Unemployment after Graduating (1 Viewer)

[turtleface]

The universities don't just keep cranking up the number of law places without reference to what is actually going on in the profession (although it is financially beneficial for them to do so given the low cost of delivery of the degree). There is a constant consultation between universities and the profession as to what the state of play is (and I have spoken to the people who do this).

Basically the situation is that the universities are concerned that they are putting out too many graduates, but the message from the profession is that, for a number of reasons, this is not the case.

A large proportion of graduates not making it to market (for a variety of reasons), the strong economy, existing lawyers ceasing to practice (going in-house, retiring, changing careers etc), overseas-bound practitioners, all mean that the market for new lawyers is still quite strong.

I mean, look at the amount of cash that newly qualified, 1 PAE, 2 PAE etc lawyers can demand. You just don't get that kind of cash being thrown at people where there is no demand for their skills.

2 points from me:

Dunno about other uni's but last year Melb vastly underestimated the demand for their "guaranteed FEE place for anyone with a TER (UAI) of over 96). This resulted in 95% of single law enrolments going to FEE people. This year it's raised to 98 TER

Also, RE: high salaries, I think its only top tier firms that pay big bucks (not that big actually, but relative to other firms, yes) They have to pay high to attract the best.

Elsewhere the effect of the oversupply is more pronounced. If you join a surburban practice or a smaller mid tier, you'll be looking at 30-35K. 28K if you're unlucky.

Compare that to a graduate solicitor in the U.S. (where law is in demand) who starts on 150-200K USD with a 50K sign on bonus.

 

[BillytheFIsh]

2 points from me:
Elsewhere the effect of the oversupply is more pronounced. If you join a surburban practice or a smaller mid tier, you'll be looking at 30-35K. 28K if you're unlucky.

Compare that to a graduate solicitor in the U.S. (where law is in demand) who starts on 150-200K USD with a 50K sign on bonus.

I'm still not sure about this "over-supply". Is this something you've actually observed or seen evidence of or is it just what you perceive to be the case? I mean, how many unemployed lawyers do you know? You can't even open Lawyer's Weekly or any of those other trashy lawyer magazines without reading about the lack of talent due the the overseas exodus etc.

Leaving the US situation alone (apples and oranges - and the figures aren't that high anyway), where did you get these figures (30-35K - 28k if unlucky) from? I'm nothing special, but I was earning not an insignificant amount more than those numbers as an unqualified graduate at a Brisbane firm with 8 (including me) lawyers and obviously that went up again once I got admitted. And the Sydney and Melbourne salaries are generally a notch above Brisbane ones (granted we don't have the living costs).

I'm not saying lawyers earn the "big bucks" - but there certainly is a big demand for quality junior lawyers out there and the increases in salaries over the first few years are quite dramatic. There's certainly a lot more money out there then there was 2, 5, 10 years ago.

 

[Frigid]

well, if i can throw my tuppence in, Allen & Overyhttp://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=122602&d=122&h=24&f=46 certainly caused a stir when it upped associate salaries by 15% (so that senior associates can earn up to 200K GBP).

Slaughter and Mayhttp://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=122752&d=122&h=24&f=46 has increased its by 15% too..

so yes, the money can always be good if you look top tier

 

[Tamazoid]

So essentially, the stuff on the 'oversupply' of lawyers is a beatup, and it probably only affects you adversely if you went to one of the more mediocre law schools that were setup just to raise the prestige of the particular univesity as opposed to a sandstone institution such as Melbourne, Sydney, ANU, Monash, UNSW...

What is the average starting salary? Any solid statistics out there?

 

[velox]

Probably around 45-50k, unless you work a fair bit more hours at a top tier.

 

[hYperTrOphY]

What is the average starting salary? Any solid statistics out there?

Median starting salary:

Australia: $38,000
NSW: $44,500

 

[BillytheFIsh]

In terms of the oversupply being a "beatup", I'm sure that there are graduates out there who find it difficult to find a job, but in my experience it's for one of the reasons I outlined before. I definitely don't think it's as bad as some would have you think.

And about the non-sandstone unis, I think you'd be surprised at how little that matters. Yes there are some people in the profession who would be biased in some way, but I think the whole "top-tiers only employ people from x university" is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy: People who are serious and full on about their legal career tend to go through hell and high water to go to the "best" university – and then end up being the ones who are serious and full on and do 17 summer/winter clerkships and end up working for top tiers.
<O</O<O
Which uni you went to would matter little in the wash-up when it comes to firms once you get your foot in the door and an interview (even less than your GPA which AT MOST counts for about 25% of how they rate you [from the mouth of a Minter's Sydney Senior Associate who did considerable graduate interviewing]).<O</O
<O</O

In terms of pay figures:<O</O

http://www.hays.com.au/salary/pdfs06/Legal.pdf

http://www.mahlab.com.au/files/Survey%202006%20PPractice.pdf

"Year 1" does mean once you've been admitted though.

 

[Tamazoid]

Median starting salary:

Australia: $38,000
NSW: $44,500

I assume Melbourne would be slightly under the NSW figure then. Cheers for that.

 

[bigheadache99]

Increasing salaries fails to address the shortage.... More graduates are required for that. Consequently you either need to

je2obrien, how do you know that increasing salaries will fail to address shortage? More $$$ means more entrants into the field. And don't even tell me about the "quality of entrants" in this case. Not everybody who works for the moolah is screwed up and incompetent. In fact, it is quite the opposite in a field like Law.

Are you a recruiter? In all my years as a working joe, only a recruiter can be this disingenious about such a simple economic logic.

The solution is only antithetical when the powerbrokers within the industry (major law firms & law schools) collude to seek a fast and easy way to make more money via cheap labour. When there is a graduate glut of any sort, not only do graduate salaries go down and stay down, they become cheap (and desperate) labour. This is simple market economics. It is not rocket science and only needs some common sense to realise.

Addressing market shortages was never a task for the unis. The question one should ask is: Why have the unis suddenly become labour lobbyists for industries? As supposed institutions of higher education/research, the unis engaging in this "moral" escapade seem to have lost the plot, not to mention, causing a huge conflict of interest. If only the same powers-that-be put in such unbridled "noble efforts" into resolving the huge and chronic housing shortage across the nation... Now that would be a worthy moral crusade unless you are a landlord.


Tip for the wise: These days, anytime an industry cries "shortage of labour/manpower", stay the hell away from it because what they really mean is: "shortage of *cheap* labour". In life, there will and should always be shortage of something *worthwhile* if one isn't willing to put in the hard yards and/or pay for it, e.g. I have a shortage of Lamborghini Diablos in my garage. It is called "working for it" - something a lot of companies try to avoid by not investing in their staff (e.g. re/training) or paying commensurating salaries, yet expecting Government hand-outs through their lobbyists to influence labour supply to the point that they can cherrypick workers. The tab for these excesses all picked up by the taxpayes, of course. Just ask the many underemployed IT folks who are still unable to pay off their nearly 10 year-old HECS debts.

 

[banco55]

I remember reading that there are now more people at law school in Queensland than there are practising lawyers in Queensland. The writing is on the wall. The shortages consist of people with 2-5 years of top tier experience. There certainly isn't a shortage of graduates.

 

[Xytech]

I would have to say that law, requiring 98+ at most melb uni's, couldn't be considered the new "arts"

 

[liverpool3k]

I would have to say that law, requiring 98+ at most melb uni's, couldn't be considered the new "arts"

I think it's more that Law has become a generalist degree, something that's handy to have even if you don't want to practise law, because it gives you good critical thinking skills, an understanding of the law... so on.
it's more like arts+, for people who are hyper intelligent but directionless

 

[bigheadache99]

I would have to say that law, requiring 98+ at most melb uni's, couldn't be considered the new "arts"

Please don't bullshit about Melburnian unis to a Melburnian. Among the approx. half-dozen or so Law Schools here, Melb & Monash are the only ones requiring such high scores for admission. But then again, there is no correlation between employment prospects and demand for those courses *at* those "super-duper" unis. Don't confuse brand power for anything else. If Monash or Melb ever ran a fruit-picking course, the ENTER needed for admission would be pretty high as well.

 

[turtleface]

I would have to say that law, requiring 98+ at most melb uni's, couldn't be considered the new "arts"

ok I know you said "most" but 98? I think you mean 88 (Deakin at some obscure campus... there are other unis that have even lower Clearly ins for law...I'd say down to 70)

 

[Xytech]

the melbourne uni's are 98ish, i know deakin MELBOURNE (note melbourne; not geelong or somewhere else) shot up, as did La Trobe.

 

[bigheadache99]

the melbourne uni's are 98ish, i know deakin MELBOURNE (note melbourne; not geelong or somewhere else) shot up, as did La Trobe.

Oh no, here we go again... more misinformation from Xytech.

My reference is VTAC. Pure Law @ Deakin (Melb) "shot up" to 93.65 for a CSP. How is that "98ish"???

Out of the 5 law schools here, only Monash & UniMelb require ENTER scores of 98ish+ to enter their Law courses. The reason: they're elite Go8 unis. It is substantially easier to study Law in other states (besides NSW) because those states only have 1 Go8 uni, surrounded by a sea of me-too unis touting law schools that seem more efficient at producing law graduates than employed ones.

 

[UWS-Uni-Student]

If you mean employed in a law related area its possible, but if you mean totally unemployed, then thats another matter

 

[UWS-Uni-Student]

the status of accountants has gone to the dogs/quote]

Since when?

 

[bigheadache99]

If you mean employed in a law related area its possible, but if you mean totally unemployed, then thats another matter

I would hardly consider a Law graduate to be employed in the sense of the word, if all he/she could find with that hard won Law degree was a cashier position @ Myer or part-time real estate salesperson.

 

[Xytech]

Oh no, here we go again... more misinformation from Xytech.

My reference is VTAC. Pure Law @ Deakin (Melb) "shot up" to 93.65 for a CSP. How is that "98ish"???

Out of the 5 law schools here, only Monash & UniMelb require ENTER scores of 98ish+ to enter their Law courses. The reason: they're elite Go8 unis. It is substantially easier to study Law in other states (besides NSW) because those states only have 1 Go8 uni, surrounded by a sea of me-too unis touting law schools that seem more efficient at producing law graduates than employed ones.

Pure law at la trobe DID "shoot up" to 98.20. - thats what i remember looking at, and i assumed the others followed a similar pattern.

no need to be a prick about it.