mrtoren wrote:crossarmant wrote:I got an email from Rutgers talking about budgetary issues due to NJ govt funding, etc. I really do think that's the reason why the rankings don't display the quality as well.
Plus, Rutgers gets penalized for admitting a high amount of URM's with lower numbers. I believe Newark's class had something like 40% URM students. We could get into a debate over the slanted nature of the USNWR rankings, but the bottom line is that RU-C and RU-N have excellent employment figures and that's what really matters.
Sorry to be a week late and thus re-bump an old thread, but I question whether the bolded can be supported when taken in context with what I wrote back in June. If you have more accurate data it would be helpful to post it so that readers can determine whether or not Rutgers is still continuing to mislead applicants.
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.