Colorado-Boulder (sticker) vs. Valparaiso (full ride)... Forum

[flexityflex86]

Try to squeeze some money out of CU. If that doesn't work, defer and retake

Don't you have to commit to defer?

[CanadianWolf]

Ptblazer is offering great advice, in my opinion.

OP: Are you willing to share your numbers (GPA & LSAT) because I suspect, based on your acceptances & waitlists shown in your profile, that you may have been below both medians (somewhere above 164 & 3.61) for Colorado.

Many very highly qualified TLS posters have tried to get money from Colorado without success. Several highly qualified TLS posters are just trying to get accepted to Colorado.

Yes, one must commit via making both deposits & in order to be eligible to request a deferral. However, if you are granted a deferral, then retake the LSAT & score above Colorado's median (which is now expected to be above last year's 164), then you can try seeking scholarship money--but it may be difficult to obtain for one who has already committed.
Most students, I suspect, attend Colorado Law because they want to live & work in Colorado after law school. This should be a primary consideration in your case, in my opinion.

[whymeohgodno]

Why is LST over optimistic?

The assertion that lawschool transparency is overly optimistic borders on the absurd since LST was started based on sceptical beliefs about law schools' reporting of employment.

To respond to both of you:

It was from the conversation between aliarrow (who compiled the 2009 data in this forum) and jenesaislaw (LST founder).

Thread: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3#p4338803

Post and Response: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1#p4319982

Oh. So it won't affect schools without a PT program.

[Grizz]

Also, many, if not most, law school graduates do not end up getting scholarships.

Most potential law students have the terrible financial foresight. Don't be one of these people.

[CanadianWolf]

I think that that discussion refers to part-time employment after finishing law school. (As an aside, Colorado has no part-time students & no part-time program.)

[bk1]

Oh. So it won't affect schools without a PT program.

They are talking about fulltime/parttime employment, not fulltime/parttime law school programs.

[CanadianWolf]

My impression is that law school transparency has good intentions, but information no better than that published by USNews & World Report except, perhaps, than the information supplied by the (eleven) 11 of 198 law schools to LST.

[whymeohgodno]

Oh. So it won't affect schools without a PT program.

They are talking about fulltime/parttime employment, not fulltime/parttime law school programs.

Hmmm, I don't see how it's overly optimistic. But then again I just assume that employed private sector with salaries under 80k as the worst possible scenario so...

[CanadianWolf]

Agreed. It may, however, be overly pessimistic.

[bk1]

Hmmm, I don't see how it's overly optimistic. But then again I just assume that employed private sector with salaries under 80k as the worst possible scenario so...

Agreed. It may, however, be overly pessimistic.

If I am reading what they are saying correctly then (and I'll use an example to show it):

• Salary data applies to only full time private sector salaries.
• The percentage of grads that are employed part time aren't broken down by sector.
• Thus, if your school reports that 50% are working in the private sector, but 1/5 of those were working part time, the salary data would seem to apply to 50% of the grads even though it only applies to 40% of the grads. Thus if you had quartiles of 100k, 50k, and 25k, it would seem like 12.5% of graduates made a salary of 100k+ when in reality it is only 10% of graduates.
• But since the percentage of private sector people who are part time isn't listed (in the example I used 1/5), you don't know how much to downgrade the salary info so the salary info is overrepresenting.

[whymeohgodno]

I'm lost. Stats isn't my thing + I'm not clear on the mechanics behind how LST gets it's numbers so I'll just take your word.

[CanadianWolf]

Basically, it seems that BK is stating that law school transparency relies on the numbers published by USNews--except, maybe, for eleven (11) law schools--and suspects that some of the 80% employed within 9 months of graduation includes some who are employed part-time.

[bk1]

Basically, it seems that BK is stating that law school transparency relies on the numbers published by USNews--except, maybe, for eleven (11) law schools--and suspects that some of the 80% employed within 9 months of graduation includes some who are employed part-time.

LST relies on USNWR data for all schools, and it isn't suspect that some are employed part-time because that is a fact. Let alone that not all of them have legal jobs.

This Colorado chart here (--LinkRemoved--) shows your 80% employed within 9 months (15% unemployed, 5% not reporting).

However, when you dig deeper here (--LinkRemoved--), you notice that a chunk of those employed are employed part time and that a lot of them are employed in jobs that don't require passing the bar. Which results in 63.4% of graduates working in full time, bar passage required jobs.

[CanadianWolf]

This chart shows 72.6% employed fulltime. 6.6% employed part-time. 4.8% did not report (maybe because they are too busy at work ), 1.2% in graduate school & 13.9% unemployed. Is the source of this info. from USNews ? Did USNews get this data from each law school ?

Basically, somewhere between 79.2% & 84% were employed at least part-time 9 months after graduation in a depressed economy.

[CanadianWolf]

BK: In an earlier post in this thread you wrote that less than 65% of Colorado Law's 2009 graduates were employed full-time. I think that that statement is incorrect. The chart referenced above shows that about 65% of 2009 Colorado Law grads revealed their salaries while others among the 80% employed chose not to reveal their salaries.

Colorado Law stats show 80% employed, 15% unemployed & 5% did not report--possibly because they missed the communication or were too busy working or not working or too busy snow skiing.

[bk1]

BK: In an earlier post in this thread you wrote that less than 65% of Colorado Law's 2009 graduates were employed full-time. I think that that statement is incorrect. The chart referenced above shows that about 65% of 2009 Colorado Law grads revealed their salaries while others among the 80% employed chose not to reveal their salaries.

Colorado Law stats show 80% employed, 15% unemployed & 5% did not report--possibly because they missed the communication or were too busy working or not working or too busy snow skiing.

I meant employed as full-time lawyers, which is where I got the 65%. It had nothing to do with salary.

[CanadianWolf]

Then what is your source ?

[bk1]

Then what is your source ?

LST's Charts: --LinkRemoved--

Credentials + FT/PT Breakdown Graph - 63.4% Full Time, Bar Required

[krad]

Of the two, I'd take Colorado. However, I wouldn't pay sticker for CU, and I'm in-state. CU is very stingy with $. FWIW, they would not negotiate with my other very strong offers despite my visits and meetings with various adcoms and support from a high-ranking admin/prof. I wouldn't expect anything from them if you weren't initially offered some $, sorry.

Your debt from CU at sticker is going to be >$140,000, assuming you get in-state for 2 years, little to no income, and that you can stay within their COL budget. 2011-2012 figures have yet to be released, last I heard.

Valpo, with that stip and the way they curve, is probably a no-go. Your debt could be simply COL, but the odds of losing that scholly are higher than I'd be willing to risk at a TTTT.

Best of luck, I think TCR is retake/reapply.

[CanadianWolf]

And what is school transparency's source ?

[jenesaislaw]

All of the data in those charts are from U.S. News. No school voluntarily provided LST with data. The point of the data clearinghouse is to take the best available employment information and make it clearer what it really means. We have gone as far as we possibly can without unfounded speculation.

I'll answer a few of the other concerns from above in a bit.

[CanadianWolf]

Did Colorado report to USNews that only 65% or so of their 2009 grads had full-time jobs that required bar membership ? If so, how many did not respond ?

What is "unfounded speculation" versus "speculation" ? Does law school transparency use "founded" speculation in its calculations ?

[nygrrrl]

All of the data in those charts are from U.S. News. No school voluntarily provided LST with data. The point of the data clearinghouse is to take the best available employment information and make it clearer what it really means. We have gone as far as we possibly can without unfounded speculation.

I'll answer a few of the other concerns from above in a bit.

Thanks for jumping on, jenesaislaw - good to have you clarify this.
Would you do me a favor and start a new thread for it, so we can avoid further derailing OP's question?
Appreciate it.

edit: and when you do start that thread, post the link here so those interested in continuing the discussion can find it!
TY

[CanadianWolf]

He hasn't clarified much.

[nygrrrl]

He hasn't clarified much.

I'll answer a few of the other concerns from above in a bit.