But to prove I'm not dead (as if this post isn't sufficient), here's some stuff I've been reading over the past few days.
The DSCC has announced its bumper sticker for the '08 elections. It's actually pretty good. Although Michelle Cottle is right that watching James Carville in this context is just awful.
Republican Presidential "hopeful" Duncan Hunter on Guantanamo Bay:
They've got health care that's better than most HMOs. And they got something else that no Democrat politician in America has: They live in a place called Guantanamo, where not one person has ever been murdered.
Beach-front property, good security, low crime....I wonder how the public schools are in the area? Although, I do wonder if we should be bragging that most Americans have significantly worse health care than what's available at Gitmo.
Kenneth Waltz, one of the doyens of the foreign policy realist school, on power: "To say that militarily strong states are feeble because they cannot easily bring order to minor states is like saying that a pneumatic hammer is weak because it is not suitable for drilling decayed teeth."
Sweetner as Feminist History (via FLP, originally from Overheard in New York
There's a bunch of great posts over at De Novo, but this argument PG puts out on Richard Sander's proposed study of how affirmative action affects bar passage rates is my favorite.
Post-law school salary curve. It's actually interesting--particularly the big gap in the $80,000 range.
3 comments:
Thanks for the praise! But what, no love for my Ex Post? ;-)
I don't think NALP's asking students what they're making one year after graduation is nearly as useful as surveying students five years after graduation. We don't ask doctors about their salaries one year after getting the MD, because pretty much of all of them are making crap and working 80+ hours a week during their residencies. While a chunk of the top law students do go to the big firms and start at $160k, others are doing clerkships that probably will result in their getting hefty bonuses upon joining a firm. (E.g., if you manage to get a circuit and then SCOTUS clerkship, you won't start making a large salary until your third year out of law school -- but the SCOTUS bonus is rumored to be $100k.)
Of course, many graduates are also working at neither big firms nor courts nor even prestigious government or nonprofit jobs (DOJ Honors program also doesn't pay much, but is a great feeder into good jobs; ditto many local prosecutor's offices as well as a few nonprofits). But one year out still doesn't tell us much. Plaintiff's attorneys, for example, are the gamblers of the profession; they can struggle along on almost nothing, or they can become millionaires. But even the millionaires had to develop their skill and reputation.
Dude, I've long since stopped checking Ex Post for updates. And I don't think you can blame me--that was the first post up there since February.
I think the law salary data is more interesting because of the distribution than anything else--namely, the deficit of positions in the $80-100,000 range. Basically, it seems like you come out of law school either as a impoverished public law dude (but keep your soul and sanity) or a fabulously wealthy worker bee for a corporate firm. The lack of a middle ground is intriguing.
There's a lack of middle ground immediately after law school, because yes, people either are on the corporate track and starting at $160k in major cities, or they're, well, not. But I bet that many more people move into the $80k space a few years after graduation. For example, government starting salaries tend to be around $50k, but as a civil servant you get regular salary increases, and if you change jobs your experience is worth a lot. The comparison to medical school comes to mind again: first year out just doesn't tell us much. You're wet-behind-the-ears and still in the practical training stage, even if U.S. lawyers don't get the formal residency that docs do.
Post a Comment