Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded) Forum
- somewhatwayward
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm
Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
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:
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:
-
- Posts: 9807
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm
-
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:21 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
gulc looks real bad in comparison..
- cahwc12
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
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
Feel free to use this to help.
(here's another, too)
edit: Thread: USNWR Rankings versus Employment* Rankings, 6 Oct 2012
Last edited by cahwc12 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 381
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:34 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Have to say, it looks as if Duke's ranking should be higher based on employment stats.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:
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 9807
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Good thing everyone's who's not an idiot knows rankings don't mattercurious66 wrote: Have to say, it looks as if Duke's ranking should be higher based on employment stats.
- gaud
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
rad lulz wrote:lol gulc
- Yukos
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Not as bad as UW.toothbrush wrote:gulc looks real bad in comparison..
But yeah, this chart is a pretty good argument for T13.
- 20130312
- Posts: 3814
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
gaud wrote:rad lulz wrote:lol gulc
- Crowing
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Single year samples don't mean anything.curious66 wrote:Have to say, it looks as if Duke's ranking should be higher based on employment stats.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:
Also I like how the scale starts at 50% because it makes UW look so sad lolol. Also T25 = egregious anti-ASU trolling.
- cahwc12
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
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.
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
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:03 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
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/ ... ospects-2/
Not trying to be a jerk -- just can't make the numbers add up.
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/ ... ospects-2/
Not trying to be a jerk -- just can't make the numbers add up.
- togepi
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 10:13 am
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Nice compilation. Can't wait to see the T100 graphs when you get around to them.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
LOL at TLS now gunning for ANY JD required job.
- law chihuahua
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 am
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Thanks for doing this, somewhatwayward! It's helpful to be able to see all the information at once.
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:30 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Forbes' numbers are wrong. They include too much as a 'job' such as part-time work. Use lstscorereports.com or lawschooltransparency.comXCanadian91 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/ ... ospects-2/
Not trying to be a jerk -- just can't make the numbers add up.
- jenesaislaw
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
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.
It's the relationship between the LST Employment Score (LT, FT legal jobs minus solos) and U.S. News ranking.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Wow. UW's employment rate is abysmal for a school of its ranking.
- Shmoopy
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:52 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
How is GWU so much higher?rad lulz wrote:lol gulc
-
- Posts: 9807
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
It's 60% vs 65%. It's not that much.Shmoopy wrote:How is GWU so much higher?rad lulz wrote:lol gulc
- Shmoopy
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:52 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Yeah, the scale on the graph is misleading, but still. Is this within the amount of yearly fluctuation?rad lulz wrote:It's 60% vs 65%. It's not that much.Shmoopy wrote:How is GWU so much higher?rad lulz wrote:lol gulc
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 9807
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Hard to say. We only have one year of ABA reports.Shmoopy wrote:Yeah, the scale on the graph is misleading, but still. Is this within the amount of yearly fluctuation?rad lulz wrote:It's 60% vs 65%. It's not that much.Shmoopy wrote:How is GWU so much higher?rad lulz wrote:lol gulc
- cahwc12
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
Have you thought about creating your own rankings system? Even though LST is new, it's very highly respected.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.
- jenesaislaw
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm
Re: Rank v. % Employed (not including school-funded)
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.cahwc12 wrote:Have you thought about creating your own rankings system? Even though LST is new, it's very highly respected.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.
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.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login