Top Law Schools

Law school transparency reports that somewhere around 20% of Santa Clara's 2009 class made more than 100k. Is it just me or does LST not take into account part time/ full time?? No way that data is correct because most of SCU's grads aren't full time, and USNEWS only publishes the private sector salary for those graduates who are "employed full time."

Or, am I missing something..

I think it refers to full-time employment. Not the employment status of full-time students. Is this what you're asking?

They specialize in IP and they are in Silicon Valley. And they have a fairly large part time student body who are walking into higher paying positions.

Check out the key facts and assumptions.

shastaca wrote:They specialize in IP and they are in Silicon Valley. And they have a fairly large part time student body who are walking into higher paying positions.

lol

bk187 wrote:Check out the key facts and assumptions.

Ha, you are always on point. We really appreciate it.

jenesaislaw wrote:

bk187 wrote:Check out the key facts and assumptions.

Ha, you are always on point. We really appreciate it.

Ok...? Still, this is incredibly misleading. It says known salery when in fact that is not the case at all. 1/5 SCU grads do not make that, more like 1/100.

Change the math and make it more accurate. Hardly anyone is even going to see, let alone comprehend the magnitude of what the little facts and assumptions thing is saying.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:

jenesaislaw wrote:

bk187 wrote:Check out the key facts and assumptions.

Ha, you are always on point. We really appreciate it.

Ok...? Still, this is incredibly misleading. It says known salery when in fact that is not the case at all. 1/5 SCU grads do not make that, more like 1/100.

Change the math and make it more accurate. Hardly anyone is even going to see, let alone comprehend the magnitude of what the little facts and assumptions thing is saying.

Known with the assumption*. I don't say caveat emptor often, but if a person doesn't read the facts and assumptions that are on the page twice, too bad. As we instruct:

This assumption may be true for some schools, but the salary charts that appear on this webpage may display better-than-actual outcomes. For the Class of 2009, this assumption may only be relaxed for Columbia University, Cornell University, Duke University, New York University, Stanford University, University of North Carolina, University of Tennessee, University of Virginia, and Yale University. These schools reported that all of their graduates were employed in full-time positions at nine months. For other schools, how this assumption should affect the concern you have about the reported salary information will be related to the percentage of graduates who worked in part-time positions.

I can add a PT figure, by school, to the salary flow page. But if there were a way to change the math and make it more accurate, I would. I can't because we don't know how the FT/PT are situated by job sector, only by credentials, and there is no connection between credentials and sector. I am open to suggestions if you have any based on the currently available data. That is the key; we can't make data up out of thin air.

Keep in mind that the main purpose is to show that Santa Clara's median salary of 160k doesn't mean anything close to what people think it means. On balance, the chart with the assumptions is better than no chart and words explaining the problem.

I would put this information front and center. By reporting US News statistics, LST is furthering the problem it wishes to correct. I understand what the key facts and assumptions button says, but most people won't click it: they'll just look at the charts that duplicate the data schools provide to US News; the SAME data LST says is awful. If LST was serious about their mission, they would prominently point out the schools that have terrible survey return results and etc and not hope that students will click to read the small-print.