darknightbegins wrote:What do you all think of the National Jurist best buy law schools?
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cypress ... t0909/#/30
Do any of you have a problem with the methodology? Should they have taken in median starting salary into their equation when evaluating "best buy"? Should they have taken average student debt also into their equation? Is the fact that they only have in state tuition, bar passage rate and employment statistics too narrow a way to classify best buy?
Personally I really started to question how valid these results were when I saw FIU was a better buy than FSU and UF.
I don't know if this thread has been discussed already but if it has I apologize and feel free to flame me for reposting it.
Salary data should never, ever, ever, ever be used in methodologies comparing law schools.
What would be the need for student debt added if the tuition is so low?
Average student debt is really useful when comparing schools of the same cost - at the point of deciding which school to apply to - not once you receive a scholarship offer (at the point, you can calculate your own debt).
Bar passage rate is very important.
I will concede and say that the % employed at graduation is a far better statistic than 9 months out because
1) If you accept a position before you graduate, it was likely one you really wanted and
2) If you have loans, like the vast majority of students do, you will work as a waiter, if need be, within 9 months to pay your loans
FIU, according to the chart, seems to be a better buy primarily because it's cheaper (and still has a bar passage above the state average).
However if the methodology changed to accommodate for % employed at graduation, instead of 9 months out, FIU would likely not be in the top 30.
charlesxavier wrote:
They should definitely take the starting salary into consideration. I mean what is a "best buy"? Sure attending one school could lead to half the debt of attending another, but your starting salary could make you take twice as long to pay it back.
Whoa whoa no...
Salary data is a terrible variable:
1. People don't report low salaries
2. The capacity of the job would have to be reported
3. Schools in major markets would have dramatic advantages over schools that aren't
1. People don't report their low salaries - so every school would have data that is skewed to the high end with only ~50% or less on average reporting (it's that way now - but at least now, salary data isn't used in any form of rankings)
2. If someone is a staff attorney instead of an associate attorney, wouldn't you want to know? I mean some staff attorneys make $100,000 starting, but there is no room for upward progression in that position.
3. If I opened "Aberzombie's Law School for Bozo's" in Manhattan (with a part time program of course - for those oh-so-busy professionals that cannot get into any of the higher ranked schools), and got it fully accredited, I could be posting $100,000 starting salaries on the web page within 10 years. I'd present the data in a manner that would cause confusion, similarly to the way law schools do it now. ~50% of the people applying wouldn't know better.