Top Law Schools

I looked on the ABA's website and didn't see anything about the change from 9 months to 10 months out in calculating employment data. I believed a measure to make this change was passed last August-- anyone know when this goes into effect?

Also, more importantly, I read on the instructions sheet for schools that all graduates from September 1, 2012, to August 31, 2013 were to be included in the 2013 numbers. It just said, all graduates between these dates are to be surveyed regarding their status as of Feb 15, 2014. This made me realize that for schools like say, Baylor, that graduate students are different times throughout the year, the 9 month out numbers are incredibly unhelpful. For example, if Baylor graduated half of their students in December of 2012, and half in May of 2013, then their employment score would actually reflect data from 9 months out for half of the class, and 14 months out for the other half. Obviously this is a huge advantage. 9 months out is like 2 1/2 months with bar license in my state, 14 months out is 7 1/2 months out with bar license.

So yeah fuck Baylor.

So yeah fuck Baylor.

Why? Because they have a sizable number of students who graduate in December? I don't think that automatically means they're juking stats.

Tanicius wrote:

So yeah fuck Baylor.

Why? Because they have a sizable number of students who graduate in December? I don't think that automatically means they're juking stats.

Dude re read. They are following the rules, thus receiving a large advantage. They aren't juking anything, just following the ABAs instructions.

Baylor gets a lot of shit on this site and this shows their employment is worse than previously thought.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

So yeah fuck Baylor.

Why? Because they have a sizable number of students who graduate in December? I don't think that automatically means they're juking stats.

Dude re read. They are following the rules, thus receiving a large advantage. They aren't juking anything, just following the ABAs instructions.

Baylor gets a lot of shit on this site and this shows their employment is worse than previously thought.

Do you actually know how many of the "employed after 9 months" graduates are in fact only employed after 14 months? This kind of matters.

Tanicius wrote:

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

So yeah fuck Baylor.

Why? Because they have a sizable number of students who graduate in December? I don't think that automatically means they're juking stats.

Dude re read. They are following the rules, thus receiving a large advantage. They aren't juking anything, just following the ABAs instructions.

Baylor gets a lot of shit on this site and this shows their employment is worse than previously thought.

Do you actually know how many of the "employed after 9 months" graduates are in fact only employed after 14 months? This kind of matters.

You're kind of a dick.

http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunicatio ... p?id=87573

50 some odd kiddos graduated at the normal time, so 50 some odd kiddos, all of whom will be included in the LST score for next year, will truly be reflective of the "employed at nine months" mark.

I think they do three graduations a year, and have like 140 students a class.

So yeah a big fucking portion of their class (maybe over half, thanks for making me do some research) actually has more than 9 months to find a job and thus be included in the employment score / USNEWS job numbers for rankings.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: So yeah a big fucking portion of their class (maybe over half, thanks for making me do some research) actually has more than 9 months to find a job and thus be included in the employment score / USNEWS job numbers for rankings.

You established that in your OP. I'm asking, do you actually know how many of those students were not employed after 9 months?

Tanicius wrote:

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: So yeah a big fucking portion of their class (maybe over half, thanks for making me do some research) actually has more than 9 months to find a job and thus be included in the employment score / USNEWS job numbers for rankings.

You established that in your OP. I'm asking, do you actually know how many of those students were not employed after 9 months?

How in fuckity fuck would I know that? I don't think Baylor would release that data, Tanicius.

The whole point I'm making is that Baylor and other schools that graduate people in December have a big advantage. I'm poking holes at the data. This is helpful because every year a lot of students consider Baylor, Tech, UH, etc. I have seen applicants say "well, Baylor will probably suck, but it has better employment than Tech so I think I'll go there."

If the majority of Baylor's class had more time than 9 months to find jobs, then there is no way of knowing whether or not Baylor offered better employment chances than Tech. People oversimplify and overemphasize LST data on this site and I like to post things to provide context. Sorry I'm obviously pissing you off again.

You're not pissing me off. You just made a strong statement about sticking it to Baylor that I don't think can be supported. I see no actual evidence that the primary reason they have 2+ graduations a year is to benefit their employment stats rather than convenience their students. IIRC they have had these multi-annual graduations before reporting stats for 9-month employment rates was even a requirement by the ABA. You're free to make a blanket assumption that a significant number of their stats aren't actually employed by the 9-month period, but in the absence of supporting evidence that it's that big of a gap, I don't think Baylor should get rid of their different graduation tracks.

Tanicius wrote:You're not pissing me off. You just made a strong statement about sticking it to Baylor that I don't think can be supported. I see no actual evidence that the primary reason they have 2+ graduations a year is to benefit their employment stats rather than convenience their students. IIRC they have had these multi-annual graduations before reporting stats for 9-month employment rates was even a requirement by the ABA. You're free to make a blanket assumption that a significant number of their stats aren't actually employed by the 9-month period, but in the absence of supporting evidence that it's that big of a gap, I don't think Baylor should get rid of their different graduation tracks.

Dude what are you talking about

Of course I don't think Baylor has multiple graduations every year to game stats

You derped up my thread and now there is no chance of meaningful discussion

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:I looked on the ABA's website and didn't see anything about the change from 9 months to 10 months out in calculating employment data. I believed a measure to make this change was passed last August-- anyone know when this goes into effect?

I can't find it now but I'm like 99% sure this doesn't go into effect until next year.