Of course, WaPo could be wrong

I am not normally a big fan of the uber-lefty New Republic. However, I find it ironic that the WaPo author of the article about  a study claiming law school is totally worth the money is a former New Republic author (as are all but one of the other authors on that WaPo "blog") in light of this article in, you guessed it, The New Republic. In this article, a writer for TNR makes the case that the high-paying Big Law jobs that make it possible for the WaPo-cited study to contend that law school is worth the money are, in fact, disappearing.

“Stable” is not the way anyone would describe a legal career today. In the past decade, twelve major firms with more than 1,000 partners between them [sic] have collapsed entirely. The surviving lawyers live in fear of suffering a similar fate, driving them to ever-more humiliating lengths to edge out rivals for business. “They were cold-calling,” says the lawyer whose firm once turned down no-name clients. And the competition isn’t just external. Partners routinely make pitches behind the backs of colleagues with ties to a client. They hoard work for themselves even when it requires the expertise of a fellow partner. They seize credit for business that younger colleagues bring in.

And then there are the indignities inflicted on new lawyers, known as associates. The odds are increasingly long that a recent law-school grad will find a job. Five years ago, during a recession, American law schools produced 43,600 graduates and 75 percent had positions as lawyers within nine months. Last year, the numbers were 46,500 and 64 percent. In addition to the emotional toll unemployment exacts, it is often financially ruinous. The average law student graduates $100,000 in debt.

 I guess there are studies that can prove either side of this case. But I don't think one-third of medical school graduates find themselves no working as doctors. Just sayin'. My advice to anyone thinking about going to law school remains, "You call that thinking?"

Editor's note: The reason I put in the [sic] notation above is to let you know that the use of "between them" was in the original text. When discussing aggregate numbers involving 12 separate entities, the proper usage would be "among them." And the Ninja Grammarian strikes again.