Top Law Schools

GW grads employed by the school in full time, long term positions: 80

So basically, you are creating info that is already available in the same form on LST

There are some problems with the ABA data - one is that they allow school-funded positions to be counted as JD-required, long-term, full-time jobs. 20% of George Washington's class of 2012 is reportedly "employed" in such a position.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... ssets.html

Tiago Splitter wrote:GW grads employed by the school in full time, long term positions: 80

^
Reportedly 114 this year

OP- these are not new numbers. We have discussed them here before. Do you mind editing the title of your post so people aren't confused and think that new data was released today.

Also, as others have mentioned, those numbers are too high and misleading. Look at law school transparency. It will save you and others reading this thread time and effort.

As for your questions, I know NALP allows schools to fill out data from people who don't respond. I don't remember what the ABA allows.

justonemoregame wrote:^
Reportedly 114 this year

WTeffingF

Let's take a look at some more numbers:

1. Yale = 87.8%

2. Stanford = 91.1%

3. Harvard = 90.1%

4. Columbia = 94.1%

5. Chicago = 88.2%

6. New York = 90.1%

7. Berkeley = 80%

8. Pennsylvania = 84.3%

9. Virginia = 94.7%

10. Michigan = 75.5%

11. Duke = 82.1%

12. Northwestern = 77%

13. Georgetown 62.6%

14. Cornell = 76.1%

15. UCLA 61.3%

16. Texas = 69.9%

17. Vanderbuilt = 73.7%

18. USC 64.7%

19. Minnesota = 59.4%

20. George Washington = 81.3%

21. University of Washington = 52.7%

22. Notre Dame = 62.1%

23. WUSL = 59.3%

24. Emory = 68.9%

25. Washington and Lee = 55.0%


And there are a few surprises further down the line: UNC is at 68.4% employment, Wisconsin is at 63%, Indiana at 63%, Iowa at 66%, and the list goes on. The markets in these areas may not be is large, but somehow they manage.

Just for laughs, some of the very worst schools put out under 10% employment (scary!), but I won't mention their poor sools by name.

Stop wasting everyone's fucking time -

go to lawschooltransparency

ITT: OP doesn't give a fuck LOL

Links:
Class of 2011: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... d3c&gid=11
Class of 2010: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... PTFE#gid=4

I lol'd at OP's second post. Everybody starts bitching about the numbers being old and misleading and what's wrong with OP and please change the thread title, and when he finally replies, he goes, "Let's take a look at some more numbers."

thelawyler wrote:ITT: OP doesn't give a fuck LOL

Links:
Class of 2011: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... d3c&gid=11
Class of 2010: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... PTFE#gid=4

I think you switched the years. Also did anyone ever make a full chart ala 2009, 2010 (at least T1) for 2011? Or did they stop at T14?

Let's take a look at some other stats, such as from OP's profile:

Good Softs: 2 years of full time work experience, senior thesis completed at Oxford University, plenty of volunteer work.
Bad Softs: White, Male, Christian, American, Middle Class.

Somebody's mad.

This thread has promise

JCougar wrote:Let's take a look at some other stats, such as from OP's profile:

Good Softs: 2 years of full time work experience, senior thesis completed at Oxford University, plenty of volunteer work.
Bad Softs: White, Male, Christian, American, Middle Class.

Somebody's mad.

lolololol

I'm just going to assume that OP is Todd Aikin killing time as an internet troll from here on out.

JCougar wrote:Let's take a look at some other stats, such as from OP's profile:

Good Softs: 2 years of full time work experience, senior thesis completed at Oxford University, plenty of volunteer work.
Bad Softs: White, Male, Christian, American, Middle Class.

Somebody's mad.

+1 op, that made my day

Vanderbuilt sounds like the law school's weightlifting club.

Swimp wrote:I lol'd at OP's second post. Everybody starts bitching about the numbers being old and misleading and what's wrong with OP and please change the thread title, and when he finally replies, he goes, "Let's take a look at some more numbers."

This made me laugh as well.

Here is a new (to me at least ) statistic I found on NALP's site about school funded jobs.

It seems that 1700 grads are in that group and if they didn't have those jobs employment for 2011 would have been 4% worse. About 5% of the class ended up in these jobs.

It goes on to explain the stipend system at various schools.

http://www.nalp.org/sept12research_lsfunded

sunynp wrote:Here is a new (to me at least ) statistic I found on NALP's site about school funded jobs.

It seems that 1700 grads are in that group and if they didn't have those jobs employment for 2011 would have been 4% worse. About 5% of the class ended up in these jobs.

It goes on to explain the stipend system at various schools.

http://www.nalp.org/sept12research_lsfunded

Here's the stat from the report that was news to me:

Stipends are more often paid on a monthly basis, and a wide range of stipend amounts for both full and part-time jobs were reported. Reported stipend amounts ranged from a low of $100 per month to a high of over $1,000 per month. The median was $225 per month for full-time jobs and $125 per month for part-time jobs.

This has to be a typo -- surely "month" is supposed to be "week." If you assume it's "week" the median stipend is the equivalent of an $11,500 per year salary.

As with any employment numbers there are certain nuances that need to be taken into account. For example, U of Florida gets screwed every year (and I imagine Gtown and NYU as well) because they send something like 10-15% of their graduating 3Ls into a tax LLM program. For most of these students it's not because they couldn't find employment but it's because they came to law school to be a tax lawyer. Most of these employment stats count LLM seekers as unemployed so it skews the stats.

tuckerp wrote:As with any employment numbers there are certain nuances that need to be taken into account. For example, U of Florida gets screwed every year (and I imagine Gtown and NYU as well) because they send something like 10-15% of their graduating 3Ls into a tax LLM program. For most of these students it's not because they couldn't find employment but it's because they came to law school to be a tax lawyer. Most of these employment stats count LLM seekers as unemployed so it skews the stats.

There is a specific line for grads in graduate school. It doesn't skew the statistics because they aren't employed as attorneys 9 months after graduation. Anyone looking at the numbers presented by the school can see the number who are going to grad school. It is impossible to assume the intention or circumstances of these students regarding employment.
Just looks at this chart:
http://www.law.ufl.edu/career/employers ... statistics

So there are 18 people in acedemic programs and 50 people looking or given up looking for jobs. None of them were employed.

Paul Campos wrote:

sunynp wrote:Here is a new (to me at least ) statistic I found on NALP's site about school funded jobs.

It seems that 1700 grads are in that group and if they didn't have those jobs employment for 2011 would have been 4% worse. About 5% of the class ended up in these jobs.

It goes on to explain the stipend system at various schools.

http://www.nalp.org/sept12research_lsfunded

Here's the stat from the report that was news to me:

Stipends are more often paid on a monthly basis, and a wide range of stipend amounts for both full and part-time jobs were reported. Reported stipend amounts ranged from a low of $100 per month to a high of over $1,000 per month. The median was $225 per month for full-time jobs and $125 per month for part-time jobs.

This has to be a typo -- surely "month" is supposed to be "week." If you assume it's "week" the median stipend is the equivalent of an $11,500 per year salary.

I hope you are right about the typo. It would be hard to believe a school can count as employed someone they are slipping 1200 a year.