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 have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT