Class of 2011 Employment Statistics Forum

[dingbat]

The overall full-time, long-term legal rate is 55.2%.

The overall underemployment rate is 26.4%.

These numbers are awful. Thinking of investing 3 years and 200K; think again? Going to and completing law school gives one a 50/50 chance of working as a lawyer.

The thing to be careful with here, is to not apply the overall statistics and say, shit, that's the state of the legal market?

There are schools that boast much better employment prospects (e.g. HYS) and there are schools that are much worse.
There are very few who would argue against paying $200k for HYS, while there are plenty of schools I wouldn't attend for free, even if they threw in a cost of living stipend.

While it's good to know the overall state of the legal market, in terms of whether it's a good idea to go or not, look to the individual schools and the actual cost (COA - Scholarships; factor in any stips)
Yes, if you are last in your class, you will end up unemployed at almost every school. On the flip side, if you're first in your class at most schools (there are exceptions), you should be able to land a decent job.
But, go in figuring you'll end up median and look at the most likely outcome. Then factor in the probability of ending up at up-side potential and down-side risk and look at where that would place you.
Then make up your mind if the school is a good idea.
LST is a great tool. So is the ABA data. today, there's no excuse for coming out crying that you shouldn't have gone to law school.

[wurst]

The overall full-time, long-term legal rate is 55.2%.

The overall underemployment rate is 26.4%.

These numbers are awful. Thinking of investing 3 years and 200K; think again? Going to and completing law school gives one a 50/50 chance of working as a lawyer.

The thing to be careful with here, is to not apply the overall statistics and say, shit, that's the state of the legal market?

There are schools that boast much better employment prospects (e.g. HYS) and there are schools that are much worse.
There are very few who would argue against paying $200k for HYS, while there are plenty of schools I wouldn't attend for free, even if they threw in a cost of living stipend.

While it's good to know the overall state of the legal market, in terms of whether it's a good idea to go or not, look to the individual schools and the actual cost (COA - Scholarships; factor in any stips)
Yes, if you are last in your class, you will end up unemployed at almost every school. On the flip side, if you're first in your class at most schools (there are exceptions), you should be able to land a decent job.
But, go in figuring you'll end up median and look at the most likely outcome. Then factor in the probability of ending up at up-side potential and down-side risk and look at where that would place you.
Then make up your mind if the school is a good idea.
LST is a great tool. So is the ABA data. today, there's no excuse for coming out crying that you shouldn't have gone to law school.

Please pardon my ignorance, but what is LST?

[TexasAggie13]

Stands for Law School Transparency. I think its a necessary tool for anyone considering law school.

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/

[manofjustice]

There is some cause for optimism: we have seen a sharp drop off in response to this legal market, much sharper than 1991. This is probably due to the internet and sites like lawschooltransparency.com . The sharper decline may bode well for a quicker recovery.

The legal market has crashed before. Arguably we are about as bad as 1991, according to major metrics. As I've said elsewhere, the supposed "structural" changes that underlie the market correction are only partially convincing. They convince me that doc review is going away, and that the T4 might be effectively erased, but that's about it. Who wanted these things anyway?

We need "structural" reform at the ABA so that we don't go through the same thing again once this bubble gets shaken out: no more schools, smaller graduating classes, and economically and morally rational tuition. It can't be left up to the "market." The "market" will probably cause the opposite result, as long as the economy flags. These restrictions have to come from the ABA.

A cultural correction is due as well: we need to reacquaint academia in general, especially the legal academia, with their higher purpose and duty. And that duty should be embraced as a professional obligation at the law schools.

[mrjohnsterman]

ABA data is now up http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx

[Greenandgold]

ABA data is now up http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx

Awesome. I'll get started on the chart like we have for last year.

[RedBirds2011]

ABA data is now up http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx

Awesome. I'll get started on the chart like we have for last year.

TYIA

[jenesaislaw]

Just made the 2011 clearinghouse public. Check it out. Still working out a few bugs, but the data match the ABA's. We'll be adding more data from school websites as soon as practicable. If anybody wants to volunteer to help us, we'd love the help.

[jenesaislaw]

As always, we're also open to suggestions.

[Greenandgold]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... FladDFPTFE

Here's the chart for the top 14. I'll work on getting more schools up later tonight and tomorrow but I figured y'all would be interested in this one the most so here ya go. I'm open to suggestions of there's any formatting issues or things that you want changed so just send me a pm.

[Greenandgold]

I think the biggest surprise I see so far is Chicago's huge jump in P.I.

Anybody got any explanation for that?

[Kurst]

[manofjustice]

I think the biggest surprise I see so far is Chicago's huge jump in P.I.

Anybody got any explanation for that?

Yep, here: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... &start=175

It's the newest law school trick to inflate employment statistics: school-funded state and local "clerkships" and public interest internships.

[RedBirds2011]

I think the biggest surprise I see so far is Chicago's huge jump in P.I.

Anybody got any explanation for that?

Yep, here: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... &start=175

It's the newest law school trick to inflate employment statistics: school-funded state and local "clerkships" and public interest internships.

Um...I don't think state clerkships are school funded bro.

[attractive_NUisance]

Looks like Northwestern beat Chicago pretty handily in Firms 100-500+ combined with Federal Clerkships.

[Greenandgold]

I think the biggest surprise I see so far is Chicago's huge jump in P.I.

Anybody got any explanation for that?

Yep, here: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... &start=175

It's the newest law school trick to inflate employment statistics: school-funded state and local "clerkships" and public interest internships.

Thanks. That law school transparency data looks great jenesaislaw!

[rickgrimes69]

Anyone else noticing how hard Mich got hammered? They officially had the worst biglawl placement in the T14, even GULC performed higher.

[rayiner]

Anyone else noticing how hard Mich got hammered? They officially had the worst biglawl placement in the T14, even GULC performed higher.

It doesn't really make sense to look big law placement by itself. Nearly everyone who does a federal clerkship does a 2L SA, or at least had the option to do one. The statistics just show GULC is bad at placing clerks relative to Michigan.

[rickgrimes69]

Anyone else noticing how hard Mich got hammered? They officially had the worst biglawl placement in the T14, even GULC performed higher.

It doesn't really make sense to look big law placement by itself. Nearly everyone who does a federal clerkship does a 2L SA, or at least had the option to do one. The statistics just show GULC is bad at placing clerks relative to Michigan.

But even taking that into account, it still looks like Mich only outperformed GULC and was handily trounced in overall placement relative to the rest of the T14, minus Cornell

[KevinP]

^
I think Michigan had a horrible year because Michigan's career services told a ton of people to bid Chicago, which in retrospect was a very bad call.

[rayiner]

^
I think Michigan had a horrible year because Michigan's career services told a ton of people to bid Chicago, which in retrospect was a very bad call.

I've heard that before, and I think it's deeper than that. Michigan's general placement model (place a few people at each firm in a wide array of markets), just doesn't work well in a recession. In a recession, firms retrench to their core recruiting schools. Historically, Michigan isn't a core recruiting school for anyone. A comparison with NU is illustrative. For C/O 2007, NU placed more than a quarter of their class into just five firms (Kirkland, Sidley, Latham, Mayer, Skadden): http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com. Michigan didn't place more than half a dozen associates into any single firm. Instead, they placed 1-4 associates in a wide range of firms, in a wide range of markets.

When the recession hit, a lot of those markets stopped hiring, and the firms that were hiring retrenched to the schools where they regularly got 5+ associates each year, at the expense of schools where they only picked up a couple of associates regularly.

[thelawyler]

What really needs to be released and published are 2L SA stats the year they happen.

[manofjustice]

I think the biggest surprise I see so far is Chicago's huge jump in P.I.

Anybody got any explanation for that?

Yep, here: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... &start=175

It's the newest law school trick to inflate employment statistics: school-funded state and local "clerkships" and public interest internships.

Um...I don't think state clerkships are school funded bro.

Bro, in a rational world, they wouldn't be. But that's the only explanation of some schools' ABA form. Check GWs.

[Campagnolo]

^
I think Michigan had a horrible year because Michigan's career services told a ton of people to bid Chicago, which in retrospect was a very bad call.

I've heard that before, and I think it's deeper than that. Michigan's general placement model (place a few people at each firm in a wide array of markets), just doesn't work well in a recession. In a recession, firms retrench to their core recruiting schools. Historically, Michigan isn't a core recruiting school for anyone. A comparison with NU is illustrative. For C/O 2007, NU placed more than a quarter of their class into just five firms (Kirkland, Sidley, Latham, Mayer, Skadden): http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com. Michigan didn't place more than half a dozen associates into any single firm. Instead, they placed 1-4 associates in a wide range of firms, in a wide range of markets.

When the recession hit, a lot of those markets stopped hiring, and the firms that were hiring retrenched to the schools where they regularly got 5+ associates each year, at the expense of schools where they only picked up a couple of associates regularly.

This is really smart. I like this. It sounds entirely likely.

[bbalcrzy23]

Anyone else noticing how hard Mich got hammered? They officially had the worst biglawl placement in the T14, even GULC performed higher.

It doesn't really make sense to look big law placement by itself. Nearly everyone who does a federal clerkship does a 2L SA, or at least had the option to do one. The statistics just show GULC is bad at placing clerks relative to Michigan.

But even taking that into account, it still looks like Mich only outperformed GULC and was handily trounced in overall placement relative to the rest of the T14, minus Cornell

Is it possible to find out what percentage of students participate in OCI at a particular school?