There is no fucking way that 8.2% of the graduates of the Class of 2008 have Article III federal clerkships. That means Class of 2008, not clerking at some point after 2008. That means Article III, which does not include magistrate judge clerkships or bankruptcy clerkships. And you should not fucking include "staff law clerks," because they're not clerking for a fucking judge.
Let's do this empirically.
WUSTL graduates around 270 a year. So let's try to count the 22 Class of 2008 graduates who have Article III federal judicial clerkships.
(And let's not even discuss how hilariously awful it is that a school purportedly ranked 19th in the country lands fucking five people in the COA, and can only put ONE in the 8th Circuit, when Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Creighton, South Dakota, and every other rancid festering fly-over law school out places you.)
By my math, that's 4.4%, not 8.5%.
Oh, but wait, if you're a lying sack of shit, we can fudge the numbers and add in:
Staff (2d), Cook (6th for '10-'11), Burrell (EDCal for '09-'10), Altonga (SDFla for '09-'10), Black (DNM '09-'10), Kahn (NDNY for '09-'10), Fulton (Magistrate WDKy), Miller (Federal Claims)
So that's 20, if you count staff clerks, magistrate clerks, Article I clerks, and future clerks.
And even there, we're at 7.4%.
So shut the FUCK you, you embarrassing lying sacks of shit at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis.
And please, AutoAdmit, bump this fucking thread for eternity, until Bob Morse is shamed into noting the discrepancy, David Lat is moved to link to this thread, and the Dean capitulates to the "chatblogs."
Date: May 7th, 2010 5:14 PM Author: Exhilarant Brunch Boiling Water Subject: These Numbers
Just talked to Dean Spivey today (the CSO at WUSTL) about these numbers, and he indicated that the handbook you are referencing is outdated and from their old website. He also indicated that this year's class was sort of an aberration (a huge jump from last year's class) and said it will be difficult to predict what will happen next year. He said they had a lot of very solid candidates for clerkships this year, and hence the jump in numbers.
I'm not saying the numbers are perfect and I'm not trying to defend WUSTL or anything, I just wanted to point out that the numbers you are using are wrong (according to their career services dean). That handbook is not their "Official List of Wash U Clerks for the c/o 2008." It is just a guide to clerkships in general, and there are people with clerkships not listed in there.
Date: May 7th, 2010 5:24 PM Author: Lemon box office
Odds that OP is Spivey or some CSO drone himself, given that it's a pretty anonymous moniker by some poster we've never seen before who actually used the "Subject" field?
Date: May 7th, 2010 5:32 PM Author: bonkers psychic
Can't say for sure, but that was a strangely phrased post. It certainly did not read like the post of a student who seriously inquired into the cause of the discrepancy.
For the record, I don't rule out incompetence. I wouldn't be shocked if the post above was an attempt to cover someone's ass.
Date: May 7th, 2010 9:14 PM Author: up-to-no-good gunner
The number of solid candidates never really changes unless WUSTL's class size varies. The top 5% of the class is always composed of x number of people and they are the only people who are qualified, apparently, since only about 4% get clerkships worth doing.
Date: May 7th, 2010 9:15 PM Author: up-to-no-good gunner
And what people with clerkships did they omit? I'm sure they tracked down every last soul of a graduate who set foot in a judge's chambers after graduation.
Usually when someone is angry at an elite universities administration, that person must have read something wrong, so I'm not gonna even read what you wrote.
Date: May 6th, 2010 10:35 PM Author: Lemon box office
If they lied about it, they can get to 7.4%. (Did you miss that part? Where it's 4.4%, unless they lied?) And then they'd have to hide clerks from their own "complete" directory.
Most people on XOXO are bitter/realistic enough to realize statistics that come out of schools are flat out TTT and false. There are other places where gunners thrive and troll, and this isn't the case. You need to spread the word, my friend.
Date: May 6th, 2010 11:13 PM Author: rebellious sapphire heaven
Did you know that no student at Northwestern has ever graduated without a job offer? How about UIUC claiming the retail value of westlaw and lexis as per student spending?
Date: May 7th, 2010 11:12 AM Author: Purple dilemma
The OP broke down the numbers so people could see what the underlying data was. I think it's fair for people to evaluate whether the school's formula is a reasonable, non-misleading choice.
Date: May 7th, 2010 11:22 AM Author: Purple dilemma
I don't think prospective students are that aware of the inaccuracies. Additionally, exposing the inaccuracies and manipulation might provide some pressure to change things, if enough people get behind it and it gets embarassing.
Or maybe not. Either way, I don't think it hurts to talk about it.
they should lose their non-profit status for all this. The law needs to be changed so that schools caught lying about employment #'s or caught manipulating statistics like this lose their tax free status. There need to be monetary penalties for this sort of shit.
Date: May 7th, 2010 11:25 AM Author: big theater quadroon
Not everyone knows that. Not even most prospective students know that. I don't want to get all crusady on this topic but law schools really are disseminating materials that at least fudge the numbers and, at worst, are intentionally misleading.
Date: May 7th, 2010 11:27 AM Author: Purple dilemma
"Fudge" is really generous given some of the employment statistics schools reported from last year. 100% employment at graduation at Duke? I mean, I graduated when the economy was going nuts, and not everyone in my class had a job at graduation. I think people have always understood their was some fudging and some make-work jobs given to students to prop up numbers, but not the extent to which the data was being manipulated.
Date: May 7th, 2010 11:29 AM Author: big theater quadroon
I was being as charitable as humanly possible, yes. I try not to get worked up over this subject because in the end I have no control over the situation.
But it really does fucking piss me off, especially considering how many of my classmates (and friends) are really hurting right now. A large part of that is the economy, yes, but part of it the incompetent way my school is run.
Date: May 7th, 2010 11:31 AM Author: Purple dilemma
The problem is that it's not 7% to 10%. In this case, it was doubling the percentage. Employment statistics are even more misleading. UC-Davis claims 97% of its students were employed at graduation last year. Do you really think it's something like a 3% difference between that and the real number?
It's also not limited to the schools where it's acknowledged that you need to be at the very top to get a good job or a clerkship. Some of the worst offenders are schools that imply that almost all their students will do well, when really it's only the top quarter.
Besides, why waste energy crusading for fatalism? If people complaining about this practice are ignored, all they lose is their time, the same as you.
Date: May 7th, 2010 2:56 PM Author: crusty mad-dog skullcap antidepressant drug
Prospective students base their employment conclusion based on those who got jobs. Even if the school was honest and said, only 20% of people will have jobs at graduation, they'll still attend because they believe they'll be in that 20%.
Date: May 7th, 2010 11:44 AM Author: Lemon box office
The other problem is relativity. There are dozens of stats, and if an applicant sees a school pulling ahead in one area, they find that as a justification to attend the school or to deem it "on the rise" or "underrated."
Read this shit: "Not to overspeculate or anything, but it is nice to see WUSTL with a decent showing. Better than its traditional midwestern counterparts anyways (UIUC, ND, Iowa, Minn, etc.)
But like you said, it is a personal thing as well, and fluctuations are the norm (since WUSTL had rather low clerkship placement the year before).
Date: May 7th, 2010 2:36 PM Author: bonkers psychic
"You're calculations are correct but they were never going to match up because all the schools have their own formulas for calculating all the stats."
This is hilarious. They're not coming up with complex stochastic equations to price exotic financial instruments. This is a fucking fraction. You divide the number of clerks placed into Article 3 courts (a well defined category) by the number of graduates in the class (also well defined).
This is like voter registration--there's no wiggle room. "Well, yes Hans Johnson died 20 years ago and somehow managed to vote in the last election, but you know they use their own special voter registration system SO I'M SURE IT'S COMPLETELY LEGIT."
Date: May 7th, 2010 2:53 PM Author: crusty mad-dog skullcap antidepressant drug
"This is hilarious. They're not coming up with complex stochastic equations to price exotic financial instruments. This is a fucking fraction. You divide the number of clerks placed into Article 3 courts (a well defined category) by the number of graduates in the class (also well defined). "
Except they don't divide the number by graduates. They divide by a number they decide on based on a formula which includes a few different variables.
Date: May 7th, 2010 3:01 PM Author: bonkers psychic
Title of table: "Whose ***2008*** graduates are most likely to be employed as Federal judicial clerks with Article III Federal judges?"
Is "2008 graduates" not well defined? What extra "variables" can be included here? Perhaps the oft overlooked "wishful thinking multiplier" is a candidate.
Maybe the number is about right, just glancing over the list, but I have no clue how many of those are magistrate judges and don't have the energy to find out.
Date: May 7th, 2010 4:22 PM Author: bonkers psychic
I think there's a big difference between (1) using overly optimistic phrasing and somewhat misleading framing (standard for employment stats) and (2) outright misreporting.
It's like the difference between a public company (1) issuing lots of soft, optimistic projections and emphasizing earnings before bad stuff (rather than standardized accounting measures) and (2) reporting revenue that is misstated by 50%.
Date: May 7th, 2010 5:14 PM Author: Exhilarant Brunch Boiling Water Subject: These Numbers
Just talked to Dean Spivey today (the CSO at WUSTL) about these numbers, and he indicated that the handbook you are referencing is outdated and from their old website. He also indicated that this year's class was sort of an aberration (a huge jump from last year's class) and said it will be difficult to predict what will happen next year. He said they had a lot of very solid candidates for clerkships this year, and hence the jump in numbers.
I'm not saying the numbers are perfect and I'm not trying to defend WUSTL or anything, I just wanted to point out that the numbers you are using are wrong (according to their career services dean). That handbook is not their "Official List of Wash U Clerks for the c/o 2008." It is just a guide to clerkships in general, and there are people with clerkships not listed in there.