LST report schools posting incomplete info-78%

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

LST report schools posting incomplete info-78%

Postby NYstate » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:34 am

This report presents LST’s two-fold analysis of consumer information on law school websites. First, we analyzed whether law schools published the two charts required by ABA Standard 509, and whether their websites contained incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information prohibited by Standard 509. Second, we analyzed affirmative efforts by law schools to be forthcoming with class of 2011 employment data they possess, but are under no regulatory obligation to publish.

Our chief findings, based on data collected between December 18, 2012 and January 9, 2013, are as follows:

- Of the 199 ABA-approved law schools, 78.4% (156/199) did not meet the expectations set forth by Standard 509.

- 65.3% (130/199) failed to publish one or both charts required by Standard 509. 20.6% (41/199) did not publish either chart.

- 46.2% (92/199) published consumer information that was incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading, as prohibited by Standard 509(a).

- Of the 198 schools that graduated students in 2011, 56.1% (111/198) went above and beyond the minimum regulatory standards and met one of ten transparency criteria. 17.7% (35/198) met all ten criteria.

- 47.0% (93/198) published some salary information that’s neither incomplete nor misleading.

We sent our findings to the dean, career services office, and admissions office of 199 ABA-approved law schools, along with explanations of the requirements, common problems, and what we expect law schools to disclose as a matter of practice. We then consulted with law schools about how they can meet the Transparency Index's criteria. With our guidance and just a small amount of motivation by administrators, we saw immense improvement in law school consumer information. Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go.



http://ssrn.com/abstract=2227508


http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/articl ... _group_sa/


~sunynp

User avatar
North
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: LST report schools posting incomplete info-78%

Postby North » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:02 am

NYstate wrote:~sunynp

Can't you just ask the mods to unlock your old account?

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: LST report schools posting incomplete info-78%

Postby guano » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:09 am

This is mathematically impossible

56% went above minimum standards while 46% failed to meet minimum standards adds up to 102% - and with a sample size of 199 this cannot be due to rounding.

In no way do I want to white knight, but those in the business of reporting inaccuracies should be more meticulous

User avatar
Ramius
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:39 am

Re: LST report schools posting incomplete info-78%

Postby Ramius » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:17 am

guano wrote:This is mathematically impossible

56% went above minimum standards while 46% failed to meet minimum standards adds up to 102% - and with a sample size of 199 this cannot be due to rounding.

In no way do I want to white knight, but those in the business of reporting inaccuracies should be more meticulous


LST outlines that these are two different analyses. First they analyzed how many ABA-approved law schools meet the basic criteria of Standard 509, of which 46% do not meet every requirement. Separately, they analyzed every school's available data for additional markers of transparency and 56% of schools had at least one indicator of going beyond the 509 requirements. It is a little misleading, but seen in this light, it makes complete mathematical sense. You can fail to meet 509 criteria while also going beyond the criteria. Convoluted, but true regardless.

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: LST report schools posting incomplete info-78%

Postby guano » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:24 am

matthewsean85 wrote:
guano wrote:This is mathematically impossible

56% went above minimum standards while 46% failed to meet minimum standards adds up to 102% - and with a sample size of 199 this cannot be due to rounding.

In no way do I want to white knight, but those in the business of reporting inaccuracies should be more meticulous


LST outlines that these are two different analyses. First they analyzed how many ABA-approved law schools meet the basic criteria of Standard 509, of which 46% do not meet every requirement. Separately, they analyzed every school's available data for additional markers of transparency and 56% of schools had at least one indicator of going beyond the 509 requirements. It is a little misleading, but seen in this light, it makes complete mathematical sense. You can fail to meet 509 criteria while also going beyond the criteria. Convoluted, but true regardless.
and utterly useless. If you can't keep it simple don't do it. Too much information isn't better, it's just too much information.

That 56% statistic should not be mentioned. It's a nice calculation but its if no use to man or beast - basically mental masturbation: you feel good but the rest of the world is unaffected (at best)

User avatar
Ramius
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:39 am

Re: LST report schools posting incomplete info-78%

Postby Ramius » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:31 am

guano wrote:
matthewsean85 wrote:
guano wrote:This is mathematically impossible

56% went above minimum standards while 46% failed to meet minimum standards adds up to 102% - and with a sample size of 199 this cannot be due to rounding.

In no way do I want to white knight, but those in the business of reporting inaccuracies should be more meticulous


LST outlines that these are two different analyses. First they analyzed how many ABA-approved law schools meet the basic criteria of Standard 509, of which 46% do not meet every requirement. Separately, they analyzed every school's available data for additional markers of transparency and 56% of schools had at least one indicator of going beyond the 509 requirements. It is a little misleading, but seen in this light, it makes complete mathematical sense. You can fail to meet 509 criteria while also going beyond the criteria. Convoluted, but true regardless.
and utterly useless. If you can't keep it simple don't do it. Too much information isn't better, it's just too much information.

That 56% statistic should not be mentioned. It's a nice calculation but its if no use to man or beast - basically mental masturbation: you feel good but the rest of the world is unaffected (at best)


I'm purely postulating here, but maybe they introduced these other metrics trying to introduce them into a future standard to which all schools will be held. This shows LST is having a real impact on the interaction between schools, the ABA and potential applicants. Maybe their end goal is to introduce these other factors into a revised Standard 509-type requirement in order to increase the required transparency. Only the boys at LST can knowledgeably speak to their endgoal in introducing statistics like that one, but what the statistic measures is definitely relevant in the cost-benefit analysis of attending any given law school.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests