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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT