I found this thread - on Paul Campos' blog - very interesting, and since it is highly relevant to choosing a law school, I thought I'd start a thread on it here.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... mbers.html

The basic point: The big law employment data that Columbia, NYU, and - to a lesser extent - Harvard post on their websites doesn't fit with the independently verified data. They seem to be over-reporting their big law employment numbers.

The data: Columbia and NYU report that 555 of their 2010 graduates found big law work (in firms with 250+ attorneys). The NLJ 250 employment report (which includes all firms with 250+ attorneys, and some slightly smaller firms) lists only 448 Columbia and NYU grads working for NLJ 250 firms. That leaves 107 jobs that can't be accounted for.

Similarly, there are 27 jobs Harvard reports that can't be found in the NLJ 250 data. In contrast, the numbers of big law jobs that Yale and Chicago report match up exactly with the NLJ 250 data.

ETA: the link to Campos' blog doesn't seem to be working. If you google 'Law School Scam,' it's the top result.

Timing of the counting. Deferred starts.

lol

107? That's about 1/5. Why no deferred starts at Yale and Chicago?

Also, wouldn't the previous year's deferred starts counteract or correct for that? The number of deferred starts should be decreasing as the economy (slowly) improves, so if anything that should lead to a positive discrepancy, not a negative discrepancy.

I still don't really understand how NLJ numbers are computed. Any room for errors on that end? (obviously there are ample opportunities for "errors" on the schools' end.)

Apparently most of the firms report their hiring numbers to the NLJ, and, for the few firms that don't, the NLJ gets the data from the firms' websites.

Again: if you suppose the firms aren't reporting some hires, why are they doing that for some schools only?

What if NLJ numbers only include associates but school numbers include offers? Just guessing. Who knows.

Maybe some firms are reporting associates but other firms are reporting hires. Some firms favor some schools than others. So it is at least plausible that some schools are affected more than others.

Campos considers the possibility that the schools might be reporting all hires and the firms just reporting partner-track positions (which is a simpler version of what you're suggesting, I think), but he seems to think it is implausible that that could account for such a large difference.

Maybe it's the students that are lying where they got employment? haha. Doubt it tho. Not that many.

Yeah, not only would Columbia and NYU need 107 liars between them, we would also need to assume that Chicago had none. I don't think Chicago students are all that different from Columbia students. IMO, if one group was lying, the other group would be.

I think it's likely the schools themselves have different definitions of "employed" with respect to deferred associates who haven't actually started work yet. Some with over-inflated numbers like CLS/NYU may count them (because they do have a job offer) and some schools like Yale or Chicago with more accurate numbers don't (because they don't actually have a job). Makes some sense to me, though obviously it's just a guess.

NYU is short 60ish and CLS is short 40ish. That's comparable to the number of clerks that each of those schools put out.

Though that doesn't really make sense to me that they would double count these people so even though those numbers kind of line up, I doubt that's it.

So, your idea is:

1. CLS and NYU list somone as employed in big law if he or she starts immediately OR has a deferred offer.
2. Chicago and Yale only list someone as employed in big law if he or she starts immediately.
3. The NLJ data only includes people who started immediately.

Here's the problem: how are the Chicago and Yale students who have deferred offers listed by Chicago and Yale, in their employment data? Your idea precludes them from being listed as employed in big law - the job type they actually secured. But they can't be listing them as unemployed, because Chicago and Yale have almost no unemployment.

No offense, but I don't think I even did, or will, care about other people's employment status this much.

What is your definition of "almost no unemployment."

Lol yeah.

CCN are peers and have similar placement power. End of story.

About 3 people a year for Chicago and 4 a year for Yale. Numbers that are far too small to also include deferred offers - especialy if we suppose one in five at NYU and CLS are deferred.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/employmentdata
http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/cdo ... tstats.htm

At first I thought this was just blatant CLS trolling, but now I don't know.

Trying to reconcile some sense in self-reported data is futile.

CC are peers are have similar placement power

The only reason I'm interested in this is because I can't work out why the numbers don't match up.

Also: I like your avatar, Bronck. Is that a gargoyle at Notre Dame?

I just ran the numbers, albeit in my head and somewhat rounded, but I don't see there being that much of a difference if any between the NLJ 250 numbers and what CLS reported. Their website puts out that of 430 students 76.1% were employed in law firms(327). Of those 327, 71.8% were in firms with 100+ lawyers - admittedly, some of those firms might not be NLJ250 - which gives us about 235 students they are claiming in NLJ250ish firms. NLJ250 numbers from LST say that they had 239 students out of 433 in the NLJ250. Where is the conspiracy?

Ha Ha Ha

Indeed, it is.

Or maybe not.