Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby JCougar » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:14 pm

bk1 wrote:
JCougar wrote:It's highly unprofitable for big firms to hire new associates that leave after three years.


What? Isn't their hiring model based on the fact that new associates leave after several years?


They'd rather the people not leave. It's just a fact of life that many law graduates hate Biglaw so much that, despite the awesome salaries, they're going to leave anyways.

Unless you're at a prestigious white shoe firm that can bill you out for $300/hour or higher, most first and second-year associates are a net loss for big firms. Think about it. They bill you out at $200/hour, you have to bill 2000 hours/year. That's $400,000 dollars a year that they bring in. But clients are always complaining about hours that shouldn't have been billed, so naturally, they get discounts, etc. So these firms are really only pulling in $300-350K from your work.

In addition to your $160K salary, they have to pay for all your health and dental benefits, among other perks, plus they have to pay your secretary's salary and health benefits as well, which brings your total costs close to $300K. On top of that, they have to pay rent on your office space (usually in a prime rent area), and other firm overhead.

You won't turn a profit for your firm until your third or fourth year under normal circumstances. This is why firms are increasingly looking farther than just grades. They want associates that will stay for 8 years.

User avatar
Attorney
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby Attorney » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:20 pm

bk1 wrote:
Attorney wrote:No.


Nice ninja edit to punctuate your statement.

I was under the impression that most people left biglaw after several years, is this not the case? I mean I understand that ideally they would want to keep people but isn't the reality that a lot of people get burned out pretty quickly?

It was always punctuated, just not bolded and enlarged!

You're very much right about a lot of people leaving due to burnout. They lose money when people do this so they try to minimize it as much as possible. It boils down to the market currently paying more than people are worth in the beginning, even as it underpays them later on. First-year associates are worth relatively little (less than $160,000 + benefits + lots more) to big firms as they don't contribute much to the bottom line.

JCougar's all over the grisly details of how they lose so much money on the leavers.

seriously????
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:15 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby seriously???? » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:41 pm

i have no knowledge about the biglaw hiring model, but common sense has me thinking this is an exaggeration. If a majority leave in a few years, and have yet to make the firm money, are you saying that the firm makes a nice profit off of the few who stay long term, and therefore earn several times over what they are really making?

and these firms would be less enticing to graduates if they just offered less to start with promise of significant raises in the next couple of years? 100k or 120k still beats out most/all midlaw offers. so the only argument could be that biglaw firms compete with each other, driving starting salaries up, thus collectively hurting their overall profits.

this just doesn't sound like good business. summer associates cost the firms money, first year perhaps, but no way that those who leave after three years have not earned an overall profit for the firm

User avatar
TatteredDignity
Posts: 1520
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby TatteredDignity » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:36 pm

romothesavior wrote:I'm only a 1L, so I don't know anything for certain. From what I can gather (and these are general, rough estimates), top 20-25% will probably get you some interviews, but you are far from safe. Top 1/3 might even do it if you have good WE or connections, and I've heard of people down to median getting NLJ 250 jobs (but they are a rare, rare exception).

I'd say anything outside top 10-15% is going to mean you have to interview really well to get a job out of OCI. ITE has made it so that few people at a school like WUSTL are "safe." But if you're top 20%, you'll be in a good place to get interviews and hopefully give yourself a real shot at an NLJ 250 job.


This is kind of terrifying. I thought the percentage was much higher. I very much want to get biglaw in either STL, KC or Chicago, and you're saying outside of top 10-15%, there's not a good chance of that? Just a chance?

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby JCougar » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:38 pm

seriously???? wrote:i have no knowledge about the biglaw hiring model, but common sense has me thinking this is an exaggeration. If a majority leave in a few years, and have yet to make the firm money, are you saying that the firm makes a nice profit off of the few who stay long term, and therefore earn several times over what they are really making?

and these firms would be less enticing to graduates if they just offered less to start with promise of significant raises in the next couple of years? 100k or 120k still beats out most/all midlaw offers. so the only argument could be that biglaw firms compete with each other, driving starting salaries up, thus collectively hurting their overall profits.

this just doesn't sound like good business. summer associates cost the firms money, first year perhaps, but no way that those who leave after three years have not earned an overall profit for the firm


All I can say is ask biglaw attorneys themselves about it. They talk about how naive first year associates are if they think they are making their firm a profit.

They're not losing much money on first year associates...they're probably decently close to breaking even. But they really start making money after your third year when you become more productive with your billable hours, and they can charge more for you because you have better experience.

If first year associates were 100% productive with their billable hours, they probably would make a profit...but they never are.

The reason why profit margins are so slim is because the competition is fierce. No firm wants to be the one that is turned down by the people on law review at the T14 because they offered $15K less in starting salary.

User avatar
TatteredDignity
Posts: 1520
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby TatteredDignity » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:43 pm

0LNewbie wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I'm only a 1L, so I don't know anything for certain. From what I can gather (and these are general, rough estimates), top 20-25% will probably get you some interviews, but you are far from safe. Top 1/3 might even do it if you have good WE or connections, and I've heard of people down to median getting NLJ 250 jobs (but they are a rare, rare exception).

I'd say anything outside top 10-15% is going to mean you have to interview really well to get a job out of OCI. ITE has made it so that few people at a school like WUSTL are "safe." But if you're top 20%, you'll be in a good place to get interviews and hopefully give yourself a real shot at an NLJ 250 job.


This is kind of terrifying. I thought the percentage was much higher. I very much want to get biglaw in either STL, KC or Chicago, and you're saying outside of top 10-15%, there's not a good chance of that? Just a chance?


To add to that, I'm from KC, and when I visited I was led to believe that it's not too difficult to make it back to a big firm in KC (assuming not bottom of the class). I guess that's not totally accurate?

User avatar
quadsixm
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby quadsixm » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:54 pm

0LNewbie wrote:
0LNewbie wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I'm only a 1L, so I don't know anything for certain. From what I can gather (and these are general, rough estimates), top 20-25% will probably get you some interviews, but you are far from safe. Top 1/3 might even do it if you have good WE or connections, and I've heard of people down to median getting NLJ 250 jobs (but they are a rare, rare exception).

I'd say anything outside top 10-15% is going to mean you have to interview really well to get a job out of OCI. ITE has made it so that few people at a school like WUSTL are "safe." But if you're top 20%, you'll be in a good place to get interviews and hopefully give yourself a real shot at an NLJ 250 job.


This is kind of terrifying. I thought the percentage was much higher. I very much want to get biglaw in either STL, KC or Chicago, and you're saying outside of top 10-15%, there's not a good chance of that? Just a chance?


To add to that, I'm from KC, and when I visited I was led to believe that it's not too difficult to make it back to a big firm in KC (assuming not bottom of the class). I guess that's not totally accurate?


No, you're more accurate than that. Romo was responding to a question getting biglaw jobs anywhere from WUSTL, and through OCI. Biglaw in KC, being from KC, is not easy, but top 1/3 should give you a good shot - not necessarily through OCI, but with some legwork and networking.

User avatar
TatteredDignity
Posts: 1520
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby TatteredDignity » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:57 pm

quadsixm wrote:No, you're more accurate than that. Romo was responding to a question getting biglaw jobs anywhere from WUSTL, and through OCI. Biglaw in KC, being from KC, is not easy, but top 1/3 should give you a good shot - not necessarily through OCI, but with some legwork and networking.


Ok, that's a bit of a relief. I was in panic mode over here. I truly didn't know it was possible to get biglaw outside of OCI, even with connections to the market.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby Blindmelon » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:01 pm

FYI: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... OLS_REPORT

BC 33.58%
BU 30.00%
Vanderbilt 29.81%
USC 28.72%
Texas 26.65%
Fordham 25.68%
GW 24.76%
Notre Dame 23.84%
Emory 21.18%
WUSTL 18.96%
Illinois 17.85%
SMU 16.22%
W&M 15.42%
UC-Davis 15.38%

User avatar
Verity
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby Verity » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:03 pm

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

WUSTL dropped a spot, from #24 to #25. A few "go-to" schools dropped hugely in these rankings (e.g., Northwestern). Horrible market for everyone though.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby FuManChusco » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:09 pm

Blindmelon wrote:FYI: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... OLS_REPORT

BC 33.58%
BU 30.00%
Vanderbilt 29.81%
USC 28.72%
Texas 26.65%
Fordham 25.68%
GW 24.76%
Notre Dame 23.84%
Emory 21.18%
WUSTL 18.96%
Illinois 17.85%
SMU 16.22%
W&M 15.42%
UC-Davis 15.38%


I may be wrong, but isn't this moderately deceiving due to the number of big firms that don't make the nlj250, yet still pay 6 figures?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:10 pm

I'm a little surprised NYU went so low and Cornell stayed so high.

A lot of the variation is caused because NYC firms no offered class of 2009, while the rest of the country didn't. And in 2009, the whole nation did. That protected schools like Northwestern, Michigan and UVA in 2009 data, but evened it out in 2010.

dakatz
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby dakatz » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:12 pm

FuManChusco wrote:
Blindmelon wrote:FYI: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... OLS_REPORT

BC 33.58%
BU 30.00%
Vanderbilt 29.81%
USC 28.72%
Texas 26.65%
Fordham 25.68%
GW 24.76%
Notre Dame 23.84%
Emory 21.18%
WUSTL 18.96%
Illinois 17.85%
SMU 16.22%
W&M 15.42%
UC-Davis 15.38%



I may be wrong, but isn't this moderately deceiving due to the number of big firms that don't make the nlj250, yet still pay 6 figures?
]

I REALLY doubt that non-NLJ250 firm that still pay biglaw salaries would close the gap by much (if at all) for WUSTL

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby Blindmelon » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:13 pm

FuManChusco wrote:
I may be wrong, but isn't this moderately deceiving due to the number of big firms that don't make the nlj250, yet still pay 6 figures?


True, but that affects all schools. I know Boston at least has a few non-NLJ market-rate firms that some schools on this least feed into.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby FuManChusco » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:16 pm

Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:18 pm

FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.


Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby FuManChusco » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:21 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.


Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.


Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby fatduck » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:27 pm

Image

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:34 pm

FuManChusco wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.


Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.


Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?


Lower.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby FuManChusco » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:38 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
FuManChusco wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.


Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.


Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?


Lower.


Damn. I thought I saw you post in another thread that it would slowly reach pre-ITE numbers.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:42 pm

FuManChusco wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
FuManChusco wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.


Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?


Lower.


Damn. I thought I saw you post in another thread that it would slowly reach pre-ITE numbers.


They got their SA offers before Lehman fell, and the Dow crashed. But they got their full time offers well after. It's a mix.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby rundoxierun » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:45 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
FuManChusco wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.


Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.


Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?


Lower.


Based on what assumptions??

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:48 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
FuManChusco wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.


Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?


Lower.


Based on what assumptions??


Class of 2011 is the first class that did OCI after the economy crashed.

seriously????
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:15 am

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby seriously???? » Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:03 am

that's sickening, and not good for topic of this post. BC and BU somewhat held their ground. WandL certainly got some humble pie. i agree that the class of 11 wont be better, but maybe class of 14 could equal to 09. It can get better, because the baby boomer retirement effect should start to grow.

MrAnon
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than...

Postby MrAnon » Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:20 am

JCougar wrote:
bk1 wrote:
JCougar wrote:It's highly unprofitable for big firms to hire new associates that leave after three years.


What? Isn't their hiring model based on the fact that new associates leave after several years?


They'd rather the people not leave. It's just a fact of life that many law graduates hate Biglaw so much that, despite the awesome salaries, they're going to leave anyways.

Unless you're at a prestigious white shoe firm that can bill you out for $300/hour or higher, most first and second-year associates are a net loss for big firms. Think about it. They bill you out at $200/hour, you have to bill 2000 hours/year. That's $400,000 dollars a year that they bring in. But clients are always complaining about hours that shouldn't have been billed, so naturally, they get discounts, etc. So these firms are really only pulling in $300-350K from your work.

In addition to your $160K salary, they have to pay for all your health and dental benefits, among other perks, plus they have to pay your secretary's salary and health benefits as well, which brings your total costs close to $300K. On top of that, they have to pay rent on your office space (usually in a prime rent area), and other firm overhead.

You won't turn a profit for your firm until your third or fourth year under normal circumstances. This is why firms are increasingly looking farther than just grades. They want associates that will stay for 8 years.


Rather they not leave? Wrong. Its a pyramid type organization. Even if one firm hires the brightest and most dynamic 8 law students in the nation at once, 7 years ago, it won't be able to make all 8 of them partner this year UNLESS each one has a book of business. Firms have always looked for characteristics beyond grades. What you might be trying to say is that they hope new associates might have some business contacts or family connections to bring some work to their firm, or that the associate is at least capable enough to develop such talent in short order.

The dumbest and most hated 1st year associate is profitable. If he is not profitable he would be kicked out. Total gross income on a first year in NYC is north of $500k. The idea that first years don't become profitable until year three is a myth. I'm not sure where people came up with that. Maybe at really horrid ID firms where the insurance clients don't want 1st years to bill this is how things work, but at firms of any prestige the first years are bright, dynamic and they bill. There are not that many discounts and writeoffs. In a small commercial lit case you might have a partner, a midlevel and a first year. All three individuals bill and show up on the invoice. For all the cost savings you have hard about clients do have money and dont want to lose a case and they will pay.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dante181, TheSpanishMain and 3 guests