Latest employment data Forum

HalfStudent · Post by **HalfStudent** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 3:53 pm

Santa Clara 35%?? That's bad news to professor diamond one of the biggest apologists for the law school education establishment. A completely superfluous school in the most saturated legal market.

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:06 pm

Alright, just figured out the issue - Saddle up, for some reason the school funded percentage on there is a percentage of the full time jobs acquired, and not a percentage of the graduates in total. So that list isn't actually a list of full time bar required with school funded removed for example, ND should be at 66.48 and WashU should be at 72.86.

HalfStudent · Post by **HalfStudent** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:16 pm

Effingham wrote:Alright, just figured out the issue - Saddle up, for some reason the school funded percentage on there is a percentage of the full time jobs acquired, and not a percentage of the graduates in total. So that list isn't actually a list of full time bar required with school funded removed for example, ND should be at 66.48 and WashU should be at 72.86.

LST won't make the mistakes so just wait for their report

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:21 pm

HalfStudent wrote:
Effingham wrote:Alright, just figured out the issue - Saddle up, for some reason the school funded percentage on there is a percentage of the full time jobs acquired, and not a percentage of the graduates in total. So that list isn't actually a list of full time bar required with school funded removed for example, ND should be at 66.48 and WashU should be at 72.86.

LST won't make the mistakes so just wait for their report

lol, valid

JFO1833 · Post by **JFO1833** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:32 pm

Sunday is a quiet day for ABA disclosures. These are the only new ones:

94: Louisville - BL+FC-9%, FTLTBR-63%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63%
110: Gonzaga - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-53%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53%
UNR: LMU Duncan - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-51%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-51%

BrazilBandit · Post by **BrazilBandit** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:47 pm

Effingham wrote:
HalfStudent wrote:
Effingham wrote:Alright, just figured out the issue - Saddle up, for some reason the school funded percentage on there is a percentage of the full time jobs acquired, and not a percentage of the graduates in total. So that list isn't actually a list of full time bar required with school funded removed for example, ND should be at 66.48 and WashU should be at 72.86.

LST won't make the mistakes so just wait for their report
lol, valid

Hey guys, just trying to clear this up: should the school funded be the total school funded divided by the total number of graduates?

twenty 8 · Post by **twenty 8** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:08 am

IMHO: If a school claims they have an employment rate of 85% and 5% of those employed are school funded then I’d think 80% would be correct.

Mal Reynolds · Post by **Mal Reynolds** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:18 am

twenty 8 wrote:IMHO: If a school claims they have an employment rate of 85% and 5% of those employed are school funded then I’d think 80% would be correct.

It's probably true that the higher you go up the rankings the more we can assume a portion of those positions are desirable fellowships. I have no idea what the proportion would be and it could be and I wouldn't rely on it to make any decisions, but it's still worth noting.

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:18 am

BrazilBandit wrote:
Effingham wrote:
HalfStudent wrote:
Effingham wrote:Alright, just figured out the issue - Saddle up, for some reason the school funded percentage on there is a percentage of the full time jobs acquired, and not a percentage of the graduates in total. So that list isn't actually a list of full time bar required with school funded removed for example, ND should be at 66.48 and WashU should be at 72.86.

LST won't make the mistakes so just wait for their report
lol, valid
Hey guys, just trying to clear this up: should the school funded be the total school funded divided by the total number of graduates?

Well, if you think about it in the most basic terms, the way to calculate full time bar required employment is to take the number of full time bar required jobs, subtract out the number of school funded employment jobs, and then divide that number by the total number of graduates.

If you do it the way it is being done in the spreadsheet, then you are taking the number of full time bar required jobs and calculating that as a percentage of total graduates, then taking the number of school funded jobs and dividing that by the number of full time bar required jobs, and then subtracting that percentage from the bar required jobs percentage - in effect, you're changing the denominator and no longer getting the actual percentage of full time bar required jobs minus school funded jobs.

so basically, yeah it definitely should and will likely end up being on LST the school funded divided by the total number of graduates, otherwise you're skewing your own results in a way that doesn't really make sense

JFO1833 · Post by **JFO1833** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:23 am

I don't know how LST does it but in my figures I have taken the number of long term, bar required, full time jobs and reduced that by the number of those jobs that are law school funded. Then I divide the difference by the total graduates.

If you were calculating a overall employment percentage instead then you would subtract off all law school funded jobs.

BrazilBandit · Post by **BrazilBandit** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:17 am

Thanks guys! The School funded percentage is now being calculated as (LT FT School Funded/Number of Graduates).

BrazilBandit · Post by **BrazilBandit** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:26 am

Also found Alabama! http://www.law.ua.edu/wp-content/upload ... ummary.pdf

BL+FC = 17.54% FTBR = 73.1% FTBR - School Funded = 72.5%

JFO1833 · Post by **JFO1833** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:58 am

Many new ones today:

47: Wake Forest - BL+FC-18%, FTLTBR-68%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67%
http://career.law.wfu.edu/files/2015/04 ... BA2015.pdf

87: New Hampshire - BL+FC-8%, FTLTBR-63%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-63%
94: Michigan State - BL+FC-7%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-44%
94: South Carolina - BL+FC-10%, FTLTBR-65%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-65%
102: Florida International - BL+FC-3%, FTLTBR-58%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-58%
142: Memphis - BL+FC-7%, FTLTBR-53%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-53%
142: Toledo - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-37%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-37%
RNP: Charleston - BL+FC-3%, FTLTBR-49%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49%
RNP: Roger Williams - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-44%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-44%
RNP: Valparaiso - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-44%

New totals:

109/203 schools reporting:

23,166 graduates:

13,694 - Full Time, Long Term, Bar Passage Required
- 408 Solo practitioners
=13,286 = 57%
- 448 Law school funded
= 12,838 = 55%

2,876 - 101+ Attorneys
+ 661 - Federal Clerkships
= 3,537 = 15%

storpappa · Post by **storpappa** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:08 pm

When does this translate into the great folks at LST updating their data?

Username123 · Post by **Username123** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:20 pm

Woof, Michigan State.

Moneytrees · Post by **Moneytrees** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:32 pm

In a given class, roughly what percentage of people actually want to work in Biglaw? And does this percentage really matter? For example, if you are median at a school that only recruits from the top third, would the fact that a bunch of people in the top 1/3 don't want Biglaw do anything to improve your situation?

BigZuck · Post by **BigZuck** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:37 pm

Moneytrees wrote:In a given class, roughly what percentage of people actually want to work in Biglaw? And does this percentage really matter? For example, if you are median at a school that only recruits from the top third, would the fact that a bunch of people in the top 1/3 don't want Biglaw do anything to improve your situation?

What do you mean school that recruits from the top 3rd? You mean firms only pick from the top 3rd at that school? You're likely boned at median. They only pick from the top third and they can find another drone from another school to fill that spot.

At schools that have 30% big law, I don't think a particularly meaningful percentage is opting out. If people have that option they largely seem to take it (at least from what I have seen at a school that places about 1/3 into big law).

jenesaislaw · Post by **jenesaislaw** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:46 pm

storpappa wrote:When does this translate into the great folks at LST updating their data?

As soon as the ABA releases the data. I can usually turn it around in under 3 hours.

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:48 pm

BigZuck wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:In a given class, roughly what percentage of people actually want to work in Biglaw? And does this percentage really matter? For example, if you are median at a school that only recruits from the top third, would the fact that a bunch of people in the top 1/3 don't want Biglaw do anything to improve your situation?
What do you mean school that recruits from the top 3rd? You mean firms only pick from the top 3rd at that school? You're likely boned at median. They only pick from the top third and they can find another drone from another school to fill that spot.

At schools that have 30% big law, I don't think a particularly meaningful percentage is opting out. If people have that option they largely seem to take it (at least from what I have seen at a school that places about 1/3 into big law).

Yeah, I'd really like to believe that at a school like mine people who have the option actually do opt out of biglaw for PI gigs, but I'm pretty sure it's just wishful thinking. Every single person I've talked to says they'd take the paycheck if they can get it.

storpappa · Post by **storpappa** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:04 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:
storpappa wrote:When does this translate into the great folks at LST updating their data?
As soon as the ABA releases the data. I can usually turn it around in under 3 hours.

Thanks for the awesome info. I didnt know if you use the individual school reports

JFO1833 · Post by **JFO1833** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:14 pm

56: Baylor - BL+FC-11%, FTLTBR-68%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67%
59: Houston - BL+FC-18%, FTLTBR-63%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-62%
127: New York Law - BL+FC-7%, FTLTBR-43%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-43%
149: Samford - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-54%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54%
RNP: Mississippi College - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-47%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-47%
RNP: Nova Southeastern - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-60%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60%

Total (115/203): BL+FC-15%, FTLTBR-57%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-55%

LurkerShirker · Post by **LurkerShirker** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:16 pm

storpappa wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote:
storpappa wrote:When does this translate into the great folks at LST updating their data?
As soon as the ABA releases the data. I can usually turn it around in under 3 hours.

Thanks for the awesome info. I didnt know if you use the individual school reports

OP's spreadsheet has links to the ABA disclosure for the top 52 schools (of those that have posted to date)

twenty 8 · Post by **twenty 8** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:08 pm

JFO1833 wrote:56: Baylor - BL+FC-11%, FTLTBR-68%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67%
59: Houston - BL+FC-18%, FTLTBR-63%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-62%
127: New York Law - BL+FC-7%, FTLTBR-43%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-43%
149: Samford - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-54%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54%
RNP: Mississippi College - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-47%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-47%
RNP: Nova Southeastern - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-60%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60%

Am I reading this right — nearly half these grads are exiting LS without employment?

Tiago Splitter · Post by **Tiago Splitter** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:08 pm

twenty 8 wrote:
JFO1833 wrote:56: Baylor - BL+FC-11%, FTLTBR-68%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-67%
59: Houston - BL+FC-18%, FTLTBR-63%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-62%
127: New York Law - BL+FC-7%, FTLTBR-43%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-43%
149: Samford - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-54%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54%
RNP: Mississippi College - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-47%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-47%
RNP: Nova Southeastern - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-60%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-60%
Am I reading this right — nearly half these grads are existing LS without employment?

10 months out actually

The Dark Shepard · Post by **The Dark Shepard** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:13 pm

20. Minnesota - BL+FC- 20%. FTLTBR - 76% FTLTBR (w/o LSF) - 74%

Latest employment data Forum

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Register for access!

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Register now!

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Re: Latest employment data

Seriously? What are you waiting for?