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

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

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

Postby somewhatwayward » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:49 pm

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:

Image

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

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

Postby rad lulz » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:51 pm

lol gulc

toothbrush
Posts: 2388
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:21 pm

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

Postby toothbrush » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:53 pm

gulc looks real bad in comparison..

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

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

Postby cahwc12 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:53 pm

Last edited by cahwc12 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

curious66
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:34 pm

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

Postby curious66 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:54 pm

somewhatwayward wrote: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:

Image


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

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

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

Postby rad lulz » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:55 pm

curious66 wrote: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

User avatar
gaud
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

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

Postby gaud » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:55 pm

rad lulz wrote:lol gulc

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

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

Postby Yukos » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:56 pm

toothbrush wrote:gulc looks real bad in comparison..


Not as bad as UW.

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

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

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

Postby 20130312 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:56 pm

gaud wrote:
rad lulz wrote:lol gulc

User avatar
Crowing
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

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

Postby Crowing » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:57 pm

curious66 wrote:
somewhatwayward wrote: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:

Image


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.

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

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

Postby cahwc12 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:02 pm

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.

User avatar
XCanadian91
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:03 pm

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

Postby XCanadian91 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:04 am

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.

User avatar
togepi
Posts: 533
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 10:13 am

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

Postby togepi » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:30 am

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

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

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

Postby 09042014 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:40 am

LOL at TLS now gunning for ANY JD required job.

User avatar
law chihuahua
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 am

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

Postby law chihuahua » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:44 am

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

thand42292
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:30 pm

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

Postby thand42292 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:53 am

XCanadian91 wrote: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

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

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

Postby jenesaislaw » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:16 am

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
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm

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

Postby PRgradBYU » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:23 am

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

User avatar
Shmoopy
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:52 pm

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

Postby Shmoopy » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:23 am

rad lulz wrote:lol gulc


How is GWU so much higher?

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

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

Postby rad lulz » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:25 am

Shmoopy wrote:
rad lulz wrote:lol gulc


How is GWU so much higher?

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

User avatar
Shmoopy
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:52 pm

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

Postby Shmoopy » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:33 am

rad lulz wrote:
Shmoopy wrote:
rad lulz wrote: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
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

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

Postby rad lulz » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:36 am

Shmoopy wrote:
rad lulz wrote:
Shmoopy wrote:
rad lulz wrote: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.

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

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

Postby cahwc12 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:13 am

jenesaislaw wrote: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.

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

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

Postby jenesaislaw » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:41 pm

cahwc12 wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote: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.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: crookedsmile, genjustice, MSNbot Media and 1 guest