Top Law Schools

Desert Fox wrote:Yea that sucks that they lump in internships funded by the school into government fulltime jobs.

Desert Fox wrote:Yea that sucks that they lump in internships funded by the school into government fulltime jobs.

jenesaislaw wrote:
What's worse, in my opinion, is that there are schools that mistakenly report school-funded jobs with judges as clerkships instead of in government. This is wrong and I am trying to do something about it. Hopefully I'll have more on this in the near future

Nickg415 wrote:A lot of people talk about how the unemployment rate you face coming out of law school is 55% but this take into account TTT schools and unaccredited schools that no one should attend. I thought it would be interesting to see employment rates dissagregated by tier/school rank. I broke up the schools into the most common groupings on TLS and looked at an estimate of the underemployment rank students graduating from a school in a certain group would face. Underemployment is simply unemployed + working part time. This is just an estimate in that the numbers represent an average of the underemployment rates, the actual underemployment rates will vary by 1 or 2 percent.

T10: 5.51%
T14: 7.75%
T25: 13.36%
T50: 19.00%
51-100: 28.69%
101-148: 31.002 %

Looking at this those from the T10 schools are doing better in terms of employment than the national average. This can probably be said for T14 and possibly T25 once we only look at unemployment. This isn't looking at the question regarding the ridiculous cost of attendance which must be considering when looking at whether or not these students are better of than the national average. Once you look at the lower T50 and up things get drastically worst.

Eventually I want to spend some time and get the actual underemployment rates and then compare them with the previous years. It can then be said whether or not employment prospects are improving for higher ranked schools while getting worst for lower rank schools.

rad lulz wrote:

shifty_eyed wrote:

jenesaislaw wrote:
What's worse, in my opinion, is that there are schools that mistakenly report school-funded jobs with judges as clerkships instead of in government. This is wrong and I am trying to do something about it. Hopefully I'll have more on this in the near future

Is it really, though?

Begging a judge to work for them for free isn't a clerkship or even a desirable outcome

rad lulz wrote:

shifty_eyed wrote:

jenesaislaw wrote:
What's worse, in my opinion, is that there are schools that mistakenly report school-funded jobs with judges as clerkships instead of in government. This is wrong and I am trying to do something about it. Hopefully I'll have more on this in the near future

Is it really, though?

Begging a judge to work for them for free isn't a clerkship or even a desirable outcome

LSATSCORES2012 wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

shifty_eyed wrote:

jenesaislaw wrote:
What's worse, in my opinion, is that there are schools that mistakenly report school-funded jobs with judges as clerkships instead of in government. This is wrong and I am trying to do something about it. Hopefully I'll have more on this in the near future

Is it really, though?

Begging a judge to work for them for free isn't a clerkship or even a desirable outcome

I think she was suggesting that they might actually be reporting jobs in this way on purpose (even though, as you pointed out, it's not a wholly honest thing to do).

Tiago Splitter wrote:http://www.nalp.org/new_associate_sal_oct2011

BigLaw went to 160K in 2007. Until Gunderson Dettmer raised to 125K in 1999 BigLaw paid under 100K.

bk187 wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:http://www.nalp.org/new_associate_sal_oct2011

BigLaw went to 160K in 2007. Until Gunderson Dettmer raised to 125K in 1999 BigLaw paid under 100K.

That Gunderson hiring like 5-10 SAs caused the much of biglaw to raise their salaries in response is kinda hilarious.

Desert Fox wrote:A lot of the problem is the follow the leader effect. Firms only have an incentive to do it if other firms don't follow.

Maybe you'd see a firm announce right before OCI or something, but it's still not worth it.

bk187 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:A lot of the problem is the follow the leader effect. Firms only have an incentive to do it if other firms don't follow.

Maybe you'd see a firm announce right before OCI or something, but it's still not worth it.

I mean this was essentially what Gunderson did, iirc. I assume being flush at the time made firms less hesitant to follow.

RPK34 wrote:OP, can you explain how this data is compiled from grads? How do the schools get information on 100% of graduates? Require the information prior to graduation or something?

Regulus wrote:

jenesaislaw wrote:

RPK34 wrote:OP, can you explain how this data is compiled from grads? How do the schools get information on 100% of graduates? Require the information prior to graduation or something?

The data are captured as of February 15 following graduation, so information gathered prior to graduation can only help schools so much. Generally, law schools survey graduates, re-survey them, call them, and/or stalk them on Facebook, LinkedIn, Martindale, or State Bar websites. The data can also come from credible associates of the graduates, i.e. fellow students, professors, etc. Some schools hire private investigators to fill in the gaps too.

Whoah... what the fuck...

wannabelawstudent wrote:What exactly is Business & Industry. I assume these all aren't in-house or even compliance. Are they all considered "professional positions"

jenesaislaw wrote:

Crowing wrote:Also wondering since employed + underemployed + unknown don't add up to 100, what is the rest?

* LT, FT J.D. Advantage
* LT, FT Professional
* LT, FT Solo Practice

If you're on the state report's main page, click a school's row and there's a pie chart that shows the breakdown.