Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow. Forum

[CLW8131]

I would definitely choose BC. I went there undergrad and the law school is fantastic - the professors are super dedicated and a much higher percentage of grads get biglaw jobs. I did not apply because I am from the tri state area and was not willing or able to relocate because of my job. In the spirit of full disclosure, I applied to Cardozo and am still on the wait list there but if I could have relocated I would have chosen BC (plus I would have had the benefit of coming from their undergrad = higher change of admission) but it wasn't in the cards for me! good luck - and let us know when you make your decision!

[TLSwag]

This is the last time you will ever go to school.

I would go with prestige + employment opportunities = BC

Also, if you go to dozo, you will be fighting for the Mega-Glutted NYC market with a lower-tiered degree...

Again..this is the last time (more than likely) you will be in school.

**BTW, according to the WSJ, Georgetown is still taking apps for September start

That ain't happening with a 161

TLSwag is quick to defend his new alma mater . He just got taken off the waitlist himself.

[RodneyBoonfield]

This is really off topic, but can someone please explain this to me:

--LinkRemoved--

v.

--LinkRemoved--


Wtf?

[Nova]

This is really off topic, but can someone please explain this to me:

--LinkRemoved--

v.

--LinkRemoved--


Wtf?

That is very off topic and very interesting. IDK why so many GULC grads are categorized as underemployed compared to GW.

OP, did you end up moving into your NY apartment and choosing Dozo?

[RodneyBoonfield]

That is very off topic and very interesting. IDK why so many GULC grads are categorized as underemployed compared to GW.

It makes me wonder if we should question the now common practice of quoting LST as though it were 100% accurate. Just sayin

[Nova]

That is very off topic and very interesting. IDK why so many GULC grads are categorized as underemployed compared to GW.

It makes me wonder if we should question the now common practice of quoting LST as though it were 100% accurate. Just sayin

Word.

Ill PM Jenesa.

[RodneyBoonfield]

That is very off topic and very interesting. IDK why so many GULC grads are categorized as underemployed compared to GW.

It makes me wonder if we should question the now common practice of quoting LST as though it were 100% accurate. Just sayin

Word.

Ill PM Jenesa.

Glad we had this talk

[jenesaislaw]

That is very off topic and very interesting. IDK why so many GULC grads are categorized as underemployed compared to GW.

It makes me wonder if we should question the now common practice of quoting LST as though it were 100% accurate. Just sayin

Word.

Ill PM Jenesa.

Happy to respond. There's nothing to explain here besides the methodology (which is solid as can be given the data) and pointing out the jobs that may slip through the cracks.

To be categorized as underemployed, one must be be in a short-term job, a part-time job, or a non-professional job, as well as those who are unemployed -- seeking or pursuing an additional degree. All of the numbers we use to derive the underemployed score come from the ABA (thus schools) directly.

There is one category of jobs that many think should be underemployed that we do not count: long-term, full-time school-funded jobs. Likewise, it's likely that a solid number of those jobs count towards the employment score. The reasoning for both is the same. From our article in the Journal of Legal Metrics:

School-funded jobs present an interesting issue for any measurement of employment outcomes because they can span a range of jobs from the desirable to the illusory. On one end are year-long, full-time appointments in jobs that involve substantive legal work, provide valuable experience, and genuinely advance a recent graduate’s career. On the other end are part-time positions that last only a short time and are timed to coincide with the nine month employment survey. With increasing attention drawn to school-funded jobs, and several schools employing more than 10% of their graduates, any measurement of employment outcomes would be remiss if it did not take these positions into consideration.

For full-time, long-term jobs funded by the school, we could not exclude jobs in this category even if we wanted. First, we cannot justify the assumption that all (or a critical mass) of long-term, full-time jobs funded by the school require bar passage – non-legal jobs have already been excluded and we do not want to risk excluding graduates twice. Second, some of these jobs might actually be jobs with an indefinite term instead of a definite, one-year term. (It might be tempting to exclude definite-term jobs because of the likelihood that these jobs were structured to inflate employment statistics.) Jobs in clinics, as librarians, as writing instructors, or as professors each could have an indefinite term. Overall, the uncertainty here demonstrates how critical it is that schools disclose significantly more data on school-funded jobs.

It's important to look at the underlying data of the scores and figure out why a school's scores look as they do. GULC put a higher percentage of graduates in long-term, full-time JDA and Professional jobs this year compared to GW, even if only by a few percentage points. (This is not to say these jobs were desirable, however, because in 2007-2009, GULC placed just a few percent in these jobs.)

GW also put a higher percentage in tiny firms. Most importantly, GW had 80 graduates (15.4%) in LT, FT school-funded jobs compared to GULC's 19 (3%). Again, for the reasons stated above, we didn't deduct from the ES or add to the UES these percentages.

Perhaps people need to reconsider their expectations and realize that GW and GULC's placement just isn't that different outside of biglaw. (Fed clerkship rate is better at GW too.) GULC got its ass kicked in this recession.

[ru2486]

OP, neither option is terrible, but with a 3.66 you should really consider retaking your 161. even just getting into the mid to high 160s could completely change your options next cycle. do you really have to go this year?

[RodneyBoonfield]

That is very off topic and very interesting. IDK why so many GULC grads are categorized as underemployed compared to GW.

It makes me wonder if we should question the now common practice of quoting LST as though it were 100% accurate. Just sayin

Word.

Ill PM Jenesa.

Happy to respond. There's nothing to explain here besides the methodology (which is solid as can be given the data) and pointing out the jobs that may slip through the cracks.

To be categorized as underemployed, one must be be in a short-term job, a part-time job, or a non-professional job, as well as those who are unemployed -- seeking or pursuing an additional degree. All of the numbers we use to derive the underemployed score come from the ABA (thus schools) directly.

There is one category of jobs that many think should be underemployed that we do not count: long-term, full-time school-funded jobs. Likewise, it's likely that a solid number of those jobs count towards the employment score. The reasoning for both is the same. From our article in the Journal of Legal Metrics:

School-funded jobs present an interesting issue for any measurement of employment outcomes because they can span a range of jobs from the desirable to the illusory. On one end are year-long, full-time appointments in jobs that involve substantive legal work, provide valuable experience, and genuinely advance a recent graduate’s career. On the other end are part-time positions that last only a short time and are timed to coincide with the nine month employment survey. With increasing attention drawn to school-funded jobs, and several schools employing more than 10% of their graduates, any measurement of employment outcomes would be remiss if it did not take these positions into consideration.

For full-time, long-term jobs funded by the school, we could not exclude jobs in this category even if we wanted. First, we cannot justify the assumption that all (or a critical mass) of long-term, full-time jobs funded by the school require bar passage – non-legal jobs have already been excluded and we do not want to risk excluding graduates twice. Second, some of these jobs might actually be jobs with an indefinite term instead of a definite, one-year term. (It might be tempting to exclude definite-term jobs because of the likelihood that these jobs were structured to inflate employment statistics.) Jobs in clinics, as librarians, as writing instructors, or as professors each could have an indefinite term. Overall, the uncertainty here demonstrates how critical it is that schools disclose significantly more data on school-funded jobs.

It's important to look at the underlying data of the scores and figure out why a school's scores look as they do. GULC put a higher percentage of graduates in long-term, full-time JDA and Professional jobs this year compared to GW, even if only by a few percentage points. (This is not to say these jobs were desirable, however, because in 2007-2009, GULC placed just a few percent in these jobs.)

GW also put a higher percentage in tiny firms. Most importantly, GW had 80 graduates (15.4%) in LT, FT school-funded jobs compared to GULC's 19 (3%). Again, for the reasons stated above, we didn't deduct from the ES or add to the UES these percentages.

Perhaps people need to reconsider their expectations and realize that GW and GULC's placement just isn't that different outside of biglaw. (Fed clerkship rate is better at GW too.) GULC got its ass kicked in this recession.

Thanks, Jenesa.

Fantastic article.

[TTTehehe]

Take BC or reapply.

BC will give you a shot at some of the D.C. government gigs - Big Law, I can't speak on. Obviously BC won't make it as "easy" as if you came from a T14 or D.C. school, but much better shot than Dozo.

Also, you can do visiting student at D.C. schools to get your feet wet networking and doing D.C. internships. The BC on the resume won't hurt you if you work it right.