0L here--what happens to those that finish below median? Forum

[MrKappus]

Not hard to get to 97% employed when you don't survey or get responses from half the class.

That is a very good point. Haha I move to retract. Edit: I do, however, think at least half of T50 grads are getting decent legal jobs. If it were otherwise, even schools w/ morally bankrupt CSO's would have problems attracting students.

[robin600]

The problem isn't the number so much as what that number is supposed to represent. We all know that RA'ing after you graduate shouldn't count in those employment statistics, but somehow they do. I personally think things far more dire at T50 schools than 50%.

If that's true, then what jobs are schools using to pad the difference between gainfully employed grads and their reported employment statistic? UC-Davis, for example, purportedly has 97.3% "employed at graduation." If things are "far more dire" than 50%, what's making up the difference between (hypothetically) ~40% employed in real legal jobs that have futures and 97? That'd be a whole lot of RA's. I very much think the high 90's employment stats are bunk, but I also think you're view's a tad dark.

Not hard to get to 97% employed when you don't survey or get responses from half the class. Just like its not hard to get a median salary of 160,000 when you are only talking about people in private practice, and you only survey a third of your graduates in private practice.

I haven't seen evidence of this happening in T50 schools. Do you know of anything that proves this. Not doubting you romo, I'm just curious!

[romothesavior]

The problem isn't the number so much as what that number is supposed to represent. We all know that RA'ing after you graduate shouldn't count in those employment statistics, but somehow they do. I personally think things far more dire at T50 schools than 50%.

If that's true, then what jobs are schools using to pad the difference between gainfully employed grads and their reported employment statistic? UC-Davis, for example, purportedly has 97.3% "employed at graduation." If things are "far more dire" than 50%, what's making up the difference between (hypothetically) ~40% employed in real legal jobs that have futures and 97? That'd be a whole lot of RA's. I very much think the high 90's employment stats are bunk, but I also think you're view's a tad dark.

Not hard to get to 97% employed when you don't survey or get responses from half the class. Just like its not hard to get a median salary of 160,000 when you are only talking about people in private practice, and you only survey a third of your graduates in private practice.

I haven't seen evidence of this happening in T50 schools. Do you know of anything that proves this. Not doubting you romo, I'm just curious!

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

How much it goes on at T1 schools, I do not know. But at WUSTL, for example, I think Jcougar or someone said that about 60% of the class is represented in salary statistics. Don't quote me on that though. The figure is out there somewhere, but I'm too tired from a crazy weekend to look for it.

[robin600]

I haven't seen evidence of this happening in T50 schools. Do you know of anything that proves this. Not doubting you romo, I'm just curious!

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

How much it goes on at T1 schools, I do not know. But at WUSTL, for example, I think Jcougar or someone said that about 60% of the class is represented in salary statistics. Don't quote me on that though. The figure is out there somewhere, but I'm too tired from a crazy weekend to look for it.

Thanks!
I understand the salary misrepresentation, but employment in general I believe is much harder to fudge than salary.

[romothesavior]

I haven't seen evidence of this happening in T50 schools. Do you know of anything that proves this. Not doubting you romo, I'm just curious!

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

How much it goes on at T1 schools, I do not know. But at WUSTL, for example, I think Jcougar or someone said that about 60% of the class is represented in salary statistics. Don't quote me on that though. The figure is out there somewhere, but I'm too tired from a crazy weekend to look for it.

Thanks!
I understand the salary misrepresentation, but employment in general I believe is much harder to fudge than salary.

I am far from an expert on it, but I don't think that's necessarily true. Employment can be non-JD jobs like paralegals, working for the school, working a non-paid job with a school stipend, etc. Hell, you could be an auto-mechanic or work at McDonald's after you graduate and be counted as employed.

[Burger in a can]

The problem isn't the number so much as what that number is supposed to represent. We all know that RA'ing after you graduate shouldn't count in those employment statistics, but somehow they do. I personally think things far more dire at T50 schools than 50%.

If that's true, then what jobs are schools using to pad the difference between gainfully employed grads and their reported employment statistic? UC-Davis, for example, purportedly has 97.3% "employed at graduation." If things are "far more dire" than 50%, what's making up the difference between (hypothetically) ~40% employed in real legal jobs that have futures and 97? That'd be a whole lot of RA's. I very much think the high 90's employment stats are bunk, but I also think you're view's a tad dark.

Not hard to get to 97% employed when you don't survey or get responses from half the class. Just like its not hard to get a median salary of 160,000 when you are only talking about people in private practice, and you only survey a third of your graduates in private practice.

The following is from the UC Davis Career Services site:

Of the 189 students in the class, information was available on the employment status of 187 students. Of the 187 students, nine months after graduation, 178 students were employed; 5 students were enrolled in an advanced degree program; and 2 students were seeking employment. Thus, this graduating class had a success rate of 98%, nine months after graduation.

When schools like UC Davis actually publish how many students they survey and how many respond, are the statistics still irrelevant and wrong?

[MrKappus]

^ Actually that's a great point, since the LStransparency employment data only shows underreporting for salary stats, not % employed. I'm still pretty sure a T50 couldn't generate/fudge enough jobs to represent a high 90's % of employment if median at at a T50 were "dire."

Edit: Meant to point to robin's post, but Burger's says exactly what I was thinking too.

[romothesavior]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

[Burger in a can]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

Well listen, if only 2 students were unemployed 9 months after graduation, that's a hell of a lot better than the hoards of unemployed kids roaming around my undergrad 9 months after they walked the plank. Even if those UC Davis JDs are working at McDonald's, it still could be much worse!

[MrKappus]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

Not to harp on UCD, but just b/c that's the example we're using...that LStransparency table shows that 72% are employed in firms, PI, or clerkships, which seems to hint that median at a "typical" T50 is far from screwed. Just sayin'. Thx for that website...I'd never seen that employment stats spreadsheet. Wish I'd seen it one year ago.

[romothesavior]

Burger and Kappus, I certainly hope you two are right! I could use a shot of optimism these days.

[MrKappus]

Burger and Kappus, I certainly hope you two are right! I could use a shot of optimism these days.

You're going to a T20 anyway!!

[romothesavior]

Burger and Kappus, I certainly hope you two are right! I could use a shot of optimism these days.

You're going to a T20 anyway!!

T19. Don't lump us in with those TTTs like UIUC, GW, and BU.

[jenesaislaw]

Not hard to get to 97% employed when you don't survey or get responses from half the class. Just like its not hard to get a median salary of 160,000 when you are only talking about people in private practice, and you only survey a third of your graduates in private practice.

I haven't seen evidence of this happening in T50 schools. Do you know of anything that proves this. Not doubting you romo, I'm just curious!

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=114338

How much it goes on at T1 schools, I do not know. But at WUSTL, for example, I think Jcougar or someone said that about 60% of the class is represented in salary statistics. Don't quote me on that though. The figure is out there somewhere, but I'm too tired from a crazy weekend to look for it.

Check out the spreadsheets on LST, specifically within the "U.S. News" category. --LinkRemoved--

On those spreadsheets you can see the % represented by the private salary summaries. For the Class of 2008 information, WashU is actually at 44.5% (~52nd percentile). For the Class of 2007, however, WashU was at 60.2% (~87th percentile).

Now, as far as the response rate goes, it is not as bad as many people will have you believe. Check out this post: --LinkRemoved--. It argues that the picture is really not so bad as far as response rates go. I'm not saying schools have been diligent enough, just that there is a lot data there.

[jenesaislaw]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

As the ABA says, "a job is a job is a job." Also, as somebody pointed out, we should consider whether this is really a bad thing. On the one hand, it is difficult to understand the value-added by the JD if the percentages include jobs that do not require JDs. On the other hand, who are the people who design the standards to decide what counts as good enough employment? Isn't that what we're judging when we say that any job isn't good enough to design a standard around?

And here is the problem with aggregating job statistics like the ABA and U.S. News have done (via their standards) by school. They're dripping with value judgments and you cannot make your own.

[PKSebben]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

As the ABA says, "a job is a job is a job." Also, as somebody pointed out, we should consider whether this is really a bad thing. On the one hand, it is difficult to understand the value-added by the JD if the percentages include jobs that do not require JDs. On the other hand, who are the people who design the standards to decide what counts as good enough employment? Isn't that what we're judging when we say that any job isn't good enough to design a standard around?

And here is the problem with aggregating job statistics like the ABA and U.S. News have done (via their standards) by school. They're dripping with value judgments and you cannot make your own.

This. Working as a barista shouldn't count as employment.

[Grizz]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

Well listen, if only 2 students were unemployed 9 months after graduation, that's a hell of a lot better than the hoards of unemployed kids roaming around my undergrad 9 months after they walked the plank. Even if those UC Davis JDs are working at McDonald's, it still could be much worse!

I'm not going in debt and going to school for 3 yrs. to work at McDonalds.

HTH

[TTH]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

Well listen, if only 2 students were unemployed 9 months after graduation, that's a hell of a lot better than the hoards of unemployed kids roaming around my undergrad 9 months after they walked the plank. Even if those UC Davis JDs are working at McDonald's, it still could be much worse!

Disagree. I would rather be unemployed with 20k total student loan debt than underemployed with 150k student loan debt

[OperaSoprano]

Check out the spreadsheets on LST, specifically within the "U.S. News" category. --LinkRemoved--

On those spreadsheets you can see the % represented by the private salary summaries. For the Class of 2008 information, WashU is actually at 44.5% (~52nd percentile). For the Class of 2007, however, WashU was at 60.2% (~87th percentile).

Now, as far as the response rate goes, it is not as bad as many people will have you believe. Check out this post: --LinkRemoved--. It argues that the picture is really not so bad as far as response rates go. I'm not saying schools have been diligent enough, just that there is a lot data there.

I have long thought this project is amazing, and will say it again (and again, and again.)

I am surprised at how difficult it is to get salary numbers that cover the whole class. My school must diligently track down graduating students... at 72.5% of the class represented by salary info, only Columbia and Duke have us beat. Now, relative to other schools, this is an achievement to be proud of, but 72.5% in a vacuum leaves some room for improvement. It is enough to lead me to conclude that people at or just below median here are not screwed.

[Norlan]

You die. Dun dun dun dunnnnnnnn...

no job offer and tons of debts haunting you

These didn't need to be anonymous.

lol, how dare you revealed my name, jk!

[Norlan]

Once you're below the median, biglaw and government jobs are out of the equation. At that point, you hope for contract work--the problem is that most of that work has been outsourced to India. So, you're basically facing unemployment.

um, move to India for work?

[Burger in a can]

Redacted

[Matthies]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

Well listen, if only 2 students were unemployed 9 months after graduation, that's a hell of a lot better than the hoards of unemployed kids roaming around my undergrad 9 months after they walked the plank. Even if those UC Davis JDs are working at McDonald's, it still could be much worse!

Disagree. I would rather be unemployed with 20k total student loan debt than underemployed with 150k student loan debt

This

[Burger in a can]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

Well listen, if only 2 students were unemployed 9 months after graduation, that's a hell of a lot better than the hoards of unemployed kids roaming around my undergrad 9 months after they walked the plank. Even if those UC Davis JDs are working at McDonald's, it still could be much worse!

Disagree. I would rather be unemployed with 20k total student loan debt than underemployed with 150k student loan debt

Ok. Good luck making payments on that 20k debt with absolutely no income whatsoever.

[Grizz]

I'm certainly no expert on this, but from what I've read, it sounds like schools will report just about anything for "employment" if they can.

Well listen, if only 2 students were unemployed 9 months after graduation, that's a hell of a lot better than the hoards of unemployed kids roaming around my undergrad 9 months after they walked the plank. Even if those UC Davis JDs are working at McDonald's, it still could be much worse!

I'm not going in debt and going to school for 3 yrs. to work at McDonalds.

HTH

I was unemployed for over a year, and McDonalds wouldn't hire me because I went to college and graduate school. I had no source of income whatsoever. Given the chance, I would have slit someone's throat for a McDonald's gig. Maybe once you're out of your frat house and daddy has cut off the monthly stipend you'll lose the elitist attitude.

HTH.

I enjoyed the unwarranted assumption about my monthly stipend (nonexistent for years), you miserable piece of shit. How did assumptions on the LSAT work out for you?

This isn't an elitist attitude; the point is if I knew that even after going to law school I had a great shot at McDonalds/Starbucks/retail/etc. I wouldn't go. I'd just try to work at McDonalds/Starbucks/retail/etc. now. Just saying "employed" obfuscates the true nature of hiring from a school, that for many students at less prestigious schools their JD won't make them more employable in any measurable way. And a lot of prospective students don't realize it.