Recent law grads: Forget school rankings, focus on jobs

September 14, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A recent survey by Kaplan Test Prep shows law school applicants are so focused on where a law school ranks that they don’t think affordability or job placement numbers really matter. But recent grads would advise LSAT takers to think otherwise.

A lot of attention is paid to the rankings of law schools by U.S. News and World Report each year, some positive and some negative. I’ve written about them over the past few years with regards to where Indiana’s law schools place on the list. It’s no surprise, then, that a June survey by Kaplan revealed that 32 percent of Kaplan LSAT students cited law school rankings as the most important evaluation factor in deciding where to attend school.

Most – 86 percent – said the rankings are “very important” or “somewhat important.” But a new survey by Kaplan shows that after going through three years of law school, those rankings lose their luster. Just 17 percent of respondents to the Kaplan Bar Review survey said they’d tell applicants that law school rankings should be most important when picking a school. About a quarter each responded that job placement rate or affordability/tuition should be the most important.

Remember those LSAT takers? Only 13 percent of them said affordability was the most important factor to them, and just 8 percent cited job placement rates as their top priority.

You’ve got three years to become jaded, law applicants. Perhaps the grads who responded to the survey were just like you, but after attending school and going far into debt and unable to find a job, they changed their minds about the importance of rankings. The survey doesn’t say whether the grads had jobs lined up after they passed the bar.

The grads were surveyed in July.
 

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
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT