"Final" employment study draft uploaded
| Marvelous territorial stage | 03/23/05 | | pea-brained station psychic | 03/23/05 | | citrine deep location dog poop | 03/23/05 | | Sienna Plaza Quadroon | 03/23/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/23/05 | | Sienna Plaza Quadroon | 03/23/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/23/05 | | Sienna Plaza Quadroon | 03/23/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/23/05 | | pea-brained station psychic | 03/23/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/23/05 | | glittery abode | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | glittery abode | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | glittery abode | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | glittery abode | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | glittery abode | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | glittery abode | 03/24/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/23/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/23/05 | | Swashbuckling Address Mad Cow Disease | 03/23/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/23/05 | | Henna Boyish Goyim | 03/23/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/23/05 | | citrine deep location dog poop | 03/23/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/23/05 | | sooty hell milk | 03/24/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/24/05 | | sooty hell milk | 03/24/05 | | Naked legal warrant orchestra pit | 03/24/05 | | light concupiscible temple | 03/24/05 | | Chrome state | 03/24/05 | | Charismatic Filthy Theatre | 03/24/05 | | sooty hell milk | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/24/05 | | Charismatic Filthy Theatre | 03/24/05 | | Charismatic Filthy Theatre | 03/24/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/25/05 | | Charismatic Filthy Theatre | 03/25/05 | | Marvelous territorial stage | 03/25/05 | | Charismatic Filthy Theatre | 03/25/05 | | sooty hell milk | 03/26/05 | | comical pungent lay messiness | 08/03/07 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 23rd, 2005 11:15 AM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
"Final" in name only since it'll still be changed regardless (if dinged everywhere I'll edit and resubmit, if accepted somewhere I'd have to edit anyway). However, this is what's been sent to journals.
http://www.autoadmit.com/studies/ciolli
Comments welcome.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2387338) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2005 11:16 AM Author: pea-brained station psychic
Sweet.
I was pre-sticky. Thats prestigious.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2387341) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2005 11:47 AM Author: citrine deep location dog poop
Very nice work.
"while the average Cravath equity partner earns $2,110,000 per year, the average Hughes equity partner earns only $450,000 per year."
While this is the final copy, when you edit for publication, you should add emphasis on only. :)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2387450) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2005 2:13 PM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
All of them, minus the ones that explicitly stated that they don't accept submissions written by people currently in law school.
As an unknown you can't take any chances -- especially if you're an unknown, a law student, wrote an empirical piece, *and* the piece includes rankings that might make many low ranked schools look pretty bad. In other words, I had 4 strikes against me before I even submitted to anyone.
Way I see it, I'll probably either get dinged everywhere, or get accepted someplace really prestigious.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2388188) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2005 2:31 PM Author: Sienna Plaza Quadroon
Law Journals?
And what do you mean by accepted? It's a research article.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2388312) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2005 2:37 PM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
Law journals.
It might. We'll see.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2388359) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 1:15 AM Author: glittery abode
Expresso?
My article got picked up pretty quickly. It was more 'legal' than yours though. Still, I bet you'll have better luck than expected. Don't be surprised if you get stuck with a TTT journal; usually your first few publications will be in journals no one's heard of, but once you have a few, it'll be easier to get into more prestigious journals.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2393751) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 1:18 AM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
Expresso is the service that submits to places for a fee. For print submissions it's $6.50 per review, which I think is cheaper than doing it myself.
How long did it take before you got your first acceptance? I assume you submitted as a student?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2393785) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 1:21 AM Author: glittery abode
Hmmm. Mine was about 45 pages, I mailed it regular mail, printed for free in the library and postage was $2. But you definitely save time with the service.
I think it took about a month. Most journals start accepting submissions in early February and making decisions in March-April. I had 10 dings before I got an acceptance. I submitted to 25 journals.
edit- I withdrew from the other 14 journals, so I only got the one acceptance.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2393818) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 1:24 AM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
Wow, when did you submit, February?
I hope submitting in late March hasn't fucked me over.
Alas, I don't know of any free library I can print from here.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2393853) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 1:28 AM Author: glittery abode
Oh, I just printed in the law library. You don't get free printing at Penn? Very TTT :).
I don't think it will fuck you over at all. I know my friends on journals at my school are still looking at new articles. I definitely submitted early (early Feb). I doubt a law review will publish yours because it's very non-legal, but an employment journal will probably like it.
One problem I did run into is some journals wouldn't even consider it since I submitted it concurrently to different journals. Did you watch out for that?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2393892) |
Date: March 23rd, 2005 12:02 PM Author: light concupiscible temple
So I asked this in the other thread, and you never replied. I am curious what really makes this study significant and would compel someone to publish it? I am not trying to discount your work or anything like that, so don't take it that way. What I mean is, how much more useful is it than just looking in USN and noting to what regions of the country law grads move? There has always been an assumption that better schools have options outside their regions, whereas lower-ranked schools do not, and I don't really see anything in the study that says otherwise (and by better and lower-ranked I don't mean the top 14 versus everyone else). I just wonder what your hook really is with the paper. Nevertheless, I do wish you the best of luck.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2387506) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2005 12:37 PM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
Pages 18 to 29.
This isn't a ranking study, it's a determinants of employment placement study. The "rankings" were just created as a way to measure employment placement so I could do the regression, which was the goal all along.
"School Y is ranked higher than Schools X and Z" isn't very helpful -- what's helpful is knowing WHY School Y is ranked higher than Schools X and Z. Is it reputation? Is it curriculum? Class rank disclosure policies? Class size? Grading system? That's what I'm trying to answer here.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2387658) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 12:26 PM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
It's a surprisingly large field. Here's an example of one research institute devoted to economics of higher education that includes lots of papers dealing w/ quantitative studies or rankings analyses:
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/
As I said in the beginning, the purpose is for students and other stakeholders to identify characteristics that are positively associated with stronger national employment placement at elite firms.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2396256) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 12:29 PM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
It's for both, and it's not geared only towards students.
If you've looked at the appendices, you'll see that the traditional HYS / CCN / MVP / etc. categories just don't seem to hold. Reputation isn't everything.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2396277) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 12:31 PM Author: light concupiscible temple
OK. So I understand for the lower ranked-schools, but for top schools the assumption has been that you have more opportunities. I don't see that your study, taking into account the different grading systems, etc., debunks this. And, ultimately, the students should be your target b/c schools are going to continue to pay close attention to USN's rankings b/c they are the ones that really matter.
Anyway, like I said, not questioning or attacking you. Just curious. Good luck to you.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2396301) |
Date: March 24th, 2005 6:30 PM Author: Chrome state
I had a question regarding George Washington's strong placement in the Pacific (R9) area. Looking over 2003 employment statistics, only 6% of GW's student body ended up working in R9. According to your results, GW is placing far ahead of USC/UCLA in both Per Capita Placement and TQS ratings. USC and UCLA are both regionally strong T20 schools centered around the R9 area; whereas GW is a #20 school located across the nation. Following these lines, you would expect USC/UCLA to hold their own against a seemingly weak competitor. Can you explain the discrepancy?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2398796) |
Date: March 24th, 2005 9:43 PM Author: Charismatic Filthy Theatre
I think the "just anxious to use regression analysis" comment is fairly accurate. I made comments on the previous thread that you did not respond to.
This comment was in a footnote: "The U group received Vault and PPP scores of 250 – this number is completely arbitrary and has no effect on the rankings, for any number greater than the lowest possible Vault or PPP rank attainable by a firm would accomplish the same thing." I don't the "no effect" comment can be defended. Consider how badly John Marshall's TQS score would suffer by a lower U since over 90% in both regions in which it appears receive this ranking. I think your study does a poor job accounting for schools that don't have a large placement into top firms.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2400095) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 10:53 PM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
Umm, no, you *REALLY* don't get it.
Let me give a simple example. School A has 70% employed in Region X and School B has 50% employed in Region X, and both have a class size of 100. To make it even more simple, let's assume that all these guys are working at the exact same firm, and that firm's Vault*PPP composite comes out to 100.
NOTE: These are unadjusted figures, so in this case, a smaller TQS means greater placement.
Scenario 1: Have Unemployed = 250
School A's Region X TQS would be:
(70*100 + 30*250)/100 = (7000+7500)/100 = 145
School B's Region X TQS would be:
(50*100 + 50*250)/100 = (5000+12500)/100 = 175
Okay, so School A places better than School B. Now, let's change 250 to 2500:
School A's Region X TQS would be:
(70*100 + 30*2500)/100 = (7000+75000)/100 = 820
School B's Region X TQS would be:
(50*100 + 50*2500)/100 = (5000+125000)/100 = 1300
SCHOOL A WILL STILL BE RANKED HIGHER THAN SCHOOL B. Nothing changes. It doesn't matter whether you use 250, 2500, 250000000000, 227, or 892... Just as long as the number is greater than 200, you'll get the same set of ordinal rankings. John Marshall doesn't benefit or suffer depending on what value U has -- since the U value is the same for *every* school.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2400626) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2005 11:58 PM Author: Charismatic Filthy Theatre
That's only true if both schools have the same composite firm ranking. Assume school B sends all grads to a firm with a composite of 25:
School A's Region X TQS would be:
(70*100 + 30*250)/100 = (7000+7500)/100 = 145
School B's Region X TQS would be:
(50*25 + 50*250)/100 = (1250+12500)/100 = 12750/100 = 127.5
Okay, so School A places better than School B. Now, let's change 250 to 2500:
School A's Region X TQS would be:
(70*100 + 30*2500)/100 = (7000+75000)/100 = 820
School B's Region X TQS would be:
(50*25 + 50*2500)/100 = (1250+125000)/100 = 126250/100 = 1262.5
You are a tool.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2401287)
|
|
Date: March 25th, 2005 12:27 AM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
Hmm, you're right. No clue how I could've missed this. However it seems like the error isn't that big of a deal, certainly not enough to make the whole thing "useless." Looks like it only changed ordinal positions very slightly when there were big bunches of schools.
Any suggestions on how to fix this?
With 250:
F, L, B, D, A, K, C, J, I, N, M, E, H, G, P, O
60.82F
81.29L
93.42B
95.27D
110.12A
130.03K
137.07C
138.97J
139.27I
148.51N
149.37M
152.19E
154.40H
172.98G
179.17P
206.00O
With 2500:
F, L, B, D, A, I, J, K, C, H, N, M, E, G, P, O
182.58F
311.38L
540.75B
548.99D
758.48A
904.87I
956.03J
1022.50K
1032.77C
1156.03H
1162.14N
1184.81M
1279.04E
1542.73G
1602.95P
1883.96O
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2401589) |
|
Date: March 25th, 2005 12:43 AM Author: Marvelous territorial stage
Fine, be like that.
EDIT: Upon much closer reflection, it actually looks like this isn't even that big of a deal -- in practice, all this really does is bring about very slight changes at the margins that only have an effect on ordinal rank, but negligible impact on absolutes. I'll look into seeing if I can come up with a more efficient formula that minimizes this, but honestly it really doesn't seem like it's necessary since the only schools this would have a noticable effect on are lower ranked schools, and those weren't even used in the regression anyway.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2401766) |
|
Date: March 25th, 2005 1:19 PM Author: Charismatic Filthy Theatre
That's not an apology either.
The fact that you fail to recognize the effects your variable have on the TQS scores indicates that you have no idea what the TQS measures. You just cobbled together an opaque formula because you wanted to use regression analysis. TQS score effectively means nothing. Maybe try including natural logs or something, that would look impressive.
You say that ". . . the only schools this would have a noticable effect on are lower ranked schools, and those weren't even used in the regression anyway." Do you say which schools you used in the regression in the study? Didn't you criticize Leiter for arbitrarily limiting his study to the schools he considered national? Isn't what you're doing equally aribitrary and not even disclosed?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=153341&forum_id=2#2404243)
|
|
|