Interesting article today on the BBC News website.
According to Money Magazine, the average salary is about $51,000/year and 2/3 of the court reporters are freelance, which means no benefits.
It also states the higher paid and full time positions require 4 years of school, and some courts/judges require a degree as well. The time from school to actual court room is about 6 years.
It does seem a lot of training, especially if your freelancing and have to pay your own insurance and such. A lot of the money seems to be made in overtime, but that is being reduced with computers. A lot of court reporters use their own brand of shorthand which means they have to transcribe their notes as because lack of uniformity
The average salary may seem low, but that may be because many reporters choose to not work full-time if they’re not actual courtroom reporters. Only 40% work in courtrooms; most are freelance and can choose their days and hours. Many are working mothers, so don’t necessarily want full-time work. I’ve known freelancers who earned over $100k. The six-year figure to courtroom from school is also misleading. There are fewer courtroom jobs than freelance, so it can take time for an opening, but they’re still working and earning a lot of money. While the school programs are about 3 years, many people don’t have the wherewithal/motivation/time/whatever to qualify in 3 years, especially if they’re working another job while going to school, or studying online.
I’ve seen ads on the subway for colleges, touting the high pay court reporters make.
I dunno, strikes me as the ultimate in buggy-whip type industries to get into these days - the risk is that in the next few years, they will be able to replace that whopping huge-salaried employee (with his or her difficult-to-master skill) with a computer.
This very well could be.
No, I think that seems rather doubtful.
They’ve been working on speech recognition software for about 60 years now, and it’s still not workable in this kind of a situation. The available commercial products are pretty good, but:[ul]
[li]they need to be ‘trained’ to a single individual speaker[/li][li]they need to respond to only one speaker at a time[/li][li]they need to be used in a private, quiet environment[/li][li]they have a limited vocabulary[/li][/ul]
And even with this, friends who use them report that they tend to average 1 or 2 errors on each page. This is just not good enough for legal transcripts. And it would probably be worse than this, because all of the above conditions do not apply in a courtroom setting.
I think it will still be a while before computers replace court reporters.
But aren’t many courtrooms eliminating court reporters?
Yeah, they have been working on it for 60 years, but how far have computers advanced in power in the past sixty years?
And certainly, present-day tech can’t replace court reporters, for all the reasons you cite. But what about in the next, say, five years? Or ten years?
After all, these colleges represent a considerable investment in learning a skill - years of investment. Those entering the profession now are risking being replaced by a computer in a few years, when the finish college and get jobs; or worse, after they have finished college, got jobs, and been practicing for a couple of years.
From that article:
:eek:
This thread has now gotten me wondering about stenography machines for languages that do not use the Roman alphabet. I’ll try to find some links and post them here. If anyone knows of such, please post a link. Thanks.
The stenographer may be replaced by a computer, but you’ll need someone there making sure what the computer’s output matches what’s being said. Seems simpler to have a human more directly in the data loop.
Do they sell stenographer machines for basic computers? I bet some people would kill for that level of typing speed.
The modern machines interface with PCs. That’s the point of having them computerized, so they can quickly upload into the computer and finish the transcript.
Once the machines are proved reasonably reliable, I don’t see why. Computers do lots of important things without a human double-checking their work.
No doubt there will be some sort of transition period, but it certainly is not unimaginable that, in the near future, you won’t need a human to get a transcript of proceedings - particularly a human that charges $100K a year. That’s a lot of incentive to find a mechanical solution.
How did courts do such things in the days before stenotype machines were invented? Did someone just take shorthand notes of the gist of what people said?
They used shorthand. Did you know that Dickens was a parliamentary court reporter?
http://ncraonline.org/NCRA/History/History+of+Shorthand/
Can one take a complete transcript in shorthand, or is it more notes on what’s occurring? The cite above mentions a verbatim transcript of Washington’s inaugural address, but speeches tend to be given at a much more measured pace than testimony.
I just got done working on a computer having problems with the driver for the stenograph interface.
I missed this thread earlier, but a few misconceptions need to be cleaned up:
First, it is “court reporter,” not “court recorder.” Stenograph is a brand name, and is only one of the companies making court reporting and captioning equipment. The stenotype machines use a shorthand system which is loosely phonetic, but uses a lot of spelling cues to resolve homophones issues. I am familiar with systems for English, French, Italian, and a few other languages using Roman alphabets. I would not be surprised to find equivalents for other alphabets, but I haven’t encountered them myself.
Here’s how it works today:
The court reporter writes down everything that is said in the proceeding, including speaker identification, on the steno machine. Although many still do the translation of steno shorthand to English later, realtime translation has become the norm. Each reporter uses a personalized system of “briefs” to help them keep up with verbatim speech, so they develop personalized custom translation dictionaries to do the translation. These dictionaries are constantly being updated with new names and terminology – court reporters continue tweaking their dictionaries until the day they retire.
Even in a realtime scenario, they proofread the transcripts after the fact, cleaning up typos or anything that didn’t translate correctly.
Closed captioning is similar, but not the same, as the goal is to help deaf and hearing-impaired people understand what’s going on, as opposed to generating a verbatim transcript.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. I’ve written four books about court reporting and closed captioning, and over 50 articles for the Journal of Court Reporting. I also designed software and hardware for both industries and I hold a related U.S. Patent.
Short supply? Really? Huh. Not in the TX/OK/LA relatively metropolitan areas. Not just the huge cities. Attorneys still get bribed with gifts and lunches to use specific firms and reporters. My bar is full due to their largesse. Hell, they even bribe my staff with goodies.
As for shorthand, as of a year or two ago, there was an old school pen and paper reporter here in town and she was spectacular. In some rural areas they still use a mask to do it, but that’s dying, literally.
It’s definitely a profession on the way out. And you don’t need voice recognition to do it.
The Family Courts in Australia were recently fitted out with a sound recording system. There are multiple microphones arrayed around the court room and the tricky software is the stuff that can sort out from sound levels through the various mic’s who was speaking.
All the data captured by the mic’s is recorded digitally and broken up into ~1 minute chunks of sound, these are then distributed around to typists who produce the transcripts. One firm in the business I know of has started to explore using typists in India to do the transcriptions.