JD = no guarantee

According to an excellent report by the Wall Street Journal, law school graduates who are not in the top 10% of their class at all but the elite schools are having an increasingly difficult time finding work. Work that is found (outside of the big firms, of course) offers starting salaries more modest than in the past.

Evidence of a squeezed market among the majority of private lawyers in the U.S., who work as sole practitioners or at small firms, is growing. A survey of about 650 Chicago lawyers published in the 2005 book "Urban Lawyers" found that between 1975 and 1995 the inflation-adjusted average income of the top 25% of earners, generally big-firm lawyers, grew by 22% -- while income for the other 75% actually dropped.

To which I say cry me a river. The vast majority of law school graduates are still going to find quality work and earn a more-than-comfortable salary. What really caught my eye were these paragraphs:

[D]ebate is intensifying among law-school academics over the integrity of law schools' marketing campaigns. Defenders argue that the legal profession always has been openly and proudly a meritocracy: Top entrance-exam scores help win admittance to top schools where top students win jobs at top firms. Even the system that is used to issue law-school grades -- a curve that pits student against student -- reflects the law profession's competitiveness. . . . [The Dean of second-tier Loyola Law School] says it is problematic that big firms only interview the top of the class, "but that's the nature of the employment market; it's never been different."

. . .

"Prospective students need solid comparative data on employment outcomes, [but] very few law schools provide such data," adds Andrew Morriss, a law professor at the University of Illinois who has studied the market for new lawyers.

Students entering law school have little way of knowing how tight a job market they might face. The only employment data that many prospective students see comes from school-promoted surveys that provide a far-from-complete portrait of graduate experiences. Tulane University, for example, reports to U.S. News & World Report magazine, which publishes widely watched annual law-school rankings, that its law-school graduates entering the job market in 2005 had a median salary of $135,000. But that is based on a survey that only 24% of that year's graduates completed, and those who did so likely represent the cream of the class, a Tulane official concedes.

It often feels that my school has forgetten that Law School is a professional school. It's an investment, and our goal, as students, is to be prepared for and to land a job after we graduate. As an example, On Campus Interviews (OCI) are taking place right now, and the application process began in early August. Unbeknown to the majority of students, however, was the fact that our Office of Career Planning (OCP) is not as we left it in the Spring. Our entire staff (of 3, for 750 students) resigned, was released, or is on sabbatical. Upon returning this Fall, we found one new OCP attorney, with her Director not arriving until mid-September, long after OCI applications were due.

I'm sure there's an interesting back story here, and while we do seem to have upgraded our OCP staff, leaving students high and dry for OCI was a horrible means to that end. Some students at my school have lost out on interviews, quality internships, and possibly even jobs because Career Planning has not been enough of a priority for our administration. I can only hope that the positive reports I've heard and the positive acts I've seen from the newly hired staff marks a change in attitude at my law school.

For a larger discussion on the WSJ piece, see the WSJ Law Blog »

Metrics for creating fan support

(This short story became a long read - skip to the blockquotes if you want to get to the meat of this post.)

While living in New England, I became great friends with a temporarily transplanted Australian. A graduate of the Kennedy School, he'd fallen completely and irreparably for the Boston Red Sox (and yes, this was before they became a force, championss, and big spenders in the last few years).

That was the early 00's. Since then, my friend returned to Australia. I returned to San Francisco. Still the bond of our love for baseball and interest in the Sox keeps us talking. He got me hooked in to an eclectic group of baseball junkies - some are Bostonians, some went to the Kennedy School, and one is an Australian sports junkie. All love to talk Red Sox and baseball.

Over the last couple of weeks, discussion has been dominated by all things JD Drew. Is he killing the team? Should the fans support or boo? Should millionaire pro athletes be treated like professionals who get paid to do a job or like artists, who are sometimes temperamental and need to be coddled? Was Drew a wise signing? Should he benched for rookie phenom Jacob Ellsbury?

One of the Australians staunchly defended Drew. One of the Bostonian/Kennedy crowd argued that the fans should support Drew and all of the Sox... but outside of that limited support, the Australian was on his own.

After 75 or so emails, the conversation had devolved from researched criticism and insightful debate to little more than name calling. The Australian then said the following:

I reckon there’s a difference between cursing the f*ck out someone for botching a dp or letting a dribbler roll through his legs (ie for f*cks SAKE Lugo, it’s not that hard to throw at Youkilis) and booing someone in the on deck circle in the bottom of the first before his first at bat. There’s pretty much only 1 player on the Sox I hate, in Mirabelli, but I’m not booing the dude when he’s announced on the Fenway jumbotron.

Managers should be booed though. They suck. Actually, I once met Wendell Kim and I wanted to punch him in the throat.

And that got me thinking. We'd reached an impasse and still failed to settle our dispute... but why? Then I hit upon a solution, a strong way to at least articulate my point of view, even if it still failed to convince our holdout. My reply?

Punch Wendell Kim in the throat? He's my all time favorite 3rd base coach! Was with the Giants forever, and always ran out to his position. Fantastic, and very noticeable to myself and all of my friends when we were growing up.

And I think that's part of the point. Baseball's a game, and I like to at least try to approach watching the game in the same way as I did when I was a kid. My understanding is more sophisticated now, but I still want to see the same qualities in players that led me to favorites as a kid if I'm going to root for them now - talent, skill, hustle, smarts, heart, leadership, selflessness, style and a smile.

JD only clearly exhibits 1 and 2 on a daily basis (or at least he did before this year). 3-5 are up for debate. 6-9 are lacking entirely.

That's really it. When I think of all of the players I've loved over the years, in any sport, they all score well on this metric. Score well and one player alone is enough for me to tune in. Score poorly, and I, as a fan, would be happier if the team I root for traded you.

(Update:) The Sports Guy has written an article about just this subject. About Sox fans booing Drew, The Sports Guy says:

I believe a player should be booed by the home crowd for four reasons only: 1) a noticeable lack of effort, 2) an indefensibly dumb mistake, 3) if the coach keeps stupidly trotting him out in big spots (in which case the expressed displeasure is for the decision, not the player) and 4) if he happens to be named Tim Thomas or J.D. Drew.

Full Article »