NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Robespierre
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:02 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby Robespierre » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:09 pm

froglee wrote:Columbia U.s NLJ250 placement rate ranks number 3(53%), but they have such a large student body(460 people!!). I bet many of them are jobless.


From the fact that 53% got jobs with the nation's 250 biggest firms, how do you get to the conclusion that "many of them are jobless"?

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby guano » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:36 pm

Robespierre wrote:
froglee wrote:Columbia U.s NLJ250 placement rate ranks number 3(53%), but they have such a large student body(460 people!!). I bet many of them are jobless.


From the fact that 53% got jobs with the nation's 250 biggest firms, how do you get to the conclusion that "many of them are jobless"?

Many > 1

User avatar
JamesDean1955
Posts: 744
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby JamesDean1955 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:45 pm

guano wrote:
Robespierre wrote:
froglee wrote:Columbia U.s NLJ250 placement rate ranks number 3(53%), but they have such a large student body(460 people!!). I bet many of them are jobless.


From the fact that 53% got jobs with the nation's 250 biggest firms, how do you get to the conclusion that "many of them are jobless"?

Many > 1


He said jobless though. Not "many don't have biglaw jobs" or "many don't have market paying salaries".

Also, while the formal logic definition of many is many > 1, the colloquial meaning is "a significant amount", which any rational person would say is greater than 1 out of 460 (personally, I'd say at least 50).

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby Rahviveh » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:47 pm

JamesDean1955 wrote:
guano wrote:
Robespierre wrote:
froglee wrote:Columbia U.s NLJ250 placement rate ranks number 3(53%), but they have such a large student body(460 people!!). I bet many of them are jobless.


From the fact that 53% got jobs with the nation's 250 biggest firms, how do you get to the conclusion that "many of them are jobless"?

Many > 1


He said jobless though. Not "many don't have biglaw jobs" or "many don't have market paying salaries".

Also, while the formal logic definition of many is many > 1, the colloquial definition is "a significant amount".

TC term is "some"

YESSS LSAT quantifiers coming in handy for once :lol:

User avatar
JamesDean1955
Posts: 744
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby JamesDean1955 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:54 pm

^^ Yessir 8)

By the way, the dude in your new tar is a bad, bad man :lol:

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby guano » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:56 pm


User avatar
JamesDean1955
Posts: 744
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby JamesDean1955 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:58 pm

guano wrote:Poe's law


BOOM.

That just blew my mind.

User avatar
megagnarley
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:58 am

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby megagnarley » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:12 pm

Is there any way to tell if hiring has stayed even?

Using SC as an example, C/O 2015 is 180 rather than 220. Would have a big impact is summer classes stand.

pissantvache
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:37 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby pissantvache » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:55 pm

I posted this a couple of weeks ago in the legal employment forum. Don't know why I didn't think to post it here, where people would probably care about it more. But anyways, it tries to take a serious look at placement "quality" (as determined by vault). I'm happy to extend this for more schools, but only if a few people on here are interested in seeing it. As it is, I only posted on T14.

So, since the National Law Journal decided to release a treasure trove of data (on how it computed its go-to law school index), I decided to review the Vault Rank-weighted placement statistics as a means of evaluating the average quality of a school's placement. That is, I assigned a score to each firm that was inversely proportional to the firm's Vault rank (Wachtell got 100, Cravath 99, Skadden 98, and so on), multiplied that by the number of graduates each school placed at that firm, added those scores up, and divided by the total placements that school effected, to determine the average quality of a school's placement.

Without further ado, here are the results (I've also added the name of the firm closest in Vault rank to the score for comparison purposes):

1. Yale (80.02) (Arnold & Porter)
2. Harvard (71.80) (Cadwalader)
3. NYU (69.91) (Fried Frank)
4. Columbia (69.43) (Baker & McKenzie)
5. Boalt (69.08) (Baker & McKenzie)
6. Chicago (67.00) (Proskauer)
7. Stanford (66.92) (Proskauer)
8. Georgetown (64.28) (Goodwin Procter)
9. Northwestern (63.67) (Goodwin Procter)
10. Cornell (59.41) (Winston & Strawn)
11. Penn (57.48) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
12. Duke (56.59) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
13. Michigan (56.39) (Dechert)
14. UVA (53.44) (McDermott Will & Emery)

Obviously, there are a lot of problems with this ranking: First (and somewhat inexplicably), I'm not sure that the NLJ data is all that good. Davis Polk only, apparently, has 6 2012 grads. This doesn't make sense. Paul Weiss isn't even included in the list. Less inexplicably, the magic circle firms also aren't included. This probably did affect the rankings somewhat. For example, Columbia does very well with DPW, and many law review students there select PW over higher rated firms. The fact that NYU has a huge number of grads go to Cleary (included) could, thus, be corrupting the data as between Columbia and NYU.

Second, this ranking--unlike the NLJ's--doesn't account for the number of grads who don't go to Biglaw. So Penn ends up looking emphatically not great in this ranking, but when coupled with its higher placement rates (~60% according to NLJ data), could still be competitive with a higher ranked school like Berkeley (~45%).

Third, and most obviously, the Vault ranking has a lot of problems too, as has been well documented here.

I think the biggest surprise here is Berkeley's strong result, especially vis-a-vis Stanford. I expected NYU/CLS/Harvard/Yale to do well compared against Stanford due to the NYC focus of the Vault rankings, but that Berkeley would maintain nearly the same placement rate as Stanford (a little bit over 47%, compared with 45%), but do so much better in vault placement is a surprise. I suppose one possible mechanism by which this could happen is that lots of Stanford grads pursue prestige boutiques like Keker and Susman, while Berkeley students have less access? I suppose clerkships could have an effect as well, but there my expectation would be that Stanford would look more like Yale where (by hypothesis) the easy availability of clerkships means that inadequate job offers lead students to jump to a clerkship to trade up. But given their similar size and rank, and the divergence between the two, I'm being led to conclude that in fact stanford students don't have anywhere near the clerkship access that Yalies do.

Thoughts?

law2015
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:29 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby law2015 » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:04 pm

pissantvache wrote:I posted this a couple of weeks ago in the legal employment forum. Don't know why I didn't think to post it here, where people would probably care about it more. But anyways, it tries to take a serious look at placement "quality" (as determined by vault). I'm happy to extend this for more schools, but only if a few people on here are interested in seeing it. As it is, I only posted on T14.

So, since the National Law Journal decided to release a treasure trove of data (on how it computed its go-to law school index), I decided to review the Vault Rank-weighted placement statistics as a means of evaluating the average quality of a school's placement. That is, I assigned a score to each firm that was inversely proportional to the firm's Vault rank (Wachtell got 100, Cravath 99, Skadden 98, and so on), multiplied that by the number of graduates each school placed at that firm, added those scores up, and divided by the total placements that school effected, to determine the average quality of a school's placement.

Without further ado, here are the results (I've also added the name of the firm closest in Vault rank to the score for comparison purposes):

1. Yale (80.02) (Arnold & Porter)
2. Harvard (71.80) (Cadwalader)
3. NYU (69.91) (Fried Frank)
4. Columbia (69.43) (Baker & McKenzie)
5. Boalt (69.08) (Baker & McKenzie)
6. Chicago (67.00) (Proskauer)
7. Stanford (66.92) (Proskauer)
8. Georgetown (64.28) (Goodwin Procter)
9. Northwestern (63.67) (Goodwin Procter)
10. Cornell (59.41) (Winston & Strawn)
11. Penn (57.48) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
12. Duke (56.59) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
13. Michigan (56.39) (Dechert)
14. UVA (53.44) (McDermott Will & Emery)

Obviously, there are a lot of problems with this ranking: First (and somewhat inexplicably), I'm not sure that the NLJ data is all that good. Davis Polk only, apparently, has 6 2012 grads. This doesn't make sense. Paul Weiss isn't even included in the list. Less inexplicably, the magic circle firms also aren't included. This probably did affect the rankings somewhat. For example, Columbia does very well with DPW, and many law review students there select PW over higher rated firms. The fact that NYU has a huge number of grads go to Cleary (included) could, thus, be corrupting the data as between Columbia and NYU.

Second, this ranking--unlike the NLJ's--doesn't account for the number of grads who don't go to Biglaw. So Penn ends up looking emphatically not great in this ranking, but when coupled with its higher placement rates (~60% according to NLJ data), could still be competitive with a higher ranked school like Berkeley (~45%).

Third, and most obviously, the Vault ranking has a lot of problems too, as has been well documented here.

I think the biggest surprise here is Berkeley's strong result, especially vis-a-vis Stanford. I expected NYU/CLS/Harvard/Yale to do well compared against Stanford due to the NYC focus of the Vault rankings, but that Berkeley would maintain nearly the same placement rate as Stanford (a little bit over 47%, compared with 45%), but do so much better in vault placement is a surprise. I suppose one possible mechanism by which this could happen is that lots of Stanford grads pursue prestige boutiques like Keker and Susman, while Berkeley students have less access? I suppose clerkships could have an effect as well, but there my expectation would be that Stanford would look more like Yale where (by hypothesis) the easy availability of clerkships means that inadequate job offers lead students to jump to a clerkship to trade up. But given their similar size and rank, and the divergence between the two, I'm being led to conclude that in fact stanford students don't have anywhere near the clerkship access that Yalies do.

Thoughts?


To the person who did this, great job!

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby 09042014 » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:14 pm

pissantvache wrote:I posted this a couple of weeks ago in the legal employment forum. Don't know why I didn't think to post it here, where people would probably care about it more. But anyways, it tries to take a serious look at placement "quality" (as determined by vault). I'm happy to extend this for more schools, but only if a few people on here are interested in seeing it. As it is, I only posted on T14.

So, since the National Law Journal decided to release a treasure trove of data (on how it computed its go-to law school index), I decided to review the Vault Rank-weighted placement statistics as a means of evaluating the average quality of a school's placement. That is, I assigned a score to each firm that was inversely proportional to the firm's Vault rank (Wachtell got 100, Cravath 99, Skadden 98, and so on), multiplied that by the number of graduates each school placed at that firm, added those scores up, and divided by the total placements that school effected, to determine the average quality of a school's placement.

Without further ado, here are the results (I've also added the name of the firm closest in Vault rank to the score for comparison purposes):

1. Yale (80.02) (Arnold & Porter)
2. Harvard (71.80) (Cadwalader)
3. NYU (69.91) (Fried Frank)
4. Columbia (69.43) (Baker & McKenzie)
5. Boalt (69.08) (Baker & McKenzie)
6. Chicago (67.00) (Proskauer)
7. Stanford (66.92) (Proskauer)
8. Georgetown (64.28) (Goodwin Procter)
9. Northwestern (63.67) (Goodwin Procter)
10. Cornell (59.41) (Winston & Strawn)
11. Penn (57.48) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
12. Duke (56.59) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
13. Michigan (56.39) (Dechert)
14. UVA (53.44) (McDermott Will & Emery)

Obviously, there are a lot of problems with this ranking: First (and somewhat inexplicably), I'm not sure that the NLJ data is all that good. Davis Polk only, apparently, has 6 2012 grads. This doesn't make sense. Paul Weiss isn't even included in the list. Less inexplicably, the magic circle firms also aren't included. This probably did affect the rankings somewhat. For example, Columbia does very well with DPW, and many law review students there select PW over higher rated firms. The fact that NYU has a huge number of grads go to Cleary (included) could, thus, be corrupting the data as between Columbia and NYU.

Second, this ranking--unlike the NLJ's--doesn't account for the number of grads who don't go to Biglaw. So Penn ends up looking emphatically not great in this ranking, but when coupled with its higher placement rates (~60% according to NLJ data), could still be competitive with a higher ranked school like Berkeley (~45%).

Third, and most obviously, the Vault ranking has a lot of problems too, as has been well documented here.

I think the biggest surprise here is Berkeley's strong result, especially vis-a-vis Stanford. I expected NYU/CLS/Harvard/Yale to do well compared against Stanford due to the NYC focus of the Vault rankings, but that Berkeley would maintain nearly the same placement rate as Stanford (a little bit over 47%, compared with 45%), but do so much better in vault placement is a surprise. I suppose one possible mechanism by which this could happen is that lots of Stanford grads pursue prestige boutiques like Keker and Susman, while Berkeley students have less access? I suppose clerkships could have an effect as well, but there my expectation would be that Stanford would look more like Yale where (by hypothesis) the easy availability of clerkships means that inadequate job offers lead students to jump to a clerkship to trade up. But given their similar size and rank, and the divergence between the two, I'm being led to conclude that in fact stanford students don't have anywhere near the clerkship access that Yalies do.

Thoughts?


1) Vault is a pretty bad indicator. It's mostly about NYC based corporate work
2) Even if was, the last V100 isn't 100 times less prestigious than WLRK.

pissantvache
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:37 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby pissantvache » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:32 pm

Desert Fox wrote:1) Vault is a pretty bad indicator. It's mostly about NYC based corporate work
2) Even if was, the last V100 isn't 100 times less prestigious than WLRK.


1) Agree that Vault is not a great indicator. Disagree that it's all about NYC Corporate, or that it's irrelevant, especially at these schools, and especially when we have almost no other means of comparing schools along a metric that almost everyone agrees exists and uses to a greater or lesser extent (prestige). Also, after V10, the focus on NYC corporate is way diminished. And I think this criticism is also mooted since no school that I can think of has a practice area focus (all these schools can get you into corp, lit, tax, etc., and that's what these firms do), and also the schools that don't have a regional focus on NYC (Georgetown and Berkeley) score almost comparably to NYU/Columbia. Cornell, Penn, UVA, not so much, even though theoretically at least many of those graduates are shooting for NYC or DC.

2) Fair enough. I also tried it according to "bands" but that introduced a level of my own judgment that I couldn't back up. This was an easy heuristic, and... well, I also thought it was nice inasmuch as it would give directional indicators of placement quality, which I think it does, and, as above, in a remarkably geography-neutral way (except, admittedly, for strong niche practices).

pissantvache
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:37 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby pissantvache » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:39 pm

Actually, I'm going to go one further. Vault is not a great indicator for individuals. For statistically significant groups of individuals, which is what law schools are, it's a great indicator, especially since Vault is constructed based on prestige by large groups of attorneys.

Your point about WLRK is still fair, but--as I mentioned above--dealing with it in tiers doesn't lead to radically different results.

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby guano » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:10 pm

pissantvache wrote:I posted this a couple of weeks ago in the legal employment forum. Don't know why I didn't think to post it here, where people would probably care about it more. But anyways, it tries to take a serious look at placement "quality" (as determined by vault). I'm happy to extend this for more schools, but only if a few people on here are interested in seeing it. As it is, I only posted on T14.

So, since the National Law Journal decided to release a treasure trove of data (on how it computed its go-to law school index), I decided to review the Vault Rank-weighted placement statistics as a means of evaluating the average quality of a school's placement. That is, I assigned a score to each firm that was inversely proportional to the firm's Vault rank (Wachtell got 100, Cravath 99, Skadden 98, and so on), multiplied that by the number of graduates each school placed at that firm, added those scores up, and divided by the total placements that school effected, to determine the average quality of a school's placement.

Without further ado, here are the results (I've also added the name of the firm closest in Vault rank to the score for comparison purposes):

1. Yale (80.02) (Arnold & Porter)
2. Harvard (71.80) (Cadwalader)
3. NYU (69.91) (Fried Frank)
4. Columbia (69.43) (Baker & McKenzie)
5. Boalt (69.08) (Baker & McKenzie)
6. Chicago (67.00) (Proskauer)
7. Stanford (66.92) (Proskauer)
8. Georgetown (64.28) (Goodwin Procter)
9. Northwestern (63.67) (Goodwin Procter)
10. Cornell (59.41) (Winston & Strawn)
11. Penn (57.48) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
12. Duke (56.59) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
13. Michigan (56.39) (Dechert)
14. UVA (53.44) (McDermott Will & Emery)

Obviously, there are a lot of problems with this ranking: First (and somewhat inexplicably), I'm not sure that the NLJ data is all that good. Davis Polk only, apparently, has 6 2012 grads. This doesn't make sense. Paul Weiss isn't even included in the list. Less inexplicably, the magic circle firms also aren't included. This probably did affect the rankings somewhat. For example, Columbia does very well with DPW, and many law review students there select PW over higher rated firms. The fact that NYU has a huge number of grads go to Cleary (included) could, thus, be corrupting the data as between Columbia and NYU.

Second, this ranking--unlike the NLJ's--doesn't account for the number of grads who don't go to Biglaw. So Penn ends up looking emphatically not great in this ranking, but when coupled with its higher placement rates (~60% according to NLJ data), could still be competitive with a higher ranked school like Berkeley (~45%).

Third, and most obviously, the Vault ranking has a lot of problems too, as has been well documented here.

I think the biggest surprise here is Berkeley's strong result, especially vis-a-vis Stanford. I expected NYU/CLS/Harvard/Yale to do well compared against Stanford due to the NYC focus of the Vault rankings, but that Berkeley would maintain nearly the same placement rate as Stanford (a little bit over 47%, compared with 45%), but do so much better in vault placement is a surprise. I suppose one possible mechanism by which this could happen is that lots of Stanford grads pursue prestige boutiques like Keker and Susman, while Berkeley students have less access? I suppose clerkships could have an effect as well, but there my expectation would be that Stanford would look more like Yale where (by hypothesis) the easy availability of clerkships means that inadequate job offers lead students to jump to a clerkship to trade up. But given their similar size and rank, and the divergence between the two, I'm being led to conclude that in fact stanford students don't have anywhere near the clerkship access that Yalies do.

Thoughts?
are youretarded?autistic?

User avatar
longlivetheking
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:15 am

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby longlivetheking » Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:02 am

i've looked up the nalp directory and it seems for v10 and v15, hiring is nearing pre-recessionary levels (nyc firms) while firms outside of that range (roughly of course) seems to be still in recession levels. any truth in this?

is it credited that nyc top firms have more or less recovered to boom times (nearing boom times)

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby Lasers » Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:20 am

longlivetheking wrote:i've looked up the nalp directory and it seems for v10 and v15, hiring is nearing pre-recessionary levels (nyc firms) while firms outside of that range (roughly of course) seems to be still in recession levels. any truth in this?

is it credited that nyc top firms have more or less recovered to boom times (nearing boom times)

i don't think v10 or v15 firms really suffered all that much during the down years. the elite firms have done pretty well; the recession really hurt the rest of the top but not elite firms (i.e. rest of v100 outside maybe the top 10-20). pretty sure a quick amlaw search for the top firms would confirm their numbers barely dipped, if at all. they may have hired a bit less just as precaution, but i'd imagine they're operating and hiring pretty close to pre-ITE levels.

User avatar
longlivetheking
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:15 am

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby longlivetheking » Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:30 am

i think if you just check up on jones day or cadwalader it seems that they're still in recessionary mode, hiring wise. but if you look up skadden cravath, davis or simpson, it seems that they are very close to what lawfirmaddict posted in 06 and 07.

i've also heard different schools say different things, ppl at columbia said co 2012 was a bloodbath while cornell and nyu said they were the best since the great apocalypse. anyone care to verify or just tell me to shut the fuck up?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby 09042014 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:30 am

longlivetheking wrote:i think if you just check up on jones day or cadwalader it seems that they're still in recessionary mode, hiring wise. but if you look up skadden cravath, davis or simpson, it seems that they are very close to what lawfirmaddict posted in 06 and 07.

i've also heard different schools say different things, ppl at columbia said co 2012 was a bloodbath while cornell and nyu said they were the best since the great apocalypse. anyone care to verify or just tell me to shut the fuck up?


It's hard to judge recruiting by small sample sizes. So nobody really knows without objective numbers leaking. And different schools do better or worse year to year.

For example, TLS was talking about how c/o 2013 was getting no offered in high numbers, but when the NALP report came out, the number no offered was virtually identical to last year.

User avatar
UVAIce
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:10 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby UVAIce » Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:50 am

UVA has been DC centric for awhile. LST's geographic data for 2011 is 23.9% in DC, 19.4% in Virginia (some of these are people practicing in NOVA, by DC), 12.5% in NY and 5.6% in California. I think historically the placement rates for UVA between NYC and DC was +/- 2%, but the NYC numbers have been going down since 2008. I'm not exactly certain why this has been happening, but it has been an accelerating trend that less UVA grads are going to NYC compared to DC. I'm also certain that's why UVA's NLJ250 numbers have been hurting; we just don't send all that many people to NYC anymore.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby 09042014 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:30 am

UVAIce wrote:UVA has been DC centric for awhile. LST's geographic data for 2011 is 23.9% in DC, 19.4% in Virginia (some of these are people practicing in NOVA, by DC), 12.5% in NY and 5.6% in California. I think historically the placement rates for UVA between NYC and DC was +/- 2%, but the NYC numbers have been going down since 2008. I'm not exactly certain why this has been happening, but it has been an accelerating trend that less UVA grads are going to NYC compared to DC. I'm also certain that's why UVA's NLJ250 numbers have been hurting; we just don't send all that many people to NYC anymore.


Makes sense to me.

LRGhost
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby LRGhost » Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:12 pm

Lasers wrote:
longlivetheking wrote:i've looked up the nalp directory and it seems for v10 and v15, hiring is nearing pre-recessionary levels (nyc firms) while firms outside of that range (roughly of course) seems to be still in recession levels. any truth in this?

is it credited that nyc top firms have more or less recovered to boom times (nearing boom times)

i don't think v10 or v15 firms really suffered all that much during the down years. the elite firms have done pretty well; the recession really hurt the rest of the top but not elite firms (i.e. rest of v100 outside maybe the top 10-20). pretty sure a quick amlaw search for the top firms would confirm their numbers barely dipped, if at all. they may have hired a bit less just as precaution, but i'd imagine they're operating and hiring pretty close to pre-ITE levels.


I don't think it's near pre-ITE. If you want to post numbers, go ahead, but I think there used to be class sizes of over 100. And every firm suffered, really. Latham pushed out like 400 people? Other firms cut huge sizes too but they just did it en masse and laid off first years which didn't bode well for their PR.

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

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby Bronck » Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:15 pm

LRGhost wrote:
Lasers wrote:
longlivetheking wrote:i've looked up the nalp directory and it seems for v10 and v15, hiring is nearing pre-recessionary levels (nyc firms) while firms outside of that range (roughly of course) seems to be still in recession levels. any truth in this?

is it credited that nyc top firms have more or less recovered to boom times (nearing boom times)

i don't think v10 or v15 firms really suffered all that much during the down years. the elite firms have done pretty well; the recession really hurt the rest of the top but not elite firms (i.e. rest of v100 outside maybe the top 10-20). pretty sure a quick amlaw search for the top firms would confirm their numbers barely dipped, if at all. they may have hired a bit less just as precaution, but i'd imagine they're operating and hiring pretty close to pre-ITE levels.


I don't think it's near pre-ITE. If you want to post numbers, go ahead, but I think there used to be class sizes of over 100. And every firm suffered, really. Latham pushed out like 400 people? Other firms cut huge sizes too but they just did it en masse and laid off first years which didn't bode well for their PR.


I think the WSJ numbers may be helpful: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/02/law ... teractive/

User avatar
longlivetheking
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:15 am

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby longlivetheking » Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:40 pm

LRGhost wrote:
Lasers wrote:
longlivetheking wrote:i've looked up the nalp directory and it seems for v10 and v15, hiring is nearing pre-recessionary levels (nyc firms) while firms outside of that range (roughly of course) seems to be still in recession levels. any truth in this?

is it credited that nyc top firms have more or less recovered to boom times (nearing boom times)

i don't think v10 or v15 firms really suffered all that much during the down years. the elite firms have done pretty well; the recession really hurt the rest of the top but not elite firms (i.e. rest of v100 outside maybe the top 10-20). pretty sure a quick amlaw search for the top firms would confirm their numbers barely dipped, if at all. they may have hired a bit less just as precaution, but i'd imagine they're operating and hiring pretty close to pre-ITE levels.


I don't think it's near pre-ITE. If you want to post numbers, go ahead, but I think there used to be class sizes of over 100. And every firm suffered, really. Latham pushed out like 400 people? Other firms cut huge sizes too but they just did it en masse and laid off first years which didn't bode well for their PR.


i would like nothing but the god honest truth so i'm not trying to make myself sleep better at night. but i'm going to just list a few of the v10s, according to both law firm addict and nalp. NALP figures would be for 2012 while law firm addict (LFA) would be 2006

cravath - 82 (NALP); 105 LFA
simpson NY - 83 (NALP); 135 LFA
DPW all offices - 129; 132 (excluding DC but including menlo park and NYC)

i'm lazy. but obviously we aren't at the boomtimes i guess going from these figures. and these are only v10 once you go outside of that range its definitely still recessionary hiring numbers.

colonelnerd
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:04 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby colonelnerd » Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:40 am

Thanks for this, excellent resource

User avatar
Robespierre
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:02 pm

Re: NLJ 250 Placement for C/O 2012

Postby Robespierre » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:51 am

pissantvache wrote:I posted this a couple of weeks ago in the legal employment forum. Don't know why I didn't think to post it here, where people would probably care about it more. But anyways, it tries to take a serious look at placement "quality" (as determined by vault). I'm happy to extend this for more schools, but only if a few people on here are interested in seeing it. As it is, I only posted on T14.

So, since the National Law Journal decided to release a treasure trove of data (on how it computed its go-to law school index), I decided to review the Vault Rank-weighted placement statistics as a means of evaluating the average quality of a school's placement. That is, I assigned a score to each firm that was inversely proportional to the firm's Vault rank (Wachtell got 100, Cravath 99, Skadden 98, and so on), multiplied that by the number of graduates each school placed at that firm, added those scores up, and divided by the total placements that school effected, to determine the average quality of a school's placement.

Without further ado, here are the results (I've also added the name of the firm closest in Vault rank to the score for comparison purposes):

1. Yale (80.02) (Arnold & Porter)
2. Harvard (71.80) (Cadwalader)
3. NYU (69.91) (Fried Frank)
4. Columbia (69.43) (Baker & McKenzie)
5. Boalt (69.08) (Baker & McKenzie)
6. Chicago (67.00) (Proskauer)
7. Stanford (66.92) (Proskauer)
8. Georgetown (64.28) (Goodwin Procter)
9. Northwestern (63.67) (Goodwin Procter)
10. Cornell (59.41) (Winston & Strawn)
11. Penn (57.48) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
12. Duke (56.59) (Fulbright & Jaworski)
13. Michigan (56.39) (Dechert)
14. UVA (53.44) (McDermott Will & Emery)

Obviously, there are a lot of problems with this ranking: First (and somewhat inexplicably), I'm not sure that the NLJ data is all that good. Davis Polk only, apparently, has 6 2012 grads. This doesn't make sense. Paul Weiss isn't even included in the list. Less inexplicably, the magic circle firms also aren't included. This probably did affect the rankings somewhat. For example, Columbia does very well with DPW, and many law review students there select PW over higher rated firms. The fact that NYU has a huge number of grads go to Cleary (included) could, thus, be corrupting the data as between Columbia and NYU.

Second, this ranking--unlike the NLJ's--doesn't account for the number of grads who don't go to Biglaw. So Penn ends up looking emphatically not great in this ranking, but when coupled with its higher placement rates (~60% according to NLJ data), could still be competitive with a higher ranked school like Berkeley (~45%).

Third, and most obviously, the Vault ranking has a lot of problems too, as has been well documented here.

I think the biggest surprise here is Berkeley's strong result, especially vis-a-vis Stanford. I expected NYU/CLS/Harvard/Yale to do well compared against Stanford due to the NYC focus of the Vault rankings, but that Berkeley would maintain nearly the same placement rate as Stanford (a little bit over 47%, compared with 45%), but do so much better in vault placement is a surprise. I suppose one possible mechanism by which this could happen is that lots of Stanford grads pursue prestige boutiques like Keker and Susman, while Berkeley students have less access? I suppose clerkships could have an effect as well, but there my expectation would be that Stanford would look more like Yale where (by hypothesis) the easy availability of clerkships means that inadequate job offers lead students to jump to a clerkship to trade up. But given their similar size and rank, and the divergence between the two, I'm being led to conclude that in fact stanford students don't have anywhere near the clerkship access that Yalies do.

Thoughts?


Thanks for this. Very interesting. Why do you think GULC outperformed its ranking?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger and 1 guest