I must confess that I was vehemently arguing for Kent because I wanted people to point out assumptions in my reasoning. If said reasons could hold up to the level of critical scrutiny here on TLS, I know my reasons were good. However, there is too much uncertainty in the way the data breakdowns within each category of employment. People helped expand upon the assumptions made in each employment category and explain how the data can be massaged. Similarly, I posted stats from William and Mary, without naming the school, and similar interpretation can make W&M look bad, which is concerning, since even the W&Ms out there are beginning to suffer from this damned economy also.
How much confidence should one have in Law School Transparency? If very confident, these figures are indeed troubling. How much confidence should one have in the ABA numbers on their website? I wish the ABA would publish the percentage of JD required jobs, at least on the reports I am generating. I am confused here because LST gets their data from ABA, but in all the charts I look at from the ABA, there is no separate indication of JD required jobs, am I missing something here?
With that said, according to LST, Kent looks like it does decent, at least with respect to American (54.3%) and Baltimore (43.3%), with 70.6% of the jobs their graduates land requiring JD's. But again, it depends on how those figures break down. Still, I think the point is: if I don't do well at Baltimore, I will have a crap job but will owe close to nothing. If I go to American and don't do well, I will have a crap job and owe 100k plus. If I go to Baltimore and do well, I will owe close to nothing and will decide to stay or transfer. If I go to American and do well, I will negoitate scholarship money or decide to transfer but will owe 30k.
It's a bummer because I really like American but their employment stats are only marginally better than Baltimore according to LST. Their clinics and focus on PI work is right up my alley, however, and DC is more policy-centric than Baltimore. They report 18 people who got Fed jobs compared to the 2 you pointed out at UB. Yet, you still advise Baltimore. I find it interesting the Fed is not classified under government, so I assume government means something else. What I consider important is the JD required category relative to debt likely incurred.
Closing arguments/reasons/remarks anyone?
Thanks for your guys input!
I guess Baltimore if that's where you are from and you can keep your debt low, but you should realize that the job prospects are pretty poor. Only 43% got full-time JD-required jobs according to Law School Transparency. Take a look at the job placement reports:http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=baltimorehttp://placementsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/PlacementReport.aspx
Baltimore still wins on account of debt. Just know that you will not work for the EPA (only 2 people got federal jobs from Baltimore), and you may not work as a lawyer.
And American would be a poor choice for trying for the EPA with 18? A 3% chance jobs the Fed from AU does seem piss poor considering the debt.
What happened to Kent? You were just raving about them and their awesome job prospects the other day. Crossed them off the list?
Indeed, consider it crossed, although once again, Kent does seem to do better, at least statistically, then some of my other options. But the debt is hard to justify. At least Kent seems to have an excuse, what's AU's?
PS: At the end of the day, I am surpised you didn't advise San Diego based soley on your avitar with the wise adage, to "keep it classy...":6
In all seriousness, though, thanks for your input.