Top Law Schools

dd235 wrote:

VAUDC2016 wrote:

Nova wrote:

UDC wrote:•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.

VAUDC2016 wrote:

cron1834 wrote:

VAUDC2016 wrote:

cron1834 wrote:
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.

scottidsntknow wrote:I think OP is willfully ignorant and also and adcomm.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:The other issue here is that there's no reasonable way to argue that UDC gives you a better legal education than schools with better employment prospects. I'm not saying it's worse, but you can get a good legal education at literally every law school in the country. And most of those schools will also give you better job prospects.

I'd also like to know what makes the statistics at LST scant and narrowly tailored. Again, what are they leaving out?

cron1834 wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:I think OP is willfully ignorant and also and adcomm.

A good bet.

VAUDC2016 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:The other issue here is that there's no reasonable way to argue that UDC gives you a better legal education than schools with better employment prospects. I'm not saying it's worse, but you can get a good legal education at literally every law school in the country. And most of those schools will also give you better job prospects.

I'd also like to know what makes the statistics at LST scant and narrowly tailored. Again, what are they leaving out?

Good question: The LST statistics are scant and narrowly tailored because, to my knowledge, they generally present sample averages whose values may only offer meager predictive value. The sample averages hardly take into consideration UDC's volunteer work, clinics (which has recently been ranked #3 among all law schools by the ABA: --LinkRemoved-- ), location benefits, etc.

Next I want to address the flip-side of your question: what do the statistics include? Based on the limited information offered by the bare statistics, you could conclude that UC Irvine is a better school than Yale based on employment (http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other). This demonstrates that only unreliable predictions can be made on such figures.

ManoftheHour wrote:Lmao...this place is TTTT, dawg.

VAUDC2016 wrote:

ManoftheHour wrote:Lmao...this place is TTTT, dawg.

What difference does it make if it's a TTTT or even a PPPP for that matter? Do you think a judge is going to look at that before making a ruling on the merits?

Alternatively, it's simple economics: rational firms want the most productive workers (all things being equal). Therefore, if you went to a TTTT or T school, it would only matter insofar as it affects what you can bring to an employer. Do you really think a T teaches a lot material than what is covered in a TTTT school?

VAUDC2016 wrote: Thank you for your reply, but with all due respect, I think you misunderstood my analogy. Just as calories provide only one measure of the potential value, it does not provide a conclusive measure. In fact, something that is very low in calories, but also has no nutrients might be worse for you than something that is high in calories but also high in nutrients.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

VAUDC2016 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:The other issue here is that there's no reasonable way to argue that UDC gives you a better legal education than schools with better employment prospects. I'm not saying it's worse, but you can get a good legal education at literally every law school in the country. And most of those schools will also give you better job prospects.

I'd also like to know what makes the statistics at LST scant and narrowly tailored. Again, what are they leaving out?

Good question: The LST statistics are scant and narrowly tailored because, to my knowledge, they generally present sample averages whose values may only offer meager predictive value. The sample averages hardly take into consideration UDC's volunteer work, clinics (which has recently been ranked #3 among all law schools by the ABA: --LinkRemoved-- ), location benefits, etc.

Next I want to address the flip-side of your question: what do the statistics include? Based on the limited information offered by the bare statistics, you could conclude that UC Irvine is a better school than Yale based on employment (http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other). This demonstrates that only unreliable predictions can be made on such figures.

What do you mean by sample averages? LST reports the outcomes for the students in a class for a given year. They're not samples or averages - they're the percentages of students in each kind of job. Volunteer work and clinics are all well and good, but other law schools offer them as well.

To the example you chose, UCI's statistics are based on a class of 56 students and include a higher underemployment score than Yale's. Also, if you click through to the more detailed profiles, LST provides further statistics that enable you to compare the schools, and would let you see that Yale places more students in bigger firms and more students in clerkships than UCI. So I don't think most people would in fact conclude that UCI is better based on only the overall employment score - because they'd look at all the other statistics that the site provides to make an educated assessment.

As for what the statistics include: you could check out LST's methodology here: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=9. It's pretty comprehensive and complex.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

VAUDC2016 wrote:

ManoftheHour wrote:Lmao...this place is TTTT, dawg.

What difference does it make if it's a TTTT or even a PPPP for that matter? Do you think a judge is going to look at that before making a ruling on the merits?

Alternatively, it's simple economics: rational firms want the most productive workers (all things being equal). Therefore, if you went to a TTTT or T school, it would only matter insofar as it affects what you can bring to an employer. Do you really think a T teaches a lot material than what is covered in a TTTT school?

Then why do so few employers want to hire graduates of UDC? Are you saying that the 43% of people who graduate UDC unemployed don't want legal jobs?

ManoftheHour wrote:I think you should retake.

VAUDC2016 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

VAUDC2016 wrote:

ManoftheHour wrote:Lmao...this place is TTTT, dawg.

What difference does it make if it's a TTTT or even a PPPP for that matter? Do you think a judge is going to look at that before making a ruling on the merits?

Alternatively, it's simple economics: rational firms want the most productive workers (all things being equal). Therefore, if you went to a TTTT or T school, it would only matter insofar as it affects what you can bring to an employer. Do you really think a T teaches a lot material than what is covered in a TTTT school?

Then why do so few employers want to hire graduates of UDC? Are you saying that the 43% of people who graduate UDC unemployed don't want legal jobs?

I've addressed that question earlier in the forum. There are several possible reasons: perhaps instead of pandering to market demands in the given time frame, UDC's curriculum may be guided more by its mission. Additional reasons could be due to UDC's female majority student body or DC's competitive lawyer market. Either way, you can see how statistics could be overlooking important factors.

cron1834 wrote:

VAUDC2016 wrote: Thank you for your reply, but with all due respect, I think you misunderstood my analogy. Just as calories provide only one measure of the potential value, it does not provide a conclusive measure. In fact, something that is very low in calories, but also has no nutrients might be worse for you than something that is high in calories but also high in nutrients.

90% of the concern for 90% of the prospective students here is jobs (ie, calories). No one cares about the other stuff, because a quality education is easily obtained at 100+ other institutions. That's not a distinguishing characteristic and therefore it isn't a selling point. This has been explained to you by a diverse group of current and former students. Yet, you continue to ignore this. That is why people are suggesting that you're willfully ignorant or an adcomm (adcomm being the typical person who is actually incentivized to behave in such a way).

VAUDC2016 wrote: Based on the limited information offered by the bare statistics, you could conclude that UC Irvine is a better school than Yale based on employment (http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other). This demonstrates that only unreliable predictions can be made on such figures.

VAUDC2016 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

VAUDC2016 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:The other issue here is that there's no reasonable way to argue that UDC gives you a better legal education than schools with better employment prospects. I'm not saying it's worse, but you can get a good legal education at literally every law school in the country. And most of those schools will also give you better job prospects.

I'd also like to know what makes the statistics at LST scant and narrowly tailored. Again, what are they leaving out?

Good question: The LST statistics are scant and narrowly tailored because, to my knowledge, they generally present sample averages whose values may only offer meager predictive value. The sample averages hardly take into consideration UDC's volunteer work, clinics (which has recently been ranked #3 among all law schools by the ABA: --LinkRemoved-- ), location benefits, etc.

Next I want to address the flip-side of your question: what do the statistics include? Based on the limited information offered by the bare statistics, you could conclude that UC Irvine is a better school than Yale based on employment (http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other). This demonstrates that only unreliable predictions can be made on such figures.

What do you mean by sample averages? LST reports the outcomes for the students in a class for a given year. They're not samples or averages - they're the percentages of students in each kind of job. Volunteer work and clinics are all well and good, but other law schools offer them as well.

To the example you chose, UCI's statistics are based on a class of 56 students and include a higher underemployment score than Yale's. Also, if you click through to the more detailed profiles, LST provides further statistics that enable you to compare the schools, and would let you see that Yale places more students in bigger firms and more students in clerkships than UCI. So I don't think most people would in fact conclude that UCI is better based on only the overall employment score - because they'd look at all the other statistics that the site provides to make an educated assessment.

As for what the statistics include: you could check out LST's methodology here: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=9. It's pretty comprehensive and complex.

While the statistics may be based on individual data, what is presented on the website, I would assume, is just the school average. Those numbers may be influenced by outside variables, for example, UDC has a female majority student body. Statistically, they are probably more likely than males to stay home and raise a family. Likewise, UDC is located in the most competitive lawyer market in the entire world. That, too, would have some effect on the employment levels. I think it's a safe bet that if UDC was located in a more rural area (where there's less competition), the employment figures would be much higher.

My intention is to urge people to gain a deeper understanding of the school and to truly consider it with an open mind.