Posts Tagged ‘broke’

2013: More Rejection Letters

Select Rejection Letters 2013–Need I say more?
06/03/2013: Dear [     ]
We would like to thank you for applying to the above vacancy.

After a careful review of the background and qualifications of all candidates, we regret to inform you that you have not been selected for the shortlist.  Although you were not short-listed for this position, you may want to continue to review the opportunities in myJobWorld (http://myjobworld).  

We would like to take this opportunity to wish you continued success in the future and to thank you for your interest in this position.  
Kind regards,
Human Resources Services
The World Bank Group

NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS SYSTEM GENERATED – YOU CANNOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE.

05/14/2013: Thank you for your interest in the International Relations faculty position
at UC Berkeley. This search was highly competitive, and unfortunately your application is no longer under consideration. We appreciate the time and energy invested in your application, and encourage you to apply for positions listed in the future. 

We wish you every personal and professional success with your job search.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Spaw
Academic Personnel Analyst

Re: Position 1758 – UC Berkeley International Relations Faculty Position

05/14/2013:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY    
USCIS HR OPERATIONS CENTER    
70 KIMBALL AVENUE
SOUTH BURLINGTON VT  05403    

 Dear [           ]    

   This refers to the application you recently submitted to this office for the position below:    

Position Title: Entry Level Attorney    
Pay Plan:       GS   
Series/Grade: 0905-12    
Vacancy ID:      826700    
Announcement Number:      CIS-826700-COU    

Hiring Office: US Citizenship and Immigration Services    

Results regarding your recent referral to the Hiring Official are as follows:    

Referral Type:      Non-Traditional  
Appointment Type: Excepted Service Permanent    
Specialty / Grade:      0905 – 12    
Promotion Potential:      15    
Locations: Location Negotiable After Selection    

Thank you for applying for this position.  Your application has been considered.  However, another applicant was selected.  We appreciate your interest in employment with our agency.    
Audit Code:    NS    
Code Definition:    Not Selected    
Code Explanation:    

The selecting office has indicated that you were not selected for the position.    

Thank you for your interest in Federal employment.  You are encouraged to visit http://www.usajobs.gov to view additional Federal employment opportunities and information.    

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE.  IT IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED.    

For additional information, please refer to the vacancy announcement for this position.    

05/03/2013
Recently we received your resume/application for the Humanities/Philosophy, Undergraduate School – Adjunct Faculty (Req# 8644) position at UMUC. Unfortunately, the University has decided that the position will not be recruited at this time. Please visit our career page where you can explore other opportunities that may be of interest http://www.umuc.edu/employment .

Thank you for your time and interest in UMUC. 
Sincerely, 
Talent Acquisition
Office of Human Resources

04/29/2013:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY    
USCIS HR OPERATIONS CENTER    
70 KIMBALL AVENUE
SOUTH BURLINGTON VT  05403    

Dear [         ]
This refers to the application you recently submitted to this office for the position below:    

   Position Title: Entry Level Attorney    
   Pay Plan:  GS    
   Series/Grade: 0905-11    
   Vacancy ID:      826700    
   Announcement Number: CIS-826700-COU    

   Hiring Office: US Citizenship and Immigration Services    

Results regarding your recent referral to the Hiring Official are as follows:    

   Referral Type: Non-Traditional  
   Appointment Type: Excepted 
     Service Permanent    
   Specialty / Grade:      0905 – 11    
   Promotion Potential:      15    
   Locations: Location Negotiable After Selection    

Thank you for applying for this position.  Your application has been considered.  However, another applicant was selected.  We appreciate your interest in employment with our agency.    

   Audit Code:   NS    
   Code Definition:   Not Selected  
   Code Explanation:    

The selecting office has indicated that you were not selected for the position.    

Thank you for your interest in Federal employment.  You are encouraged to visit http://www.usajobs.gov to view additional Federal employment opportunities and information.    

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE.  IT IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED.    

For additional information, please refer to the vacancy announcement for this position.

04/26/2013:    
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR US ATTYS    
DO NOT MAIL APPLICATIONS    
YOU MUST APPLY ONLINE
WASHINGTON DC  20530    

Dear [          ]

This refers to the application you recently submitted to this office for the position below:    

   Position Title: Assistant United 
    States Attorney    
   Vacancy ID:      844037    
   Series/Grade:    N/A    

The agency has cancelled  or postponed filling this vacancy.    

Thank you for your interest in Federal employment.  You are encouraged to visit http://www.usajobs.gov to view additional Federal employment opportunities and information.    

 PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE.  IT IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED.    

For additional information, please refer to the vacancy announcement for this position.

04/15/2013:
[AP Search] JPF00011 J.D./LL.M./J.S.D. Program Tenured Faculty Search

Dear Applicant,
The Search Committee has concluded their review of applicants for the J.D./L.L.M/J.S.D. Program faculty position at Berkeley Law. There were a number of candidates applying for the position, and after much consideration, we regret to inform you that your application is no longer under consideration. 

We appreciate your patience during this long review process and thank you for your interest.

– Berkeley Law, Academic Positions    

04/06/2013: 
Hello [            ]
Thank you for taking the time to apply with us. We are unable to offer you a position at this time, but we do appreciate your interest in Target.

Target (YOU READ CORRECTLY-T-A-R-G-E-T)

For years trying these tactics have not and still do not work:  Informational interviewing with former professors, colleagues, referrals and attorneys I met at conferences didn’t help, going to different cities and knocking door to door to speak with legal secretaries and receptionists, parking lots of different businesses, and handing out one’s resume provided no leads though I get “You have all this” and “you seem great”, discussing the issue with volunteers at non-profits only to be provided the “you are doing everything right” or “that’s a shame,” registering at different state employment agencies though providing free services and undergoing verbal abuse and contempt on a daily basis by civil (oxymoron) workers who find out how educated you are leads to them not wanting them to help you or to see you succeed as they complain about how they did not “get” a chance to go to university and it doesn’t matter because these places focus on retail, IT or blue collar jobs that have no intetest in you; professional outreach workshops and networking provided few leads all the while continuously applying to jobs blind via online and postal mail; including those advertised at federal agencies, which provided no compensation at the federal Assistant Attorneys Office to only be told you are eligible; qualified; ranked among the best qualified and have the credentials and more but [herein lies the secret-you’re not white; you’re not male; you’re not IVY League; you don’t have connections; how would it look for us politically–in other words, for whichever reasons, we do not want YOUR kind here]

Don’t take a gamble with your future, especially if you’re a minority. Sallie Mae doesn’t care how hard you try, they will devour you.

Advertisements

Too Little Too Late: Four Ways to Fix Law Schools (U.S. News & World Reports)

It has been a long time since I posted here, primarily due to focusing on my survival in such a grave economy and Sallie Mae venomously nipping at my heels. Anyway, I came across this “article” Four Ways to Fix Law Schools (click link). I find this as too little too late. Sometimes it is better to let something that is on death bed to pass away peacefully. For decades proponents of the law school industry have known that they were creating a bubble that would burst. Those law schools already in existence continued to pump out exorbitant number of law graduates by either increasing class sizes or adding programs to its over-saturated law school population. The ABA who loves to perpetuate the fun continued to accredit law schools though statistically it was quite aware of the economic burden v. benefits were not adding up. The main excuse the ABA used was that it would violate antitrust laws should it limit the accreditation of any additional law schools. This is counterintuitive. Antitrust laws exist to keep a market competitive for available sources, it is not to create a general market with barely any regulation so in reality there is no competition because there aren’t many jobs to compete for. Increasing law school admissions does not expand the job market it only makes the legal industry worse.

The suggestions listed in the article are simply too little too late. Even where it states to train U.S. attorneys to work abroad, in previous posts I have discussed that Spain, England and some Asian countries have a surplus of attorneys, and most of them do not think highly of the U.S. It is unreasonable to think that other countries, some part of the European Union which has their own economic crises to deal with, will welcome an influx of American attorneys with open arms.

Though it is common sense that in any industry, the learner must have “hands-on” experience and some level of intellectual pursuit. Law schools churned out too many “what if” asking professionals instead of those who can actually practice law. Those who can likely went to law schools that catered to local hiring and thus do not fall within the IVY League core, in essence the former has little to no change of upward mobility in experience or expanding their practicing fields. This article also focuses on the ‘future’ and has no solution or even reference to recent law graduates or attorneys who were not trained under apprenticeships though required to CLEs.  Thousands upon thousands of American attorneys who have already been thrown to the wayside, yet we are to believe that all of a sudden a 3-point article offers best solutions for potential law graduates.. Should of any of the law schools and ABA would like to take this article seriously it would have to take an economic loss by choosing a moratorium on any further law schools to be accredited and recommended lower admissions until either the legal industry re-invents itself or the lawyer to job creation numbers reaches a reasonable number. Until then this is simply baiting those who are still in their desperate state of minds consider law school as a viable option for a career and those who have a financial stake in the business aspect of the law school industry. This is just more fluff to keep the facade that the legal industry can recover. Times change, both economically and practically and they appear to change for the worse. The recommendation stays the same, the nearly insurmountable debt and poor quality of life is not worth it. Do not go to law school.

The Mainstream Media Harks the Trumpet: Overburden Law Graduates with Usurious Student Loans (NYT)

The New York Times

So, at this point the mainstream media gets it? Why you may ask. Because the Housing bubble put the nation and the world economy on notice that the old way of financially devastating working/middle class persons who took a chance on higher education will not only destroy their way of living but burden the world economies. Interestingly, the author suggest more accountability in accredidation (not likely to happen, if Sallie Mae lobbied Congress to privatized and obliterate “fresh start” by discharging student loans through bankruptcy; I’m sure these for profit institutions will lobby (pay) Congress to keep out of ABA’s ‘free market enterprise’ of exploitation–ironically in the legal field.

He also suggests stripping away tenure track positions. Hmmm maybe professors will be forced to teach with integrity and on merit not based on race, personality conflict or whether the student is the child of a local judge. Doubt the latter, but support the author’s recommendation. Here’s an excerpt:

Two factors have combined to produce this situation: the federal loan system and the American Bar Association-imposed accreditation standards for law schools. Both need to be reformed.

First, consider the loan system. For more than three decades, law schools have steadily increased tuition because large numbers of students have been willing and able to pay whatever price the schools demanded. Annual tuition at many law schools in just over a decade surpassed $30,000, then $40,000 and is now more than $50,000 at a few. The reason that students have been able to pay such astronomical sums is that the federal government guaranteed student loans from private lenders, and now it supplies the loans itself with virtually no limits.

To restore some economic rationality, the federal loan system needs to demand greater accountability from law schools: those with a high proportion of recent graduates in financial trouble should lose their eligibility to receive money from federal loans. (A similar requirement is currently applied to for-profit colleges.)

The full article can be found at:

How to Make Law School Affordable – NYTimes.com (05/31/2012)

Don’t Go to Law School if You Want a Living Wage

All Rights Reserved

Should have been the title of the following news column, but I guess the current one will have to do:

  January 21, 2011:

Don’t go to law school if you want to make money | Susan Estrich | Columnists | Washington Examiner

At this point, it seems like bloggers, commenters and now even law professors who are exposing the game are becoming redundant. But with millions of futures at stake and an industry that has changed to the point of likely never reverting back to the traditional ways of living wage, true prestige and intellectual competition, we cannot say it enough. Do not go to law school:

In recent years, an increasing number of law students have not gotten jobs like those, because most large firms (who are the ones paying $160,000 to start) have cut back significantly on new hiring. The idea that you can just walk out of law school and into a six-figure job is, for many students at most schools, a painful fantasy.

There’s an enormous amount of Wall Street-style accounting that goes into the reports on employment that law schools submit to the increasingly powerful organizations that rank them. So when you look at the numbers, you might think that almost everyone who goes to a half-decent law school is finding a great job after graduation. Oh my does she dare suggests that big money and corporate finance is used to ‘enhance’ of law school statistics and ability to graduate top notch law students? Perish the thought [o.k. that was some real sarcasm]

My first job out of law school paid $13,909. Granted, it was a long time ago. But even then, it was substantially less than what my classmates were making in private practice and barely enough to cover my rent, food, gas and, of course, those student loans.

But so what? I didn’t go to law school to make money. If that were my goal, I would’ve gone to business school, got a job in investment banking and yearned for one of those eight-figure Goldman partnerships.

I went to law school because I believed in the power of law to change people’s lives for the better. And I have never been happier, professionally speaking, than when I was making almost no money but believed that what I was doing mattered.

If the primary reason you’re applying to law school is because you want one of those $160,000 jobs, don’t . Forget it. Like medicine, law used to be a sure-shot to making a very, very good income.

Not anymore. The students who apply to med school know that there is no pot of gold waiting.

There are many better and easier ways to make money. Kids go to medical school today because they want to be doctors, not because they want to be rich. The same rule should apply to law school.

Law school almost certainly is a losing game if what you care most about is money. In my book, that’s probably a good thing. I understand to mean that if one’s primary goal was to seek justice and help others, one is less likely to be corrupted in their judgment, political leaning and more dedicated as a zealous advocate. The question is for those people who thought like that, why should they not be able to do an excellent job in their field helping others WHILE earning a decent wage. It appears that she has assumed that the current economy is weeding out the shysters and get-rich scheme and big corporate lawyers. I would caution that if anything, desperation for money could just breed more of what she surmises the industry was getting rid of.

Many of my former students started out in those high-paying jobs and now feel trapped and frustrated. Many who didn’t have that option have, through necessity, found careers they enjoy much more.

At a certain point in life, the escalators just stop running. When they do, you have to fend for yourself — decide what you care about, what matters to you, what tradeoffs you are and are not willing to make. The problem is that many students weren’t debriefed about what those tradeoffs were and were given misrepresentations of what the payoff would likely be. I agree that you do have to “decide what you care about’ a decent living wage, quality of life, time for family to make new friends rank high. Going to law school greatly interferes with it though.

That’s what being an adult is about. There are no guarantees.

We all learn that sooner or later. And learning it in law school does not strike me as a losing game at all. Says the woman with a decent paying job. Just say ‘no.’

The U.S. Post Office is always hiring

Actually it’s not. During the past two years the Washington, D.C.; Virginia; Maryland areas postal services were affected by the recession. Local news stations touted the proposed shorter office hours as wells as reducing the number of days a postal worker delivers mail to 5 instead of 6 days. Wow, in my experience I have to wonder which is worse, waiting in a line at a bank for a teller to wait on you or waiting at the post office. I think it depends on the time of day and the teller, usually they’re both horrible. As of date, the U.S. postal service still delievers 6 days a week, but now they’re considering ‘reducing staff.’ Really? I guess having 2-3 tellers is too much especially when you service three suburban counties. So by now you have realized that the U.S. Postal Service isn’t hiring; but the U.S. Census is–allegedly.

I knew of an attorney who applied last year and was told that it was only the beginning of the application process. The Washington Post seems to promote being a census taker–at least it’s money. One cannot have an article about unemployed professionals without discussing the attorney who is looking for work:

The Washington Post Carol Morello, Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 8, 2010 [
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/07/AR2010030702886.html?hpid=topnews ]

“After just two years as an associate at a small firm in the District, Williams was laid off in November 2008. She assumed she would land another job within four months. When that didn’t happen, her brother mentioned seeing an ad that the Census Bureau was hiring.”

Wow, at least she was able to get some real legal experience–I’m assuming. And look at this article posted a few days ago, it’s as if attorney’s are the new gauge for unemployment rates among professionals!:

‘Those college degrees don’t seem to be worth very much now,’ Dayton Daily News, March 16, 2010, Carol Flowers [http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/those-college-degrees-dont-seem-to-be-worth-very-much-now-603118.html ]

“My son holds five associate degrees, a bachelor’s, a master’s and a law degree. He has passed the bar exam in three states and cannot get a nibble because he is in competition for jobs with unemployed lawyers who have 10 to 15 years of experience.” Ok, this mother has to be reading our blogs now, so maybe family members do understand, well I still think most don’t.  Maybe she was part of the PLUS loan programs and now her credit is being affected, who knows, but the college-law school promos are being exposed.

Now just imagine that you were an older attorney but in the same situation. Economists state this is a jobless economic recovery. What? So I am to conclude the only ones primarily benefitting from a financial upturn would be actual corporations.

Why You Should Be Bitter

You tried to do it right. You received good grades in high school and college. You decided to improve your job prospects because you knew you wanted a family, knew of inflation and just wanted to continue working forward. The mistake you made. You went to law school.

As we all have witnessed we are bitter. Some law graduates went to top schools, others didn’t, and still others weren’t adequately advised or mentored as to whether they should have been to or stayed in law school. For the most part were tricked by enablers.

You realized it when you expected a return on your educational investment, even now you will still hear influential financial advisors such as Suze Orman exort student loans as “good debt.” You stay in an apartment in an ok area, but realized that blue collar workers make just as much as you, that everyone receives discounts on their rent: the military, teachers, veterans, disabled. The latter two you understand but then comes the other category-Section 8 housing.  You realized that at some point in your life you were considered open-minded, liberal, until the basics of housing and food became an issue. Everyone makes mistakes, but some people have made it a career to live their lives in error. I refer to the ones who manipulate and take advantage of the system. You are surrounded by those who went out and had a bunch of children they couldn’t afford, some may work part-time others don’t at all, yet they are rewarded. You on the other hand are middle or upper middle class, your tax dollars support programs that DO NOT benefit you at all, yet after trying to do things the right way, you end up living in the same area, neighborhood and even apartment buildings as these people. The government doesn’t care about your student loans, you are taxed to the highest degree possible, punished because you are single and dare to want to earn a decent living so you wouldn’t have to live amongst certain elements. Then you realize, I sacrifice for what? to be around who? and what are my job prospects with a legal education and (if it applies)  I am a minority? Wow. You should not be bitter, but you should definitely be angry.

Law School Admissions Lag Among Minorities January 6, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/education/07law.html

Law School Admissions Lag Among Minorities

By Tamar Lewin
Published: January 6, 2010

While law schools added about 3,000 seats for first-year students from 1993 to 2008, both the percentage and the number of black and Mexican-American law students declined in that period, according to a study by a Columbia Law School professor.

What makes the declines particularly troubling, said the professor, Conrad Johnson, is that in that same period, both groups improved their college grade-point averages and their scores on the Law School Admission Test, or L.S.A.T.

“Even though their scores and grades are improving, and are very close to those of white applicants, African-Americans and Mexican-Americans are increasingly being shut out of law schools,” said Mr. Johnson, who oversees the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic at Columbia, which collaborated with the Society of American Law Teachers to examine minority enrollment rates at American law schools.

However, Hispanics other than Mexicans and Puerto Ricans made slight gains in law school enrollment.

The number of black and Mexican-American students applying to law school has been relatively constant, or growing slightly, for two decades. But from 2003 to 2008, 61 percent of black applicants and 46 percent of Mexican-American applicants were denied acceptance at all of the law schools to which they applied, compared with 34 percent of white applicants.

“What’s happening, as the American population becomes more diverse, is that the lawyer corps and judges are remaining predominantly white,” said John Nussbaumer, associate dean of Thomas M. Cooley Law School’s campus in Auburn Hills, Mich., which enrolls an unusually high percentage of African-American students.

Mr. Nussbaumer, who has been looking at the same minority-representation numbers, independently of the Columbia clinic, has become increasingly concerned about the large percentage of minority applicants shut out of law schools.

“A big part of it is that many schools base their admissions criteria not on whether students have a reasonable chance of success, but how those L.S.A.T. numbers are going to affect their rankings in the U.S. News & World Report,” Mr. Nussbaumer said. “Deans get fired if the rankings drop, so they set their L.S.A.T. requirements very high.

“We’re living proof that it doesn’t have to be that way, that those students with the slightly lower L.S.A.T. scores can graduate, pass the bar and be terrific lawyers.”

Margaret Martin Barry, co-president of the Society of American Law Teachers, said that while she understood the importance of rankings, law schools must address the issue of diversity. “If you’re so concerned with rankings, you’re going to lose a whole generation,” she said.

The Columbia study found that among the 46,500 law school matriculants in the fall of 2008, there were 3,392 African-Americans, or 7.3 percent, and 673 Mexican-Americans, or 1.4 percent. Among the 43,520 matriculants in 1993, there were 3,432 African-Americans, or 7.9 percent, and 710 Mexican-Americans, or 1.6 percent. The study, whose findings are detailed at the Web site A Disturbing Trend in Law School Diversity, relied on the admission council’s minority categories, which track Mexican-Americans separately from Puerto Ricans and Hispanic/Latino students.

“We focused on the two groups, African-Americans and Mexican-Americans, who did not make progress in law school representation during the period,” Mr. Johnson said. “The Hispanic/Latino group did increase, from 3.1 percent of the matriculants in 1993, to 5.1 percent in 2008.”

Mr. Johnson said he did not have a good explanation for the disparity, particularly since the 2008 LSAT scores among Mexican-Americans were, on average, one point higher than those of the Hispanics, and one point lower in 1993.

Over all, Mr. Johnson said, it is puzzling that minority enrollment in law schools has fallen, even since the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, that race can be taken into account in law school admissions because the diversity of the student body is a compelling state interest.

“Someone told me that things had actually gotten worse since the Grutter decision, and that’s what got us started looking at this,” Mr. Johnson said. “Many people are not aware of the numbers, even among those interested in diversity issues. For many African-American and Mexican-American students, law school is an elusive goal.”

_______________________________________________________________________

I have mixed feelings about this article. First, I know how hard it was historically for blacks to even obtain the privilege to read, eat in public, use the restroom in public, ride in transportation in integrated transport. Let alone to obtain the right the vote and get a formal education. The problem is that with invidious discrimination that is interwoven in American society, going to law school will be a financial detriment. This will likely affects one credit (mind you there are studies which shows black Americans with equal or slightly better credit scores still receive subprime rates: [Credit, Capital and Communities: The Implications of the Changing Mortgage Banking Industry for Community Based Organizations, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University(2004) AND 88th Annual Report, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2001). Denial rates for conventional home purchase loans in 2000 were 45 percent for black applicants, 42 percent for Native American applicants, 31 percent for Hispanic applicants, 22 percent for white applicants, and 12 percent for Asian applicants.]).   In a way, we desparately need quality attorneys to fight institutionalized discrimination, but to make it seem like law schools are doing certain minorities a favor by soliciting their borrowed dollars to be flunked out, hazed, unemployed and an indentured servant in modern society and use a criterion which isn’t fair even when you do things the right way; it’s like either way you’re damned. MAYBE THE ENROLLMENT RATES ARE LOWER BECAUSE MINORITIES FIGURED OUT THE GAME EARLIER AND CHOSE NOT TO BE SUCKERED–I tried to end the thought on a positive note!