Enough with the GULC bashing

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby twenty » Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:38 pm

timbs4339 wrote:
jone7007 wrote:I think GULC hiring data is hard to compare to other schools. At GULC you have 2 (large) groups of students, those targeting BIGLAW and those targeting BIG (Federal) Government (me), plus a few targeting PI. Where as at most T14 schools, you have those targeting BIGLAW, plus a few targeting PI and a few targeting BIG Government. It would be interesting if someone better than numbers than I could figure out how to compare placement for those at GULC seeking BIGLAW and BIGLAW salaries with other T14 and some lower schools (like UofT Austin).


You might be in the best position to get the %age of students who struck out at OCI from another student or your OCS.


This is kind of the golden standard for TLS data. Is this information available to everyone at the school, including 1Ls?

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby timbs4339 » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:52 pm

twentypercentmore wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:
jone7007 wrote:I think GULC hiring data is hard to compare to other schools. At GULC you have 2 (large) groups of students, those targeting BIGLAW and those targeting BIG (Federal) Government (me), plus a few targeting PI. Where as at most T14 schools, you have those targeting BIGLAW, plus a few targeting PI and a few targeting BIG Government. It would be interesting if someone better than numbers than I could figure out how to compare placement for those at GULC seeking BIGLAW and BIGLAW salaries with other T14 and some lower schools (like UofT Austin).


You might be in the best position to get the %age of students who struck out at OCI from another student or your OCS.


This is kind of the golden standard for TLS data. Is this information available to everyone at the school, including 1Ls?


I know CLS used to hand it out before EIP and it was on file at the OCS office. A couple of other schools would do the same with varying degrees of "we will find you and hurt you if you post this on the internet."

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby twenty » Fri Dec 06, 2013 4:40 pm

As a public shout-out, I'd be happy to post that data if people would be willing to send it to me but wanted to remain anonymous. The percentage of people that tried for biglaw and got it would be the single-best measure in deciding (as a 0L) where to go to law school.

User avatar
ThePiedPiper
Posts: 469
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:50 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby ThePiedPiper » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:02 am

Georgetown gets such an unfair rap. But that could be because of the large class which is only rivaled by Harvard. But it doesn't have the Harvard credentials I guess to back it up. All and all its still a great institution.

User avatar
DrStudMuffin
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby DrStudMuffin » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:15 am

ThePiedPiper wrote:Georgetown gets such an unfair rap. But that could be because of the large class which is only rivaled by Harvard. But it doesn't have the Harvard credentials I guess to back it up. All and all its still a great institution.


Really insightful post.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby rickgrimes69 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:46 pm

ThePiedPiper wrote:Georgetown gets such an unfair rap. But that could be because of the large class which is only rivaled by Harvard. But it doesn't have the Harvard credentials I guess to back it up. All and all its still a great institution.


It's not unfair. GULC chooses to have an absurdly large class. They churned out 626 lawyers in 2012. That's roughly the size of Duke's entire current enrollment.

User avatar
MistakenGenius
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:18 pm

Post removed.

Postby MistakenGenius » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:40 am

Post removed.
Last edited by MistakenGenius on Sun Dec 13, 2015 9:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby cotiger » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:18 am

MistakenGenius wrote:Also, I disagree with the people who said people don't self-select into underemployment. While that's usually true, you don't understand what underemployment means if you think it's always the case. There are Yale and Harvard students who have higher aspirations than Biglaw that pursue mphil's at Oxbridge after JD, Phd's, and LLM's in order to be more competitive for top fellowships and SCOTUS clerkships. They would also count in the underemployment statistics.


I'm aware of what's included in the LST underemployment metric. I used it because it's publicly available.

On my personal spreadsheet, one of the metrics I use is unemployed (seeking) + solo practitioner + ST + PT + non-professional. I call this my "totally screwed" statistic. This would not include the people in your example. FYI, ST and PT do not include school-funded positions. All school-funded positions are assumed to be not totally screwed in this metric, regardless of ST/PT.

For that statistic, the three year averages are: Northwestern 7.6>Duke 7.7>Cornell 8.3>Georgetown 12.2

If we broaden it to also include employment in firms sized 2-50 as employment generally agreed to be undesirable, the three year averages are: Northwestern 12.6>Duke 12.8>Cornell 14.1>Georgetown 17.6

[miscopied stats, see below]

If you would like a different measurement, such as including including all ST or PT school-funded positions as bad, or counting all PT positions as bad but keeping STFT as ok, just ask.

If you're interested in creating your own statistics, here is the site that stores the ABA data: http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/
Last edited by cotiger on Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

linkx13
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby linkx13 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:45 am

tg

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby cotiger » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:46 pm

cotiger wrote:For that statistic, the three year averages are: Northwestern 7.6>Duke 7.7>Cornell 8.3>Georgetown 12.2

If we broaden it to also include employment in firms sized 2-50 as employment generally agreed to be undesirable, the three year averages are: Northwestern 12.6>Duke 12.8>Cornell 14.1>Georgetown 17.6


Wow. Totally miscopied. :oops:

First one should be Cornell 4.6>Duke 5.6>Northwestern 5.9>Georgetown 8.3

Second should be Cornell 9.2>Northwestern 10.8>Duke 12.0>Georgetown 13.6

If we include ST or PT school-funded as bad, it results in: Northwestern 14.3>Duke 16.2>Cornell 16.5>Georgetown 21.5

ETA: Lest anyone think, though, that GULC is not assuredly ahead of those schools just below it, the next closest scores on that broadest measure of unsatisfactory outcomes are Vanderbilt at 30.1 and Texas at 31.0
Last edited by cotiger on Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

sah
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:31 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby sah » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:15 pm

Just curious - did you run these stats for all T14? I am curious as to whether there is really much of an employment difference between MVB and DNC.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby cotiger » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:01 pm

sah wrote:Just curious - did you run these stats for all T14? I am curious as to whether there is really much of an employment difference between MVB and DNC.


I did. UVA is tough to judge with these stats because their fellowship program is so much larger than their peers. It's pretty clear from the data that UVA sops up a lot of people who would otherwise have poor outcomes into that program, which might a good thing for the students, but it's a bad thing in terms of comparison between schools.

One thing to notice is that from C/O 2010 to 2011, UVA's school-funded rate went from 0.3 LT vs 10.4 ST to 17.0 LTFT vs 0.0 ST/PT. No other school had a switch like that (except GULC, but that was at least over the course of two years, and not as extreme), which indicates to me that the change to LTFT was a juicing of employment stats, not an improvement in outcomes.

For the strictest bad outcomes metric, MPB comes in at
Penn 3.3
Cornell 4.6
Michigan 4.9
Duke 5.6
Northwestern 5.9
Berkeley 7.0
GULC 8.3

For the broadest:
Penn 9.5
Michigan 13.4
Northwestern 14.3
Berkeley 15.6
Duke 16.2
Cornell 16.5
GULC 21.5

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby cotiger » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:27 pm

Another statistic that I use judges the relative desirability of jobs gotten by those who join a firm or do a federal clerkship. This mostly removes self-selection, though be aware that if distribution of PI people at a school is skewed towards the top students relative to other schools (e.g. if 60% of Michigan's PI students are above median, while the rest of the schools average 50% of their PI contingent above median), then that school's score will be a bit lower than it should.

A school (completely arbitrarily) gets -10 points for 2-10 person firms, -3 for 11-25, 0 for 26-100, 4 for 101-250, 6 for 251-500, 9 for 501+, and 10 for federal clerkships. Divide that by the number of grads doing firm work or in a fed clerkship.

Results for the lower T14:
Penn 7.7
Cornell 7.3
Northwestern 7.0
Berkeley 6.9
Duke 6.9
UVA 6.4
Michigan 6.3

GULC 6.3

Overall, I don't know that I really see a categorical difference between MVB and DNC, though Penn is certainly a notch above.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9639
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:47 am

People dont really go for an MPhil after their JDs - several friends here and from college did the oxbridge 1-2 yr when they graduated before grad school in the states. Maybe a couple ppl each year go after the jd's for a PhD and a few do MBA's, MPP's or foreign law degrees.

I do think it is an unfortunate element of the LST rankings that "additional degree" is sorted automatically as underemployment. I believe there is room for improvement here - but I know its nearly impossible to granularize. Some additional degrees are a total bust, of course, like when you strike out at OCI and the school convinces you their mediocre MBA or other ma is the real route to professional success so you can dive another $50K in debt.. On the other hand, someone headed to GSB or straight academia (phd) may have even chosen it over biglaw.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby 20141023 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:02 am

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby timbs4339 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:33 am

kappycaft1 wrote:In conclusion: GULC is a diploma mill and - like many other schools - should decrease its class size given the current state of the legal market. As long as they keep accepting 500+ students every year and can't help hundreds of them find decent employment, they'll take heat for it - it's that simple.


But you don't understand! GULC and DC select for law students who don't want employment!

User avatar
BmoreOrLess
Posts: 2083
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby BmoreOrLess » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:26 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:Law Firms:
2-10 Attorneys: 23% (6/26) Reported Salaries
11-25 Attorneys: 0% (0/8) Reported Salaries
26-50 Attorneys: 0% (0/5) Reported Salaries
51-100 Attorneys: 71% (5/7) Reported Salaries
101-250 Attorneys: 100% (20/20) Reported Salaries
251-500 Attorneys: 82% (32/39) Reported Salaries
501+ Attorneys: 87% (141/163) Reported Salaries

Other Employment:
Academic: 0% (0/11) Reported Salaries
Business: 0% (0/64) Reported Salaries
Judicial Clerk: 98% (50/51) Reported Salaries
Government: 21% (18/87) Reported Salaries
Public Interest: 5% (5/98) Reported Salaries


Obviously the Business (0/64) salaries are likely to be bad, but wouldn't the 162 non reported salaries for Government and Public Interest be considered "good" outcomes because of GULC's LRAP?

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15487
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:35 pm

BmoreOrLess wrote:Obviously the Business (0/64) salaries are likely to be bad, but wouldn't the 162 non reported salaries for Government and Public Interest be considered "good" outcomes because of GULC's LRAP?

GULC 2011 saw 62 people end up in short term, full time work in government or PI. Another 6 were both short term and part time. There were also 19 people employed by the school in long term, full time work, but that employment (which usually ends up counting towards government or PI) typically only lasts a year. So it's very possible that those 87 people were in jobs that hardly guaranteed a single year of employment, much less the 10 necessary for full loan forgiveness.

User avatar
BmoreOrLess
Posts: 2083
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby BmoreOrLess » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:42 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
BmoreOrLess wrote:Obviously the Business (0/64) salaries are likely to be bad, but wouldn't the 162 non reported salaries for Government and Public Interest be considered "good" outcomes because of GULC's LRAP?

GULC 2011 saw 62 people end up in short term, full time work in government or PI. Another 6 were both short term and part time. There were also 19 people employed by the school in long term, full time work, but that employment (which usually ends up counting towards government or PI) typically only lasts a year. So it's very possible that those 87 people were in jobs that hardly guaranteed a single year of employment, much less the 10 necessary for full loan forgiveness.


Ah, thanks.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby 20141023 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:43 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9639
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:49 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:Also, I forgot to mention this, but there is one other thing that must be taken into account with clerkships. I have 0 interest in a clerkship, so someone who has actually looked into that route can confirm the details, but it seems like a lot of them are only 1-year gigs after law school, and many (most? all?) of the people who go into them have offers to work at firms afterwards. The firms will pay a (I think 1-time) bonus of like $30,000-$50,000 for associates who do a clerkship simply because they like the prestige of being able to say "X clerked with the honorable Judge Y of the Z Circuit before coming to our firm." It usually doesn't offset the amount that the attorney would have made if they'd gone directly to the firm, but at least it's something. Accordingly, the low salary reported under the clerkship category will likely rise after a year or so.

Again, those of you with actual knowledge about the subject, please feel free to correct me; I am not sure what percentage of clerkships are 1-year gigs, nor do I know how common it is for people to move on to biglaw afterwards (does this usually only happen when one gets a Federal Clerkship?).


Basically, except sometimes people do multiple 1-yr clerkships on different circuits or one on appeals one on SCOTUS ect. Some of those ppl go into academia though.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby 20141023 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:51 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

linkx13
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Enough with the GULC bashing

Postby linkx13 » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:26 am

kappycaft1 wrote:Okay, I found GULC's 2012 NALP Report and am updating the data, as well as providing the stats for the other T14 schools that publish their NALP Reports. As you will notice, only 53% of GULC's grads reported their salaries; the next lowest report rate was 73% (Northwestern & UMichigan).

Georgetown (Class of 2012)
Law Firms:
2-10 Attorneys: 33% (10/30)
11-25 Attorneys: 0% (0/4)
26-50 Attorneys: 0% (0/6)
51-100 Attorneys: 67% (10/15)
101-250 Attorneys: 92% (22/24)
251-500 Attorneys: 90% (35/39)
501+ Attorneys: 94% (173/185)

Other Employment:
Academic: 45% (5/11)
Business: 15% (5/33)
Judicial Clerk: 50% (22/44)
Government: 30% (28/93)
Public Interest: 19% (17/88)

Graduates Reporting Salary / Total Graduates: 53% (332/626)
25th Percentile: $99,252
50th Percentile: $160,000
75th Percentile: $160,000

Northwestern University (Class of 2012)
Law Firms:
2-10 Attorneys: 0% (0/11)
11-25 Attorneys: 0% (0/6)
26-50 Attorneys: 0% (0/5)
51-100 Attorneys: 78% (7/9)
101-250 Attorneys: 100% (7/7)
251-500 Attorneys: 100% (11/11)
501+ Attorneys: 100% (127/127)

Other Employment:
Academic: 0% (0/2)
Business: 50% (19/38)
Judicial Clerk: 88% (22/25)
Government: 54% (7/13)
Public Interest: 38% (5/13)

Graduates Reporting Salary / Total Graduates: 73% (215/295)
25th Percentile: $100,000
50th Percentile: $160,000
75th Percentile: $160,000

University of Michigan (Class of 2012)
Law Firms:
2-10 Attorneys: 67% (10/15)
11-25 Attorneys: 83% (5/6)
26-50 Attorneys: 0% (0/5)
51-100 Attorneys: 0% (0/5)
101-250 Attorneys: 96% (25/26)
251-500 Attorneys: 94% (32/34)
501+ Attorneys: 100% (109/109)

Other Employment:
Academic: 0% (0/2)
Business: 33% (8/24)
Judicial Clerk: 92% (44/48)
Government: 68% (19/28)
Public Interest: 58% (26/45)

Graduates Reporting Salary / Total Graduates: 73% (282/388)
25th Percentile: $60,742
50th Percentile: $132,500
75th Percentile: $160,000

University of California, Berkeley (Class of 2012)
Law Firms:
2-10 Attorneys: 50% (5/10)
11-25 Attorneys: 100% (5/5)
26-50 Attorneys: 86% (6/7)
51-100 Attorneys: 0% (0/4)
101-250 Attorneys: 100% (12/12)
251-500 Attorneys: 100% (29/29)
501+ Attorneys: 100% (126/126)

Other Employment:
Academic: 0% (0/5)
Business: 33% (5/15)
Judicial Clerk: 100% (29/29)
Government: 88% (21/24)
Public Interest: 55% (16/29)

Graduates Reporting Salary / Total Graduates: 83% (260/312)
25th Percentile: $69,000
50th Percentile: $160,000
75th Percentile: $160,000

Columbia (Class of 2012)
Law Firms:
2-10 Attorneys: 100% (0/0)
11-25 Attorneys: 0% (0/3)
26-50 Attorneys: 100% (7/7)
51-100 Attorneys: 0% (0/3)
101-250 Attorneys: 100% (9/9)
251-500 Attorneys: 98% (40/41)
501+ Attorneys: 99% (250/253)

Other Employment:
Academic: 0% (0/3)
Business: 78% (14/18)
Judicial Clerk: 100% (42/42)
Government: 94% (33/35)
Public Interest: 95% (42/44)

Graduates Reporting Salary / Total Graduates: 95% (445/469)
25th Percentile: $65,000
50th Percentile: $160,000
75th Percentile: $160,000

The way that GULC has gone about reporting its numbers is disappointing; on the 3rd page of the sheet that the OP linked, GULC claims that they had a 98% response rate for graduates in the private sector, and a 31% report rate for graduates in the private sector; however, if you look at their NALP Report, you will notice that only 77% (260/339) of their private-sector graduates are actually accounted for (the public-sector graduates only differ by 1, going from 72 to 73, which is still a 31% response rate). The 98% makes sense if 332/339 graduates actually reported their salaries after the NALP report was released, but I think it is kind of lazy of them to only update the digest version and not the actual NALP Report itself. Also, even if GULC later gathered salary information from 332 private-sector and 73 public-sector graduates, that still only accounts for 65% (405/626) of their total graduating class of 2012. :|


Thanks for this analysis. I wasn't aware that the NALP reports were essentially better versions of the ABA reports. For some reason, I assumed that the detailed reports were not reported publicly (I'm not sure why). Do you know when we can expect the 2013 graduate data to be released? If it's 9 months after graduation, wouldn't that make it some time in Feb/March?

Also, I see your points about comparing actual employment data with salary reporting, but isn't that to be taken with a huge grain of salt since this is all self-reported data? I have a hunch that most attorneys wouldn't even want to report their salaries unless they were huge, and that seems to be born out from the data from other schools, especially for PI jobs.

All in all, it's hard for me to see the lack of evidence for salary reporting (while certainly an astute and valid observation) to meet your more general claim that GULC is a diploma mill.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], BlackWillHunting and 2 guests