Adopt-A-State completed! Thanks everyone! Forum

[wingding]

"Of the 19.8% of students starting in the private sector and reporting their salaries, the mean salary was $96,981, with 25% of those graduates making over $134,000 [LOL], which is less than 5% of the class."

I wonder who is responsible for each clause.

I added the bolded this morning

[wingding]

The salary statistics could use some tuning up for Newark. It's really difficult to get an idea of how few people the salaries represent. I'd use http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... sals/2012/ as a guide for how to talk about it.

Otherwise, it looks like they removed the debt-finance figures. ETA: maybe those were never in there?

I put those in. They removed them. Then they touched up the salary figures.

As for the graduates making over $134k, my math says 12 (25% of 48 students reporting)
A fact I just put in there.

[cron1834]

Good job. Stay on these vultures.

[jenesaislaw]

Wow.. Really need to keep an eye on them.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[wingding]

Glad someone mentioned this. I went through all my schools again to check to see if any had been changed. While a lot of people manipulated their data (not a big deal to work with), only two of my schools flat-out deleted the Employment and costs sections. One was Mercer Law (officially known as Walter F. George Law) and the other was, shockingly, our favorite law school, Cooley. Cooley is fucked with all the time so could someone help me keep an eye on these two? Thanks.

BTW, did anyone know that Cooley has apparently partnered with Western Michigan recently?

yeah, about a year ago, I think. They renamed themselves to combine both names, if I remember correctly. Something about preserving the Cooley name because it had a great reputation, or some other barf-worthy press release

[Mack.Hambleton]

awesome thread. I wish we could remove stuff that is obviously just misinformation PR crap like stating how awesome their bar passage rates are.

[Nomo]

awesome thread. I wish we could remove stuff that is obviously just misinformation PR crap like stating how awesome their bar passage rates are.

You can and should remove anything that is editorialized. Actual bar passage rates belong in the article. Statements about how awesome the bar passage rate is should probably go. Ideally the entire article is factual and not subject to dispute. It is OK to describe a related criticism, praise, or interpretation but you should be explaining that the criticism exists rather than making the criticism or endorsing the criticism.

And on that note I've noticed that some of you use the word "only" in describing how many students get jobs (ex: "only 48% of students report full-time long-term legal employment). I don't think its a huge deal, but I think you would be more in line with wikipedia standards if you took that out.

[cron1834]

Nomo, that sounds fair. Mine don't use "only." I agree.

[Attax]

I should check up on mine to see how many Texas TTTTs changed theirs