sunynp wrote:I dont understand why a firm wouldn't report data. They pay people to manage recruiting for them. They pay to belong to nalp and know that schools, prospective hires and practicing attorneys look at nalp and nlj data.
I'm not sure why people don't want to consider this data as valid .
The data that bothers me is the salary data schools have been reporting when there is no way it matches with these numbers. Don't you think if a school thought their nlj number was low they would object? I've never heard of any school coming forward to complain this list was wrong. I guess we could give it a few days this year and see what schools have to say about this nalp report.
Any good report based on survey data should include at least some detailed information about who actually filled out the survey. More detailed respondent data would serve the majority of NLJ250 firms that go unmentioned by giving them more exposure and prospective hires by giving them more relevant data. For example, in addition to"firm favorites," you could also have "regional favorites" which would be far more useful for 0Ls.
What is your point from this? Are you of the belief that if the respondent % was, say, 50%, that if it was instead 100%, that some schools would have a lower %? A higher response rate will not make any of these school percentages go down. The numbers are a floor, not a ceiling.
If you're trying to make another point, it's not coming across to anyone, so assuming you're not a troll, take some time and type out what exactly you're trying to say.