Latest employment data

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
starry eyed
Posts: 2048
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby starry eyed » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:16 pm

UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

<80% FTBR = garbage

The Dark Shepard
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The Dark Shepard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:20 pm

starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

<80% FTBR = garbage


84% this year. 79% was last year

BigZuck
Posts: 10851
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby BigZuck » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:22 pm

starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

HYS
CCNP
DCN
B
MVG

Also, NYC to 190

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby UVAIce » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:24 pm

starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.


Kind of, but you figure UVA has to find jobs for roughly ~100 more students than either school; it's why UVA is going for a class size of 300 now rather than ~350. My class, 2015, I think is the last "big" class.

I can also attest to the fact that a lot of folks looking for PI type jobs end up taking the "school funded" job from UVA since it's just a fellowship that you can use at the PI (and some gov I think?) of your choice. So people who might otherwise have been fighting for a firm job or some other kind of employment just end up taking the PI job right out of school, which is what many of them wanted in the first place - obviously I don't have statistics on this, but yeah.

User avatar
Mack.Hambleton
Posts: 5417
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Mack.Hambleton » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:44 pm

UVAIce wrote:
starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.


Kind of, but you figure UVA has to find jobs for roughly ~100 more students than either school; it's why UVA is going for a class size of 300 now rather than ~350. My class, 2015, I think is the last "big" class.

I can also attest to the fact that a lot of folks looking for PI type jobs end up taking the "school funded" job from UVA since it's just a fellowship that you can use at the PI (and some gov I think?) of your choice. So people who might otherwise have been fighting for a firm job or some other kind of employment just end up taking the PI job right out of school, which is what many of them wanted in the first place - obviously I don't have statistics on this, but yeah.


FULL DAMAGE CONTROL

User avatar
Grond
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:33 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Grond » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:45 pm

OP should change the thread title to "Ethics in gaming (the #s) journalism"

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Moneytrees » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:48 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.


Yeah definitely, I don't disagree with this. It's better than nothing. But say you have a class of 300 people like Emory and you are consistently providing 50 jobs to these students. That is a clear sign that your classes are simply too big.

I could be wrong, but I was also under the impression that only a few of these school funded jobs are genuinely good opportunities.

The Dark Shepard
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The Dark Shepard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:49 pm

Moneytrees wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.


Yeah definitely, I don't disagree with this. It's better than nothing. But say you have a class of 300 people like Emory and you are consistently providing 50 jobs to these students. That is a clear sign that your classes are simply too big.

I could be wrong, but I was also under the impression that only a few of these school funded jobs are genuinely good opportunities.


By top schools, I presume he meant only T13

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Moneytrees » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:51 pm

The Dark Shepard wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.


Yeah definitely, I don't disagree with this. It's better than nothing. But say you have a class of 300 people like Emory and you are consistently providing 50 jobs to these students. That is a clear sign that your classes are simply too big.

I could be wrong, but I was also under the impression that only a few of these school funded jobs are genuinely good opportunities.


By top schools, I presume he meant only T13


Perhaps, but earlier a poster was discussing these types of jobs in relation to the top 40 schools.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby rpupkin » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:56 pm

The Dark Shepard wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:School funded jobs are safety nets, but they are also not ideal jobs for students with JD's. Instead of creating these jobs, it would be better for top schools to simply cut their class sizes.

I think that's a tad oversimplistic. At the top schools, I've noticed that some of these school-funded bridge grants are really helpful for students with PI goals. Many of the beneficiaries are good students who opted out of the big law path and who need some help starting a PI career. Even if you go to a T6 school, it can be challenging to get a paying PI gig when you haven't yet passed the bar.

Yeah definitely, I don't disagree with this. It's better than nothing. But say you have a class of 300 people like Emory and you are consistently providing 50 jobs to these students. That is a clear sign that your classes are simply too big.
I could be wrong, but I was also under the impression that only a few of these school funded jobs are genuinely good opportunities.

By top schools, I presume he meant only T13

Yeah, I was thinking more about schools like NYU and Berkeley. Outside of the top 10 or so schools, I agree that these school-funded jobs are mostly just devices to game the stats and rankings.

JFO1833
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:06 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby JFO1833 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:31 pm

New ones:

108: Catholic (Columbus) - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-46%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46%
113: Seattle - BL+FC-4%, FTLTBR-49%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-49%
122: Hofstra - BL+FC-5%, FTLTBR-58%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-57%
RNP: Ave Maria - BL+FC-0%, FTLTBR-37%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-36%
RNP: Capital - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-39%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-39%
RNP: Florida Coastal - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-35%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-35%
RNP: Liberty - BL+FC-1%, FTLTBR-47%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-46%
RNP: Northern Kentucky - BL+FC-6%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
RNP: Puerto Rico - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-16%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-16%
RNP: Widener-DE - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-45%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-45%
RNP: Widener-Harrisburg - BL+FC-2%, FTLTBR-54%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-54%

User avatar
starry eyed
Posts: 2048
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby starry eyed » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:33 pm

BigZuck wrote:
starry eyed wrote:UVA's doing some serious lagging compared to duke and penn.

HYS
CCNP
DCN
B
MVG
MG

Also, NYC to 190


this should be the official roster.. duke in particular has completely screwed things up with its monumental leap

User avatar
Saddle Up
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:01 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Saddle Up » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:49 pm

Great job with these links... it would be nice to have all the links on page 1. Thanks.

User avatar
BrazilBandit
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby BrazilBandit » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:53 pm

Saddle Up wrote:Great job with these links... it would be nice to have all the links on page 1. Thanks.


The Links and Data for Top 50 are listed in the spreadsheet's "percentages" worksheet.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15457
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:55 pm

2013:


Columbia: 73.2 + 4.8 = 78%
Stanford: 48.5 + 29.4 = 77.8%
Chicago: 62.3 + 10.2 = 72.6%
Harvard: 54.5 + 17.0 = 71.5%
Penn: 59.8 + 9.3 = 69.1%
Cornell: 57.5 + 10.9 = 68.4%
NYU: 58.3 + 8.8 = 67.0%
Yale: 30.5 + 35 = 65.5%
Northwestern: 55.6 + 7.7 = 63.4%
UVA: 50 + 12.9 = 62.9%
Duke: 51.4 + 8.7 = 60.2%
Michigan: 49.4 + 7.8 = 57.1%
Berkeley: 47.8 + 8.0 = 55.8%
GULC: 41.4 + 5.1 = 46.5%
Vanderbilt: 35.9 + 9.2 = 45.1%
Texas: 33.3 + 9.0 = 42.3%
UCLA: 32.5 + 6.9 = 39.5%
Fordham: 34.1 + 2.5 = 36.6%
Boston College: 29.6 + 4.3 = 34%
Notre Dame: 28.3 + 5.4 = 33.7%
USC (LinkRemoved): 29.8 + 3.8 = 33.6%
WUSTL: 29 + 3.3 = 32.3%
Illinois: 24.7 + 3.4 = 28.1%
BU: 24.1 +2.5 = 26.6%
William and Mary: 21.7 + 3.7 = 25.3%
Alabama: 12.0 + 10.2 = 22.3%
Ohio State: 16.9 + 4.4 = 21.3%
Washington and Lee: 16.1 + 3.5 = 19.6%
Minnesota: 13.5 + 3.6 = 17.1%
Wake Forest: 13.2 + 3.1 = 16.3%
Hastings: 13.4 + 1.6 = 15%


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=226198

2010-2013:

Stanford: 77%
Columbia: 74.5%
Penn: 71.25%
Harvard: 70.25%
Chicago: 67.5%
Cornell: 65.25%
Yale: 64.5%
NYU: 63.25%
Northwestern: 60%
Duke: 59.75%
UVA: 58.25%
Berkeley: 57.75%
Michigan: 52%
GULC: 44.25%

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=245071

The Dark Shepard
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The Dark Shepard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:59 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:2013:

Yale: 30.5 + 35 = 65.5%

2010-2013:

Yale: 64.5%


Yale is such a TTTrap
Last edited by The Dark Shepard on Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mack.Hambleton
Posts: 5417
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Mack.Hambleton » Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:03 pm

>quoting that whole thing

exitoptions
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:58 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby exitoptions » Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:11 pm

The Dark Shepard wrote:Yale is such a TTTrap


The crazy thing about the stats we have is the worship of jobs that so many of my classmates did not want, and that many of the people who landed them will exit out of as soon as possible. It would be nice to have some data on how many people land quality PI and government jobs where people actually build careers. For example, I imagine much of the difference between NYU and Columbia has to do with NYU's reputation in PI, but we just can't tell with the current data. Same is true of Yale obviously.

The King
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:12 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby The King » Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:17 pm

.
Last edited by The King on Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby 071816 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:47 pm


User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15457
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:53 pm

Like 40 for USC. Pretty solid improvement across the board

User avatar
BrazilBandit
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby BrazilBandit » Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:55 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:Like 40 for USC. Pretty solid improvement across the board


41.01% for BLFD, but a 11% hike in school funded...

daleearnhardt123
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:41 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby daleearnhardt123 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:11 pm

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

User avatar
goden
Posts: 2266
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:52 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby goden » Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:18 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:Like 40 for USC. Pretty solid improvement across the board

not bad for a TTT. maybe i won't have to leave USC off my resume

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14376
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:19 pm

While school size sort of matters, it really isn't as big of a deal as you all are making it out to be. Schools don't really get quotas from firms. It is only a big deal when that school owns a small market and pumps out too many graduates.

The reason why UVA lags is probably two fold. 1) Pre-select system ass fucks everyone not in the top 25%. It gives all the interviews to the people who need them the least. 2) It feeds into DC, which is a tough as hell market.

The reason Columbia, Penn, NYU, and Cornell tend to do better is because people go there looking for NYC Biglaw and that is easy to get.

If everyone at Michigan tried for NYC biglaw, they'd have Penn like numbers.

Trying to get your "chances" of biglaw from what percent got it, doesn't work when you are trying to measure beyond 15-20% accuracy.

When you go below T14, regional biases fuck it up even more.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests