Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:55 pm

USNWR hasn't done it, but someone else should. Maybe Princeton Review should overhaul their shit rankings.

Something like

(recent grads at elite firms)(.5)+(other six figure jobs)(.2)+(prestigious PI & gov't)(.1)+(.15)(article III clerkships)+(.05)(other clerkships)

I dunno that's just one possibility but it seems like an obvious thing to do for professional schools. Has it already been done?

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby vanwinkle » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:12 pm

The problem with any hiring-based metric is the underlying data. You can make whatever rankings you want if you have accurate, detailed data, but without that this is all meaningless circle-jerking.

This example is especially bad because you'd 1) need to have your own definition of terms ("elite firms", "prestigious PI", etc.) and then 2) have a breakdown of legal employment that provides data specific to those terms. Even if more accurate employment data was forthcoming, it wouldn't likely be that detailed, especially not broken down to the same level of detail from all law schools.

In other words, good idea, but good luck using it.

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:12 pm

No one has done it because there is not enough information to do it.

For example, the formula you propose (which I realize you just threw out there) wouldn't even pass the smell test. How do you calculate those things? What's an elite firm? V100? Then non-NYC feeder schools are disadvantaged (re: non-T14s and Fordham). NLJ250? Then Non-CA/NY/IL/DC feeder schools are disadvantaged even if their graduates receive 6-figure (or close) paying jobs (re: non-T14s, Fordham, GW, UCLA, and USC). High paying boutique/mid law? How would they be sorted?

Don't get me started on prestigious PI/Gov. What's prestigious to one person would not be so to someone else. As for clerkships, I suppose you could say only Art. III plus other federal clerkships; I don't see how you could reasonably include ALL clerkships in any form of ranking. Even if you included only federal clerkships, there would still be quite a few "eh" clerkships counted.

It's impossible to have a fair and balanced formula for what you are proposing.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby Blindmelon » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:USNWR hasn't done it, but someone else should. Maybe Princeton Review should overhaul their shit rankings.

Something like

(recent grads at elite firms)(.5)+(other six figure jobs)(.2)+(prestigious PI & gov't)(.1)+(.15)(article III clerkships)+(.05)(other clerkships)

I dunno that's just one possibility but it seems like an obvious thing to do for professional schools. Has it already been done?


The Hemholtz rankings were pretty decent (use search function).

Good luck finding info for this... you will never be able to find out how many people went into "prestigious PI", and you will have hell figuring out what "elite firm" means (many secondary markets have prestigious mid-size firms + boutiques).

The chunking of law schools thats common knowledge on here is actually pretty good.... the Y/HS/CC(N), etc.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby IAFG » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:18 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:No one has done it because there is not enough information to do it.

For example, the formula you propose (which I realize you just threw out there) wouldn't even pass the smell test. How do you calculate those things? What's an elite firm? V100? Then non-NYC feeder schools are disadvantaged (re: non-T14s and Fordham). NLJ250? Then Non-CA/NY/IL/DC feeder schools are disadvantaged even if their graduates receive 6-figure (or close) paying jobs (re: non-T14s, Fordham, GW, UCLA, and USC). High paying boutique/mid law? How would they be sorted?

Don't get me started on prestigious PI/Gov. What's prestigious to one person would not be so to someone else. As for clerkships, I suppose you could say only Art. III plus other federal clerkships; I don't see how you could reasonably include ALL clerkships in any form of ranking. Even if you included only federal clerkships, there would still be quite a few "eh" clerkships counted.

It's impossible to have a fair and balanced formula for what you are proposing.

Fine but you pick something and just roll with it (like V100, or whatever else). They choose arbitrary crap for USNWR; I'm suggesting we choose more meaningful arbitrary crap.

Oh and I was OP, accidentally clicked anon and was too lazy to start over

As far as the data goes, that's definitely the biggest issue, for LST and anyone else trying to look at placement. And clearly we can't trust self-reporting for jack shit.

lolwat
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby lolwat » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:25 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:For example, the formula you propose (which I realize you just threw out there) wouldn't even pass the smell test. How do you calculate those things? What's an elite firm? V100? Then non-NYC feeder schools are disadvantaged (re: non-T14s and Fordham). NLJ250? Then Non-CA/NY/IL/DC feeder schools are disadvantaged even if their graduates receive 6-figure (or close) paying jobs (re: non-T14s, Fordham, GW, UCLA, and USC). High paying boutique/mid law? How would they be sorted?


The "disadvantage" you speak of is also reality. If we're using a hiring-based ranking system, if a school can't place very well in V100 firms or whatever, their ranking probably shouldn't be as high as schools that can, regardless of whether it's because of the quality of the school or its location. That's if we're using V100 as the arbitrary measure of elite firms.

I'm sure if we discussed it enough, we can come up with a decent measure of most issues you mentioned here. Prestigious boutiques or midlaw in regional/local areas? Maybe the score should be higher for those, sure. Point is, a formula can be tweaked to take into account almost everything. At some point, you'll have to make a somewhat arbitrary decision about the weight to give to each type of employment--but everything will have been properly taken into account before this decision is made.

Data is the harder part.

As for clerkships, I suppose you could say only Art. III plus other federal clerkships; I don't see how you could reasonably include ALL clerkships in any form of ranking. Even if you included only federal clerkships, there would still be quite a few "eh" clerkships counted.

It's impossible to have a fair and balanced formula for what you are proposing.


SCt, Feeders, Semi-Feeders, CoA/D.Ct. in prestigious circuits/districts, CoA/D.Ct. in less prestigious places, SSC, then Art I clerkships, then state appellate... etc. It certainly takes time and research to come up with a decent formula, but it's not impossible. It's impossible to have a "perfect" formula but not a decent one.
Last edited by lolwat on Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby Blindmelon » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:28 pm

As people said, using the V100 is heavily favoring NYC schools. Even using % of NLJ 250 disadvantages schools like BC/BU where many people choose to go to Boston mid-sizes that pay market but are only like 120 attorneys and so not on the NLJ list. I don't see any reason why working at DLA Piper or whatever should help a school in a ranking more than working at Goulston & Storres, Nutter, Choate etc. in Boston, when the latter are much more competitive.
Last edited by Blindmelon on Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

spondee
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:53 pm

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby spondee » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:29 pm

Even if you can get good placement data, and differentiate between prestigious/non-prestigious jobs in each category, you'd still be failing to account for each school's success rate within each category. And how would you get that data?

For example, Georgetown and UChi may both place 10% of their class into prestigious federal governmental work, but perhaps 30% of Georgetown's class sought those jobs whereas only 15% of UChi's did. I'm unrealistically exaggerating the difference, sure, but for a prospective student placement success rate is hugely important and, I think, makes any placement-based ranking suspect.

ETA: This becomes especially relevant to geographic concerns that others have mentioned. NYU may significantly out-place UVA into elite Vault firms, but because most of those firms are in NY, likely a larger percentage of NYU's class is targeting them (whereas a larger percentage of UVA's class is targeting other markets). The success rate may be very similar despite final placement figures that give NYU a large advantage. Or, conversely, a school like NYU with a desirable home market that is robust enough to absorb most/all of the school's graduates may appear, based on placement figures alone, to be very weak in other markets whereas its success rate in those markets may be perfectly respectable—i.e., just because Michigan places more students in California doesn't mean that it is better at placing students in California.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby JusticeHarlan » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:24 pm

Blindmelon wrote:As people said, using the V100 is heavily favoring NYC schools. Even using % of NLJ 250 disadvantages schools like BC/BU where many people choose to go to Boston mid-sizes that pay market but are only like 120 attorneys and so not on the NLJ list. I don't see any reason why working at DLA Piper or whatever should help a school in a ranking more than working at Goulston & Storres, Nutter, Choate etc. in Boston, when the latter are much more competitive.

Nitpick: Nutter doesn't pay market, and I think Goulston is NLJ250.

I agree with your overall point, though.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby Blindmelon » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:39 pm

JusticeHarlan wrote:
Blindmelon wrote:As people said, using the V100 is heavily favoring NYC schools. Even using % of NLJ 250 disadvantages schools like BC/BU where many people choose to go to Boston mid-sizes that pay market but are only like 120 attorneys and so not on the NLJ list. I don't see any reason why working at DLA Piper or whatever should help a school in a ranking more than working at Goulston & Storres, Nutter, Choate etc. in Boston, when the latter are much more competitive.

Nitpick: Nutter doesn't pay market, and I think Goulston is NLJ250.

I agree with your overall point, though.


Nutter is 145k with a lower billable hour requirement. I know Choate isn't NLJ250 (160k), neither is Sullivan & Worcester (125k starting), or Hinckley (120k I think? Maybe lower) . . . there are others, just can't think of them.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4852
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby Borhas » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:46 pm

Classification:

Firms:
Full time salaried employment
tier 1: (some arbitrary-like #) say 160k+
tier 2: 60k+
tier 3: salary up to 60k

PI (prestigious v. non-prestigious is stupid thing to attempt)

Judicial Clerkships
Tier 1: Fed COA
Tier 2: State SC, Fed Dist. State COA
Tier 3: State trial court
Bonus points to SCOTUS clerk alums

Government
Tier 1: Fed
Tier 2: State/Local

Unemployment
At graduation
At 9 months

Done. Easy. Better than whatever stupid fucking metrics they use now.

You can come up w/ different ways to weigh these factors, but it's not that hard of a goal to achieve. You don't need super minutely detailed data. Yeah some people may care about which schools send grads to V-5's instead for V-100's but my guess is that overall employment would correlate anyway, and that really the market salary is close enough to determine what is elite or not, even if there are super elite terms. Using salary instead of firm name also gets rid of the NLJ 250 bias towards NY.

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Why hasn't a publication made a solid hiring-based ranking?

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:34 am

That's an interesting take on the issue. However, sorting firms by salary opens up a whole new set of issues as many firms have multiple salary markers that correspond to their markets. In my opinion, it would be unfair to claim that a firm that pays market in Birmingham is less well regarded in a ranking system than a firm that pays market in Atlanta merely because the Atlanta market rate is higher. Sorting firms by salary does exactly this. Heck, in some cities, the market rate is still under $100,000. Should an employment outcome of a student not be counted because they work at an NLJ or non-NLJ firm that pays market in a relatively low paying secondary market? I don't think so.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.