Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

Which one

Cardozo 39k scholarship
8
22%
BC 14k scholarship
29
78%
 
Total votes: 37

CLW8131
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby CLW8131 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:22 pm

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
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby TLSwag » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:26 pm

JetsFan1990 wrote:
TLSwag wrote:
Bankrupt257 wrote: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 8) . He just got taken off the waitlist himself.


:D

RodneyBoonfield
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby RodneyBoonfield » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:15 pm

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

--LinkRemoved--

v.

--LinkRemoved--


Wtf?

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby Nova » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:21 pm

RodneyBoonfield wrote: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
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby RodneyBoonfield » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:24 pm

Nova wrote: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

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby Nova » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:26 pm

RodneyBoonfield wrote:
Nova wrote: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
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby RodneyBoonfield » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:28 pm

Nova wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:
Nova wrote: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

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby jenesaislaw » Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:00 pm

Nova wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:
Nova wrote: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.

User avatar
ru2486
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:28 am

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby ru2486 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:09 pm

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
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby RodneyBoonfield » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:27 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:
Nova wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:
Nova wrote: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.

User avatar
TTTehehe
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Cardozo/ BC, need to decide by tomorrow.

Postby TTTehehe » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:54 pm

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.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest