Latest employment data

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby runinthefront » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:01 pm

holy shit

stop shitting up this thread with trivial arguments

User avatar
Serett
Posts: 8801
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Serett » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:02 pm

zombie mcavoy wrote:Y'all are ruining UT's moment of glory!




plz post in every UT topic for the next year

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 03152016 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:03 pm

Moneytrees wrote:Anyone want to put forth an explanation for H's mediocre numbers?

this is flat out incorrect
H does not have mediocre numbers. H's numbers are almost certainly explained by students opting out of biglaw/fedclerk.
certain schools have historically had stronger placement in PI, prestigious gov't, boutique firms, etc. these are all not accounted for in the 101+/fc figure, and are almost certainly the reason H's numbers are where they are. this demonstrates the point i've been making for days in this thread, that this bl/fc figure is a subset of a subset of a subset, and isn't indicative of placement power in more than a broad sense

User avatar
storpappa
Posts: 1397
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 3:06 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby storpappa » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:04 pm

Serett wrote:
zombie mcavoy wrote:Y'all are ruining UT's moment of glory!


plz post in every UT topic for the next year


ftfy

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 071816 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:04 pm

Brut wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:Anyone want to put forth an explanation for H's mediocre numbers?

this is flat out incorrect
H does not have mediocre numbers. H's numbers are almost certainly explained by students opting out of biglaw/fedclerk.
certain schools have historically had stronger placement in PI, prestigious gov't, boutique firms, etc. these are all not accounted for in the 101+/fc figure, and are almost certainly the reason H's numbers are where they are. this demonstrates the point i've been making for days in this thread, that this bl/fc figure is a subset of a subset of a subset, and isn't indicative of placement power in more than a broad sense


FUCK YOU

Sachem
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:26 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Sachem » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:09 pm

Why GW, Notre Dame, Fordham, BU, BC are not T20?
Their data are better than WashU, Emory and UMN.

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Moneytrees » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:09 pm

Brut wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:Anyone want to put forth an explanation for H's mediocre numbers?

this is flat out incorrect
H does not have mediocre numbers. H's numbers are almost certainly explained by students opting out of biglaw/fedclerk.
certain schools have historically had stronger placement in PI, prestigious gov't, boutique firms, etc. these are all not accounted for in the 101+/fc figure, and are almost certainly the reason H's numbers are where they are. this demonstrates the point i've been making for days in this thread, that this bl/fc figure is a subset of a subset of a subset, and isn't indicative of placement power in more than a broad sense


You put forth a good explanation, which is what I was looking for. Plus, "mediocre" is obviously a relative term. Nobody (I hope) on this thread believes that Harvard has mediocre numbers, but I think some were surprised by the relatively low federal clerkship rates compared to S and Chicago.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 03152016 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:10 pm

zombie mcavoy wrote:Y'all are ruining UT's moment of glory!

woops
yay ut!

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11948
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Rigo » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:10 pm

Sachem wrote:Why GW, Notre Dame, Fordham, BU, BC are not T20?
Their data are better than WashU, Emory and UMN.

As if US News cares mainly about outcomes.

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Moneytrees » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:11 pm

Rigo wrote:
Sachem wrote:Why GW, Notre Dame, Fordham, BU, BC are not T20?
Their data are better than WashU, Emory and UMN.

As if US News cares mainly about outcomes.


This. Also, one year of employment data does not make or break a school.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby BigZuck » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:13 pm

Was the year UT was a "T14" the year it had the worst employment numbers in recent memory?

lol

User avatar
rokiv
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby rokiv » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:13 pm

0L here(obligatory preface), this thread has been highly entertaining today

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 03152016 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:15 pm

@zuck
in the 2011 rankings they must have been relying on 2010 data
which was pre ft/lt/jd, iirc
was pretty easy to cook the books back then, but maybe usnwr had some other, more robust disclosure regime than aba 509

User avatar
starry eyed
Posts: 2048
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby starry eyed » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:18 pm

Sachem wrote:Why GW, Notre Dame, Fordham, BU, BC are not T20?
Their data are better than WashU, Emory and UMN.


bc DAT SCHOLLY $$$
Last edited by starry eyed on Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 03152016 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:18 pm

Brut wrote:@zuck
in the 2011 rankings they must have been relying on 2010 data
which was pre ft/lt/jd, iirc
was pretty easy to cook the books back then, but maybe usnwr had some other, more robust disclosure regime than aba 509

also
yes, i recognize the irony of that last sentence

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 03152016 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:20 pm

starry eyed wrote:
Sachem wrote:Why GW, Notre Dame, Fordham, BU, BC are not T20?
Their data are better than WashU, Emory and UMN.


bc DAT SCHOLLY $$$

absolutely not.
scholarship money does not factor into the usnwr methdology
if anything, it cuts the other way, bc expenditures per student are calculated

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15502
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:22 pm

Scholly money brings the numbers tho

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby JFO1833 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:25 pm

Updated statistics:

All statistics might have errors. All statistics exclude solo practitioners.

In parenthesis is a comparison to 2013. Keep in mind that in 2014 this was a ten month period, it was only nine months last year.

1: Yale - BL+FC-60.4% (-5.1%), FTLTBR-72.6% (-6.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69.6% (-4.8%)
2: Harvard - BL+FC-71.2% (-.8%), FTLTBR-89.9% (2.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-85.5% (.0%)
2: Stanford - BL+FC-76.5% (-1.4%), FTLTBR-90.9% (3.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-85.6% (.5%)
4: Chicago - BL+FC-75.7% (3.2%), FTLTBR-91.9% (-.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-86.7% (.6%)
4: Columbia - BL+FC-78.8% (.8%), FTLTBR-93.8% (-1.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-87.2% (-1.2%)
6: NYU - BL+FC-71.4% (4.4%), FTLTBR-93.5% (-.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-86.0% (.2%)
7: Penn - BL+FC-78.1% (8.9%), FTLTBR-94.2% (3.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-91.0% (5.3%)
8: Berkeley - BL+FC-62.4% (6.6%), FTLTBR-92.0% (5.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-85.0% (6.6%)
8: Duke - BL+FC-70.2% (10.1%), FTLTBR-90.2% (4.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-87.9% (2.8%)
8: UVA - BL+FC-67.6% (4.7%), FTLTBR-94.3% (-1.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-84.8% (5.1%)
11: Michigan - BL+FC-53.8% (-3.3%), FTLTBR-90.3% (8.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-81.8% (.6%)
12: Northwestern - BL+FC-64.9% (1.6%), FTLTBR-81.1% (1.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-78.0% (.5%)
13: Cornell - BL+FC-74.3% (6.0%), FTLTBR-95.8% (7.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-90.1% (9.7%)
14: Georgetown - BL+FC-48.4% (1.9%), FTLTBR-79.7% (-4.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69.5% (-2.9%)
15: Texas - BL+FC-46.4% (4.1%), FTLTBR-77.8% (.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-71.2% (-2.8%)
16: UCLA - BL+FC-39.6% (.1%), FTLTBR-80.4% (4.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-71.1% (4.9%)
17: Vanderbilt - BL+FC-41.2% (-3.9%), FTLTBR-84.5% (-1.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-73.2% (-4.5%)
18: WUSTL - BL+FC-31.4% (-.9%), FTLTBR-78.3% (11.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-72.9% (7.2%)
19: Emory - BL+FC-29.1% (3.4%), FTLTBR-82.5% (-1.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63.1% (.7%)
20: Minnesota - BL+FC-20.1% (2.9%), FTLTBR-75.3% (6.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-73.0% (5.8%)
20: USC - BL+FC-41.0% (7.3%), FTLTBR-79.3% (15.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65.0% (5.1%)
22: Alabama - BL+FC-17.5% (-4.7%), FTLTBR-70.2% (-.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-69.6% (-.9%)
22: George Washington - BL+FC-32.4% (-.5%), FTLTBR-78.8% (1.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65.4% (2.6%)
22: Iowa - BL+FC-18.8% (-1.8%), FTLTBR-77.3% (1.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-77.3% (1.5%)
22: Notre Dame - BL+FC-37.4% (3.7%), FTLTBR-78.8% (7.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.5% (-3.6%)
26: Arizona-State - BL+FC-14.1% (3.4%), FTLTBR-68.7% (8.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67.7% (7.4%)
26: Boston University - BL+FC-36.2% (9.6%), FTLTBR-72.8% (5.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67.9% (7.1%)
28: Washington - BL+FC-16.0% (.7%), FTLTBR-61.0% (-3.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61.0% (-3.5%)
29: William and Mary - BL+FC-20.9% (-4.4%), FTLTBR-72.1% (-3.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63.3% (7.5%)
30: Irvine - BL+FC-28.0% (-5.4%), FTLTBR-73.1% (8.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-62.4% (-1.9%)
31: Davis - BL+FC-17.8% (1.4%), FTLTBR-77.5% (7.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.3% (1.5%)
31: Georgia - BL+FC-19.6% (-.1%), FTLTBR-70.6% (2.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-70.6% (2.3%)
31: Wisconsin - BL+FC-16.1% (4.2%), FTLTBR-63.6% (6.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63.6% (6.8%)
34: Boston College - BL+FC-36.6% (2.6%), FTLTBR-75.1% (11.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-74.4% (10.3%)
34: BYU - BL+FC-18.8% (7.3%), FTLTBR-75.4% (12.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67.4% (4.1%)
34: Fordham - BL+FC-37.0% (.4%), FTLTBR-67.8% (4.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67.8% (4.3%)
34: Indiana (Bloomington) - BL+FC-18.9% (2.5%), FTLTBR-64.4% (1.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63.5% (1.1%)
34: Ohio State - BL+FC-19.5% (-1.8%), FTLTBR-73.3% (14.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-71.9% (13.7%)
34: UNC - BL+FC-25.5% (2.5%), FTLTBR-69.1% (-.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-68.3% (.2%)
40: Colorado - BL+FC-14.5% (2.6%), FTLTBR-69.7% (.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.7% (.2%)
41: Illinois - BL+FC-28.6% (.5%), FTLTBR-72.4% (.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64.3% (.7%)
42: Arizona - BL+FC-8.3% (-2.6%), FTLTBR-71.5% (14.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65.3% (8.1%)
42: George Mason - BL+FC-11.4% (-.4%), FTLTBR-55.4% (6.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51.6% (4.2%)
42: Utah - BL+FC-7.3% (1.8%), FTLTBR-62.6% (1.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-62.6% (1.2%)
42: Washington and Lee - BL+FC-20.5% (.9%), FTLTBR-64.6% (7.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63.8% (7.1%)
46: SMU - BL+FC-23.2% (-1.1%), FTLTBR-66.9% (-2.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.9% (-2.7%)
47: Florida - BL+FC-16.8% (1.9%), FTLTBR-68.3% (2.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-68.3% (2.7%)
47: Maryland - BL+FC-9.5% (-4.6%), FTLTBR-57.4% (5.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57.1% (9.3%)
47: Wake Forest - BL+FC-17.6% (1.9%), FTLTBR-68.4% (11.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.8% (10.2%)
50: Florida State - BL+FC-7.1% (-3.0%), FTLTBR-66.0% (-2.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.0% (-2.3%)
50: Tulane - BL+FC-17.6% (1.7%), FTLTBR-61.3% (9.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60.5% (8.5%)
52: Pepperdine - BL+FC-9.1% (-3.1%), FTLTBR-46.5% (-5.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46.5% (-5.2%)
52: Richmond - BL+FC-13.4% (6.4%), FTLTBR-56.4% (.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-56.4% (.0%)
52: Temple has not yet reported for 2014
52: Tennessee - BL+FC-12.6% (-.6%), FTLTBR-55.0% (-6.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55.0% (-6.7%)
56: Baylor - BL+FC-11.0% (1.4%), FTLTBR-67.6% (.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.9% (-.1%)
56: Georgia State - BL+FC-15.7% (6.9%), FTLTBR-68.7% (4.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-68.7% (4.6%)
56: Nebraska - BL+FC-7.7% (2.9%), FTLTBR-66.7% (2.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.7% (2.2%)
59: Case Western - BL+FC-11.9% (.3%), FTLTBR-54.8% (-3.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54.2% (-4.5%)
59: Hastings - BL+FC-14.4% (-.6%), FTLTBR-50.5% (8.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-50.0% (9.0%)
59: Houston - BL+FC-18.0% (-1.6%), FTLTBR-62.9% (-.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61.7% (-.7%)
59: Missouri - BL+FC-14.1% (4.2%), FTLTBR-64.4% (7.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64.4% (7.2%)
63: Connecticut - BL+FC-12.3% (1.6%), FTLTBR-51.9% (10.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51.9% (10.7%)
63: Kentucky - BL+FC-16.7% (-.6%), FTLTBR-79.4% (8.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-79.4% (8.7%)
63: Miami - BL+FC-10.0% (-.6%), FTLTBR-67.5% (7.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.7% (7.2%)
63: Seton Hall - BL+FC-6.7% (-3.4%), FTLTBR-71.6% (2.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-71.6% (2.6%)
67: Denver - BL+FC-6.9% (-1.8%), FTLTBR-55.2% (.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54.9% (.9%)
67: Kansas - BL+FC-11.8% (1.9%), FTLTBR-66.4% (6.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.4% (6.3%)
67: Oklahoma - BL+FC-10.5% (5.1%), FTLTBR-66.4% (2.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.4% (2.3%)
67: UNLV - BL+FC-6.5% (1.9%), FTLTBR-65.5% (3.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64.0% (1.9%)
71: American - BL+FC-12.4% (.2%), FTLTBR-54.6% (10.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45.0% (7.7%)
71: Penn State - BL+FC-10.8% (4.8%), FTLTBR-65.3% (20.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64.8% (20.3%)
71: New Mexico - BL+FC-2.7% (.9%), FTLTBR-78.4% (5.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-78.4% (5.6%)
71: San Diego - BL+FC-12.0% (2.2%), FTLTBR-46.8% (-5.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46.4% (-5.4%)
75: Arkansas-Fayetteville - BL+FC-8.5% (-.6%), FTLTBR-52.7% (-13.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-52.7% (-13.2%)
75: Loyola Marymount - BL+FC-15.4% (2.6%), FTLTBR-59.8% (9.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57.6% (8.2%)
75: Yeshiva (Cardozo) - BL+FC-13.0% (-1.6%), FTLTBR-56.1% (1.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55.9% (1.6%)
78: Brooklyn has not yet reported for 2014
78: Illinois-Tech (Kent) - BL+FC-8.2% (-2.1%), FTLTBR-49.7% (-4.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49.7% (-4.6%)
78: Loyola Chicago - BL+FC-11.5% (-2.5%), FTLTBR-55.0% (6.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54.6% (6.3%)
78: Pittsburgh - BL+FC-11.3% (-.7%), FTLTBR-50.7% (-4.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-50.7% (-3.0%)
82: Cincinnati - BL+FC-16.8% (4.0%), FTLTBR-60.0% (7.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60.0% (7.0%)
82: Hawaii - BL+FC-.0% (.0%), FTLTBR-54.4% (3.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54.4% (5.3%)
82: Oregon - BL+FC-3.8% (-2.2%), FTLTBR-45.7% (-1.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45.1% (-1.9%)
82: St. John's - BL+FC-10.1% (.7%), FTLTBR-60.7% (5.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60.7% (5.0%)
82: Tulsa - BL+FC-3.1% (1.3%), FTLTBR-66.3% (8.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65.3% (9.1%)
87: New Hampshire - BL+FC-7.9% (-3.3%), FTLTBR-62.7% (-4.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-62.7% (-4.6%)
87: Northeastern - BL+FC-7.9% (-.4%), FTLTBR-51.4% (6.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-50.9% (6.0%)
87: Rutgers-Newark - BL+FC-15.0% (4.2%), FTLTBR-63.9% (8.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61.7% (7.6%)
87: St. Louis - BL+FC-13.5% (2.9%), FTLTBR-61.0% (10.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61.0% (10.6%)
87: SUNY-Buffalo - BL+FC-8.4% (2.8%), FTLTBR-59.2% (-1.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-59.2% (-1.4%)
87: Syracuse - BL+FC-10.9% (2.6%), FTLTBR-57.3% (2.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57.3% (2.9%)
87: Vilanova - BL+FC-16.4% (1.4%), FTLTBR-65.0% (11.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65.0% (11.7%)
94: Lewis & Clark - BL+FC-5.6% (3.2%), FTLTBR-51.7% (-.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51.7% (5.7%)
94: Louisiana State - BL+FC-9.6% (-1.4%), FTLTBR-68.4% (3.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-68.4% (3.3%)
94: Louisville - BL+FC-8.9% (.3%), FTLTBR-63.4% (1.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63.4% (1.7%)
94: Michigan State - BL+FC-7.3% (2.3%), FTLTBR-44.7% (7.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-44.1% (7.2%)
94: Mississippi - BL+FC-7.3% (.9%), FTLTBR-50.8% (-7.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-50.8% (-7.6%)
94: Santa Clara - BL+FC-10.0% (-4.3%), FTLTBR-35.2% (-7.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-35.2% (-7.0%)
94: South Carolina - BL+FC-10.4% (-1.1%), FTLTBR-64.9% (-2.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64.9% (-2.4%)
94: West Virginia - BL+FC-17.8% (7.1%), FTLTBR-57.4% (.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57.4% (.4%)
102: Florida International - BL+FC-3.2% (-2.2%), FTLTBR-58.4% (3.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-58.4% (4.2%)
102: Indiana (McKinney) has not yet reported for 2014
102: Rutgers-Camden - BL+FC-8.4% (-.2%), FTLTBR-60.5% (-2.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60.5% (-1.8%)
105: Marquette - BL+FC-13.1% (6.3%), FTLTBR-49.1% (-2.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49.1% (-2.4%)
105: Stetson - BL+FC-5.5% (.9%), FTLTBR-54.4% (-6.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54.4% (-6.4%)
105: Wayne State - BL+FC-14.2% (3.9%), FTLTBR-51.5% (2.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-50.3% (1.4%)
108: Catholic (Columbus) - BL+FC-6.1% (-4.8%), FTLTBR-45.8% (-.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45.8% (-.8%)
108: Wyoming - BL+FC-1.4% (-3.9%), FTLTBR-49.3% (-15.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49.3% (-15.2%)
110: Gonzaga - BL+FC-1.9% (.0%), FTLTBR-53.1% (-7.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53.1% (-7.2%)
110: Howard has not yet reported for 2014
110: Maine - BL+FC-4.2% (-1.0%), FTLTBR-46.3% (7.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46.3% (7.8%)
113: Creighton - BL+FC-6.8% (2.0%), FTLTBR-60.2% (6.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60.2% (6.6%)
113: CUNY has not yet reported for 2014
113: Drake - BL+FC-.8% (-2.1%), FTLTBR-63.1% (8.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63.1% (8.7%)
113: Montana - BL+FC-12.5% (1.4%), FTLTBR-66.3% (-2.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.3% (-2.9%)
113: Seattle - BL+FC-4.1% (-2.7%), FTLTBR-45.1% (3.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-44.7% (3.9%)
118: Duquesne - BL+FC-12.4% (3.1%), FTLTBR-55.9% (4.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55.9% (4.7%)
118: Mercer - BL+FC-7.0% (-1.3%), FTLTBR-67.8% (2.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67.8% (2.9%)
118: Texas Tech - BL+FC-7.5% (-.1%), FTLTBR-58.2% (3.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-58.2% (3.2%)
118: Willamette - BL+FC-.0% (-1.6%), FTLTBR-57.4% (2.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57.4% (2.9%)
122: Baltimore - BL+FC-1.6% (-3.6%), FTLTBR-50.0% (2.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-50.0% (2.4%)
122: DePaul - BL+FC-7.7% (1.0%), FTLTBR-53.5% (8.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53.5% (8.4%)
122: Hofstra - BL+FC-5.0% (-.6%), FTLTBR-57.1% (9.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-56.2% (8.8%)
122: Vermont - BL+FC-3.1% (1.1%), FTLTBR-48.5% (-6.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-48.5% (-6.0%)
122: Washburn - BL+FC-2.7% (-.6%), FTLTBR-63.4% (3.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63.4% (3.8%)
127: Akron - BL+FC-2.4% (-.6%), FTLTBR-46.8% (.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46.8% (.4%)
127: Chapman - BL+FC-2.9% (-3.6%), FTLTBR-47.1% (11.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-47.1% (11.6%)
127: Cleveland State - BL+FC-9.3% (1.7%), FTLTBR-47.0% (2.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46.4% (1.7%)
127: Drexel - BL+FC-7.8% (-3.1%), FTLTBR-60.3% (12.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60.3% (12.5%)
127: Idaho - BL+FC-.8% (-.9%), FTLTBR-64.2% (9.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-64.2% (9.5%)
127: Missouri KC - BL+FC-4.9% (-.3%), FTLTBR-60.1% (15.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60.1% (15.0%)
127: New York Law - BL+FC-6.7% (-.2%), FTLTBR-42.9% (-1.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-42.9% (-1.1%)
127: Quinnipiac - BL+FC-1.8% (-.3%), FTLTBR-42.5% (8.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-41.6% (7.1%)
135: Arkansas-Little Rock - BL+FC-1.6% (.2%), FTLTBR-53.6% (8.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53.6% (8.8%)
135: Loyola New Orleans - BL+FC-5.0% (-1.2%), FTLTBR-49.1% (.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-47.7% (-1.1%)
135: St. Thomas (MN) - BL+FC-6.3% (1.2%), FTLTBR-47.6% (5.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-47.6% (5.8%)
138: Albany - BL+FC-3.4% (-3.2%), FTLTBR-61.8% (1.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61.8% (2.6%)
138: North Dakota - BL+FC-3.9% (-.1%), FTLTBR-56.6% (-2.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-56.6% (-2.9%)
138: Pace - BL+FC-4.1% (.1%), FTLTBR-56.2% (15.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53.9% (15.1%)
138: San Francisco - BL+FC-5.6% (.6%), FTLTBR-32.0% (-2.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-32.0% (-1.5%)
142: Memphis - BL+FC-6.9% (-2.0%), FTLTBR-52.7% (-7.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-52.7% (-7.8%)
142: Toledo - BL+FC-4.9% (-1.9%), FTLTBR-37.4% (-10.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-37.4% (-10.9%)
142: William Mitchell - BL+FC-4.9% (1.2%), FTLTBR-53.8% (-3.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53.8% (-3.1%)
145: Dayton - BL+FC-2.9% (1.5%), FTLTBR-49.3% (-8.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49.3% (-8.2%)
145: Hamline - BL+FC-1.5% (-.6%), FTLTBR-45.6% (3.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45.6% (3.5%)
145: Ohio Northern - BL+FC-3.2% (-1.0%), FTLTBR-45.7% (-13.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45.7% (-13.6%)
145: South Dakota - BL+FC-2.5% (1.1%), FTLTBR-66.7% (6.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-66.7% (6.1%)
149: Oklahoma City - BL+FC-2.5% (.7%), FTLTBR-58.0% (1.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-58.0% (1.6%)
149: Samford - BL+FC-5.9% (.7%), FTLTBR-53.7% (-4.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53.7% (-4.1%)
149: Southern Illinois - BL+FC-1.9% (-2.0%), FTLTBR-61.9% (-8.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-61.0% (-9.6%)
149: South Texas - BL+FC-5.1% (.8%), FTLTBR-55.4% (-5.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55.4% (-5.8%)
149: Texas A&M - BL+FC-1.3% (.7%), FTLTBR-46.1% (8.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46.1% (8.1%)
RNP: Appalachian - BL+FC-3.2% (.9%), FTLTBR-32.6% (-9.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-32.6% (-9.4%)
RNP: Arizona Summit - BL+FC-1.2% (.5%), FTLTBR-38.7% (-1.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-36.8% (-2.6%)
RNP: Atlanta's John Marshall has not yet reported for 2014
RNP: Ave Maria - BL+FC-.0% (-3.8%), FTLTBR-35.5% (5.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-34.5% (4.4%)
RNP: Barry - BL+FC-1.4% (-.1%), FTLTBR-39.7% (6.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-39.7% (6.9%)
RNP: California Western - BL+FC-4.1% (3.0%), FTLTBR-45.2% (13.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45.2% (13.9%)
RNP: Campbell - BL+FC-3.2% (1.0%), FTLTBR-57.8% (5.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57.8% (5.2%)
RNP: Capital - BL+FC-1.9% (-2.4%), FTLTBR-34.4% (-4.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-34.4% (-4.0%)
RNP: Charleston - BL+FC-3.0% (2.1%), FTLTBR-49.3% (-2.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49.3% (-2.3%)
RNP: Charlotte - BL+FC-.5% (-.9%), FTLTBR-28.8% (-1.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-28.8% (.8%)
RNP: Detroit Mercy - BL+FC-4.4% (-2.7%), FTLTBR-34.4% (2.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-34.4% (2.7%)
RNP: District of Columbia - BL+FC-1.0% (-.3%), FTLTBR-26.2% (2.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-24.3% (1.8%)
RNP: Elon - BL+FC-2.9% (1.2%), FTLTBR-37.5% (5.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-37.5% (5.5%)
RNP: Faulkner - BL+FC-.0% (-2.0%), FTLTBR-37.3% (-11.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-37.3% (-11.2%)
RNP: Florida A&M - BL+FC-1.7% (1.7%), FTLTBR-29.3% (-5.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-29.3% (-5.5%)
RNP: Florida Costal - BL+FC-.8% (.1%), FTLTBR-33.5% (3.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-33.3% (3.7%)
RNP: Golden Gate - BL+FC-3.3% (1.5%), FTLTBR-25.1% (2.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-24.0% (2.1%)
RNP: Inter-American - BL+FC-.5% (-1.3%), FTLTBR-9.3% (-12.7%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-9.3% (-12.7%)
RNP: John Marshall (Chicago) - BL+FC-5.0% (.8%), FTLTBR-55.1% (6.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54.7% (5.8%)
RNP: Liberty - BL+FC-1.3% (-.8%), FTLTBR-42.1% (13.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-40.8% (12.8%)
RNP: McGeroge - BL+FC-3.7% (1.2%), FTLTBR-42.8% (6.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-42.2% (6.4%)
RNP: Mississippi College - BL+FC-5.1% (.3%), FTLTBR-47.4% (-4.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-47.4% (-4.4%)
RNP: New England Law - BL+FC-2.3% (.0%), FTLTBR-38.5% (1.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-38.5% (2.2%)
RNP: North Carolina Central - BL+FC-2.1% (1.5%), FTLTBR-37.3% (22.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-37.3% (22.5%)
RNP: Northern Illinois - BL+FC-2.0% (-3.1%), FTLTBR-58.6% (8.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57.6% (7.1%)
RNP: Northern Kentucky - BL+FC-6.4% (2.0%), FTLTBR-42.3% (4.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-42.3% (4.8%)
RNP: Nova Southeastern - BL+FC-6.1% (.2%), FTLTBR-59.6% (1.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-59.6% (1.1%)
RNP: Pontifical Catholic - BL+FC-.0% (.0%), FTLTBR-1.4% (-2.8%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-1.4% (-2.8%)
RNP: Puerto Rico - BL+FC-2.0% (.5%), FTLTBR-15.4% (-2.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-15.4% (-2.9%)
RNP: Regent - BL+FC-4.1% (-.2%), FTLTBR-45.1% (-10.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45.1% (-10.0%)
RNP: Roger Williams - BL+FC-.6% (-2.9%), FTLTBR-43.9% (3.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-43.9% (3.4%)
RNP: Southern University - BL+FC-1.8% (1.3%), FTLTBR-27.3% (4.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-27.3% (4.5%)
RNP: Southwestern - BL+FC-4.2% (-.8%), FTLTBR-35.8% (-2.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-35.5% (-2.9%)
RNP: St. Mary's - BL+FC-2.3% (.9%), FTLTBR-50.0% (-2.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-50.0% (-2.1%)
RNP: St. Thomas (FL) - BL+FC-2.3% (.6%), FTLTBR-44.0% (.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-44.0% (.1%)
RNP: Suffolk - BL+FC-7.7% (1.0%), FTLTBR-46.2% (10.5%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46.0% (10.3%)
RNP: Texas Southern - BL+FC-.7% (.7%), FTLTBR-33.6% (-.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-33.6% (-.4%)
RNP: Thomas Jefferson - BL+FC-1.4% (.3%), FTLTBR-26.3% (.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-26.3% (.3%)
RNP: Touro - BL+FC-.0% (.0%), FTLTBR-55.1% (3.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55.1% (3.4%)
RNP: Valparaiso - BL+FC-2.3% (-.7%), FTLTBR-44.8% (6.4%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-44.2% (6.4%)
RNP: Western New England - BL+FC-2.0% (1.3%), FTLTBR-35.7% (2.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-35.7% (2.6%)
RNP: Western State - BL+FC-2.0% (1.2%), FTLTBR-28.0% (-5.3%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-28.0% (-5.3%)
RNP: Whittier - BL+FC-2.1% (.6%), FTLTBR-25.8% (-.9%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-25.8% (-.9%)
RNP: Widener-DE - BL+FC-2.1% (-2.2%), FTLTBR-44.1% (-2.2%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-44.1% (-2.2%)
RNP: Widener-Harrisburg - BL+FC-1.8% (-1.5%), FTLTBR-52.2% (.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-52.2% (.1%)
RNP: WMU-Cooley - BL+FC-.9% (.0%), FTLTBR-25.9% (3.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-25.9% (3.0%)
UNR: Belmont has not yet reported for 2014.
UNR: Duncan - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-0%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51%
UNR: LaVerne - BL+FC-.0% (.0%), FTLTBR-38.6% (9.6%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-38.6% (9.6%)
UNR: UMass-Dartmouth - BL+FC-2.5% (2.5%), FTLTBR-22.2% (-1.1%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-22.2% (1.8%)


Here are totals for the 196 reporting schools for 2014 and a comparison to 195 of those schools from 2013 (Duncan, included this year, did not report 2013 statistics).
Totals: BL+FC-16.9% (1.1%), FTLTBR-58.2% (3.0%), FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-56.2% (2.8%)

User avatar
cookiejar1
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby cookiejar1 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:27 pm

If you're still in law school you can have a meaningful affect on your school's employment numbers come 9-mo after graduation. Every PI person you convince to go to biglaw, every M/B/B consulting interview you sabotage, and every student going to a boutique <101 lawyer firm you murder will bring your numbers closer to the Cornell and Penn.

Stop arguing on TLS and do god's work. 80%! 80%! 80%!

User avatar
starry eyed
Posts: 2048
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby starry eyed » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:30 pm

....anxiously waiting on brut's reply to Tiago

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 03152016 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:33 pm

wait no longer tater

bu and wustl have the same inputs, so your argument about indirect effects, in addition to being poorly stated, doesn't make any sense in the context of the listed schools
(also, as is obv from this thread, i'm pessimistic about prospective law students, so i think the scholly scam has less effect than ppl assume)
other things are doing the heavy lifting in all likelihood
inertia for umn, high bl/fc/jd for emory
Last edited by 03152016 on Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Moneytrees » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:34 pm

starry eyed wrote:....anxiously waiting on brut's reply to Tiago


Huge blunder committed by Brut.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 03152016 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:42 pm

Moneytrees wrote:To be fair, UCLA and USC have always been pretty close in terms of outcomes. The posters who say otherwise have only been paying attention to the past couple years of data.

makes no sense whatsoever
2011 was the first year of lt/ft/jd. so the "past data" is literally 3 years
so idk how anyone could pay attention to more than the "past couple years", unless they're relying on schools' marketing numbers and anecdata

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15502
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:44 pm

Brut wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:To be fair, UCLA and USC have always been pretty close in terms of outcomes. The posters who say otherwise have only been paying attention to the past couple years of data.

makes no sense whatsoever
2011 was the first year of lt/ft/jd. so the "past data" is literally 3 years
so idk how anyone could pay attention to more than the "past couple years", unless they're relying on schools' marketing numbers and anecdata

Come on brut you're better than this. We've got data going back a decade. The new stuff is better, but the old stuff is still data.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 03152016 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:46 pm

it was trivially easy to manipulate. that's something you'd rely on?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests