Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25)

[ahnhub]

Added Penn: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospectiv ... stics.html

Was just about to ask if I was crazy, since I didn't see the 2011 data. I refreshed the page and it showed up. Thanks.

Edit: And not that it really means anything at all, but I am a bit surprised the median salary dropped to 145k. I woulda thought if anything ITE, more kids would go to NYC than secondary markets. Guess not, or there's some other reason.

I have a theory that a higher-than-usual number of T-14 kids in c/o 2011 snagged regional Biglaw in their home markets. It's mostly supposition, but I noticed the % of T-14 associates in my home market (Detroit) skyrocketed from like 15-20 out of 50 SAs to like 35-40 in 2010 and 2011.

And I look at those numbers and ask myself why I'm not going to Penn.

[keg411]

Not good news when your CSO fail to adapt to the changing market.

I don't think you can really condemn these CSOs based on one year of unpreparedness. I doubt even the most ardent legal doomsday trolls were expecting '09 OCI to be as bad as it was. I remember coming into school in the fall as callbacks/offers started streaming in, it was shocking. I am sure these CSOs anticipated hiring to continue to diminish, but the effect of the recession was more dramatic than most could have anticipated.

'10 OCI was substantially better than '09, and from what I understand '11 OCI was at least marginally better than '10. I doubt these schools will continue to report these kind of numbers.

'11 OCI was pretty freakin' good. Those of us in c/o 2013 shouldn't complain about anything right now. OCI '09 just got caught between a rock and a hard place between the shit economy and the '08 deferrals. And that's not even to mention the no-offers for the previous class.

Also, the more regional firms might explain a bit of it too because I remember my sister telling me about how a bunch of the 2L's when she was a 3L weren't getting close to the same types of firms that their class got the previous year.

[johansantana21]

Can you add Cornell data for 2011? Thanks.

[rayiner]

Added Penn: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospectiv ... stics.html

Was just about to ask if I was crazy, since I didn't see the 2011 data. I refreshed the page and it showed up. Thanks.

Edit: And not that it really means anything at all, but I am a bit surprised the median salary dropped to 145k. I woulda thought if anything ITE, more kids would go to NYC than secondary markets. Guess not, or there's some other reason.

It's the result of two factors. First, the %-age of people at 500+ attorney firms is down from 50% to 46%. Meanwhile, the number of people at 250-500 attorney firms more than doubled to 8%. There are a lot of $135k-145k firms in that bracket. Second, the salary reporting rate went up from 84% to 88%. As a result there is not a lot of skewing and the median falls right in the relatively narrow $145k bracket just beneath the $160k bracket. You can see the same thing in the NU distribution: only 7% of folks are making $145k, but since 44% are making $160k the median falls right in the $145k bracket.

[rayiner]

Can you add Cornell data for 2011? Thanks.

Cornell's employment page says "Under Construction."

[Bronck]

BTW, your Columbia 2010 numbers are off. They sent 71.8% to firms of size 100+ for that class (your current data is missing students going to firms size 101-250, which is 3.1%). Add the 10.6% federal clerkship and it's actually 82.4%.

[ahnhub]

BTW, your Columbia 2010 numbers are off. They sent 71.8% to firms of size 100+ for that class (your current data is missing students going to firms size 101-250, which is 3.1%). Add the 10.6% federal clerkship and it's actually 82.4%.

He calculated as a percentage of total class; the calculations on the web page are a percentage of employed (430 vs. 415).

[Bronck]

BTW, your Columbia 2010 numbers are off. They sent 71.8% to firms of size 100+ for that class (your current data is missing students going to firms size 101-250, which is 3.1%). Add the 10.6% federal clerkship and it's actually 82.4%.

He calculated as a percentage of total class; the calculations on the web page are a percentage of employed (430 vs. 415).

Oh are they? I hate how different schools calculate this stuff differently

[rayiner]

BTW, your Columbia 2010 numbers are off. They sent 71.8% to firms of size 100+ for that class (your current data is missing students going to firms size 101-250, which is 3.1%). Add the 10.6% federal clerkship and it's actually 82.4%.

He calculated as a percentage of total class; the calculations on the web page are a percentage of employed (430 vs. 415).

Oh are they? I hate how different schools calculate this stuff differently

Note how the categories in the table "Columbia Law School Employment 9 Months After Graduation" add up to 100% but don't have a category for "unemployed" or "enrolled full time in a graduate program." We know those categories are not zero from the "NALP Employment Calculation for the Class of 2010" table.

To be fair, all of the schools calculate things this way. I translate to %-age of class because otherwise it's hard to compare schools which have different employment rates. Cooley looks pretty great when you leave the unemployed people out of the denominator.

[ahnhub]

What I would really, really like to see are the summer 2L job statistics for c/o 2013. If the general sentiment on TLS is right, all of the T-14 schools should be itching to publish it, 'cause it probably looks significantly better than the last three years.

[splitbrain]

To be fair, all of the schools calculate things this way. I translate to %-age of class because otherwise it's hard to compare schools which have different employment rates. Cooley looks pretty great when you leave the unemployed people out of the denominator.

I like just running stats using all employed + unemployed and seeking as my pool when the info is available. I feel like unemployed/not seeking and those that are obtaining another graduate degree are both about as useful for our purposes as not having replied at all.

[rayiner]

Added breakdown of V100 placement at Michigan for C/O 2009-2011 using newly-released data:

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

[rayiner]

Added Berkeley.

[skers]

Added Berkeley.

Hmm. I'm curious about Berkeley. Their "Rayiner" big law percentage is less than their NLJ250 percentage. Something doesn't add up. Not just percentage wise, but in that it requires the assumption that EVERY job taken by a Berkeley grad in a firm of 100+ attorneys was an NLJ250 firm. I doubt that highly.

[rayiner]

Added Berkeley.

Hmm. I'm curious about Berkeley. Their "Rayiner" big law percentage is less than their NLJ250 percentage. Something doesn't add up. Not just percentage wise, but in that it requires the assumption that EVERY job taken by a Berkeley grad in a firm of 100+ attorneys was an NLJ250 firm. I doubt that highly.

Berkeley reported 130 people in firms of 100+ attorneys. NLJ reported 140 berkeley associates. Since the smallest NLJ is 160 attorneys, that doesn't add up. That said, remember Berkeley's numbers and the NLJ's numbers are reported independently (the former by students, the latter by firms).

NYU has showed us a possible mechanism for why the NLJ's count might be too low (some NLJ firms don't break down new associates by school), but it's hard to understand why the NLJ's count would be too high.

[ahnhub]

Cornell: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/career ... istics.cfm

They break down which jobs are law-school funded at the 9-month mark.

It's interesting how the effect of the crash was fairly uniform (% at law firms dropped by about 10% at every school) for c/o 2010, but schools had such varying results for c/o 2011. I guess it's because no-offers hit everyone equally. Cornell is very interesting--they stayed relatively decent in c/o 2010 but got hit hard 2011.

[Bronck]

I guess that puts Cornell at 46.8% (58 + 12 + 8 + 16 = 94/201)

[ahnhub]

I guess that puts Cornell at 46.8% (58 + 12 + 8 + 16 = 94/201)

They had the highest % in 2010 (81). That's like a 35% drop. I don't think it means anything besides a lot of Cornell grads got lucky and didn't get no-offered in 2010, and 2011 just sucked hard everywhere--with a class that small they probably have pretty big swings year to year.

Also--they didn't seem to have edited it very carefully. They need to add the word 'clerkships' in two columns.

[Kurst]

Stanford (LinkRemoved), Vanderbilt

[rayiner]

What the hell happened at Cornell in 2010?

[keg411]

What the hell happened at Cornell in 2010?

New York got hit less by no-offers then other markets in 2010.

[Tarheel1234]

Prospective law student here looking at Cornell’s employment statistics: 26 law school funded positions + 11 unemployed seeking job + 5 status unknown = 42.

201 total graduates – 3 pursuing graduate degree = 198 graduates (looking for a job I presume?)

42/198 = 21%

Does this mean 21% were SOL from Cornell?

[skers]

Stanford (LinkRemoved), Vanderbilt

Good to see Stanford embracing transparency.

[rayiner]

Prospective law student here looking at Cornell’s employment statistics: 26 law school funded positions + 11 unemployed seeking job + 5 status unknown = 42.

201 total graduates – 3 pursuing graduate degree = 198 graduates (looking for a job I presume?)

42/198 = 21%

Does this mean 21% were SOL from Cornell?

That's about double the other T14. Every school seems to have had a bunch of students in law school funded positions, but Cornell's conversion rate for those positions turning into full-time ones seems really bad: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=181723&p=5370502#p5370502 (scroll down to Cornell).

Also a ton of people in state/local clerkships for someone his size.

[ahnhub]

I'm an 0L and I'm talking out of my ass basically, but maybe you can explain what happened to Cornell by past history? Looking at its employment stats historically it seems almost everyone that went there was interested in Biglaw and Biglaw only--throughout the mid-2000's they placed over 80% of every class in private practice, and the vast majority of those were at 100+ law firms. When the bottom dropped out of Biglaw hiring they were maybe less experienced in dealing with job searches in other sectors?

Also, the class size is barely 200 people. Big swings would be more common there.