Latest employment data

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
JMWZ
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby JMWZ » Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:37 am

Here is what Colorado sent me yesterday:
We have finalized our Class of 2014 employment statistics for submission to the American Bar Association and the National Association for Law Placement. At the ten month reporting mark, 93.3% of our 2014 graduates reported employment, with 78.8% reporting full-time jobs lasting one year or more that involve practicing law or working in a position where the JD is a preferred qualification.

HalfStudent
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:21 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby HalfStudent » Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:42 am

Clemenceau wrote:


57 school funded jobs and 47 jobs in 2-10 attorney firms. Yeeesh



Emory still rigging their employment stuff for US news :mrgreen:

JFO1833
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:06 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby JFO1833 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:03 pm

Take these numbers with a grain of salt (might be logical or data entry errors) but this is everything so far.

BL+FC: Percentage in firms of 100+ attorneys or federal clerkships over total number of graduates.

FTLTBR: Percentage in full time, long term, bar required positions over the total number of graduates.

FTLTBR (w/o LSF): Percentage in full time, long term, bar required positions, excluding law school funded positions, over the total number of graduates.

Sorted by 2016 US News.

7: Penn - BL+FC-78%, FTLTBR-95%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-91%
8: Duke - BL+FC-70%, FTLTBR-90%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-88%
19: Emory - BL+FC-29%, FTLTBR-84%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64%
22: Notre Dame - BL+FC-37%, FTLTBR-79%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66%
30: Irvine - BL+FC-28%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63%
31: Davis - BL+FC-18%, FTLTBR-78%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66%
34: BYU - BL+FC-19%, FTLTBR-76%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-68%
34: OSU - BL+FC-20%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-72%
47: Florida - BL+FC-17%, FTLTBR-69%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69%
52: Richmond - BL+FC-13%, FTLTBR-59%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-59%
56: Nebraska - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-74%
67: UNLV - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-67%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65%
75: Arkansas-Fayetteville - BL+FC-9%, FTLTBR-55%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55%
78: Illinois-Tech (Kent) - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-52%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-52%
78: Loyola Chicago - BL+FC-11%, FTLTBR-56%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55%
82: St. John's - BL+FC-10%, FTLTBR-61%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61%
87: Vilanova - BL+FC-16%, FTLTBR-65%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65%
94: Lewis & Clark - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-53%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53%
108: Wyoming - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-49%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49%
110: Maine - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-51%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51%
118: Mercer - BL+FC-7%, FTLTBR-69%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69%
127: Drexel - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-63%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63%
135: Loyola New Orleans - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-53%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51%
138: Pace - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-59%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-56%
RNP: Appalachian - BL+FC-3%, FTLTBR-36%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-36%
RNP: Arizona Summit - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-42%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-40%
RNP: Charlotte - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-34%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-34%
RNP: McGeroge - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
RNP: Cooley - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-30%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-30%
UNR: LaVerne - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
UNR: UMass-Dartmouth - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-31%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-31%

User avatar
moonman157
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby moonman157 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:15 pm

tag

kcdc1
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:48 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby kcdc1 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:38 pm

7: Penn - BL+FC-78%
8: Duke - BL+FC-70%
19: Emory - BL+FC-29%

For those hoping to make 160k after graduation, the magnitude of the dropoff from the top schools to the rest is pretty shocking. 11 spots in the rankings drops your odds from 70% to 30%. The quality of the students can't really be that different, can they? The difference is just a few lucky guesses on the LSAT.

HalfStudent
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:21 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby HalfStudent » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:44 pm

kcdc1 wrote:
7: Penn - BL+FC-78%
8: Duke - BL+FC-70%
19: Emory - BL+FC-29%

For those hoping to make 160k after graduation, the magnitude of the dropoff from the top schools to the rest is pretty shocking. 11 spots in the rankings drops your odds from 70% to 30%. The quality of the students can't really be that different, can they? The difference is just a few lucky guesses on the LSAT.



True but Emory uses extreme splitters( to rig the median) and over 20%( to rig their employment stats) over their jobs is school funded is therefore Emory is not 19th by any serious measure. they are like 25-30.

The Dark Shepard
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The Dark Shepard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:52 pm

JMWZ wrote:Here is what Colorado sent me yesterday:
We have finalized our Class of 2014 employment statistics for submission to the American Bar Association and the National Association for Law Placement. At the ten month reporting mark, 93.3% of our 2014 graduates reported employment, with 78.8% reporting full-time jobs lasting one year or more that involve practicing law or working in a position where the JD is a preferred qualification.


Does Colorado do school-funded?

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Moneytrees » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:57 pm

HalfStudent wrote:
kcdc1 wrote:
7: Penn - BL+FC-78%
8: Duke - BL+FC-70%
19: Emory - BL+FC-29%

For those hoping to make 160k after graduation, the magnitude of the dropoff from the top schools to the rest is pretty shocking. 11 spots in the rankings drops your odds from 70% to 30%. The quality of the students can't really be that different, can they? The difference is just a few lucky guesses on the LSAT.



True but Emory uses extreme splitters( to rig the median) and over 20%( to rig their employment stats) over their jobs is school funded is therefore Emory is not 19th by any serious measure. they are like 25-30.


Yeah Emory only recently made a big jump in the rankings. It's not a traditional powerhouse when it comes to Biglaw jobs. ND/BU/BC/GW are more consistent in that category than Emory.

User avatar
twenty 8
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby twenty 8 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:08 pm

At glancing at the recent above data, it is obvious that a number of high ranking schools (not Penn or Duke) depend on SFJ to jack up their employment status to keep their strong tier-1 ranking. I presume their goal is to achieve a higher tuition price tag. Whereas many of the lower ranked schools don’t have the desire to play that game. Of course, it is possible that they don’t have the cash to play that game (I am guessing that it costs schools $ to go the SFJ route).

In just browsing the data it appears that ’14 was a good year and signs point to ’15 being a breakout year (especially since many secondary markets are raising salaries by a considerable amount).

JMWZ
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby JMWZ » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:17 pm

The Dark Shepard wrote:
JMWZ wrote:Here is what Colorado sent me yesterday:
We have finalized our Class of 2014 employment statistics for submission to the American Bar Association and the National Association for Law Placement. At the ten month reporting mark, 93.3% of our 2014 graduates reported employment, with 78.8% reporting full-time jobs lasting one year or more that involve practicing law or working in a position where the JD is a preferred qualification.


Does Colorado do school-funded?


It looks like last year they had about 10% in school funded jobs. 2.8% in full time school funded positions.

Attrition
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:17 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Attrition » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:21 pm

Last edited by Attrition on Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Dark Shepard
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The Dark Shepard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:30 pm

JMWZ wrote:
The Dark Shepard wrote:
JMWZ wrote:Here is what Colorado sent me yesterday:
We have finalized our Class of 2014 employment statistics for submission to the American Bar Association and the National Association for Law Placement. At the ten month reporting mark, 93.3% of our 2014 graduates reported employment, with 78.8% reporting full-time jobs lasting one year or more that involve practicing law or working in a position where the JD is a preferred qualification.


Does Colorado do school-funded?


It looks like last year they had about 10% in school funded jobs. 2.8% in full time school funded positions.


If they stuck to 3% LTFT school-funded, that would be 75%. Which would be fantastic

JMWZ
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby JMWZ » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:39 pm

The Dark Shepard wrote:If they stuck to 3% LTFT school-funded, that would be 75%. Which would be fantastic


Well that 78.8% they gave me included JD preferred, so not quite 75%, but it might still be pretty good.

The Dark Shepard
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The Dark Shepard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:50 pm

JMWZ wrote:
The Dark Shepard wrote:If they stuck to 3% LTFT school-funded, that would be 75%. Which would be fantastic


Well that 78.8% they gave me included JD preferred, so not quite 75%, but it might still be pretty good.


Ah. Missed that part. Hmm. We'll see I guess

kcdc1
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:48 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby kcdc1 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:13 pm

twenty 8 wrote:At glancing at the recent above data, it is obvious that a number of high ranking schools (not Penn or Duke) depend on SFJ to jack up their employment status to keep their strong tier-1 ranking. I presume their goal is to achieve a higher tuition price tag. Whereas many of the lower ranked schools don’t have the desire to play that game.

This is an interesting point. School-funded jobs drop completely off the radar after the top 40 or so schools. Which makes attending schools below that cutoff significantly riskier than attending a comparable school that does offer school-funded employment.

We often talk about school-funded jobs as a negative statistic that reflect a school's intent to manipulate its metrics and deceive applicants. But those school-funded jobs are also a meaningful safety net for students. I'll bet that your long-term employment outcomes are a lot better if you work in a school-funded position for your first year out of school than if you spend that year unemployed.

I suppose the presence of school-funded jobs should be seen as a positive if you're set on going to law school and you can't get into a school where you're a lock to be marketable on your own merits. Of course, if you're not nearly a lock to be marketable, you probably should not be set on going to law school.

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Moneytrees » Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:24 pm

School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

User avatar
twenty 8
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby twenty 8 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:29 pm

kcdc1 wrote:
twenty 8 wrote:At glancing at the recent above data, it is obvious that a number of high ranking schools (not Penn or Duke) depend on SFJ to jack up their employment status to keep their strong tier-1 ranking. I presume their goal is to achieve a higher tuition price tag. Whereas many of the lower ranked schools don’t have the desire to play that game.

This is an interesting point. School-funded jobs drop completely off the radar after the top 40 or so schools. Which makes attending schools below that cutoff significantly riskier than attending a comparable school that does offer school-funded employment.

We often talk about school-funded jobs as a negative statistic that reflect a school's intent to manipulate its metrics and deceive applicants. But those school-funded jobs are also a meaningful safety net for students. I'll bet that your long-term employment outcomes are a lot better if you work in a school-funded position for your first year out of school than if you spend that year unemployed.

I suppose the presence of school-funded jobs should be seen as a positive if you're set on going to law school and you can't get into a school where you're a lock to be marketable on your own merits. Of course, if you're not nearly a lock to be marketable, you probably should not be set on going to law school.

No question that there is a worthy silver lining, as you noted. However, certain aspects are obviously very misleading. To say 85% of the class will receive a job is great. Just make sure to follow it up by pointing out that 20% of those jobs are short term school employment.

Also, what happens if 15% are unemployed and the school gives 5% a SFJ? How does one qualify for unemployed relief through SFJ?

User avatar
ColoBoul
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby ColoBoul » Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:29 pm

JFO1833 wrote:Take these numbers with a grain of salt (might be logical or data entry errors) but this is everything so far.

BL+FC: Percentage in firms of 100+ attorneys or federal clerkships over total number of graduates.

FTLTBR: Percentage in full time, long term, bar required positions over the total number of graduates.

FTLTBR (w/o LSF): Percentage in full time, long term, bar required positions, excluding law school funded positions, over the total number of graduates.

Sorted by 2016 US News.

7: Penn - BL+FC-78%, FTLTBR-95%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-91%
8: Duke - BL+FC-70%, FTLTBR-90%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-88%
19: Emory - BL+FC-29%, FTLTBR-84%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64%
22: Notre Dame - BL+FC-37%, FTLTBR-79%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66%
30: Irvine - BL+FC-28%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63%
31: Davis - BL+FC-18%, FTLTBR-78%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66%
34: BYU - BL+FC-19%, FTLTBR-76%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-68%
34: OSU - BL+FC-20%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-72%
47: Florida - BL+FC-17%, FTLTBR-69%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69%
52: Richmond - BL+FC-13%, FTLTBR-59%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-59%
56: Nebraska - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-74%
67: UNLV - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-67%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65%
75: Arkansas-Fayetteville - BL+FC-9%, FTLTBR-55%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55%
78: Illinois-Tech (Kent) - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-52%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-52%
78: Loyola Chicago - BL+FC-11%, FTLTBR-56%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55%
82: St. John's - BL+FC-10%, FTLTBR-61%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61%
87: Vilanova - BL+FC-16%, FTLTBR-65%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65%
94: Lewis & Clark - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-53%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53%
108: Wyoming - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-49%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49%
110: Maine - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-51%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51%
118: Mercer - BL+FC-7%, FTLTBR-69%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69%
127: Drexel - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-63%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63%
135: Loyola New Orleans - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-53%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51%
138: Pace - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-59%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-56%
RNP: Appalachian - BL+FC-3%, FTLTBR-36%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-36%
RNP: Arizona Summit - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-42%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-40%
RNP: Charlotte - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-34%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-34%
RNP: McGeroge - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
RNP: Cooley - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-30%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-30%
UNR: LaVerne - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
UNR: UMass-Dartmouth - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-31%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-31%


Nice work, but I still think the numbers here are a little off of what LST reports. For example Chicago Kent you include graduates employed as Solos. If you remove the 6 from the class the overall employment drops from ~52% to under 50%.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby rpupkin » Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:32 pm

Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.

kcdc1
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:48 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby kcdc1 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:43 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, at least, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.

And schools are making admissions decisions 3.5 years before those applicants graduate and enter the workforce. A lot can happen over that period outside of the school's control. If the job market does not develop as forecasted, it's better to be at a school that will fund jobs to help graduates bridge the gap than to be at a school that cuts bait and runs. (Note that it's best to be at a school where you won't need your school's help even in a down employment market.)

The Dark Shepard
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The Dark Shepard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:46 pm

Going to put these with the class of 2013 for comparison

7: Penn - BL+FC-78%, FTLTBR-95%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-91% 2013: 85.7%
8: Duke - BL+FC-70%, FTLTBR-90%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-88% 2013: 85.1%
19: Emory - BL+FC-29%, FTLTBR-84%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64% 2013: 61.4%
22: Notre Dame - BL+FC-37%, FTLTBR-79%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66% 2013: 70.1%
30: Irvine - BL+FC-28%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63% 2013: 64.3%
31: Davis - BL+FC-18%, FTLTBR-78%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66% 2013: 64.8%
34: BYU - BL+FC-19%, FTLTBR-76%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-68% 2013: 63.3%
34: OSU - BL+FC-20%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-72% 2013: 57.8%
47: Florida - BL+FC-17%, FTLTBR-69%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69% 2013: 65.5%
52: Richmond - BL+FC-13%, FTLTBR-59%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-59% 2013: 56.3%
56: Nebraska - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-74%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-74% 2013: 64.5%
67: UNLV - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-67%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65% 2013: 62.1%
75: Arkansas-Fayetteville - BL+FC-9%, FTLTBR-55%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55% 2013: 65.9%
78: Illinois-Tech (Kent) - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-52%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-52% 2013: 54.3%
78: Loyola Chicago - BL+FC-11%, FTLTBR-56%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55% 2013: 48.3%
82: St. John's - BL+FC-10%, FTLTBR-61%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61% 2013: 55.7%
87: Vilanova - BL+FC-16%, FTLTBR-65%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65% 2013: 53.3%
94: Lewis & Clark - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-53%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53% 2013: 46%
108: Wyoming - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-49%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49% 2013: 64.5%
110: Maine - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-51%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51% 2013: 38.5%
118: Mercer - BL+FC-7%, FTLTBR-69%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69% 2013: 65%
127: Drexel - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-63%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63% 2013: 47.8%
135: Loyola New Orleans - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-53%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51% 2013: 48.8%
138: Pace - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-59%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-56% 2013: 38.8%
RNP: Appalachian - BL+FC-3%, FTLTBR-36%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-36% 2013: 42%
RNP: Arizona Summit - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-42%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-40% 2013: 39.4%
RNP: Charlotte - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-34%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-34% 2013: 28%
RNP: McGeroge - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45% 2013: 35.9%
RNP: Cooley - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-30%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-30% 2013: 22.9%
UNR: LaVerne - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45% 2013: 29.1%
UNR: UMass-Dartmouth - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-31%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-31% 2013: 20.4%

JFO1833
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:06 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby JFO1833 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:48 pm

ColoBoul wrote:Nice work, but I still think the numbers here are a little off of what LST reports. For example Chicago Kent you include graduates employed as Solos. If you remove the 6 from the class the overall employment drops from ~52% to under 50%.

Fair point. I am not really trying to replicate LST though. This is really just a short hand and maybe useful for identifying which schools have posted their reports so far.

50: Tulane - BL+FC-18%, FTLTBR-62%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61%
52: Pepperdine - BL+FC-9%, FTLTBR-49%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49%
63: Miami - BL+FC-10%, FTLTBR-69%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-68%
71: American - BL+FC-12%, FTLTBR-55%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
71: Penn State - BL+FC-11%, FTLTBR-66%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65%
87: SUNY-Buffalo - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-60%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60%

Some new ones, again this would include solos (anything classified as long term, full time, bar passage required).

User avatar
BrazilBandit
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby BrazilBandit » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:07 pm

I went ahead and updated the spreadsheet in the OP to show Y2Y changes in BL + FedClerk, FTBR and School Funded! If you guys would like anything added, let me know...

User avatar
UVAIce
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:10 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby UVAIce » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:11 pm

UVA's numbers are up for 2014:

UVA BL + FC- 67.62%, FTLTBR- 94.27%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)- 84.81% 2013: 79.67%

The Dark Shepard
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The Dark Shepard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:16 pm

BrazilBandit wrote:I went ahead and updated the spreadsheet in the OP to show Y2Y changes in BL + FedClerk, FTBR and School Funded! If you guys would like anything added, let me know...


You guys are continuing to take "school funded rate" at the bottom bar in LST as the FTLT school funded rate, when it isn't. You need to use the asterisk




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cgw and 4 guests