reported only to NALP, which then sent a report to the schools. The law school reported the information to the ABA in the bar’s annual questionnaire.

But only a few weeks after attempting to cut NALP out of the collection and reporting process, the ABA announced that the section and NALP agreed to collaborate going forward.

Indiana Lawyer reported in August that the ABA data collection process will be a two-step, two-year process that was set to begin this October when the ABA collected an abbreviated data set for each graduate of the class of 2010.

The ABA plans to collect full data in February 2012 for each 2011 law graduate. NALP said it will continue to request a single electronic file from each school, while the ABA may ask for schools to input student record data one student at a time through an online data submission form.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT