Top Placing Classes (NLJ250 and Federal Clerkships) Forum

[jmaan]

looks like I picked the wrong school!!!!

Those Harvard grads better look out, Virginia's comin'!

[Dignan]

For those who are still interested in using this thread as a source of information and not a flame war, I've updated the list in the OP to properly reflect the ultimate data.

If you are actually interested in using this thread as a source of information, then you should knock this off. I understand that, when you wrote your original post, you made an innocent mistake: you did not realize that you were adding up percentages from different years. But now that the mistake has been pointed out, you should stop updating these figures and representing them as percentages. Some of the same conditions that knocked down firm hiring percentages for certain law schools are going to result in higher clerkship placement percentages for those schools.

Until we actually have the clerkship placement stats for the class of 2009, we should just let the NLJ250 stats stand on their own. If firm hiring + clerkships is a useful metric, then add the two together once we have clerkship numbers for the class of 2009.

[09042014]

For those who are still interested in using this thread as a source of information and not a flame war, I've updated the list in the OP to properly reflect the ultimate data.

If you are actually interested in using this thread as a source of information, then you should knock this off. I understand that, when you wrote your original post, you made an innocent mistake: you did not realize that you were adding up percentages from different years. But now that the mistake has been pointed out, you should stop updating these figures and representing them as percentages. Some of the same conditions that knocked down firm hiring percentages for certain law schools are going to result in higher clerkship placement percentages for those schools.

Until we actually have the clerkship placement stats for the class of 2009, we should just let the NLJ250 stats stand on their own. If firm hiring + clerkships is a useful metric, then add the two together once we have actual clerkship numbers for the class of 2009.

TL;DR summary: YHSCCN students who got no offered ate your clerkship up. And this is probably accurate.

[Kronk]

Not to mention if you're going to start combining shit, it's pretty dumb to leave out (arguably) the best job of all, tenure-track positions. In 2009 Harvard had 26, which is about 4-5% more for them. Yale also had 25 or something, which is like 12% for them, and totally changes this.

Clerkships and biglaw is okay, it's just pretty selective. It's more helpful to just separate them out totally or combine them all totally. As in, who got prestigious gov / PI work, clerkships, biglaw, or academia. I don't see the point in combining two of the four.

[beef wellington]

For those who are still interested in using this thread as a source of information and not a flame war, I've updated the list in the OP to properly reflect the ultimate data.

If you are actually interested in using this thread as a source of information, then you should knock this off. I understand that, when you wrote your original post, you made an innocent mistake: you did not realize that you were adding up percentages from different years. But now that the mistake has been pointed out, you should stop updating these figures and representing them as percentages. Some of the same conditions that knocked down firm hiring percentages for certain law schools are going to result in higher clerkship placement percentages for those schools.

Until we actually have the clerkship placement stats for the class of 2009, we should just let the NLJ250 stats stand on their own. If firm hiring + clerkships is a useful metric, then add the two together once we have clerkship numbers for the class of 2009.

Maybe use this graph?
http://lawclerkaddict2009.blogspot.com/ ... chart.html

[beef wellington]

Not to mention if you're going to start combining shit, it's pretty dumb to leave out (arguably) the best job of all, tenure-track positions. In 2009 Harvard had 26, which is about 4-5% more for them. Yale also had 25 or something, which is like 12% for them, and totally changes this.

Clerkships and biglaw is okay, it's just pretty selective. It's more helpful to just separate them out totally or combine them all totally. As in, who got prestigious gov / PI work, clerkships, biglaw, or academia. I don't see the point in combining two of the four.

Is there any data on elite PI placement? Maybe fellowships as a proxy?

[Kronk]

While Stanford is definitely proving itself to be a top three school (and is my top choice so I like to troll for them), I kind of think that them being so far ahead shows how dominance of regions has effected 2009 data. I don't think it will remain that way even into the next year.

[Kretzy]

While Stanford is definitely proving itself to be a top three school (and is my top choice so I like to troll for them), I kind of think that them being so far ahead shows how dominance of regions has effected 2009 data. I don't think it will remain that way even into the next year.

Shuddup. SYH it is.

[Kronk]

Not to mention if you're going to start combining shit, it's pretty dumb to leave out (arguably) the best job of all, tenure-track positions. In 2009 Harvard had 26, which is about 4-5% more for them. Yale also had 25 or something, which is like 12% for them, and totally changes this.

Clerkships and biglaw is okay, it's just pretty selective. It's more helpful to just separate them out totally or combine them all totally. As in, who got prestigious gov / PI work, clerkships, biglaw, or academia. I don't see the point in combining two of the four.

Is there any data on elite PI placement? Maybe fellowships as a proxy?

Wouldn't be a bad idea. Most schools release figures on PI jobs, but it's hard to tell what is desirable and what isn't.

[09042014]

Not to mention if you're going to start combining shit, it's pretty dumb to leave out (arguably) the best job of all, tenure-track positions. In 2009 Harvard had 26, which is about 4-5% more for them. Yale also had 25 or something, which is like 12% for them, and totally changes this.

Clerkships and biglaw is okay, it's just pretty selective. It's more helpful to just separate them out totally or combine them all totally. As in, who got prestigious gov / PI work, clerkships, biglaw, or academia. I don't see the point in combining two of the four.

YH places tenure track right out of law school??!?? That is insane.

I can see leaving PI out, because I bet it is near impossible to tell which is prestigious and which is Gary, IN public defenders.

[echoi]

For those who are still interested in using this thread as a source of information and not a flame war, I've updated the list in the OP to properly reflect the ultimate data.

If you are actually interested in using this thread as a source of information, then you should knock this off. I understand that, when you wrote your original post, you made an innocent mistake: you did not realize that you were adding up percentages from different years. But now that the mistake has been pointed out, you should stop updating these figures and representing them as percentages. Some of the same conditions that knocked down firm hiring percentages for certain law schools are going to result in higher clerkship placement percentages for those schools.

Until we actually have the clerkship placement stats for the class of 2009, we should just let the NLJ250 stats stand on their own. If firm hiring + clerkships is a useful metric, then add the two together once we have clerkship numbers for the class of 2009.

Maybe use this graph?
http://lawclerkaddict2009.blogspot.com/ ... chart.html

http://lawclerkaddict2009.blogspot.com/ ... chart.html

^i'm not sure how accurate that is, but i went ahead and added up the figures just to see what came up

----------------------------------------------------
using %'s from just the blue column so as to only include '09 graduates (percentages are close estimates since i couldn't find raw #s for the graph). %'s added to NLJ250 '09 placement %'s to get total.
----------------------------------------------------

S - 14% - 68.1
NW - 4% - 59.9
H - 12% - 59.6*
Chi - 6% - 59.1
P - 6% - 56.8*
Col - 2% - 56.4
D - 6% - 55.8
M - 4.5% - 55.5
V - 2.5% - 55.3
B - 4% - 54
N - 1% - 51.1
Y - 11% - 46.3
G - 1% - 43.8
C - 2% - 43.5

*included unknown (yellow) column for Penn and Harvard

[sayan]

So some of you actually believe that, all else equal, being at Stanford will give you an x% better chance of placement than at Harvard?

That's absurd logic given the "all else equal" part cannot adequately be controlled for. The typical SLS student is admitted on a different type of criteria than the average HLS student. It's unsurprising that a numbers-driven admission criteria will lead to a worsened placement status against a more holistic criteria -- especially when the number cut-offs for the two are minutely different (2 or 3 more wrong on the LSAT is basically it). The YLS/SLS reversal is intriguing but may be due to a worsening of the Eastern market versus the West.

The smaller class sizes don't help either for comparison. I'm sure if you took the top 180 HLS students and compared them to the SLS class, it would be a completely different story. HLS definitely allows more "slack" in due to their larger class size. The school is ultimately punished for this policy in percentage-based placement status.

What it comes down to for rankings is whether a judge or employer would think a student from x school is innately better than an equally-achieved student at y school. The data displayed doesn't reveal anything of that sort within the previously acknowledged tiers (HYS, CCN etc.). Also mentioned before was the inadequacy of the rankings to distinguish between top firm/clerkship placements versus lesser placements within the groups.

I will say, though, that from a risk-mitigation perspective it could be seen that the percentage-based placement rankings are useful. If you have no clue where you will place in a class, the rankings are a good guideline to use.

[crackberry]

While Stanford is definitely proving itself to be a top three school (and is my top choice so I like to troll for them), I kind of think that them being so far ahead shows how dominance of regions has effected 2009 data. I don't think it will remain that way even into the next year.

You suck at grammar. hth

[fortissimo]

For those who are still interested in using this thread as a source of information and not a flame war, I've updated the list in the OP to properly reflect the ultimate data.

If you are actually interested in using this thread as a source of information, then you should knock this off. I understand that, when you wrote your original post, you made an innocent mistake: you did not realize that you were adding up percentages from different years. But now that the mistake has been pointed out, you should stop updating these figures and representing them as percentages. Some of the same conditions that knocked down firm hiring percentages for certain law schools are going to result in higher clerkship placement percentages for those schools.

Until we actually have the clerkship placement stats for the class of 2009, we should just let the NLJ250 stats stand on their own. If firm hiring + clerkships is a useful metric, then add the two together once we have clerkship numbers for the class of 2009.

Maybe use this graph?
http://lawclerkaddict2009.blogspot.com/ ... chart.html

http://lawclerkaddict2009.blogspot.com/ ... chart.html

^i'm not sure how accurate that is, but i went ahead and added up the figures just to see what came up

----------------------------------------------------
using %'s from just the blue column so as to only include '09 graduates (percentages are close estimates since i couldn't find raw #s for the graph). %'s added to NLJ250 '09 placement %'s to get total.
----------------------------------------------------

Uh...that's only APPELLATE clerks, hence the site's name "federal appellate judicial clerks." The other info may be from a different year, but adding this information is even more inaccurate since it doesn't count any other type of Article III clerkships.

[fortissimo]

For those who are still interested in using this thread as a source of information and not a flame war, I've updated the list in the OP to properly reflect the ultimate data.

1. Stanford - 77.1%
2. Yale - 72.1%
3. Harvard - 65.7%
4. Virginia - 65.2%
5. Michigan - 64.9%
6. Columbia - 64.0%
7. Chicago - 63.1%
8. Northwestern - 62.7%
9. Penn - 61.7%
10. Duke - 61.5%
11. Berkeley - 58.1%
12. NYU - 57.4%
13. Vanderbilt - 55.0%
14. Cornell - 52.4%
15. Georgetown - 48.4%
16. Texas - 47.5%
17. USC - 47.2%
18. UCLA - 41.9%
19. Boston College - 38.0%
20. Notre Dame - 37.8%

This actually looks more accurate than adding up only COA. (That other list, adding up only COA, even had NU above Harvard and Yale. )

[echoi]

Uh...that's only APPELLATE clerks, hence the site's name "federal appellate judicial clerks." The other info may be from a different year, but adding this information is even more inaccurate since it doesn't count any other type of Article III clerkships.

don't be an ass. i started my post by first stating my skepticism about the accuracy of using those numbers. i'm a 0L (with no idea what appellate and article III clerkships are) who added up the numbers out of curiosity and posted the results for others--i never claimed this was an accurate list, which I'd be stupid to do considering where Yale is.

[timertimer61]

so did fordham do better than most people expected?

[Kronk]

While Stanford is definitely proving itself to be a top three school (and is my top choice so I like to troll for them), I kind of think that them being so far ahead shows how dominance of regions has effected 2009 data. I don't think it will remain that way even into the next year.

You suck at grammar. hth

--ImageRemoved--

[showNprove]

.

[Fancy Pants]

1. The original post describes exactly what the numbers represent, so no one is going to be mislead.

2. It is speculation to say that the clerkship numbers for certain schools will change dramatically, and it is even more speculative to say which schools will have more clerks and which ones less. But when you have actual evidence of these changes, I will be glad to incorporate it in the first post. After all, this isn't my work-product or creative design. I just thought that people would like to have a general idea about how schools are fairing ITE.

Isn't the point, though, that it's just stupid to include the data with clerkship numbers that are from a different year?

Sure, you've given the disclaimer and sure, we probably shouldn't assume drastic changes in clerkship changes from one year to the other unless we have reason to - wait, isn't it the whole point of this thread that we've seen some pretty drastic changes already?

Why include data that isn't accurate even as a "general idea"? For all we know, the "general idea" is wayyyyy off.

[Bronte]

This whole thread is getting silly. The simple fact is this: you're all fucked. You can argue all you want about who out of NMVPBDNC is slightly more or less fucked, but that's just silly.

The true ranking:

YHS: Will never be fucked for the foreseeable future.
CCNMVPBDNCGVTL: Historically not fucked, but fucked now.
< T17: Have always been fucked.

I thought this was the part where the pessimists finally admitted that maybe they've been overreacting a little bit. I thought 50% of the T10 classes didn't even have jobs. And now this data that says 50% have NLJ 250 jobs? And this excludes the government, PI, and clerkships where everyone supposedly fled?

[kittenmittons]

This whole thread is getting silly. The simple fact is this: you're all fucked. You can argue all you want about who out of NMVPBDNC is slightly more or less fucked, but that's just silly.

The true ranking:

YHS: Will never be fucked for the foreseeable future.
CCNMVPBDNCGVTL: Historically not fucked, but fucked now.
< T17: Have always been fucked.

I thought this was the part where the pessimists finally admitted that maybe they've been overreacting a little bit. I thought 50% of the T10 classes didn't even have jobs. And now this data that says 50% have NLJ 250 jobs? And this excludes the government, PI, and clerkships where everyone supposedly fled?

This has been pointed out a few times already, but this class OCI'd in 2007, so this won't be the low point.

[miamiman]

This whole thread is getting silly. The simple fact is this: you're all fucked. You can argue all you want about who out of NMVPBDNC is slightly more or less fucked, but that's just silly.

The true ranking:

YHS: Will never be fucked for the foreseeable future.
CCNMVPBDNCGVTL: Historically not fucked, but fucked now.
< T17: Have always been fucked.

I thought this was the part where the pessimists finally admitted that maybe they've been overreacting a little bit. I thought 50% of the T10 classes didn't even have jobs. And now this data that says 50% have NLJ 250 jobs? And this excludes the government, PI, and clerkships where everyone supposedly fled?

09 data bro. 09 data.

[rayiner]

This whole thread is getting silly. The simple fact is this: you're all fucked. You can argue all you want about who out of NMVPBDNC is slightly more or less fucked, but that's just silly.

The true ranking:

YHS: Will never be fucked for the foreseeable future.
CCNMVPBDNCGVTL: Historically not fucked, but fucked now.
< T17: Have always been fucked.

I thought this was the part where the pessimists finally admitted that maybe they've been overreacting a little bit. I thought 50% of the T10 classes didn't even have jobs. And now this data that says 50% have NLJ 250 jobs? And this excludes the government, PI, and clerkships where everyone supposedly fled?

The C/O 2009 data is as good as it gets. These folks did OCI in 2007, when legal hiring was booming. The C/O 2010 data will be worse, and the C/O 2011 data will be even worse than that.

[miamiman]

i heard c/o 2011 may be better than 2010.