Top 50 go-to law schools 2012 Forum

[Ikki]

Can we stop entertaining him and get back on topic about whether this will drop texas out of the T14?

What if Texas never WAS T14?

In order to prove Texas was a T14 you would have to add up all the partner and judge surveys from last year. Some judges and partners may not have filled it out. Since you can't do that... the data is inherently unreliable. Amidoingitrite?

Because I am not a total retard as to basic math I feel I have the right to shit on other people. Amidoinitrite?

[pugilistjd]

Can we stop entertaining him and get back on topic about whether this will drop texas out of the T14?

What if Texas never WAS T14?

In order to prove Texas was a T14 you would have to add up all the partner and judge surveys from last year. Some judges and partners may not have filled it out. Since you can't do that... the data is inherently unreliable. Amidoingitrite?

I'm just going to assume Texas will drop based on a survey that I'll throw at a bunch of firms and if less than half of them reply back, who cares, everyone will still think we had a 100% response rate because apparently, people at schools like say wooostl are too stupid to understand the relevance of sample size... I know this for a fact because I know one guy from woostl who is that dumb, so everyone else from there must be dumb, too.

[Ikki]

Can we stop entertaining him and get back on topic about whether this will drop texas out of the T14?

What if Texas never WAS T14?

In order to prove Texas was a T14 you would have to add up all the partner and judge surveys from last year. Some judges and partners may not have filled it out. Since you can't do that... the data is inherently unreliable. Amidoingitrite?

I'm just going to assume Texas will drop based on a survey that I'll throw at a bunch of firms and if less than half of them reply back, who cares,everyone will still think we had a 100% response rate because apparently, people at schools like say wooostl are too stupid to understand the relevance of sample size... I know this for a fact because I know one guy from woostl who is that dumb, so everyone else from there must be dumb, too.

Dude...
No one ever said that, just stop...

[rad lulz]

.

[r6_philly]

I'm just going to assume Texas will drop based on a survey that I'll throw at a bunch of firms and if less than half of them reply back, who cares, everyone will still think we had a 100% response rate because apparently, people at schools like say wooostl are too stupid to understand the relevance of sample size... I know this for a fact because I know one guy from woostl who is that dumb, so everyone else from there must be dumb, too.

You need to stop assuming when you are trying to figure things out.

[NYC Law]

Can we stop entertaining him and get back on topic about whether this will drop texas out of the T14?

What if Texas never WAS T14?

In order to prove Texas was a T14 you would have to add up all the partner and judge surveys from last year. Some judges and partners may not have filled it out. Since you can't do that... the data is inherently unreliable. Amidoingitrite?

I'm just going to assume Texas will drop based on a survey that I'll throw at a bunch of firms and if less than half of them reply back, who cares, everyone will still think we had a 100% response rate because apparently, people at schools like say wooostl are too stupid to understand the relevance of sample size... I know this for a fact because I know one guy from woostl who is that dumb, so everyone else from there must be dumb, too.

Correct analogy: You go to Wustl, ask 35 random people a series of complex questions regarding legal hiring. All 35 call you a retard. Chances are you are indeed a retard.

[Gail]

Folks make me so sad.

[ahnhub]

The NLJ placement numbers sometimes don't match up with schools' self-reported employment, in a significant way.

Count up the number of graduates Penn reports as being employed in firms of 250+ for c/2009: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospectiv ... stics.html

Compare it to what the NLJ reports for Penn's placement into NLJ 250 firms in 2009:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

Self reported: 167/258= 65% working in firms of at least 250.
NLJ: 131/258= 51% working in NLJ 250 firms (and the cut-off is around 170 lawyers, I believe)

It's not just Penn--multiple schools have occasional discrepancies that large. I have no idea what it means. I only picked Penn as an example because they seem to have done outrageously well for themselves recently.

[rayiner]

Note that many of the schools that place highly on this list tend to send a low % of graduates to PI and government. For example, in 2010, Penn, Chicago, and Northwestern each sent about 8-9% into PI and government work. By contrast, Yale, NYU, Michigan, and Virginia sent about 20% of the class into that kind of work.

Source: 2010 employment data (http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=174447)

Is it because they self-select into or they can't land a biglaw job? I am sure it's a healthy mix, but you it's not dispositive looking at the numbers. There are also different levels of PI and government. Law clerk at traffic court is also PI/Government.

That's why I said "tend." I only mentioned and cited 2010 data, but Penn, Chicago, and NW have never sent a high % of the class into PI and government. Yale, NYU, etc. almost always do (and did, pre-ITE). Although more grads from every school are now working in PI and government out of necessity, the historical difference in student body focus is real.

To offset that somewhat, both Penn and NW have a substantial contingent of JD-MBA's who don't go into law but are counted in the denominator for the purposes of the NLJ250 percentage.

[rayiner]

I love how TLSers rightly laugh at employment stats published by law schools that are based small respondent pools but then piss their chinos over a report with no respondent data at all.

Because the two figures are computed different ways. If 20% of the 40 people who responded to an employment survey report they ended up at a big firm, and the class has 250 people, then the 20% is a wild overestimate. If NLJ250 firms report on their annual form that they hired 50 out of 250 people in a class, then the 20% is an understatement (firms that don't report don't get counted).

In practice, of course, NLJ 250 firms report their data.

[sunynp]

I dont understand why a firm wouldn't report data. They pay people to manage recruiting for them. They pay to belong to nalp and know that schools, prospective hires and practicing attorneys look at nalp and nlj data.

I'm not sure why people don't want to consider this data as valid .

The data that bothers me is the salary data schools have been reporting when there is no way it matches with these numbers. Don't you think if a school thought their nlj number was low they would object? I've never heard of any school coming forward to complain this list was wrong. I guess we could give it a few days this year and see what schools have to say about this nalp report.

[twistedwrister]

Note that many of the schools that place highly on this list tend to send a low % of graduates to PI and government. For example, in 2010, Penn, Chicago, and Northwestern each sent about 8-9% into PI and government work. By contrast, Yale, NYU, Michigan, and Virginia sent about 20% of the class into that kind of work.

Source: 2010 employment data (http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=174447)

Is it because they self-select into or they can't land a biglaw job? I am sure it's a healthy mix, but you it's not dispositive looking at the numbers. There are also different levels of PI and government. Law clerk at traffic court is also PI/Government.

That's why I said "tend." I only mentioned and cited 2010 data, but Penn, Chicago, and NW have never sent a high % of the class into PI and government. Yale, NYU, etc. almost always do (and did, pre-ITE). Although more grads from every school are now working in PI and government out of necessity, the historical difference in student body focus is real.

To offset that somewhat, both Penn and NW have a substantial contingent of JD-MBA's who don't go into law but are counted in the denominator for the purposes of the NLJ250 percentage.

I looked at the data, and that seems to be true for NW but not Penn. For example, only about 3% of Penn's class goes into "business/industry," about the same % as at NYU. About 10% of NW's 2010 class works in business/industry. In any event, this further goes to show that the student bodies at different schools have different priorities (on average), making it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from relatively small differences in NLJ250 placement.

[rinkrat19]

The NLJ placement numbers sometimes don't match up with schools' self-reported employment, in a significant way.

Count up the number of graduates Penn reports as being employed in firms of 250+ for c/2009: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospectiv ... stics.html

Compare it to what the NLJ reports for Penn's placement into NLJ 250 firms in 2009:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

Self reported: 167/258= 65% working in firms of at least 250.
NLJ: 131/258= 51% working in NLJ 250 firms (and the cut-off is around 170 lawyers, I believe)

It's not just Penn--multiple schools have occasional discrepancies that large. I have no idea what it means. I only picked Penn as an example because they seem to have done outrageously well for themselves recently.

ok, correct the 0L if she's being stupid, but at the top of the 'go-to' list, it says the NLJ250 is "the 250 biggest law firms." I'm on my phone so I can't post the link, but the 250 biggest firms are not 250+ people; they go down to 160 people. So the size categories reported by the schools wouldn't match up with that. At NU, for example, (going from memory) NLJ says 52.2%, but only 49% in firms of 250+. But if NLJ is actually counting hires at firms down to 160, that missing 3% could easily come from the 100-250 category reported by the school.

[Aberzombie1892]

ok, correct the 0L if she's being stupid, but at the top of the 'go-to' list, it says the NLJ250 is "the 250 biggest law firms." I'm on my phone so I can't post the link, but the 250 biggest firms are not 250+ people; they go down to 160 people. So the size categories reported by the schools wouldn't match up with that. At NU, for example, (going from memory) NLJ says 52.2%, but only 49% in firms of 250+. But if NLJ is actually counting hires at firms down to 160, that missing 3% could easily come from the 100-250 category reported by the school.

Basically. I don't know what's going on with that poster.

[JusticeHarlan]

The NLJ placement numbers sometimes don't match up with schools' self-reported employment, in a significant way.

Count up the number of graduates Penn reports as being employed in firms of 250+ for c/2009: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospectiv ... stics.html

Compare it to what the NLJ reports for Penn's placement into NLJ 250 firms in 2009:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

Self reported: 167/258= 65% working in firms of at least 250.
NLJ: 131/258= 51% working in NLJ 250 firms (and the cut-off is around 170 lawyers, I believe)

It's not just Penn--multiple schools have occasional discrepancies that large. I have no idea what it means. I only picked Penn as an example because they seem to have done outrageously well for themselves recently.

2009 was a weird year. I'd bet the discrepancy has to do with Penn counting people who got offers out of their summer programs (technically got jobs, in a sense) but were deferred, while the firms didn't count those people.

[20130312]

The NLJ placement numbers sometimes don't match up with schools' self-reported employment, in a significant way.

Count up the number of graduates Penn reports as being employed in firms of 250+ for c/2009: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospectiv ... stics.html

Compare it to what the NLJ reports for Penn's placement into NLJ 250 firms in 2009:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

Self reported: 167/258= 65% working in firms of at least 250.
NLJ: 131/258= 51% working in NLJ 250 firms (and the cut-off is around 170 lawyers, I believe)

It's not just Penn--multiple schools have occasional discrepancies that large. I have no idea what it means. I only picked Penn as an example because they seem to have done outrageously well for themselves recently.

2009 was a weird year. I'd bet the discrepancy has to do with Penn counting people who got offers out of their summer programs (technically got jobs, in a sense) but were deferred, while the firms didn't count those people.

No, it's because the person is comparing NLJ250 employment to "firms with 250+ attys" employment.

[JusticeHarlan]

2009 was a weird year. I'd bet the discrepancy has to do with Penn counting people who got offers out of their summer programs (technically got jobs, in a sense) but were deferred, while the firms didn't count those people.

No, it's because the person is comparing NLJ250 employment to "firms with 250+ attys" employment.

I'm not sure how that rebuts my point. I'm saying it's possible Penn is claiming people with job offers but who haven't started their job yet as employed, while the firms aren't counting those same people.

Edit: if anything, firms with 250+ should be less than the NLJ250 numbers. But they're greater. That's why you need an alternative explanation.

[sunynp]

What will be interesting is to see the c/o 2013 results (aka current 2Ls). It might confirm the speculation that hiring is up in a big way this year. But we won't see them until this time 2 years from now. That's the problem I guess with the NLJ250.

I know this is from way back in the thread. But isn't there a way to know if hiring is up by looking at the nalp data for firms? Won't the data for this summer's SA be available sometime next year? I don't know when the firms update their report to include the number of SA s and umber of offers.

I realize that doesn't break down by school, but it definitely breaks down by firm. Won't that data be out sooner than the next nlj report?

I'm interested in finding numbers that show an increase from this nlj data for 2009 is real. I know it has been discussed that hiring is at best stagnant.

[pugilistjd]

I dont understand why a firm wouldn't report data. They pay people to manage recruiting for them. They pay to belong to nalp and know that schools, prospective hires and practicing attorneys look at nalp and nlj data.

I'm not sure why people don't want to consider this data as valid .

The data that bothers me is the salary data schools have been reporting when there is no way it matches with these numbers. Don't you think if a school thought their nlj number was low they would object? I've never heard of any school coming forward to complain this list was wrong. I guess we could give it a few days this year and see what schools have to say about this nalp report.

Any good report based on survey data should include at least some detailed information about who actually filled out the survey. More detailed respondent data would serve the majority of NLJ250 firms that go unmentioned by giving them more exposure and prospective hires by giving them more relevant data. For example, in addition to"firm favorites," you could also have "regional favorites" which would be far more useful for 0Ls.

[NinerFan]

I dont understand why a firm wouldn't report data. They pay people to manage recruiting for them. They pay to belong to nalp and know that schools, prospective hires and practicing attorneys look at nalp and nlj data.

I'm not sure why people don't want to consider this data as valid .

The data that bothers me is the salary data schools have been reporting when there is no way it matches with these numbers. Don't you think if a school thought their nlj number was low they would object? I've never heard of any school coming forward to complain this list was wrong. I guess we could give it a few days this year and see what schools have to say about this nalp report.

Any good report based on survey data should include at least some detailed information about who actually filled out the survey. More detailed respondent data would serve the majority of NLJ250 firms that go unmentioned by giving them more exposure and prospective hires by giving them more relevant data. For example, in addition to"firm favorites," you could also have "regional favorites" which would be far more useful for 0Ls.

What is your point from this? Are you of the belief that if the respondent % was, say, 50%, that if it was instead 100%, that some schools would have a lower %? A higher response rate will not make any of these school percentages go down. The numbers are a floor, not a ceiling.

If you're trying to make another point, it's not coming across to anyone, so assuming you're not a troll, take some time and type out what exactly you're trying to say.

[jeeptiger09]

Maybe I'm the retard here, but I just fished through 11 pages of this shitshow and I still cannot figure out what pugilistjd is trying to say.

[Arbiter213]

I'm tagging this and plan to come back when the retards clear out and real discussion takes place, should that ever happen.

[NYC Law]

I'm sure it's already been pointed out, but lol at Cumberland/Mizzou ending up giving you a better shot at biglaw [in 2010] than Brooklyn or Miami

[pugilistjd]

What is your point from this? Are you of the belief that if the respondent % was, say, 50%, that if it was instead 100%, that some schools would have a lower %? A higher response rate will not make any of these school percentages go down. The numbers are a floor, not a ceiling.

If you're trying to make another point, it's not coming across to anyone, so assuming you're not a troll, take some time and type out what exactly you're trying to say.

My point is that NLJ should publish their respondent numbers. I'm not sure why people think this is unreasonable.

[dissonance1848]

.