LSATSCORES2012 wrote:Obviously we have no control over what USNews does, but in light of this it might be reasonable for them to include both, perhaps counting the employment rate with school-funded jobs included as 1/3 of the employment score, and counting the rate with school-funded jobs excluded as 2/3 of the employment rate.
Or, better yet, use a weighted system: count actual FTLT JD-required positions that are not funded by schools at x1.0; count FTLT JD-required positions that are funded by schools at x0.75; count FTLT JD-advantage positions at x0.5; count all other FTLT employment at x0.25; and count any non-FTLT employment at x0.1.
(This is just a random number system I thought of on the spot... however, I'm sure if someone put enough time and thought into it, they could create a meaningful weighted scoring system that took these factors into account properly.)
That's an interesting way to do it, too... but it does suffer from the problem given below:
Aroldis105 wrote:The problem is that everyone wants something different out of law school, some want big money from big law, others want public interest work, while others aren't sure what to do after undergrad and are just looking for a good job.
Which, IMO, hits TLS's big problem in general on the nose: everyone seems to think that what they want out of law school is what everyone wants out of law school. That's one reason that LST is so nice, because you can rank schools based on how well they place into specific categories.
Though this still suffers from the problem which has been discussed for a while on here: those numbers just tell you what people did, not what they were able to do but decided not to do.
ETA: the problem suffered above, though, is suffered by all the systems that have been discussed, I think.
perhaps the best way to do employment scores is to have a survey that is along the lines of, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied are you with your present job?" and then using that number
Of course, that would be ridiculously subject to alumni inflation - being like, "I want a better job, if my school's ranking goes up I'll get a better job, so I'll say I'm very satisfied, that will increase my school's ranking, and I'll get a job that I'll actually be satisfied in."
ETA again: Leiter's rankings are also somewhat useful here, because it breaks some of the different metrics that USNews uses apart to look at individually. But he seems to be choosy, in that he seems to pick categories that Chicago excels at. Not that I mind, since I'll probably end up there