Ok so what's the deal with this... Forum

[scrowell]

So i've been reading that y'all don't believe the employment data schools report on LSAC. For example, thomas cooley reports a 78% employment rate after 9 months. Most of you would call this a bucha bunk. What gives? Are they just straight up makin ish up?

[blurbz]

So i've been reading that y'all don't believe the employment data schools report on LSAC. For example, Thomas Cooley reports a 78% employment rate after 9 months. Most of you would call this a bucha bunk. What gives? Are they just straight up makin ish up?

The 78% is likely correct. The problem, though, is that it doesn't specify the KIND of employment. Are those graduates working at Walmart as sales associates or as in-house counsel? Are they serving burgers at McDonalds or defending the company against "hot coffee" suits? Those distinctions are important...

Further, their median salary data is probably misleading because it is dependent on self-reported statistics. People are far more likely to fill out those surveys and return them if they have good jobs. The numbers that come in are the only ones that they report. For example, we'll say they have 10 graduates. If 8 of those grads are unemployed, one is employed for 120,000 and one is employed at 80,000 and the only people who respond to their salary survey are the two employed grads, the school will report an "average salary of 100,000" even when it's pretty clear that that's not the case...

Just be smart about reading these self reported statistics, ask questions about reporting percentages, and avoid making bad decisions.

[holydonkey]

So i've been reading that y'all don't believe the employment data schools report on LSAC. For example, Thomas Cooley reports a 78% employment rate after 9 months. Most of you would call this a bucha bunk. What gives? Are they just straight up makin ish up?

Cooley is one of the rare schools that tells the truth about their employment stats, this is likely due to their midwestern values. The only way to know for sure if a school is publishing fake employment stats is to call them up and ask them. If you ask a school directly, they can't lie and have to give you their true employment numbers. It's kind of like how if you ask an undercover cop if he's really a cop, he has to tell you he's a cop even if it busts his case. Or if you ask a vampire if he's really a vampire. Make sure you get them on record and if you think their answer still sounds fishy, just ask "for reals?" They can't dodge that.

[LoyolaLaw2012]

This will end swimmingly

[scrowell]

Cooley is one of the rare schools that tells the truth about their employment stats, this is likely due to their midwestern values. The only way to know for sure if a school is publishing fake employment stats is to call them up and ask them. If you ask a school directly, they can't lie and have to give you their true employment numbers. It's kind of like how if you ask an undercover cop if he's really a cop, he has to tell you he's a cop even if it busts his case. Or if you ask a vampire if he's really a vampire. Make sure you get them on record and if you think their answer still sounds fishy, just ask "for reals?" They can't dodge that.

So why can they lie to LSAC? And for the record, I did ask someone if they were a vampire. He said no, I turned and walked away, and then he bit me on the neck! Spend the night in the ER, brutal!

And thanks for the info everyone. Is the general consensus that schools just lie to LSAC (other than Cooley)?

[blurbz]

Is the general consensus that schools just lie to LSAC (other than Cooley)?

Yeah, pretty much. I've had some good conversations with people in admissions at various schools about the process by which they arrive at the numbers that they ultimately report. These conversations definitely helped me make my decision about where to attend: Some schools are more honest than others. I really do recommend you have similar conversations once you have a list of schools you are considering attending.

[ggocat]

LSAC doesn't collect employment data.

The ABA and NALP collect 9-month employment data.

Only US News collects at-graduation employment data.

Schools don't "lie." They fudge. Or they don't collect adequate information from unemployed grads.

[scrowell]

Is the general consensus that schools just lie to LSAC (other than Cooley)?

Yeah, pretty much. I've had some good conversations with people in admissions at various schools about the process by which they arrive at the numbers that they ultimately report. These conversations definitely helped me make my decision about where to attend: Some schools are more honest than others. I really do recommend you have similar conversations once you have a list of schools you are considering attending.

Coolieo dude. Thank you.

[scrowell]

LSAC doesn't collect employment data.

The ABA and NALP collect 9-month employment data.

Only US News collects at-graduation employment data.

Schools don't "lie." They fudge. Or they don't collect adequate information from unemployed grads.

Sorry sorry i was referring to ABA and the 9 month thing.

[traehekat]

The numbers are all fudged in different ways to make their school look as attractive as possible. It happens at literally EVERY single school, I think, although some are closer to the truth than others.

[vandalvideo]

The numbers are all fudged in different ways to make their school look as attractive as possible. It happens at literally EVERY single school, I think, although some are closer to the truth than others.

And where are people getting their evidence that these schools fudge their numbers? I would love to see some kind of proof.

[ggocat]

The numbers are all fudged in different ways to make their school look as attractive as possible. It happens at literally EVERY single school, I think, although some are closer to the truth than others.

And where are people getting their evidence that these schools fudge their numbers? I would love to see some kind of proof.

"Fudge" is a word that doesn't necessarily convey what they do. Probably no school straight up lies. But they engage in tactics that allow them to report a higher percentage. For example, employing grads in the library or post-graduation fellowships. Also, some schools have been known to "lose track" of unemployed grads or employ fishy surveying methods.

Some of it is self-evident. You don't need an admission. For example, U Baltimore (tier 3) reported a higher at-graduation employment rate than almost every other school outside the T17 (93.4% employed). Something is fishy there. You don't need proof that they are either misreporting or filling a bunch of temporary jobs with students so they can report a higher number. They didn't start reporting at-graduation employment rate until a few years ago when a new dean took over. That dean was responsible for Toledo's rise in the rankings because the school created a part-time program for low LSAT students (this was before part-timers were counted). He's been on record saying that U.S. News is a game that you just have to play along with.

Here are some schools who employ graduates directly or through fellowships:

Duke. http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/the-secr ... -practice/

Georgetown. http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6#p2592062 and http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id ... 9af6312f03

Michigan. --LinkRemoved--

Texas. http://www.utexas.edu/law/depts/alumni/ ... rogram.php and http://abcnews.go.com/Business/tough-ma ... 629&page=4

Miami. --LinkRemoved--

Boston College. --LinkRemoved-- (reporting that the law school will employ graduates in the law library and that “graduates are being welcomed to apply for [research] assistantships with professors”)

See also: Richard A. Matasar, Ya Gotta Pay the Pig, 37 U. TOL. L. REV. 109, 112 (2005) (noting that “tricks of the trade have become legendary: like employing one's own graduates in ‘jobs’ before and just after graduation”)


Because students enrolled in advanced degree programs are considered “employed” for purposes of U.S. News, some schools allow their unemployed graduates to enroll in an LL.M. or other degree program free of charge or at a significantly reduced rate:

Northwestern. --LinkRemoved--

Loyola Chicago. --LinkRemoved--


Professors Morriss and Henderson note that employment rates can be “gamed” by engaging in “clever survey techniques designed to maximize employment numbers rather than actual improvements in employment.” Andrew P. Morriss & William D. Henderson, Measuring Outcomes: Post-Graduation Measures of Success in the U.S. News & World Report Law School Rankings, 83 IND. L.J. 791 (2008)
For example, Dean of New York Law School Richard Matasar anecdotally suggests the survey technique of “calling graduates, and leaving them messages that if they do not call back, you will assume that they are employed.” Richard A. Matasar, Ya Gotta Pay the Pig, 37 U. TOL. L. REV. 109 (2005)

[cinefile 17]

Cooley is one of the rare schools that tells the truth about their employment stats, this is likely due to their midwestern values. The only way to know for sure if a school is publishing fake employment stats is to call them up and ask them. If you ask a school directly, they can't lie and have to give you their true employment numbers. It's kind of like how if you ask an undercover cop if he's really a cop, he has to tell you he's a cop even if it busts his case. Or if you ask a vampire if he's really a vampire. Make sure you get them on record and if you think their answer still sounds fishy, just ask "for reals?" They can't dodge that.

So why can they lie to LSAC? And for the record, I did ask someone if they were a vampire. He said no, I turned and walked away, and then he bit me on the neck! Spend the night in the ER, brutal!

And thanks for the info everyone. Is the general consensus that schools just lie to LSAC (other than Cooley)?

You didn't say "for reals?" You deserved the ER.

[esq]

So i've been reading that y'all don't believe the employment data schools report on LSAC. For example, Thomas Cooley reports a 78% employment rate after 9 months. Most of you would call this a bucha bunk. What gives? Are they just straight up makin ish up?

Cooley is one of the rare schools that tells the truth about their employment stats, this is likely due to their midwestern values. The only way to know for sure if a school is publishing fake employment stats is to call them up and ask them. If you ask a school directly, they can't lie and have to give you their true employment numbers. It's kind of like how if you ask an undercover cop if he's really a cop, he has to tell you he's a cop even if it busts his case. Or if you ask a vampire if he's really a vampire. Make sure you get them on record and if you think their answer still sounds fishy, just ask "for reals?" They can't dodge that.

78% employment for Cooley Law is a rather generous exaggeration in this economy. I would guess that their employment stats are in fact much lower than this. Knowing Cooley Law's history, I would say that while the other law schools might make some ish up, Cooley Law is makin ISH up.

And one of the rare truthful schools, am I sensing sarcasm? If any school would be willing to straight up lie to a caller who asked them about employment stats, it's Cooley. Incidentally, not only will they hype their employment stats, but I'm sure that they will remind you that they are number 12 in the rankings - a full 6 spots above Stanford, 8 above Berkeley, 19 above Chicago, and 32 above Cornell - lmfao!

[Pearalegal]

Great, now I'm playing around on Cooley's ranking comparison things.

[happy187]

So i've been reading that y'all don't believe the employment data schools report on LSAC. For example, Thomas Cooley reports a 78% employment rate after 9 months. Most of you would call this a bucha bunk. What gives? Are they just straight up makin ish up?

I would believe it they are ranked 12th in the nation

1. Harvard University (1)
2. Georgetown University (2)
3. New York University (6)
4. University of Virginia (4)
5. University of Texas (3)
6. University of Michigan (9)
7. Northwestern University (5)
8. Columbia University (7)
9. Yale Law School (8)
10. George Washington University (11)
11. University of Minnesota (9)
12. Thomas M. Cooley Law School (16)
13. Fordham University (15)
14. University of California-Los Angeles (13)
15. American University (14)
16. University of Pennsylvania (12)
17. University of California-Hastings (18)
18. Stanford University (19)
19. University of Maryland (29)
20. University of California-Berkeley (17)

--LinkRemoved--

[vandalvideo]

Thanks ggo, I had been looking for a straight answer on this for quite some time. I found the quoted portion especially curious. Although, I'm still wondering if the schools linked are indicative of all law schools. If so, then I wonder just how much numbers have been skewed due to these misleading business practices.

Because students enrolled in advanced degree programs are considered “employed” for purposes of U.S. News, some schools allow their unemployed graduates to enroll in an LL.M. or other degree program free of charge or at a significantly reduced rate:

[calicocat]

Cooley is one of the rare schools that tells the truth about their employment stats, this is likely due to their midwestern values. The only way to know for sure if a school is publishing fake employment stats is to call them up and ask them. If you ask a school directly, they can't lie and have to give you their true employment numbers. It's kind of like how if you ask an undercover cop if he's really a cop, he has to tell you he's a cop even if it busts his case. Or if you ask a vampire if he's really a vampire. Make sure you get them on record and if you think their answer still sounds fishy, just ask "for reals?" They can't dodge that.

So why can they lie to LSAC? And for the record, I did ask someone if they were a vampire. He said no, I turned and walked away, and then he bit me on the neck! Spend the night in the ER, brutal!

And thanks for the info everyone. Is the general consensus that schools just lie to LSAC (other than Cooley)?

[ggocat]

Thanks ggo, I had been looking for a straight answer on this for quite some time. I found the quoted portion especially curious. Although, I'm still wondering if the schools linked are indicative of all law schools. If so, then I wonder just how much numbers have been skewed due to these misleading business practices.

Because students enrolled in advanced degree programs are considered “employed” for purposes of U.S. News, some schools allow their unemployed graduates to enroll in an LL.M. or other degree program free of charge or at a significantly reduced rate:

The "U.S. News factor" is weighed differently at individual schools. It's of course important to remember that some programs are "dual-purpose." Giving students an extra year of free classes in a particular area of law can be good for the student who is unemployed--they don't have to start repaying loans, and they get an extra degree, maybe even some practical/useful knowledge. The dual benefit arises because the school also gets to not report that person as unemployed (and because stats are compiled on a yearly basis, and LLM students are excluded, it doesn't matter for U.S. News purposes whether that student eventually gets a job after the LLM). Another example is post-grad fellowships. On paper, many students like these programs. They get $1500-$2000 per month for doing interesting public interest work (and these fellowships sometimes lead to permanent offers). The school gets to report these people as employed. Everyone wins (except for students who pay tuition because they are paying for the post-grad fellowship program).

Much of the problem is caused by the fact that there are rankings to begin with. There should be more tiers rather than a numerical ranking system. Further, the variables that are used aren't very good. This is a good article about U.S. News rankings. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=937017