ILNews

Inbox - 7/30/14

July 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

To the editor:

I am still scratching my head about the June 18-July 1 cover story by Marilyn Odendahl, “Employability begins long before graduation day.” While I enjoyed the article and appreciated the information on the statistics of the four ABA-approved Indiana law schools and their student success rates in finding jobs requiring a J.D. and bar passage, I still wonder about the intention, or perhaps more accurately, the takeaway message, of the article. I think one message that could reasonably be taken from the article is that law school is still a pretty awful investment in 2014, particularly if one’s goal is to become a practicing lawyer. I don’t recall ever meeting a student in law school whose desire was to go to law school for any reason other than to be a practicing lawyer, either in an established firm (the majority of my classmates) or on their own (minority of classmates, for sure). I’m sure there probably were some with goals other than being lawyers, but they were few and far between.

With that in mind, Notre Dame, the law school in the article with the highest 2013 placement of graduates in positions requiring a J.D. and bar passage, has nearly 30 percent of its 2013 graduating class sitting without a job – at least without a job requiring a J.D. and bar passage. The situation is even worse for the other three schools. IU-Maurer, over the years reported in the article, 2011-2013, has approximately 40 percent of its students not placed as practicing lawyers. Only (about) 50 percent of IU-McKinney students are gainfully employed in jobs requiring a J.D. and bar passage. Only (about) 40 percent of Valparaiso students are similarly employed. I would also be interested in what the average starting salaries are of those who were successfully employed in positions as licensed attorneys versus those who took other non-license-required positions. The ABA probably has that data; I just haven’t looked it up.

What I have looked up is the tuition for 2014-15 at each of the four Indiana law schools in the article. Valparaiso will charge about $40,000, IU-McKinney about $45,000, IU-Maurer about $50,000, and Notre Dame about $50,000, give or take a few thousand in fees and not including living expenses, books, etc. Also, I only looked at out-of-state tuition for McKinney and Maurer for comparison to the two private schools. Spending $120,000 to $150,000 in just tuition over three years is a huge investment with no guarantee of becoming a gainfully employed attorney. I am hoping that the renewed focus of law schools on getting students actual practice experience while in law school will improve these employment statistics substantially.

Rich Mitchell, Ph.D., J.D.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT