Did you know that according to the latest ABA job placement statistics (for 2012), only 51.2% of Hofstra's graduates had long-term, full-time legal jobs? That means that 48.*% didn't. Almost half the graduating class [http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=hofstra&show=chars] Is this acceptable?
It's terrible, but it's not too different from most non-elite schools. This is what happens when you have a crappy economy, there are fewer jobs. In fact, many T1/T2 schools have similar (or worse) numbers. I just don't understand the particular gripe with Hofstra.
Law schools are not surrogate employment agencies. Their first duty is to teach you the law, and you may actually have to find a job on your own, believe or not. It's a harsh reality check for all the entitled special snowflakes who have lived off mom and dad for 25 years and think they "deserve" a job. It is not, however, the school's fault that after you leave the school you can't get a job. The school may provide assistance
with OCI, mock interviews, etc., but the ultimate responsibility lies with the graduate.
Is it acceptable that Hofstra only placed 4% in biglaw?
Yes, it's acceptable. In fact, it's acceptable if Hofstra places 0% in biglaw as long as they don't claim to be a biglaw feeder school. Biglaw represents a tiny fraction of all the available legal jobs, and is considered the most competitive. In a bad economy, this is even more pronounced. It should not be surprising that these handful of prestigious jobs go almost exclusively to elite law school grads, and it isn't a failing of a particular school if they choose to hire elite grads over non-elite ones. Does it actually surprise you that NYC biglaw firms prefer Harvard and Yale grads over Hofstra? This should be common sense.