Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Bronck
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby Bronck » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:55 pm

How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+
Last edited by Bronck on Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby Bronck » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:01 am

rayiner wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote:Law School Transparency's Data Clearinghouse is live for all schools for the class of 2011. --LinkRemoved--


Awesome job guys, love this: --LinkRemoved--

However, I don't think the computation of "long-term, full-time" is done right. Some schools (*cough* NYU) count law school funded positions as long-term, full-time. Others (e.g. Penn) don't count them as long-term, full-time. NYU comes out looking great with 90%, but once you take out the unemployment fellowships, you're looking at a much more average 78%.


Thanks for the link rayiner. Awesome work jenesais!

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby KevinP » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:01 am

Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

My guess is that UChicago's home market (Chicago) got hit really hard because of the economic downturn. As for NYU, I think many people self-selected into PI but ultimately got screwed because PI hiring is way down (not counting law-funded positions).

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby JusticeHarlan » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:06 am

KevinP wrote:
Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

My guess is that UChicago's home market (Chicago) got hit really hard because of the economic downturn. As for NYU, I think many people self-selected into PI but ultimately got screwed because PI hiring is way down (not counting law-funded positions).

Isn't it hard to say that UChicago got hit due to the downturn in the Chicago market when Northwestern did so well?

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby dingbat » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:10 am

Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

Can't say anything about Penn or Chicago, but, Columbia is a (half) a step up from NYU.
They're not as quite peer as they're made out to be

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby KevinP » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:17 am

JusticeHarlan wrote:Isn't it hard to say that UChicago got hit due to the downturn in the Chicago market when Northwestern did so well?

That's a good point. I think Northwestern did so well because it placed (c/o 2011) twice as many grads into New York* and was more successful in placing grads into firms of size 100-500 (maybe better bidding advice?). Also, the fact that Northwestern's student body has WE probably helped them outperform their rank.

*I realize Northwestern's class size is larger than Chicago but not by 2x.

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby rayiner » Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:22 am

Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+


I think people tend to overestimate the impact of GPA targets on hiring. Firms only give offers to a fraction of the people within their desired GPA range. The key statistic is really the # of callbacks the firm authorizes each OCI interviewer to give. This number isn't directly related to the GPA range at that school. E.g. I'd guess CSM/S&C/DPW authorizes 5-10x as many callbacks at CLS/NYU as they do at Michigan or Virginia. That doesn't mean they're willing to go 5x as deep into the class at CLS/NYU as at Michigan. Indeed, I think they go only moderately deeper into the class at CLS/NYU. Rather, they expect to hire a lot more people from CLS/NYU because they expect a lot more people within their target GPA range at CLS/NYU to want to work at their firm.

When the recession hit, these targets, based on past experiences, were upended. Schools that historically spread out their graduates (Chicago, Michigan, Virginia), sending a few people to each firm in diverse markets, got screwed. A lot of those firms weren't hiring, and the NYC/Chicago firms that were hiring weren't expecting to pick up 10-12 grads from these schools, they were expecting to pick up the usual 2-5. Schools that send a significant number of people to DC (again, Chicago, Michigan, and Virginia), also got screwed as hordes of HYS grads descended on this market. Meanwhile, schools like Penn, Columbia, and Northwestern, which tend to place large numbers of people into a small number of firms in a small number of markets, did relatively well. Firms kept up recruiting at schools they historically relied on for a significant number of hires each year.

The nice thing about this model is that it doesn't require firms making micro-distinctions about class-ranks at Penn versus UVA versus Duke. It recognizes that some firms simply have 10 callback slots at Penn and 5 at UVA because historically they got more hires from Penn, they have more alumni from Penn, etc.

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby Bronck » Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:08 am

rayiner wrote:
Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+


I think people tend to overestimate the impact of GPA targets on hiring. Firms only give offers to a fraction of the people within their desired GPA range. The key statistic is really the # of callbacks the firm authorizes each OCI interviewer to give. This number isn't directly related to the GPA range at that school. E.g. I'd guess CSM/S&C/DPW authorizes 5-10x as many callbacks at CLS/NYU as they do at Michigan or Virginia. That doesn't mean they're willing to go 5x as deep into the class at CLS/NYU as at Michigan. Indeed, I think they go only moderately deeper into the class at CLS/NYU. Rather, they expect to hire a lot more people from CLS/NYU because they expect a lot more people within their target GPA range at CLS/NYU to want to work at their firm.

When the recession hit, these targets, based on past experiences, were upended. Schools that historically spread out their graduates (Chicago, Michigan, Virginia), sending a few people to each firm in diverse markets, got screwed. A lot of those firms weren't hiring, and the NYC/Chicago firms that were hiring weren't expecting to pick up 10-12 grads from these schools, they were expecting to pick up the usual 2-5. Schools that send a significant number of people to DC (again, Chicago, Michigan, and Virginia), also got screwed as hordes of HYS grads descended on this market. Meanwhile, schools like Penn, Columbia, and Northwestern, which tend to place large numbers of people into a small number of firms in a small number of markets, did relatively well. Firms kept up recruiting at schools they historically relied on for a significant number of hires each year.

The nice thing about this model is that it doesn't require firms making micro-distinctions about class-ranks at Penn versus UVA versus Duke. It recognizes that some firms simply have 10 callback slots at Penn and 5 at UVA because historically they got more hires from Penn, they have more alumni from Penn, etc.


Awesome response, rayiner! Always love reading your posts.

User avatar
thelawyler
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby thelawyler » Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:17 am

Bronck wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+


I think people tend to overestimate the impact of GPA targets on hiring. Firms only give offers to a fraction of the people within their desired GPA range. The key statistic is really the # of callbacks the firm authorizes each OCI interviewer to give. This number isn't directly related to the GPA range at that school. E.g. I'd guess CSM/S&C/DPW authorizes 5-10x as many callbacks at CLS/NYU as they do at Michigan or Virginia. That doesn't mean they're willing to go 5x as deep into the class at CLS/NYU as at Michigan. Indeed, I think they go only moderately deeper into the class at CLS/NYU. Rather, they expect to hire a lot more people from CLS/NYU because they expect a lot more people within their target GPA range at CLS/NYU to want to work at their firm.

When the recession hit, these targets, based on past experiences, were upended. Schools that historically spread out their graduates (Chicago, Michigan, Virginia), sending a few people to each firm in diverse markets, got screwed. A lot of those firms weren't hiring, and the NYC/Chicago firms that were hiring weren't expecting to pick up 10-12 grads from these schools, they were expecting to pick up the usual 2-5. Schools that send a significant number of people to DC (again, Chicago, Michigan, and Virginia), also got screwed as hordes of HYS grads descended on this market. Meanwhile, schools like Penn, Columbia, and Northwestern, which tend to place large numbers of people into a small number of firms in a small number of markets, did relatively well. Firms kept up recruiting at schools they historically relied on for a significant number of hires each year.

The nice thing about this model is that it doesn't require firms making micro-distinctions about class-ranks at Penn versus UVA versus Duke. It recognizes that some firms simply have 10 callback slots at Penn and 5 at UVA because historically they got more hires from Penn, they have more alumni from Penn, etc.


Awesome response, rayiner! Always love reading your posts.


Agreed. Rayiner, you're the bombs. Dropping knowledge left and right.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby manofjustice » Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:40 am

Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+


There does seem to be a falling-out of the NYC market. Northwestern reports that the demand for legal services in NYC during the 4th quarter of 2011 fell by 4%, more than any other major market by a factor of 2.

BC, which weathered the storm okay, sent to NYC less than half the graduates it typically sends; BU, which sent the same portion, got hammered. Schools relying on NYC clearly lost.

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby keg411 » Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:45 am

manofjustice wrote:
Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+


There does seem to be a falling-out of the NYC market. Northwestern reports that the demand for legal services in NYC during the 4th quarter of 2011 fell by 4%, more than any other major market by a factor of 2.

BC, which weathered the storm okay, sent to NYC less than half the graduates it typically sends; BU, which sent the same portion, got hammered. Schools relying on NYC clearly lost.


No. Columbia/Penn (two of the schools that did well) place primarily in NYC. I think rayiner's explanation is more accurate.

As for NYU and PI: one argument was that NYU got fucked because it's students self-selected into PI/gov't. However, if you look at Michigan's stats, they basically got all of their fellowship positions converted into FT PI jobs before the 9 month mark, so someone must have been hiring (and if you look at the Michigan chart, they're likely a good portion of gov't/PI jobs).

Decimal
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:35 am

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby Decimal » Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:33 am

manofjustice wrote:What the heck happen happened to BU? BC trounced BU.

Are we returning to the days when BC outranked BU?

User avatar
Greenandgold
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby Greenandgold » Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:22 pm

rayiner wrote:
Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+


I think people tend to overestimate the impact of GPA targets on hiring. Firms only give offers to a fraction of the people within their desired GPA range. The key statistic is really the # of callbacks the firm authorizes each OCI interviewer to give. This number isn't directly related to the GPA range at that school. E.g. I'd guess CSM/S&C/DPW authorizes 5-10x as many callbacks at CLS/NYU as they do at Michigan or Virginia. That doesn't mean they're willing to go 5x as deep into the class at CLS/NYU as at Michigan. Indeed, I think they go only moderately deeper into the class at CLS/NYU. Rather, they expect to hire a lot more people from CLS/NYU because they expect a lot more people within their target GPA range at CLS/NYU to want to work at their firm.

When the recession hit, these targets, based on past experiences, were upended. Schools that historically spread out their graduates (Chicago, Michigan, Virginia), sending a few people to each firm in diverse markets, got screwed. A lot of those firms weren't hiring, and the NYC/Chicago firms that were hiring weren't expecting to pick up 10-12 grads from these schools, they were expecting to pick up the usual 2-5. Schools that send a significant number of people to DC (again, Chicago, Michigan, and Virginia), also got screwed as hordes of HYS grads descended on this market. Meanwhile, schools like Penn, Columbia, and Northwestern, which tend to place large numbers of people into a small number of firms in a small number of markets, did relatively well. Firms kept up recruiting at schools they historically relied on for a significant number of hires each year.

The nice thing about this model is that it doesn't require firms making micro-distinctions about class-ranks at Penn versus UVA versus Duke. It recognizes that some firms simply have 10 callback slots at Penn and 5 at UVA because historically they got more hires from Penn, they have more alumni from Penn, etc.


Where does NYU fit into this?

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby JusticeHarlan » Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:29 pm

Decimal wrote:
manofjustice wrote:What the heck happen happened to BU? BC trounced BU.

Are we returning to the days when BC outranked BU?

Even before we get to the problem of this just being one year's data, don't forget that ranking =/= job prospects. Just look at IUB.

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby skers » Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:53 pm

Great stuff, Rayiner. What does that mean for us Chi, Michigan, and Virginia students going forward?

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby rayiner » Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:15 pm

Greenandgold wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+


I think people tend to overestimate the impact of GPA targets on hiring. Firms only give offers to a fraction of the people within their desired GPA range. The key statistic is really the # of callbacks the firm authorizes each OCI interviewer to give. This number isn't directly related to the GPA range at that school. E.g. I'd guess CSM/S&C/DPW authorizes 5-10x as many callbacks at CLS/NYU as they do at Michigan or Virginia. That doesn't mean they're willing to go 5x as deep into the class at CLS/NYU as at Michigan. Indeed, I think they go only moderately deeper into the class at CLS/NYU. Rather, they expect to hire a lot more people from CLS/NYU because they expect a lot more people within their target GPA range at CLS/NYU to want to work at their firm.

When the recession hit, these targets, based on past experiences, were upended. Schools that historically spread out their graduates (Chicago, Michigan, Virginia), sending a few people to each firm in diverse markets, got screwed. A lot of those firms weren't hiring, and the NYC/Chicago firms that were hiring weren't expecting to pick up 10-12 grads from these schools, they were expecting to pick up the usual 2-5. Schools that send a significant number of people to DC (again, Chicago, Michigan, and Virginia), also got screwed as hordes of HYS grads descended on this market. Meanwhile, schools like Penn, Columbia, and Northwestern, which tend to place large numbers of people into a small number of firms in a small number of markets, did relatively well. Firms kept up recruiting at schools they historically relied on for a significant number of hires each year.

The nice thing about this model is that it doesn't require firms making micro-distinctions about class-ranks at Penn versus UVA versus Duke. It recognizes that some firms simply have 10 callback slots at Penn and 5 at UVA because historically they got more hires from Penn, they have more alumni from Penn, etc.


Where does NYU fit into this?


I'm not quite sure. Part of it is legit PI preference. NYU gives out a lot of PI scholarships, and scholarship holders tend to outperform grades-wise. That probably doesn't explain the whole gap though. I'd imagine the rest is firm relationships. Some firms (DPW) seem to have equal targets at NYU and CLS, in terms of # of people they expect to recruit. Some firms, like Shulte, seem to have a hard-on for CLS. One interesting statistic is that during the boom, NYU placed less into V10's than CLS. Since those firms cut class sizes the least, I'd imagine CLS benefited relative to CLS there. Finally, NYU is bigger.

I don't had a completely satisfactory explanation, but I think those are elements.

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

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby rayiner » Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:22 pm

TemporarySaint wrote:Great stuff, Rayiner. What does that mean for us Chi, Michigan, and Virginia students going forward?


I think to a degree the market will adjust. Kirkland for example has a ton of Michgan students this summer, way more than either summer 2006 or summers 2010 or 2011. I imagine they've realized there was an uptick in interest at Michigan.

The other part is I think students being more pro-active at job searching. Once you realize that firm grade cut-offs are more fluid than you had thought, you can work connections, mailing, and pre-OCI lobbying more aggressively. Just because a firm hires more at Penn doesn't mean they would treat a highly-interested Michigan student with the same grades any differently.

I think there is also a third angle, that unfortunately Michigan and Virginia students can't do anything about. I think people dramatically overestimate how much out-of-market firms take account of the differences between schools' curves and class sizes. The leaked (on ATL) Sullivan & Cromwell C/O 2012 OCI data for Michigan is very illustrative. They specified a maximum of 15 callbacks with a 3.7 GPA target. Based on the number of people from NU C/O 2012 who went to S&C, I think we had an advantage both in terms of # of callbacks per student and GPA target. I don't think it's conscious on the part of S&C to prefer NU students, but rather I think NYC firms simply don't care enough to try to make things match up exactly.

I don't think firms fully account for how much the top of the curve is spread out on the NU or Penn curves versus the very compressed Michigan and Virginia curves. I don't think firms fully account for how much bigger the class sizes at Michigan and Virginia are. I don't think firms fully account for how much bigger NU and Penn law reviews are relative to their class sizes than Michigan and Virginia's law reviews. I don't think firms fully account for the fact that NU and Penn have no grade-on to LR, so there is less overlap between people with tippy-top grades and people with LR (and thus a larger %-age of the class who has one or the other). When you historically only get a few students a year from the school, it doesn't really make much sense for the firms to account for these things. They want to just be able to say "15 callbacks for 3.7+ at each of Michigan/Virginia/Penn/Northwestern/Duke".

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby manofjustice » Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:58 pm

keg411 wrote:
manofjustice wrote:
Bronck wrote:How did Columbia [70%] (and Penn [68%], I suppose) do so well while Chicago [54%] and NYU [54%] got destroyed?

It's not like the firm GPA cutoffs changed within this band.

Poor advice and bidding from Chi and NYU?

ETA: those percentages represent fed clerk hiring + hiring from firms sized 101+


There does seem to be a falling-out of the NYC market. Northwestern reports that the demand for legal services in NYC during the 4th quarter of 2011 fell by 4%, more than any other major market by a factor of 2.

BC, which weathered the storm okay, sent to NYC less than half the graduates it typically sends; BU, which sent the same portion, got hammered. Schools relying on NYC clearly lost.


No. Columbia/Penn (two of the schools that did well) place primarily in NYC. I think rayiner's explanation is more accurate.

As for NYU and PI: one argument was that NYU got fucked because it's students self-selected into PI/gov't. However, if you look at Michigan's stats, they basically got all of their fellowship positions converted into FT PI jobs before the 9 month mark, so someone must have been hiring (and if you look at the Michigan chart, they're likely a good portion of gov't/PI jobs).


Rayiner's explanation dovetails mine. Columbia and Penn, being higher-ranked than BU, took all of the smaller number of bids before BU, leaving BU with few. Fewer bids would be caused by the fall-off of demand for NYC legal services.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby manofjustice » Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:00 pm

JusticeHarlan wrote:
Decimal wrote:
manofjustice wrote:What the heck happen happened to BU? BC trounced BU.

Are we returning to the days when BC outranked BU?

Even before we get to the problem of this just being one year's data, don't forget that ranking =/= job prospects. Just look at IUB.



Well, the suspicion that BC would outrank BU is based on the former's job prospects.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby manofjustice » Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:06 pm

Speaking of rankings: the farce the list of schools on the prior page put on (i.e. including their school-funded jobs as long term, full time, bar required) will probably give them a fraudulent boost in the UNSWR rankings, not just their LST Employment Score.

There should be a backlash.

Long term should be "long term." "Long term, full time, bar required" should represent the actual demand of legal employers for a schools' graduates.

Law schools shouldn't use their ABA forms to demonstrate to their students creative construction of the rules-that's what class is for.

grimfan
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:40 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby grimfan » Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:35 pm

mrjohnsterman wrote:Long Term Full Time - School Funded (those with 5+)
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - 80
VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF - 64
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY -56
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - 38
HARVARD UNIVERSITY - 33
EMORY UNIVERSITY - 25
CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF - 24
YALE UNIVERSITY - 22
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY - 19
ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF - 8
MIAMI, UNIVERSITY OF - 7
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 6


Did all of these schools (especially the T14s) include their "School-Funded Long-Term Jobs" into their "Employed - Bar Passage Required" category in the ABA Employment Summary?

If so, we should re-adjust their LST scores for them.

User avatar
goldeneye
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:25 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby goldeneye » Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:00 pm

WUSTL mystifies me. They seemed to do ok, but report a really low school funded position number. New York went from its #2 state to not even top 3.
Last edited by goldeneye on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

grimfan
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:40 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby grimfan » Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:17 pm

manofjustice wrote:Speaking of rankings: the farce the list of schools on the prior page put on (i.e. including their school-funded jobs as long term, full time, bar required) will probably give them a fraudulent boost in the UNSWR rankings, not just their LST Employment Score.

There should be a backlash.

Long term should be "long term." "Long term, full time, bar required" should represent the actual demand of legal employers for a schools' graduates.

Law schools shouldn't use their ABA forms to demonstrate to their students creative construction of the rules-that's what class is for.


Columbia hires 5 graduates for School-Funded jobs in 2010. It then hires 38 in the same category in 2011.

Looks like the School-Funded field of law is really booming.

User avatar
thelawyler
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby thelawyler » Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:50 am

grimfan wrote:
manofjustice wrote:Speaking of rankings: the farce the list of schools on the prior page put on (i.e. including their school-funded jobs as long term, full time, bar required) will probably give them a fraudulent boost in the UNSWR rankings, not just their LST Employment Score.

There should be a backlash.

Long term should be "long term." "Long term, full time, bar required" should represent the actual demand of legal employers for a schools' graduates.

Law schools shouldn't use their ABA forms to demonstrate to their students creative construction of the rules-that's what class is for.


Columbia hires 5 graduates for School-Funded jobs in 2010. It then hires 38 in the same category in 2011.

Looks like the School-Funded field of law is really booming.


School-Funded Secure.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

Postby manofjustice » Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:05 am

Ya know, I just thought we were over this shit.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger and 2 guests