Why does Santa Clara have 139 results on NALP? Forum

[deebo12]

I was looking through schools which have accepted me, and of all of them, Santa Clara has by far the highest number of employers:

http://www.nalpdirectory.com

Anyone have thoughts about NALP and these numbers? USF, GGU and Lewis and Clark (other schools that accepted) by comparison have far fewer.

[03121202698008]

Do you mean firms interviewing there? This is notoriously inaccurate. Many firms list schools they haven't been to in years. They also count resume collects, job fairs that schools attend, and at least one firm I know of has counted a school they have hired from outside of OCI by mass-mail. All firms in a major market tend to interview at the schools in that market for appearances even if they have never hired from there.

Also, the total counts multiple offices of the same firm...

Edit: It's also pretty paltry. Michigan is pushing 450 on there and GULC is pushing 550. Again though, unique firms are way less.

[deebo12]

No I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. Clearly it corresponds to something. A place like harvard has a number like 500+, whereas a local school like Cleveland State has 20-30. In fact many, many schools have around 20.

[bk1]

Do you mean firms interviewing there? This is notoriously inaccurate. Many firms list schools they haven't been to in years. They also count resume collects, job fairs that schools attend, and at least one firm I know of has counted a school they have hired from outside of OCI by mass-mail. All firms in a major market tend to interview at the schools in that market for appearances even if they have never hired from there.

Also, the total counts multiple offices of the same firm...

Yeah he means places that list they interview there on NALP. And while what you're saying is all true, it's still an unsatisfactory answer why SCU differs from its peer USF. My guess would be because of SCU's rep for IP. While specialty rankings are irrelevant for employment prospects, I bet that SCU's IP rep does actually help it draw more science/engineering majors than other law schools and thus firms come to SCU to try and cherry pick these people because there is a larger pool of them than at USF or other T2 schools.

That being said, honestly SCU/USF/GGU are terrible schools. For example, SCU/USF (which are far better than GGU) only place around 25% of their graduates into full time jobs as lawyers (source: lawschooltransparency).

[03121202698008]

No I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. Clearly it corresponds to something. A place like harvard has a number like 500+, whereas a local school like Cleveland State has 20-30. In fact many, many schools have around 20.

Well, some of that would be because the firms hiring there are not NALP firms and therefore won't be in their directory... There are some relatively big firms in my hometown (central PA) that hire at OCI's at Penn State for example but aren't NALP firms.

To the extent you can get it, it would be better to compare to the school's list of firms participating.

E.g. --LinkRemoved--

[deebo12]

Do you mean firms interviewing there? This is notoriously inaccurate. Many firms list schools they haven't been to in years. They also count resume collects, job fairs that schools attend, and at least one firm I know of has counted a school they have hired from outside of OCI by mass-mail. All firms in a major market tend to interview at the schools in that market for appearances even if they have never hired from there.

Also, the total counts multiple offices of the same firm...

Yeah he means places that list they interview there on NALP. And while what you're saying is all true, it's still an unsatisfactory answer why SCU differs from its peer USF. My guess would be because of SCU's rep for IP. While specialty rankings are irrelevant for employment prospects, I bet that SCU's IP rep does actually help it draw more science/engineering majors than other law schools and thus firms come to SCU to try and cherry pick these people because there is a larger pool of them than at USF or other T2 schools.

That being said, honestly SCU/USF/GGU are terrible schools. For example, SCU/USF (which are far better than GGU) only place around 25% of their graduates into full time jobs as lawyers (source: lawschooltransparency).

I've always both understood and taken issue with using LST as 'proof.' On one hand, I really believe that the burden is on all law schools to accurately show employment numbers - and if they don't / haven't been thorough, we have to judge based on what we have. Even if that means the picture is only a portion of all graduates.

On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to generalize about only 20-30% of employed graduates reporting.

The more prestigious schools and graduates are self-selecting in their willingness to report employment and high salaries. I can think of reasons why other schools wouldn't want a perfectly clear picture of its graduates, but I can also think that its graduates aren't thinking about reporting salaries. Not because they are at Mcdonalds. Because they don't care, don't know to, etc.

But really, the scales tip in favor of your side, since everyone has to be so risk averse about debt. I can argue about how anyone can make it at any school, but overall that person does definitively have a harder time when it's from a lesser school. Just don't think you're guaranteed a perfect job even coming out of Harvard, especially if you're incapable of networking.

[pillowpet]

my friend participated in SCU's OCI this past fall. there were about 50firms with a handful of firms interviewing for 2-3 different locations (usually palo alto, SF). By comparison, USF had only about 20 firms come to their OCI. As someone mentioned before, SCU is known for IP, so nearly half of the firms that attended the OCI required applicants to have a tech degree to even get the pre-screen interview.

[JamesChapman23]

Certainty doesn't reflect in their employment numbers:
--LinkRemoved--

Only 1/4th of the class got full-time legal jobs. That is beyond the pale, even for TTTTs like santa clara.

[bk1]

The more prestigious schools and graduates are self-selecting in their willingness to report employment and high salaries. I can think of reasons why other schools wouldn't want a perfectly clear picture of its graduates, but I can also think that its graduates aren't thinking about reporting salaries. Not because they are at Mcdonalds. Because they don't care, don't know to, etc.

A lawyer from a low ranked law school on here (Reasonable_Man) has posted about how his law school hounds him for information while they don't even try to get the info of those that graduate with him but didn't get a job. Not saying that these schools do that, but it is possible.

SCU/USF actually have a high amount of people reporting for 2009 (latest LST data), though very few give their salary. 97-99% of grads reported. Both of them have 40-45% reporting either unemployed or employed part time. That's before you even start to consider the 30% or so percent of their grads that responded to the employment survey but weren't willing to say whether they were FT or PT. I really can think of only 2 reasons why they would respond but not say whether they were FT/PT: (a) they accidentally forgot to check the box, or (b) they don't want to say. (a) seems unlikely, meaning that (b) is probably the reason for the vast majority who chose not to respond. I really can't think of any reason why they don't want to say other than that they are embarrassed to be working PT. It's not like it's salary and they are divulging something that they might consider personal. I really do think it's fair to say that these people are pretty much all working PT.