Skip to main content

法學院也造假

Law school fuzzy grad jobs stats: A federal offense?March 16, 2012:By Elizabeth G. Olson, contributor
Columbia Law School has been subject to increased scrutiny over its job placement stats.
FORTUNE -- Every year, law school deans anxiously await the release of national rankings, and for good reason. A school's prestige, revenues, and perhaps even its future depend on them.
The U.S. News & World Report released their famed rankings on Tuesday, and even deans of successful law schools may find that snagging a top spot on the list may come at a harsh cost.
Accusations that law schools have "gamed" the system by providing incomplete, misleading, or even downright false data on incoming students and graduate employment have marred the competition. So far, law schools are brushing off legal suits by jobless, or seriously underemployed, graduates and other efforts to pry open precise employment data, and clinging to the ivory-tower system of plentiful applicants with deep pockets.
But law school officials may take notice -- and umbrage -- when they see the title of a new study by two law school professors: "Law Deans in Jail."
The 77-page paper, written by Emory University School of Law professors Morgan Cloud and George Shepherd, concludes that widespread manipulation of law school graduate employment data may have not only pushed institutions higher in the national law school rankings, but also could be considered "mail and wire fraud under federal law."
MORE: Sal Khan: Building a better university
The U.S. News ranking of the country's law schools may be so flawed by deceptive or misleading statistics submitted by the country's law schools that "the harm done for many years to thousands of people has been so severe, it should not be hard to recognize the need for investigations by federal authorities to determine whether crimes have been committed," the pair conclude in the paper.
"We have simply looked at law schools and the rankings as if they were any other industries, subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else," says Cloud in an interview about the draft study, which was published on the Social Science Research Network.
Outrage spreads to top-tier schools
So far, Cloud and Shepherd say they have not received any reaction from either deans or the American Bar Association, which accredits nearly 200 law schools nationwide, but they are not the only insiders holding law schools up to increased scrutiny.
Civil lawsuits filed last year against a dozen law schools across the country are making their way through state and federal courts, Congress is looking into holding a hearing on law school reporting practices, and more details of law school employment data are surfacing regularly on the web.
This week, Columbia University and New York University's prestigious law schools started to feel the heat.
After both schools posted additional employment data, Paul Campos, a law professor behind the Inside the Law School Scam blog, found that the two top-line schools appear to have inflated the number of law school graduates who landed "big law" jobs, meaning associate jobs at firms with more than 250 lawyers.
MORE: Nursing makes a comeback: Just in time?
Such a job is the coveted brass ring of the legal profession, with typical starting annual pay at $160,000, bonuses, and a shot at the ultimate prize of a million-dollar-plus law partnership -- greatly offsetting the six-figure debt that students can accumulate during three years of law school.
Campos, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Colorado, found that the two schools reported that a total of 555 2010 graduates found full-time legal employment at major law firms. Campos compared that figure to a listing by a major legal publication, the National Law Journal, which routinely tracks such information, which placed the number at 448 -- or nearly 20% less than the law school's placement offices reported.
"Law schools may be cooking the books, or be incompetent in reporting or it may be that firms are hiring career associates and not partner-track associates," says Campos. "But it's a huge discrepancy. And it could show a level of arrogance that could mean trouble for law schools."
Both NYU and Columbia have issued public responses claiming that these assertions are misleading.
Amy Rotenberg, the spokesman for the American Bar Association's section on legal education, which has responsibility for law school accreditation, says that it had sent its own questionnaire to law schools, and that the section's council is setting in motion changes to accreditation standards. However, nothing final will be adopted until this summer.
Day of reckoning coming?
Even as law schools cling to traditional ways of doing business -- paying six-figure professor salaries and offering expensive perks -- and freely gild the institution's reputation, the quality of its students, and their post-graduation prospects, law school deans are unlikely to be hauled before a criminal court.
"Again and again, people talk about gaming the law school rankings," says Shepherd. "But if gaming means publishing false or deceptive information, law schools that do this could face civil or even criminal liability."
Cloud and Shepherd say U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, which dominate the field, have particular influence on "many students' decisions about which schools to attend, and to pay dearly for the privilege.
"When the rankings are based in part upon false data, then those who are responsible may be guilty of federal crimes," they wrote in their paper.
MORE: A faster (and cheaper) alternative to an MBA
Last year, Villanova University and the University of Illinois each admitted that for several years they had submitted false information about law school applicants, including their median undergraduate grade point averages and law school admissions test scores, both data points used to compile the national law school rankings.
The ABA allows law schools to report salary information of the highest earning graduates as if it were representative of the entire class. Also, law schools do not distinguish between graduates practicing law full-time and those working part-time or in non-legal fields.
Even so, "the profession has seemed blind to the possibility that some law schools, U.S. News, and their employees may have committed crimes for profit," the law professors wrote. U.S. News did not offer comment for this story.
In Congress, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has called on the American Bar Association to do more for the admission and post-graduate information that law schools report. Her office says it wants a hearing, but no date has been set.
Facing the facts
While around 44,000 people graduate from law school a year, they face a market where 15,000 or more legal jobs have vanished in recent years due to outsourcing to foreign countries and industry streamlining.
The ABA has asked law schools for more precise data to review ways to increase oversight and transparency, and U.S. News has requested greater transparency from law school deans.
But results have been mixed. One law school even rolled back the amount of information available to prospective enrollees, says Kyle McEntee, who posts such information on the website of nonprofit Law School Transparency.
Among top tier law schools -- where debt can be steep -- employment data can be hard to parse as well. Columbia University's law school, which kept its No. 4 national ranking this year, says that it did not exaggerate its employment numbers because two dozen law firms did not report their hiring, and employed graduates who had not been admitted to the bar were not included in the overall total.
"It's true that the elite bar is hiring fewer people," says David Schizer, dean of Columbia's law school. "But is Columbia affected? No."
The flap over fudging hiring numbers, he says, was a concern only because "Columbia is the gold standard. People are aware of how much being here does for their careers."
But Campos, writing on his blog, says, "I'll say this for Columbia: the place doesn't lack for chutzpah. When it comes to fundraising, they probably use NSA [National Security Agency] databases to secure their alums' cell phone numbers and GPS nanotechnology to track their exact locations."
But the veracity of the school's stunning 98% graduate employment stats, Campos writes, remains a "deep and abiding mystery."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

工程排水量設計 與 暴雨量

  獨家/直擊大巨蛋落下「瀑布」 民眾疑惑問:排水系統呢? 14:35 2021/06/04   中時   張穎齊 中央氣象局發布豪大雨特報,有民眾直擊拍下大巨蛋從「蛋頂」沖下的瀑布影片,疑惑直呼「排水系統呢?」。(民眾提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 木柵路2段109巷口淹水。(北市府提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 南湖大橋下淹水。(北市府提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 北市消防局門口淹水。(北市府提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 六張犁信安街淹水。(北市府提供/張穎齊台北傳真) 中央氣象局發布豪大雨特報,受颱風及鋒面接近影響,北市中午12時起開始有持續性的強對流發展,市中心有瞬間強降雨,文山、大安及信義區時雨量均超過100毫米,大安及信義區最大10分鐘雨量均超過30毫米,多處積淹水。不過也有民眾直擊拍下大巨蛋從「蛋頂」沖下的瀑布影片,疑惑直呼「排水系統呢?」 北市府表示,目前測得最大累積雨量為大安區福州山站127.5毫米,水利署已發布南港區淹水一級警戒及松山區一級警戒,水利處稍早通知南港區南深陸閘門因為逼近警戒水位,可能隨時關閉。 此外,水利處也已通知各區里,因目前瞬間強降雨遠大於下水道的容量,會有積水狀況發生,如有地下室的應盡速關上防水閘門,減少積水進入地下室造成損失。而木柵路2段109巷口淹水,深約20公分,範圍約100平方公尺,南湖大橋下淹水長度約50公尺、寬度約10尺、深度約50公分。

拆除案 與都更案類似之場景 溝通或方案可能不足

緊急喊停!拆南鐵最後1戶踢鐵板 雙方對峙1小時 鐵道局:今拆除取消 07:42 2020/07/23   中時   鐵道局中工處主任工程司吳志仁宣布今天拆除喊卡。(曹婷婷攝) 字級設定: 小 中 大 特 影》緊急喊卡!拆南鐵最後一戶 雙方對峙1小時 鐵道局今不拆了! 拒拆遷戶陳致曉家門外一度聚集大批警力。(曹婷婷攝) 反對拆遷抗爭者守在大門內。(曹婷婷攝) 警方在7點多撤離,鐵道局隨後宣布取消今天拆除行動。(曹婷婷攝) 台南鐵路地下化強拆作業預計今天清晨6時拆除最後一棟拒拆遷戶、青年路陳致曉家,交通部鐵道局中工處人員和大批警力6點一到在陳宅外宣讀拆除程序於法有據,屋內上百人不斷高呼「反東移、反對徵收」口號,雙方對峙1個多小時後,鐵道局中工處7點20分宣布基於避免衍生衝突,衍生社會成本,今天拆除計畫決定取消。 交通部鐵道局中部工程處主任工程司吳志仁7點20分出面宣布,南鐵地下化是台南重大計畫,但因為考量陳宅有許多人,基於避免造成衝突及衍生不必要社會成本,決定取消。他強調,因全案只剩陳宅拒拆,接下來會傳持續跟陳致曉溝通。 針對鐵道局宣布暫緩任務,陳致曉表示,將討論戰術,「但我不會因此開心,因為今天不攻,明天、後天也會來。」並回嗆「他來我就打!」 反南鐵東移拒拆 自救會長嗆:「歡迎攻進來」 07:12 2020/07/23   中時   反南鐵東移聲援民眾守在待拆戶家中,不願撤離。(李宜杰攝) Facebook   Messenger   Line   Weibo   Twitter   Telegram   複製連結 字級設定: 小 中 大 特 警民仍持續對峙中,鐵道局也釋出善意要溝通。(李宜杰攝) 配合南鐵地下化工程,鐵道局中工處預計今日(23)清晨6時拆除東區青年路陳家。目前反南鐵東移全線自救會長陳致曉與雙親,及超過百名聲援民眾守在陳家客廳,手拉手拒絕撤退,警方及鐵道局人員被拒於門外,並提出要與陳致曉溝通,陳致曉則回嗆「絕不會交涉,歡迎攻進來!」 據悉,目前怪手已進駐陳家後院,百名警力、消防車、救護車也都部署完畢,衝突一觸即發,聲援民眾痛斥「行政訴訟還在打,不要當政黨打

司法改革心

中時社論》司法改革 制度要改心更要改 2017/6/11 下午  司法改革國是會議第1分組第4次增開會議在司法院開會。(黄世麒攝) 司法改革國是會議5個分組分別進行了3個月的會議,已全部結束。5個分組各自提出數十件改革提議,總量非常可觀,多項分組決議曾引起社會高度爭議,且司法院、法務部、律師團體間顯然有嚴重的價值觀與職務立場衝突,接下來幕僚人員如何進行議題綜整,全體會議如何達成總結性結論,事關改革成敗與國家民主發展,身為媒體必須關注,並適時對社會發出建言與警語。 分組討論議題牽涉甚廣,從金字塔式的訴訟制度、賦予大法官違憲裁判審查權、保障司法程序弱勢方權利、修復式司法法制化,到研究設立商業法院、特別勞動訴訟程序、稅務法庭,到高度政治性的增訂妨害司法公正罪,以切斷政治干擾司法的可能性。此外,還包括調整法官晉用制度、終審法院行公開言詞辯論、研議法庭直播提高司法透明度,及檢察體系的性格定位、刑事訴訟程序從起訴的方法開始改變,到改善判決文書格式以求易懂等。 司法的重要性,這裡就不必再行強調。司法的社會公信力嚴重不足,到達需要召開司法改革國是會議來開藥方治病的地步,本身就令人痛心疾首。其實司法改革大業,一方面固然有制度上需要調整的地方,另一方面也有司法人員行為、文化必須大幅檢討改進之處。改革制度需要協調立法、行政、司法甚至考試諸院配合行事,但相對司法相關人員的「革心」,還是比較容易,人的行為與文化改變更困難。台灣民主體制下司法獨立,不受行政及政治干預,為了追求司法獨立的提升而改變司法人員的行為與文化,尤其困難。 改變司法人員的行為與文化具有先天性的困難,在這次司改會議過程中已一覽無遺。這次會議特別引進了半數不具法律背景的委員參與討論,其實就是希望避免法界人士研議司法改革時,閉門造車、諱疾忌醫,甚至護短,成為改革的障礙,但諱疾忌醫甚至護短的毛病仍然不時出現,雖不令人意外,但仍然對會議的進行與成果形成負面的影響。法界人士包括官員、教授、司法從業人士,因為諱疾忌醫甚至護短而在媒體上攻訐,不惜傷害司改會議的社會形象,令人感到遺憾。 諱疾忌醫甚至護短的現象,從議題處理方式的輕重選擇,也可看得出來。關說司法,特別是政治人物包括民意代表關說司法,問題普遍而且觀念嚴重偏頗的程度,從前立法院長王金平加上前檢察總長黃世銘的訴訟案件中,就足以一覽無遺。政