Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
BostonNJ
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 1:19 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby BostonNJ » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:22 am

mrtoren wrote:I'd be hesitant to bash Seton Hall too much. All three law schools place exceptionally well, in part, because of the fact that there are only three law schools in the state. However, as others have said, NJ is fanatical about Rutgers and that carries over into their hiring practices. Personally, I'm glad they're a TT simply because I can get in with my numbers and can avoid having to retake. That being said, they are a gem in a rough, rough sea of tumultuous TT schools. The ignorant and the uninformed are quick to bash it, but employers recognize the school's value. At the end of the day, I'm confident that RU-N will leave me with a relatively little amount of debt while still allowing me the opportunity to find work and pull in a fairly high salary.


Sorry, just to be clear I don't want to come across bashing Seton at all! I am sure it’s a fine law school, but for the cost Rutgers all the way! Its name recognition in Jersey is pretty amazing. Also, I am not sure that lots of people "bash" Rutgers, a few friends of mine from grad school now living in DC and Cali have said that they thought Rutgers Law had great name recognition in their locations. Got a Masters in Public Policy/Urban Affairs and know many Lawyers as a result;-). I think it’s a great TT w/o the huge price tag that is so common among other tt's and even the ttt’s and tttt’s, which is crazy now days!!

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby areyouinsane » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:29 am

I'd be hesitant to bash Seton Hall too much. All three law schools place exceptionally well, in part, because of the fact that there are only three law schools in the state. However, as others have said, NJ is fanatical about Rutgers and that carries over into their hiring practices. Personally, I'm glad they're a TT simply because I can get in with my numbers and can avoid having to retake. That being said, they are a gem in a rough, rough sea of tumultuous TT schools. The ignorant and the uninformed are quick to bash it, but employers recognize the school's value. At the end of the day, I'm confident that RU-N will leave me with a relatively little amount of debt while still allowing me the opportunity to find work and pull in a fairly high salary.



If by "place exceptionally well" you mean getting a Traffic Court Clerkship (TCC) in some grungy basement in Newark for south of 50 K a year, then sure. This dood had a 3.5 GPA and still had no offers other a crap "clerkship" (I use it in quotes because these are not real clerkships, but more like concierge/coffee fetching jobs) And now even those are getting Top 14 applicants:

http://blog.nwjobs.com/careercenter/new ... ships.html

You are correct that employers recognize the school's value. Probably the NJ AG better than anyone, as they have set salaries at 0 dollars:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/200 ... teers.html

You're going to be sorely disappointed in three years when you're sitting in document review at Barasso in Westfield, NJ making $25 an hour.

By the way, Seton Hall cannot be bashed enough. That school is the "poster boy" for overpriced TTT's. It's basically a dumping ground for little lilly-white rich kids from NJ who lacked the LSAT for Fordham or a similar semi-legitimate law school.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby NYC Law » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:30 am

I'm fairly certain the decline of Rutgers can be attributed to the Jersey Shore.

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby areyouinsane » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:34 am

I know they have really been working on it. Newark is def getting better I hear!


Um, no.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... rcent.html


People even get shot right near the spiffy new Prudential Center. There are no "safe" parts of Newark contrary to the politically correct BS the clowns at R-N and Seton Hall try to tell you:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... in_sh.html

BostonNJ
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 1:19 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby BostonNJ » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:41 am

areyouinsane wrote:
I'd be hesitant to bash Seton Hall too much. All three law schools place exceptionally well, in part, because of the fact that there are only three law schools in the state. However, as others have said, NJ is fanatical about Rutgers and that carries over into their hiring practices. Personally, I'm glad they're a TT simply because I can get in with my numbers and can avoid having to retake. That being said, they are a gem in a rough, rough sea of tumultuous TT schools. The ignorant and the uninformed are quick to bash it, but employers recognize the school's value. At the end of the day, I'm confident that RU-N will leave me with a relatively little amount of debt while still allowing me the opportunity to find work and pull in a fairly high salary.



If by "place exceptionally well" you mean getting a Traffic Court Clerkship (TCC) in some grungy basement in Newark for south of 50 K a year, then sure. This dood had a 3.5 GPA and still had no offers other a crap "clerkship" (I use it in quotes because these are not real clerkships, but more like concierge/coffee fetching jobs) And now even those are getting Top 14 applicants:

http://blog.nwjobs.com/careercenter/new ... ships.html

You are correct that employers recognize the school's value. Probably the NJ AG better than anyone, as they have set salaries at 0 dollars:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/200 ... teers.html

You're going to be sorely disappointed in three years when you're sitting in document review at Barasso in Westfield, NJ making $25 an hour.

By the way, Seton Hall cannot be bashed enough. That school is the "poster boy" for overpriced TTT's. It's basically a dumping ground for little lilly-white rich kids from NJ who lacked the LSAT for Fordham or a similar semi-legitimate law school.


I think ruinsane, although a bit harsh has somewhat of a point. The market is terrible; the truth is if you do not know what you want out of law school you should seriously reconsider. If you are going to go severely in debt, you should reconsider. If you are going into crippling debt at a tttt, you should definitely reconsider. If you are trying to avoid the terrible economy with school def def def reconsider and go into a field that is more secure, at least in terms of return on investment!

Braindead
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:15 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby Braindead » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:42 am

I agree with the posters who contribute the decline to the budgetary issues. However, employment prospects from Rutgers-N or Rutgers-C is also abysmal, especially after 2008. People often bash Seton Hall for its' ridiculous price-tag but more Seton Hall grads work in larger mid-sized firms in NJ than Rutgers grads. Granted, SH's class size is larger, the percentage of SH grads working for NLJ250 firms are greater than Rutgers. Both schools are not the greatest choices, one will need exceptional grades coming out of both schools to have any shot of making more than six-figures. Big firms will only take the top 10% from Rutgers, and midlaw firms in NJ are swamped with grads from Seton Hall.

BostonNJ
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 1:19 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby BostonNJ » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:45 am

Braindead wrote:I agree with the posters who contribute the decline to the budgetary issues. However, employment prospects from Rutgers-N or Rutgers-C is also abysmal, especially after 2008. People often bash Seton Hall for its' ridiculous price-tag but more Seton Hall grads work in larger mid-sized firms in NJ than Rutgers grads. Granted, SH's class size is larger, the percentage of SH grads working for NLJ250 firms are greater than Rutgers. Both schools are not the greatest choices, one will need exceptional grades coming out of both schools to have any shot of making more than six-figures. Big firms will only take the top 10% from Rutgers, and midlaw firms in NJ are swamped with grads from Seton Hall.


yes but the difference is Seton Hall grads have no choice but trying to get mid level or big firm jobs because of the crippling debt they incur. Rutgers grad have much less debt, again 26K average indebtness, they have much more options, so you saying Seton Hall has better chances at mid and big law firms is completely flawed.

OldManHunger
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:14 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby OldManHunger » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:48 am

mrtoren wrote:I'd be hesitant to bash Seton Hall too much. All three law schools place exceptionally well, ...


Did you read the employment and bar passage numbers quoted by NYC Law above? None of those law schools place "exceptionally well." He's fucked if he goes to any of those schools. You'd have to be brain damaged to cough up even COL cash for three years on this gamble. Although to be fair, judging by their numbers, most of their students probably are.

I also don't get why some people are willing to gamble that they'll be able to scrape by. Why not just pick a different career where you can be fully successful and not defensive about your shitlawschool degree and/or shitlaw job for the rest of your life? Have some fucking pride.

Braindead
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:15 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby Braindead » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:52 am

BostonNJ wrote:
Braindead wrote:I agree with the posters who contribute the decline to the budgetary issues. However, employment prospects from Rutgers-N or Rutgers-C is also abysmal, especially after 2008. People often bash Seton Hall for its' ridiculous price-tag but more Seton Hall grads work in larger mid-sized firms in NJ than Rutgers grads. Granted, SH's class size is larger, the percentage of SH grads working for NLJ250 firms are greater than Rutgers. Both schools are not the greatest choices, one will need exceptional grades coming out of both schools to have any shot of making more than six-figures. Big firms will only take the top 10% from Rutgers, and midlaw firms in NJ are swamped with grads from Seton Hall.


yes but the difference is Seton Hall grads have no choice but trying to get mid level or big firm jobs because of the crippling debt they incur. Rutgers grad have much less debt, again 26K average indebtness, they have much more options, so you saying Seton Hall has better chances at mid and big law firms is completely flawed.



Yes, debt is a major factor. Majority of Rutgers grads come out with close to 100k debt, and many students have debt carried over from their Ivy league undergrad institutions. Trust me, they all desperately seek a high-paying job. Yes, SH will put you in the grave deeper, but Rutgers is not in anyway superior solely because it is cheaper. Where the majority of partners in midlaw firms in NJ are Seton Hall alums, SH grads have a better chance of landing those jobs than Rutgers grads. Again, I emphasize that both schools are not viable options if one is seeking employment. I just wanted to point out that Rutgers does not dominate the NJ market over SH despite what many ppl believe.
Last edited by Braindead on Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby areyouinsane » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:54 am

Also keep in mind that much of Seton Hall's placement is via nepotism, since most the the kids there come from VERY rich families, have fathers/uncles etc who are midlaw firm partners, things like that. R-N/R-C are much more diverse, working-class type law schools. Seton Hall's obscene tuition has essentially closed off this school for anyone without family paying most of the boat (forget scholarships, SH stacks more than any other school and almost everyone loses the $$$ after first semester.).

That said, placement from all 3 schools is currently so abysmal that attending any of them makes almost no sense unless you have a guaranteed job waiting for you in 2014. But if you really have to go, R-C is probably the best choice as you might get a Philly-area job, whereas at R-N you aren't going anywhere in NYC without being top 5%. Biglaw has cut hiring so much that there's no room at the table for TTT grads anymore.

Braindead
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:15 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby Braindead » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:58 am

areyouinsane wrote:Also keep in mind that much of Seton Hall's placement is via nepotism, since most the the kids there come from VERY rich families, have fathers/uncles etc who are midlaw firm partners, things like that. R-N/R-C are much more diverse, working-class type law schools. Seton Hall's obscene tuition has essentially closed off this school for anyone without family paying most of the boat (forget scholarships, SH stacks more than any other school and almost everyone loses the $$$ after first semester.).

That said, placement from all 3 schools is currently so abysmal that attending any of them makes almost no sense unless you have a guaranteed job waiting for you in 2014. But if you really have to go, R-C is probably the best choice as you might get a Philly-area job, whereas at R-N you aren't going anywhere in NYC without being top 5%. Biglaw has cut hiring so much that there's no room at the table for TTT grads anymore.


This is very true. To make matters worse, larger firms in NJ have also cut their SA numbers and some, like McCarter & English, eliminated their SA program altogether.

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby areyouinsane » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:18 pm

Did you read the employment and bar passage numbers quoted by NYC Law above? None of those law schools place "exceptionally well." He's fucked if he goes to any of those schools. You'd have to be brain damaged to cough up even COL cash for three years on this gamble. Although to be fair, judging by their numbers, most of their students probably are.

I also don't get why some people are willing to gamble that they'll be able to scrape by. Why not just pick a different career where you can be fully successful and not defensive about your shitlawschool degree and/or shitlaw job for the rest of your life? Have some fucking pride.


I nominate this for "Post of the Year."

"Scrape by" is the key word. The odds are beyond overwhelming at any of the 3 NJ schools that you won't get biglaw, so let's take that off the table right now.

I also advise getting yourself out of the mindset that I call the "midlaw mirage." The thinking of everyone entering these TTT schools is "well, no biggie if I miss Biglaw- I'll just have to settle for a midlaw firm and make 70, 80, or 90 K instead of 160 K."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fact is, so-called "midlaw" jobs are few and far between, and most of these shops do not hire entry-level lawyers. For most "midlaw" jobs you need one or more the following three things:

1.) Ex-Biglaw credentials,
2.) Substantial amount of portable business,
3.) Experience (3 to 5 years) in a niche practice area.

As newbie TTT grads, you will have none of the above. Thus your employment options are NJ government/legal aid, or small firms/solos who usually pay well south of 50 K starting, with dismal options for advancement in salary or lateral opportunity.

And as for government/legal aid, NJ Legal Aid laid off 25% of it's workforce in 2011:

http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-14/n ... ewer-cases

Even the assistant prosecutor jobs are drying up:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... en_co.html

This situation will only get worse as the state's budget is in shambles and the economy continues to get worse, not better.

Hell, even the doc review temp jobs that used to be filled with TTT grads are now being sent offshore to India. There just isn't any positives or upside to attending a TTT school, period. It's absurd that one penny of taxpayer $$$ go to either of the Rutgers schools, since the glut and oversaturation of lawyers in NJ is already beyond ridiculous. Just open up your local NJ phone book and count how many lawyers are in there- then ask yourself how many lawyers you and your friends/family have needed in the past 3 years. See what I'm getting at here?

BostonNJ
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 1:19 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby BostonNJ » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:28 pm

areyouinsane wrote:
Did you read the employment and bar passage numbers quoted by NYC Law above? None of those law schools place "exceptionally well." He's fucked if he goes to any of those schools. You'd have to be brain damaged to cough up even COL cash for three years on this gamble. Although to be fair, judging by their numbers, most of their students probably are.

I also don't get why some people are willing to gamble that they'll be able to scrape by. Why not just pick a different career where you can be fully successful and not defensive about your shitlawschool degree and/or shitlaw job for the rest of your life? Have some fucking pride.


I nominate this for "Post of the Year."

"Scrape by" is the key word. The odds are beyond overwhelming at any of the 3 NJ schools that you won't get biglaw, so let's take that off the table right now.

I also advise getting yourself out of the mindset that I call the "midlaw mirage." The thinking of everyone entering these TTT schools is "well, no biggie if I miss Biglaw- I'll just have to settle for a midlaw firm and make 70, 80, or 90 K instead of 160 K."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fact is, so-called "midlaw" jobs are few and far between, and most of these shops do not hire entry-level lawyers. For most "midlaw" jobs you need one or more the following three things:

1.) Ex-Biglaw credentials,
2.) Substantial amount of portable business,
3.) Experience (3 to 5 years) in a niche practice area.

As newbie TTT grads, you will have none of the above. Thus your employment options are NJ government/legal aid, or small firms/solos who usually pay well south of 50 K starting, with dismal options for advancement in salary or lateral opportunity.

And as for government/legal aid, NJ Legal Aid laid off 25% of it's workforce in 2011:

http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-14/n ... ewer-cases

Even the assistant prosecutor jobs are drying up:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... en_co.html

This situation will only get worse as the state's budget is in shambles and the economy continues to get worse, not better.

Hell, even the doc review temp jobs that used to be filled with TTT grads are now being sent offshore to India. There just isn't any positives or upside to attending a TTT school, period. It's absurd that one penny of taxpayer $$$ go to either of the Rutgers schools, since the glut and oversaturation of lawyers in NJ is already beyond ridiculous. Just open up your local NJ phone book and count how many lawyers are in there- then ask yourself how many lawyers you and your friends/family have needed in the past 3 years. See what I'm getting at here?


This makes sense, however you assume that most graduates won’t have experience. I for example have had 3 years of government experience a master’s degree and intend to further my career by getting a JD. I know what I want out of a law degree and I am doing it in a responsible manner, hence graduating with little debt in the process with a clear goal. Big law and mid-law are not the goals of many, a school like Rutgers affords one the option to not have to rely on jobs like these, unlike many other tt’s or even t1 law schools. The quality of education for the price at Rutgers is truly rare!

User avatar
mrtoren
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby mrtoren » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:20 pm

areyouinsane wrote:
Did you read the employment and bar passage numbers quoted by NYC Law above? None of those law schools place "exceptionally well." He's fucked if he goes to any of those schools. You'd have to be brain damaged to cough up even COL cash for three years on this gamble. Although to be fair, judging by their numbers, most of their students probably are.

I also don't get why some people are willing to gamble that they'll be able to scrape by. Why not just pick a different career where you can be fully successful and not defensive about your shitlawschool degree and/or shitlaw job for the rest of your life? Have some fucking pride.


I nominate this for "Post of the Year."

"Scrape by" is the key word. The odds are beyond overwhelming at any of the 3 NJ schools that you won't get biglaw, so let's take that off the table right now.

I also advise getting yourself out of the mindset that I call the "midlaw mirage." The thinking of everyone entering these TTT schools is "well, no biggie if I miss Biglaw- I'll just have to settle for a midlaw firm and make 70, 80, or 90 K instead of 160 K."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fact is, so-called "midlaw" jobs are few and far between, and most of these shops do not hire entry-level lawyers. For most "midlaw" jobs you need one or more the following three things:

1.) Ex-Biglaw credentials,
2.) Substantial amount of portable business,
3.) Experience (3 to 5 years) in a niche practice area.

As newbie TTT grads, you will have none of the above. Thus your employment options are NJ government/legal aid, or small firms/solos who usually pay well south of 50 K starting, with dismal options for advancement in salary or lateral opportunity.

And as for government/legal aid, NJ Legal Aid laid off 25% of it's workforce in 2011:

http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-14/n ... ewer-cases

Even the assistant prosecutor jobs are drying up:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... en_co.html

This situation will only get worse as the state's budget is in shambles and the economy continues to get worse, not better.

Hell, even the doc review temp jobs that used to be filled with TTT grads are now being sent offshore to India. There just isn't any positives or upside to attending a TTT school, period. It's absurd that one penny of taxpayer $$$ go to either of the Rutgers schools, since the glut and oversaturation of lawyers in NJ is already beyond ridiculous. Just open up your local NJ phone book and count how many lawyers are in there- then ask yourself how many lawyers you and your friends/family have needed in the past 3 years. See what I'm getting at here?

Now, maybe I'm being picky, but you appear to be labeling all NJ law schools as TTT schools. If so, you would be incorrect. Seton Hall is ranked #61 and both Rutgers are tied for #84. Now that that has been cleared up, let's move on. You claim grads need all of this experience to get into BigLaw and even to get into MidLaw. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Grads are hired out of Rutgers and into firm jobs like they are at any other law school around the country. Do some positions require experience? Absolutely, but you generalized it to the point that it sounds like every single BigLaw and MidLaw job requires a lot of background in the field.

Now I don't know where you're getting your employment figures, beyond that of mere speculation, but they are far from accurate. Rutgers is extremely transparent with its employment and salary data. [ --LinkRemoved-- ] About 32% of the class, or 72 grads, entered private practice. They reported a median salary of $115,000 and an average salary of $124,343. Min/Max were $42,000/$160,000. Another 32%, or 71 grads, entered into much lower paying clerkships. They earned a median salary of $43,437 and an average of $45,932. Min/Max were $43,437/$68,531. 21%, or 48 grads, went into business and earned a median salary of $80,000. They earned an average salary of $106,019. Min/Max were $21,600/$300,000. About 6%, or 14 grads, entered into government. They earned a median salary of $71,500 and an average salary of $80,228. Min/Max were $41,969/$141,000. The final few split into public interest, academia, military, and unknown. 96.5% responded to the employment survey, of those, 88.35% were employed. 69% of employed students reported salary information. 74% were in bar required positions, while another 10% were in J.D. preferred positions.

Those are hard numbers. They're not Craigslist ad's. They're not news stories. They're not stories you heard from a friend's friend's uncle. They're not personal opinions. Those numbers say that Rutgers grads are succeeding in landing good paying jobs in a host of different sectors. I don't know what your beef is with Rutgers, or NJ in general, but I would appreciate it if you stuck to the hard facts.

OldManHunger
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:14 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby OldManHunger » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:39 pm

Those numbers tell me that more than 2/3 of the Rutgers kids got fucked. Hope they all had big, big scholarships, otherwise it is indeed a life of scraping by.

Not sure what kind of optimism bomb you thought you were dropping with that.

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby crossarmant » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:42 pm

mrtoren wrote:Now, maybe I'm being picky, but you appear to be labeling all NJ law schools as TTT schools. If so, you would be incorrect. Seton Hall is ranked #61 and both Rutgers are tied for #84. Now that that has been cleared up, let's move on. You claim grads need all of this experience to get into BigLaw and even to get into MidLaw. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Grads are hired out of Rutgers and into firm jobs like they are at any other law school around the country. Do some positions require experience? Absolutely, but you generalized it to the point that it sounds like every single BigLaw and MidLaw job requires a lot of background in the field.

Now I don't know where you're getting your employment figures, beyond that of mere speculation, but they are far from accurate. Rutgers is extremely transparent with its employment and salary data. [ --LinkRemoved-- ] About 32% of the class, or 72 grads, entered private practice. They reported a median salary of $115,000 and an average salary of $124,343. Min/Max were $42,000/$160,000. Another 32%, or 71 grads, entered into much lower paying clerkships. They earned a median salary of $43,437 and an average of $45,932. Min/Max were $43,437/$68,531. 21%, or 48 grads, went into business and earned a median salary of $80,000. They earned an average salary of $106,019. Min/Max were $21,600/$300,000. About 6%, or 14 grads, entered into government. They earned a median salary of $71,500 and an average salary of $80,228. Min/Max were $41,969/$141,000. The final few split into public interest, academia, military, and unknown. 96.5% responded to the employment survey, of those, 88.35% were employed. 69% of employed students reported salary information. 74% were in bar required positions, while another 10% were in J.D. preferred positions.

Those are hard numbers. They're not Craigslist ad's. They're not news stories. They're not stories you heard from a friend's friend's uncle. They're not personal opinions. Those numbers say that Rutgers grads are succeeding in landing good paying jobs in a host of different sectors. I don't know what your beef is with Rutgers, or NJ in general, but I would appreciate it if you stuck to the hard facts.


+1

AreYouInsane's only contributions to the boards has been to wildly paste Craigslist ads for low paying jobs and vividly describe doc review projects in NYC, which from what I collect, he spent most of the time doing lines and shots during.

The cost-effectiveness of Rutgers is hard to argue against for any schools short of Top 25. Jobs are hard to come by in any field and everyone is getting the shaft, short of cardiologists. It's not solely a legal field issue. The real issue with law school is the debt and costs, because every field you run the risk of unemployment ITE. So, why not go to a school that you can get out with an average indebtedness of $26k and solid enough job prospects? We're not trying to say Rutgers is a Yale peer, but in no way, shape or form is it a Cooley or Golden Gate like AreYouInsane makes it out to be.

User avatar
mrtoren
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby mrtoren » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:56 pm

OldManHunger wrote:Those numbers tell me that more than 2/3 of the Rutgers kids got fucked. Hope they all had big, big scholarships, otherwise it is indeed a life of scraping by.

Not sure what kind of optimism bomb you thought you were dropping with that.

You do know why law students go into clerkships, right? Judges are excellent sources for landing firm jobs. As one member, I believe it was 'Get it to x', wrote of their Rutgers experience,
I've been here for 2 years and am satisfied that I attended. The expectations are high, getting high grades is very difficult, and there are administrative problems etc. The professors are all highly qualified, some care/some don't about their teaching. I interned with a NY appellate court judge first summer and got a connection through her for a firm job in NY. I know it wasn't a district or appellate court position, but it did the trick and there are a lot of Fordham, Cardozo, etc. students that were still looking for employment and some of them were on law review, moot court etc. I watched near 4.0 students get rejected from firm after firm because, although they can write one hell of an exam answer, either their arrogance or lack of inter-personal skills completely turned off the recruiter. It is what you make it.
Last edited by mrtoren on Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby jenesaislaw » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:57 pm

mrtoren wrote:Now I don't know where you're getting your employment figures, beyond that of mere speculation, but they are far from accurate. Rutgers is extremely transparent with its employment and salary data. [ --LinkRemoved-- ] About 32% of the class, or 72 grads, entered private practice. They reported a median salary of $115,000 and an average salary of $124,343. Min/Max were $42,000/$160,000. Another 32%, or 71 grads, entered into much lower paying clerkships. They earned a median salary of $43,437 and an average of $45,932. Min/Max were $43,437/$68,531. 21%, or 48 grads, went into business and earned a median salary of $80,000. They earned an average salary of $106,019. Min/Max were $21,600/$300,000. About 6%, or 14 grads, entered into government. They earned a median salary of $71,500 and an average salary of $80,228. Min/Max were $41,969/$141,000. The final few split into public interest, academia, military, and unknown. 96.5% responded to the employment survey, of those, 88.35% were employed. 69% of employed students reported salary information. 74% were in bar required positions, while another 10% were in J.D. preferred positions.


I would not call Rutgers-N extremely transparent with the data. Rutgers has declined to do the most obvious thing that it could to be transparent about the salary information, and that is to indicate the number of graduates included in each calculation. The page says that 69% of graduates who were employed FT reported a salary. This is a start, but is only helpful if the number is closer to 100%, the distributions were easier to disaggregate, or the salary information we were looking at were intending to reflect the salaries of those employed FT.

Specifically, 152 salaries were reported. But which graduates reported a salary? Here is what we can derive:

3 Military
3 Academia
2 PI
4-14 Govt
4-48 B&I
10-71 Judicial Clerkship
11-72 Private Practice

As you can see, the ranges for the last three employer types is quite large. That's hugely problematic and could have been remedied had Rutgers chosen to share more like Hastings, for example: --LinkRemoved--

So the numbers don't mean quite what you think they mean. Or, rather, you can't reasonably know they mean what you think they mean.

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

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby jenesaislaw » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:02 pm

mrtoren wrote:You do know why law students go into clerkships, right? Judges are excellent sources for landing firm jobs.


New Jersey is kind of special when it comes to clerkships. Don't mistake these clerkships for Article III clerkships, or anything with similar prestige. Check out this memo from the NJ Courts: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/lawclerks/memo.pdf There are a ton of them, which means that the credential is less special. That is not to say that these aren't great places to get experience. I am also not saying you shouldn't go to one of the two Rutgers schools. They're at least relatively cheap. I just think you need to temper your expectations from the employment information.

User avatar
mrtoren
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby mrtoren » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:10 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:New Jersey is kind of special when it comes to clerkships. Don't mistake these clerkships for Article III clerkships, or anything with similar prestige. Check out this memo from the NJ Courts: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/lawclerks/memo.pdf There are a ton of them, which means that the credential is less special. That is not to say that these aren't great places to get experience. I am also not saying you shouldn't go to one of the two Rutgers schools. They're at least relatively cheap. I just think you need to temper your expectations from the employment information.

Rutgers' clerkships are definitely not A3 or anything. If that wasn't clearly stated, then I apologize. Their clerskhips do, however, allow students and grads the opportunity to interact with local judges and gain experience. Those judges can then potentially help them land jobs in NJ/NY firms. An A3 clerkship will open many, many more doors. But a local clerkship could simply help the student find a good paying job afterwards.

User avatar
observationalist
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby observationalist » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:25 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:
mrtoren wrote:Now I don't know where you're getting your employment figures, beyond that of mere speculation, but they are far from accurate. Rutgers is extremely transparent with its employment and salary data. [ --LinkRemoved-- ] About 32% of the class, or 72 grads, entered private practice. They reported a median salary of $115,000 and an average salary of $124,343. Min/Max were $42,000/$160,000. Another 32%, or 71 grads, entered into much lower paying clerkships. They earned a median salary of $43,437 and an average of $45,932. Min/Max were $43,437/$68,531. 21%, or 48 grads, went into business and earned a median salary of $80,000. They earned an average salary of $106,019. Min/Max were $21,600/$300,000. About 6%, or 14 grads, entered into government. They earned a median salary of $71,500 and an average salary of $80,228. Min/Max were $41,969/$141,000. The final few split into public interest, academia, military, and unknown. 96.5% responded to the employment survey, of those, 88.35% were employed. 69% of employed students reported salary information. 74% were in bar required positions, while another 10% were in J.D. preferred positions.


I would not call Rutgers-N extremely transparent with the data. Rutgers has declined to do the most obvious thing that it could to be transparent about the salary information, and that is to indicate the number of graduates included in each calculation. The page says that 69% of graduates who were employed FT reported a salary. This is a start, but is only helpful if the number is closer to 100%, the distributions were easier to disaggregate, or the salary information we were looking at were intending to reflect the salaries of those employed FT.

Specifically, 152 salaries were reported. But which graduates reported a salary? Here is what we can derive:

3 Military
3 Academia
2 PI
4-14 Govt
4-48 B&I
10-71 Judicial Clerkship
11-72 Private Practice

As you can see, the ranges for the last three employer types is quite large. That's hugely problematic and could have been remedied had Rutgers chosen to share more like Hastings, for example: --LinkRemoved--

So the numbers don't mean quite what you think they mean. Or, rather, you can't reasonably know they mean what you think they mean.


In other words, it is possible (though not likely) that the $124K salary advertised for private sector grads represents the average of just 4% of the class. I would submit that because 32 of the 72 private sector grads were listed as working at firms of 100+, for whom starting salaries are usually publicly available, that perhaps 30-40 private sector grads reported. But even on the high end this still only tells you that 8% of the class were making $135K or more. In reality the percentage was likely lower.

Schools have a number of ways they can present employment information in a way that will make it look like a good deal. The worst aspect of charts like the ones Rutgers employs is that it effectively hides the holes: you probably did not think it was possible that the private sector salary data could represent only 4% of the class, given that they claim 33% of employed grads landed in the private sector. Clearly, Rutgers has the real information available and could give you a more realistic picture of the job prospects.

One more thing: around 36 large firms are listed in the very unrepresentative sample of "select recent placements." Since only 32 Class of 2010 grads were at firms with 100+ attorneys, we can deduce that this list is a mixture of the very top placements for at least two graduating classes, rather than only 2010 grads. Some schools like to provide such unrepresentative employer lists so that an enthusiastic applicant will consider them to be obtainable. Knowing the reality would require Rutgers agreeing to release the full employer lists for the Class of 2010, which so far they have refused to do.

Because of this I really do encourage people to contact career services and ask for complete employer lists for the 2010. If you receive a response, it would be helpful to post it in this thread for other applicants to review. Given the significant costs associated with obtaining a law degree these days, there is no justification as to why they can't provide consumers with the actual information. G'luck to all.

User avatar
Verity
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby Verity » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:26 pm

mrtoren wrote:I'd be hesitant to bash Seton Hall too much.


Not me. SHU is for wimps and fatties. Retake & reapply, or reassess.

BostonNJ
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 1:19 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby BostonNJ » Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:50 pm

Verity wrote:
mrtoren wrote:I'd be hesitant to bash Seton Hall too much.


Not me. SHU is for wimps and fatties. Retake & reapply, or reassess.


LOL, that was kinda funny!

BostonNJ
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 1:19 am

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby BostonNJ » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:02 pm

It's so crazy, people outside of NJ think Rutgers is an expensive private school. Most people I talk to think its this very old private school. Probably because its the 8th oldest college in America (actually NJ was a colony at that time,1776). But the truth remains that Rutgers is a public ivy not a private college. Maybe that is why all these bloggers keep mentioning an absurd number for indebtness at Rutgers. Again average indebtness at Rutgers Camden is 26K! This is very reasonable. And guys do not worry Rutgers will rise in the rankings next year, they are totally addressing the bar pass rate, and they are raising lots of money and will put resources in making sure it remains competitive.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby keg411 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:16 pm

observationalist wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote:
mrtoren wrote:Now I don't know where you're getting your employment figures, beyond that of mere speculation, but they are far from accurate. Rutgers is extremely transparent with its employment and salary data. [ --LinkRemoved-- ] About 32% of the class, or 72 grads, entered private practice. They reported a median salary of $115,000 and an average salary of $124,343. Min/Max were $42,000/$160,000. Another 32%, or 71 grads, entered into much lower paying clerkships. They earned a median salary of $43,437 and an average of $45,932. Min/Max were $43,437/$68,531. 21%, or 48 grads, went into business and earned a median salary of $80,000. They earned an average salary of $106,019. Min/Max were $21,600/$300,000. About 6%, or 14 grads, entered into government. They earned a median salary of $71,500 and an average salary of $80,228. Min/Max were $41,969/$141,000. The final few split into public interest, academia, military, and unknown. 96.5% responded to the employment survey, of those, 88.35% were employed. 69% of employed students reported salary information. 74% were in bar required positions, while another 10% were in J.D. preferred positions.


I would not call Rutgers-N extremely transparent with the data. Rutgers has declined to do the most obvious thing that it could to be transparent about the salary information, and that is to indicate the number of graduates included in each calculation. The page says that 69% of graduates who were employed FT reported a salary. This is a start, but is only helpful if the number is closer to 100%, the distributions were easier to disaggregate, or the salary information we were looking at were intending to reflect the salaries of those employed FT.

Specifically, 152 salaries were reported. But which graduates reported a salary? Here is what we can derive:

3 Military
3 Academia
2 PI
4-14 Govt
4-48 B&I
10-71 Judicial Clerkship
11-72 Private Practice

As you can see, the ranges for the last three employer types is quite large. That's hugely problematic and could have been remedied had Rutgers chosen to share more like Hastings, for example: --LinkRemoved--

So the numbers don't mean quite what you think they mean. Or, rather, you can't reasonably know they mean what you think they mean.


In other words, it is possible (though not likely) that the $124K salary advertised for private sector grads represents the average of just 4% of the class. I would submit that because 32 of the 72 private sector grads were listed as working at firms of 100+, for whom starting salaries are usually publicly available, that perhaps 30-40 private sector grads reported. But even on the high end this still only tells you that 8% of the class were making $135K or more. In reality the percentage was likely lower.

Schools have a number of ways they can present employment information in a way that will make it look like a good deal. The worst aspect of charts like the ones Rutgers employs is that it effectively hides the holes: you probably did not think it was possible that the private sector salary data could represent only 4% of the class, given that they claim 33% of employed grads landed in the private sector. Clearly, Rutgers has the real information available and could give you a more realistic picture of the job prospects.

One more thing: around 36 large firms are listed in the very unrepresentative sample of "select recent placements." Since only 32 Class of 2010 grads were at firms with 100+ attorneys, we can deduce that this list is a mixture of the very top placements for at least two graduating classes, rather than only 2010 grads. Some schools like to provide such unrepresentative employer lists so that an enthusiastic applicant will consider them to be obtainable. Knowing the reality would require Rutgers agreeing to release the full employer lists for the Class of 2010, which so far they have refused to do.

Because of this I really do encourage people to contact career services and ask for complete employer lists for the 2010. If you receive a response, it would be helpful to post it in this thread for other applicants to review. Given the significant costs associated with obtaining a law degree these days, there is no justification as to why they can't provide consumers with the actual information. G'luck to all.


Check your PM's in the next few minutes.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest