C/O 2010 Employment Statistics Google Doc

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
splittinghairs
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby splittinghairs » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:25 am

Gail wrote:
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.


Hmm thats a interesting.

I seem to get the feeling that OCI for top 14 schools recovered better in 2013 compared with other schools. So is it possible that for top 14 schools, 2013 would be better than 2010, whereas for other schools 2013 is probably worse than 2010?

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 12:26 am

splittinghairs wrote:Hmm thats a interesting.

I seem to get the feeling that OCI for top 14 schools recovered better in 2013 compared with other schools. So is it possible that for top 14 schools, 2013 would be better than 2010, whereas for other schools 2013 is probably worse than 2010?

It's very possible. I don't think T14s are back to pre-ITE hiring levels, but they do seem to have bounced back better than non-T14s.

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 12:30 am

Don't firms plan for SA's two years out? I don't know where I'm getting that but it sounds like a familiar factoid.

That means 2011 OCI was planned for back in 2009.

shoeshine
Posts: 1241
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:58 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby shoeshine » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:31 am

romothesavior wrote:
splittinghairs wrote:Hmm thats a interesting.

I seem to get the feeling that OCI for top 14 schools recovered better in 2013 compared with other schools. So is it possible that for top 14 schools, 2013 would be better than 2010, whereas for other schools 2013 is probably worse than 2010?

It's very possible. I don't think T14s are back to pre-ITE hiring levels, but they do seem to have bounced back better than non-T14s.

Yeah I was about to comment on your post that my school has had a year over year increase in OCI hiring for the last two years. They actually had a significant increase (8%) at last years OCI according to the numbers they showed us in a presentation last week.

Edit: I am at a T14.

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 12:33 am

Gail wrote:Don't firms plan for SA's two years out? I don't know where I'm getting that but it sounds like a familiar factoid.

That means 2011 OCI was planned for back in 2009.

What? SA hiring means they are thinking about staffing needs two years out. So in the summer of 2011, the firms were thinking about what their needs will be in the fall of 2013, which is when the 2012 SAs (the 2Ls now who OCI'd in 2011) will start. They don't plan this stuff four years out.

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 12:41 am

Ok. I thought that sounded odd. Can't remember where I got it from. Probably just misread on the forum.

User avatar
LogicalBaozi
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:44 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby LogicalBaozi » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:44 am

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

Holy crap Hastings



Holy crap Golden Gate


At least Hastings is ahead of Southwestern, Barry, Thomas Jefferson, Cooley, and McGeorge.

In that order. But don't fret!

Of those, everyone BUT Barry had at least one grad in a lawfirm of 500+ (LT).

How that happened, I have no idea.

User avatar
NinerFan
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby NinerFan » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:23 am

bk1 wrote:
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.


If they are law librarians at law schools, would it qualify for LRAP?

If they have 50-60k academic jobs, might it also be a VAP position?

Just speculating here.

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby thelawyler » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:32 am

We should have one of these for every year, and even graphs. hahaha.

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:27 am

Any suggested changes?

I don't know what kind of graph you want.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby bk1 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:16 am

NinerFan wrote:If they are law librarians at law schools, would it qualify for LRAP?

If they have 50-60k academic jobs, might it also be a VAP position?

Just speculating here.


Yeah I'm speculating too. Wouldn't people who take VAPs generally clerk first? And I have no clue how much VAPs get paid.

Maybe law librarians at state schools would be LRAP qualifying? I'm not sure.

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby crossarmant » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:20 am

LogicalBaozi wrote:Holy crap Golden Gate


Agreed! Only 24% had long-term employment 9 months out! How do you ever even recover from that?

Also, I know Cornell does very well, but I'm also confused as to how they're on the lower end of the T14 if they consistently dominate when it comes to job placement. Is it merely their LSAT scores, etc?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby bk1 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:26 am

Why are people surprised by Davis/Hastings/SCU/USF/GGU? It's been clear for a long time that NorCal is a festering shithole for jobs.

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:28 am

crossarmant wrote:
LogicalBaozi wrote:Holy crap Golden Gate


Agreed! Only 24% had long-term employment 9 months out! How do you ever even recover from that?

Also, I know Cornell does very well, but I'm also confused as to how they're on the lower end of the T14 if they consistently dominate when it comes to job placement. Is it merely their LSAT scores, etc?

I honestly don't know why USNWR uses anything other than a combination of some arbitrary method of keeping the top three the same and then base everything else on job prospects. I understand there might be a worry that law schools would shut down their libraries etc. etc. if that was the only factor. However, if the ABA could establish a reasonable baseline for the basics then USNWR could concentrate exclusively on jobs.

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby de5igual » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:30 am

crossarmant wrote:
LogicalBaozi wrote:Holy crap Golden Gate


Agreed! Only 24% had long-term employment 9 months out! How do you ever even recover from that?

Also, I know Cornell does very well, but I'm also confused as to how they're on the lower end of the T14 if they consistently dominate when it comes to job placement. Is it merely their LSAT scores, etc?


1) this is only 1 year. C/O 2011 seems to put Cornell more in line with its "peer" schools DN(MVPB). When you have a smaller class size, dramatic year-to-year shifts happen. Also, Cornell is more heavily focused on NYC, which is arguably the only market that's recovered somewhat, so these numbers reflect that as well.
2) USNWR ≠ placement ability; the most weighted portion of the rankings is the reputation score. Cornell has lower scores than MVP, so it tends to get lumped towards the lower end. It's the same reason why USC almost always lags behind UT/UCLA/Vandy despite having similar (and sometimes better employment figures).

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:53 am

thelawyler wrote:We should have one of these for every year, and even graphs. hahaha.


We should have graphs like last year-- X percent known to have made this money, X this money, X number for art III, X for full-time, etc.

The firm size is great but it doesn't lend to apples/apples comparisons. There are also really lucrative small firms..

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby laxbrah420 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:53 am

drmguy wrote:
JamesChapman23 wrote:Is this at graduation or 9 months?


9 months

are you sure?
I thought it was 14 months

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:58 am

laxbrah420 wrote:
drmguy wrote:
JamesChapman23 wrote:Is this at graduation or 9 months?


9 months

are you sure?
I thought it was 14 months

Chicago's data for 9 months matches up with the data in the spreadsheet.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby bk1 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:11 pm

So it's class of 2010 data, right?

SCU's own website does not seem to line up with the ABA data. (source: http://law.scu.edu/careers/employment-data-2010.cfm)

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:12 pm

bk1 wrote:So it's class of 2010 data, right?

SCU's own website does not seem to line up with the ABA data. (source: http://law.scu.edu/careers/employment-data-2010.cfm)

Yes

trollhunter2
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby trollhunter2 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:34 pm

drmguy wrote: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


You're the man!

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby sunynp » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:17 pm

Gail wrote:
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.


There aren't that many full scholarships at every school. I guess we just disagree about how much money is an acceptable outcome to repay debt. I'm also not a fan of IBR because I think it means your life is ruined for years, so I tend to think that only the jobs with the highest salary justify the risk. Of course, there aren't nearly enough of those jobs that will let you cover debt. I think most everyone knows that, but they all think it will happen to someone else. I hope this data helps people make informed decisions about which school to attend and what price is reasonable for them to pay. I know it is for the class of 2010, but maybe people should see if they could live with the scenario this data reflects.

PS. OP thanks for doing this chart. There was a lot of data to organize.

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby rad lulz » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:21 pm

Take out academia.

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby drmguy » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:38 pm

rad lulz wrote:Take out academia.

Done

I did it originally in an attempt to make a winning category for Yale, but they still didn't win it.

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

Re: Detailed Employment Statistics Google Doc

Postby rad lulz » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:42 pm

drmguy wrote:
rad lulz wrote:Take out academia.

Done

I did it originally in an attempt to make a winning category for Yale, but they still didn't win it.

Sweet. Also any chance you can add a 100+ and Fed category? The gap between 50 and 250 is really really large.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests