LST Updated Forum

[ThreeRivers]

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/

Shocked there wasn't a thread about this up yet (unless I'm missing it)

[romothesavior]

I like the concept and I like what they're doing, but I've just never found LST to be that helpful. Personal preference maybe, I dunno. I have found the ABA c/o 2010 report to be vastly more useful in comparing schools. Yes, it lacks salary info, but given how sparse the salary info on LST is (not their fault, of course), I just don't see this as being a big downside.

[LSAT Blog]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=183922

[jenesaislaw]

I like the concept and I like what they're doing, but I've just never found LST to be that helpful. Personal preference maybe, I dunno. I have found the ABA c/o 2010 report to be vastly more useful in comparing schools. Yes, it lacks salary info, but given how sparse the salary info on LST is (not their fault, of course), I just don't see this as being a big downside.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=183922

We've updated it and it's significantly more comprehensive than the ABA report.

[ThreeRivers]

Sorry, I actually looked for a thread, but I definitely find this site more useful than ABA because I definitely take the % of FT JD required jobs seriously. Also very easy for comparison perfect while without it I was spending way too much time trying to decipher everything

I think this update makes it a much better site (and I was already a fan)

[jenesaislaw]

Sorry, I actually looked for a thread, but I definitely find this site more useful than ABA because I definitely take the % of FT JD required jobs seriously. Also very easy for comparison perfect while without it I was spending way too much time trying to decipher everything

I think this update makes it a much better site (and I was already a fan)

Thanks, we agree. Before the main use of the clearinghouse was showing how meaningful (-less?) most salary information provided is, as well as some halfway useful stats on job credentials. We did the best we could with the data available to the public. Now we've forced much more data out into the wild, and can do much more.

[romothesavior]

Sorry, I actually looked for a thread, but I definitely find this site more useful than ABA because I definitely take the % of FT JD required jobs seriously. Also very easy for comparison perfect while without it I was spending way too much time trying to decipher everything

I think this update makes it a much better site (and I was already a fan)

Yeah I like the JD-required thing too. Just out of curiosity, where does that specific number come from if schools didn't make a NALP report public?

[jenesaislaw]

U.S. News. We took the % employed, multiplied it by the graduating class size, and rounded to the nearest student. We then did the same but with % in each category and the total employed. Once we rounded again, we did the same for the FT % to come to the FT Legal Rate.

May seem like a lot of rounding but it's the only way to do this accurately and precisely.

[romothesavior]

U.S. News. We took the % employed, multiplied it by the graduating class size, and rounded to the nearest student. We then did the same but with % in each category and the total employed. Once we rounded again, we did the same for the FT % to come to the FT Legal Rate.

May seem like a lot of rounding but it's the only way to do this accurately and precisely.

Forgive me for being dense, but I'm still not totally sure how this is working. I admittedly don't know the details on all the categories USNWR reports, so maybe that's the problem. I am just having trouble seeing how you get from the FT Employed number to the FT Legal number (aka bar passage required) when USNWR doesn't report it. Do you explain that anywhere on LST?

[jenesaislaw]

U.S. News. We took the % employed, multiplied it by the graduating class size, and rounded to the nearest student. We then did the same but with % in each category and the total employed. Once we rounded again, we did the same for the FT % to come to the FT Legal Rate.

May seem like a lot of rounding but it's the only way to do this accurately and precisely.

Forgive me for being dense, but I'm still not totally sure how this is working. I admittedly don't know the details on all the categories USNWR reports, so maybe that's the problem. I am just having trouble seeing how you get from the FT Employed number to the FT Legal number (aka bar passage required) when USNWR doesn't report it. Do you explain that anywhere on LST?

We're going to add all explanations this week.

Let's walk through an example: Emory, http://premium.usnews.com/best-graduate ... -prospects

Total Grads: 254
Employed Grads: 231 (254 x 90.9% employed = 230.89. Round to 231.)
Employed - Bar Passage Required: 196 (231 x 85% = 196.35. Round to 196.)
Employed - Bar Passage Required, Full-Time: 181 (196 x 92.3% = 180.91. Round to 181.)

Legal Rate is 196/254 (77.2%). FT Legal rate is 181/254 (71.3%).

[romothesavior]

Ah okay gotcha. I wasn't aware that USNWR still reports "Bar Passage Required." I was under the impression they didn't since the ABA didn't require in for the 2011 report. Thanks!