UChicago 2011 Summer Employment Data (Class of 2012)

[Sentry]

Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?

wut?

[Anonymous User]

What is the difference between a PI/gov SA and just PI/Gov?

I think the PI/Gov SA people split and did half their summer at PI/gov and half as an SA.

Yeah, this is what that is.

I was most impressed by the guy who got a triple SA.

[Emma.]

Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?

wut?

[Anonymous User]

Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?

Dude I am a little confused. What are you asking?

[Ghost]

.

[Anonymous User]

This is what I posted in another thread:

Assuming a class size of 210 (including transfers) at UChicago, for the class of 2012:

7.1% in the V5
8.6% in the V5-10 range (so 15.7% total in the V10)
16.2% in the V11-20 range (so 31.9% total in the V20)
6.2% in the V21-30 range (so 38.1% total in the V30)
13.8% in the V31-50 range (so 51.9% total in the V50)
11.4% in the V51-100 range (so 63.3% total in the V100)
5.7% at firms not in Vault, but in the NLJ250 (so 69% total in the V100/NLJ250)

I should add that the Vault rankings don't really do UChicago justice since they're so NYC-centric and most people from UChicago choose to go other places (mainly, the city of Chicago).

It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:

7.4% in the V5
8.9% in the V5-10 range (so 16.3% total in the V10)
16.7% in the V11-20 range (so 33.0% total in the V20)
6.4% in the V21-30 range (so 39.4% total in the V30)
14.3% in the V31-50 range (so 53.7% total in the V50)
11.8% in the V51-100 range (so 65.5% total in the V100)
5.9% at firms not in Vault, but in the NLJ250 (so 71.4% total in the V100/NLJ250)

I'm pretty happy with those numbers. A third of the class eligible for summer associate positions got jobs in the V20. Not bad at all.

[JollyGreenGiant]

Their biglaw numbers are below 50. How are their SA numbers above 80?

Couldnt have said it better myself.

[birdlaw117]

It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:

Just so we're clear. I'm supposed to believe an Anonymous User who claims to have access to the names and what they are doing of everyone in the class, but has to estimate the number of students in the class? And then decides to lower the estimate, thereby boosting the %? Okay. That sounds reasonable.

[Sentry]

It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:

Just so we're clear. I'm supposed to believe an Anonymous User who claims to have access to the names and what they are doing of everyone in the class, but has to estimate the number of students in the class? And then decides to lower the estimate, thereby boosting the %? Okay. That sounds reasonable.

Everybody at Chicago gets the list.

[birdlaw117]

It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:

Just so we're clear. I'm supposed to believe an Anonymous User who claims to have access to the names and what they are doing of everyone in the class, but has to estimate the number of students in the class? And then decides to lower the estimate, thereby boosting the %? Okay. That sounds reasonable.

Everybody at Chicago gets the list.

Disregard. I thought he was adjusting his number from the OP in this thread, not a different thread. The whole thing seemed a little weird, maybe I just wasn't reading it correctly. Whatever. I want these numbers to be as high as possible, believe me. They just seemed really really optimistic.

[Anonymous User]

I am the OP of ths thread. If someone wants to rerun the numbers on the who worked where list that is fine.

I am basing the numbers I gave on the following assumptions:

12 joint degree students weren't in contention, bringing the number down to 203.

All of the people who got government or pi actually were in biglaw contention (this isn't true, but I can't just make up a number to remove)

All of the firm jobs are SA-quality. There are 5 that appear to be small law, but the rest range from Big to Mid law (this category does include firms outside the NLJ250 that pay above 2200, including boutiques).

[Anonymous User]

It seems like I overshot it with my 210 estimate. If we say that only 203 students were eligible for SA spots, corrected numbers would be:

Just so we're clear. I'm supposed to believe an Anonymous User who claims to have access to the names and what they are doing of everyone in the class, but has to estimate the number of students in the class? And then decides to lower the estimate, thereby boosting the %? Okay. That sounds reasonable.

I am the non-OP AU. I had the excel open of who worked where over the summer, deleted every non-firm job person, deleted every rising 2L, and then from there, deleted all the duplicates (people who split summers). I forgot to take note of how many students there were before deleting those things, and I didn't feel like going back and start combing through the entire list for duplicates to come to an exact tally. I'm thankful for the OP's contribution in the area I slacked off. I guesstimated 210 and was a little off.

I would be more than happy for somebody else to go through and count all the people at the different levels of Vault firms, but I'm 99% certain that my numbers are good.

[booboo]

I may be going to the wrong school.

[Coco_Local]

Does any other school make this sort of data available to its students/prospective applicants? Because I'm curious what these sorts of things look like at a place like Harvard or Georgetown (which are much, much bigger schools).

[Anonymous User]

Rising 2L at Chicago here and decided to go through the list to verify the data. Here's what I found:

- 185 total entries for rising 3Ls who worked at law firms this past summer.during summer 2011.
- 17 of those entries were a duplicate (split summer) student.

This means that 168 different students worked at a firm during summer 2011.

Next, I went through and checked the types of employers, sorting into three categories: 1) Biglaw 2) Big regional law (consistent traditional summer program) 3) Smaller/Unknown (if I couldn't find information that convinced me it was a high-paying regional firm, I put it in this category so that the numbers would be more likely to under-estimate rather than over-estimate the number of solid summer associate positions.)

Out of the 168 different students work at a firm during 2011:

- 8 worked at firms that were either smaller or didn't have enough information for me to put them in a biglaw category.
- 23 worked at large regional firms (all of these firms were listed in NALP, had consistent and traditional summer associate programs, and had high-paying salaries that were less than $160,000)
- 137 worked in traditional Biglaw jobs in a major market with a market salary
- 160 worked in either Biglaw or regional biglaw

I don't know the class size for the 3L class, so I'm just going to estimate some percentages based off a class of 200. Adjust those numbers according to any information there is on actual class size.

- 68% worked at traditional Biglaw jobs
- 80% worked at Biglaw or regional biglaw