Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby rayiner » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:44 am

Apparently the C/O 2011 data was due to NALP this week, and law schools have started to post it. This thread will be updated as more schools in the T25 post their C/O 2011 data. As in my previous thread, I'll track three figures: % of whole class placed into firms of 100+ attorneys, % of whole class placed into federal clerkships, the sum of those two numbers.

EDIT: Added 2010 data for reference.
EDIT: Add comparison, in groups, for 2008-2010.

For C/O 2011:
Columbia: 61% biglaw (-8%), 8% clerkship (-2%) = 69% (-10%)
NYU: 43% biglaw (-14%), 11% clerkship (+1%) = 54% (-13%)
Chicago: 45% biglaw (-15%), 9% clerkship (-3%) = 54% (-18%)
Penn: 58% biglaw (-1%), 12% clerkship (-1%)[1] = 70% (-2%)
Berkeley: 42% biglaw (-10%), 12% clerkship (+4%) = 54% (-6%)
Michigan: 34% biglaw (-14%), 10% clerkship (+3%) = 44% (-11%)
Virginia: 37% biglaw (-14%), 10% clerkship (-0%) = 47% (-14%)
Duke: 45% biglaw (+0%), 12% clerkship (-1%) = 57% (-1%)
Northwestern: 53% biglaw (+1%), 8% clerkship (+0%) = 61% (+1%)
Cornell: 39% biglaw (-37%), 8% clerkship (+3%) = 47% (-34%)
Georgetown: 34% biglaw (-9%), 6% clerkship[2] = 40% (-7%)
Vandy: 31% biglaw (+1%), 10% clerkship (-3%) = 41% (-2%)
Texas: 24% biglaw (-4%) + 7% clerkships (-4%) = 31% (-8%)
USC: 35% biglaw (+1%) + 4% clerkships (-1%) = 39% (+0%)
GWU: 20% biglaw (-9%) + 5% clerkships (+0%) = 25% (-9%)
Wisc: 10% biglaw (-3%) +2% clerkships (+1%) = 12% (-2%)
Illinois: 14% biglaw (-9%) + 5% clerkships (+1%) = 19% (-8%)
Fordham: 26% biglaw (-7%) + 3% clerkships (??) = 28% (-??%)

For C/O 2010:
Yale: 28% clerkship
Stanford: 29% clerkship
Harvard: 57% biglaw + 16% clerkship = 73%
Columbia: 69% biglaw + 10% clerkship = 79%
NYU: 57% biglaw + 10% clerkship = 67%
Chicago: 60% biglaw + 12% clerkship = 72%
Penn: 59% biglaw + 10% clerkship = 69%
Berkeley: 52% biglaw + 8% clerkship = 60%
Michigan: 48% biglaw + 7% clerkship = 55%
Virginia: 51% biglaw + 10% clerkship = 61%
Duke: 45% biglaw + 13% clerkship = 58%
Northwestern: 53% biglaw + 8% clerkship = 60%
Cornell: 76% biglaw + 5% clerkship = 81%
Georgetown: 43% biglaw + 4% clerkship = 47%
UCLA: 32% biglaw + 6% clerkship[2] = 38%
Texas: 28% biglaw + 11% clerkships = 39%
Vandy: 30% biglaw + 13% clerkships = 43%
USC: 34% biglaw + 5% clerkships = 39%
Minnesota: 15% biglaw + 5% clerkships = 20%
Illinois: 23% biglaw + 4% clerkships = 27%
GWU: 29% biglaw + 5% clerkships = 34%
U Wash: Does not post detailed employment data.
BC: 35% biglaw + ?% clerkships[3] = 35% + ?%
BU: 37% biglaw + ?% clerkships[3] = 37% + ?%
ND: Does not post detailed employment data.
Fordham: 33% biglaw + ?% clerkships[3] = 33% + ?%
Wash U: Does not post detailed employment data.
W&L: 12% biglaw + 11% clerkships = 23%
Emory: 24% biglaw + 7% clerkships = 31%
Wisc: 13% biglaw +1% clerkships = 14%


For C/O 2008 -2010:

I've clumped these into groups. The Vandy/USC/GW group is a little loose, because Vandy generally outperforms and GW underperforms the group, but the other two are pretty tight. The source spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... WDNxX2JPQQ

Harvard:
2008 79%
2009 81%
2010 74%

Chicago, Penn:
2008 88%
2009 84%
2010 75%

NYU, Duke, Michigan, Virginia, NU:
2008 79%
2009 76%
2010 63%

Vandy, USC, GW:
2008 62%
2009 61%
2010 41%

It is interesting to look at the relative decline from 2008 to 2010:

Harvard: -6%
Chicago, Penn: -14%
NYU, Duke, Michigan, Virginia, NU: -20%
Vandy, USC, GW: -34%

This is empirical evidence of the CW that recruiting was cut back more at lower-ranked schools.

Michigan has posted some very detailed statistics of employers who hired from C/O 2009-2011. I put together a chart looking at the V100 firms on that list: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... ZFVkWkxmUQ

Michigan C/O 2009: 57% V100
Michigan C/O 2010: 42% V100
Michigan C/O 2011: 27% V100

[1] Using an estimate, assuming distribution of federal/non-federal clerkships is same at graduation as it is overall.
[2] School doesn't break down federal/non-federal, so I assume 80% federal, which is typical for the T14.
[3] School doesn't break down federal/non-federal, and I have no basis for guessing the breakdown
Last edited by rayiner on Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:22 pm, edited 37 times in total.

User avatar
Bronck
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby Bronck » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:42 am

I mean, I know I can google it pretty quickly, but any chance you can also bracket a % change for each field from 2010 for quick reference?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:00 am

Bronck wrote:I mean, I know I can google it pretty quickly, but any chance you can also bracket a % change for each field from 2010 for quick reference?


Good idea.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rad lulz » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:24 am

So Federal doesn't distinguish between AIII and non-AIII?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:57 am

rad lulz wrote:So Federal doesn't distinguish between AIII and non-AIII?


No, for a couple of reasons.

1) Schools tend to break down sub-categories of Federal clerkships only in the grad+alumni data, not the grads-only data. I think that the imprecision from not distinguishing AIII from AI clerkships is less than the imprecision of projecting the breakdown from the grad+alumni data back to grads-only data. For NU grads+alumni, for example, only 1/48 Federal clerkships were AI.
2) A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields. Penn's employment stats give a very detailed breakdown of grad+alumni clerkship data. At Penn for the 2010-2011 hiring season, there were 68 Federal clerks. 57 were Article III. 7 were Bankruptcy or Tax. Only 4 were Magistrate or ALJ.

Note that excluding state clerkships also excludes Delaware Chancery Court, which is a quite desirable clerkship, as well as other desirable state clerkships. In the Penn data, for example, 3 people went to Delaware Chancery Court.

User avatar
Indifferent
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:04 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby Indifferent » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:04 pm

rayiner wrote:A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields.

Although I imagine that for someone interested in practicing bankr. that bankr. ct. > regular fed. dist. ct., I doubt that the argument can be made for taking a bankr./tax ct. over an COA clerkship.

Maybe it can, though. I really don't know.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby 071816 » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:06 pm

nevermind
Last edited by 071816 on Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:18 pm

Indifferent wrote:
rayiner wrote:A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields.

Although I imagine that for someone interested in practicing bankr. that bankr. ct. > regular fed. dist. ct., I doubt that the argument can be made for taking a bankr./tax ct. over an COA clerkship.


I don't think that argument is any harder to make than the argument for taking a district court clerkship over a COA clerkship.

User avatar
Indifferent
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:04 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby Indifferent » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:24 pm

rayiner wrote:
Indifferent wrote:
rayiner wrote:A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields.

Although I imagine that for someone interested in practicing bankr. that bankr. ct. > regular fed. dist. ct., I doubt that the argument can be made for taking a bankr./tax ct. over an COA clerkship.


I don't think that argument is any harder to make than the argument for taking a district court clerkship over a COA clerkship.

I am assuming you mean w/r/t the relative prestige of the district, i.e. D.C. Dist. Ct. or Del. Bankr. Ct. > 10th Cir. in New Mexico?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:40 pm

Indifferent wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Indifferent wrote:
rayiner wrote:A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields.

Although I imagine that for someone interested in practicing bankr. that bankr. ct. > regular fed. dist. ct., I doubt that the argument can be made for taking a bankr./tax ct. over an COA clerkship.


I don't think that argument is any harder to make than the argument for taking a district court clerkship over a COA clerkship.

I am assuming you mean w/r/t the relative prestige of the district, i.e. D.C. Dist. Ct. or Del. Bankr. Ct. > 10th Cir. in New Mexico?


I mean, that on the whole court of appeals clerkships are more desirable than bankruptcy or tax clerkships, but that is also true for court of appeals clerkships versus federal district clerkships. On the other hand, it is not necessarily true that federal district clerkships are more desirable than tax or bankruptcy clerkships, given the specific interests of the people who tend to pursue those clerkships. As such if we're going to include district clerkships in a measure of "desirable clerkships" it is quite reasonable to also include tax and bankruptcy clerkships.

ocuviper
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby ocuviper » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:51 pm

Is it me or is USC's first number supposed to be around 60%? Just did a rough calculation from their 2010 statistics

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:03 pm

ocuviper wrote:Is it me or is USC's first number supposed to be around 60%? Just did a rough calculation from their 2010 statistics


As noted in the OP, "big law" refers to firms with 100+ attorneys.

USC C/O 2010 had 195 graduates: http://weblaw.usc.edu/careers/statistics/

Of those, 57 were in firms of 500+ attorneys, 5 in firms of 250-500 attorneys, and 5 in firms of 100-250 attorneys, for a total of 67. 67 / 195 = 34%.

User avatar
Mr. Somebody
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby Mr. Somebody » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:13 pm

What are the salary stats for firms in the 100-250 lawyer range (that are in large markets like NY, Dc, etc)? Do they tend to be market-paying?

de5igual
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:52 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby de5igual » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:25 pm

rayiner wrote:Texas: TTTexas blocks employment data behind password protection.


looks like they just changed their entire layout this year (would've been helpful 2 years ago!)

--LinkRemoved--

CO 2010:
TTTexas: 29% biglaw + 11% clerkships = 40%

CO2011: (yikes!)
TTTexas: 24% biglaw + 6% clerkships = 30%

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:53 pm

f0bolous wrote:
rayiner wrote:Texas: TTTexas blocks employment data behind password protection.


looks like they just changed their entire layout this year (would've been helpful 2 years ago!)

--LinkRemoved--

CO 2010:
TTTexas: 29% biglaw + 11% clerkships = 40%

CO2011: (yikes!)
TTTexas: 24% biglaw + 6% clerkships = 30%


Updated, thanks!

anstone1988
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby anstone1988 » Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:50 pm

Stanford clerkship > Yale clerkship? What caused the meteoric rise of Stanford with regards to clerkship placement?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:14 pm

Updated analysis of Chicago, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, and NU for 2008-2010. Summary graphic is below. The ratios are the sum of people working at firms of 50+ attorneys + federal clerkships. Yes, the grouping is massive pro-Penn trolling.

Image

Source Excel file is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... RW80Rm4yQQ

iamrobk
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby iamrobk » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:31 pm

rayiner wrote:Updated analysis of Chicago, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, and NU for 2008-2010. Summary graphic is below. The ratios are the sum of people working at firms of 50+ attorneys + federal clerkships. Yes, the grouping is massive pro-Penn trolling.

Image

Source Excel file is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... RW80Rm4yQQ

Any particular reason you chose these 7 schools? Just curious. Unless you're just too lazy to add the rest. :P

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:38 pm

iamrobk wrote:
rayiner wrote:Updated analysis of Chicago, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, and NU for 2008-2010. Summary graphic is below. The ratios are the sum of people working at firms of 50+ attorneys + federal clerkships. Yes, the grouping is massive pro-Penn trolling.

Image

Source Excel file is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... RW80Rm4yQQ

Any particular reason you chose these 7 schools? Just curious. Unless you're just too lazy to add the rest. :P


Berkeley and Columbia don't have detailed data before 2010. Cornell doesn't have any data up right now. Y/S/H aren't on there because I'm lazy and everyone knows those folks all get jobs.

iamrobk
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby iamrobk » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:19 pm

rayiner wrote:
iamrobk wrote:
rayiner wrote:Updated analysis of Chicago, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, and NU for 2008-2010. Summary graphic is below. The ratios are the sum of people working at firms of 50+ attorneys + federal clerkships. Yes, the grouping is massive pro-Penn trolling.

Image

Source Excel file is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... RW80Rm4yQQ

Any particular reason you chose these 7 schools? Just curious. Unless you're just too lazy to add the rest. :P


Berkeley and Columbia don't have detailed data before 2010. Cornell doesn't have any data up right now. Y/S/H aren't on there because I'm lazy and everyone knows those folks all get jobs.

Ah fair enough. I figured about HYS, didn't know about the other 3.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby KevinP » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:16 am

Very useful data, thanks!

I also noticed this gem: "the some of those two numbers."

User avatar
Jaeger
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby Jaeger » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:22 am

Top 20?

User avatar
whitman
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:08 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby whitman » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:33 am

KevinP wrote:Very useful data, thanks!

I also noticed this gem: "the some of those two numbers."


That is not a gem.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data

Postby rayiner » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:30 am

Jaeger wrote:Top 20?


Added the rest of the T20, except U Wash which doesn't report jack shit.

User avatar
StarLightSpectre
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T20)

Postby StarLightSpectre » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:41 am

Thanks for the info.

Is there anyway to find the stats for BC/BU/ND/Fordham?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest