Why is USC ranked so highly?
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:21 pm
Just saw on LST that they have an employment score of 64% (60% without school funded jobs.) How can they be a top 20?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=236443
Because other schools have an employment score lower than 64%? USNWR also places more emphasizes on gpa and LSAT which impact the rankings more so than any other variable. Game those gpa/LSAT medians and you game the rankings.jewkidontheblock wrote:Just saw on LST that they have an employment score of 64% (60% without school funded jobs.) How can they be a top 20?
Because the USNWR rankings count a lot of other stuff besides employment stats.jewkidontheblock wrote:Just saw on LST that they have an employment score of 64% (60% without school funded jobs.) How can they be a top 20?
BigZuck wrote: OP: what schools do you think should be ranked above USC?
They would be over 80% if they hired as many as GW or Emory for school funded jobs. Historically better placement, much higher median salary.. Hit HARD by the recession in the brutal cali market. WEll over 50% in firms over 100 before recession now its like 30. They will recover with small class size(about 10-20% smaller after 2013).jewkidontheblock wrote:Just saw on LST that they have an employment score of 64% (60% without school funded jobs.) How can they be a top 20?
Yep.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Because the USNWR rankings count a lot of other stuff besides employment stats.jewkidontheblock wrote:Just saw on LST that they have an employment score of 64% (60% without school funded jobs.) How can they be a top 20?
It's 35 mainly because of the insane sticker price which is higher almost 5 to 10 than t 20 schools.ymmv wrote:There's a reason it's like 35 on the ATL rankings, which while horribly flawed are still probably more useful than USWNR for most applicants:
http://abovethelaw.com/careers/2014-law ... -rankings/
john7234797 wrote:Their BL + FC is comparable to UCLA.
2013 - USC: 33.6 - UCLA: 39.4
2012 - USC: 37.6 - UCLA: 39.0
2011 - USC: 38.6 - UCLA: 27.9
2010 - USC: 39.5 - UCLA: 40.6
USC 4 year average*: 37.33
UCLA 4 year average*: 36.73
These averages are not precise because I didn't take into account # of graduates in each class.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you quantify this? Like, how many people get jobs like that?MikeJD wrote:john7234797 wrote:Their BL + FC is comparable to UCLA.
2013 - USC: 33.6 - UCLA: 39.4
2012 - USC: 37.6 - UCLA: 39.0
2011 - USC: 38.6 - UCLA: 27.9
2010 - USC: 39.5 - UCLA: 40.6
USC 4 year average*: 37.33
UCLA 4 year average*: 36.73
These averages are not precise because I didn't take into account # of graduates in each class.
USC and UCLA have legit jd-advantaged(entertainment firms and so on that pay better than small-mid size firms) jobs that LST doesn't count though which hurts them big time.
Not sure the raw #'s are the important point of that statistic. To the extent that those jobs exist, UCLA & USC students will disproportionately get them due to location proximity & network.BigZuck wrote:I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you quantify this? Like, how many people get jobs like that?MikeJD wrote:john7234797 wrote:Their BL + FC is comparable to UCLA.
2013 - USC: 33.6 - UCLA: 39.4
2012 - USC: 37.6 - UCLA: 39.0
2011 - USC: 38.6 - UCLA: 27.9
2010 - USC: 39.5 - UCLA: 40.6
USC 4 year average*: 37.33
UCLA 4 year average*: 36.73
These averages are not precise because I didn't take into account # of graduates in each class.
USC and UCLA have legit jd-advantaged(entertainment firms and so on that pay better than small-mid size firms) jobs that LST doesn't count though which hurts them big time.
I think they matter insofar as if its like 2 kids a year then that doesn't really matter. If the point (and maybe I misunderstood this part) is to look at their big law+federal clerk placement and say "well yeah, but there's other good outcomes" it doesn't really matter that much if its just a very negligible percentage of the class.flawschoolkid wrote:Not sure the raw #'s are the important point of that statistic. To the extent that those jobs exist, UCLA & USC students will disproportionately get them due to location proximity & network.BigZuck wrote:I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you quantify this? Like, how many people get jobs like that?MikeJD wrote:john7234797 wrote:Their BL + FC is comparable to UCLA.
2013 - USC: 33.6 - UCLA: 39.4
2012 - USC: 37.6 - UCLA: 39.0
2011 - USC: 38.6 - UCLA: 27.9
2010 - USC: 39.5 - UCLA: 40.6
USC 4 year average*: 37.33
UCLA 4 year average*: 36.73
These averages are not precise because I didn't take into account # of graduates in each class.
USC and UCLA have legit jd-advantaged(entertainment firms and so on that pay better than small-mid size firms) jobs that LST doesn't count though which hurts them big time.
lolMikeJD wrote:john7234797 wrote:Their BL + FC is comparable to UCLA.
2013 - USC: 33.6 - UCLA: 39.4
2012 - USC: 37.6 - UCLA: 39.0
2011 - USC: 38.6 - UCLA: 27.9
2010 - USC: 39.5 - UCLA: 40.6
USC 4 year average*: 37.33
UCLA 4 year average*: 36.73
These averages are not precise because I didn't take into account # of graduates in each class.
USC and UCLA have legit jd-advantaged(entertainment firms and so on that pay better than small-mid size firms) jobs that LST doesn't count though which hurts them big time.
Pretty sure you meant that the other way around.Moneytrees wrote:The reason they are ranked highly is because they have very good medians and have a good reputation.
The reason they deserve to be ranked highly is because they have pretty good Big Law and clerkship numbers. They consistently do better than Minnesota, Emory, GW, William and Mary, etc. in those categories. It's pretty comparable to UCLA quite frankly. USC is extremely expensive and a terrible decision if you pay sticker, but it's hard to argue that it's a top 20 school.