In yesterday's TaxProf Blog post about various "top 10" rankings (
here), we were dismayed to see Boyd listed in a category in which it most emphatically doesn't belong. When I wrote to the author of these top ten lists, he responded by asking TaxProf Blog to add an asterisk to the part of the post dealing with "Career Baristas":
* Caution is in order for any ordinal ranking, but in a category like
this, where the percentages are low, small numbers may appear large. For
instance, the University of Akron has just 9 graduates in this category
but ranks first; the University of North Dakota, just 5 graduates but
ranks second; the University of Nevada—Las Vegas, just 6 graduates, but
ranks third.
What
are the facts? Here's what I told Prof. Muller in an email yesterday:
Here's why Boyd’s inclusion on the Top 10 list
of “Career Baristas” is materially misleading. The percentage of
graduates in non-professional, full-time, long-term positions listed for
each of the schools in this “Top 10” is minuscule compared to the
graduates employed in other types of jobs. At Boyd, in a class of 128
graduates, six graduates (4.7%) were employed in non-professional,
full-time, long-term positions as of February 15, 2012. Based on these
six graduates, Boyd is listed as the #3 top school in the nation for
“Career Baristas.” Meanwhile, 85 (66.4%) of Boyd’s class of 2011 was
employed in full-time, long-term positions for which bar passage is
required, and another 6 (4.7%) were employed in full-time, long-term
positions where a JD provided an advantage. A full 75% of the class, 96
students total, was employed in full-time or part-time long term
positions that require bar passage or a JD. Further, none of these
positions are funded by the law school.
The Top 10 list itself creates confusion because it is based on such a
small percentage of the overall class. It is particularly misleading in
the case of Boyd because it is based on six graduates, providing an
incomplete and distorted view of the employment prospects for Boyd
students.
I'm glad that he added an asterisk. (I'd have loved a broader retraction, but as long as folks understand the real story, that's the point of my having written to him.)
