Am I reading this correctly? Forum

[Mr. Somebody]

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.

The law schools often don't publish a complete profile of what they report to USN. Even a top school like Cornell has barely any information on its website:

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/career ... istics.cfm

[benburns214]

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.

Well i dont know what to tell you... do a little reasearch yourself I suppose, you'll see the discrepancies between LST and USN's info, as well as the LS publications.

[Jaeger]

While I'm sure the information is somewhat incomplete and represents a better legal market, it's hard to not let it change my opinion of GWU (at least in relation to UMN my other option).

[IAFG]

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.

There is info in the "employer list" and "salary" columns that definitely isn't in the magazine.

[benburns214]

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.

The law schools often don't publish a complete profile of what they report to USN. Even a top school like Cornell has barely any information on its website:

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/career ... istics.cfm

Yeah i believe that they dont have all the data on their website... but find the statistics they are legally bound to release. That will have accurate and full data... most of the time (cough cough NYLS cough cough)

[IAFG]

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.

The law schools often don't publish a complete profile of what they report to USN. Even a top school like Cornell has barely any information on its website:

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/career ... istics.cfm

Yeah i believe that they dont have all the data on their website... but find the statistics they are legally bound to release. That will have accurate and full data... most of the time (cough cough NYLS cough cough)

What are they "legally" bound to release?

[benburns214]

While I'm sure the information is somewhat incomplete and represents a better legal market, it's hard to not let it change my opinion of GWU (at least in relation to UMN my other option).

Ummm... no. we've established this already. The market is not worse than it was in 2007-2009

[benburns214]

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.

The law schools often don't publish a complete profile of what they report to USN. Even a top school like Cornell has barely any information on its website:

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/career ... istics.cfm

Yeah i believe that they dont have all the data on their website... but find the statistics they are legally bound to release. That will have accurate and full data... most of the time (cough cough NYLS cough cough)

What are they "legally" bound to release?

Yearly Post-graduate data

[Jaeger]

While I'm sure the information is somewhat incomplete and represents a better legal market, it's hard to not let it change my opinion of GWU (at least in relation to UMN my other option).

Ummm... no. we've established this already. The market is not worse than it was in 2007-2009

But, you think it's incorrect?

[benburns214]

While I'm sure the information is somewhat incomplete and represents a better legal market, it's hard to not let it change my opinion of GWU (at least in relation to UMN my other option).

Ummm... no. we've established this already. The market is not worse than it was in 2007-2009

But, you think it's incorrect?

Not entirely incorrect... just certain schools and specific data. Some are also incomplete and out of date.

[Mr. Somebody]

While I'm sure the information is somewhat incomplete and represents a better legal market, it's hard to not let it change my opinion of GWU (at least in relation to UMN my other option).

Ummm... no. we've established this already. The market is not worse than it was in 2007-2009

But, you think it's incorrect?

Not entirely incorrect... just certain schools and specific data. Some are also incomplete and out of date.

Which schools were incorrect?

[romothesavior]

Yearly Post-graduate data

False. Up until this year, the definitions and standards used for reporting graduate placement were AWFUL. Schools could basically massage the data any way they wanted to and get whatever results best served them. If you look at data in the past few years, the data is actually better in the recession than it was in the 1990s. It is an absurd result, but it was the result of schools getting good at data-manipulation.

The ABA just changed a lot of their definitions and standards, and they are requiring that schools resolve any question of employment for individual graduates for unemployment. However, some schools continued to use the old metrics and standards, while others implemented the new ABA metrics and standards. What will result in this year's USNWR rankings is that some schools (such as my own) will show 80% employed at 9 months. Others will continue to report 98% employment at nine months when that is just a complete crock of B.S. I actually think WUSTL (and some others) is going to drop in the rankings because we used the new ABA standards, while some other schools who conveniently used the old system will climb.

Basically, don't trust anything that comes out of the law schools. They are master-scammers. The push by the ABA on employment data is a good move, but I don't think it is going to solve everything. Be very, very skeptical of anything that you see from the schools themselves.

[romothesavior]

While I'm sure the information is somewhat incomplete and represents a better legal market, it's hard to not let it change my opinion of GWU (at least in relation to UMN my other option).

Ummm... no. we've established this already. The market is not worse than it was in 2007-2009

Also, I wanted to ask you... are you saying that the current market is not worse than it was for c/o 2007, c/o 2008, and c/o 2009?

[benburns214]

Yearly Post-graduate data

The ABA just changed a lot of their definitions and standards, and they are requiring that schools resolve any question of employment for individual graduates for unemployment. However, some schools continued to use the old metrics and standards, while others implemented the new ABA metrics and standards. What will result in this year's USNWR rankings is that some schools (such as my own) will show 80% employed at 9 months. Others will continue to report 98% employment at nine months when that is just a complete crock of B.S. I actually think WUSTL (and some others) is going to drop in the rankings because we used the new ABA standards, while some other schools who conveniently used the old system will climb.

Basically, don't trust anything that comes out of the law schools. They are master-scammers. The push by the ABA on employment data is a good move, but I don't think it is going to solve everything. Be very, very skeptical of anything that you see from the schools themselves.

You are correct up to a certain point. Do law schools try to represent their employment data in the most positive light they can? Absolutely. They cannot mis-represent their data however. If you have taken a statistics course, which im sure most people have, then you should have no problem interpreting the data yourself without being coersed by percentages.

[Guchster]

Yearly Post-graduate data

Basically, don't trust anything that comes out of the law schools. They are master-scammers. The push by the ABA on employment data is a good move, but I don't think it is going to solve everything. Be very, very skeptical of anything that you see from the schools themselves.

I agree with everything in this poast, but particularly the bolded. When your job is based on how well you do on USNWR, you start doing crazy and unethical things to get your school's preftige and numbers up. Law schools before this ABA push had all kind of convenient ways to trick the system and make their employment rates and salary info seem way higher than they were (by asking only a certain group to report, or hiring students at their admissions office for a few months, etc.)

[benburns214]

While I'm sure the information is somewhat incomplete and represents a better legal market, it's hard to not let it change my opinion of GWU (at least in relation to UMN my other option).

Ummm... no. we've established this already. The market is not worse than it was in 2007-2009

Also, I wanted to ask you... are you saying that the current market is not worse than it was for c/o 2007, c/o 2008, and c/o 2009?

No, just the year in general. The legal hiring freeze was in full effect during that 3 year span, which spurred the "law school freakout" that has currently invaded TLS.

[Guchster]

Yearly Post-graduate data

The ABA just changed a lot of their definitions and standards, and they are requiring that schools resolve any question of employment for individual graduates for unemployment. However, some schools continued to use the old metrics and standards, while others implemented the new ABA metrics and standards. What will result in this year's USNWR rankings is that some schools (such as my own) will show 80% employed at 9 months. Others will continue to report 98% employment at nine months when that is just a complete crock of B.S. I actually think WUSTL (and some others) is going to drop in the rankings because we used the new ABA standards, while some other schools who conveniently used the old system will climb.

Basically, don't trust anything that comes out of the law schools. They are master-scammers. The push by the ABA on employment data is a good move, but I don't think it is going to solve everything. Be very, very skeptical of anything that you see from the schools themselves.

You are correct up to a certain point. Do law schools try to represent their employment data in the most positive light they can? Absolutely. They cannot mis-represent their data however. If you have taken a statistics course, which im sure most people have, then you should have no problem interpreting the data yourself without being coersed by percentages.

Unfortunately they can and do. There wasn't any accountability before this ABA push and even now there isn't much.

Nothing really stops lawl schools from just lying about it (i.e., TJSL law suit).

[IAFG]

While I'm sure the information is somewhat incomplete and represents a better legal market, it's hard to not let it change my opinion of GWU (at least in relation to UMN my other option).

Ummm... no. we've established this already. The market is not worse than it was in 2007-2009

Also, I wanted to ask you... are you saying that the current market is not worse than it was for c/o 2007, c/o 2008, and c/o 2009?

No, just the year in general. The legal hiring freeze was in full effect during that 3 year span, which spurred the "law school freakout" that has currently invaded TLS.

2007 was still gangbusters

[benburns214]

Yearly Post-graduate data

The ABA just changed a lot of their definitions and standards, and they are requiring that schools resolve any question of employment for individual graduates for unemployment. However, some schools continued to use the old metrics and standards, while others implemented the new ABA metrics and standards. What will result in this year's USNWR rankings is that some schools (such as my own) will show 80% employed at 9 months. Others will continue to report 98% employment at nine months when that is just a complete crock of B.S. I actually think WUSTL (and some others) is going to drop in the rankings because we used the new ABA standards, while some other schools who conveniently used the old system will climb.

Basically, don't trust anything that comes out of the law schools. They are master-scammers. The push by the ABA on employment data is a good move, but I don't think it is going to solve everything. Be very, very skeptical of anything that you see from the schools themselves.

You are correct up to a certain point. Do law schools try to represent their employment data in the most positive light they can? Absolutely. They cannot mis-represent their data however. If you have taken a statistics course, which im sure most people have, then you should have no problem interpreting the data yourself without being coersed by percentages.

Unfortunately they can and do. There wasn't any accountability before this ABA push and even now there isn't much.

Nothing really stops lawl schools from just lying about it (i.e., TJSL law suit).

Well it is always a possibility that they will illegally misrepresent their data... however, there is nothing we can do about that. If the law schools misrepresent it, then the data will be misrepresented in every source we read, and thus we will never get correct data.

[Jaeger]

Ben, forgive my confusion, but you seem to say that the legal market was worse in 2007 (thereby making the case stronger for the aforementioned school) but then say the data is incorrect. How is it incorrect? And are you thus saying don't put stock in LST?

[Jaeger]

Well it is always a possibility that they will illegally misrepresent their data... however, there is nothing we can do about that. If the law schools misrepresent it, then the data will be misrepresented in every source we read, and thus we will never get correct data.

I think there should be an independent entity that surveys every student upon graduation and at 9 months (which they must reply to or face a fine or some such nonsense) so that we can finally have correct information. Why is that so hard?

[deebo12]

Ah why aren't we just trying to get into engineering programs?!?!

[Mr. Somebody]

Well it is always a possibility that they will illegally misrepresent their data... however, there is nothing we can do about that. If the law schools misrepresent it, then the data will be misrepresented in every source we read, and thus we will never get correct data.

I think there should be an independent entity that surveys every student upon graduation and at 9 months (which they must reply to or face a fine or some such nonsense) so that we can finally have correct information. Why is that so hard?

I think people are less likely to respond to some independent agency, as opposed to the school they attended and have a relationship with.

[benburns214]

Ben, forgive my confusion, but you seem to say that the legal market was worse in 2007 (thereby making the case stronger for the aforementioned school) but then say the data is incorrect. How is it incorrect? And are you thus saying don't put stock in LST?

My point from the beginning was not to put too much faith in the numbers that LST posts. There are certain statistics at certain schools that LST misrepresents (at no fault of their own). The legal market was much worse in 2007 than it is now, and some data on LST may reflect that (whether that data is accurate or not is questionable).

Boiled down... since some data on LST is misrepresented, its hard to know what data is accurate and what data isnt.

[20130312]

Solution: Just go to med school.