UPDATED: 2007-2009 Grads at NLJ250 firms+fed clerkships Forum

[Lawlcat]

NYU better be placing a significant amount more of people in PI -_-

They are. I think the difference is roughly 14% at NYU versus 5% for Columbia and 1% for Chicago. It is a similar phenomenon at Berkeley.

The problem with a graph like this, while useful, is that it is easy to conflate public interest graduates with unemployed or underemployed graduates.

Absolutely. I'll again emphasize that this is a very conservative measurement. That's kind of the point, though: most people would agree, the reasoning goes, that NLJ 250 or a federal clerkship probably means you aren't qualified to start a scamblog. These numbers also seem to be generated pretty reliably and regularly. I haven't seen comparable datasets for public interest or other post-grad options. PI and such also presents the problem of deciding what counts as "good". In contrast, the data is there for state clerkships, but as far as I know there isn't quite the same consensus that "state clerkship = win".

In short, one reason why NLJ 250 numbers didn't seem really poised to explode USNWR as deans' irrelevant ruminations on academic prestige was that they didn't include clerkships and presented the facially absurd suggestion that Harvard was kinda weak. I think adding Article III clerkships helps to correct some of the grossest errors.

I'll stick this up at the top to help give at least a one-year (boom/otherwise possibly non-representative) suggestion of what the rest of the picture might look like:
http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf
(Class of 2005 detailed outcomes)

Can you change the y axis to run from 0 to 100%? Otherwise the numbers look inflated at first glance.

I've put up links to the 100-scaled graphs. Maybe I'll make it the default later.

Important caveat: I hunted through http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... ngs/page+6 for a while, but for a few schools I couldn't find the art iii data. (They're the ones with 0 on the data snapshot and no orange cap on the graph.) Let me know if you see the numbers, and I'll fix them. I THINK they're all 1% or less, but it's possible I missed them on the first pages.

W&M is on the second page at 4%
Davis is on the third page at 3%
Wisconsin is on the sixth page at 1%

I also could not find Illinois, which seems odd, but w/e.

Ahhh! Thank you. I will correct those ASAP.

[Lawlcat]

Important caveat: I hunted through http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... ngs/page+6 for a while, but for a few schools I couldn't find the art iii data. (They're the ones with 0 on the data snapshot and no orange cap on the graph.) Let me know if you see the numbers, and I'll fix them. I THINK they're all 1% or less, but it's possible I missed them on the first pages.

W&M is on the second page at 4%
Davis is on the third page at 3%
Wisconsin is on the sixth page at 1%

I also could not find Illinois, which seems odd, but w/e.

Update: I still don't see Wisconsin.

I have W&M at 3%.

I see Davis at 3%.

[JusticeHarlan]

Important caveat: I hunted through http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... ngs/page+6 for a while, but for a few schools I couldn't find the art iii data. (They're the ones with 0 on the data snapshot and no orange cap on the graph.) Let me know if you see the numbers, and I'll fix them. I THINK they're all 1% or less, but it's possible I missed them on the first pages.

W&M is on the second page at 4%
Davis is on the third page at 3%
Wisconsin is on the sixth page at 1%

I also could not find Illinois, which seems odd, but w/e.

Update: I still don't see Wisconsin.

I have W&M at 3%.

I see Davis at 3%.

Odd; I'm seeing the same thing as you now. I'm also seeing wacky stuff like San Diego at #1, so I'm gonna assume their charts are messed up now (something to do with the new rankings?) and look again tomorrow.

[Lawlcat]

Odd; I'm seeing the same thing as you now. I'm also seeing wacky stuff like San Diego at #1, so I'm gonna assume their charts are messed up now (something to do with the new rankings?) and look again tomorrow.

Okay. I'm going to leave them as-is for now...given that we'll have more data tomorrow anyway.

[Lawlcat]

Are the new clerkship numbers locked to subscribers or something? I am but a lawlcat of modest means. Meawr meawr.

[stegman]

I just spent 10 minutes trying to remember my password to this site so I could thank you. Very useful.


Edit, does anyone know what that Cornell blip's about? How is it that Cornell consistently places as well as or better than NYU? The PI thing?

Editing again, never mind what I said about Cornell and NYU. Would still be interested to know why they had that rise in 2010.

[Lawlcat]

I just spent 10 minutes trying to remember my password to this site so I could thank you. Very useful.


Edit, does anyone know what that Cornell blip's about? How is it that Cornell consistently places as well as or better than NYU? The PI thing?

Editing again, never mind what I said about Cornell and NYU. Would still be interested to know why they had that rise in 2010.

Wow! Thanks!

Sorry, I've been pretty busy lately. But once I get a sec, I'm going to try crunching the numbers to produce a snapshot of the total (NLJ 250 + Art III) for all four years. I think it'll be interesting to see how things have varied from year-to-year.

Think I should go with the side-by-side columns as with the T14 chart, or just produce four split-bar charts (one for each year)? I'm thinking the latter might be clearer.

It seems like the Art III numbers are still under lock and key for 2009.

[dissonance1848]

It's kinda suprising that, given all the tiering business, that Penn seems to in general have 5-10% higher placement numbers than UVA or UM. Any guesses?

[bigben]

I've heard of these Art. III numbers being off. For example, I heard that some schools may have reported magistrate clerks as being Article III.

Also let's not forget that NLJ250 includes a lot of crappy non-biglaw firms, especially in the northeast. By the way, anyone know how the NLJ gets this data?

[Lawlcat]

I've heard of these Art. III numbers being off.

It seems like these should be objectively verifiable in the same way as the NLJ 250 numbers. Since they come from USNWR, instead of an independent source, I'm a bit concerned that this is inaccurate, unaudited from-schools data. (Perhaps it's something like "of students reporting back to us, X% said they had judicial clerkships".) Still, my feeling is that it's most valid exactly where you see the highest totals: more "prestigious" schools both place a lot of people in clerkships and have the highest response rates to those questionnaires.

Also let's not forget that NLJ250 includes a lot of crappy non-biglaw firms, especially in the northeast.

I've flagged this in the main post, I think, but yes: it's probably over-inclusive. Do we have good data for V100 numbers? I'd think that V100 would be pretty unassailable as "good".

Additionally: since salary is one reasonable measure of quality, do we have salary data for the NLJ 250? Seems like it must be there. If there's some slice of the pie that's labeled as less than 60K or something, we know it's way over-inclusive.

I actually have another question along these lines: anyone know what state clerkships are worth? Would they be considered "good" outcomes? My hunch is that state supreme court, or maybe appellate courts in certain states (along with weird ones like Delaware chancery) are at least as good as the average article III clerkship.

By the way, anyone know how the NLJ gets this data?

They list the data in columns, giving #graduates at NLJ 250 firms / #JDs awarded / percentage. That strongly suggests to me that they are individually counting graduates at firms, perhaps through firm websites or through the firms' HR departments.

It really sounds like a really fantastic source on schools' placement ability. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about USNWR employment data (horribly vague, bad reporting, etc.) when we have this.

[Lawlcat]

It's kinda suprising that, given all the tiering business, that Penn seems to in general have 5-10% higher placement numbers than UVA or UM. Any guesses?

This is really intended just as a first-order improvement beyond pure NLJ 250 numbers, designed to roughly incorporate the type of employment most often cited to explain things like Harvard having a mediocre ranking on the NLJ 250 lists: clerkships. I really don't think we should be scrutinizing 5-10% differences. We don't have sufficiently precise measurements to sustain that kind of detailed analysis. (For instance, we're omitting PI entirely because I don't have a good way to distinguish "good" or "bad" PI, even if we could agree on what that meant.) We shouldn't be talking hundredths of an inch when these measurements were taken, so to speak, with a yardstick.

If you ask me, the most striking thing about this is that employment outcomes do not obviously track USNWR rankings.

[JusticeHarlan]

By the way, anyone know how the NLJ gets this data?

They list the data in columns, giving #graduates at NLJ 250 firms / #JDs awarded / percentage. That strongly suggests to me that they are individually counting graduates at firms, perhaps through firm websites or through the firms' HR departments.

It really sounds like a really fantastic source on schools' placement ability. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about USNWR employment data (horribly vague, bad reporting, etc.) when we have this.

From the bottom of the same page with the chart:

Methodology: Data for the Go-To Law Schools special report is provided by law firms surveyed for The National Law Journal's NLJ 250, our annual survey of the nation's 250 largest law firms. We also queried the law schools for hiring data. Ranks were determined by the percentage of 2010 graduates who took jobs as first-year associates at NLJ 250 law firms. We determined the percentage by using the 2010 juris doctor graduating class size provided by each school. The ranking does not reflect law school graduates who took jobs as judicial clerks after graduation.

[bigben]

Lawlcat, I think this is some of the best data out there, so don't think I am knocking it too much. Nonetheless, it has its flaws which I'm pointing out.

Here is a list of NLJ250 firms: http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250

That list shows around 70 firms with salaries values of N/A or 100k or less. I'd be pretty skeptical of that data though. I just picked a random firm from Chattanooga TN and it ILRG says $116k whereas NALP says $82k. Way off. NALP should be the most accurate salary data available, but I don't know if there is a handy NLJ250 NALP data list somewhere. EDIT: looks like the 116k is the salary for the Atlanta branch office. So it's an incomplete picture.

[bigben]

Methodology: Data for the Go-To Law Schools special report is provided by law firms surveyed for The National Law Journal's NLJ 250, our annual survey of the nation's 250 largest law firms. We also queried the law schools for hiring data. Ranks were determined by the percentage of 2010 graduates who took jobs as first-year associates at NLJ 250 law firms. We determined the percentage by using the 2010 juris doctor graduating class size provided by each school. The ranking does not reflect law school graduates who took jobs as judicial clerks after graduation.

Cool. My guess is that this would be pretty accurate, but what about response rates? I can't imagine all 250 firms completely filled out the NLJ survey.

[Lawlcat]

Lawlcat, I think this is some of the best data out there, so don't think I am knocking it too much. Nonetheless, it has its flaws which I'm pointing out.

Please, knock it as much as you like. I am all for kicking the tires of any data purporting to explain law school employment outcomes. Far too many people have invested a ton of money in a very bad way and been subsequently mocked for failing to "do their research". Given the murky-at-best nature of the data, I think that's really quite unfair. I think we're all collectively engaged in the enterprise of patching together whatever info we can to create a sort of jerry-rigged composite.

Here is a list of NLJ250 firms: http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250

That list shows around 70 firms with salaries values of N/A or 100k or less. I'd be pretty skeptical of that data though. I just picked a random firm from Chattanooga TN and it ILRG says $116k whereas NALP says $82k. Way off. NALP should be the most accurate salary data available, but I don't know if there is a handy NLJ250 NALP data list somewhere. EDIT: looks like the 116k is the salary for the Atlanta branch office. So it's an incomplete picture.

And continuing my thought above: thanks for investigating this. Do you have this data in chart or table form, such that I could add it to the main post to explain what "NLJ 250" means? (Perhaps combined with the not-yet-notorious-enough "bimodal salary distribution" graph.)

Like I mentioned, I also plan on hunting down the V100 data (if it's available ... I think I remember seeing it somewhere) ... I'm almost certain that the Vault data is at least as under-inclusive as the NLJ 250 data is overinclusive, but it'd be interesting to see both.

For now, I should go study ...

[predent/prelaw]

Why do the rankings shit on fordham?

[Brock2010]

You realize that not all NLJ250 jobs are good jobs?

[predent/prelaw]

You realize that not all NLJ250 jobs are good jobs?

do you have the good jobs rankings?

[romothesavior]

Really good stuff, I like the graphs. It makes me feel a lot better about my chances at getting something decent after graduation.

I do have to ask, what you do you mean by these two points?

* NLJ 250 may well cover a lot of firms that would not be considered "good outcomes". (and some schools may be systemically placing more or less in the "good" firms)
* Article III clerkships may include a bunch of "minor" courts. (ditto above)

What NLJ 250 firms are not considered "good outcomes?" Maybe some of the HYS types would roll over in their graves if they had to make a measly 90k to start in a secondary market, but that is still a great outcome for most students. Most Tier 1 students would lop off a testicle for an 80-90k starting salary. I don't know an NLJ 250 firm that would be a bad outcome. In fact, I think there are a lot of non-NLJ 250 firms that are great outcomes. There are far more than 250 "good outcome" firms, but those people are not captured by the NLJ 250 dara.

Also, what Article III clerkship would be a for a "minor court?" Sure, some Art. III clerkships are better than others. But none are bad. Most law students would kill for an Art. III clerkship in flyover country. They are good experience, and even the less prestigious ones are very competitive.

Again, great work. I'm just not sure what you meant by these statements.

[romothesavior]

You realize that not all NLJ250 jobs are good jobs?

Do explain, Mr. Lesner.

[Sentry]

You realize that not all NLJ250 jobs are good jobs?

Do explain, Mr. Lesner.

Apparently some people think <160 is shitlaw.

[aliarrow]

Will you be adding the 09 clerkship data anytime soon? It is up now on US News - all data is now for c/o 2009. PM me if you need some help with that part.

[Lawlcat]

Really good stuff, I like the graphs. It makes me feel a lot better about my chances at getting something decent after graduation.

I do have to ask, what you do you mean by these two points?

* NLJ 250 may well cover a lot of firms that would not be considered "good outcomes". (and some schools may be systemically placing more or less in the "good" firms)
* Article III clerkships may include a bunch of "minor" courts. (ditto above)

What NLJ 250 firms are not considered "good outcomes?" Maybe some of the HYS types would roll over in their graves if they had to make a measly 90k to start in a secondary market, but that is still a great outcome for most students. Most Tier 1 students would lop off a testicle for an 80-90k starting salary. I don't know an NLJ 250 firm that would be a bad outcome. In fact, I think there are a lot of non-NLJ 250 firms that are great outcomes. There are far more than 250 "good outcome" firms, but those people are not captured by the NLJ 250 dara.

Also, what Article III clerkship would be a for a "minor court?" Sure, some Art. III clerkships are better than others. But none are bad. Most law students would kill for an Art. III clerkship in flyover country. They are good experience, and even the less prestigious ones are very competitive.

Again, great work. I'm just not sure what you meant by these statements.

Hello! Drunken St. Patrick's day post. Meow meow.

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

See above. Nothing wrong with 90K. But few people make 90K. Most people make 50K or else 1XX,000. One way that law schools fuck people is that they see "median salary 160K" and assume (not only that all students are reporting but) "well, if I fuck up, I might be stuck with 80K or 100K. That's cool." That's not how it works. It is feast or famine. I go to a T14 (ooooh, fancy!) and even here: some people have 160K Vault jobs. The others don't have 80K mediocre jobs: they have nothing or lousy firm jobs that pay 50K and demand BigLaw hours in the middle of nowhere on boring cases. (Fortunately: LRAP is good and the T14 name usually gets you in the door at public interest places. A lot of people plan on doing BigLaw as a temporary thing anyway. People without firm jobs are not fucked. You get to be an attorney.)

Given this economy, I think 50K is a great outcome in some senses, in that at least you get to be an attorney and make something. However, it's not what people imagine.

On the other hand, I think all Article III clerkships probably count as a fantastic success. (Even at the best schools, outside of HYS, you need to be like top 20% to stand a chance, in core classes and with Law Review sucking up 20 hours/week.) I'm quite trashed right now and I have no idea what I might have been getting at. State clerkships may not be that impressive, I suppose.

Will you be adding the 09 clerkship data anytime soon? It is up now on US News - all data is now for c/o 2009. PM me if you need some help with that part.

I anticipate adding that stuff maybe next week when I have some time (this weekend is busy) and am not a drunken lawlcat. Meow meow.

[predent/prelaw]

Really good stuff, I like the graphs. It makes me feel a lot better about my chances at getting something decent after graduation.

I do have to ask, what you do you mean by these two points?

* NLJ 250 may well cover a lot of firms that would not be considered "good outcomes". (and some schools may be systemically placing more or less in the "good" firms)
* Article III clerkships may include a bunch of "minor" courts. (ditto above)

What NLJ 250 firms are not considered "good outcomes?" Maybe some of the HYS types would roll over in their graves if they had to make a measly 90k to start in a secondary market, but that is still a great outcome for most students. Most Tier 1 students would lop off a testicle for an 80-90k starting salary. I don't know an NLJ 250 firm that would be a bad outcome. In fact, I think there are a lot of non-NLJ 250 firms that are great outcomes. There are far more than 250 "good outcome" firms, but those people are not captured by the NLJ 250 dara.

Also, what Article III clerkship would be a for a "minor court?" Sure, some Art. III clerkships are better than others. But none are bad. Most law students would kill for an Art. III clerkship in flyover country. They are good experience, and even the less prestigious ones are very competitive.

Again, great work. I'm just not sure what you meant by these statements.

Hello! Drunken St. Patrick's day post. Meow meow.

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

See above. Nothing wrong with 90K. But few people make 90K. Most people make 50K or else 1XX,000. One way that law schools fuck people is that they see "median salary 160K" and assume (not only that all students are reporting but) "well, if I fuck up, I might be stuck with 80K or 100K. That's cool." That's not how it works. It is feast or famine. I go to a T14 (ooooh, fancy!) and even here: some people have 160K Vault jobs. The others don't have 80K mediocre jobs: they have nothing or lousy firm jobs that pay 50K and demand BigLaw hours in the middle of nowhere on boring cases. (Fortunately: LRAP is good and the T14 name usually gets you in the door at public interest places. A lot of people plan on doing BigLaw as a temporary thing anyway. People without firm jobs are not fucked. You get to be an attorney.)

Given this economy, I think 50K is a great outcome in some senses, in that at least you get to be an attorney and make something. However, it's not what people imagine.

On the other hand, I think all Article III clerkships probably count as a fantastic success. (Even at the best schools, outside of HYS, you need to be like top 20% to stand a chance, in core classes and with Law Review sucking up 20 hours/week.) I'm quite trashed right now and I have no idea what I might have been getting at. State clerkships may not be that impressive, I suppose.

Will you be adding the 09 clerkship data anytime soon? It is up now on US News - all data is now for c/o 2009. PM me if you need some help with that part.

I anticipate adding that stuff maybe next week when I have some time (this weekend is busy) and am not a drunken lawlcat. Meow meow.

I don't understand that just looks like a class salary average is that the salaries for only NLJ 250 hires or does it include everything?

[tipler4213]

Look at Cornell grandstanding up there--think these are all the "crappy" NLJ top 250 jobs?