Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
observationalist
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby observationalist » Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:33 pm

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.

This.

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.

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

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby BostonNJ » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:14 am

observationalist wrote:
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.

This.

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.


Oh let it go, we all know that its a hard job market. At least they don't charge you an arm and leg for the education!

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby Wholigan » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:20 pm

BostonNJ wrote:Oh let it go, we all know that its a hard job market. At least they don't charge you an arm and leg for the education!


Wow, is this ever dumb. So because they don't charge as much as Seton Hall or other private schools, you shouldn't even care what realistic job expectations are? You could still graduate with $150k in debt with in-state. If you don't give a shit what the value is of something you're paying that amount for, fine. But most sensible people do care.

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

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby mrtoren » Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:39 pm

Wholigan wrote:
BostonNJ wrote:Oh let it go, we all know that its a hard job market. At least they don't charge you an arm and leg for the education!


Wow, is this ever dumb. So because they don't charge as much as Seton Hall or other private schools, you shouldn't even care what realistic job expectations are? You could still graduate with $150k in debt with in-state. If you don't give a shit what the value is of something you're paying that amount for, fine. But most sensible people do care.

Chill out. Both Rutgers' job numbers are solid. And their salary figures follow the methods used by nearly every other school out there. So even though it POTENTIALLY only represents a relatively small number of the class, its normal for schools to use such a figure. Are you really going to bite into Rutgers for following standard protocols?

Other defining features? Their market is covered by a mere three law schools...which is a lot better than most other major metro areas. Intense intrastate loyalty to Rutgers. Relatively low cost [Closer to $120k overall].

So while I don't know why you have you have so much hate these two law schools, others should note that you are wrong.

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

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby keg411 » Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:28 pm

mrtoren wrote:
Wholigan wrote:
BostonNJ wrote:Oh let it go, we all know that its a hard job market. At least they don't charge you an arm and leg for the education!


Wow, is this ever dumb. So because they don't charge as much as Seton Hall or other private schools, you shouldn't even care what realistic job expectations are? You could still graduate with $150k in debt with in-state. If you don't give a shit what the value is of something you're paying that amount for, fine. But most sensible people do care.

Chill out. Both Rutgers' job numbers are solid. And their salary figures follow the methods used by nearly every other school out there. So even though it POTENTIALLY only represents a relatively small number of the class, its normal for schools to use such a figure. Are you really going to bite into Rutgers for following standard protocols?

Other defining features? Their market is covered by a mere three law schools...which is a lot better than most other major metro areas. Intense intrastate loyalty to Rutgers. Relatively low cost [Closer to $120k overall].

So while I don't know why you have you have so much hate these two law schools, others should note that you are wrong.


Wholigan doesn't hate the schools. We went to one of them together last year. We both did well, but both decided to transfer because the opportunities were better at T10's as opposed to Rutgers.

Just don't think they schools necessarily going to end up cheap and great to everyone. They're still T2's and you still need to be at the very top of your class for BigLaw (and you still need to have decent grades for the State Clerkship to Decent Job route). Plus, keep in mind that Penn/Temple/Nova compete with Rutgers-Camden and pretty much all the NYC schools compete with Rutgers-Newark. The NJ firms also want T14 students badly and will take them if they can get them.

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby Wholigan » Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:22 pm

keg411 wrote:
mrtoren wrote:
Wholigan wrote:
BostonNJ wrote:Oh let it go, we all know that its a hard job market. At least they don't charge you an arm and leg for the education!


Wow, is this ever dumb. So because they don't charge as much as Seton Hall or other private schools, you shouldn't even care what realistic job expectations are? You could still graduate with $150k in debt with in-state. If you don't give a shit what the value is of something you're paying that amount for, fine. But most sensible people do care.

Chill out. Both Rutgers' job numbers are solid. And their salary figures follow the methods used by nearly every other school out there. So even though it POTENTIALLY only represents a relatively small number of the class, its normal for schools to use such a figure. Are you really going to bite into Rutgers for following standard protocols?

Other defining features? Their market is covered by a mere three law schools...which is a lot better than most other major metro areas. Intense intrastate loyalty to Rutgers. Relatively low cost [Closer to $120k overall].

So while I don't know why you have you have so much hate these two law schools, others should note that you are wrong.


Wholigan doesn't hate the schools. We went to one of them together last year. We both did well, but both decided to transfer because the opportunities were better at T10's as opposed to Rutgers.

Just don't think they schools necessarily going to end up cheap and great to everyone. They're still T2's and you still need to be at the very top of your class for BigLaw (and you still need to have decent grades for the State Clerkship to Decent Job route). Plus, keep in mind that Penn/Temple/Nova compete with Rutgers-Camden and pretty much all the NYC schools compete with Rutgers-Newark. The NJ firms also want T14 students badly and will take them if they can get them.


Pretty much my thoughts. I have no hate for Rutgers. I spent 1L there, gave serious thought to staying instead of transferring, and would have been happy to graduate with a JD from there. Rather than attacking the schools, I was only pointing out the flaw in the poster's logic who seemed to think we shouldn't care about having more trasparency because the price isn't as high as some other schools.

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

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby mrtoren » Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:27 pm

I appreciate the clarification. I agree, neither Rutgers competes against any of the T14 schools. However, as regional schools, they do very well in their respective markets. BigLaw is a stretch, as was mentioned, but MidLaw should be achievable, and there are plenty who place into gov't and PI. For those with non-T14 numbers, I believe both Rutgers law schools to be excellent places for acquiring legal educations.

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby Wholigan » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:25 am

mrtoren wrote:I appreciate the clarification. I agree, neither Rutgers competes against any of the T14 schools. However, as regional schools, they do very well in their respective markets. BigLaw is a stretch, as was mentioned, but MidLaw should be achievable, and there are plenty who place into gov't and PI. For those with non-T14 numbers, I believe both Rutgers law schools to be excellent places for acquiring legal educations.


I don't want to backtrack on my last post, but I'm not so sure about the bolded. This stuff hit home with me a little bit because I wasn't on TLS or the scam blogs before law school. I was a little skeptical of the employment stats given the mainstream media reports on the state of legal hiring, but when I started at school and got the emails about how you need to start networking because 4.8% of the class gets jobs through OCI (which includes most of the possible biglaw and some of the midlaw employers, and also includes some gov't employers) I was a little put off. Might be my own fault, because maybe they would have given me that stat before I enrolled, had I asked. I'm not saying the Rutgers are any worse than other schools in this regard, and maybe they're even better. Again, nothing against them - in fact, during interviewing, I told two partners on hiring committees at local biglaw firms which don't participate in Rutgers OCI that I thought they were missing out by not recruiting there. I'm sure my opinion makes no meaningful difference, but I thought it should be said.

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

Re: Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings

Postby observationalist » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:50 am

mrtoren wrote:
Wholigan wrote:
BostonNJ wrote:Oh let it go, we all know that its a hard job market. At least they don't charge you an arm and leg for the education!


Wow, is this ever dumb. So because they don't charge as much as Seton Hall or other private schools, you shouldn't even care what realistic job expectations are? You could still graduate with $150k in debt with in-state. If you don't give a shit what the value is of something you're paying that amount for, fine. But most sensible people do care.

Chill out. Both Rutgers' job numbers are solid. And their salary figures follow the methods used by nearly every other school out there. So even though it POTENTIALLY only represents a relatively small number of the class, its normal for schools to use such a figure. Are you really going to bite into Rutgers for following standard protocols?

Other defining features? Their market is covered by a mere three law schools...which is a lot better than most other major metro areas. Intense intrastate loyalty to Rutgers. Relatively low cost [Closer to $120k overall].

So while I don't know why you have you have so much hate these two law schools, others should note that you are wrong.


For my part, my only horse in the race is helping people understand that "everyone does it" isn't an excuse as to why a law school is trying to trick you into viewing their employment stats in a more-than-favorable light. Unfortunately, full tuition is probably not justifiable at most law schools (including Rutgers) based on what we think the actual job stats are like. Three of the 200 ABA-approved law schools have been hit with lawsuits alleging fraud and intentional misrepresentation so far this year, and there may be many more cropping up before year's end. Congress is also starting to take a closer look at investigating these programs. We are likely going to see some pretty drastic changes to legal education in the next couple of years as the market corrects itself and demand for full-tuition programs drops off in response to greater disclosure of the actual job prospects. Given all the uncertainty I would caution people against attending based on mistaken beliefs about the relative strength of any particular program. In this respect Rutgers is operating just like many other schools: creating positive outcomes for a small fraction of the class but leaving a far greater number with significant debt that can only be repaid through economic hardship or the federal IBR program. I strongly urge anyone considering law school to use your acceptances as leverage to demand more complete employment data from the law school. If anyone has been successful in getting the data it would be very helpful to post it so that other applicants can review before having to make their decision on whether to attend. G'luck.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], neptunian, rat333 and 3 guests