GULC Graduating Class of 2016 Employment Stats Forum

[lulzsec54]

Section 1: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Section 2: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Section 3: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Section 4: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Section 5: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Section 6: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Section 7: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

As employment stats from the GRADUATING class are the most important for incoming law students, I decided to compile the data myself for GULC's CURRENTLY graduating class (From its publically available graduating class list, located here: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/campus-se ... -15-16.pdf . I think a section by section breakdown is most informative because of Georgetown's ENORMOUS PI interest section (Section 3), a part-time section that probably does not reflect the priorities/preferences of the full time class, and a huge amount of transfers.



The breakdown for Biglaw/FC % though is as follows:

Section 1: 57/96 Percentage: 59%

Section 2: 49/90 Percentage: 55%

Section 3: 38/104 Percentage: 37%

Section 4: 52/91 Percentage: 57%

Section 5: 52/92 Percentage: 55%

Section 6 (Transfers): 41/94 Percentage: 44%

Section 7 (Part time): 34/62 Percentage: 55%


Section 3 (Curriculum B, the non-standard section) is obviously the big outlier here. My assumption is that a majority of the section didn't go for biglaw during EIW (which I've captured in the spreadsheet by designating "Unknowns" as "Willful poverty seekers"). From all appearances, it's a third-tier law school embedded within an otherwise decently placing T14. Prospectives should treat it as such and join one of the normal sections instead.

Also, I used the description "Congressional Masseuse" for people who say they work "on the Hill" as if this is preftigious.

Spreadsheets have been edited to remove names. You know who you are.


EDIT: PART TIME SECTION ADDED and Transfer Section added

[sprezz]

removing names is super effective when you leave up linkedin accounts

[lulzsec54]

Lol linkedins removed.

[TLSModBot]

Where are you getting the employment outcomes from? There are a lot of unknowns here.

[lulzsec54]

The Summer 2015 3L mentor list, LinkedIn Accounts and Firm pages, a few from just knowing them. And yes the "Unknown" are just what they sound like: I have no idea where they're going.

[sprezz]

any data is better than none. and this is interesting. plus it's a better use of time than any 3L class (op a 3L?).

i'm interested in seeing the transfer #'s. do they get screwed? anecdotally it seems so. one class year + linkedin culling is a small sample size but iirc GULC lets a lot of them in

[Gray]

.

[sprezz]

yeh the comments are amusing. none of my friends in the class got any real funny stuff though

anyway (continues to talk to himself)

i didn't know GULC had a dedicated PI section. do they have equal access to OCI etc? different class load (if so, is it a token class or a big difference)? or is it purely a signaling thing to PI employers?

i suppose the end game of analysis like this would be to test it against other law centers' public interest signaling groups. so for example if you go to UVA and you're in...whatever the shit they call that club, and it's plastered all over your resume. what's that group's biglaw numbers? and what are the numbers of the rest of the class excluding that group? because the implications are clear if you assume you're going to GULC: if you might want biglaw, gtfo that section. more interesting would be what the effect of public interest signaling is generally, and whether it has a bigger impact at some schools than others. that could impact the threshold choice of which school to go to. granted, hard to imagine ever having the data to make that assessment with any degree of confidence. still, shout out to OP for fuckin around with this stuff

[lulzsec54]

any data is better than none. and this is interesting. plus it's a better use of time than any 3L class (op a 3L?).

i'm interested in seeing the transfer #'s. do they get screwed? anecdotally it seems so. one class year + linkedin culling is a small sample size but iirc GULC lets a lot of them in

Transfer data is up. Of the 114 that transferred in, 94 are full time so will be graduating in 2016. They are 44% biglaw. This is the section of people I know least well, however. So the percentage MAY be significantly higher (Others can PM me with edits and I'll change them). As it stands, they get 10-15% more screwed than the normal sections. They do, however, beat out section 3.

[bananatopia]

deleted

[Nebby]

Willful Poverty Seeker?

[lulzsec54]

LOL yes my phrasing, "decently placing T14," was off. I wasn't trying to make a comparative claim about GULC with respect to other T14s, just that biglaw placement at Georgetown is significantly masked by section 3 self-selection. And supply proof for that claim.

[Hikikomorist]

lol the spreadsheets are worth a look for the commentary alone.

I'm sad I missed the LinkedIn profiles based on some of the descriptions.

[Nebby]

Who made these descriptions? Beveridge & Diamond is an enviro boutique that is much harder to obtain than your typical biglaw gig, but the person that made these comments passes it off as "barely biglaw."

[bananatopia]

deleted

[Nebby]

OP I'm compiling PI/Gov stats

Can you post the data with the PI/Gov employment places instead of "Poverty seeker" or whatever

[sprezz]

fun thread. ty op + banana

[TLSModBot]

lol the spreadsheets are worth a look for the commentary alone.

I'm sad I missed the LinkedIn profiles based on some of the descriptions.

and that is why it was good they were removed.

[krads153]

Section 3 (Curriculum B, the non-standard section) is obviously the big outlier here. My assumption is that a majority of the section didn't go for biglaw during EIW (which I've captured in the spreadsheet by designating "Unknowns" as "Willful poverty seekers"). From all appearances, it's a third-tier law school embedded within an otherwise decently placing T14. Prospectives should treat it as such and join one of the normal sections instead.

You've almost proven exactly the point that you're trying to argue against. Admittedly, this does tend to show that PI self-selection is real. If you treat non-school-funded ftlt pi/gov as a "successful outcome" and add it to GULC's bl + fc stat for c/o 2015 you get 58.1%. As a comparison, isolate the pi self-selectors by taking all of the full-time/non-transfer sections except section c. I'm excluding the transfer/part-time sections since they probably have their own pi self-selectors. In sections 1, 2, and 4, students for whom we can confidently say that the almost none are pi self-selectors, 56.9% got bl + fc. Compare that to the 58.1% you get if you just take GULC's c/o 2015 bl + fc + pi + gov - sf. Your data implies that GULC's true biglaw success rate is 56.9% for students targeting biglaw, which is a hair lower (1.2%) than the estimate provided by bl + fc + pi + gov - sf. That stat serves as an indicator of a school's true biglaw success rate. Its accuracy in this case weighs against claims that it systematically overcounts the success rate of schools with significant pi/gov representation, and weighs in favor of the claim that the generic go-to biglaw stat, bl + fc (which gives GULC 44.1%), systematically undercounts the success rate of schools like GULC. The self-selection position looks a lot stronger than the anti-self-selection position.

However, Georgetown's outcomes still lag considerably behind the rest of the t-14 even if we account for self selection. Here's a metric that counts pi/gov on parity with biglaw. (It also partially counts 51 - 100 firms, 101-250 firms, and, to the extent that the following two categories are published, non-biglaw jobs that pay 80k+ and SSC clerkships. These jobs aren't worthless to students targeting biglaw, they're just worth less, so they should be counted, but at a discount. There are also a bunch of one-off minor decisions, like subtracting NU's JD/MBA class from its numerators and denominators and counting YHS school-funded jobs as equivalent to non-school funded pi/gov jobs.)

Good Outcomes% averaged across the last 5 years -
Yale: 83.41%
Harvard: 81.84%
Stanford: 86.92%
Chicago: 78.25%
Columbia: 83.77%
NYU: 77.81%
Penn: 80.71%
Berkeley: 74.82%
Michigan: 70.59%
UVA: 72.10%
Duke: 74.84%
Northwestern: 75.93%
Cornell: 73.47%
GULC: 59.34%

Alternatively, you could go with a school's law related jobs%. Essentially, this is ftlt bpr/jda subtract school funded jobs (except for YHS). I like this stat because the inherent implication of outcome based metrics is that some outcomes have a consensus preference over other outcomes. You can spin a yarn about why someone might choose to work in a lower paying small firm job (getting a foothold in a competitive practice area/market, or bonus potential and income growth potential that aren't showing up even in the salary data), but it's far more difficult to rationalize outcomes that aren't even related to law. We are talking about law schools, after all. For this reason, law related jobs% likely has the fewest inversions of any metric relative to a perfect sorting of actual student preferences.

Law related jobs% averaged across the last 5 years -
Yale: 88.26%
Harvard: 93.40%
Stanford: 93.47%
Chicago: 87.90%
Columbia: 87.74%
NYU: 84.81%
Penn: 92.16%
Berkeley: 84.81%
Michigan: 85.29%
UVA: 83.14%
Duke: 89.63%
Northwestern: 84.52%
Cornell: 84.13%
GULC: 72.85%

On either of these metrics, Georgetown is >10% lower than the next lowest t-14 school. Counting pi/gov has the effect of helping the schools ranked 12, 13, and 14 on bl + fc to catch up the the rest of the t-14. In the case of Berkeley and Michigan, the effect is enough that the two schools are fundamentally comparable to other lower t-14 schools. GULC gains just as much ground on the rest of the lower t-14, but that still leaves it 10% behind the pack. If that isn't evidence enough, its law related jobs% is also about 10% behind. So, contrary to your claim that, after accounting for the selection bias in section 3, GULC is a decently placing T14, there's still a big difference in value, even after accounting for pi/gov self-selection. And your spreadsheets don't do anything to counter that conclusion. They end up producing approximately the same percentage that GULC gets on bl + fc + pi + gov - sf.

Damn, good post.