George Mason 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
ram jam
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby ram jam » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:10 am

@ Tesoro

I believe you have misled yourself using the data. However, you still have a valid point, and one that can be made for many law schools.

There is not only 65% reporting. All graduates have reported, according to the data. Yet, 65% of salaries were reported. Therefore, GMU has manipulated the data. Most likely, they have removed those salaries that detract largely from the median and the average of the salaries in order to compress the disturbances in the data.

100% of grads reported their employment status. Of those 100%, the highest 65% of salaries were used to calculate medians and the average. The omission of 34% of the salaries is misleading. However, the salary data for those 65% reporting is not that bad.

Best advice, do not finish below the median of your class.

User avatar
rockthelaw
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:53 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby rockthelaw » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:15 am

ram jam wrote:@ Tesoro

I believe you have misled yourself using the data. However, you still have a valid point, and one that can be made for many law schools.

There is not only 65% reporting. All graduates have reported, according to the data. Yet, 65% of salaries were reported. Therefore, GMU has manipulated the data. Most likely, they have removed those salaries that detract largely from the median and the average of the salaries in order to compress the disturbances in the data.

100% of grads reported their employment status. Of those 100%, the highest 65% of salaries were used to calculate medians and the average. The omission of 34% of the salaries is misleading. However, the salary data for those 65% reporting is not that bad.

Best advice, do not finish below the median of your class.


This is the exact statement at the bottom of the stats page:

"65% of employed graduates provided reportable salary information; reportable salary information does not include bonuses, part-time salaries, or other non-traditional compensation packages."

What qualifies as "reportable salary information?" Does this mean that 34% didn't report any salary, or that GMU said, "Grads, don't report if your salary is below $X," or does it mean something else?

ram jam
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby ram jam » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:24 am

rockthelaw wrote:
ram jam wrote:@ Tesoro

I believe you have misled yourself using the data. However, you still have a valid point, and one that can be made for many law schools.

There is not only 65% reporting. All graduates have reported, according to the data. Yet, 65% of salaries were reported. Therefore, GMU has manipulated the data. Most likely, they have removed those salaries that detract largely from the median and the average of the salaries in order to compress the disturbances in the data.

100% of grads reported their employment status. Of those 100%, the highest 65% of salaries were used to calculate medians and the average. The omission of 34% of the salaries is misleading. However, the salary data for those 65% reporting is not that bad.

Best advice, do not finish below the median of your class.


This is the exact statement at the bottom of the stats page:

"65% of employed graduates provided reportable salary information; reportable salary information does not include bonuses, part-time salaries, or other non-traditional compensation packages."

What qualifies as "reportable salary information?" Does this mean that 34% didn't report any salary, or that GMU said, "Grads, don't report if your salary is below $X," or does it mean something else?



I think it means a combination of this "Grads, don't report if your salary is below $X", and sacrificing a lower salary reporting percentage for the sake of having higher salary averages/medians.

Like, we can have an average salary of $100,000 at 75% of salaries reported, or $125,000 with 65% of salaries reported. I can only assume, that as you get closer to 100% of salaries reported, those averages and medians come down drastically.

User avatar
rockthelaw
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:53 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby rockthelaw » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:30 am

ram jam wrote:
rockthelaw wrote:
ram jam wrote:@ Tesoro

I believe you have misled yourself using the data. However, you still have a valid point, and one that can be made for many law schools.

There is not only 65% reporting. All graduates have reported, according to the data. Yet, 65% of salaries were reported. Therefore, GMU has manipulated the data. Most likely, they have removed those salaries that detract largely from the median and the average of the salaries in order to compress the disturbances in the data.

100% of grads reported their employment status. Of those 100%, the highest 65% of salaries were used to calculate medians and the average. The omission of 34% of the salaries is misleading. However, the salary data for those 65% reporting is not that bad.

Best advice, do not finish below the median of your class.


This is the exact statement at the bottom of the stats page:

"65% of employed graduates provided reportable salary information; reportable salary information does not include bonuses, part-time salaries, or other non-traditional compensation packages."

What qualifies as "reportable salary information?" Does this mean that 34% didn't report any salary, or that GMU said, "Grads, don't report if your salary is below $X," or does it mean something else?



I think it means a combination of this "Grads, don't report if your salary is below $X", and sacrificing a lower salary reporting percentage for the sake of having higher salary averages/medians.

Like, we can have an average salary of $100,000 at 75% of salaries reported, or $125,000 with 65% of salaries reported. I can only assume, that as you get closer to 100% of salaries reported, those averages and medians come down drastically.


Makes sense, but I'd still like a definition of "reportable salary information." Maybe I'll call someone at GMU.

tesoro
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby tesoro » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:46 am

rockthelaw wrote:
ram jam wrote:
rockthelaw wrote:
ram jam wrote:@ Tesoro

I believe you have misled yourself using the data. However, you still have a valid point, and one that can be made for many law schools.

There is not only 65% reporting. All graduates have reported, according to the data. Yet, 65% of salaries were reported. Therefore, GMU has manipulated the data. Most likely, they have removed those salaries that detract largely from the median and the average of the salaries in order to compress the disturbances in the data.

100% of grads reported their employment status. Of those 100%, the highest 65% of salaries were used to calculate medians and the average. The omission of 34% of the salaries is misleading. However, the salary data for those 65% reporting is not that bad.

Best advice, do not finish below the median of your class.


This is the exact statement at the bottom of the stats page:

"65% of employed graduates provided reportable salary information; reportable salary information does not include bonuses, part-time salaries, or other non-traditional compensation packages."

What qualifies as "reportable salary information?" Does this mean that 34% didn't report any salary, or that GMU said, "Grads, don't report if your salary is below $X," or does it mean something else?



I think it means a combination of this "Grads, don't report if your salary is below $X", and sacrificing a lower salary reporting percentage for the sake of having higher salary averages/medians.

Like, we can have an average salary of $100,000 at 75% of salaries reported, or $125,000 with 65% of salaries reported. I can only assume, that as you get closer to 100% of salaries reported, those averages and medians come down drastically.


Makes sense, but I'd still like a definition of "reportable salary information." Maybe I'll call someone at GMU.


If you find out, please inform. While all schools from the top down manipulate data to some degree, I never expected Mason to be this manipulative. To say the least, I'm horribly disappointed. Mason was one of the few schools that I refrained from withdrawing from because it was hard to turn down the value. This was analogous to meeting my ex girlfriend's family and running for the hills.

tesoro
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby tesoro » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:50 am

ram jam wrote:@ Tesoro

I believe you have misled yourself using the data. However, you still have a valid point, and one that can be made for many law schools.

There is not only 65% reporting. All graduates have reported, according to the data. Yet, 65% of salaries were reported. Therefore, GMU has manipulated the data. Most likely, they have removed those salaries that detract largely from the median and the average of the salaries in order to compress the disturbances in the data.

100% of grads reported their employment status. Of those 100%, the highest 65% of salaries were used to calculate medians and the average. The omission of 34% of the salaries is misleading. However, the salary data for those 65% reporting is not that bad.

Best advice, do not finish below the median of your class.


While all grads have been surveyed, not all grads have reported. The difference is, the survey does not ask for salary information, nor does it ask for type of employment. It simply asks, "are you employed?" As in, if you're working at Macy's as a clerk selling perfume, you're employed. It's not the highest 65% of salaries being used - it's the only 65% of salaries that students actually report to the school.

I agree that there's likely incentives offered to students employed below $x to not report. One common practice I've heard of is a law school offering many students temp jobs, such that they can report students as employed, and then let them go within a year. This is not necessarily what Mason is doing.

ram jam
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby ram jam » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:57 am

The very point that there is a dispute with the data is just wrong.

I'm not buying a used car, I am choosing a law school...

User avatar
rockthelaw
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:53 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby rockthelaw » Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:03 am

ram jam wrote:The very point that there is a dispute with the data is just wrong.

I'm not buying a used car, I am choosing a law school...


Yeah, this is my problem with it. I almost feel like they're saying, "Hey admits, in the interest of full disclosure we're going to disclose a percentage of the truth to you. There is a method to our truthiness, but we're not going to disclose that in full either. So, take this incomplete information, process it, and make a fully-informed decision."

sunnygirl
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:20 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby sunnygirl » Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:07 am

rockthelaw wrote:
ram jam wrote:The very point that there is a dispute with the data is just wrong.

I'm not buying a used car, I am choosing a law school...


Yeah, this is my problem with it. I almost feel like they're saying, "Hey admits, in the interest of full disclosure we're going to disclose a percentage of the truth to you. There is a method to our truthiness, but we're not going to disclose that in full either. So, take this incomplete information, process it, and make a fully-informed decision."


No, I feel like they are saying "Hey,admits, wanna know about the truth? Getin GMU and you will know what you really get 3 years later......

ViIIager
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby ViIIager » Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:10 am

ram jam wrote:The very point that there is a dispute with the data is just wrong.

I'm not buying a used car, I am choosing a law school...


Sooo...you're upset because a law school is trying to make itself look good? Do you wear your best looking suit to interviews make your potential employer think better of you? That's just wrong!

There are incentives for GMU, and every law school, to pump up their stats. Nothing to be irritated about here, though there's plenty to be curious about. Hopefully they'll give Rockthelaw some details about how they came by their numbers.

Now that I'm attending the school, I hope that GMU goes above and beyond the call of duty in making up statistics from here on out. Statistics that make the school look great are beneficial for the attendees/alumni (at least until they hit the "these #s are bullshit" wall).

tesoro
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby tesoro » Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:25 am

ViIIager wrote:
ram jam wrote:The very point that there is a dispute with the data is just wrong.

I'm not buying a used car, I am choosing a law school...


Sooo...you're upset because a law school is trying to make itself look good? Do you wear your best looking suit to interviews make your potential employer think better of you? That's just wrong!

There are incentives for GMU, and every law school, to pump up their stats. Nothing to be irritated about here, though there's plenty to be curious about. Hopefully they'll give Rockthelaw some details about how they came by their numbers.

Now that I'm attending the school, I hope that GMU goes above and beyond the call of duty in making up statistics from here on out. Statistics that make the school look great are beneficial for the attendees/alumni (at least until they hit the "these #s are bullshit" wall).


That's not why I'm upset. I'm a prospective student, and I'm upset that they've made themselves look, on top of "bad," dishonest.

The statistics are blatantly misleading. They thereby reflect very negatively on the school. Statistics that make the school look like dishonest bullshitters are detrimental for prospective students.

Edit: For example, I know nothing about the type of employment I might expect if I graduate at the median. The published statistics, however, might falsely conivince those who don't have a high mathematical aptitude that a median student has a very high earning potential graduating from Mason.

ram jam
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby ram jam » Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:38 am

Publish the raw data.

User avatar
dudester
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby dudester » Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:14 pm

ITT: Conspiracy theorists assume that GMU either explicitly told graduates to not report their salary if they make less than $X or they gamed the definition of "reportable salary information".

Also, they assert that understanding the limitation of central tendency measures (e.g. median) requires a "high mathematical aptitude".

Please, whatever you do, don't discuss your concerns with the school.

ViIIager
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby ViIIager » Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:18 pm

ram jam wrote:Publish the raw data.


I prefer this solution. Won't ever happen, but I like it.

User avatar
truthypants
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:50 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby truthypants » Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:23 pm

tesoro wrote:
ViIIager wrote:
ram jam wrote:The very point that there is a dispute with the data is just wrong.

I'm not buying a used car, I am choosing a law school...


Sooo...you're upset because a law school is trying to make itself look good? Do you wear your best looking suit to interviews make your potential employer think better of you? That's just wrong!

There are incentives for GMU, and every law school, to pump up their stats. Nothing to be irritated about here, though there's plenty to be curious about. Hopefully they'll give Rockthelaw some details about how they came by their numbers.

Now that I'm attending the school, I hope that GMU goes above and beyond the call of duty in making up statistics from here on out. Statistics that make the school look great are beneficial for the attendees/alumni (at least until they hit the "these #s are bullshit" wall).


That's not why I'm upset. I'm a prospective student, and I'm upset that they've made themselves look, on top of "bad," dishonest.

The statistics are blatantly misleading. They thereby reflect very negatively on the school. Statistics that make the school look like dishonest bullshitters are detrimental for prospective students.

Edit: For example, I know nothing about the type of employment I might expect if I graduate at the median. The published statistics, however, might falsely conivince those who don't have a high mathematical aptitude that a median student has a very high earning potential graduating from Mason.


I'm at Mason now--median here is not going to get you a biglaw salary, if that is what you are looking for. I don't even think median will land you a federal govt. gig (well, maybe if you already work for the feds coming in). I'd expect small law or a small local govt. gig at median. Not sure what the going rate is for that (might be high considering the area).

*edit* Also, keep in mind that a ton of people come into Mason who already have good jobs (i.e., making six figures). I am not sure how that plays into the reported numbers...

User avatar
rockthelaw
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:53 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby rockthelaw » Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:47 pm

dudester wrote:ITT: Conspiracy theorists assume that GMU either explicitly told graduates to not report their salary if they make less than $X or they gamed the definition of "reportable salary information".

Also, they assert that understanding the limitation of central tendency measures (e.g. median) requires a "high mathematical aptitude".

Please, whatever you do, don't discuss your concerns with the school.


What's wrong with asking the school for clarification of a definition?

User avatar
dudester
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby dudester » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:16 pm

rockthelaw wrote:
dudester wrote:ITT: Conspiracy theorists assume that GMU either explicitly told graduates to not report their salary if they make less than $X or they gamed the definition of "reportable salary information".

Also, they assert that understanding the limitation of central tendency measures (e.g. median) requires a "high mathematical aptitude".

Please, whatever you do, don't discuss your concerns with the school.


What's wrong with asking the school for clarification of a definition?


--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
rockthelaw
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:53 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby rockthelaw » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:19 pm

dudester wrote:
rockthelaw wrote:
dudester wrote:ITT: Conspiracy theorists assume that GMU either explicitly told graduates to not report their salary if they make less than $X or they gamed the definition of "reportable salary information".

Also, they assert that understanding the limitation of central tendency measures (e.g. median) requires a "high mathematical aptitude".

Please, whatever you do, don't discuss your concerns with the school.


What's wrong with asking the school for clarification of a definition?


--ImageRemoved--


Sarscam detection FAIL. Running a lap.

User avatar
rockthelaw
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:53 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby rockthelaw » Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:31 pm

OK, just got off the phone with someone from career services. This is what I learned:

There are two reasons why not every graduate is included in the average and median salary data:

1) Grads are not required to disclose their salary data to the school, so some choose not to.
2) "Reportable salary information" ecompasses anyone who is earning an annual salary. Graduates who are employed part-time, working for hourly wages, or who are compensated hourly+bonus (ex. someone who makes an hourly wage, but gets a bonus for meeting a certain number of billable hours, or bringing in a new client) are not included because they are not earning an annual salary. I think this might lead people to a number of conclusions.

I did not ask any additional questions about the questionnaire itself.

I did ask for a more granular breakdown of the employment statistics (ex. What percentage of the 42% of graduates in private practice work for small vs. big firms?), but those answers didn't yield any new or earth-shattering revelations.
Last edited by rockthelaw on Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MarkRenton
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby MarkRenton » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:03 pm

I think it's dishonest... and not. It is because it definitely present the earning potential to be greater than it is. For instance, when you read "median", you of course imagine the guy dead in the middle of the class. But since one can logically assume that the 65% of the reporting students are the high earners, that median really represents the middle of the 65% (i.e. the 32.5 tile of the class). So really this reported median is more telling you what the guy in the top third of the class earns. Definitely a giant difference.

However, I don't think this practice is that horrible because A) they do disclose that that it is of 65% reporting grads. They are being forthright about this - but now how the data might be skewed. B) This is sort of the industry standard. It's not so much GMU being deceptive as law schools in general. A few years ago Tulane had like the second highest reported income median, but it was on something like 30% reporting students. Really absurd.

When the previous poster said that he's going to law school not purchasing a used car... Well, in my opinion, you really have to go into this thinking that you're purchasing a law school sold by used car salesmen.

User avatar
dudester
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby dudester » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:15 pm

MarkRenton wrote:I think it's dishonest... and not. It is because it definitely present the earning potential to be greater than it is. For instance, when you read "median", you of course imagine the guy dead in the middle of the class. But since one can logically assume that the 65% of the reporting students are the high earners, that median really represents the middle of the 65% (i.e. the 32.5 tile of the class). So really this reported median is more telling you what the guy in the top third of the class earns. Definitely a giant difference.

However, I don't think this practice is that horrible because A) they do disclose that that it is of 65% reporting grads. They are being forthright about this - but now how the data might be skewed. B) This is sort of the industry standard. It's not so much GMU being deceptive as law schools in general. A few years ago Tulane had like the second highest reported income median, but it was on something like 30% reporting students. Really absurd.

When the previous poster said that he's going to law school not purchasing a used car... Well, in my opinion, you really have to go into this thinking that you're purchasing a law school sold by used car salesmen.


--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
MarkRenton
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby MarkRenton » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:23 pm

I don't deny a math fail - I'm just still failing. What'd I do wrong?

tesoro
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby tesoro » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:28 pm

dudester wrote:
MarkRenton wrote:I think it's dishonest... and not. It is because it definitely present the earning potential to be greater than it is. For instance, when you read "median", you of course imagine the guy dead in the middle of the class. But since one can logically assume that the 65% of the reporting students are the high earners, that median really represents the middle of the 65% (i.e. the 32.5 tile of the class). So really this reported median is more telling you what the guy in the top third of the class earns. Definitely a giant difference.

However, I don't think this practice is that horrible because A) they do disclose that that it is of 65% reporting grads. They are being forthright about this - but now how the data might be skewed. B) This is sort of the industry standard. It's not so much GMU being deceptive as law schools in general. A few years ago Tulane had like the second highest reported income median, but it was on something like 30% reporting students. Really absurd.

When the previous poster said that he's going to law school not purchasing a used car... Well, in my opinion, you really have to go into this thinking that you're purchasing a law school sold by used car salesmen.


--ImageRemoved--


Other than trolling, you're not really contributing to the discussion at all Dudefail. What I'm saying isn't conspiracy theory, it's fact. What you attribute to "conspiracy theory" is me trying to figure out why the facts are as they are. I agree that the guy above doesn't really understand medians, though. [strike]The medians were artfully broken down in ways that we have no idea how many people are in each category surveyed.[/strike]

@ Rock- they've been trained to tell you as little as possible, and it doesn't appear that they've added anything to color our understanding of the career statistics. If my law school failed me and 34% of my class in attaining gainful employment, the least I could do to spite them is fail to report. I don't think it's as simple as some students just deciding "oh, i really don't feel like reporting my stats today." Anecdotal evidence: As you climb the USNWR rankings, reporting rates are higher and higher. It's assumedly because more people are proud enough of what they have to report it.

It's also interesting to wonder if the 34% of employed students are all (or mostly) working hourly, part-time, or solely on commission. I hope to god I don't go to school to find myself doing anything these.

Yeah, the granular breakdown is pretty much what's expected.

Have you decided on a school yet Rock?

edit: struck through something wrong. I was incorrectly recalling the breakdown, we can figure it out. It's certainly misleading though. Case-in-point: the mathfail above :)

User avatar
rockthelaw
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:53 am

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby rockthelaw » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:44 pm

tesoro wrote:
dudester wrote:
MarkRenton wrote:I think it's dishonest... and not. It is because it definitely present the earning potential to be greater than it is. For instance, when you read "median", you of course imagine the guy dead in the middle of the class. But since one can logically assume that the 65% of the reporting students are the high earners, that median really represents the middle of the 65% (i.e. the 32.5 tile of the class). So really this reported median is more telling you what the guy in the top third of the class earns. Definitely a giant difference.

However, I don't think this practice is that horrible because A) they do disclose that that it is of 65% reporting grads. They are being forthright about this - but now how the data might be skewed. B) This is sort of the industry standard. It's not so much GMU being deceptive as law schools in general. A few years ago Tulane had like the second highest reported income median, but it was on something like 30% reporting students. Really absurd.

When the previous poster said that he's going to law school not purchasing a used car... Well, in my opinion, you really have to go into this thinking that you're purchasing a law school sold by used car salesmen.


--ImageRemoved--


Other than trolling, you're not really contributing to the discussion at all Dudefail. What I'm saying isn't conspiracy theory, it's fact. What you attribute to "conspiracy theory" is me trying to figure out why the facts are as they are. I agree that the guy above doesn't really understand medians, though. [strike]The medians were artfully broken down in ways that we have no idea how many people are in each category surveyed.[/strike]

@ Rock- they've been trained to tell you as little as possible, and it doesn't appear that they've added anything to color our understanding of the career statistics. If my law school failed me and 34% of my class in attaining gainful employment, the least I could do to spite them is fail to report. I don't think it's as simple as some students just deciding "oh, i really don't feel like reporting my stats today." Anecdotal evidence: As you climb the USNWR rankings, reporting rates are higher and higher. It's assumedly because more people are proud enough of what they have to report it.

It's also interesting to wonder if the 34% of employed students are all (or mostly) working hourly, part-time, or solely on commission. I hope to god I don't go to school to find myself doing anything these.

Yeah, the granular breakdown is pretty much what's expected.

Have you decided on a school yet Rock?

edit: struck through something wrong. I was incorrectly recalling the breakdown, we can figure it out. It's certainly misleading though. Case-in-point: the mathfail above :)


pm'd you.

User avatar
dudester
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: George Mason 2010

Postby dudester » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:54 pm

tesoro wrote:Other than trolling, you're not really contributing to the discussion at all Dudefail.


Wow, I'm amazed by your creativity.

tesoro wrote:Other than trolling, you're not really contributing to the discussion at all Dudefail. What I'm saying isn't conspiracy theory, it's fact. What you attribute to "conspiracy theory" is me trying to figure out why the facts are as they are. I agree that the guy above doesn't really understand medians, though. [strike]The medians were artfully broken down in ways that we have no idea how many people are in each category surveyed.[/strike]

@ Rock- they've been trained to tell you as little as possible, and it doesn't appear that they've added anything to color our understanding of the career statistics. If my law school failed me and 34% of my class in attaining gainful employment, the least I could do to spite them is fail to report. I don't think it's as simple as some students just deciding "oh, i really don't feel like reporting my stats today." Anecdotal evidence: As you climb the USNWR rankings, reporting rates are higher and higher. It's assumedly because more people are proud enough of what they have to report it.

It's also interesting to wonder if the 34% of employed students are all (or mostly) working hourly, part-time, or solely on commission. I hope to god I don't go to school to find myself doing anything these.

Yeah, the granular breakdown is pretty much what's expected.

Have you decided on a school yet Rock?

edit: struck through something wrong. I was incorrectly recalling the breakdown, we can figure it out. It's certainly misleading though. Case-in-point: the mathfail above :)


Here's a thought: Refusing to teach you basic math does not make me a troll. Your ridiculous theories and baseless assumptions do border on anti-GMU trolling territory, though.

tesoro wrote:It's also interesting to wonder if the 34% of employed students are all (or mostly) working hourly, part-time, or solely on commission. I hope to god I don't go to school to find myself doing anything these.


I guess you somewhat realize that you're missing a key piece of information that might actually disprove your [strike]opinion[/strike] irrefutable truth.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tylergreenandgold and 5 guests