Nonprofit introduces own method for choosing law school

November 13, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Transparency unveiled its tool to help prospective law students choose the right school for them, touting it as an alternative to the popular U.S. News & World Report law school rankings.

The LST Score Reports are “user-friendly tools for sorting law school employment outcomes, projected costs, and admission stats,” according to the LST release on the reports. The score reports are not rankings, the nonprofit organization emphasizes, unlike the rankings provided by U.S. News & World Report.

You can view the score reports at http://www.lstscorereports.com/.

LST says the reports should be used as a starting point and a comparison tool to other rankings or classifications of law schools.

“Focus on outcomes and how much it will cost you to get there,” the website says. “Reputation, after all, is only as valuable as the ends you want that it can help you actually achieve. You can’t eat prestige.”

The 3-year-old nonprofit was created by two Vanderbilt University Law Students and aims to improve consumer information on legal education and reform the traditional law school model.

The latest rankings by U.S. News & World Report list Notre Dame Law School at No. 22; Indiana University Maurer School of Law at No. 26; and Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law at No. 89 overall best law school. Valparaiso University Law School appears on the list as unranked.

You may want to take a look at LST’s guides to using and reading the report before jumping to conclusions about the list. The Employment Score has been calculated by the bar passage rate, minus part-time jobs, short-term jobs and solo practitioners, with that figure divided by all graduates. The guide doesn’t explain what years are used to compile the data.

Based on that formula, Notre Dame Law School has the highest employment score in the state. They also have the fewest number of graduates employed in Indiana. Then comes I.U. Maurer School of Law at 59.5 percent employment score, I.U. McKinney School of Law at 52 percent, and Valparaiso University Law School at 39.2 percent. Based on LST calculations, Valpo had the most under-employed graduates.

The under-employment score is calculated by taking the number of unemployed graduates, minus the total sum of those not seeking jobs, those who have short-term or part-time jobs, nonprofessional jobs, or are pursuing another degree, divided by the number of all graduates. Again, it’s helpful to read their guides to understand how LST came up with their figures.

You can view Indiana’s data for yourself here.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT