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

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.


Post a comment to this story

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
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?