Freakonomics

The GF hooked me up recently with a book called Freakonomics.  It's a sort of pop economics book that I'm pretty sure is scorned by the highbrow economics intellectuals.  Nonetheless, I've always been fascinated by economics - well, not always but for a long time anyway.  Plus, my cynical/skeptical ass is always looking for the hidden agendas and incentives in everything.  For me, there's the given explanation, then there's the real explanation.  The book's main theme is "If morality represents how people would like the world to work, then economics shows how it actually does work."  So, I found this book especially interesting.  Plus, this book had a chapter about the importance of people's names entitled Perfect Parenting, Part II; or: Would a Roshanda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet? So basically, if I were ever going to write a book about economics, well, someone has beaten me to it.

The book applies its main theme to some unlikely subjects:  cheating schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers, the KKK and real estate agents, the relationship between the drop in crime rates and legalized abortion and whether parents matter in the development and success of children.

The chapter on how the KKK and real estate agents are alike is about how secret information is vital to certain groups and without it, they completely lose their power.  I was immediately able to apply this to my current job search.  In the book, a man infiltrates the KKK during the height of the group's power and is privy to all of the secret handshakes, passwords, membership and vernacular.  He spills this information to the producers of a popular radio show who broadcast it.  In short order the KKK falls apart.  Likewise, real estate agents enjoy a monopoly on certain types of information useful to potential buyers and sellers of residential real estate.  Once the public has access to this information - say, through the internet - then real estate agents lose their advantage.  All professionals benefit from this "monopoly of knowledge" - doctors, lawyers, engineers.  But the difference between professionals is how long it would take an average person to acquire the same knowledge.  For example, I could spend several hours on the internet researching recent home sale prices in certain neighborhoods and gain roughly the same level of knowledge as a real estate agent on the topic.  However, if I was having chest pain, I wouldn't be able to learn quickly enough about atherosclerosis, or any of the myriad other diseases where chest pain was a symptom, to do myself any good.  Thus, I may be able to reduce or cut out altogether the expense of a real estate agent, but I would be foolish not to pay for the services of a physician.

We law grads who are entering the legal job market are at a similar disadvantage:  the firms have access to all of the market information while we do not.  Check that - all firms except for big firms, who divulge every bit of information through sources like NALP.  NALP does have some limited information for mid-sized and small firms, but it is not market specific.  You would think that the career resources offices at law schools, whose students pay for their services, would compile this information so that grads could enter salary negotiations armed with adequate information.  For whatever reason, at my school at least, this information was not adequately gathered or made available.  I found out what little they did have, which I have previously posted on this blog, and had to ask for it.  More useful to me was information that I got from an HR director at a mid-sized local firm.  An attorney I work with put me in contact with her and the information I got turned out to be the most useful I had.  (Incidentally, her numbers were actually fairly consistent with those of the STCL CRC.)  Without that contact, which most people don't have, I would've been stumbling in the dark.

So why am I spending so much effort on salary information?  It's not because I am obsessed with money.  Don't get me wrong, I want to make sure I get a good deal.  But more importantly, I want to spread the information I've gotten so that other grads won't get screwed by firms who can take advantage of them because they simply don't have good information.  Translation:  I'm a muff-diving commie pinko fuckstick who's fighting against the man on behalf of the proletariat.

Comments

[Snake Diggity]

I understand pinko fuckstick, but what's wrong with muff-diving?

[Ojo Rojo]

It's an entire quote from a book. I think the muff-diving thing is a lash at hippies. I've never completely understood it either.

[JJ]

I really wanted to show some of my fellow 1L'ers your information, but I didn't know how you would feel about spreading such free information...so I didn't.
But it is nice (or masochistic) to read your blog in search of a job. Thank you for that. At the least it provieds a reprieve of quizzing Personal Jurisdiction or 30 pgs of mindless legal Rsrch.
And in that vain, I like muff-diving.

Fantastic post! Is Reggie tenured? Someone should jockey for his position--seriously. Someone with ideas and vision. I did not get my $'s worth from his office while at STCL. Wheeler (or McGreal--it's been a few years) once said that profs actually get fired if they are consistantly poorly rated. Is no one complaining about the CRC (except to other students)? That's such an important resource for students, and his office sux!!

[Ojo Rojo]

JJ,

I encourage the dissemination of information - especially that contained on this blog. Please forward links or whatever at will. My hope in posting this is that all law grads can go into job negotiations with their eyes wide open.

Anonymous,

On Reggie: There are a number of theories out there as to why Reggie still has a job at STCL. One is that he failed the bar so many times that the administration felt sorry for him and gave him this job. (He is a STCL grad I understand.) Another is that he made some kind of deal with the devil. There are a couple of other theories: 1) The administrative and staff offices that consistently get the lowest ratings by students also coincidentally have a high number of black employees or are headed by someone who is black. These include the CRC, the registrar's office and the office of academic assistance and student counseling. I must warn - I haven't actually seen the results of any surveys, but from what I could gather from talking to fellow students, these offices were graded poorly. If I was an administrator looking at these numbers the first thing I would notice is the fact that the lowest ranking offices were headed by a black person or had numerous black employees. How could this be? Well, either the students are racist or these offices really are doing a bad job. If you were attending STCL in the 2005-2006 academic year, you probably noticed a huge initiative on the part of the registrar's office to do a better job. Their office was constantly closed for various "Customer Service Workshops." In reality, the whole problem with that office was those two rude bitches who worked at the front desk. They were condescending, unhelpful and totally disinterested (they also happened to be black). The school has a vested interested in diversity - it is one of the categories they are graded on by the ABA - so firing people is a last resort. As a fourth tier school, STCL is fighting an uphill battle for a better ranking. 2) Complaints from students regarding the CRC are relative. Very few grads get jobs through the efforts of the CRC. Their own statistics bear this out. In 2005, only 14% of grads got job offers from OCI (the CRC's main initiative). 35% received offers through self initiated contact. What I'm saying is that the "success" of the CRC depends on how they are graded. If they were graded on actually finding people jobs, which is what most students' expectations are, then they would be failing miserably. On the other hand, if they are graded on the number of grads who are employed within 9 months of graduation (95% in 2005) then they would be doing very well. Students' expectations of the CRC are probably too high. I got realistic about this as a 1L. I knew my fate was in my own hands (unless I would've been in the top 5%) as soon as I heard Reggie speak for the first time. Some of the information gathering that the CRC does is useful, you just have to know what they have and where to look for it. The majority of it can be found on Martindale or NALP though.

The bottom line regarding Reggie and the CRC is that in the eyes of the administration, based on their own grading criteria and NOT the students', they are doing very well and he's not likely to be going anywhere anytime soon.

Truthfully, anytime I have asked for anything directly from their office they have been Johnny-on-the-spot. Reggie himself worked very hard on my behalf for a couple of hours last fall when I needed some information on judicial clerkships. My major complaint is that I don't feel that they are very honest about job prospects or the process and I have a problem with the way they get information to students and grads.

[tom]

On Freakonomics:
http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/articles/FreakFreakonomics.pdf

[Ojo Rojo]

Tom - thanks for the link. I read the article and my take is that it's sour grapes. While I don't think Freakonomics is gospel, I also don't think it's snake oil.

Which camp are you in?

[tom]

I'm not sure. I think Freakonomics lives at the intersection of the Tipping Point and the People's History of the United States.

Whichever, I do think it was a fun read.