Latest employment data

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby rpupkin » Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 pm

OneLisfun wrote:Just curious, when we know for a fact from people who have federal clerkships that federal clerkships are not a golden ticket to big law, and there are also some federal clerks who say they could not have gotten big law, why we are adding this number in to decide one's big law prospects?

First, I don't think the point of factoring in clerks is "to decide one's big law prospects." Rather, it's to roughly--very roughly--approximate desirable employment outcomes. As others are pointing out, there are desirable PI and government jobs as well. Some of the schools whose graduates focus on those sorts of jobs (e.g., Yale, NYU, Berkeley, Georgetown) are disadvantaged by the BL + FC criteria. But the problem with doing it differently is that, in the absence of better data, we don't have the tools to separate desirable PI jobs from undesirable ones. Federal clerkships, by contrast, are pretty much uniformly desirable.

Second, I think your premise is mistaken. The vast majority of federal clerks have the credentials to get hired at a 101+ attorney law firm. Sure, we hear occasional stories on here from clerks who strike out. (We also hear occasional stories from big law attorneys who quit or get fired after a year and then struggle to find work.) But there's no reason that these exceptions should swallow the rule.

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:00 pm

sublime wrote:If we are going to be talking about Howard's placement, be careful with phrasing and don't let the convo devolve into being about the merits of diversity and/or AA.


lol impossible

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:26 pm

rpupkin wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:Just curious, when we know for a fact from people who have federal clerkships that federal clerkships are not a golden ticket to big law, and there are also some federal clerks who say they could not have gotten big law, why we are adding this number in to decide one's big law prospects?

First, I don't think the point of factoring in clerks is "to decide one's big law prospects." Rather, it's to roughly--very roughly--approximate desirable employment outcomes. As others are pointing out, there are desirable PI and government jobs as well. Some of the schools whose graduates focus on those sorts of jobs (e.g., Yale, NYU, Berkeley, Georgetown) are disadvantaged by the BL + FC criteria. But the problem with doing it differently is that, in the absence of better data, we don't have the tools to separate desirable PI jobs from undesirable ones. Federal clerkships, by contrast, are pretty much uniformly desirable.

Second, I think your premise is mistaken. The vast majority of federal clerks have the credentials to get hired at a 101+ attorney law firm. Sure, we hear occasional stories on here from clerks who strike out. (We also hear occasional stories from big law attorneys who quit or get fired after a year and then struggle to find work.) But there's no reason that these exceptions should swallow the rule.



Yes, I get the use of it for deciding the desirable employment outcomes, but I see it being used as a way to give advice to 0Ls when they're asking which law school they should attend to have the best chance at NY big law, or big law in general, so as far as you're saying it's for looking at desirable employment outcomes, I agree that it is a great use for that.

As far as using it for one's big law employment prospects, I understand that a very large percentage of students who get federal clerkships supposedly will get big law after, but in the least rhetorical way possible, I'm asking how high is this percentage and is it really high enough that grouping these two together without any regard whatsoever of what portion the BL + fed clerk number is made up of each of the two criteria makes sense. There are cases where two schools have similar BL + fed clerk placement, yet one of the two schools has a far larger portion of its BL + fed clerk percentage made up of big law than the other. If a large enough portion of federal clerks are not really getting big law (say, 30%), it would make sense for a person looking at these two schools who wants big law to choose the one whose BL percentage is higher, rather than regarding the two schools as having the same big law prospects.

If there is actually some kind of factual data available that says 90% or more of federal clerks move on to get big law after, then everything I've said is moot, and I'm curious to see it. I'm really just trying to ask a question, I apologize if it comes off accusatory.

User avatar
chuckbass
Posts: 9957
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby chuckbass » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:29 pm

Haven't most fed clerks still had a 2L SA, generally with an offer to return after the clerkship?

User avatar
fratstar1
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:35 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby fratstar1 » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:31 pm

OneLisfun wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:Just curious, when we know for a fact from people who have federal clerkships that federal clerkships are not a golden ticket to big law, and there are also some federal clerks who say they could not have gotten big law, why we are adding this number in to decide one's big law prospects?

First, I don't think the point of factoring in clerks is "to decide one's big law prospects." Rather, it's to roughly--very roughly--approximate desirable employment outcomes. As others are pointing out, there are desirable PI and government jobs as well. Some of the schools whose graduates focus on those sorts of jobs (e.g., Yale, NYU, Berkeley, Georgetown) are disadvantaged by the BL + FC criteria. But the problem with doing it differently is that, in the absence of better data, we don't have the tools to separate desirable PI jobs from undesirable ones. Federal clerkships, by contrast, are pretty much uniformly desirable.

Second, I think your premise is mistaken. The vast majority of federal clerks have the credentials to get hired at a 101+ attorney law firm. Sure, we hear occasional stories on here from clerks who strike out. (We also hear occasional stories from big law attorneys who quit or get fired after a year and then struggle to find work.) But there's no reason that these exceptions should swallow the rule.



Yes, I get the use of it for deciding the desirable employment outcomes, but I see it being used as a way to give advice to 0Ls when they're asking which law school they should attend to have the best chance at NY big law, or big law in general, so as far as you're saying it's for looking at desirable employment outcomes, I agree that it is a great use for that.

As far as using it for one's big law employment prospects, I understand that a very large percentage of students who get federal clerkships supposedly will get big law after, but in the least rhetorical way possible, I'm asking how high is this percentage and is it really high enough that grouping these two together without any regard whatsoever of what portion the BL + fed clerk number is made up of each of the two criteria makes sense. There are cases where two schools have similar BL + fed clerk placement, yet one of the two schools has a far larger portion of its BL + fed clerk percentage made up of big law than the other. If a large enough portion of federal clerks are not really getting big law (say, 30%), it would make sense for a person looking at these two schools who wants big law to choose the one whose BL percentage is higher, rather than regarding the two schools as having the same big law prospects.

If there is actually some kind of factual data available that says 90% or more of federal clerks move on to get big law after, then everything I've said is moot, and I'm curious to see it. I'm really just trying to ask a question, I apologize if it comes off accusatory.


It's very high. Your going to have a hard time collecting actual data on that kind of turnover (clerkship to biglaw) because people arent really polling clerks on what there offers are after their clerkship ends.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:36 pm

scottidsntknow wrote:Haven't most fed clerks still had a 2L SA, generally with an offer to return after the clerkship?



That is supposedly the case. However, what if a bigger percentage of these federal clerks are actually clerking under magistrate judges than we think? Also, most wouldn't be enough to lump the two together the way that they are, considering the frequency with which advice on big law prospects is given using the BL + fed clerk method, the number should be (conservatively) 85% or higher in my opinion.

Again, if there's any data to support this idea that almost all of these fed clerks could have gotten big law or will get big law from doing the federal clerkship, everything I've said is moot.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby jbagelboy » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:42 pm

wasn't intending any racial commentary or otherwise

my apologies mods/community

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Mack.Hambleton » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:44 pm

andre pond scummings went to Howard

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby rpupkin » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:47 pm

Because jbagelboy is a good guy and because I honestly believe he didn't mean to offend, I went back and edited my response to remove his quote. (Sorry, jbagelboy, I shouldn't have quoted you in the first place.) Perhaps others could do the same.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby jbagelboy » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:49 pm

rpupkin wrote:Because jbagelboy is a good guy and because I honestly believe he didn't mean to offend, I went back and edited my response to remove his quote. (Sorry, jbagelboy, I shouldn't have quoted you in the first place.) Perhaps others could do the same.


appreciate the gesture, you're a good dude. but I doubt mal will let me off that easy :)

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Mal Reynolds » Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:10 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
rpupkin wrote:Because jbagelboy is a good guy and because I honestly believe he didn't mean to offend, I went back and edited my response to remove his quote. (Sorry, jbagelboy, I shouldn't have quoted you in the first place.) Perhaps others could do the same.


appreciate the gesture, you're a good dude. but I doubt mal will let me off that easy :)


Sorry it's already been posted to the lounge.

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby starry eyed » Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:13 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
rpupkin wrote:Because jbagelboy is a good guy and because I honestly believe he didn't mean to offend, I went back and edited my response to remove his quote. (Sorry, jbagelboy, I shouldn't have quoted you in the first place.) Perhaps others could do the same.


appreciate the gesture, you're a good dude. but I doubt mal will let me off that easy :)


Sorry it's already been posted to the lounge.


link?

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby daleearnhardt123 » Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:15 pm

OneLisfun wrote:
scottidsntknow wrote:Haven't most fed clerks still had a 2L SA, generally with an offer to return after the clerkship?



That is supposedly the case. However, what if a bigger percentage of these federal clerks are actually clerking under magistrate judges than we think? Also, most wouldn't be enough to lump the two together the way that they are, considering the frequency with which advice on big law prospects is given using the BL + fed clerk method, the number should be (conservatively) 85% or higher in my opinion.

Again, if there's any data to support this idea that almost all of these fed clerks could have gotten big law or will get big law from doing the federal clerkship, everything I've said is moot.


As others have said, it's very hard to find data on this stuff. But, for whatever it's worth, I found myself counting the # of fed clerks I know from my class year a few days ago. I got to 31. Not a single one was unable to get biglaw as a 2L for their SA.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:25 pm

daleearnhardt123 wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:
scottidsntknow wrote:Haven't most fed clerks still had a 2L SA, generally with an offer to return after the clerkship?



That is supposedly the case. However, what if a bigger percentage of these federal clerks are actually clerking under magistrate judges than we think? Also, most wouldn't be enough to lump the two together the way that they are, considering the frequency with which advice on big law prospects is given using the BL + fed clerk method, the number should be (conservatively) 85% or higher in my opinion.

Again, if there's any data to support this idea that almost all of these fed clerks could have gotten big law or will get big law from doing the federal clerkship, everything I've said is moot.


As others have said, it's very hard to find data on this stuff. But, for whatever it's worth, I found myself counting the # of fed clerks I know from my class year a few days ago. I got to 31. Not a single one was unable to get biglaw as a 2L for their SA.


How do you know that they were all able to get 2L SAs (if they actually did them, then that answers my question :) )? Do you mind me asking what school this is?


Just to clarify why I'm suspicious, and of course I really have no idea about clerkships beyond looking at the stats, if you look at the T14 beyond HYS, there is very little correlation between percentage of students who got federal clerkships and how "prestigious"/highly ranked/ how many students got big law there. If federal clerkships are so prestigious and harder to get than big law (people are making it out to be 95% of the time or higher) then why are there more people from UMich doing them, by far, than there are at Columbia? I understand self-selection, but if these positions are really that good, then why are the students with the best big law prospects of the T14 not doing them? I'm sure students at Columbia love prestige just as much as any other T14 student, yet they happen to have one of the smallest percentages of students doing federal clerkships, while having the best prospects for big law aside from HYS. I definitely will not argue that whatever federal clerkships the students at HYS are doing are not harder to get than big law, as I'm sure that it is the case that they are top level, it's the federal clerkship numbers within the rest of the T14 that get me suspicious.

I'm also not even really arguing that I know anything about federal clerkships, it just seems fishy to me that a position so highly regarded would be taken so much less at Columbia than it is at almost any other T14.

User avatar
Mozart Lacrimosa
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:01 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Mozart Lacrimosa » Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:07 pm

When we count employment at 101+ firms in the BL+FC metric is that firm wide 101+ or at the particular office grads go to?

I know it's been riffed how controversial this particular metric is, but are these outcomes even uniformly 'good'? There's definitely some 101+ man outfits in secondary markets where you'll be lucky to get close to six figure compensation starting, seems like servicing debt becomes rough even with that good outcome.

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10668
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Capitol_Idea » Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:10 pm

Mozart Lacrimosa wrote:When we count employment at 101+ firms in the BL+FC metric is that firm wide 101+ or at the particular office grads go to?

I know it's been riffed how controversial this particular metric is, but are these outcomes even uniformly 'good'? There's definitely some 101+ man outfits in secondary markets where you'll be lucky to get close to six figure compensation starting, seems like servicing debt becomes rough even with that good outcome.

Yes but countering that are the under 100 boutiques that pay market or better (Axinn Veltrop springs to mind). It probably evens out roughly enough for our purposes.

User avatar
WeeBey
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:23 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby WeeBey » Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:12 pm

I use BL + FC as a proxy for how low your class rank can be and still come out with a BL job. Arent federal clerks usually the top of the class? I don't care if a federal clerk struck out at 2L OCI because obviously their grades weren't the issue.

If a school is placing 70% into BL + FC, I'm assuming that being a little below median isnt a big issue. Yes, there are some who got BigLaw jobs because of IP, URM, highly relevent work experience and connections, but there are probably an equal amount who had the grades for BL but didnt because they weren't interested, bid extremely stupid, got prestigious Gov't or PI, or were just really socially awkward and sucked at interviewing.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:25 pm

WeeBey wrote:I use BL + FC as a proxy for how low your class rank can be and still come out with a BL job. Arent federal clerks usually the top of the class? I don't care if a federal clerk struck out at 2L OCI because obviously their grades weren't the issue.

If a school is placing 70% into BL + FC, I'm assuming that being a little below median isnt a big issue. Yes, there are some who got BigLaw jobs because of IP, URM, highly relevent work experience and connections, but there are probably an equal amount who had the grades for BL but didnt because they weren't interested, bid extremely stupid, got prestigious Gov't or PI, or were just really socially awkward and sucked at interviewing.



There are some types of clerkships that are considered federal clerkships that do not require a person to be at the top of the class, and we do not know what portion of the students who have clerkships have those ones. Also, another thing everyone seems to say, but I don't know if it's true, is that federal clerkships are not really at all about connections from before law school, so that can't be affecting it. Again, I have very little knowledge in this area, and this could be different, but I know multiple students at my law school who worked with federal judges for the summer because they knew the judges from before they started law school. I do not know of any student who has worked in big law for the summer through a connection alone.

I don't know if getting the federal clerkship is a process that can't rely on a connections as much as the summer positions, but I do know that working with judges for the summer can certainly be based on connections alone, and often is (very much unlike big law). If someone knows about this phenomenon I'm referring to, then I'm happy to hear why the federal clerkship can't be a connection while working with judges for the summer so often is (I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is some reason why the clerkship can't be gotten through a connection, I just would like to know where that idea comes from when it's clear that working with judges over the summer is often based on connections).

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

Re: Latest employment data

Postby BigZuck » Sat Apr 18, 2015 12:35 am

zacharus85 wrote:
Mozart Lacrimosa wrote:When we count employment at 101+ firms in the BL+FC metric is that firm wide 101+ or at the particular office grads go to?

I know it's been riffed how controversial this particular metric is, but are these outcomes even uniformly 'good'? There's definitely some 101+ man outfits in secondary markets where you'll be lucky to get close to six figure compensation starting, seems like servicing debt becomes rough even with that good outcome.

Yes but countering that are the under 100 boutiques that pay market or better (Axinn Veltrop springs to mind). It probably evens out roughly enough for our purposes.

p sure Axinn Veltrop is a real estate tycoon or a Bond villain and not a law firm

HTH

User avatar
bowser
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby bowser » Sat Apr 18, 2015 12:44 am

On clerkships:

Any federal clerkship out of law school is a pretty good outcome, but they're not all made equal. Someone who got a 2nd Circuit or 9th Circuit clerkship probably could have worked at any V10, or more exclusive places like lit boutiques or WLRK, W&C, etc. (I stress "probably": judges don't hire based on the same criteria as law firms do). There are people who do very poorly at OCI (maybe even a few who strike out entirely) who get federal clerkships; not the norm, but it happens. Usually those clerkships are district courts in flyover-type areas, but there are exceptions to that, too.

But IMO any federal clerkship is still a pretty good outcome. It gives you access to good opportunities, regardless of how law firm recruiting/job hunting went at school.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sat Apr 18, 2015 12:59 am

bowser wrote:On clerkships:

Any federal clerkship out of law school is a pretty good outcome, but they're not all made equal. Someone who got a 2nd Circuit or 9th Circuit clerkship probably could have worked at any V10, or more exclusive places like lit boutiques or WLRK, W&C, etc. (I stress "probably": judges don't hire based on the same criteria as law firms do). There are people who do very poorly at OCI (maybe even a few who strike out entirely) who get federal clerkships; not the norm, but it happens. Usually those clerkships are district courts in flyover-type areas, but there are exceptions to that, too.

But IMO any federal clerkship is still a pretty good outcome. It gives you access to good opportunities, regardless of how law firm recruiting/job hunting went at school.



If you had to give a rough estimate, what percentage of these people with federal clerkships could not have gotten big law. Would 30% be a fair number?

(I'm aware this would be extremely arbitrary, I'm just trying to get an idea of what people who have an idea about this that goes beyond "federal clerkships are harder to get than big law, so we count them as big law" thinks.)

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:37 am

WeeBey wrote:I use BL + FC as a proxy for how low your class rank can be and still come out with a BL job. Arent federal clerks usually the top of the class? I don't care if a federal clerk struck out at 2L OCI because obviously their grades weren't the issue.

If a school is placing 70% into BL + FC, I'm assuming that being a little below median isnt a big issue. Yes, there are some who got BigLaw jobs because of IP, URM, highly relevent work experience and connections, but there are probably an equal amount who had the grades for BL but didnt because they weren't interested, bid extremely stupid, got prestigious Gov't or PI, or were just really socially awkward and sucked at interviewing.



To your point, I agree with you, 70% is an insane number and there's probably nothing to worry about at a school like that if you can be an at all regular student and person in general. My question is more relevant for people making a decision based on a school like UMich, often having somewhere in the mid to low 40s without federal clerkships, then going up to over 50% each year once we add federal clerkships in. I'm not so sure median is a happy place to be at a school like this for someone who wants big law in a major market and does not plan to be applying for district court clerkships in Kansas. When I say I'm not so sure, I mean just that, I truly do not know.

User avatar
WeeBey
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:23 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby WeeBey » Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:38 am

OneLisfun wrote:
bowser wrote:On clerkships:

Any federal clerkship out of law school is a pretty good outcome, but they're not all made equal. Someone who got a 2nd Circuit or 9th Circuit clerkship probably could have worked at any V10, or more exclusive places like lit boutiques or WLRK, W&C, etc. (I stress "probably": judges don't hire based on the same criteria as law firms do). There are people who do very poorly at OCI (maybe even a few who strike out entirely) who get federal clerkships; not the norm, but it happens. Usually those clerkships are district courts in flyover-type areas, but there are exceptions to that, too.

But IMO any federal clerkship is still a pretty good outcome. It gives you access to good opportunities, regardless of how law firm recruiting/job hunting went at school.



If you had to give a rough estimate, what percentage of these people with federal clerkships could not have gotten big law. Would 30% be a fair number?

(I'm aware this would be extremely arbitrary, I'm just trying to get an idea of what people who have an idea about this that goes beyond "federal clerkships are harder to get than big law, so we count them as big law" thinks.)


I don't think that number would matter. If were talking BigLaw, as long as those clerks were in the top half of the class, their grades were not the issue in why they couldn't get BigLaw. I dont care if 30% of clerks couldn't get BigLaw, because it wouldn't be about their class rank/school (the only factor that pertains to me), instead, it would be about their poor interviewing skills, poor bidding and lack of social skills.

User avatar
WeeBey
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:23 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby WeeBey » Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:44 am

OneLisfun wrote:
WeeBey wrote:I use BL + FC as a proxy for how low your class rank can be and still come out with a BL job. Arent federal clerks usually the top of the class? I don't care if a federal clerk struck out at 2L OCI because obviously their grades weren't the issue.

If a school is placing 70% into BL + FC, I'm assuming that being a little below median isnt a big issue. Yes, there are some who got BigLaw jobs because of IP, URM, highly relevent work experience and connections, but there are probably an equal amount who had the grades for BL but didnt because they weren't interested, bid extremely stupid, got prestigious Gov't or PI, or were just really socially awkward and sucked at interviewing.



To your point, I agree with you, 70% is an insane number and there's probably nothing to worry about at a school like that if you can be an at all regular student and person in general. My question is more relevant for people making a decision based on a school like UMich, often having somewhere in the mid to low 40s without federal clerkships, then going up to over 50% each year once we add federal clerkships in. I'm not so sure median is a happy place to be at a school like this for someone who wants big law in a major market and does not plan to be applying for district court clerkships in Kansas. When I say I'm not so sure, I mean just that, I truly do not know.


If you aiming for NYC biglaw, I doubt firms look at the lower half the T14 any differently (excluding maybe Penn and GULC). Mich placed 53% in BLFC, Cornell did 74%. I doubt its because firms will dig deeper into Cornell's class but rather that Cornell has better access and more of their students big exclusively NYC at OCI.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:47 am

WeeBey wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:
WeeBey wrote:I use BL + FC as a proxy for how low your class rank can be and still come out with a BL job. Arent federal clerks usually the top of the class? I don't care if a federal clerk struck out at 2L OCI because obviously their grades weren't the issue.

If a school is placing 70% into BL + FC, I'm assuming that being a little below median isnt a big issue. Yes, there are some who got BigLaw jobs because of IP, URM, highly relevent work experience and connections, but there are probably an equal amount who had the grades for BL but didnt because they weren't interested, bid extremely stupid, got prestigious Gov't or PI, or were just really socially awkward and sucked at interviewing.



To your point, I agree with you, 70% is an insane number and there's probably nothing to worry about at a school like that if you can be an at all regular student and person in general. My question is more relevant for people making a decision based on a school like UMich, often having somewhere in the mid to low 40s without federal clerkships, then going up to over 50% each year once we add federal clerkships in. I'm not so sure median is a happy place to be at a school like this for someone who wants big law in a major market and does not plan to be applying for district court clerkships in Kansas. When I say I'm not so sure, I mean just that, I truly do not know.


If you aiming for NYC biglaw, I doubt firms look at the lower half the T14 any differently (excluding maybe Penn and GULC). Mich placed 53% in BLFC, Cornell did 74%. I doubt its because firms will dig deeper into Cornell's class but rather that Cornell has better access and more of their students big exclusively NYC at OCI.



I would beg to differ. I think it seems as though they are digging deeper into the class at Cornell, and I don't really see any reason to think otherwise. Michigan looks a lot more like GULC than it looks like Cornell every year, especially in the most recent year, where GULC's big law numbers were actually higher, and UMich only came out ahead by 5% once federal clerkships were added in. Cornell's BL + fed clerk difference from UMich is about four times that of the difference between GULC and UMich in the most recent cycle.


To address your other point about how you don't care if they couldn't actually get big law because it wouldn't be their grades/school. Every single T14 has numerous big law recruiters that take students that are around median and noticeably below median. It should matter to you whether the number you're looking at is partially comprised of people who struck out with grades that were higher than some other people who did get big law in deciding which school to attend, because grades are not the only thing these employers are looking at and luck is definitely involved (talk to different people who were around median at any T14, including GULC, there will be those who got five offers, and those who got zero). To consider everyone who got in the top half golden just because you know there were other people with worse grades who got the job is not intelligent. The idea is to maximize one's chances as much as possible, and the more students that got offers at a school, the better the bet is that when you go, you will be one of those people. And there WILL at any DCNG be people who were in the 60th percentile and just for whatever reason things didn't work out for them (luck/bidding/the person who interviewed them had a bad day) and there will be other people in the 45th percentile who got big law. If your goal is to go to a school where being a great interviewer with great work experience and great bidding skills will get you NY big law, the search ends at T14, no need to look further, any will do. That's not what I assume you are trying to do here though.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests