Top Law Schools

Looks pretty good to me. 21% either firm with 100+ attorneys or federal clerkships. 67% in full time jd required jobs (only 2solos). 78% full time employed 9 months out.

http://admissions.law.wfu.edu/about/car ... velopment/

Lol no it isn't. You're the definition of a homer based on that username.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=wake


54.4% employed is awful for what you're paying to go there.
another 24% underemployed.

Just no.

goldeneye wrote:Lol no it isn't. You're the definition of a homer based on that username.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=wake


54.4% employed is awful for what you're paying to go there.
another 24% underemployed.

Just no.

LST's report is from the class of 2011, the Wake site is from 2012, which just was released, I believe. I'm curious about whether the class of 2012 had 106/135 in full time long term JD required jobs. Is there a way this is the work of sketchy statistics, and if so, how?

Edit: Nvm it's 106 out of 156, which is about 67%. Is this correct?

goldeneye wrote:Lol no it isn't. You're the definition of a homer based on that username.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=wake


54.4% employed is awful for what you're paying to go there.
another 24% underemployed.

Just no.

To be fair that LST report is 2011 data. It will be interesting to see the 2012 LST report.

K Rock wrote:
To be fair that LST report is 2011 data. It will be interesting to see the 2012 LST report.

I'm curious as well. I know statistics can be skewed in many ways. I'm curious as to whether this is legitimately an increase, or skewed stats. Looks legit to me, but correct me if I'm wrong.

.

Regulus wrote:

Wakelaw15 wrote:Looks pretty good to me. 20% either firm with 100+ attorneys or federal clerkships. 2/3 in jd required jobs (only 2solos). ~85% employed 9 months out.

http://admissions.law.wfu.edu/about/car ... velopment/

This data is useless until the official report comes out because the breakdown by "Employment Type" doesn't tell whether these are long-term, full-time positions or not.... it just lumps everything together. So in a way, they are playing with statistics on their website by not showing this.

Either way, these are by no means "pretty good" results.

It's not useless at all. Knowing that more than 20% students either had either a firm with 100+ attorneys or a federal clerkship shows that more students got the best non-PI (assuming the clerkship people will go to a firm) outcomes. Given 2 solos, 3 school employed and a handful of jd not required jobs shows that very few grads are counted as employed without legitimate jobs. The only missing piece is I'd love to see salary info.

Regulus wrote:

Wakelaw15 wrote:Looks pretty good to me. 20% either firm with 100+ attorneys or federal clerkships. 2/3 in jd required jobs (only 2solos). ~85% employed 9 months out.

http://admissions.law.wfu.edu/about/car ... velopment/

This data is useless until the official report comes out because the breakdown by "Employment Type" doesn't tell whether these are long-term, full-time positions or not.... it just lumps everything together. So in a way, they are playing with statistics on their website by not showing this.

Either way, these are by no means "pretty good" results.

I don't follow. The first chart on the page shows that 122/156 students have long term positions.

.

Tagged - curious to see how LST reports in comparison to these numbers.

What is the confusion? 106 in full-time, long-term JD-required jobs. 33 in 100+federal clerkships. The only thing it is missing is salary data.

empyreanrrv wrote:What is the confusion? 106 in full-time, long-term JD-required jobs. 33 in 100+federal clerkships. The only thing it is missing is salary data.

There's no confusion. No one should pay anything more than nominal tuition for numbers like those.

Wake Forest to 28

justonemoregame wrote:Wake Forest to 28

I think Wake will be moving up the chart once again.

It will be interesting to see how these numbers compare to other peer schools, but my guess is that the schools with better numbers are going to post quickly while 0L are in the decision process.

My main point is that these numbers are a considerable improvement from c/o 2011 at WFU.

Wakelaw15 wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:Wake Forest to 28

I think Wake will be moving up the chart once again.

It will be interesting to see how these numbers compare to other peer schools, but my guess is that the schools with better numbers are going to post quickly while 0L are in the decision process.

My main point is that these numbers are a considerable improvement from c/o 2011 at WFU.

Hopefully other schools copy this Wake model -- cut class size so drastically you're percentages are mildly better than peers, there are still only so many jerbs in NC broheim.

Ruxin1 wrote:

Wakelaw15 wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:Wake Forest to 28

I think Wake will be moving up the chart once again.

It will be interesting to see how these numbers compare to other peer schools, but my guess is that the schools with better numbers are going to post quickly while 0L are in the decision process.

My main point is that these numbers are a considerable improvement from c/o 2011 at WFU.

Hopefully other schools copy this Wake model -- cut class size so drastically you're percentages are mildly better than peers, there are still only so many jerbs in NC broheim.

This data reflects the class of 2012, which has 156 students. The class of 2015 has ~120 students. Also, all of this information is % based and not absolute numbers. So basically, I have no idea what you're talking about. Not only are the absolute numbers getting better, but the %s are getting better.

Rankings do not matter. If you want to work in Carolina, go to Duke, then maybe UNC in-state tuition, then Wake at full scholarship.

These employment numbers might be improved but they do not justify paying to go there.

Wakelaw15 wrote:

Ruxin1 wrote:

Wakelaw15 wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:Wake Forest to 28

I think Wake will be moving up the chart once again.

It will be interesting to see how these numbers compare to other peer schools, but my guess is that the schools with better numbers are going to post quickly while 0L are in the decision process.

My main point is that these numbers are a considerable improvement from c/o 2011 at WFU.

Hopefully other schools copy this Wake model -- cut class size so drastically you're percentages are mildly better than peers, there are still only so many jerbs in NC broheim.

This data reflects the class of 2012, which has 156 students. The class of 2015 has ~120 students. Also, all of this information is % based and not absolute numbers. So basically, I have no idea what you're talking about. Not only are the absolute numbers getting better, but the %s are getting better.

Im saying that class size is probably one of the lowest in the entire country. It's like Bama's more schools should adopt.

Regulus wrote: No, with the way they've posted the data, it IS useless. Those could all be part-time, short-term jobs for all you know. Do you notice how there are 118 full-time, long-term, JD-required positions at the top of the page, but then there are 135 people employed under the "Employed Type" section? This means that 17 of those positions were not full-time, long-term, JD-required positions. Chances are that most of those positions ended up in business and industry, but without the actual breakdown we just don't know.

What are you talking about? It clearly differentiates between full time long term and full time short term.

.

Regulus wrote: Ugh...... how are you all not seeing this? Click on the link provided in the OP. Scroll down until you see "Employment Type". This category - the most important category - is not broken down by full-time, long-term, JD-required versus other types of employment.

If you still don't know what I'm talking about, go here and download the 2011 data sheet for Wake Forest. A couple (2/19 = 11%) of last year's positions in law firms with more than 100 attorneys were not FTLTJD. The same thing with clerkships; 10% (1/10) were not FTLTJD.

You are definitely right that some of the biglaw jobs might not be FTLTJD, but the employment type info comes from the chart above. 135 total employed, 106 FTLTJD jobs. You are right that we don't know exactly which jobs are which, but the 106/156 FTLTJD jobs is still correct.

.

Regulus wrote:

slawww wrote:

Regulus wrote: Ugh...... how are you all not seeing this? Click on the link provided in the OP. Scroll down until you see "Employment Type". This category - the most important category - is not broken down by full-time, long-term, JD-required versus other types of employment.

If you still don't know what I'm talking about, go here and download the 2011 data sheet for Wake Forest. A couple (2/19 = 11%) of last year's positions in law firms with more than 100 attorneys were not FTLTJD. The same thing with clerkships; 10% (1/10) were not FTLTJD.

You are definitely right that some of the biglaw jobs might not be FTLTJD, but the employment type info comes from the chart above. 135 total employed, 106 FTLTJD jobs. You are right that we don't know exactly which jobs are which, but the 106/156 FTLTJD jobs is still correct.

I never said that the data at the top of the page (FTLTJD: 106/156) is wrong, or even that the data under "Employment Types" is wrong. What I am saying is that the data under "Employment Types" isn't particularly useful without knowing the detailed breakdown that shows which of these jobs were FTLTJD and which weren't.

The reasoning behind this is that there are 106 FLTLJD positions in total. However, in the breakdown under "Employment Type," there are 135 positions in total. This means that there are 29 (135-106) positions among the "Employment Type" section that are not FTLTJD. It is pointless to say, as the OP did, that "21% either firm with 100+ attorneys or federal clerkships" without knowing if these are truly full-time, long-term JD-required positions.

I understand your point, but there's very little room for skepticism. There are 135 jobs and 106 are full time JD required. So there are 29 jobs that are unclear.

1. (29-14): Of the 21% at firms 100+ and federal clerkship, none of these can be the 14 jd advantage. You need a law degree to clerk or work as a lawyer: its a requirement, and not an advantage.

2. (29-2) Similarly the 2 professional positions are not federal clerkship or firm 100+. Working as a federal clerk in a big law firm is not a professional position (the school would never represent it this way).

There are thus 13 unaccounted for jobs. I have never heard of a part-time federal clerkship. I agree that it's possible that some of these 13 people are working part-time for a firm of 100+ attorneys. I think it is much more likely that they are working part-time for a firm of 99 or fewer attorneys, or that they are working part-time in a JD advantage or non-JD job.

Conclusion: Even under the most pessimistic view, these employment stats are a significant improvement from class of 2011.

.

WakeLaw15, why do you keep posting stuff like this? We get it, Wake is good, not spectacular regional school. If you limit your debt and end up in the top 50% you will probably get a job in NC, with an outside shot at Biglaw or Article III clerkships. Not a Harvard of the south, but people won't laugh at the diploma when you practice either. Are you trying to recruit people to go? Or do you just need the reassurance that your going to the right school? If its the latter PM me with your stats, scholarship and desired employment outcomes and I will let you know if Wake is a good choice. Either way, this thread is beyond unnecessary.