Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed May 04, 2011 3:21 pm

My impression at this point is that law school transparency just uses USNews data & then utilizes "founded" speculation to further refine the data. Law school transparency gets no "voluntary" data from any law school. But USNews does.

Is this a case of the kettle calling the pot black ?

What I am seeking is some transparency of law school transparency's numbers.

User avatar
nygrrrl
Posts: 4948
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby nygrrrl » Wed May 04, 2011 3:25 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:My impression at this point is that law school transparency just uses USNews data & then utilizes "founded" speculation to further refine the data. Law school transparency gets no "voluntary" data from any law school. But USNews does.

Is this a case of the kettle calling the pot black ?

What I am seeking is some transparency of law school transparency's numbers.

Wolf, since jenesa seems to be otherwise occupied, would you take the initiative and start a separate thread to discuss this, please? We're now at full-on thread derailment and should leave this one for OP to have his/her question discussed. Thanks.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed May 04, 2011 3:33 pm

Actually, I have already made my point regarding law school transparency.


OP: Go to Colorado if you want to live & work in Colorado or the Rocky Mountain region. It is highly unlikely that Colorado will offer you any scholarship money.

Valpo is not a wise option if you plan to rely on keeping your scholarship with such a harsh stipulation. Plus, employment prospects from Valpo are dismal.

Retake the LSAT if you feel so inclined & need a scholarship to comfortably attend law school.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby jenesaislaw » Wed May 04, 2011 3:36 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:Did Colorado report to USNews that only 65% or so of their 2009 grads had full-time jobs that required bar membership ? If so, how many did not respond ?

What is "unfounded speculation" versus "speculation" ? Does law school transparency use "founded" speculation in its calculations ?


The distinction I intend to draw is that we have calculated the % represented figures using a single, stated assumption. We also explicitly state that this assumption does not apply to schools that reported that 100% of their graduates were employed full-time.

Colorado reported that (i) 80% of their 2009 grads were employed; (ii) 83% of their employed 2009 grads were in jobs requiring bar passage; (iii) 95.5% of those 2009 grads in bar-passage required jobs were employed full-time. 80% * 83% * 95.5% = 63.4%.

I don't know where you got 65%.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby jenesaislaw » Wed May 04, 2011 3:37 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:My impression at this point is that law school transparency just uses USNews data & then utilizes "founded" speculation to further refine the data. Law school transparency gets no "voluntary" data from any law school. But USNews does.

Is this a case of the kettle calling the pot black ?

What I am seeking is some transparency of law school transparency's numbers.


Seriously?

We're taking public information and repackaging it for people to better understand. Our assumptions are explicit, along with the source of the data we use.

User avatar
nygrrrl
Posts: 4948
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby nygrrrl » Wed May 04, 2011 3:39 pm

OK!
I seriously mean it when I say it's time to stop derailing this thread!
I think this conversation is valid - PLEASE start a different thread if you wish to continue having it.
THANK YOU.

edit - and again, jenesaislaw, really appreciate your jumping on to bring the facts. Just trying to keep this area clear for the question at hand.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby jenesaislaw » Wed May 04, 2011 3:50 pm

My last post in this thread. I will move to another thread if somebody creates one, but I want to defend some points here first.

Other points:

1) There is no speculation as to whether we know that at least 63.4% of the class is employed full-time in bar-required jobs. I say "at least" because, as we indicate on this graph, 4.8% of graduates have unknown post-graduation outcomes. .8% of graduates are employed, but we don't whether they're FT/PT, and this graduate could be employed in one of those jobs...or it could be a rounding error on Colorado's part.

2) "Not sure why there is a difference between law school transparency's numbers & those reported by Colorado Law."

Because Colorado reports, to U.S. News, a few different, related pies. We've put the pies together where we can to show how other things (like unemployed grads and those pursuing an additional degree) affect the rates differently at different schools.

3) "lawschooltransparency's numbers for Colorado appear to be little more than unreliable guesswork since almost all law schools, including Colorado Law, have not furnished data to this group. According to lawschooltransparency's website only eleven (11) law schools have provided the requested data."

I just want to reemphasize that our source for these charts is U.S. News data that was obtained from Colorado.

4) "The assertion that lawschool transparency is overly optimistic borders on the absurd since LST was started based on sceptical beliefs about law schools' reporting of employment."

This refers only to the salary figures, not the other charts. They are, again, optimistic only because it requires assuming that all graduates in the private sector are employed full time. As we say in the assumptions paragraph:

This assumption may be true for some schools, but the salary charts that appear on this webpage may display better-than-actual outcomes. For the Class of 2009, this assumption may only be relaxed for Columbia University, Cornell University, Duke University, New York University, Stanford University, University of North Carolina, University of Tennessee, University of Virginia, and Yale University. These schools reported that all of their graduates were employed in full-time positions at nine months. For other schools, how this assumption should affect the concern you have about the reported salary information will be related to the percentage of graduates who worked in part-time positions.


Edit: the underlying data we collected from U.S. News is also available on our site: --LinkRemoved--

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby bk1 » Wed May 04, 2011 4:02 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:I don't know where you got 65%.


That was my bad. I was just using it as a round figure because it was close to 63.4.

User avatar
nygrrrl
Posts: 4948
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)...

Postby nygrrrl » Wed May 04, 2011 4:03 pm

Well done, all. Since none of you can seem to follow directions, I will make it easy for you.
Image




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iluvlawschool and 3 guests