Santa Clara University 2014 Forum

[drmguy]

http://law.scu.edu/careers/employment-data-2010.cfm

Anybody check that out? Does that make anybody feel any better about attending SCU?

This is the first time I saw this. I think this may have just been released. 78% seems alright ITE, but the stats further down the page show that only 60 grads (~20% of the class, or about 25% of those employed) reported the specific nature of their employment, which is quite frightening. I wonder if the starbucks barrista fits into "business/industry"

Exactly

Also, it doesn't specify full or part time. The sticky breaks down full and part time.

[florentine]

http://law.scu.edu/careers/employment-data-2010.cfm

Anybody check that out? Does that make anybody feel any better about attending SCU?

This is the first time I saw this. I think this may have just been released. 78% seems alright ITE, but the stats further down the page show that only 60 grads (~20% of the class, or about 25% of those employed) reported the specific nature of their employment, which is quite frightening. I wonder if the starbucks barrista fits into "business/industry"

Exactly

Also, it doesn't specify full or part time. The sticky breaks down full and part time.

It actually does specify full and part time... although it is only from ~60 graduates.

[Capitol hillbilly]

http://law.scu.edu/careers/employment-data-2010.cfm

Anybody check that out? Does that make anybody feel any better about attending SCU?

This is the first time I saw this. I think this may have just been released. 78% seems alright ITE, but the stats further down the page show that only 60 grads (~20% of the class, or about 25% of those employed) reported the specific nature of their employment, which is quite frightening. I wonder if the starbucks barrista fits into "business/industry"

Exactly

Also, it doesn't specify full or part time. The sticky breaks down full and part time.

It actually does specify full and part time... although it is only from ~60 graduates.

I'm thinking the same thing. Only 60 graduates responded? Isn't that basically useless, statistically? It bothers me that more graduates don't respond vigorously to the questionnaires that lead to these graphs. I guess I would be ashamed too, if I had to work at Starbucks after obtaining my JD... But I would also be raving pissed-off about it, and would (hopefully) want to inform others about my situation. Or maybe I would just turn to the bong and sound off on JD Underground...

[drmguy]

With a total of ~300 graduates 60 could be completely lopsided.

I don't know how accurate the info is in the sticky but it shows ~25% of graduates having full time employment.

I'm thinking the same thing. Only 60 graduates responded? Isn't that basically useless, statistically? It bothers me that more graduates don't respond vigorously to the questionnaires that lead to these graphs. I guess I would be ashamed too, if I had to work at Starbucks after obtaining my JD... But I would also be raving pissed-off about it, and would (hopefully) want to inform others about my situation. Or maybe I would just turn to the bong and sound off on JD Underground...[/quote]

[florentine]

I'm thinking the same thing. Only 60 graduates responded? Isn't that basically useless, statistically? It bothers me that more graduates don't respond vigorously to the questionnaires that lead to these graphs. I guess I would be ashamed too, if I had to work at Starbucks after obtaining my JD... But I would also be raving pissed-off about it, and would (hopefully) want to inform others about my situation. Or maybe I would just turn to the bong and sound off on JD Underground...

The problem with your statement is that it is pure assumption. Maybe they were too busy at their awesome biglaw $160,000+ jobs to respond? No one knows why they didn't respond and, unfortunately, we cannot find out. Yes the statistics are incredibly unreliable because the sampling size is so small, but to make wild assumptions as you have made does not change the fact that all we have is ~60 respondents.

[adonai]

Really curious about what the 19% (~ 60 students) of those who are not looking for employment are doing. The website says some of them may be still trying to pass the bar, but that can't be 60 of them...

[florentine]

Really curious about what the 19% (~ 60 students) of those who are not looking for employment are doing. The website says some of them may be still trying to pass the bar, but that can't be 60 of them...

I believe it says that just above the graphs where it says that the graduates are full/part time employed...

[Capitol hillbilly]

I'm thinking the same thing. Only 60 graduates responded? Isn't that basically useless, statistically? It bothers me that more graduates don't respond vigorously to the questionnaires that lead to these graphs. I guess I would be ashamed too, if I had to work at Starbucks after obtaining my JD... But I would also be raving pissed-off about it, and would (hopefully) want to inform others about my situation. Or maybe I would just turn to the bong and sound off on JD Underground...

The problem with your statement is that it is pure assumption. Maybe they were too busy at their awesome biglaw $160,000+ jobs to respond? No one knows why they didn't respond and, unfortunately, we cannot find out. Yes the statistics are incredibly unreliable because the sampling size is so small, but to make wild assumptions as you have made does not change the fact that all we have is ~60 respondents.

Finally, a little passion in this thread! Ok, guilty: I do assume that most people who declined to respond did so for negative (barrista job) rather than positive (too busy at biglaw) reasons. I may be wrong about that but it's irrelevant, because as you said: the main point is the fact that the responding group size is too small to be statistically meaningful, so we will never really know. What we do know is that the more comprehensive stats from the 2009 sticky seem to indicate that the number of biglaw/160k earning graduates are very, very few at SCU, while there's a very good possibility that we'll be steaming foam after graduation. Just saying.

[florentine]

I'm thinking the same thing. Only 60 graduates responded? Isn't that basically useless, statistically? It bothers me that more graduates don't respond vigorously to the questionnaires that lead to these graphs. I guess I would be ashamed too, if I had to work at Starbucks after obtaining my JD... But I would also be raving pissed-off about it, and would (hopefully) want to inform others about my situation. Or maybe I would just turn to the bong and sound off on JD Underground...

The problem with your statement is that it is pure assumption. Maybe they were too busy at their awesome biglaw $160,000+ jobs to respond? No one knows why they didn't respond and, unfortunately, we cannot find out. Yes the statistics are incredibly unreliable because the sampling size is so small, but to make wild assumptions as you have made does not change the fact that all we have is ~60 respondents.

Finally, a little passion in this thread! Ok, guilty: I do assume that most people who declined to respond did so for negative (barrista job) rather than positive (too busy at biglaw) reasons. I may be wrong about that but it's irrelevant, because as you said: the main point is the fact that the responding group size is too small to be statistically meaningful, so we will never really know. What we do know is that the more comprehensive stats from the 2009 sticky seem to indicate that the number of biglaw/160k earning graduates are very, very few at SCU, while there's a very good possibility that we'll be steaming foam after graduation. Just saying.

And we know those stats are not the same sample size or worse?

[Capitol hillbilly]

I'm thinking the same thing. Only 60 graduates responded? Isn't that basically useless, statistically? It bothers me that more graduates don't respond vigorously to the questionnaires that lead to these graphs. I guess I would be ashamed too, if I had to work at Starbucks after obtaining my JD... But I would also be raving pissed-off about it, and would (hopefully) want to inform others about my situation. Or maybe I would just turn to the bong and sound off on JD Underground...

The problem with your statement is that it is pure assumption. Maybe they were too busy at their awesome biglaw $160,000+ jobs to respond? No one knows why they didn't respond and, unfortunately, we cannot find out. Yes the statistics are incredibly unreliable because the sampling size is so small, but to make wild assumptions as you have made does not change the fact that all we have is ~60 respondents.

Finally, a little passion in this thread! Ok, guilty: I do assume that most people who declined to respond did so for negative (barrista job) rather than positive (too busy at biglaw) reasons. I may be wrong about that but it's irrelevant, because as you said: the main point is the fact that the responding group size is too small to be statistically meaningful, so we will never really know. What we do know is that the more comprehensive stats from the 2009 sticky seem to indicate that the number of biglaw/160k earning graduates are very, very few at SCU, while there's a very good possibility that we'll be steaming foam after graduation. Just saying.

And we know those stats are not the same sample size or worse?

It's true that we don't know the sample sizes used in the 2009 sticky. But we can see that compared to other schools that are similarly ranked, SCU and USF grads seem to be in the worst position for employment prospects. I think this conversation is important because statistics can be very unreliable, and I agree with you that there are many different reasons that a sample size could be really small, and a small sample size can create a misleading stat. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to assume from the data that it is more than likely that most SCU grads will not be able to find full time legal work after graduation. And that is frightening.

[cubsma]

I think it is clear Capital Hillbilly that you do not intend to attend Santa Clara or USF. Apparently you did not see the first post that begins this forum...here is an excerpt.

Discussion between applicants is fine, but this forum is NOT the place to argue or debate which law schools are worth attending and under what circumstances. The threads here typically involve people who have already decided to apply and are seeking or sharing news on the state of their applications. You and them and everyone else are all free to discuss whether or not attending is a good idea in the appropriate forum, not here.

So, in the interest of those wishing to attend these schools, we get your point. Time to move along.

[IHaveLawyers]

how does Santa Clara notify?

please tell me they ding via e-mail and admit via snail mail, my status check says "decision mailed"

[risktaker]

Think status checker changes to "admit" if admitted.

[drmguy]

I think it is clear Capital Hillbilly that you do not intend to attend Santa Clara or USF. Apparently you did not see the first post that begins this forum...here is an excerpt.

Discussion between applicants is fine, but this forum is NOT the place to argue or debate which law schools are worth attending and under what circumstances. The threads here typically involve people who have already decided to apply and are seeking or sharing news on the state of their applications. You and them and everyone else are all free to discuss whether or not attending is a good idea in the appropriate forum, not here.

So, in the interest of those wishing to attend these schools, we get your point. Time to move along.

Based on the data presented in the sticky I don't believe he is doing anything wrong. Sure we shouldn't drag it out, but everyone with a desire to attend Santa Clara must look at this data.

[IHaveLawyers]

Think status checker changes to "admit" if admitted.

thanks, i knew i would be fucked

[Capitol hillbilly]

I think it is clear Capital Hillbilly that you do not intend to attend Santa Clara or USF. Apparently you did not see the first post that begins this forum...here is an excerpt.

Discussion between applicants is fine, but this forum is NOT the place to argue or debate which law schools are worth attending and under what circumstances. The threads here typically involve people who have already decided to apply and are seeking or sharing news on the state of their applications. You and them and everyone else are all free to discuss whether or not attending is a good idea in the appropriate forum, not here.

So, in the interest of those wishing to attend these schools, we get your point. Time to move along.

Based on the data presented in the sticky I don't believe he is doing anything wrong. Sure we shouldn't drag it out, but everyone with a desire to attend Santa Clara must look at this data.

@drmguy: Thanks. I am a Santa Clara applicant, checking my application status everyday just like everyone else on here, and just trying to make sense of all the data. Up until a week ago, SCU seemed like a great choice for me, and then that 2009 employment thread kind of turned my whole thought process upside down.

@Florentine: I'm grateful for your criticism of the statistics, and I definitely have to remind myself that there are many different ways to interpret a set of data, thanks to your comments. That is why I am on TLS.

@ Cubsma: Congratulations on your first post! And thanks for trying to educate me about what is appropriate content on this forum.

[Crazzzybudha]

IHaveLawyers - I think you might have been waitlisted, I doubt they would mail a denial (it seems they always do that via email), but if it didn't change to "admit" you might not be admitted. Here's hoping I'm completely wrong.

I appreciate the discussion about jobs from Santa Clara. I'd really like to go to Santa Clara and I hope someone comes up with a good reason I can use to justify the decision

[drmguy]

Think status checker changes to "admit" if admitted.

thanks, i knew i would be fucked

If you read through the thread it says decision mailed with tuition deposits showing up=admit decision mailed with no deposit=denied.

[florentine]

Think status checker changes to "admit" if admitted.

thanks, i knew i would be fucked

I believe pretty much everything is done through mail. But if you have deposit amounts, that's usually a clear sign of admit.

[IHaveLawyers]

Looks like a deny, it says decision mailed and lists 1st deposit, 2nd deposit and seat deposit but they all say "0.00" under amount due

[twozeroseven]

Withdrawn. Returning my 12k. Hope someone here gets in/gets the dough.

Job prospects aside, what a gorgeous place to spend 3 years.

[mrwarre85]

@ Cubsma: Congratulations on your first post! And thanks for trying to educate me about what is appropriate content on this forum.[/quote]


Lol. Well said.

[mrwarre85]

IHaveLawyers - I think you might have been waitlisted, I doubt they would mail a denial (it seems they always do that via email), but if it didn't change to "admit" you might not be admitted. Here's hoping I'm completely wrong.

I appreciate the discussion about jobs from Santa Clara. I'd really like to go to Santa Clara and I hope someone comes up with a good reason I can use to justify the decision

I don't see how Santa Clara can rebound. I would like to debate someone who thinks Santa Clara will return to respectable employment in a few years and would really love it if they swayed my opinion. beautiful place but no jobs and I think those two things are incredibly related.

[jarofsoup]

IHaveLawyers - I think you might have been waitlisted, I doubt they would mail a denial (it seems they always do that via email), but if it didn't change to "admit" you might not be admitted. Here's hoping I'm completely wrong.

I appreciate the discussion about jobs from Santa Clara. I'd really like to go to Santa Clara and I hope someone comes up with a good reason I can use to justify the decision

I don't see how Santa Clara can rebound. I would like to debate someone who thinks Santa Clara will return to respectable employment in a few years and would really love it if they swayed my opinion. beautiful place but no jobs and I think those two things are incredibly related.

I think that it is dependent on the market. But I dont really understand the doom and gloom. It is not like you would be looking at a life time of poverty if you attend SCU.

[mrwarre85]

IHaveLawyers - I think you might have been waitlisted, I doubt they would mail a denial (it seems they always do that via email), but if it didn't change to "admit" you might not be admitted. Here's hoping I'm completely wrong.

I appreciate the discussion about jobs from Santa Clara. I'd really like to go to Santa Clara and I hope someone comes up with a good reason I can use to justify the decision

I don't see how Santa Clara can rebound. I would like to debate someone who thinks Santa Clara will return to respectable employment in a few years and would really love it if they swayed my opinion. beautiful place but no jobs and I think those two things are incredibly related.

I think that it is dependent on the market. But I dont really understand the doom and gloom. It is not like you would be looking at a life time of poverty if you attend SCU.

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but if you were broke and took out 180k loans to attend SCU you might well condemn yourself to a life of poverty.