SHU vs Rutgers Forum

[Nova]

according to LST 126 grads from SHU had private sector lt/ft jd required jobs w the median salary at 130,000... is that just bs?

Well, thats only 9% of the class reporting.

[zoomzoom88]

mmm understood. so its best to assume those not reporting salaries are making under (possibly drastically) the median?

[Nova]

That would be prudent

[dingbat]

shu: top 75% stip
RU-N: maintain 2.8

Ru-N: 12000 a year plus in state tuition aka 13,000 a year

Seton Hall also ruthlessly section stacks so people lose their scholarships

Seton Hall and Rutgers are practically speaking a wash in terms of outcomes (although Rutgers has a slightly better rep outside of north jersey). I'd recommend going to whichever is cheaper - but keep in mind that your chance of retaining a scholarship with a top 75% stip, at a school known for section stacking, is pretty low

*section stacking is when most, if not all, students with a scholarship are stuck in the same section, which is graded on a curve - basically pitting them all against each other so that a good number of them are guaranteed to lose their scholarship (for example, if the entire section consists of students with a top 75% stip, 3/4 will lose their scholarship)

[Nova]

*section stacking is when most, if not all, students with a scholarship are stuck in the same section, which is graded on a curve - basically pitting them all against each other so that a good number of them are guaranteed to lose their scholarship (for example, if the entire section consists of students with a top 75% stip, 3/4 will lose their scholarship)

Huh??

[Wholigan]

LST and Rutgers has a 6.5% big firm score while SHU has 5.5%, so SHU actually has no advantage.

I was using NLJ, which is probably more accurate and has SHU slightly on top in recent years, but you are correct that the difference is negligible and the number going to big law firms is small either way.

[zoomzoom88]

dingbat how is that possible? i think your numbers are off? that would mean 25% of the section loses their scholarship...

[dingbat]

LST and Rutgers has a 6.5% big firm score while SHU has 5.5%, so SHU actually has no advantage.

I was using NLJ, which is probably more accurate and has SHU slightly on top in recent years, but you are correct that the difference is negligible and the number going to big law firms is small either way.

Rutgers has an edge in state clerkships, which often lead to Jersey biglaw (NJ has a robust state clerkship program and the local firms prefer to hire clerks rather than through OCI)

[dingbat]

dingbat how is that possible? i think your numbers are off? that would mean 25% of the section loses their scholarship...

Holy shit. This is what I get for TLSing while distracted. You're right; I fucked it up.

[ndirish2010]

I don't get why people are concentrating on the stips. I mean if OP is in the bottom 25% after 1L year, s/he should drop out anyway, so the effect of the stip is negligible.

[bluepenguin]

I don't get why people are concentrating on the stips. I mean if OP is in the bottom 25% after 1L year, s/he should drop out anyway, so the effect of the stip is negligible.

Plus you're wasting negotiating capital.

[ajax]

shu: top 75% stip
RU-N: maintain 2.8

Ru-N: 12000 a year plus in state tuition aka 13,000 a year

Negotiate the stips away or don't go to SH. You do not want the school to have a financial incentive for your grades to blow.

[somewhatwayward]

LST and Rutgers has a 6.5% big firm score while SHU has 5.5%, so SHU actually has no advantage.

I was using NLJ, which is probably more accurate and has SHU slightly on top in recent years, but you are correct that the difference is negligible and the number going to big law firms is small either way.

I meant to mention that the LST probably includes more than big law since its cutoff is firms of 100+ lawyers. I believe NLJ 250 cuts off around 150 lawyers or so. What are the NLJ figures? I assume they are lower than the LST figures, which should illustrate even more dramatically why going to these schools in pursuit of big law just doesn't make sense.

[timbs4339]

according to LST 126 grads from SHU had private sector lt/ft jd required jobs w the median salary at 130,000... is that just bs?

Undoubtedly BS. Check the salary tab- they could only confirm 10.8% of the class making over $60,000 per year. And the people working at big firms will probably be overrepresented in this since their salaries and employment status are quasi-public info.

[dingbat]

LST and Rutgers has a 6.5% big firm score while SHU has 5.5%, so SHU actually has no advantage.

I was using NLJ, which is probably more accurate and has SHU slightly on top in recent years, but you are correct that the difference is negligible and the number going to big law firms is small either way.

I meant to mention that the LST probably includes more than big law since its cutoff is firms of 100+ lawyers. I believe NLJ 250 cuts off around 150 lawyers or so. What are the NLJ figures? I assume they are lower than the LST figures, which should illustrate even more dramatically why going to these schools in pursuit of big law just doesn't make sense.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... AW_SCHOOLS

[20130312]

according to LST 126 grads from SHU had private sector lt/ft jd required jobs w the median salary at 130,000... is that just bs?

Undoubtedly BS. Check the salary tab- they could only confirm 10.8% of the class making over $60,000 per year. And the people working at big firms will probably be overrepresented in this since their salaries and employment status are quasi-public info.

If you're curious as to why it looks like this, it's because of the salary response rate. Obviously, people working at large law firms have more of an incentive to report their salary, so it will be skewed upward since people working at small law firms just won't answer.

[timbs4339]

according to LST 126 grads from SHU had private sector lt/ft jd required jobs w the median salary at 130,000... is that just bs?

Undoubtedly BS. Check the salary tab- they could only confirm 10.8% of the class making over $60,000 per year. And the people working at big firms will probably be overrepresented in this since their salaries and employment status are quasi-public info.

If you're curious as to why it looks like this, it's because of the salary response rate. Obviously, people working at large law firms have more of an incentive to report their salary, so it will be skewed upward since people working at small law firms just won't answer.

And it's much easier for an administrator to "fill in" the salaries of someone known to be working at a large firm either through self-reporting or Google since it's all NALP data. If you are working for a three-person firm in some suburb, you probably won't be on the website or have a posted salary.

[20130312]

Are they allowed to do that? Seems unethical, at the least.

[dingbat]

And it's much easier for an administrator to "fill in" the salaries of someone known to be working at a large firm either through self-reporting or Google since it's all NALP data. If you are working for a three-person firm in some suburb, you probably won't be on the website or have a posted salary.

No, because:

Are they allowed to do that? Seems unethical, at the least.

What happens is that if someone doesn't report back, they don't get counted. So, if a class has 10 students, and 3 report back, with salaries of $105k, $100k, $50k, the Median salary is $100k (mean salary is $85k)

still very misleading, but accurate as to the data available

[timbs4339]

And it's much easier for an administrator to "fill in" the salaries of someone known to be working at a large firm either through self-reporting or Google since it's all NALP data. If you are working for a three-person firm in some suburb, you probably won't be on the website or have a posted salary.

No, because:

Are they allowed to do that? Seems unethical, at the least.

What happens is that if someone doesn't report back, they don't get counted. So, if a class has 10 students, and 3 report back, with salaries of $105k, $100k, $50k, the Median salary is $100k (mean salary is $85k)

still very misleading, but accurate as to the data available

http://www.nalp.org/lseotf_bestpract

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/ERSS/erssguidelines12.pdf

[timbs4339]

Are they allowed to do that? Seems unethical, at the least.

Uh, have you been under a rock for the last couple of years?

[dingbat]

http://www.nalp.org/lseotf_bestpract

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/ERSS/erssguidelines12.pdf

holy crap - they are allowed to make that shit up. I stand corrected, thank you. Here's my favorite gem:

Additionally, law schools should consider providing national salary statistics, as provided by NALP, because that data can provide a more comprehensive picture of graduates’ starting salaries.

[suralin]

And it's much easier for an administrator to "fill in" the salaries of someone known to be working at a large firm either through self-reporting or Google since it's all NALP data. If you are working for a three-person firm in some suburb, you probably won't be on the website or have a posted salary.

No, because:

Are they allowed to do that? Seems unethical, at the least.

What happens is that if someone doesn't report back, they don't get counted. So, if a class has 10 students, and 3 report back, with salaries of $105k, $100k, $50k, the Median salary is $100k (mean salary is $85k)

still very misleading, but accurate as to the data available

http://www.nalp.org/lseotf_bestpract

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/ERSS/erssguidelines12.pdf

ETA: Also, "Monitor social networking sites, including Facebook and Linked-In for comments related to employment status." What the fuck.

[20130312]

Are they allowed to do that? Seems unethical, at the least.

Uh, have you been under a rock for the last couple of years?

I understand them presenting the data in a misleading way such as the median salary example that dingbat gave, but straight up creating data on their own without student consent is really crossing the line.

[Paul Campos]

And it's much easier for an administrator to "fill in" the salaries of someone known to be working at a large firm either through self-reporting or Google since it's all NALP data. If you are working for a three-person firm in some suburb, you probably won't be on the website or have a posted salary.

No, because:

Are they allowed to do that? Seems unethical, at the least.

What happens is that if someone doesn't report back, they don't get counted. So, if a class has 10 students, and 3 report back, with salaries of $105k, $100k, $50k, the Median salary is $100k (mean salary is $85k)

still very misleading, but accurate as to the data available

http://www.nalp.org/lseotf_bestpract

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/ERSS/erssguidelines12.pdf

ETA: Also, "Monitor social networking sites, including Facebook and Linked-In for comments related to employment status." What the fuck.

The NALP/ABA data for individual schools should be taken with a huge grain of salt, because of the leeway CSOs are given by the guidelines when reporting data. A tipoff in regard to the reliability of this data is how unrealistically complete it purports to be. Anybody who had done any sort of empirical survey knows that it's extremely difficult to get anything close to complete data. But the ABA data has no holes in it at all. For example, when you look at the 192 SHU 2011 grads with bar admission required jobs, 184 are purportedly in full-time long-term positions, while the other eight are either short-term or part-time or both. In other words, SHU is claiming to know the precise employment status of all 192 of its grads who have (or who SHU claims have) bar admission required jobs. That is extremely improbable to say the least. What happens is that the reporting guidelines allow CSOs to simply use default assumptions for missing data. The default assumption here is that a grad is employed full-time and long-term, unless the CSO has information to the contrary.

This, of course, ends up seriously overstating the number of people who actually have full-time long-term employment. Etc.