UDC Law open house on March 22, 2014

[VAUDC2016]

Statistics can be deceptive and it's hard to argue against people who can't dig deeper. It's obvious that the numbers could contribute to an auto-regressive vicious cycle inhibiting the school's potential. So I encourage you to gain a deeper understanding of the school and its mission, and form arguments on that basis instead of clinging to scant statistics whose predictive value may be meager at best.

It's worth noting that there are many potential reasons the numbers could be low: UDC's willingness to give students an opportunity to learn the law who would not otherwise have that opportunity (we have students old and young from nearly every walk of life), the students for whatever reason who chose not to take the bar, etc.

I've changed my mind about you, VAUDC2016. You're a cut above the usual shill. Have you ever thought about being a lawyer? Working for the admissions department is beneath you.

Want to make a wager about the predictive nature of UDTTT's job statistics? If more than 30% of the class of 2013 got a full-time, bar-passage-required job within 9 months of graduation, I'll pay you like, .05 bitcoins. We can repeat this game every year until either bitcoin bottoms out or UDC closes its law school - whichever comes first.

I'll take your comment as a compliment, so thank you. To clear up any confusion you may have, I'm a student and not an administrator. I would gladly accept your wager if it wouldn't reflect poorly on my "character and fitness". I encourage you and others to gain a better understanding of the school so you can make more reliable predictions about the quality of academics.

[VAUDC2016]

VAUDC2016, none of this is meant to belittle you or the education you're getting, and if you have a good outcome and are pleased with UDC, that's great. It's just that it's only likely to be a reasonable choice for a very very small population under very specific circumstances.

Can you expand on your reasoning? Please note that making overreaching predictions based on limited data produces inherently unreliable outcomes.

[rad lulz]

I encourage you and others to gain a better understanding of the school so you can make more reliable predictions about the quality of academics.

[A. Nony Mouse]

We're not making predictions about the quality of academics. I'm sure the quality of academics is great. It's also irrelevant. You can receive high quality academic preparation at basically every law school in the country. We're predicting the graduates' employment outcomes. If you don't want a job as lawyer when you graduate and are doing the degree for intellectual interest, that's great. Most people want to work as a lawyer after they earn a J.D.

Also, as I already stated, LST is a comprehensive, reliable site. As others have pointed out, it compiles/analyzes date reported by the schools to the ABA, and it's the same data available on the school's own website. It's the best data we have. If, in some cases, it's not absolutely perfect, it's still the best data on which to base a decision about where to attend.

[VAUDC2016]

Statistics can be deceptive and it's hard to argue against people who can't dig deeper. It's obvious that the numbers could contribute to an auto-regressive vicious cycle inhibiting the school's potential. So I encourage you to gain a deeper understanding of the school and its mission, and form arguments on that basis instead of clinging to scant statistics whose predictive value may be meager at best.

It's worth noting that there are many potential reasons the numbers could be low: UDC's willingness to give students an opportunity to learn the law who would not otherwise have that opportunity (we have students old and young from nearly every walk of life), the students for whatever reason who chose not to take the bar, etc.

What on Earth are you talking about? The "statistics" aren't "deceptive." This is several years of historical data gathered and reported by the school itself. It's not a projection model or a predictive theory - it's historical information that your school provides.

Are you suggesting that the school admits too many dumdums and too many folks who want to go to law school without actually practicing law, and that's why the employment numbers are poor? Even if that were the case, it's still a terrible outcome for someone actually interested in being a lawyer from UDC, because employers do not hire more than 25% of their graduates. Quit lying about this fact. If you're enjoying yourself at UDC, that's great - but it doesn't meant that UDC isn't a horrible choice for someone who is actually interested in being a lawyer. A diverse student body and outstanding faculty do not change this, unfortunately. If it were that easy, every school would have good employment outcomes

Exactly, it's not a "projection model or a predictive theory" and shouldn't be treated as such. In fact, predictions based on such scant data are inherently unreliable. And if you read my previous posts, you'd see that I acknowledged that UDC has had a questionable reputation in the past, but it has dramatically improved in recent years and it appears that it is experiencing an unprecedented transformation.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's not scant data.

[daleearnhardt123]

If this guy isn't a troll, this thread could end up rivaling the Indiana Tech thread as being one of the best this forum has ever seen. Im hysterical at every one of his posts, praying that he (unlike most trolls) just keeps coming back for more.

[beepboopbeep]

I encourage you and others to gain a better understanding of the school so you can make more reliable predictions about the quality of academics.

Never change, TLS.

VAUDC2016, none of this is meant to belittle you or the education you're getting, and if you have a good outcome and are pleased with UDC, that's great.

Yea... I can't really be that diplomatic. This school pumps out 100 grads a year, 40% of which don't have a job 9 months after graduation. The only good thing that can be said about it is that it's cheap, but even that's mitigated by it being in DC. If OP truly is a student having a good experience at UDC law, he should stop giving other poor souls unrealistic expectations. And if OP is an adcomm as is patently obvious, he should get a job at a better law school. Seriously, pretty good shilling (shillery?) compared with what we usually get.

[VAUDC2016]

Anyways, ladies and gentlemen, I have to finish a trial brief. What do you have to lose by simply investigating the school a little more? I understand there are some of you out there who will reduce a school to a number, and some will go too far with your predictions and arrive at largely unsubstantiated conclusions.

For those of you that adhere to reason, I encourage you explore what UDC has to offer. Understand that limited low numbers are not sufficient to support strong conclusions. I can attest that I personally believe the low numbers are a reflection of UDC's desire to avail individuals an opportunity that other schools are unwilling to provide. Understand that UDC's commitment to its mission may have caused it to sacrifice in certain areas (perhaps by admitting individuals with low LSAT scores). However, also understand that we live in a free-market system where jobs are filled based on worker productivity and not solely on which school you attended.

It is also worth noting that UDC has transformed markedly in recent years. UDC Law started by occupying several classrooms in the main campus, it now has its own free standing building. To the best of my knowledge, this reflects a positive transformation in the school's history. Such features of the school are unfortunately left out of the limited data found online. This is (among other reasons) why it's important to do your research before dismissing it based on flimsy evidence.

And if you're in the DC area, come to the open house on March 22!

[Nova]

you are some sort of compensated student ambassador for the school, or something, right?

[VAUDC2016]

I encourage you and others to gain a better understanding of the school so you can make more reliable predictions about the quality of academics.

Never change, TLS.

VAUDC2016, none of this is meant to belittle you or the education you're getting, and if you have a good outcome and are pleased with UDC, that's great.

Yea... I can't really be that diplomatic. This school pumps out 100 grads a year, 40% of which don't have a job 9 months after graduation. The only good thing that can be said about it is that it's cheap, but even that's mitigated by it being in DC. If OP truly is a student having a good experience at UDC law, he should stop giving other poor souls unrealistic expectations. And if OP is an adcomm as is patently obvious, he should get a job at a better law school. Seriously, pretty good shilling (shillery?) compared with what we usually get.

What is an adcomm? I'm genuinely a student (1L).

[03152016]

UDC is having an open house on March 22, 2014:

When:
Saturday, March 22nd, 2014
10 am to 2:30 pm

Where:
5th Floor
4340 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20008
United States

Contact:
lawadmission@udc.edu
Phone: (202) 274-7341

What a natural and totally not suspicious way to end your post.

[VAUDC2016]

If this guy isn't a troll, this thread could end up rivaling the Indiana Tech thread as being one of the best this forum has ever seen. Im hysterical at every one of his posts, praying that he (unlike most trolls) just keeps coming back for more.

Your personal attacks are inappropriate. From my capacity as a 1L, I am promoting the school and offering real reasons to consider it. Feel free to read the thread and offer something valuable rather than purely and intentionally insulting.

[Nova]

What is an adcomm? I'm genuinely a student (1L).

someone who is part of the admission committee

[VAUDC2016]

UDC is having an open house on March 22, 2014:

When:
Saturday, March 22nd, 2014
10 am to 2:30 pm

Where:
5th Floor
4340 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20008
United States

Contact:
lawadmission@udc.edu
Phone: (202) 274-7341

What a natural and totally not suspicious way to end your post.

LOL! I thought I was helping other students by providing this information! I just copied and pasted it from the website, but thanks. That's kind of funny!

[beepboopbeep]

I can attest that I personally believe the low numbers are a reflection of UDC's desire to avail individuals an opportunity that other schools are unwilling to provide.

So let me get this straight.

40% of UDC graduates are unemployed because UDC admits people who are too dumb to get into other law schools. That's your argument?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Anyways, ladies and gentlemen, I have to finish a trial brief. What do you have to lose by simply investigating the school a little more? I understand there are some of you out there who will reduce a school to a number, and some will go too far with your predictions and arrive at largely unsubstantiated conclusions.

For those of you that adhere to reason, I encourage you explore what UDC has to offer. Understand that limited low numbers are not sufficient to support strong conclusions. I can attest that I personally believe the low numbers are a reflection of UDC's desire to avail individuals an opportunity that other schools are unwilling to provide. Understand that UDC's commitment to its mission may have caused it to sacrifice in certain areas (perhaps by admitting individuals with low LSAT scores). However, also understand that we live in a free-market system where jobs are filled based on worker productivity and not solely on which school you attended.

It is also worth noting that UDC has transformed markedly in recent years. UDC Law started by occupying several classrooms in the main campus, it now has its own free standing building. To the best of my knowledge, this reflects a positive transformation in the school's history. Such features of the school are unfortunately left out of the limited data found online. This is (among other reasons) why it's important to do your research before dismissing it based on flimsy evidence.

And if you're in the DC area, come to the open house on March 22!

Why do you continually describe the data online as limited and flimsy? What's limited about it - that is, what is it leaving out? What sort of data should be included that isn't? What do improved school facilities have to do with employment outcomes? Also, why do you keep referring to low LSAT scores? The data at LST measures employment outcomes only; it has nothing to do with student numbers (it's not another version of the USNWR rankings. It's not actually a ranking at all).

[VAUDC2016]

I can see how my postings can seem suspicious, but I can assure you that I am genuinely a student. I only created an account on this website to bring it to prospective students' attention that we are having an open house on March 22. In fact this is the underlying message to all my posts: that you should come and examine the school for yourself!

I am not an "adcomm" and unfortunately I'm not being paid for these posts. I'm doing it because I sincerely believe that the school is being grossly misrepresented. I hope people will consider my reasons, do what's best for them and UDC and consider it with an open mind.

Here, in Washington DC it's nearly 1:30am and I still have to finish my trial brief! Goodnight and good luck with your school applications. Thank you for reading my posts, if you have.

[rad lulz]

Anyways, ladies and gentlemen, I have to finish a trial brief. What do you have to lose by simply investigating the school a little more? I understand there are some of you out there who will reduce a school to a number, and some will go too far with your predictions and arrive at largely unsubstantiated conclusions.

For those of you that adhere to reason, I encourage you explore what UDC has to offer. Understand that limited low numbers are not sufficient to support strong conclusions. I can attest that I personally believe the low numbers are a reflection of UDC's desire to avail individuals an opportunity that other schools are unwilling to provide. Understand that UDC's commitment to its mission may have caused it to sacrifice in certain areas (perhaps by admitting individuals with low LSAT scores). However, also understand that we live in a free-market system where jobs are filled based on worker productivity and not solely on which school you attended.

It is also worth noting that UDC has transformed markedly in recent years. UDC Law started by occupying several classrooms in the main campus, it now has its own free standing building. To the best of my knowledge, this reflects a positive transformation in the school's history. Such features of the school are unfortunately left out of the limited data found online. This is (among other reasons) why it's important to do your research before dismissing it based on flimsy evidence.

And if you're in the DC area, come to the open house on March 22!

Are you being willfully dense?

[PinkRevolver]

LMAOOOOOOOO at this troll

[cron1834]

Statistics can be deceptive and it's hard to argue against people who can't dig deeper. It's obvious that the numbers could contribute to an auto-regressive vicious cycle inhibiting the school's potential. So I encourage you to gain a deeper understanding of the school and its mission, and form arguments on that basis instead of clinging to scant statistics whose predictive value may be meager at best.

It's worth noting that there are many potential reasons the numbers could be low: UDC's willingness to give students an opportunity to learn the law who would not otherwise have that opportunity (we have students old and young from nearly every walk of life), the students for whatever reason who chose not to take the bar, etc.

What on Earth are you talking about? The "statistics" aren't "deceptive." This is several years of historical data gathered and reported by the school itself. It's not a projection model or a predictive theory - it's historical information that your school provides.

Are you suggesting that the school admits too many dumdums and too many folks who want to go to law school without actually practicing law, and that's why the employment numbers are poor? Even if that were the case, it's still a terrible outcome for someone actually interested in being a lawyer from UDC, because employers do not hire more than 25% of their graduates. Quit lying about this fact. If you're enjoying yourself at UDC, that's great - but it doesn't meant that UDC isn't a horrible choice for someone who is actually interested in being a lawyer. A diverse student body and outstanding faculty do not change this, unfortunately. If it were that easy, every school would have good employment outcomes

Exactly, it's not a "projection model or a predictive theory" and shouldn't be treated as such. In fact, predictions based on such scant data are inherently unreliable. And if you read my previous posts, you'd see that I acknowledged that UDC has had a questionable reputation in the past, but it has dramatically improved in recent years and it appears that it is experiencing an unprecedented transformation.

I agree with the other poster who suggested that you are being willfully ignorant. In fact, you are being solipsistic/sophistic here. The majority of UDC students over the last several years did not become real lawyers. This would have to change radically, and the magical turnaround would have to be sustained for several years, for any reasonable person to conclude that UDC is a good bet for gaining a real lawyer job. YOU are the one who is making bizarre claims.

All we're saying is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's unreasonable to conclude that it's not a duck just because there's a freestanding building in the picture now!

[VAUDC2016]

Statistics can be deceptive and it's hard to argue against people who can't dig deeper. It's obvious that the numbers could contribute to an auto-regressive vicious cycle inhibiting the school's potential. So I encourage you to gain a deeper understanding of the school and its mission, and form arguments on that basis instead of clinging to scant statistics whose predictive value may be meager at best.

It's worth noting that there are many potential reasons the numbers could be low: UDC's willingness to give students an opportunity to learn the law who would not otherwise have that opportunity (we have students old and young from nearly every walk of life), the students for whatever reason who chose not to take the bar, etc.

What on Earth are you talking about? The "statistics" aren't "deceptive." This is several years of historical data gathered and reported by the school itself. It's not a projection model or a predictive theory - it's historical information that your school provides.

Are you suggesting that the school admits too many dumdums and too many folks who want to go to law school without actually practicing law, and that's why the employment numbers are poor? Even if that were the case, it's still a terrible outcome for someone actually interested in being a lawyer from UDC, because employers do not hire more than 25% of their graduates. Quit lying about this fact. If you're enjoying yourself at UDC, that's great - but it doesn't meant that UDC isn't a horrible choice for someone who is actually interested in being a lawyer. A diverse student body and outstanding faculty do not change this, unfortunately. If it were that easy, every school would have good employment outcomes

Exactly, it's not a "projection model or a predictive theory" and shouldn't be treated as such. In fact, predictions based on such scant data are inherently unreliable. And if you read my previous posts, you'd see that I acknowledged that UDC has had a questionable reputation in the past, but it has dramatically improved in recent years and it appears that it is experiencing an unprecedented transformation.

I agree with the other poster who suggested that you are being willfully ignorant. In fact, you are being solipsistic/sophistic here. The majority of UDC students over the last several years did not become real lawyers. This would have to change radically, and the magical turnaround would have to be sustained for several years, for any reasonable person to conclude that UDC is a good bet for gaining a real lawyer job. YOU are the one who is making bizarre claims.

All we're saying is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's unreasonable to conclude that it's not a duck just because there's a freestanding building in the picture now!

Thank you for your input. Unfortunately, your statements are very conclusory and I don't see the reasons behind them. As I mentioned in previous posts, scant and narrowly tailored statistics that reduce the school to a number can obviously leave out substantial qualities.

Imagine you had to reduce a food item, to a number, say the number of calories? Certainly that would be a valuable criteria for evaluation (you don't want something that's too high in calories or devoid of them), however, wouldn't you look to other things like vitamins, nutrients, etc.? All I'm asking is for people to be reasonable in their considerations and not to make their judgment based solely on those numbers.

[VAUDC2016]

•25.8% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs.
•47.3% graduates were employed in long-term jobs.
•49.5% graduates were employed in full-time jobs.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=udc&show=chars

ITS A TRAP

I have a strong background in math and statistics and have learned that it is an unwise practice to commit blind faith to sample averages. Those statistics you just cited are hardly a valid basis for making such a defamatory statement. Employment statistics are not a conclusive predictor of quality of education; in fact, if you were to look at employment statistics alone you could conclude that UC Irvine was better than Yale for 2012. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other

I would prefer it if you found more compelling evidence before making such a far-reaching conclusory statement. However, I do appreciate your input.

Note: You should also consider the possibility that maybe UDC is committed to providing the best possible education through its unique character (defined by its mission) as opposed to constantly tailoring its curriculum to reflect what the job market happens to demand at that particular timeframe.

[rad lulz]

,

[dd235]

•25.8% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs.
•47.3% graduates were employed in long-term jobs.
•49.5% graduates were employed in full-time jobs.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=udc&show=chars

ITS A TRAP

I have a strong background in math and statistics and have learned that it is an unwise practice to commit blind faith to sample averages. Those statistics you just cited are hardly a valid basis for making such a defamatory statement. Employment statistics are not a conclusive predictor of quality of education; in fact, if you were to look at employment statistics alone you would conclude that UC Irvine was better than Yale for 2012. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other

I would prefer it if you found more compelling evidence before making such a far-reaching conclusory statement. However, I do appreciate your input.

Note: You should also consider the possibility that maybe UDC is committed to providing the best possible education through its unique character (defined by its mission) as opposed to constantly tailoring its curriculum to reflect what the job market happens to demand at that particular timeframe.

Consider these two school:

School A:
You get the best education ever here
The teachers here are top notch... Better than any other school
The facilities here are top notch
Only 25% of students are employed in full-time legal positions 9 months after graduation

School B:
You get an absolutely horrible legal education here
The teachers all suck
The facilities are really shitty
90% of students are employed in full-time legal positions 9 months after graduation

I would be willing to bet that 99% of people would choose School B over School A. People go to law school to become lawyers. Period.