C/O 2010 Employment Statistics Google Doc

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
drmguy
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:43 am

C/O 2010 Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:46 pm

I was posting in the other thread, but since I spent a long time on this I don't want it to disappear on page 5 of the other thread.

Detailed Employment Statistics

If you have any suggestions for changes let me know.

Here's the source: http://placementsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx
Last edited by drmguy on Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:20 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby romothesavior » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:50 pm

I posted this in the other thread, but I'll add it here as well:

The spreadsheet of "50-500+ and fed clerkships" and the breakdown of placement by firm sizes seems to confirm so much of the "TLS groupthink" or "hivemind" or whatever you want to call it regarding firm placement for T15-30 schools.

-Vandy/USC/UCLA/UT are in a class below the T14, but clearly higher than the T20.
-BU/BC/Fordham are slightly below this group, but above the "Midwest T20s" in firm placement.
-ND, Illinois, and WUSTL are truly peers, as much as any schools could be. Every reliable job stat I have ever seen has them lumped closely together.
-UMN and Iowa are a step below WUSTL/ND/Illinois.
-Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona State, and Washington are T30 in in name only.

Though I'd be interested to see how these compare to future numbers before making definitive conclusions, they seem to align with how I've always thought of these schools relative to one another.

User avatar
drmguy
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:43 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:12 pm

I didn't really look over all the data until now.

Holy crap Hastings

JamesChapman23
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby JamesChapman23 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:59 pm

Is this at graduation or 9 months?

User avatar
drmguy
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:43 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:07 pm

JamesChapman23 wrote:Is this at graduation or 9 months?


9 months

fogcue2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:53 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby fogcue2 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:22 pm

romothesavior wrote:I posted this in the other thread, but I'll add it here as well:

The spreadsheet of "50-500+ and fed clerkships" and the breakdown of placement by firm sizes seems to confirm so much of the "TLS groupthink" or "hivemind" or whatever you want to call it regarding firm placement for T15-30 schools.

-Vandy/USC/UCLA/UT are in a class below the T14, but clearly higher than the T20.
-BU/BC/Fordham are slightly below this group, but above the "Midwest T20s" in firm placement.
-ND, Illinois, and WUSTL are truly peers, as much as any schools could be. Every reliable job stat I have ever seen has them lumped closely together.
-UMN and Iowa are a step below WUSTL/ND/Illinois.
-Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona State, and Washington are T30 in in name only.

Though I'd be interested to see how these compare to future numbers before making definitive conclusions, they seem to align with how I've always thought of these schools relative to one another.


if you look at the data back a few years of the go-to schools, Vandy, USC, UCLA, and UT do seem to have a subgroup

BU/BC/Fordham pulling away from GW, Emory, ND, and WUSTL appears to a little bit more recent, and might just be due to NYC not being hit as bad and/or recovering a little bit faster than other places. A more long term difference is that some of these schools have consistently higher A-III clerkships numbers than others in this group (ND and Emory higher than some T-14's) --LinkRemoved-- (obviously reporting errors have something to do with Washington, Zona, Charleston, and maybe Georgia, Colorado, UNLV and Bama though I don't think anyone can for sure call BS, they could really just load up in their home market...not sure who else would clerk in the N.D.Ala)

Also,not sure that we can trust any Illinois self-reporting stats....

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby Blindmelon » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:47 pm

romothesavior wrote:I posted this in the other thread, but I'll add it here as well:

The spreadsheet of "50-500+ and fed clerkships" and the breakdown of placement by firm sizes seems to confirm so much of the "TLS groupthink" or "hivemind" or whatever you want to call it regarding firm placement for T15-30 schools.

-Vandy/USC/UCLA/UT are in a class below the T14, but clearly higher than the T20.
-BU/BC/Fordham are slightly below this group, but above the "Midwest T20s" in firm placement.
-ND, Illinois, and WUSTL are truly peers, as much as any schools could be. Every reliable job stat I have ever seen has them lumped closely together.
-UMN and Iowa are a step below WUSTL/ND/Illinois.
-Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona State, and Washington are T30 in in name only.

Though I'd be interested to see how these compare to future numbers before making definitive conclusions, they seem to align with how I've always thought of these schools relative to one another.


Confirms that USC belongs with BU/BC/Fordham more than it does the UCLA/Vand group.

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby 071816 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:53 pm

Blindmelon wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I posted this in the other thread, but I'll add it here as well:

The spreadsheet of "50-500+ and fed clerkships" and the breakdown of placement by firm sizes seems to confirm so much of the "TLS groupthink" or "hivemind" or whatever you want to call it regarding firm placement for T15-30 schools.

-Vandy/USC/UCLA/UT are in a class below the T14, but clearly higher than the T20.
-BU/BC/Fordham are slightly below this group, but above the "Midwest T20s" in firm placement.
-ND, Illinois, and WUSTL are truly peers, as much as any schools could be. Every reliable job stat I have ever seen has them lumped closely together.
-UMN and Iowa are a step below WUSTL/ND/Illinois.
-Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona State, and Washington are T30 in in name only.

Though I'd be interested to see how these compare to future numbers before making definitive conclusions, they seem to align with how I've always thought of these schools relative to one another.


Confirms that USC belongs with BU/BC/Fordham more than it does the UCLA/Vand group.

How so? Romo's analysis seems pretty spot on to me.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby Blindmelon » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:59 pm

chimp wrote:
Blindmelon wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I posted this in the other thread, but I'll add it here as well:

The spreadsheet of "50-500+ and fed clerkships" and the breakdown of placement by firm sizes seems to confirm so much of the "TLS groupthink" or "hivemind" or whatever you want to call it regarding firm placement for T15-30 schools.

-Vandy/USC/UCLA/UT are in a class below the T14, but clearly higher than the T20.
-BU/BC/Fordham are slightly below this group, but above the "Midwest T20s" in firm placement.
-ND, Illinois, and WUSTL are truly peers, as much as any schools could be. Every reliable job stat I have ever seen has them lumped closely together.
-UMN and Iowa are a step below WUSTL/ND/Illinois.
-Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona State, and Washington are T30 in in name only.

Though I'd be interested to see how these compare to future numbers before making definitive conclusions, they seem to align with how I've always thought of these schools relative to one another.


Confirms that USC belongs with BU/BC/Fordham more than it does the UCLA/Vand group.

How so?


51+/fed: USC 40.5% Fordham 39.7% BC 39.2% BU 38.8%.... UCLA: 43.3%; Vand 46%.
USC is definitely closer to F/BC/BU than to UCLA/Vand.... if you look at 250+ people firms its less so, but I also don't think that being a 250+ firm automatically makes it a more desirable job or less competitive.

The tab with academia/PI, etc. is a little less accurate methinks given that the "academia" category can often be BS.

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby paulshortys10 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:06 pm

this is data for the 2010 class right?

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby 071816 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:07 pm

Blindmelon wrote:
chimp wrote:
Blindmelon wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I posted this in the other thread, but I'll add it here as well:

The spreadsheet of "50-500+ and fed clerkships" and the breakdown of placement by firm sizes seems to confirm so much of the "TLS groupthink" or "hivemind" or whatever you want to call it regarding firm placement for T15-30 schools.

-Vandy/USC/UCLA/UT are in a class below the T14, but clearly higher than the T20.
-BU/BC/Fordham are slightly below this group, but above the "Midwest T20s" in firm placement.
-ND, Illinois, and WUSTL are truly peers, as much as any schools could be. Every reliable job stat I have ever seen has them lumped closely together.
-UMN and Iowa are a step below WUSTL/ND/Illinois.
-Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona State, and Washington are T30 in in name only.

Though I'd be interested to see how these compare to future numbers before making definitive conclusions, they seem to align with how I've always thought of these schools relative to one another.


Confirms that USC belongs with BU/BC/Fordham more than it does the UCLA/Vand group.

How so?


51+/fed: USC 40.5% Fordham 39.7% BC 39.2% BU 38.8%.... UCLA: 43.3%; Vand 46%.
USC is definitely closer to F/BC/BU than to UCLA/Vand.... if you look at 250+ people firms its less so, but I also don't think that being a 250+ firm automatically makes it a more desirable job or less competitive.

The tab with academia/PI, etc. is a little less accurate methinks given that the "academia" category can often be BS.

Seems like you just picked a random data point. For firms of 250+ and Fed clerkships, USC beats out Vandy, Texas, and UCLA. Also, in the 50+ firm and fed clerkship category, USC and Texas are pretty much identical. I don't understand how the data you pointed out justifies your conclusion, especially considering the fact that it's just one year's worth of data.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby romothesavior » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:14 pm

Yeah I'm not just looking at the 50+ number, I am sorta looking at all the data points and drawing conclusions. You could make the case that USC belongs with BU/BC, but I think it is more of a UCLA/UT/Vandy peer.

Let's put it this way though... when you take into account geography, the BU/BC dynamic is almost identical to the USC/UCLA dynamic. They are schools in the same city, great in their home market, and solid elsewhere. It would be rare to really have to differentiate between USC/UCLA vs. BU/BC since they are so far apart and place primarily into different markets, so I suppose it doesn't matter which group you lump USC/UCLA in with.

User avatar
Julio_El_Chavo
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby Julio_El_Chavo » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:17 pm

drmguy wrote:I didn't really look over all the data until now.

Holy crap Hastings


i have no idea why anyone would go to Hastings

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby 071816 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:18 pm

romothesavior wrote:Yeah I'm not just looking at the 50+ number, I am sorta looking at all the data points and drawing conclusions. You could make the case that USC belongs with BU/BC, but I think it is more of a UCLA/UT/Vandy peer.

Let's put it this way though... when you take into account geography, the BU/BC dynamic is almost identical to the USC/UCLA dynamic. They are schools in the same city, great in their home market, and solid elsewhere. It would be rare to really have to differentiate between USC/UCLA vs. BU/BC since they are so far apart and place primarily into different markets, so I suppose it doesn't matter which group you lump USC/UCLA in with.

I agree. The little groupings don't really matter at all. I just thought it was odd that the above poster made his/her conclusion based on one single data point that didn't even seem to justify the conclusion that they were making because USC and Texas were essentially identical in that regard (.04% difference).

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby Blindmelon » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:33 pm

chimp wrote:
romothesavior wrote:Yeah I'm not just looking at the 50+ number, I am sorta looking at all the data points and drawing conclusions. You could make the case that USC belongs with BU/BC, but I think it is more of a UCLA/UT/Vandy peer.

Let's put it this way though... when you take into account geography, the BU/BC dynamic is almost identical to the USC/UCLA dynamic. They are schools in the same city, great in their home market, and solid elsewhere. It would be rare to really have to differentiate between USC/UCLA vs. BU/BC since they are so far apart and place primarily into different markets, so I suppose it doesn't matter which group you lump USC/UCLA in with.

I agree. The little groupings don't really matter at all. I just thought it was odd that the above poster made his/her conclusion based on one single data point that didn't even seem to justify the conclusion that they were making because USC and Texas were essentially identical in that regard (.04% difference).


Its a data point, but likely the most useful out of the bunch - the importance of NLJ250 % or people at 250+ size firms is vastly overrated on this site. But ya'll right that those schools don't compete anyway so its a moot point.

User avatar
drmguy
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:43 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:56 pm

paulshortys10 wrote:this is data for the 2010 class right?

Yep

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby bk1 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:42 pm

I don't think academia should be lumped in with anything. Everywhere that reports salaries for academia jobs has them pegged at the 50-60k range (when they aren't law school funded ones). I'm thinking it's something like teacher at community college? Fuck if I know.

JamesChapman23
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby JamesChapman23 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:44 pm

bk1 wrote:I don't think academia should be lumped in with anything. Everywhere that reports salaries for academia jobs has them pegged at the 50-60k range (when they aren't law school funded ones). I'm thinking it's something like teacher at community college? Fuck if I know.


I bet you some are law librarians, they all start around there.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby bk1 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:45 pm

JamesChapman23 wrote:
bk1 wrote:I don't think academia should be lumped in with anything. Everywhere that reports salaries for academia jobs has them pegged at the 50-60k range (when they aren't law school funded ones). I'm thinking it's something like teacher at community college? Fuck if I know.


I bet you some are law librarians, they all start around there.


That's possible. So maybe they are decent jobs? No clue but because of salary I lean towards not adding them in.

splittinghairs
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby splittinghairs » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:03 am

This thread should be stickied in supplement to the 2009 employment Graphs, esp if someone were to graph these info by rank.

As a side note, we all know this is for 2010 so thats a pretty long time ago, ppl did OCI in like 2008. So Im curious based on OCI results for class of 2013, does anyone think class of 2013 stats would mirror 2010 employments stats or closer to 2009 or perhaps closer to 2011?

How about guesses for Class of 2014 or 2015? Will they be similar to class of 2009?

User avatar
Gail
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:11 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby Gail » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:05 am

what I'd really like to know is what the salary ranges for these are. I guess there's no way to find that out.



i consider 50k - 60k to be a good job.

User avatar
Gail
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:11 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby Gail » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:06 am

splittinghairs wrote:This thread should be stickied in supplement to the 2009 employment Graphs, esp if someone were to graph these info by rank.

As a side note, we all know this is for 2010 so thats a pretty long time ago, ppl did OCI in like 2008. So Im curious based on OCI results for class of 2013, does anyone think class of 2013 stats would mirror 2010 employments stats or closer to 2009 or perhaps closer to 2011?

How about guesses for Class of 2014 or 2015? Will they be similar to class of 2009?


Class of 2013 will be better than 2011, but worse than 2010. This is sunny compared to what we'll be entering.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby romothesavior » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:08 am

splittinghairs wrote:This thread should be stickied in supplement to the 2009 employment Graphs, esp if someone were to graph these info by rank.

As a side note, we all know this is for 2010 so thats a pretty long time ago, ppl did OCI in like 2008. So Im curious based on OCI results for class of 2013, does anyone think class of 2013 stats would mirror 2010 employments stats or closer to 2009 or perhaps closer to 2011?

How about guesses for Class of 2014 or 2015? Will they be similar to class of 2009?

Based on very rough estimates for WUSTL, I think we will be better than c/o 2011, nowhere near c/o 2008 or 2009.

I think we'll be around the same as the data you see here (c/o 2010) or maybe a bit worse. I imagine other schools will be similar.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby bk1 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:08 am

Gail wrote:i consider 50k - 60k to be a good job.


Generally I think I agree. But coming out of law school that kind of job doesn't pay off sticker price debt. And I don't think that a job that pays that should be lumped in with jobs that pay can be pay off sticker price debt in 10 years or less either by large salary (big firms) or PSLF (PI/gov).

User avatar
Gail
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:11 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby Gail » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:13 am

bk1 wrote:
Gail wrote:i consider 50k - 60k to be a good job.


Generally I think I agree. But coming out of law school that kind of job doesn't pay off sticker price debt. And I don't think that a job that pays that should be lumped in with jobs that pay can be pay off sticker price debt in 10 years or less either by large salary (big firms) or PSLF (PI/gov).


There are a lot of students who take big scholarships over better employment prospects. if 60% are still getting a good job of 50-60k that is still a pretty good deal.

The issue comes in with 35-40k.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest