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. 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