法學(xué)院畢業(yè)生當(dāng)不上律師 學(xué)校該負(fù)責(zé)嗎

　　Nearly a decade has passed since an aspiring younglawyer in California, Anna Alaburda, graduated in thetop tier of her class, passed the state bar exam andset out to use the law degree she had spent about$150,000 to acquire.

　　近十年前，加利福尼亞州懷有一腔抱負(fù)的年輕律師安娜·阿拉布爾達(dá)(Anna Alaburda)以在班上名列前茅的成績(jī)畢業(yè)，并通過(guò)了州律師資格考試，開(kāi)始要利用自己花了大約15萬(wàn)美元換來(lái)的法律學(xué)位。

　　But on Monday, in a San Diego courtroom, she willtell a story that has become all too familiar among law students in the United States: Sincegraduating from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in 2008, she has yet to find a full-time,salaried job as a lawyer.

　　但周一，在圣地亞哥的一家法院，她將講述一個(gè)對(duì)美國(guó)的法律專業(yè)學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)再熟悉不過(guò)的故事：自2008年從托馬斯·杰斐遜法學(xué)院(Thomas Jefferson School of Law)畢業(yè)以來(lái)，她尚未找到一份帶薪的全職律師工作。

　　From there, though, her story has taken an unusual twist: Alaburda, 37, is the first formerlaw student whose case against a law school, charging that it inflated the employment data forits graduates as a way to lure students to enroll, will go to trial.

　　但從這里開(kāi)始，她的故事發(fā)生了一個(gè)不同尋常的轉(zhuǎn)折：37歲的阿拉布爾控告法律學(xué)?？浯螽厴I(yè)生就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)，以此誘騙學(xué)生入學(xué)。這也成為了首起即將開(kāi)審的此類案件。

　　Other disgruntled students have tried to do the same. In the last several years, 15 lawsuitshave sought to hold various law schools accountable for publicly listing information critics saywas used to pump up alumni job numbers by counting part-time waitress and other similar,full-time jobs as employment. Only one suit besides Alaburda's remains active.

　　其他一些心懷不滿的學(xué)生也試過(guò)這么做。過(guò)去幾年里，共有15起訴訟案件試圖追究各種各樣的法律學(xué)校公開(kāi)發(fā)布不實(shí)就業(yè)信息的責(zé)任。批評(píng)人士稱，這些學(xué)校通過(guò)把兼職服務(wù)員及其他類似的全職工作算作就業(yè)的方式，抬高畢業(yè)生就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)。除阿拉布爾達(dá)這起案件外，只有一樁訴訟案仍在處理過(guò)程中。

　　None of the other cases reached trial because judges in Illinois, Michigan and New York, whereseveral cases were filed, generally concluded that law students had opted for legal education attheir own peril, and were sophisticated enough to have known that employment as a lawyerwas not guaranteed.

　　其他案件無(wú)一走到審理環(huán)節(jié)，因?yàn)樵诔霈F(xiàn)了多起類似訴訟案件的伊利諾伊州、密西根州和紐約州，法官普遍認(rèn)為，法律專業(yè)的學(xué)生是自己冒險(xiǎn)選擇接受法律教育的，且他們足夠成熟，知道不一定能以律師的身份就業(yè)。

　　But a California judge let Alaburda's suit proceed, brushing aside efforts by the law school toderail her claims.

　　但加利福尼亞州的一名法官不顧托馬斯·杰斐遜法學(xué)院試圖讓阿拉布爾達(dá)的訴訟半途而廢而采取的行動(dòng)，允許案件繼續(xù)往前推進(jìn)。

　　“It has taken five years,” said her lawyer, Brian A. Procel of Los Angeles. “But this will be thefirst time a law school will be on trial to defend its public employment figures.”

　　“用了五年時(shí)間，”阿拉布爾達(dá)的代理律師布萊恩·A·普羅塞爾(Brian A. Procel)說(shuō)。“但這一次，法律學(xué)校將首次走上法庭，為自己對(duì)外公開(kāi)的就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)辯護(hù)。”

　　Alaburda's day in court will take on added meaning: These will be her first public words afteryears of silence while she pursued a remedy for a legal education gone wrong.

　　阿拉布爾達(dá)走上法庭還有另外一層意義：在經(jīng)歷了多年一言不發(fā)地尋求法律教育的補(bǔ)救措施卻無(wú)果后，這將是她首次公開(kāi)發(fā)聲。