Class of 2015 Employment Statistics by School: #TrustTheProcess Forum

[TheProdigal]

Something's up with WUSTL there too.

Nice catch. Was in WUSTL's favor, too.

Columbia's federal clerkship rate is incorrect. It's 5.57% (23/413)

Fixed. At least I hedged my bets on most of them being right.

[zot1]

Nice job so far, Nebby. Are you still gonna add the government info?

[cannibal ox]

Great spreadsheet TheProdigal.

[Nebby]

Nice job so far, Nebby. Are you still gonna add the government info?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=262810

[zot1]

Nice job so far, Nebby. Are you still gonna add the government info?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=262810

Cool, thanks. I had clearly missed the memo!

[pittsburghpirates]

Great spreadsheet TheProdigal.

+1 thanks for putting together!

[GreenEggs]

Okay, I was not originally part of this anti-GULC circlejerk, but if I'm reading this right, nearly 20% of last year's grads were unemployed/underemployed, and on top of that 14% were in school funded positions? So basically 1/3 of GULC grads didn't have legitimate employment 10 months after graduation?



Am I missing something here?

[zot1]

Okay, I was not originally part of this anti-GULC circlejerk, but if I'm reading this right, nearly 20% of last year's grads were unemployed/underemployed, and on top of that 14% were in school funded positions? So basically 1/3 of GULC grads didn't have legitimate employment 10 months after graduation?



Am I missing something here?

Looks like it. That's pretty bad.

[speed_the_loot]

.

[Roundhill]

Okay, I was not originally part of this anti-GULC circlejerk, but if I'm reading this right, nearly 20% of last year's grads were unemployed/underemployed, and on top of that 14% were in school funded positions? So basically 1/3 of GULC grads didn't have legitimate employment 10 months after graduation?



Am I missing something here?

Looks like it. That's pretty bad.

A large chunk of that 1/3 of the class probably paid sticker too; as someone pointed out, GULC is not very generous when it comes to scholarships.

[tsujimoto74]

Okay, I was not originally part of this anti-GULC circlejerk, but if I'm reading this right, nearly 20% of last year's grads were unemployed/underemployed, and on top of that 14% were in school funded positions? So basically 1/3 of GULC grads didn't have legitimate employment 10 months after graduation?



Am I missing something here?

Looks like it. That's pretty bad.

A large chunk of that 1/3 of the class probably paid sticker too; as someone pointed out, GULC is not very generous when it comes to scholarships.

They also take a boatload of transfers, who are presumably paying sticker for their 2 years there.

[Nachoo2019]

Okay, I was not originally part of this anti-GULC circlejerk, but if I'm reading this right, nearly 20% of last year's grads were unemployed/underemployed, and on top of that 14% were in school funded positions? So basically 1/3 of GULC grads didn't have legitimate employment 10 months after graduation?



Am I missing something here?

Looks like it. That's pretty bad.

A large chunk of that 1/3 of the class probably paid sticker too; as someone pointed out, GULC is not very generous when it comes to scholarships.

They also take a boatload of transfers, who are presumably paying sticker for their 2 years there.

2 years of sticker at over 200k! WHY?!?!?! especially when they probably have good grades and $$$$ at the school they're coming from

[seagan823]

Anyone know where to get more details on school funded positions and what they mean? I know some are bridge programs that may yield long term PI jobs for those actually interested in that type of work but missed out on a DA/PD office/skadden/EJW, yet still have legitimate PI resumes. I know another kid from Duke who basically missed OCI and was doing administrative work for Duke law and is now doing contract/doc review work.

[Glasseyes]

Okay, I was not originally part of this anti-GULC circlejerk, but if I'm reading this right, nearly 20% of last year's grads were unemployed/underemployed, and on top of that 14% were in school funded positions? So basically 1/3 of GULC grads didn't have legitimate employment 10 months after graduation?



Am I missing something here?

Looks like it. That's pretty bad.

A large chunk of that 1/3 of the class probably paid sticker too; as someone pointed out, GULC is not very generous when it comes to scholarships.

Nah, that hasn't been accurate for at least a few years. Most folks I know were able to get a reasonable amount of money out of GULC; the school just isn't forthcoming about scholarship money until you ask for it.

I think the increase in transfers is due in large part to the more recent increase in available scholarship money, so it's just a gigantic exercise in juking the stats: throw more money at applicants to boost incoming medians; pull in unconscionable amounts of transfers to pay sticker and subsidize the scholarships of the next incoming class. From what I can tell, most of the transfers seem to do fine for post grad employment, since they were probably high-achieving to begin with, so the ones really taking it on the chin are the kids who just squeak by to get into the school (probably with little merit aid, if any), then perform poorly in 1L and fail to land decent jobs. GULC is not serving the bottom half of the class very well at all.

The thing to remember with GULC—and I'll get flamed for this, because this board can't see past its biglaw blinders—the BL+FC numbers don't tell the whole story. Beyond just the general PI-focus of a larger percentage of the class (in line with Berkeley, which has similarly low BL #'s) GULC puts way more people into government jobs than any other school, and considering how many of those are BigFed jobs, those are excellent outcomes. We do plenty of PI as well, though it's harder to quantify the quality of those jobs. The only truly damning numbers in the GULC camp are the decrease in full time JD-required jobs overall, and the expanding class size, which is the reason so many kids get left behind.

[jbagelboy]

Okay, I was not originally part of this anti-GULC circlejerk, but if I'm reading this right, nearly 20% of last year's grads were unemployed/underemployed, and on top of that 14% were in school funded positions? So basically 1/3 of GULC grads didn't have legitimate employment 10 months after graduation?



Am I missing something here?

Looks like it. That's pretty bad.

A large chunk of that 1/3 of the class probably paid sticker too; as someone pointed out, GULC is not very generous when it comes to scholarships.

Nah, that hasn't been accurate for at least a few years. Most folks I know were able to get a reasonable amount of money out of GULC; the school just isn't forthcoming about scholarship money until you ask for it.

I think the increase in transfers is due in large part to the more recent increase in available scholarship money, so it's just a gigantic exercise in juking the stats: throw more money at applicants to boost incoming medians; pull in unconscionable amounts of transfers to pay sticker and subsidize the scholarships of the next incoming class. From what I can tell, most of the transfers seem to do fine for post grad employment, since they were probably high-achieving to begin with, so the ones really taking it on the chin are the kids who just squeak by to get into the school (probably with little merit aid, if any), then perform poorly in 1L and fail to land decent jobs. GULC is not serving the bottom half of the class very well at all.

The thing to remember with GULC—and I'll get flamed for this, because this board can't see past its biglaw blinders—the BL+FC numbers don't tell the whole story. Beyond just the general PI-focus of a larger percentage of the class (in line with Berkeley, which has similarly low BL #'s) GULC puts way more people into government jobs than any other school, and considering how many of those are BigFed jobs, those are excellent outcomes. We do plenty of PI as well, though it's harder to quantify the quality of those jobs. The only truly damning numbers in the GULC camp are the decrease in full time JD-required jobs overall, and the expanding class size, which is the reason so many kids get left behind.

Yes, TLS creates a terrible optic by only reporting corporate or corporate-proxy work. I don't think anyone on here honestly thinks that the only students with normatively or qualitatively "good" outcomes are those going to firms, and everyone knows many of the best and most competitive jobs fall outside those categories on the ABA questionnaire. The problem with this criticism as it pertains to any particular school, though, is the assumption that Georgetown (and Berkeley, and Michigan), are better than other schools at placing into federal government and legitimate public interest jobs; that's the only way a coherent defence of their lower numbers holds up. And I'm doubtful of the veracity of that assumption. Yes, there are cultural differences that have some explanatory force (like UPenn and Chicago are more traditionally private-sector focused), but those generalisations can't do all the work.

[cron1834]

The problem with GULC isn't the biglaw percentage per se. It's the nearly 200 ppl from that class that don't have biglaw jobs OR good government jobs. Berkeley and Michigan aren't guilty of straight-up unemployment/underemployment like that.

[guynourmin]

A large chunk of that 1/3 of the class probably paid sticker too; as someone pointed out, GULC is not very generous when it comes to scholarships.

Nah, that hasn't been accurate for at least a few years. Most folks I know were able to get a reasonable amount of money out of GULC; the school just isn't forthcoming about scholarship money until you ask for it.

According to their 2015 509 1,111 students (56.5%) paid sticker and an additional 596 (30.3%, or 70% of students who received any scholarship money!) paid over half tuition (inc. living expenses is likely over $150,000 in debt).

[SirArthurDayne]

A large chunk of that 1/3 of the class probably paid sticker too; as someone pointed out, GULC is not very generous when it comes to scholarships.

Nah, that hasn't been accurate for at least a few years. Most folks I know were able to get a reasonable amount of money out of GULC; the school just isn't forthcoming about scholarship money until you ask for it.

According to their 2015 509 1,111 students (56.5%) paid sticker and an additional 596 (30.3%, or 70% of students who received any scholarship money!) paid over half tuition (inc. living expenses is likely over $150,000 in debt).

Fuck that!

[BigZuck]

At this point, I don't think even Andy Cornblatt could defend GULC with a straight face. It's always fun to read people try though.

eta: Lulz:
http://tippingthescales.com/2013/11/geo ... aw-school/

[proteinshake]

any idea when LST will update their site?

[rpupkin]

At this point, I don't think even Andy Cornblatt could defend GULC with a straight face. It's always fun to read people try though.

eta: Lulz:
http://tippingthescales.com/2013/11/geo ... aw-school/

At this point, I almost admire GULC for its moxie. Employment placement be damned—GULC is just going to keep admitting more students and charging more tuition, all while maintaining its "T14" status. GULC is so secure that it doesn't care what the critics think. It's like that scene in The Wire where Marlo shoplifts candy from the convenience store while staring down the store's security guard.

We want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

[Nebby]

Have I missed any schools above 10%?

[Glasseyes]

A large chunk of that 1/3 of the class probably paid sticker too; as someone pointed out, GULC is not very generous when it comes to scholarships.

Nah, that hasn't been accurate for at least a few years. Most folks I know were able to get a reasonable amount of money out of GULC; the school just isn't forthcoming about scholarship money until you ask for it.

According to their 2015 509 1,111 students (56.5%) paid sticker and an additional 596 (30.3%, or 70% of students who received any scholarship money!) paid over half tuition (inc. living expenses is likely over $150,000 in debt).

Oof. I stand corrected and deeply grateful to everyone subsidizing my education.

[Clemenceau]

At this point, I don't think even Andy Cornblatt could defend GULC with a straight face. It's always fun to read people try though.

eta: Lulz:
http://tippingthescales.com/2013/11/geo ... aw-school/

At this point, I almost admire GULC for its moxie. Employment placement be damned—GULC is just going to keep admitting more students and charging more tuition, all while maintaining its "T14" status. GULC is so secure that it doesn't care what the critics think. It's like that scene in The Wire where Marlo shoplifts candy from the convenience store while staring down the store's security guard.

We want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

Great post. 180

[raven1231]

Have I missed any schools above 10%?

Case is 13% and University of Cincinnati 15% I think. So nothing worth posting really.