The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
PMan99
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby PMan99 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:50 am

birdlaw117 wrote:It may not be his claim, but it must be true in order for everything to work out. Explain to me what happens with Campos' "study" when someone from Yale works at Wachtell, an NLJ250 firm with fewer than 250 attorneys.


Nothing.

Campos is not saying that NLJ250 = Claimed 250+ for Yale. He put zero as the discrepancy but if you do the math it actually ends up being negative (That is, the NLJ250 # is higher than what Yale says they send to firms of 250 or greater). This is exactly what you would expect - the people going to Wachtell, MTO, etc. make up that difference.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby skers » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:53 am

birdlaw117 wrote:
TemporarySaint wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:
TemporarySaint wrote:The data Campos is talking about was released by Columbia last week. I think people are confusing that with the data Columbia put on their website awhile ago.

Not sure what this has to do with conflating NLJ 250 with 250+ attorney firms... but cool dude. Thanks for the info. The stuff on CLS' website gave the same info as what he uses in his blog post.


I don't know if Campos is conflating that data since he's responding to data released by NYU and Columbia to the NALP last week (which I don't know if other schools did or not), but without seeing what the data he is basing his conclusions off of (unless it's just exactly what is on their website), it's hard to make firm explanatory conclusions either way.


This quote leads me to believe it is broken down by 500+ attorney firms, 251-500, and 100-250:
No more than 448 (the real number is lower to the extent that any grads in associate track positions at NLJ250 firms were working at firms of less than 251 attorneys).


He mentions the possibility that the discrepancy would be larger if this were the case, but then fails to recognize how that should affect the other schools' data that he mentions.

Again, I don't know what the flaw in this methodology is, but it seems fairly clear to me that there is something wrong with it.


I don't think methodology is that fucked up (unless I'm giving Campos too much credit). I think what he's saying is if we look at what the law schools report as the number of attorneys working at firms off 250+ attorneys and then look at what schools regarding how many graduates are working at total NLJ250 jobs, if the number of graduates working at total NLJ250 jobs (including both firms above and below 250 attorneys) is lower than the total of graduates reported by schools as working at firms of 250 attorneys than we do have a discrepancy. And not in the way of where's Wachtell as you're trying to say.

For the numbers in this case. 555 total jobs reported by NYU and Columbia of graduates working at firms of 250+ attorneys
Total number of NLJ250 jobs (both firms above 250 attorneys and below 250 attorneys): 448.

That means that even if we assume that EVERY job received by an NYU or Columbia graduate was at a firm with 250 attorneys (which they very likely weren't) we'd still have a discrepancy between what NYU/Columbia reported and what the NLJ250 reported.

ETA: That is unless there are a firms outside of the NLJ250, with staffs over 250 attorneys, that are hiring that many Columbia/NYU grads.
Last edited by skers on Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:55 am

PMan99 wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:It may not be his claim, but it must be true in order for everything to work out. Explain to me what happens with Campos' "study" when someone from Yale works at Wachtell, an NLJ250 firm with fewer than 250 attorneys.


Nothing.

Campos is not saying that NLJ250 = Claimed 250+ for Yale. He put zero as the discrepancy but if you do the math it actually ends up being negative (That is, the NLJ250 # is higher than what Yale says they send to firms of 250 or greater). This is exactly what you would expect - the people going to Wachtell, MTO, etc. make up that difference.

Exactly, it's negative. But their discrepancy is 0. So do you think that nobody from Yale worked at a firm that falls into this category? I know I doubt that to be true. And if it isn't true, why isn't the discrepancy negative?

ETA: To be clear, what I'm saying is that there is something that I can identify that would give Yale a NEGATIVE discrepancy beyond doubt. But since there is not a negative discrepancy, there must be something else I'm missing. That something else is likely the cause of the NYU, CLS, and HLS discrepancies. Since those schools are all larger, it would make sense that it would be something that would be magnified due to the larger student body.

PMan99
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby PMan99 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:58 am

birdlaw117 wrote:
PMan99 wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:It may not be his claim, but it must be true in order for everything to work out. Explain to me what happens with Campos' "study" when someone from Yale works at Wachtell, an NLJ250 firm with fewer than 250 attorneys.


Nothing.

Campos is not saying that NLJ250 = Claimed 250+ for Yale. He put zero as the discrepancy but if you do the math it actually ends up being negative (That is, the NLJ250 # is higher than what Yale says they send to firms of 250 or greater). This is exactly what you would expect - the people going to Wachtell, MTO, etc. make up that difference.

Exactly, it's negative. But their discrepancy is 0. So do you think that nobody from Yale worked at a firm that falls into this category? I know I doubt that to be true. And if it isn't true, why isn't the discrepancy negative?

ETA: To be clear, what I'm saying is that there is something that I can identify that would give Yale a NEGATIVE discrepancy beyond doubt. But since there is not a negative discrepancy, there must be something else I'm missing. That something else is likely the cause of the NYU, CLS, and HLS discrepancies. Since those schools are all larger, it would make sense that it would be something that would be magnified due to the larger student body.


I think it's just because Campos put 0 instead of the actual negative result, but I could be wrong.

User avatar
AntipodeanPhil
Posts: 1300
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:02 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby AntipodeanPhil » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:59 am

birdlaw117 wrote:
AntipodeanPhil wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:NLJ250 =/= firms with over 250 attorneys.

So, unless we assume that zero Yale students, zero Chicago students, only 1 Duke student, only 2 Michigan students, etc. ended up working at NLJ250 firms with fewer than 250 attorneys there is something wrong with the methodology. I don't know what that flaw is (and frankly, I don't give a fuck), but take your pick on which one of these things you believe is more likely.

Two pieces of data:

(1) NLJ 250: number of graduates employed in firms with 160+ lawyers.

(2) School reported data: number of graduates employed in firms with 250+ lawyers.

Campos’ discrepancy: For CLS and NYU, (2) is significantly larger than (1).

Your claim: (1) should be larger than (2), since (1) includes a much larger number of firms. The fact that (1) and (2) are equal at Chicago and Yale suggests something is wrong with their numbers also.

Problem: I don’t think Campos is claiming that (1) and (2) are equal at Chicago or Yale. The fact that they are nearly equal at other schools just suggests that those other schools also face the problem Campos has identified, to a lesser extent than NYU and CLS.

It may not be his claim, but it must be true in order for everything to work out. Explain to me what happens with Campos' "study" when someone from Yale works at Wachtell, an NLJ250 firm with fewer than 250 attorneys.


I just checked Yale's numbers myself. Yale reports 56 graduates working at firms with 251+ lawyers, and the NLJ data for Yale lists 67 people working at NLJ 250 firms (with 160+ lawyers). So that's 11 people working at firms like Wachtell, with more than 160 lawyers but less than 251 - about what I would expect. In other words, (1) is larger than (2) at Yale, just as it should be. There is a negative discrepancy, as you put it - Campos just doesn't mention it.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby skers » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:00 am

birdlaw117 wrote:
PMan99 wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:It may not be his claim, but it must be true in order for everything to work out. Explain to me what happens with Campos' "study" when someone from Yale works at Wachtell, an NLJ250 firm with fewer than 250 attorneys.


Nothing.

Campos is not saying that NLJ250 = Claimed 250+ for Yale. He put zero as the discrepancy but if you do the math it actually ends up being negative (That is, the NLJ250 # is higher than what Yale says they send to firms of 250 or greater). This is exactly what you would expect - the people going to Wachtell, MTO, etc. make up that difference.

Exactly, it's negative. But their discrepancy is 0. So do you think that nobody from Yale worked at a firm that falls into this category? I know I doubt that to be true. And if it isn't true, why isn't the discrepancy negative?

ETA: To be clear, what I'm saying is that there is something that I can identify that would give Yale a NEGATIVE discrepancy beyond doubt. But since there is not a negative discrepancy, there must be something else I'm missing. That something else is likely the cause of the NYU, CLS, and HLS discrepancies. Since those schools are all larger, it would make sense that it would be something that would be magnified due to the larger student body.


I think he only looked at how many jobs of 250+ attorneys were claimed by school than total graduates in NLJ20 placement. I doubt he went into more detail than that.

User avatar
AntipodeanPhil
Posts: 1300
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:02 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby AntipodeanPhil » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:00 am

PMan99 wrote:I think it's just because Campos put 0 instead of the actual negative result, but I could be wrong.

Yes! The actual number is -11, at Yale. He just writes '0' because there are no jobs missing. A negative discrepancy is entirely to be expected - nothing is wrong, nothing is missing.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:01 am

PMan99 wrote:I think it's just because Campos put 0 instead of the actual negative result, but I could be wrong.

Possible. But that seems like a pretty strange thing to leave out. Either way, the low discrepancies at other schools with smaller student bodies still suggests multiple variables at play.

ETA: Not only possible, but seemingly certain.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby skers » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:02 am

I wonder if this discrepancy is unique to 2010 or something observable in 09 or 08 data?

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:03 am

It just seems odd that there would be this correlation with size and placement power unless we are to believe that falsifying data is strongly correlated with those.

User avatar
Yeshia90
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:23 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby Yeshia90 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:22 am

tag

rollie
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:59 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby rollie » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:06 am

2009

NLJ250
Yale: 72 (35.3%)
Harvard: 270 (47.6%)
Stanford: 98 (54.1%)
Columbia: 246 (54.4%)
Chicago: 110 (53.1%)
NYU: 236 (50.1%)

Self-Reported Employment Statistics (The percentages are of graduates working at firms with 250+ lawyers, and where a school says that the statistics are of employed graduates, I'm calculating the number based on what they say is the number of employed grads, not just number of grads with jobs that require bar passage.)
Yale: ~69 (35.75% of 193 employed graduates)
Harvard: 332
Stanford: ~98 (54%, 100% reporting from class of 181)
Columbia: Didn't break down their employment by firm size, but if we say that the percentage of those who go to firms who work in firms of 250+ lawyers is about the same as it was in 2010, 68.7% at 250+ / 76.1% at firms = 90%, that would make the overall percentage of 2009 employed grads working at 250+ firms about 75.7% (90% of 84.1% at firms). With 435 employed grads, that would be about 329.
Chicago: ~145 (71.08% of 204 employed graduates)
NYU: ~302 (66.23% of 457 employed graduates)

Differences
Yale: -3
Harvard: +62
Stanford: 0
Columbia: +83 (not legit, using the guess at employment)
Chicago: +35
NYU: +66

theanswerman3
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:03 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby theanswerman3 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:07 am

There's one quick and obvious part of this that seems to have been overlooked. NLJ250 DOESN'T INCLUDE INTERNATIONAL FIRMS OF OVER 250 LAWYERS!

That means we're talking about people working abroad AS WELL as people working in the US for internationally-based firms that aren't part of NLJ 250. This would cerrtainly account easily for all 27 of the HLS people unaccounted for. I'm not sure if it would account for all the CLS and NYU people though. HLS lists 17 people working abroad for Class of 2010--when you combine some of them with the number of people working for overseas-based large firms, you can get up to 27.

theanswerman3
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:03 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby theanswerman3 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:10 am

Notice ALSO that on the bottom of the National Law Journal page it says the following:

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.


This indicates that they would have been well aware of the supposed discrepancy, assuming the law schools provided the same data they publish. I think the fact that the NLJ250 only includes US-firms should account for a big part of this. There are probably other issues to account for a few extra here and there.

theanswerman3
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:03 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby theanswerman3 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:11 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_10 ... _law_firms

Notice the many, many 250+ UK-based firms. All of these would count under employment of 250+, and all of them are not included in the NLJ250. I'm surprised no one else has pointed this out?

theanswerman3
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:03 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby theanswerman3 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:15 am

In fact, I would say the combo of the overseas-based firms and some firms that simply don't report data should easily account for all of these discrepancies.

However, I want to note that I've noticed CLS and NYU both do other things to manipulate the data and look better than they are. I'm not sure if Harvard is also guilty of this. I doubt it though given that Harvard actually reports less than ideal data regarding, for instance, unemployed and seeking (they list 16 while NYU and CLS list far, far less).

rollie
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:59 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby rollie » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:17 am

And just to compare, these are the 2010 and 2009 stats for MVP:

2010

NLJ250
Michigan: 158
Virginia: 175
Penn: 145

Self-Reported Employment (just listing numbers because MVP actually gave numbers of grads at each level rather than percentages)
Michigan: 160
Virginia: 177
Penn: 149

Differences
Michigan: +2
Virginia: +2
Penn: +4

2009

NLJ250
Michigan: 209
Virginia: 214
Penn: 131

Self-Reported Employment
Michigan: 243
Virginia: 240
Penn: 167

Differences
Michigan: +34
Virginia: +26
Penn: +36

Uhh...what happened between 2009 and 2010 that suddenly made all of MVP's statistics line up with NLJ250?

theanswerman3
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:03 am

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby theanswerman3 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:19 am

Uhh...what happened between 2009 and 2010 that suddenly made all of MVP's statistics line up with NLJ250?


Less foreign-based +250 hiring. Pretty simple.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby JusticeHarlan » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:14 am

theanswerman3 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_100_largest_law_firms

Notice the many, many 250+ UK-based firms. All of these would count under employment of 250+, and all of them are not included in the NLJ250. I'm surprised no one else has pointed this out?

You'd have to explain why roughly 20% of 2010 CLS/NYU grads went to foreign-based firms but nowhere near as high percentages as other T14s did. Your proposition is essentially saying that one in five CLS/NYU grads going into biglaw is going to a Magic Circle firm or the like, but almost no one else graduating from the T14 going into biglaw is.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby keg411 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:12 am

theanswerman3 wrote:
Uhh...what happened between 2009 and 2010 that suddenly made all of MVP's statistics line up with NLJ250?


Less foreign-based +250 hiring. Pretty simple.


2009 had a LOT of deferrals. That was probably the year of the deferral. In 2010 they started to clear them. So that would be why the MVP numbers look like they do in '09 vs. '10.

Y'all are forgetting how many NYC firms deferred in 2009.

User avatar
AntipodeanPhil
Posts: 1300
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:02 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby AntipodeanPhil » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:22 am

So, to summarize where we are at so far:

1. The 2009 data provided by the schools probably includes deferred hires, whereas the 2009 NLJ data presumably does not. Since there were a large number of deferred hires in 2009, that can explain the discrepancies for that year.

2. For 2010, thenaswerman3 has claimed that a combination of two factor explains the discrepancy: (a) hiring by international firms - especially magic circle firms - isn't included in the NLJ data; and (B) some firms don't report data to the NLJ.

But, as pointed out above, the magic circle hire a relatively small number of US JDs. There have been various discussions about magic circle hiring on the legal employment thread that confirm this point. And it has also been mentioned already that if a firm doesn't provide data to the NLJ, the NLJ gets that data from the firm's website.

Another problem with this explanation: magic circle jobs are relatively desirable. If there were that many magic circle jobs, Yale and Chicago grads would be getting some of them.

In conclusion: still no explanation for the 2010 discrepancies.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby sunynp » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:36 am

I don't think that the discrepancy can be explained by magic circle hiring. I looked at a few firms and didn't find any CLS or NYU grads listed. If I missed something, please let me know and post a link so I can see where I went wrong!

I think that the schools are lying. I guess we will have to see how this plays out. As it is, and knowing CLS, I think they will respond by simply ignoring the whole issue. That fits with their SOP.


Also- I guess we can link to Campos blog now? I got banned for a few days when I suggested that people google for the link. (and I was wrong, if a link has been banned, there is no reason to evade the ban. I just didn't understand it.) I hope that it is now ok to link to the blog because some of the discussion there would be relevant for discussion here.

User avatar
chup
Posts: 23648
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby chup » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:02 am

sunynp wrote:Also- I guess we can link to Campos blog now? I got banned for a few days when I suggested that people google for the link. (and I was wrong, if a link has been banned, there is no reason to evade the ban. I just didn't understand it.) I hope that it is now ok to link to the blog because some of the discussion there would be relevant for discussion here.

Not sure about the specific circumstances surrounding your ban, but it was word-filtered before because people were spamming it. It's also why people apparently got banned for trying to get around the word filter. That said, the blog is now part of the conversation about law school employment prospects/tuition/debt/etc., so it no longer made sense to have a blanket policy against linking it.

That said, we'll still go after people who we think are spamming it (e.g., linking repeatedly to the blog mainpage and not specific posts, linking where it's not particularly relevant, etc.).

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby sunynp » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:14 am

chup wrote:
sunynp wrote:Also- I guess we can link to Campos blog now? I got banned for a few days when I suggested that people google for the link. (and I was wrong, if a link has been banned, there is no reason to evade the ban. I just didn't understand it.) I hope that it is now ok to link to the blog because some of the discussion there would be relevant for discussion here.

Not sure about the specific circumstances surrounding your ban, but it was word-filtered before because people were spamming it. It's also why people apparently got banned for trying to get around the word filter. That said, the blog is now part of the conversation about law school employment prospects/tuition/debt/etc., so it no longer made sense to have a blanket policy against linking it.

That said, we'll still go after people who we think are spamming it (e.g., linking repeatedly to the blog mainpage and not specific posts, linking where it's not particularly relevant, etc.).


Thanks! I'm glad we can link to specific posts. There have been times when Campos even quotes from TLS and I thought it would be good to be able to discuss those posts, as well as his topics. I understand the policy.

As for the CLS and NYU reporting issues, I acknowledge I am assuming the worst that the failure to report was intentional. (I am also suspicious of the harebrained claim by a poster who joined just for this thread to claim that the difference is all those CLS and NYU grads living the high life in London.) That is probably not fair on my part, but whatever.

User avatar
chup
Posts: 23648
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: The Accuracy of the T6's Self-Reported Big Law Employment #s

Postby chup » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:34 am

InGoodFaith, stop reporting this fucking post.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: applicationquestions and 3 guests