Latest employment data Forum

[Rigo]

If someone intends to transfer, then they should just look at Columbia outcomes or whatever.

You can't assume you will be able to transfer going in, but it is still relevant to your outcomes going in. If 10% of a school transfers out and all get big law, and 30% of the remainder gets big law, but 20% of that are transfers in, and only 10% of them got big law, then the probability of a random 0L getting big law is actually more like 40% than 30%.

My second post probably captures my issue more succinctly:

The main reason for transferring is because you feel your current school won't help you achieve your employment goals, so adding outcomes of those who transfer out would inflate a school's desirable outcomes to the point where it would be misleading for 0L's.

I just think including outcomes for all matriculants rather than graduates would create a LESS accurate picture of outcomes than a MORE accurate one.

[cookiejar1]

Accounting for transfers out would give a better indication of your chances at Biglaw or clerking when you matriculate. He's right in that if ~30 people transfer out of WUSTL, a strong majority of them would have gotten Biglaw if they stayed at WUSTL.

It's hard to say. Had these transfers stayed, they might have just gobbled up all the biglaw jobs that just shifted to other non-transfers after they left.

Sure maybe it'd be interesting information, but it's silly to hold schools accountable for outcomes that are no longer in their control.

I'm not saying that schools should be held accountable. If you want to dock whatever school in whatever rankings for taking in 100 transfers who don't get jobs - that's fine.

I'm saying that this data is relevant to students who are deciding on which school to matriculate. To that end, 0Ls should be aware that the numbers reflect graduates of a school, and not those who begin at the school.

I'm using WUSTL as an example, but this could apply to any other "T20" school. Let's say that 200 students begin as a 1L. 20 transfer to T14s (and overwhelmingly get biglaw jobs), and 80 transfer into the school (and don't).

Now WUSTL has 260 graduates, and their numbers reflect that 30% are 101+ (so 75ish people). In reality, those 75 people got biglaw, but so did (almost all of) those 20 people who transfered out. 95 total. And the ones who stayed, they weren't really competing against the transfers. So 95/200.

Again, these numbers are hypotheticals. I have no idea how many transfers WUSTL gained and lost. And I'm not supporting the taking in of mass transfers. It's a racket.

I don't like this transfer-adjusted BL+FC rate because its only purpose is to really mask otherwise paltry employment prospects. The current BL+FC percentages are a decent proxy: Penn is good. WUSTL is very bad.

[WheatThins]

I don't like this transfer-adjusted BL+FC rate because its only purpose is to really mask otherwise paltry employment prospects. The current BL+FC percentages are a decent proxy: Penn is good. WUSTL is very bad.

No - it's to give a more accurate view of what happens to students who actually matriculate at a school. The fact that it changes otherwise paltry employment prospects for students who matriculate is the result of this more accurate view.

[suppy183]

One thing to keep in mind:

This data reflects only graduates for a school.

Somewhere like WUSTL, which takes a ton of transfers (who rarely get biglaw/fed clerkship jobs) and loses a sizable number of transfers to T14s (who tend to get biglaw jobs), will have skewed employment numbers.

I wish schools could show outcomes for students who matriculated at a school instead of the graduates.

So when looking at the data, I'd make a mental note of which schools take in the most transfers and adjust appropriately.

By this logic every non-HYS has skewed employment data

At some T-14's I'd bet the transfers do better than the regulars.

I've always been curious about this. When you say 'some', do you mean that in a probabilistic sense, or do you think there are specific schools where this is more likely to be the case? I remember reading a blog post by Spivey that claimed it was usually a bad idea to transfer and implying that you would do worse than your peers at the new school (I think the anecdote presented was WUSTL --> Harvard), but I've never really seen that view anywhere else.

[chuckbass]

Accounting for transfers out would give a better indication of your chances at Biglaw or clerking when you matriculate. He's right in that if ~30 people transfer out of WUSTL, a strong majority of them would have gotten Biglaw if they stayed at WUSTL.

It's hard to say. Had these transfers stayed, they might have just gobbled up all the biglaw jobs that just shifted to other non-transfers after they left.

Sure maybe it'd be interesting information, but it's silly to hold schools accountable for outcomes that are no longer in their control.

I'm more with Rigo on this, at least in the case of WUSTL. WUSTL's OCI is 100% preselect, and they adjust the GPA cutoffs right before OCI after the transfers leave, so I don't really think there's a much better way to measure this.

The one thing I would say is that the 40-50 transfers WUSTL takes in hamper the statistics for the same reason however, since they're not getting interviews through OCI, so I still think things are ever so slightly better than the numbers in the aggregate show.

In the end, yes, WUSTL is clearly not a T14.

[hoos89]

I'm not sure why rigo is arguing against this in theory because it's absolutely right. That said, WUSTL only had 13 transfers out and took in 44 so the net benefit for an incoming 0L would be pretty small if it exists at all if that ratio continues.

My understanding is that the transfers into WUSTL do very poorly relative to the average. They don't swoop in and take jobs from the original WUSTL students going in at OCI. However, the students transferring out have much better outcomes than the average.

The main reason for transferring is because you feel your current school won't help you achieve your employment goals, so adding outcomes of those who transfer out would inflate a school's desirable outcomes to the point where it would be misleading for 0L's.

I just think including outcomes for all matriculants rather than graduates would create a LESS accurate picture of outcomes than a MORE accurate one.

Why? The most relevant group to compare a 0L considering matriculating to a school is the group of all matriculants. What were their outcomes? You know going in that you aren't going to be transferring to your school from another school, but you might transfer to another school from your school. You may not consider transferring to be a good outcome, but plenty of people would disagree.

[starry eyed]

The main reason for transferring is because you feel your current school won't help you achieve your employment goals, so adding outcomes of those who transfer out would inflate a school's desirable outcomes to the point where it would be misleading for 0L's.

This is exactly why it need not be considered when comparing schools

[hoos89]

The main reason for transferring is because you feel your current school won't help you achieve your employment goals, so adding outcomes of those who transfer out would inflate a school's desirable outcomes to the point where it would be misleading for 0L's.

This is exactly why it need not be considered when comparing schools

Except that a large chunk of the people who transferred would have done just fine if they stayed.

[Hand]

The main reason for transferring is because you feel your current school won't help you achieve your employment goals, so adding outcomes of those who transfer out would inflate a school's desirable outcomes to the point where it would be misleading for 0L's.

This is exactly why it need not be considered when comparing schools

Except that a large chunk of the people who transferred would have done just fine if they stayed.

In which case, those who now do fine in their place would not have done as well, with grade cutoffs being what they are.

[starry eyed]

Still incredulous of the WUSTL love on this site...

[starry eyed]

The main reason for transferring is because you feel your current school won't help you achieve your employment goals, so adding outcomes of those who transfer out would inflate a school's desirable outcomes to the point where it would be misleading for 0L's.

This is exactly why it need not be considered when comparing schools

Except that a large chunk of the people who transferred would have done just fine if they stayed.

So when I compare schools, how many BLFC percentage points should I add to WUSTL to reflect the transfer situation compared to say Vandy?

[Rigo]

I just think that if someone transfers from WUSTL and gets a biglaw job through Columbia OCI, that outcome shouldn't be credited to WUSTL. If WUSTL would have provided the same outcome, why would anyone transfer?

I guess I just have a fundamentally different view on what transparency and responsibly reporting consumer information is in this situation.

[03152016]

2: Harvard - BL+FC-71%, FTLTBR-90%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-85%
https://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads ... -Final.pdf

These numbers are not particularly impressive - makes Harvard seem like just another T14 except they don't offer merit scholarships. I don't see a good reason to give Harvard the same pass Yale gets either.

haven't been following this thread so idk if this point has already been made
but bl/fc only gives a very rough sense of a school's placement ability
it doesn't account for self-selection out of biglaw, which is higher at certain schools – hys, nyu, boalt, gulc, possibly uva tho a lot of that is a recent pi spike coinciding w/ school funding
and it doesn't account for elite firm placement - the 101+ category encompasses a broad range of firms, some far more selective than others
harvard's 71% bl/fc is about where i would have expected it. when i look at these numbers, i'm more inclined to think H students are selecting out of bl than H students are having placement problems
(i think this may play into overall ft/lt/jd numbers as well, H students selecting riskier tracks, as opposed to the safe bl/fc route)
at equal cost and a goal of biglaw, i'd pick H over P 7 days a week

[WheatThins]

I just think that if someone transfers from WUSTL and gets a biglaw job through Columbia OCI, that outcome shouldn't be credited to WUSTL. If WUSTL would have provided the same outcome, why would anyone transfer?

Why are you assuming all biglaw jobs are of equal valuable for each person? Maybe that person wanted to be in an east coast market instead of the midwest. Maybe that person wanted a chance at a higher "ranked" firm.

[starry eyed]

Yea I'm the first o criticize a school but isn't the whole reason ppl go to HY to do something they couldn't get at Columbia? This is a big overreaction

[Rigo]

I just think that if someone transfers from WUSTL and gets a biglaw job through Columbia OCI, that outcome shouldn't be credited to WUSTL. If WUSTL would have provided the same outcome, why would anyone transfer?

Why are you assuming all biglaw jobs are of equal valuable for each person? Maybe that person wanted to be in an east coast market instead of the midwest. Maybe that person wanted a chance at a higher "ranked" firm.

Oh I didn't realize these new ABA reports would include anything other than objective data.

[hoos89]

I just think that if someone transfers from WUSTL and gets a biglaw job through Columbia OCI, that outcome shouldn't be credited to WUSTL. If WUSTL would have provided the same outcome, why would anyone transfer?

I guess I just have a fundamentally different view on what transparency and responsibly reporting consumer information is in this situation.

I think a lot of transfer decisions are relatively irrational prestige whoring, honestly. If you're able to get into Columbia from WUSTL, you probably could get a V10 if you wanted it without transferring.

[WheatThins]

I just think that if someone transfers from WUSTL and gets a biglaw job through Columbia OCI, that outcome shouldn't be credited to WUSTL. If WUSTL would have provided the same outcome, why would anyone transfer?

Why are you assuming all biglaw jobs are of equal valuable for each person? Maybe that person wanted to be in an east coast market instead of the midwest. Maybe that person wanted a chance at a higher "ranked" firm.

Oh I didn't realize these new ABA reports would include anything other than objective data.

You asked why anyone would transfer if they could get a biglaw job if they stayed.

I gave you some reasons for why someone would transfer even if they could get a biglaw job.

What exactly are you confused about?

[Rigo]

I just think that if someone transfers from WUSTL and gets a biglaw job through Columbia OCI, that outcome shouldn't be credited to WUSTL. If WUSTL would have provided the same outcome, why would anyone transfer?

Why are you assuming all biglaw jobs are of equal valuable for each person? Maybe that person wanted to be in an east coast market instead of the midwest. Maybe that person wanted a chance at a higher "ranked" firm.

Oh I didn't realize these new ABA reports would include anything other than objective data.

You asked why anyone would transfer if they could get a biglaw job if they stayed.
I gave you some reasons for why someone would transfer even if they could get a biglaw job.
What exactly are you confused about?

I'm not confused. I was saying that there currently isn't a space for all transfers to write a blurb of why they transferred on the ABA form, nor should there be.
You're making the big assumption that they would in fact get a biglaw job. I think it's better to only report verifiable outcomes without adding a hypothetical twist of what would have happened had the student not decided to leave.
I'm over this discussion, tbh. You're not getting my point that this hypothetical change to ABA reporting might not be an awesome thing. I think a little too much credit is being given to WUSTL placement power here (and other schools people frequently transfer out of). Sure, it's a nice ego boost to inflate your school's numbers a bit, but I think it would be a net negative and confuse 0L's who actually make decisions based off of this data.

[chuckbass]

I just think that if someone transfers from WUSTL and gets a biglaw job through Columbia OCI, that outcome shouldn't be credited to WUSTL. If WUSTL would have provided the same outcome, why would anyone transfer?

I guess I just have a fundamentally different view on what transparency and responsibly reporting consumer information is in this situation.

I think a lot of transfer decisions are relatively irrational prestige whoring, honestly. If you're able to get into Columbia from WUSTL, you probably could get a V10 if you wanted it without transferring.

But this is an argument that no one is going to win b/c there are people with top ~20% grades at WUSTL getting Columbia, and while some people with these grades are getting V10s, there are some that are also striking out b/c they only got 5 interviews with very selective firms and weren't able to convert these to offers.

ETA: the only ones transferring up that have generally little rational basis for doing so are those in the top 10%.

[koval]

I don't know if this has already been put up, but here's Cornell's numbers.

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/career ... ummary.pdf

101+ firms + fed. clerkships = 74%

[JFO1833]

Won't likely be very many new reports over the weekend. Does anyone know when the deadline is? Or is it based on the specific graduation date for each school?

118: Willamette - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-57%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57%
127: Akron - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-47%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-47%

So far with 96 out of 203 schools reporting:

12,495 in full time, long term, bar required positions
- 332 Solos
/ 21,047 Graduates = 58%
- 443 Law School Funded
/ 21,047 Graduates = 56%

2,773 101+ Attorneys
+ 632 Federal Clerkships
/ 21,047 Graduates = 16% BL+FC

[Rigo]

ABA has clearly dilineated categories. If we're going to add an element of guesswork to desirable employment outcomes had students not made the choices they did, then how much should be bump Georgetown's BL+FC score up to account for the droves of people who self-select PI/Gov't but definitely could have gotten biglaw otherwise? Should we just put Yale at 100% since Yale is Yale?

Adding hypotheticals and guesswork to ABA data creates a more murky report that then becomes a less valuable resource for consumers. Yes, there will always be nuances that aren't reflected at face-value in the data, but trying to reflect those subjective nuances objectively would kill the value of the ABA reports.

*drops mic and twiddles thumbs until fall when medians start trickling in*

[zombie mcavoy]

If we're going to add an element of guesswork to desirable employment outcomes had students not made the choices they did, then how much should be bump Georgetown's BL+FC score up to account for the droves of people who self-select PI/Gov't but definitely could have gotten biglaw otherwise? Should we just put Yale at 100% since Yale is Yale?

cant tell if you're being sarcastic

[zombie mcavoy]

I just think that if someone transfers from WUSTL and gets a biglaw job through Columbia OCI, that outcome shouldn't be credited to WUSTL. If WUSTL would have provided the same outcome, why would anyone transfer?

I guess I just have a fundamentally different view on what transparency and responsibly reporting consumer information is in this situation.

I think a lot of transfer decisions are relatively irrational prestige whoring, honestly. If you're able to get into Columbia from WUSTL, you probably could get a V10 if you wanted it without transferring.

But this is an argument that no one is going to win b/c there are people with top ~20% grades at WUSTL getting Columbia, and while some people with these grades are getting V10s, there are some that are also striking out b/c they only got 5 interviews with very selective firms and weren't able to convert these to offers.

ETA: the only ones transferring up that have generally little rational basis for doing so are those in the top 10%.