Pate wrote: manofjustice wrote: Pate wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote:http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=gulc looks good to you? or that 4 of 5 Penn/Boalt/Michigan grads couldn't find a real legal job within 9 months of graduation?
Where are you seeing that? The charts/data I see say 83.9% have secured fulltime work 8% have not. Granted those #s do not add up to 100%, but no where do I see anything that even slightly suggests 4 of 5 grads could not secure work after 9 months.
As has been said time and time again (but newbies like you are coming to the forums and showing us that the schools' number fudgery is apparently succeeding at large-scale deceit), most of the T14s employment numbers include (and their underemployment numbers exclude) large percentages of school-funded positions which will end in the next few months and which pay poorly.
Show me what the heck you are talking about. Thx.
The law schools, even the top ones, are funding their grads in 1-year positions (this is sufficient to meet the ABA's definition for "long-term"). These positions are IMHO a good thing, because it gives grads a year to continue their job hunt, but at many schools has the effect of inflating the employment stat computed by LSAT. For UVA, the stat is 94.7% long-term, full-time bar required jobs. 17% of those are graduates in school-funded jobs, which should not be considered the same as real full-time, permanent employment.
Now, the reason LST displays it like this is that it can't be sure whether UVA is counting those school-funded jobs as bar-required. So they can't just subtract the school-funded jobs from the long-term, full-time, bar-required figure because they can't be sure whether the school is counting them all in that category.
In UVA's case they must be counting at least some (and probably are counting all) the school-funded jobs as bar-required, because at most 83% (100% - 17%) of the class had a non-school funded job, yet UVA is saying 94.7% of the class has a bar-required job. So in reality probably only 77.7% (94.7% - 17%) of the class has a long-term, full-time, bar-required job that isn't being paid for by the law school.
In reality, none of the top schools had above a 90% real full-time employment rate, when you remove school-funded jobs.
See my data analysis for a more conservative (and IMHO more realistic) look at the employment situation at the T14: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=181723
. LST is constrained by the need to present the ABA data in an objective, unprocessed, neutral way. I labor under no such constraints.
My analysis has a few features based on my observations as a graduate from a T14 in the class of 2012:
1) school funded jobs are almost all taken by people who would otherwise be unemployed;
2) the "business" category is highly suspect, because it includes people with long-term temp agency contracts;
3) the "academia" category is highly suspect, because outside of HYS nobody does academia without doing a clerkship first;
4) the "small firms" category includes a lot of legitimate permanent employment, but at salaries that are insufficient to deal with the $250k of debt most graduates have ($60-$70k).
As a recent graduate, I can tell you that there are basically only three types of good jobs out of law school, considering peoples' debt:
1) a job at a large firm paying six figures;
2) a full-time, long-term public interest or government job that qualifies for loan forgiveness;
3) a federal judicial clerkship, which after a year allows the graduate to move into (1) or (2).
The data shows that in the T14, anywhere from 20% (Columbia) to 35% (Virginia) are ending up with a job not in one of these categories. And it is very likely that these outcomes are not by choice, and that these graduates are in a very tough position considering all of the loan debt they have.