ABA asking for more employment info from law schools

July 28, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Back in February, the American Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division introduced a resolution calling for increased transparency from schools that report post-graduation employment data. The group was concerned that some law schools report misleading figures regarding salary averages and employment statistics. The ABA’s Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar Section listened, and it will amend the annual questionnaire it sends out to ABA-approved law schools. Now, the schools will have to answer additional questions on employment and placement.

The 2011 questionnaire will ask for additional and new information on whether a graduate’s employment is long- or short-term and, if applicable, how many positions their graduates hold that are funded by the law school or university. In the spring of 2012, data will be collected for the graduating class of 2011 asking: whether the graduate’s job is full-time or part-time, whether they had to pass the bar to get the job, whether a law degree is preferred for the job, whether the job is in another profession, and whether the job is a non-professional one.

A release on the ABA’s website says that the organization didn’t want to wait until August 2012 to collect this data and are still developing definitions for these new categories.

“The Section believes that the collection of this new information will bring additional transparency to the data reporting system employed by the Section, and offer very helpful information to assist prospective law students and graduates in making very important decisions about law school attendance and careers,” the release says.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT