Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Providing less "points" for JD Advantage/ Other Professional unnecessarily plays favorites among schools. Is GULC worse than Texas Tech or LSU? I bet LSU and Tech have better full-time, long-term JD rates than GULC. (by the way, I'm not going to look this up, but even if the schools are close my point is made). There are cultural differences between schools. GULC is a good example, but there are also plenty of lower ranked schools which attract students with varied career goals.
Here is something you should look up. Look at GULC's numbers pre-crash for JD Preferred and Professional jobs.
For fun: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ustry.html
"The JD-Advantaged and Professional jobs appear to be, on balance, less desirable than those requiring bar passage. They increase nearly three times in relative proportion as we move from T14 to Tier 1 to Tier 2. Many are likely compromise jobs—not as good as practicing law, but better than non-professional alternatives."
I'm aware of this data. It fits both your theory and my own, however. I've said that most law school students want JD Required work. You seem to imply that all or nearly all law school students want JD Required work. Either way, the shortage of JD Required work is going to effect your employment score, and your proposal to exclude non JD Required work from the USNEWS employment rate would, aggregately, provide some advantage for the purpose of "ranking" law schools.
My point is two-fold: One, the advantages gained by your proposal to better rank the schools would be real, but would be applied sloppily across the board, resulting in some schools being unfairly bolstered and others unfairly diminished because law schools often have different cultures with students with different career goals. Two, the practical policy result of your proposal will likely be to influence CSO across the country to steer all
applicants away from JD Advantage or Other Professional jobs, and I don't think I need to explain why that would be a bad idea in this environment.
While your proposal would be an improvement over what we have, I still think there is a better way forward that is much, much easier. The simplest solution is to influence USNEWS to differentiate between long-term, full-time work and everything else. If they do this, and if they stop counting school funded as long-term, the new rankings formula in regards to employment would become a thousand times better already. This would more fair and less controversial, though arguably would create a (slightly) less precise employment ranking method for USNEWS magazine. But, is that what we really care about anyway?
Also, and this was said by someone else, maybe MS9, but they should switch how they calculate class medians as well. Think about how law school admissions would be difference if USNEWS stated that medians would be calculated by the formula 25th + 75th / 2. No more Minn. Law with 166 median, 166 75th. These schools might actually admit people with different LSAT scores!