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

[romothesavior]

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:

But you said some NLJ 250 jobs are bad jobs. Now you're saying that if you miss a 100k+ job and take a 50k job (which would be a non-NLJ 250 job), you've had a bad outcome. These are two different situations. I agree that there is a bimodal salary distribution, and I agree a lot of people don't realize it. But to jump from talking about bimodal salary distribution to "Some NLJ 250 jobs are bad outcomes" makes no sense whatsoever. My whole point is that I don't think there are "bad outcome" NLJ 250 firms, and if there are, then I'd love to hear about them.

I also wholeheartedly disagree that 80k is "mediocre," especially if you're in a small or mid-sized market.

[tgir]

OP, why do you assume that the average of old, pre-ITE Article III placements is even remotely predictive of the current state of affairs? If placement into these fields were independent of each other, I'd think your model made sense. However, the amount of grads who end up in clerkships is obviously highly dependent on the number of grads who were able to land biglaw at OCI, among other factors. So if one school's numbers go way down on NLJ but way up on clerkships (or vice versa) over a one- or two-year span, your data becomes horribly unrepresentative of its placement.

In terms of comparing the schools to one another, you'd be much better off just using the most recent Article III data from USNews (Class of 2009) alongside the corresponding NLJ250 data--in other words, the older data for the Class of 2009. True, it wouldn't capture ITE, but the reality is that we simply don't have the numbers yet to compare schools ITE. And if all you want is a big-picture view of ITE, you don't need school-by-school numbers anyway.

[Lawlcat]

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:

But you said some NLJ 250 jobs are bad jobs. Now you're saying that if you miss a 100k+ job and take a 50k job (which would be a non-NLJ 250 job), you've had a bad outcome. These are two different situations. I agree that there is a bimodal salary distribution, and I agree a lot of people don't realize it. But to jump from talking about bimodal salary distribution to "Some NLJ 250 jobs are bad outcomes" makes no sense whatsoever. My whole point is that I don't think there are "bad outcome" NLJ 250 firms, and if there are, then I'd love to hear about them.

I also wholeheartedly disagree that 80k is "mediocre," especially if you're in a small or mid-sized market.

I probably should have put quotes around "mediocre". My point was:

(NOT THE SITUATION): "If you miss a 160K job, you settle for 100K or 80K."
(THE SITUATION): "If you miss a 160K (or other six-figure or whatever) job, the only firms you'll probably get a shot with pay like 50K".

In other words, it was the absence of an 80K "second-best" set of possibilities that I was remarking upon. And hey, I agree, there are probably even markets where 80K would be great. My point is that this salary range just isn't very well-populated.

My whole point is that I don't think there are "bad outcome" NLJ 250 firms, and if there are, then I'd love to hear about them.

I honestly don't know if there are NLJ 250 firms that pay on the left-hand side of that salary distribution. I think it bears investigation. Neither "there are" nor "there aren't" would shock me. This should be investigated. Again, I apologize for punting to next week, but honestly I probably should not have even started this project this week...killer study-cram-test weekend ahead. I promise I will work on this next week, and flag things so that people realize there are errors and inaccuracies.

OP, why do you assume that the average of old, pre-ITE Article III placements is even remotely predictive of the current state of affairs? If placement into these fields were independent of each other, I'd think your model made sense. However, the amount of grads who end up in clerkships is obviously highly dependent on the number of grads who were able to land biglaw at OCI, among other factors. So if one school's numbers go way down on NLJ but way up on clerkships (or vice versa) over a one- or two-year span, your data becomes horribly unrepresentative of its placement.

In terms of comparing the schools to one another, you'd be much better off just using the most recent Article III data from USNews (Class of 2009) alongside the corresponding NLJ250 data--in other words, the older data for the Class of 2009. True, it wouldn't capture ITE, but the reality is that we simply don't have the numbers yet to compare schools ITE. And if all you want is a big-picture view of ITE, you don't need school-by-school numbers anyway.

I fully agree that adding 2009 NLJ 250 data is a good idea. As I'm about to update the original post to reflect, though, I have an exam in about 48 hours that I need to go continue cramming for. I'll make a few quick changes to correct specific errors with Georgia and W&M, and stick a gloriously 1990s "UNDER! CONSTRUCTION!" sign on it.

That said:

However, the amount of grads who end up in clerkships is obviously highly dependent on the number of grads who were able to land biglaw at OCI, among other factors.

As I understand it, if you get a clerkship, you take the clerkship. Firms are generally happy to defer a year to let you do a federal clerkship. Most of them give bonuses for it, in fact. It also opens all kinds of doors, in the firm world and outside it. (There might be some super-transactional firms that would not reward/might even actively discourage clerkships, but ... if they exist, I think they're a minority.)

Now, any thought beginning with "As I understand it" and relating to the law school placement world should provoke skepticism. But this is my impression as someone who's gone through OCI and all that.

As for the accuracy of the data: the number of available clerkships probably doesn't change much with recessions. (Perhaps there's a slight uptick in "experienced" people going and getting a clerkship after having practiced a couple years.) Federal clerkships are not fallback options. It's possible that ITE has motivated judges to alter their criteria, e.g. to help out their law schools. But I'll be surprised if 2009 data shows massive fluctuations. The 2007/2008 data (both pre-ITE, it's true) hover very close to one another:

--ImageRemoved--
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/59986f2601.png

And here's my raw data, again:
--ImageRemoved--
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/342fccf62c.png

[tgir]

I agree. Most people who get a clerkship take it, and the number of clerkships is relatively static. My point, however, was that people's behavior in seeking clerkships could have been altered either by the actual results of OCI or even just by expectancy. Many people at top schools may have just decided to use clerkships as a way to sit out the bad economy, and presumably some schools' grads were more successful at that than others.

Additionally, I agree that the Class of 2009 clerkship numbers aren't very different from C/O 2007-8, because Class of 2009 is still pretty much pre-ITE. The problem with your current model isn't the clerkship numbers so much as the NLJ numbers. By the time you get to Class of 2010, ITE conditions had begun to hit--you're capturing those in the NLJ numbers, but NOT in the clerkship numbers, and that is the problem.

[Lawlcat]

Many people at top schools may have just decided to use clerkships as a way to sit out the bad economy, and presumably some schools' grads were more successful at that than others. (...) The problem with your current model isn't the clerkship numbers so much as the NLJ numbers. By the time you get to Class of 2010, ITE conditions had begun to hit--you're capturing those in the NLJ numbers, but NOT in the clerkship numbers, and that is the problem.

Well, as I indicated above, I would be surprised if this were the cause of a change. I'd think the "judges getting more loyal to their law schools" factor, if present, would be more significant. Even pre-ITE, my impression is that people would snatch up clerkships if they could, period, because it not only gave them a year of lower hours and a salary boost (when they joined their firm afterward) but would open doors to academia and government work down the line. Still, I can't say that this possibility (that we're going to see clerkship seeking skyrocket in ITE data when we get it next year) is absurd or unbelievable. Given that there are a limited number of fed clerkships out there, though, I don't think we should expect to see, e.g., a few T14s snatching up all the clerkships from others.

[charliebrownwn]

Thanks so much for this. A really good way to quantify tiers in the T14, and to understand the difference between #13 and #20.

[Slevin Kelevra 2011]

Can you rank the top 30 schools based on total % in NLJ250/Clerkships?

[Reedie]

And here's my raw data, again:
--ImageRemoved--
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/342fccf62c.png

Maybe I'm crazy but, this data to me is striking mainly in its volatility from year to year. It's hard for me to look at this and see a clear ordinal ranking of schools. In fact it would appear that a school's placement by this metric in year X, is not a great predictor of its placement in year X+1 (at least when compared with other similar schools).

[predent/prelaw]

How did NLJ 250 salaries in 2008 with only 4.8% being less than 6 figs drop to so many 50k salaries.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=80439
Also the chart you linked to before did not say NLJ 250 salaries it said the class of 20080910 w.e. salaries so would not include PI gov drug dealers and the lot?

[charliebrownwn]

Maybe I'm crazy but, this data to me is striking mainly in its volatility from year to year. It's hard for me to look at this and see a clear ordinal ranking of schools. In fact it would appear that a school's placement by this metric in year X, is not a great predictor of its placement in year X+1 (at least when compared with other similar schools).

...

See:

Basically, all the T-14schools seem to hover within a +/- 10% band.

and

The 2010 Total average is about 60%. NYU got about 50%. Even if we're talking about defending a fervent belief in "CCN" (should we? I'm skeptical), the data being as limited as it is I'm not persuaded this graph is inconsistent with that belief. Myself, I'm so far persuaded that Yale is magical, as are (probably) H and S. Beyond that, it's just the T14, with minor variances therein that do not seem especially stable over time and do not appear to correlate clearly with USNWR rankings. (Maybe I'm just Mich-trolling.)

[romothesavior]

I honestly don't know if there are NLJ 250 firms that pay on the left-hand side of that salary distribution. I think it bears investigation. Neither "there are" nor "there aren't" would shock me. This should be investigated. Again, I apologize for punting to next week, but honestly I probably should not have even started this project this week...killer study-cram-test weekend ahead. I promise I will work on this next week, and flag things so that people realize there are errors and inaccuracies.

That's all fine, but I was just responding to your statement that some NLJ firms are bad options. Not true at all, so be careful with saying things like that.

[Brock2010]

I honestly don't know if there are NLJ 250 firms that pay on the left-hand side of that salary distribution. I think it bears investigation. Neither "there are" nor "there aren't" would shock me. This should be investigated. Again, I apologize for punting to next week, but honestly I probably should not have even started this project this week...killer study-cram-test weekend ahead. I promise I will work on this next week, and flag things so that people realize there are errors and inaccuracies.

That's all fine, but I was just responding to your statement that some NLJ firms are bad options. Not true at all, so be careful with saying things like that.

Some NLJ firms are bad options. It can cost upwards of $200,000 to attend law school.

[aliarrow]

I honestly don't know if there are NLJ 250 firms that pay on the left-hand side of that salary distribution. I think it bears investigation. Neither "there are" nor "there aren't" would shock me. This should be investigated. Again, I apologize for punting to next week, but honestly I probably should not have even started this project this week...killer study-cram-test weekend ahead. I promise I will work on this next week, and flag things so that people realize there are errors and inaccuracies.

That's all fine, but I was just responding to your statement that some NLJ firms are bad options. Not true at all, so be careful with saying things like that.

Some NLJ firms are bad options. It can cost upwards of $200,000 to attend law school.

$80k a year somewhere like FL with a low cost of living and no state/local taxes wouldn't be a 'bad option' (the majority of what the non-six fig nlj 250 jobs are; good salaries in low QOL markets).

[Other25BeforeYou]

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

According to the data leaked on above the law last year about Cornell's class of 2010, only 6.25% of Cornell students who went to NLJ250 firms went to firms outside the V100. I would imagine most schools in the T14 have a similar percentage of students going to non-vault NLJ250. Even if you took out all the students working at non-vault firms in Cornell's percentage (which would assume, I think erroneously, that no other T14 places ANY students into non-vault NLJ 250 firms), Cornell would still have a higher overall percentage than every school except Harvard, Columbia, Chicago and Penn.

Also, most people I know going to non-vault NLJ250 firms self-selected into them, since vault firms tend to be mostly in New York City. Some of us would rather work in secondary markets and make less than 160K in exchange for increased quality of life.

[Lawlcat]

Meow meow!

Updated at last!

Broken up year-by-year ... I think it's again clear that there's a ton of bouncing around within a relatively narrow range. It's definitely not some kind of smooth progression that tracks USNWR ranking, which surprised me.

The usual problems remain:
• How accurately does the NLJ 250 represent "BigLaw"?
• Looking at the 2005 detailed data, or Aliarrow's excellent work reconstructing these graphs for the MODERN ERA, it seems like public interest inclination varies considerably, and could be at least as significant as article III placement in terms of the overall picture.

[09042014]

The reason these numbers bounced around so much was before ITE damn near anyone at a T14 could get a NLJ job. Just look at 2007. Some of these schools were at over 80%, including bottom t14's like Penn and NU. When you add in public interest, non Art 3 clerking, people who didn't want big law, fed gov, and non NLJ boutiques placement. You are damn near 100%.

So in 2007 when Harvard and NU had similar combined placement. The difference wasn't getting a job v. not getting one. It was at what type of firm you could get a job.

Class of 2011 was the first class where people had trouble getting 2L SAs. The rumors from that classes OCI roughly look like the tiers we talk about on TLS. Yale and Stanford near 100%. Harvard 80%ish. CCN just at 70%. The rest in the 60's to 40's.

[Lawlcat]

The reason these numbers bounced around so much was before ITE damn near anyone at a T14 could get a NLJ job. Just look at 2007. Some of these schools were at over 80%, including bottom t14's like Penn and NU. When you add in public interest, non Art 3 clerking, people who didn't want big law, fed gov, and non NLJ boutiques placement. You are damn near 100%.

So in 2007 when Harvard and NU had similar combined placement. The difference wasn't getting a job v. not getting one. It was at what type of firm you could get a job.

Class of 2011 was the first class where people had trouble getting 2L SAs. The rumors from that classes OCI roughly look like the tiers we talk about on TLS. Yale and Stanford near 100%. Harvard 80%ish. CCN just at 70%. The rest in the 60's to 40's.

This seems pawsible. Even purrsuasive.

Law schools do seem to be benefiting from the fact that economic shocks take about 3 years to be discussed in publication.

[drylo]

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.

Agree with this.

Also, most people I know going to non-vault NLJ250 firms self-selected into them, since vault firms tend to be mostly in New York City. Some of us would rather work in secondary markets and make less than 160K in exchange for increased quality of life.

Also agree with this.

Some NLJ firms are bad options. It can cost upwards of $200,000 to attend law school.

Depends on your monetary investment, expectations, and definition of "bad option."

[ndirish2010]

Are the clerkship stats updated? If they're not, where can we find the latest stats?

[Lawlcat]

Are the clerkship stats updated? If they're not, where can we find the latest stats?

2009 clerkship numbers have been released, and they are incorporated into the new 2007-2009 matching charts. These charts, which are at the top of the first page, show

2007 NLJ250 + 2007 Article III
2008 NLJ250 + 2008 Article III *** Please note: neither Yale nor Texas were in the NLJ 250 "Go-To Law Schools" list for 2008, so I used the average of 2007 and 2009 for those two schools in this year.
2009 NLJ250 + 2009 Article III

I should probably also redo the 2010 charts using 2007, 2008, AND 2009 to get an average (rather than just 2007/8, as now), but ... lazy. Or rather, classes.

Also, it's not like there was some massive upset in 2009 clerkships. T14s get about 10%, with a few exceptions getting more like 5%. Yale 30%, Stanford 20%, Harvard 15%. I bet the averages would look just about the same. Maybe a couple percentage points up or down.

See also: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/e05dcfbb91.png line chart: idea is to show that it's all in the same band

and http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/f3b8e2556b.png raw numbers

[bigben]

Just one not-so-hot NLJ250 example: Steptoe & Johnson paying 70k in West Virginia. Low COL I know, but the pay is still pretty low and WV isn't really where most people want to be.

I believe there are some huge shitlaw-esque nlj firms around NY or NJ that pay 80kish but with much higher COL, that would be like 50k in most places.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Just one not-so-hot NLJ250 example: Steptoe & Johnson paying 70k in West Virginia. Low COL I know, but the pay is still pretty low and WV isn't really where most people want to be.

I believe there are some huge shitlaw-esque nlj firms around NY or NJ that pay 80kish but with much higher COL, that would be like 50k in most places.

I wasn't aware that Steptoe had a West Virginia office. That said, their D.C. office is where the bulk of their lawyers are, and it is by no means "not-so-hot". It is actually a rather well respected/selective firm, especially in regulatory/trade matters.

Edit: According to NALP, they pay market (160k) in every market except for Phoenix. In Phoenix they pay 125k, which appears to be about 10k above the market rate of the other large, Vault-ranked firms located in the area.

[bigben]

Just one not-so-hot NLJ250 example: Steptoe & Johnson paying 70k in West Virginia. Low COL I know, but the pay is still pretty low and WV isn't really where most people want to be.

I believe there are some huge shitlaw-esque nlj firms around NY or NJ that pay 80kish but with much higher COL, that would be like 50k in most places.

I wasn't aware that Steptoe had a West Virginia office. That said, their D.C. office is where the bulk of their lawyers are, and it is by no means "not-so-hot". It is actually a rather well respected/selective firm, especially in regulatory/trade matters.

Edit: According to NALP, they pay market (160k) in every market except for Phoenix. In Phoenix they pay 125k, which appears to be about 10k above the market rate of the other large, Vault-ranked firms located in the area.

Oh I realize they usually pay market. But NALP shows their WV office paying 72k in 2010 and 2011 is listed "TBD". The summer associate salary is 1k/week.

EDIT: This is hard to believe but on second look, I think these are actually two different firms with the same name. That explains things.

[rundoxierun]

Just one not-so-hot NLJ250 example: Steptoe & Johnson paying 70k in West Virginia. Low COL I know, but the pay is still pretty low and WV isn't really where most people want to be.

I believe there are some huge shitlaw-esque nlj firms around NY or NJ that pay 80kish but with much higher COL, that would be like 50k in most places.

Idk if you fully understand the difference in COL. 70k starting in WV is equal to 140-160k starting in NYC. Plus, if WV is anything like the smaller market that I live in, you dont really worry about job security in normal economic times.

[standard]

Thanks OP, this deserves a sticky