The Ugly Truth about Employment Statistics
First, a confession: I graduated from Boalt in May 2010, and I am unemployed. I got good grades. I have a solid resume. I was Editor-in-Chief of a Journal. I was on the AAJ Trial Team. I externed in federal court, interned in several public offices, and spent a summer at a big firm. I passed the California bar. I have applied to hundreds of jobs and worked dozens of personal connections, all without success.
Last week, in a hilarious turn of events, I was rejected from a VOLUNTEER position with a City Prosecutor's office. It's like if a guy came up to you and asked if he could just show up at your house and clean it for free every day, and buy you groceries, and kiss your ass a little, and you're like, "I'm sorry, there has been overwhelming interest in this position, and I cannot accommodate you at this time."
That, my friends, is the state of the legal market. That is the state of my life.
I bring this up not to bitch or engender pity. In fact, I remain fairly upbeat and optimistic about my future, despite mounting evidence that I should reconsider. No, I bring this up only as a warning to others following in my path. I want to give it to you straight, because I am not sure our school will do the same.
I have been fielding calls from the CDO this week. The calls go like this:
I am not going to claim Boalt is guilty of the worst of these crimes. In fact, I think that just by calling to actually confirm that I'm unemployed, instead of taking a "no news is good news" approach, the CDO has gone the extra mile. But I also know that the CDO seems very concerned with whether I'm receiving "any income," and I know they didn't start calling this frequently until the numbers were due.
To some extent, this is just part of bureaucracy, and I don't mean to malign the hardworking individuals at the CDO or in the Berkeley administration. They have a tough job right now, and they really do try to help. At the end of the day, though, they're part of a system, and that system's survival depends on convincing people to come to law school, even when it's really not a good idea.
The fact is, no matter what anyone tells you, you can go to a great law school, do well there, work really hard to find a job, and still end up unemployed and living with your parents in your shitty hometown where you said you'd never return. I'm just saying, that can happen. You will probably learn a lot from the experience, and you will hopefully find a way to come out a stronger person. But I refuse to call this state of being "employed," and I don't think my law school should either.
UPDATE: I debated whether to share this, but I figure if you're going to publicly bitch about your life on a blog, you have some responsibility to share good news as well. After moving to my aforementioned shitty hometown, I did manage to secure a part time criminal law job that has full-time potential. It's a far cry from what I thought would be waiting for me when I started law school--and moving home is the one thing I said I'd never do--but at this point, a job is a job. Even if the statistics are misreported, you should take some comfort in the fact that there ARE jobs out there. They just might be pretty far away.
UPDATE II: In case anyone is still bothering to look this far down, it looks like some changes may be afoot in the way employment data is reported--although not soon enough. (via Armen.)
Last week, in a hilarious turn of events, I was rejected from a VOLUNTEER position with a City Prosecutor's office. It's like if a guy came up to you and asked if he could just show up at your house and clean it for free every day, and buy you groceries, and kiss your ass a little, and you're like, "I'm sorry, there has been overwhelming interest in this position, and I cannot accommodate you at this time."
That, my friends, is the state of the legal market. That is the state of my life.
I bring this up not to bitch or engender pity. In fact, I remain fairly upbeat and optimistic about my future, despite mounting evidence that I should reconsider. No, I bring this up only as a warning to others following in my path. I want to give it to you straight, because I am not sure our school will do the same.
I have been fielding calls from the CDO this week. The calls go like this:
CDO: Hey Dan, I'm just calling to check in! What's your status?A while back, I read this article in the New York Times. It explains how so many law schools can continue to report 99% employment rates, even after an apocalyptic downturn in the legal market. Basically, they count anything: part time work, contract work, non-legal work, movie theater work, prostitution, even patent law. Also, if a student doesn't expressly report they're unemployed, the school will count them as employed.
ME: Well, still looking for a job. I tried [insert futile effort], but no luck there.
CDO: That's too bad. I can send you some links to help you search for alumni connections.
ME: Thanks, I'm sure that'd be helpful.
CDO: But Dan, do you have any kind of income right now?
ME: Does charity count?
CDO: Any kind of income at all--part time, contract work, even non-legal stuff? How are you getting by?
ME: Great question. I'll let you know when I figure that out.
CDO: Well, keep us apprised.
I am not going to claim Boalt is guilty of the worst of these crimes. In fact, I think that just by calling to actually confirm that I'm unemployed, instead of taking a "no news is good news" approach, the CDO has gone the extra mile. But I also know that the CDO seems very concerned with whether I'm receiving "any income," and I know they didn't start calling this frequently until the numbers were due.
To some extent, this is just part of bureaucracy, and I don't mean to malign the hardworking individuals at the CDO or in the Berkeley administration. They have a tough job right now, and they really do try to help. At the end of the day, though, they're part of a system, and that system's survival depends on convincing people to come to law school, even when it's really not a good idea.
The fact is, no matter what anyone tells you, you can go to a great law school, do well there, work really hard to find a job, and still end up unemployed and living with your parents in your shitty hometown where you said you'd never return. I'm just saying, that can happen. You will probably learn a lot from the experience, and you will hopefully find a way to come out a stronger person. But I refuse to call this state of being "employed," and I don't think my law school should either.
UPDATE: I debated whether to share this, but I figure if you're going to publicly bitch about your life on a blog, you have some responsibility to share good news as well. After moving to my aforementioned shitty hometown, I did manage to secure a part time criminal law job that has full-time potential. It's a far cry from what I thought would be waiting for me when I started law school--and moving home is the one thing I said I'd never do--but at this point, a job is a job. Even if the statistics are misreported, you should take some comfort in the fact that there ARE jobs out there. They just might be pretty far away.
UPDATE II: In case anyone is still bothering to look this far down, it looks like some changes may be afoot in the way employment data is reported--although not soon enough. (via Armen.)
posted by Dan at 11:15 AM
54 Comments:
Good luck, Dan.
Blech yuck, CDO.
great post. horrifying post. jesus christ.
I have to say its really sad that people are going to Boalt thinking that if they do well, employment is a guarantee. Let alone that people go to much crappier schools and think this is true. I just wish we could somehow communicate to 0Ls that even T14 ZOMG is no guarantee of employment. When you try communicate this on their forums, such as Dan's story, you are a "flame" or a "troll".
On CDOs part, I wanna say that even as a 2L without a job, they have been super super awesome and willing to help in any way possible. They are great at balancing a never give up spirit with a dose of realism. We have to remember they are adjusting to a new market, as all Boalties used to get automatic employment. Unfortunately, Berkeley Law must play the same game as everyone else.
To fix this problem US news should define employment as: Legal employment in the private sector earning > 50k, or any paid public service/ gov jobs or fellowship. But this crap that working as a janitor at Arbys, or doing gay for pay on the side is considered employment is doing everyone, except profiting law schools a true disservice. The ABA minimally needs to decertify 50% of law schools, just like MDs are strict at adding more ones.
1:39,
The ABA should not decertify a large number of law schools. That would be an extremely anticompetitive move and would certainly land it in hot water with the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.
Instead, the ABA can take steps to force additional disclosure of employment prospects and loan burden. If students want to be lawyers after being fully informed of all these risks, then that's their choice.
Why can the medical authorities do the exact same thing? We clearly do not have enough doctors, and it certainly is anti-competitive. Difference?
Ummm what? First you claim medical schools are careful about adding new schools, then you claim this is the same thing as abrogating the accreditation of 50% of law schools? And that's exactly the same thing to you?
Med school is only limited to the best and brightest. Getting into ANY med school is probably as hard as getting into a top 6 law school. As a result, everyone can get a job, its clearly anti-competitive, but their authority unlike ours, actually wants to protect the interests of students and professionals, and not the interests of giving massive profits to schools.
Actually, there is a very strong case to be made that the AMA (whose lobbying power is often overlooked) seeks to limit the number of new medical schools primarily to protect physician salaries -- not necessarily to promote the wellbeing of med students, or the public. For support I cite to the history of AMA battles with chiropractors (which it has successfully marginalized) and osteopaths (which only recently have gained credence as a “tier one” medical practice).
"Getting into ANY med school is probably as hard as getting into a top 6 law school."
i lold
Thanks for this post since I know that the CDO has to answer to the school at the end of the day and not to me. I take their advice with a grain of salt since I know they want me to take any job so the school looks good and that their concern that I find a job that will get me where I want to be is only secondary.
So far it looks like I won't be employed after graduation so I'll be in the same boat as you pretty soon. How do you get by? I don't have any family to fall back on to help support me so I'm worried I'll have to take any job, including a non-legal job, just to make ends meet.
Taking a non-legal job to make ends meat is not the worst plan. In fact, I'm starting to wish I would have done that instead of falling back on the family/hometown plan. You'd just have to make time to keep applying for things and interview on the side, and hope that something panned out before you had a year of being a fry cook on your resume. Although, in times like these, I think the right employer would understand even that.
You'll need a bar loan to get you through that period, though, since it will be impossible to hold down a job while studying for that.
You also might want to look into collecting unemployment. You have to have been employed within 18 months of filing, but I think summer jobs can count.
Other than that, if you reach a point where you can't pay rent, hopefully you have made some friends you can crash with for a few months. That was my backup plan, before I moved home.
Ultimately, you'll find a way to get by. This crisis might take you some surprising places, but law students are like cockroaches--we can survive anything.
I feel the need to chime in, but I can only echo the sentiment that it was great of you to write this, and the reality is terrifying.
The job market is definitely tough, but remember that it's not as bad now as it was last year. Also remember that Dan, unfortunately, didn't set himself up as a prime PI candidate because of the 2L firm summer. When that fell through he was at a disadvantage applying for jobs in PI because there's a pool of qualified candidates who did spend their 2L summers demonstrating their commitment to the work and gaining more experience in the PI field.
While true that the market isn't AS bad, it is still contracting, at least according to this.
Doesn't France not have an extradition treaty with the US? I'm just saying...
Hi, I don't know you, but I'm in a similar boat, but with less impressive stats than you. I just landed a part time law clerk gig at a small firm, getting paid peanuts per hour, which is certainly not what I dreamed I would be doing when I started law school. If you haven't tried yet, you may have to stoop to the level of applying to law clerk jobs.
8:23 is not wrong, but I should point out that I interned at a DA's office between my 2L summer and graduation, and I had worked at another DA's office prior to 2L summer. I usually didn't run into much trouble convincing employers that the summer firm thing was an aberration, and I had always been pretty set on doing prosecution (which is the truth).
In fact, I think my real problem is that my resume just screams CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR at a time when state budgets don't exist. There just aren't any jobs in prosecution, and no one on the defense side will take me seriously.
So yes, you should take everything I say with the caveat that my resume, while strong, is not ideal for this climate.
Well, Dan, as you know, in my experience I don't think 8:23 is right at all. I was on the same Journal as Dan, similar accolades, and worked every summer in PI (partly because my resume screamed PUBLIC DEFENDER and no private firm wanted to touch me). I was more than happy to even get a Bridge Fellowship, but that turned out to be a Bridge to volunteering.
The PI market is shit. Total complete shit. The problem is not a lack of focusing like a laser on one PI goal, the problem is the great mass of attorneys looking for work with more experience than a recent grad. This is especially true in public sector jobs when you have the winning trifecta of civil service exams, office politics and networking.
I don't blame Boalt, or law schools in general (although there are WAY too many attorneys out there). When I applied to law school in 2007, the market was hot and I thought as long as I do well I'll land somewhere. At least the popular zeitgeist at the time was that it would not come to this.
I've also essentially stopped talking to the CDO. I think I've tapped out all their ideas. It's nice to say "network" to a student, but when that student doesn't have a large network to begin with, it's not going to come to much.
What I WOULD like to know, is how many of us are in the same boat. My wife likes to tell people "x% of Boalt grads are still unemployed!," but she's really just making up a number (it changes depending on the day). I'd like some realism from the CDO, not padded numbers. I KNOW they've counted me as unemployed once I told them I got on an appellate panel and have a single (yes, 1) appellate case. To me, that's an expectancy of money some time in the future, not real employment.
And the other thing: I'd like to be able to use my ranking for employers without fear that the school will stop cooperating with me. I worked hard for that ranking (and somehow never received any sort of specific awards), and I'm competing against people from other schools who can tout their academic accomplishments much better. In this economy, Boalt owes us as much.
That should be "...counted me as EMPLOYED..."
Do you feel like being able to post a rank would change your hiring prospects as compared to giving out your transcript? Do you think that employers tend to undervalue H's and HH's?
(These are honest questions, not sarcastic or loaded)
McTwo, yes. Definitely. I'm a 2010 grad, and I applied for several jobs that required either law review, moot court team, or top third of the class. Without revealing my exact rank, I will say I met the third but not the other two of those qualifications. I didn't get a single call from any of them, and while that may be because other candidates had all three, I can't help but think that it hurt me that I couldn't say: "Yes, I'm in the top third of my class. I do qualify for this position." I also think there are jobs that didn't have this requirement where my rank would have gotten my foot into the door.
11:36, if that's the precise concern, there are ways to address it in a cover letter without specifying rank. "Although Boalt's student ranking is limited to clerkship and academic job candidates, my grades place me within the top third of my class."
A) The Honor Code applies when you are a student. As a 2010 grad, no one cares how you reveal your rank.*
B) I think simply stating that you meet one of the qualifications listed for the job is not objectionable even under the code.
If there's contrary opinion on this, I'd love to hear it.
*Note that plastering a rank on a resume can be off-putting. I'm only commenting on adding a sentence to a cover letter explaining that you meet a stated qualification for a job.
That's understandable, Armen, but I could also see how the Honor Code and its spirit may deter grads from making any mention of their real or approximate rank.
Fair enough. But that makes sense in the context of a CDO sponsored OCIP where firms are not allowed to enforce any grade cutoffs but must interview anyone who "wins" the bid lottery. When there is no such enforcement mechanism, as in the job market for recent grads, and where the job description affirmatively requires a certain ranking, then I just don't see anything wrong with stating that you meet that requirement.
I've called for bull shit honorary awards that reflect certain rough rankings. This is precisely the scenario where such awards would come in handy. Instead of fretting about ranks, you can just list "Rose Bird Scholar -- awarded to approximately top third of each class."
Actually that one would be awarded to those who don't complete their law school term.
To 11:36 - I applied to several positions that had that "you must meet one of these three criteria" requirement. What I did is similar to what Armen advocated. I would draft a little cover letter explaining that Boalt did not provide class rank except in very limited circumstances, but that I was in the top 1/3 of my class. Then I would attach the Boalt class rank policy. I thought it was better than not saying anything at all about it and trying to let my grades explain themselves. And I did ultimately get one of those positions - although I do not know whether that explanation was any help or if it ultimately did not matter.
the state of california cannot enact a prior restraint against truthful statements (i.e., your class rank). it's perfectly within your constitutional rights to reveal it at any time.
"This isn't a First Amendment issue, man."
McTwo: Yeah, I think it would help. It would at least give me a leg up.
As for HH, H, etc., the problem is that I've spoken with employers and they see Boalt's "equitable" grading system as just another was of saying A, B and C (and low pass and fail is just a D and an F). And just like any school with real grade point averages, it is hard to know the quality of a student vis a vis his or her class without knowing what average grades are (which rank is just a stand in for).
I understand that I can put in a cover letter "I was in the top third of the class." Really, at that point, I might as well go all the way and say I was in the top x% of my class and get it out there. My understanding of the honor code and the use of rank is that I could stop getting services from Boalt or the CDO even now that I'm a graduate. Probably the only thing that's stopped me is that I respect the rules and I don't want to burn any bridges that I don't have to. That said, I need a job.
Hey Dan and other blog admins: I think the blog should send an email to the Career Services office to get their position on the issue. I would like to have the CDO answer questions such as what they count as "employed" and whether they think they are doing enough to help unemployed grads.
What does everyone think?
I got 4 H's, 1 H and one P 1L year. I've always figured this put me in the top quartile. Struck out at OCI (current 2L). This interests me. I've given up since but maybe there is a reason to start trying again.
Doesn't that equate to 5 H's and 1 P?
9:44, I had a similar thought but I don't know that CDO would be forthright about employment statistics if doing so would hurt Boalt's ranking.
Would there be an informal way for us to determine how many 2010 grads are in Dan and David's position? Like a survey or something? (Admittedly it would be hard to get full participation, but we could make a concerted effort to spread the word so it's not limited to this blog's usual readers.)
I know a few folks who took non-legal jobs from the outset (either in policy or politics) because that was what they wanted, not because they couldn't score a legal job. I don't think that should be held against them or the school. But I do think it's worth asking how many of us are in full-time legal employment, or NOT in full-time legal employment but want to end up there.
I'm lucky to have a job, but this hits home because lots of my classmates and friends from other law schools are struggling in this market.
--2010 grad
11:16, if you struck out with those kind of grades there is something deeply wrong with your interviewing skills.
Like 4:06 indicated, it's unclear whether the honor code applies to us after graduation. We need clarification from the admin whether after graduation, we are free to disclose our ranking on our resume without consequences.
11:16 here. Sorry, I meant to say 4 H's 1 HH, and 1P. I would rate my interviewing skills as average. Besides the economy, I attribute my current situation to lack of work experience (I mean total lack of WE--I came straight from UG and prepped for LSAT/took GPA booster classes during summer instead of internships). Also, I could have used a better bidding strategy.
Would one of the blog admins Patrick Armen etc email career services and ask them if they would like to respond to this conversation?
Of course they won't.
Why would they want to admit publicly that they are inflating employment numbers?
7:25,
As a general matter, I'm not your servant. I won't belabor the point, but if you have reasonable requests about the blog, common ones include adding specific threads about certain topics, all of my co-bloggers and I have always been happy and willing to oblige, subject to availability etc. But this is far afield from a simple blog administration request. You are asking us to do your own bidding. Speaking for myself, I have to politely decline your request for a few reasons.
1. Administering a law school blog does not a journalist make.
2. And it certainly does not confer upon me (or anyone else) some great authority to speak on behalf of anyone else.
3. Both during law school and beyond, I've had a great relationship with the folks who worked at Boalt, whether in the CDO or Student Services or the Dean's Office. I also know the administration followed the blog with some frequency. So if the CDO cares to comment, I'm sure they're more than capable of sending out emails to the student body, grads, or whatever, explaining whatever it is they want to explain. I don't understand where I or anyone else fit into this equation. I'm also irked that you find it acceptable to draw me into whatever disagreements or peeves you may have with the CDO.
4. There is nothing preventing you from asking the CDO any questions you may have.
5. Post-grad employment, or the lack thereof, is essentially a very individual situation that's probably not prone to generic comments, much less to some dude who graduated a few years ago with a job under his belt allowing him to quote The Simpsons and The Big Lebowski ad nauseam. The CDO's capabilities (or anyone else's for that matter) are largely a factor of the job candidate's background, geographic limitations, personal network, etc.
As I said, I'm going to politely decline your invitation to contact the CDO for a comment. But "that's just like [my] opinion, man."
7:25, There is steadily increasing pressure on everyone involved to change what counts as "employment," and everyone (the ABA, USNWR, and law schools) are falling down in their efforts to point their fingers who they think should lead the charge.
Against that backdrop, responding in a public way to this thread would be a pretty dim move on the school's part - they won't do it.
Jinx.
Triple stampies, no erasies.
Late to the discussion here, but I sent an e-mail to the CDO representative who had been in contact with me immediately after I made this post. I told that person to look it over and send along any corrections or comments, and I'd be happy to update the post. I have not heard back.
i graduated in 07. i have a job at a big firm that, prior to reading this post, i could be accused of taking for granted. in fact i've spent most of the day playing tiny wings and surfing blogs. no more. thanks for the kick in the ass.
It's funny that in the time it took Armen to write that response up, he could have emailed the CDO, written his memoirs, and cured racism.
Haha I'm so screwed. I've got bad grades no journal and no summer job lined up.
Wishing the OP best of luck.
I guess the way to get accurate employment numbers to show up in USNWR is to be real clear with the CDO when they call.
"I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EARNED INCOME PRESENTLY, NOR HAVE I FOR THE PAST YEAR. NOT EVEN FROM COLLECTING CANS AND REDEEMING THEM FOR THE NICKEL REFUND. I AM LIVING ENTIRELY OFF OF CREDIT CARDS AND PERSONAL LOANS FROM MY MOM."
3:24:
Yeah, you probably don't have to be quite that emphatic, but make if don't believe your non-law job should be counted as employment, just say you're unemployed. If they're not going to be honest, why should we?
I also graduated in 2010, top third of the class and was unemployed until very recently. I managed to find an actual law job at a small firm in San Francisco. It's not paying anywhere near what I was hoping to make in order to pay off loans, but it is a start.
I can't even really put into words the way I felt in the period between the Bar exam and getting this job. Depression isn't the right word, I think it's more along the lines of self loathing. To come from a relatively poor area, make it to Boalt, and have your family be so proud of you, only to move home and search for volunteer work....does a lot to your mental well-being.
I noticed Boalt dropped to number 9 in the new rankings. Maybe this is due to employment statistics?
I also want to add that Dan is incredibly brave to post this. Part of the reason these stories haven't come out is most of us in that position are scared to death that going public will only make things worse.
A family friend of mine is an entertainment executive in LA, and put up an assistant position on Entertainment Careers paying 25k. She got applications from Boalt and Harvard grads. This is basically a coffee gopher job.
US News and World can claim to support the Law School Transparency Project, but until they insist on meaningful, audited statistics, the magazine is an accomplice.
1:53/2:07, thanks for the kind words. Did you move home to volunteer and then land a job back in SF? That's pretty much my ideal plan. Did you find it hard to get back into the Bay market after leaving? That's my big fear.
Dan,
I moved home but was still commuting over an hour each day to get to the city, where I volunteered for a federal judge.
Ultimately, I got the job the old fashioned way (online email app, 2 interviews) and it was an application to a firm that would never be at OCIP.
One ugly thing I learned while in that position is all the "friends" I thought I had that were lawyers completely disappeared when I needed them. I'm talking about family friends and family members who are partners at various places, and would not or could not go to the mat for me.
I will say that you should know you're not alone in this (what little consolation that is). I've vowed not to become one of those people who forgets about everyone who is fucked over after finally getting a job.
I don't think leaving the Bay Area will hurt you. If you're nervous about it though, you could always get a forwarding address in SF to put on your resume.
Cool. Thanks for the advice. I do hope to get back there eventually. And yes, we should NEVER FORGET.
I read the new proposal. Nice start, but not good enough. The anger is there for real reform now and they should do it. Here is what the new standard should look like in my view:
Make the school give every graduate a randomized number. Then, as of a certain day, require the school to post a list of the numbers along with the current annualized salaries. INCLUDING unemployed at "0". Unknown should simply be reported as 0, giving the schools a large incentive to go out and get the information. They have the resources, they just don't want to do it.
If every school posted every grad randomly with a salary, then you would have a true representation of how the class is doing. Otherwise, even this new standard can be manipulated. After all, most high end officials in these schools are lawyers.
Post a Comment
<< Home