Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)

[somewhatwayward]

I've been wanting to make a chart with rank/school along the x-axis and % employed (minus school-funded) along the y-axis, and I finally got around to doing it for the first 25 schools this morning. One caveat is that for schools like Yale subtracting school-funded positions is misleading because their school funded positions might really lead to good jobs, but I felt if I did it for all the others, I should do it for HYS, too. A few of the school-funded positions elsewhere might also be legitimate, but I know at my school, CLS, for example, school-funded positions are a last resort for the vast majority of people in them, so I think it is safe to subtract them.

Also, my real interest in doing this is to compare schools in the second, third, and fourth tier because I want people to be able to easily see which schools offer greater or lesser job prospects in spite of their rank. Oh, and for schools that were tied, I alphabetized them and assigned them to descending ranks (eg, Berk=7, Penn=8, UVA=9) so you could see each one easily. I will be adding charts for the rest of the schools over time. Okay, here it is:

[rad lulz]

lol gulc

[toothbrush]

gulc looks real bad in comparison..

[cahwc12]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... NRWc#gid=0

Feel free to use this to help.

(here's another, too)

edit: Thread: USNWR Rankings versus Employment* Rankings, 6 Oct 2012

[curious66]

I've been wanting to make a chart with rank/school along the x-axis and % employed (minus school-funded) along the y-axis, and I finally got around to doing it for the first 25 schools this morning. One caveat is that for schools like Yale subtracting school-funded positions is misleading because their school funded positions might really lead to good jobs, but I felt if I did it for all the others, I should do it for HYS, too. A few of the school-funded positions elsewhere might also be legitimate, but I know at my school, CLS, for example, school-funded positions are a last resort for the vast majority of people in them, so I think it is safe to subtract them.

Also, my real interest in doing this is to compare schools in the second, third, and fourth tier because I want people to be able to easily see which schools offer greater or lesser job prospects in spite of their rank. Oh, and for schools that were tied, I alphabetized them and assigned them to descending ranks (eg, Berk=7, Penn=8, UVA=9) so you could see each one easily. I will be adding charts for the rest of the schools over time. Okay, here it is:

Have to say, it looks as if Duke's ranking should be higher based on employment stats.

[rad lulz]

Have to say, it looks as if Duke's ranking should be higher based on employment stats.

Good thing everyone's who's not an idiot knows rankings don't matter

[gaud]

lol gulc

[Yukos]

gulc looks real bad in comparison..

Not as bad as UW.

But yeah, this chart is a pretty good argument for T13.

[20130312]

lol gulc

[Crowing]

I've been wanting to make a chart with rank/school along the x-axis and % employed (minus school-funded) along the y-axis, and I finally got around to doing it for the first 25 schools this morning. One caveat is that for schools like Yale subtracting school-funded positions is misleading because their school funded positions might really lead to good jobs, but I felt if I did it for all the others, I should do it for HYS, too. A few of the school-funded positions elsewhere might also be legitimate, but I know at my school, CLS, for example, school-funded positions are a last resort for the vast majority of people in them, so I think it is safe to subtract them.

Also, my real interest in doing this is to compare schools in the second, third, and fourth tier because I want people to be able to easily see which schools offer greater or lesser job prospects in spite of their rank. Oh, and for schools that were tied, I alphabetized them and assigned them to descending ranks (eg, Berk=7, Penn=8, UVA=9) so you could see each one easily. I will be adding charts for the rest of the schools over time. Okay, here it is:

Have to say, it looks as if Duke's ranking should be higher based on employment stats.

Single year samples don't mean anything.

Also I like how the scale starts at 50% because it makes UW look so sad lolol. Also T25 = egregious anti-ASU trolling.

[cahwc12]

Also if you're interested in doing something cool, how about a real tuition vs. nominal tuition chart? Schools keep raising sticker by more than inflation, but how about showing a picture comparing ABA data on scholarships for a school against its sticker price?

It would either be simple or impossible to do. If I have some extended free time I might do it myself, then again when the new numbers come out in March.

[XCanadian91]

Thanks for building this graph-- very interesting and useful cross-section of data.

Just curious about where the employment stats are sourced from? I was reading Forbes which lists Columbia, Chicago, Berkeley, and Northwestern with 90% plus grad employment 9 months post grad. even if you subtract 10% from each for school employment (which is rather high) they are posting numbers well above those used in your chart.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/10/10/the-best-law-schools-for-career-prospects-2/
Not trying to be a jerk -- just can't make the numbers add up.

[togepi]

Nice compilation. Can't wait to see the T100 graphs when you get around to them.

[09042014]

LOL at TLS now gunning for ANY JD required job.

[law chihuahua]

Thanks for doing this, somewhatwayward! It's helpful to be able to see all the information at once.

[thand42292]

Thanks for building this graph-- very interesting and useful cross-section of data.

Just curious about where the employment stats are sourced from? I was reading Forbes which lists Columbia, Chicago, Berkeley, and Northwestern with 90% plus grad employment 9 months post grad. even if you subtract 10% from each for school employment (which is rather high) they are posting numbers well above those used in your chart.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/10/10/the-best-law-schools-for-career-prospects-2/
Not trying to be a jerk -- just can't make the numbers add up.

Forbes' numbers are wrong. They include too much as a 'job' such as part-time work. Use lstscorereports.com or lawschooltransparency.com

[jenesaislaw]

Check out the 2nd and 3rd graphs here: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=13

It's the relationship between the LST Employment Score (LT, FT legal jobs minus solos) and U.S. News ranking.

[PRgradBYU]

Wow. UW's employment rate is abysmal for a school of its ranking.

[Shmoopy]

lol gulc

How is GWU so much higher?

[rad lulz]

lol gulc

How is GWU so much higher?

It's 60% vs 65%. It's not that much.

[Shmoopy]

lol gulc

How is GWU so much higher?

It's 60% vs 65%. It's not that much.

Yeah, the scale on the graph is misleading, but still. Is this within the amount of yearly fluctuation?

[rad lulz]

lol gulc

How is GWU so much higher?

It's 60% vs 65%. It's not that much.

Yeah, the scale on the graph is misleading, but still. Is this within the amount of yearly fluctuation?

Hard to say. We only have one year of ABA reports.

[cahwc12]

Check out the 2nd and 3rd graphs here: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=13

It's the relationship between the LST Employment Score (LT, FT legal jobs minus solos) and U.S. News ranking.

Have you thought about creating your own rankings system? Even though LST is new, it's very highly respected.

[jenesaislaw]

Check out the 2nd and 3rd graphs here: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=13

It's the relationship between the LST Employment Score (LT, FT legal jobs minus solos) and U.S. News ranking.

Have you thought about creating your own rankings system? Even though LST is new, it's very highly respected.

Yes, we've thought about it, but the result is the Score Reports. I do not want us to add more crap to the marketplace. As such, we're taking many different approaches to get prospective students access to better information.

In one sense, rankings are powerful because they take a lot of data and collapse it (usually poorly) into a single, easy to digest metric. This takes a lot of the effort out -- and going through all of the data is a lot of effort that requires a lot of skill and expertise, thus it's not attractive or plausible to expect from people even when they are making a huge investment of time and money.

So what this comes down to is forcing important information into the marketplace and changing how people understand that information. For example, when we convinced the WSJ to run with the LT, FT bar-required numbers, it was a huge win that totally changed the course of dialogue because it affected how NPR, the Washington Post, and a host of others covered the statistics. Usually the traditional and legal media use the "any job counts" rate. The difference is something in the high 80%s vs 55%. Impacting understanding also means organizing information in a way that we think is useful for the decisions we know people face. This means guiding people through the decision process, introducing more information as the number of considered schools reduces. One thing we're (very preliminarily) working on is a page on school profiles for Carnegie-style education. This is why cost and admissions data are sprinkled throughout the website.