Top Law Schools

More than 1/5?! This is BRAND NEW INFORMATION.

Wait... no it isn't.

bk187 wrote:More than 1/5?! This is BRAND NEW INFORMATION.

Wait... no it isn't.

Are you going to combine this with other threads to make incoherent babble for 0Ls?

Docreviewsux wrote:

bk187 wrote:More than 1/5?! This is BRAND NEW INFORMATION.

Wait... no it isn't.

Are you going to combine this with other threads to make incoherent babble for 0Ls?

You really need to get a life, Docreviewsux. Do you genuinely have nothing better to do?

This info may not be new, but at least it is in a respected, mainstream publication and not buried in some asspie excel spreadsheet on a message board

rad lulz wrote:This info may not be new, but at least it is in a respected, mainstream publication and not buried in some asspie excel spreadsheet on a message board

lolol

Yea, this is one of the least useless/offensive of OPs posts

Wonder how UCLA feels that they used a pic of their law school for the article.

This article reads like it was written by a TLSer, in a good way

moonman157 wrote:This article reads like it was written by a TLSer, in a good way

a seasoned, non-naive tlser would have recognized uva's bullshit numbers. even law school transparency doesn't provide an accurate picture, just better than the alternatives. any system that emerges to make the information better, schools try to game it.

Blessedassurance wrote:

moonman157 wrote:This article reads like it was written by a TLSer, in a good way

a seasoned, non-naive tlser would have recognized uva's bullshit numbers. even law school transparency doesn't provide an accurate picture, just better than the alternatives. any system that emerges to make the information better, schools try to game it.

The article accurately pointed out UVa's school-funded positions. You can't just discount them.

According to the article and graphs, #76 LSU is better to attend then Duke or Berkeley. Sounds right

UVA's SFJ paying huge dividends for dat lay prestige

.

Blessedassurance wrote:

moonman157 wrote:This article reads like it was written by a TLSer, in a good way

a seasoned, non-naive tlser would have recognized uva's bullshit numbers. even law school transparency doesn't provide an accurate picture, just better than the alternatives. any system that emerges to make the information better, schools try to game it.

There was recently a discussion about UVA's school-funded fellowship that painted them in a much better light than the general assumption that they were $10/hr positions working at the reference desk of the library. The article acknowledges that they are better alternative to outright unemployment, but is clear to point out that they're likely the reason that UVA has the lowest underemployment rate out of any law school. Sounds pretty much like what's been written on TLS.

moonman157 wrote:

Blessedassurance wrote:

moonman157 wrote:This article reads like it was written by a TLSer, in a good way

a seasoned, non-naive tlser would have recognized uva's bullshit numbers. even law school transparency doesn't provide an accurate picture, just better than the alternatives. any system that emerges to make the information better, schools try to game it.

There was recently a discussion about UVA's school-funded fellowship that painted them in a much better light than the general assumption that they were $10/hr positions working at the reference desk of the library. The article acknowledges that they are better alternative to outright unemployment, but is clear to point out that they're likely the reason that UVA has the lowest underemployment rate out of any law school. Sounds pretty much like what's been written on TLS.

Those positions should be classified, at the very least, as underemployment.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/uva-laws ... mpressive/

rad lulz wrote:This info may not be new, but at least it is in a respected, mainstream publication and not buried in some asspie excel spreadsheet on a message board

Bam, headshot.

Blessedassurance wrote: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/uva-laws ... mpressive/

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=206863

Blessedassurance wrote:

moonman157 wrote:

Blessedassurance wrote:

moonman157 wrote:This article reads like it was written by a TLSer, in a good way

a seasoned, non-naive tlser would have recognized uva's bullshit numbers. even law school transparency doesn't provide an accurate picture, just better than the alternatives. any system that emerges to make the information better, schools try to game it.

There was recently a discussion about UVA's school-funded fellowship that painted them in a much better light than the general assumption that they were $10/hr positions working at the reference desk of the library. The article acknowledges that they are better alternative to outright unemployment, but is clear to point out that they're likely the reason that UVA has the lowest underemployment rate out of any law school. Sounds pretty much like what's been written on TLS.

Those positions should be classified, at the very least, as underemployment.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/uva-laws ... mpressive/

Exactly. Any school funded job should be considered underemployment.

,

rad lulz wrote:

PM2353 wrote:According to the article and graphs, #76 LSU is better to attend then Duke or Berkeley. Sounds right

Maybe if you put down the USNWR real quick, you'd realize it may be a better choice if you just want to be a lawyer.

meh, it's a bit misleading. LSU may have 4% lower underemployment score, but Duke has an 11% higher employment score. So Duke gives you an 11% better chance of having a full-time, long-term legal job. Not to mention Duke placed 64% in biglaw or federal clerkships versus 7.2% at LSU.

Can someone explain this disparity in employment scores vs undermployment scores? Is it from solo practitioners, FT non-Bar passage required jobs and unemployed and not seeking being excluded from both categories? If so, unless one aspires to do solo practice or a non-bar passage requiring job (or is just going to law school to keep the parents happy and not get the trust fund cut off), then employment score still seems a far more useful metric than underemployment score (if we subtract school-funded jobs). And biglaw+AIII is still more useful for those wanting to make good money and/or pay off lots of school debt.

.

The feds won't give you 260k in loans for UG.

They'll give you like 25K tops.

Yeah, if you use the same skepticism TLS has towards employment statistics for top UGs, almost all of them are close to the worst investments in the world at sticker.

But they do seem to be kind with financial aid so it doesn't happen often that the cost is all in loans.

Regulus wrote:

Jordan Weissman wrote:If we were talking about undergraduate students, these numbers wouldn't seem quite as awful. But JD's consistently dive six figures into debt and give up three years of other opportunities for an education that prepares them with a very specific, not-so-easily transferred skill set (please forget the old saw that "you can do anything with a law degree").

I wonder what makes Mr. Weissman think this...

I understand that students are usually able to work during the school year in undergrad whereas this isn't as feasible with law school, but law students can work summer positions and potentially earn quite a bit during their 2L if they get a summer associate position. Also, the starting salaries of a biglaw lawyer from a top law school and an undergrad from a top university are probably very different, especially if the undergrad majored in something retarded.

Not really. People at top schools can go into engineering, finance, consulting, etc. jobs that don't pay quite as much as the top tier of biglaw, but aren't too far off.

There are a ton of reasons why the employment data is a bigger deal for law schools than undergraduate schools, for the reasons pointed out in your quote and many more.