November 2, 2010
This update reports the data-gathering I conducted in the Fall of 2010. I'm posting it as an addendum to my long-term trends posted in 2011 because
- The data shows an upward blip for 2010 that needs explaining, and
- most of the data published in 2012 and relied on for admission in the fall of 2012 and 2013 is based on this overly-optimistic blip.
So before you place too much reliance on published job rates from 2010, consider the consensus of answers from admissions officers at the 2010 Law Forums:
- Part-Time Programs
We can't afford to let part time programs drag us down in the USNews rankings more than necessary. If we have a strong institutional commitment to helping the local working population, we'll take applicants with lower numbers, but only if they actually need a part-time program. Part-time with lower LSAT and GPA as a back door into our law school isn't happening unless we need the revenue and feel our ranking numbers can take the hit.
|What that means to you is that any published data about part time programs is wrong -- overly optimistic. If the school publishes a GPA and LSAT grid, cut the number of admits below the 25th percentile in half. If the school doesn't publish such a grid, rely on full-time GPA and LSAT info.
A surprising number of schools reported being overenrolled, even those who went to their wait lists. This is primarily the result of a lot of last-minute deposits and higher yields on waitlist calls.
- Without jobs, fewer people chose to enter the work force rather than the law school;
- Without offers from higher-ranked law schools, more people jumped to accept that wait list call.
- Deferred Seats
phenomenon of law schools' offering seats for next year to people who applied this year at the law school's initiative
is not prevalent or even enough of a factor to consider. Most law schools have kept their same deferral policy at the students' request as they had before, whatever that was.