Fordham vs. WUSTL Forum

[romothesavior]

Interesting JCoug... Thanks for the post.

[JCougar]

Interesting JCoug... Thanks for the post.

No prob. I somewhat misinterpreted that statistic and just edited it, so you might want to go back and read my edits! Doesn't change the overall conclusions though.

[najumobi]

Interesting JCoug... Thanks for the post.

No prob. I somewhat misinterpreted that statistic and just edited it, so you might want to go back and read my edits! Doesn't change the overall conclusions though.

i just looked and according to usnews.com and for wustl only 65% of those entering the private sector reported their salary. is there some sort of mistake? b/c LST uses cites 85%.

EDIT: nvm...85% was from the usnews rankings that came out in 2009. the 65% is from the rankings that came out in 2010.

[retinadoc]

This had to be one of the most difficult decisions ever. I LOVED Wash U. Law...it is a remarkable institution. In the end, however, the pull of a better local network for employment, proximity to family, and the fact that Fordham is also an excellent school won out. I chose Fordham.

[romothesavior]

This had to be one of the most difficult decisions ever. I LOVED Wash U. Law...it is a remarkable institution. In the end, however, the pull of a better local network for employment, proximity to family, and the fact that Fordham is also an excellent school won out. I chose Fordham.

Congrats and good luck.

[jenesaislaw]

Interesting JCoug... Thanks for the post.

No prob. I somewhat misinterpreted that statistic and just edited it, so you might want to go back and read my edits! Doesn't change the overall conclusions though.

i just looked and according to usnews.com and for wustl only 65% of those entering the private sector reported their salary. is there some sort of mistake? b/c LST uses cites 85%.

EDIT: nvm...85% was from the usnews rankings that came out in 2009. the 65% is from the rankings that came out in 2010.

The latest 2010 U.S. News employment summary data is now up on LST: --LinkRemoved--

[romothesavior]

Interesting JCoug... Thanks for the post.

No prob. I somewhat misinterpreted that statistic and just edited it, so you might want to go back and read my edits! Doesn't change the overall conclusions though.

i just looked and according to usnews.com and for wustl only 65% of those entering the private sector reported their salary. is there some sort of mistake? b/c LST uses cites 85%.

EDIT: nvm...85% was from the usnews rankings that came out in 2009. the 65% is from the rankings that came out in 2010.

The latest 2010 U.S. News employment summary data is now up on LST: --LinkRemoved--

I think you guys are doing great work, but I am really confused on some of what you are doing. Are you just taking U.S. News data and putting it into a nice chart? And how do we know what we are looking at in this spreadsheet is accurate?

For example, Rutgers-Camden is first in "total students employed in all judicial clerkships" at nearly 40%. How do we go about weeding out the reasonable statistics from those that are clearly way off?

[JCougar]

I think you guys are doing great work, but I am really confused on some of what you are doing. Are you just taking U.S. News data and putting it into a nice chart? And how do we know what we are looking at in this spreadsheet is accurate?

For example, Rutgers-Camden is first in "total students employed in all judicial clerkships" at nearly 40%. How do we go about weeding out the reasonable statistics from those that are clearly way off?

The most useful thing are the columns at the end -- the ones they added. I like the "% of class represented by salary info" column. You can divide that number in half, then take the school's reported private practice salary median, and assume at least X% of the class makes that salary or higher.

The spreadsheet automatically recalculates the total amount of the class represented by the medians based on % of people employed, % in private practice, and % reporting salary. For example, WUSTL's reported salary info for private practice represents 44.5% of the class. So you take their private sector median, which is $152K, and assume that it represents 22% of the class. Their 25th%ile is $110K, so you can assume that 33% of their class makes at least that much. Such info doesn't take into account academia and clerkships, of which probably another 5% or so of the class can get. These statistics seem believable for WUSTL given their NLJ 250 c/o 2009 placement.

There seems to be some statistics that are very suspect even still, such as American's reported private sector median of $160K and 25th%ile of 120K, with the salary statistics representing 40% of the class. Their 2009 NLJ 250 placement was only 15%, yet they are claiming here that 20% of their class makes 160K or higher, and 30% of their class makes 120K or higher. Which is obviously complete bullshit.

[OperaSoprano]

Interesting JCoug... Thanks for the post.

No prob. I somewhat misinterpreted that statistic and just edited it, so you might want to go back and read my edits! Doesn't change the overall conclusions though.

i just looked and according to usnews.com and for wustl only 65% of those entering the private sector reported their salary. is there some sort of mistake? b/c LST uses cites 85%.

EDIT: nvm...85% was from the usnews rankings that came out in 2009. the 65% is from the rankings that came out in 2010.

The latest 2010 U.S. News employment summary data is now up on LST: --LinkRemoved--

You and Observationalist rock at life. That is all. Thank you for doing this for all of us.

[najumobi]

There seems to be some statistics that are very suspect even still, such as American's reported private sector median of $160K and 25th%ile of 120K, with the salary statistics representing 40% of the class. Their 2009 NLJ 250 placement was only 15%, yet they are claiming here that 20% of their class makes 160K or higher, and 30% of their class makes 120K or higher. Which is obviously complete bullshit.

well after taking into account the percentage of those who actually reported it seems that the top 1/3 of american grads made at least 120k, but even that number seems a bit off.

[JCougar]

There seems to be some statistics that are very suspect even still, such as American's reported private sector median of $160K and 25th%ile of 120K, with the salary statistics representing 40% of the class. Their 2009 NLJ 250 placement was only 15%, yet they are claiming here that 20% of their class makes 160K or higher, and 30% of their class makes 120K or higher. Which is obviously complete bullshit.

well after taking into account the percentage of those who actually reported it seems that the top 1/3 of american grads made at least 120k, but even that number seems a bit off.

Definitely. If only 15% of the class got NLJ 250 jobs, well...there just aren't any non-NLJ 250 jobs that pay that much. So it's impossible for more that 16% of the class to even make $120K. Yet American's statistics claim it's 30%. I don't like to use the "L" word, but those numbers are so far off base, and provided there wasn't an error by US News or the LST website, they might as well be flat-out lying.

[keg411]

I think you guys are doing great work, but I am really confused on some of what you are doing. Are you just taking U.S. News data and putting it into a nice chart? And how do we know what we are looking at in this spreadsheet is accurate?

For example, Rutgers-Camden is first in "total students employed in all judicial clerkships" at nearly 40%. How do we go about weeding out the reasonable statistics from those that are clearly way off?

Romo, those are ALL clerkships, not Article III's. Rutgers-Camden places heavily into Stat Appellate and State Trial Clerkships which aren't Federal Clerkships (which is why the stat looks odd). They've been placing that way forever (and NJ happens to have a lot of those clerkships because Rutgers-Newark and SHU place a lot there too, though not as heavily as Camden; these are NOT traffic court clerkships. They're just state-level and sometimes county-level).

[romothesavior]

I think you guys are doing great work, but I am really confused on some of what you are doing. Are you just taking U.S. News data and putting it into a nice chart? And how do we know what we are looking at in this spreadsheet is accurate?

For example, Rutgers-Camden is first in "total students employed in all judicial clerkships" at nearly 40%. How do we go about weeding out the reasonable statistics from those that are clearly way off?

Romo, those are ALL clerkships, not Article III's. Rutgers-Camden places heavily into Stat Appellate and State Trial Clerkships which aren't Federal Clerkships (which is why the stat looks odd). They've been placing that way forever (and NJ happens to have a lot of those clerkships because Rutgers-Newark and SHU place a lot there too, though not as heavily as Camden; these are NOT traffic court clerkships. They're just state-level and sometimes county-level).

Yeah I know, but you really think Rutgers is number one in the country in overall clerkship placement? 40% of their class?

[najumobi]

Yeah I know, but you really think Rutgers is number one in the country in overall clerkship placement? 40% of their class?

i believe it....they've been pretty consistent....according to nlj 2005 rutgers camden placed 36% of their grads into a clerkship of some kind. that year they were 2nd, behind yale.

[romothesavior]

Yeah I know, but you really think Rutgers is number one in the country in overall clerkship placement? 40% of their class?

i believe it....they've been pretty consistent....according to nlj 2005 rutgers camden placed 36% of their grads into a clerkship of some kind.

Interesting...

[keg411]

Yeah I know, but you really think Rutgers is number one in the country in overall clerkship placement? 40% of their class?

i believe it....they've been pretty consistent....according to nlj 2005 rutgers camden placed 36% of their grads into a clerkship of some kind.

Interesting...

Believe me, it's accurate. Like I said, they've been doing it at least since the 1970's . They just aren't Article III clerkships (which is what most people think of when they think of "clerkships"). It's also how the % of class that works out of the tri-state area typically get back to their home markets.

[romothesavior]

Yeah I know, but you really think Rutgers is number one in the country in overall clerkship placement? 40% of their class?

i believe it....they've been pretty consistent....according to nlj 2005 rutgers camden placed 36% of their grads into a clerkship of some kind.

Interesting...

Believe me, it's accurate. Like I said, they've been doing it at least since the 1970's . They just aren't Article III clerkships (which is what most people think of when they think of "clerkships"). It's also how the % of class that works out of the tri-state area typically get back to their home markets.

How do they do it?

[keg411]

How do they do it?

The real reason? The top schools tend to ignore these types of positions because they aren't "prestigious" and they're kind of considering to be afterthoughts in terms of clerking. The pay isn't as high as Article III's and they tend to be aimed for students who are trying to network into mid-law and smaller firms without going directly into the firm (I'm not sure how much this statistic also overlaps with the 5-10% of the class that gets BigLaw since they typically also clerk and if they have a double-count number in terms of Private Practice and Clerking; if you look at Rutgers-Camden alums at almost every firm you will see that they clerked after school).

I'm really not sure how many state appellate clerkships are available in places besides NJ, though. If you look at the clerkship numbers for all of the NJ schools they are fairly high (Rutgers-Newark and Seton Hall both place a decent portion of the class into clerkships; though SHU's is more bimodal in that there are more Federal Court clerkships, but there are also more non-Essex County Court Clerkships) -- so there are lot of judges here and also a lot of firms like their associates to clerk (for instance, an attorney I know who has a very successful Crim defense practice told me that I "definitely" need to get a clerkship after LS).

[romothesavior]

Well if that's the case, then I sure don't see this strategy being ignored ITE.

I'm still a bit skeptical thought. But thanks for the responses guys. And a big thanks to the LST people.

[JCougar]

It seems to be a New Jersey thing, cause Seton Hall is known for placing people into non-prestigious clerkships as well (which is why they get made fun of for placing people into "traffic court clerkships").

[keg411]

It seems to be a New Jersey thing, cause Seton Hall is known for placing people into non-prestigious clerkships as well (which is why they get made fun of for placing people into "traffic court clerkships").

SHU actually has almost an opposite strategy, as I said. They place more in Article III's, but also more in County Court (non-Essex), at least where it comes to clerkships. The reason people hate SHU so much is that they really skew "haves vs. have-nots" and the have-nots are treated like second class citizens (there are also way more of them). County Court is NOT the same as State Court.

And it should be used more ITE -- my sister said the CS office at her T14 was looking into trying to get more students into State Appellate Clerkships for the students who struck out/got no-offered... but I don't know how successful they were (she heard it through the grapevine).

ETA: I live in NJ/connections to the legal community/blah blah blah this-is-a-credible-source

[jenesaislaw]

I think you guys are doing great work, but I am really confused on some of what you are doing. Are you just taking U.S. News data and putting it into a nice chart? And how do we know what we are looking at in this spreadsheet is accurate?

Our goal is to improve the employment reporting standard. Everything else is incident to that goal. The change may come from schools complying with our particular standard, the ABA adopting our standard (or something similar), or even U.S. News implementing it (or something similar).

The U.S. News data is to drive traffic to the site. It will drive traffic because it is useful - it shows what the current level of information looks like and that certain schools do a better job than others at reporting. With this traffic, we build an even better foundation to convince law schools that prospectives are listening to us. This is why we will release an improved tool that allows prospectives to better understand the U.S. News data. Like i said on the site, that is coming later (hopefully soon).

There are two aspects to your statement about knowing whether the spreadsheet is accurate. First, you could be talking about the U.S. News data itself. You should only trust this data insofar that you trust what a school submits to U.S. News (and U.S. News doesn't audit or correct submissions). I'd venture that it's pretty good, just because it's so easy to hide outcomes in aggregate form. It's less useful for that reason. Second, you could be talking about whether you should trust our transcription. Fortunately, this fact-checking is pretty easy for others to do because this data is straight from U.S. News. I welcome any corrections, though I suspect it matches their site perfectly. Also, if you're aware of any significant deviations at your own school for the class of 2008, please let us know.