Am I reading this correctly? Forum

[Jaeger]

I suppose it's not terribly surprising but correct me if I'm wrong...


At Georgetown, basically (roughly) 43.8% of grads are employed in the private sector and make median incomes of 160k at 25th and 160k at 75th percentiles.

--LinkRemoved--

At George Washington, basically (again, roughly) 51.1% of grads are employed in the private sector and make median incomes of 160k at 25th and 160k at 75th percentiles.

--LinkRemoved--

Essentially, GW does 7.3% better? Something doesn't add up (not just because GW places better than GULC but also because these employment figures seem really good). Someone smarter than me explain this to me.

[L’Étranger]

While a worthwhile effort, the data on lawschooltransparency is overall not of much value. The 43.8% vs. 51.1% is based solely on the number of respective students that reported their salaries. Less students reported at GULC so their percentage and percentile are both lower than those of GW.

Generally, what is somewhat useful on the site is the data relating to private sector placement - most of which can be assumed to be with firms (since hardly anyone goes straight from LS to in-house). And in private sector placement GW and GULC are about equal at 70% which actually isn't so crazy considering that GW is not that bad of a school. Plus we don't know how many grads at GULC wanted to go into PI/Gov.

A HUGE confounding factor when looking at data like this and comparing top schools is that not everyone who goes to law school wants a firm job when they graduate. To support this point consider Yale which only placed a measly 43.5% in the private sector (compared to 70% at GW). Clearly the reason for the low private sector placement is that more than a quarter of Yale's class did ArtIII clerkships (which is a shit-ton) plus a bunch more likely elected to do high profile PI and Govt work.

The data that would really be helpful when comparing top schools and is unavailable is how many grads that wanted big law got big law.

[tyro]

the data on lawschooltransparency is overall based solely on the number of respective students that reported their salaries..

[Jaeger]

the data on lawschooltransparency is overall based solely on the number of respective students that reported their salaries..

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they try to account for the number that don't report salaries by doing some kind of averaging.

For example:

97.50% employed at 9 months
x 70% employed in private sector
x 75% in private sector reporting salary
= 51.1%% of all graduates

[tyro]

the data on lawschooltransparency is overall based solely on the number of respective students that reported their salaries..

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they try to account for the number that don't report salaries by doing some kind of averaging.

For example:

97.50% employed at 9 months
x 70% employed in private sector
x 75% in private sector reporting salary
= 51.1%% of all graduates

You can't adjust for error when 30-60% of the sample didn't respond to the survey.

[instantwonton]

Even if GW does have an actual higher percentage of people in the private sector, that doesn't account for the people that self-selected into other options, such as PI.

[romothesavior]

I personally don't put a ton of stock in LST. Great concept, and I wish it would have taken off, but sometimes the data just doesn't seem right.

[benburns214]

I personally don't put a ton of stock in LST. Great concept, and I wish it would have taken off, but sometimes the data just doesn't seem right.

Thats because it isn't usually accurate... I never look at it, if you want accurate data get it from the Law school publications.

3rd party sites dont often have the up to date accurate info.

[tennisking88]

Also keep in mind that this data is from 2009, when the market was much, much better. This is prob the biggest reason not to put stock into LST - their data is out of date.

[bk1]

I personally don't put a ton of stock in LST. Great concept, and I wish it would have taken off, but sometimes the data just doesn't seem right.

Thats because it isn't usually accurate... I never look at it, if you want accurate data get it from the Law school publications.

3rd party sites dont often have the up to date accurate info.

The data is reported by the schools to USNWR who then gives it to LST who collates it in a nice format.

My main use for LST is showing the percentage of full time, bar required jobs for schools. Even though it's out of date, it paints a pretty bleak picture for a lot of schools.

[benburns214]

Also keep in mind that this data is from 2009, when the market was much, much better. This is prob the biggest reason not to put stock into LST - their data is out of date.

Haha in 2009?? When the market was better?!?!?! Do you have any idea what your saying? The market was 100 times worse in 2008 and 2009... better check your sources dude.

But yes... LST's data is out of date and incorrect.

[Mr. Somebody]

Also keep in mind that this data is from 2009, when the market was much, much better. This is prob the biggest reason not to put stock into LST - their data is out of date.

Haha in 2009?? When the market was better?!?!?! Do you have any idea what your saying? The market was 100 times worse in 2008 and 2009... better check your sources dude.

But yes... LST's data is out of date and incorrect.

I've never seen anything on there that's incorrect (comparing it to the school's data). Incomplete, yes, because schools usually report incomplete stats.

I agree that the biggest problem is that its so out of date. When will we see 2010 figures on there?

[benburns214]

Also keep in mind that this data is from 2009, when the market was much, much better. This is prob the biggest reason not to put stock into LST - their data is out of date.

Haha in 2009?? When the market was better?!?!?! Do you have any idea what your saying? The market was 100 times worse in 2008 and 2009... better check your sources dude.

But yes... LST's data is out of date and incorrect.

I've never seen anything on there that's incorrect (comparing it to the school's data). Incomplete, yes, because schools usually report incomplete stats.

I agree that the biggest problem is that its so out of date. When will we see 2010 figures on there?

When data has to be transfered through multiple sources to a 3rd party site like LST is, then there is bound to be errors.

Nearly half of the schools I applied to had incorrect employment and salary data on LST. It's not LST's fault... its just how things work, which is why i dont use 3rd party sites for this kind of thing.

[Chucky21]

Also keep in mind that this data is from 2009, when the market was much, much better. This is prob the biggest reason not to put stock into LST - their data is out of date.

Haha in 2009?? When the market was better?!?!?! Do you have any idea what your saying? The market was 100 times worse in 2008 and 2009... better check your sources dude.

But yes... LST's data is out of date and incorrect.

This! 2009 was not a good year... now is not great, but is better than 09, especially when talking about firms hiring new associates.

[bk1]

Also keep in mind that this data is from 2009, when the market was much, much better. This is prob the biggest reason not to put stock into LST - their data is out of date.

Haha in 2009?? When the market was better?!?!?! Do you have any idea what your saying? The market was 100 times worse in 2008 and 2009... better check your sources dude.

But yes... LST's data is out of date and incorrect.

Class of 2009 did OCI in 2007. Granted that while hose who didn't get jobs through OCI felt the full brunt of ITE, those who got jobs through OCI did not. I'm not entirely sure how deferrals and all that got reported to USNWR, but I imagine that people who got deferred were still counted as having 160k/year jobs.

[Mr. Somebody]

Also keep in mind that this data is from 2009, when the market was much, much better. This is prob the biggest reason not to put stock into LST - their data is out of date.

Haha in 2009?? When the market was better?!?!?! Do you have any idea what your saying? The market was 100 times worse in 2008 and 2009... better check your sources dude.

But yes... LST's data is out of date and incorrect.

I've never seen anything on there that's incorrect (comparing it to the school's data). Incomplete, yes, because schools usually report incomplete stats.

I agree that the biggest problem is that its so out of date. When will we see 2010 figures on there?

When data has to be transfered through multiple sources to a 3rd party site like LST is, then there is bound to be errors.

Nearly half of the schools I applied to had incorrect employment and salary data on LST. It's not LST's fault... its just how things work, which is why i dont use 3rd party sites for this kind of thing.

Which ones? You should be contacting LST To let them know which schools they have inaccurate data for. The more reliable this is as a tool, the better for prospective law students.

[20130312]

Also keep in mind that this data is from 2009, when the market was much, much better. This is prob the biggest reason not to put stock into LST - their data is out of date.

Haha in 2009?? When the market was better?!?!?! Do you have any idea what your saying? The market was 100 times worse in 2008 and 2009... better check your sources dude.

But yes... LST's data is out of date and incorrect.

The CLASS of 2009. Which means they did OCI in August 2007, before anyone had figured out quite how bad the recession was going to be.

ETA: Got the scoop.

[deebo12]

the data on lawschooltransparency is overall based solely on the number of respective students that reported their salaries..

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they try to account for the number that don't report salaries by doing some kind of averaging.

For example:

97.50% employed at 9 months
x 70% employed in private sector
x 75% in private sector reporting salary
= 51.1%% of all graduates

You can't adjust for error when 30-60% of the sample didn't respond to the survey.

I love the double-sided nature of TLS, where they are dogmatic about LST's numbers and rigid about how justified they are... when it's a lower ranked school. When it's GWU, oh it must be flawed.

[Tiago Splitter]

if you want accurate data get it from the Law school publications.

wut?

[bk1]

I love the double-sided nature of TLS, where they are dogmatic about LST's numbers and rigid about how justified they are... when it's a lower ranked school. When it's GWU, oh it must be flawed.

It couldn't be that TLS is actually different people with differing views, that wouldn't make any sense at all.

[benburns214]

if you want accurate data get it from the Law school publications.

wut?

You confused buddy?

[romothesavior]

if you want accurate data get it from the Law school publications.

wut?

You confused buddy?

I think he's curious what you're talking about. Are you saying the best data comes from the law schools themselves?

[benburns214]

if you want accurate data get it from the Law school publications.

wut?

You confused buddy?

I think he's curious what you're talking about. Are you saying the best data comes from the law schools themselves?

That, or USN... which gets the data from the law schools themselves anyway, but they are the only 3rd party that I would rely on.

[Tiago Splitter]

The data on LST comes straight from US News. They just pull it right from the magazie and put it into an easy to understand format.

Edit: If what IAFG is saying below is true then I stand corrected.

[IAFG]

I personally don't put a ton of stock in LST. Great concept, and I wish it would have taken off, but sometimes the data just doesn't seem right.

Thats because it isn't usually accurate... I never look at it, if you want accurate data get it from the Law school publications.

3rd party sites dont often have the up to date accurate info.

The data is reported by the schools to USNWR who then gives it to LST who collates it in a nice format.

My main use for LST is showing the percentage of full time, bar required jobs for schools. Even though it's out of date, it paints a pretty bleak picture for a lot of schools.

You've said this before and I am pretty sure it's wrong. Schools give LST a breakdown (albeit an incomplete one). That's why LST only has the data for a few of the schools.

I think that LST has actually been pretty helpful about pressuring schools to give better data. I know the administration at NU is aware of their goals and at least talking about the issues.