2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

(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.
User avatar
Robb
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:21 pm

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby Robb » Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:32 pm

I get 7,303 101+ firm + fedclerk FTLT jobs for c/o 2014 grads. Contrasted with 7,312, in 2013.

Also, was curious so went back. Here's the full #'s:

2014: 7,303
2013: 7,312
2012: 6,909
2011: 5,867
2010: 7,113 (not comparable because includes part time jobs)

Source

User avatar
bugsy33
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby bugsy33 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:36 pm

Robb wrote:I get 7,303 101+ firm + fedclerk FTLT jobs for c/o 2014 grads. Contrasted with 7,312, in 2013.

Also, was curious so went back. Here's the full #'s:

2014: 7,303
2013: 7,312
2012: 6,909
2011: 5,867
2010: 7,113 (not comparable because includes part time jobs)

Source


Hmm, yeah it's possible my data isn't perfect on the firm stuff. Kind of a messy spreadsheet. 7,303 is actually much better than what I had though.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15495
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:41 pm

I've got 6064 for 100+. So pretty close to last year. I agree that things are getting better but it's really because of the decreasing number of grads rather than an increasing number of jobs. Also NY to 190 confirmed

sadday
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:55 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby sadday » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:04 pm

I think you (op) are failing to account for something - Grades.

Regarding overall employment;

Imagine a school with 100 people and the top 50 of those people get jobs. The next year the school only takes 50 people. Is an employer who took someone in the top half last year now just going to be willing to take people in the bottom 25%, Probably not.

My point is not that the numbers wont get better, just that firms generally don't want someone in the bottom 10% regardless if the year before they would have been in top half.

Now lots of jobs don't care about grades, so again the percentages should go up as the class gets smaller, but I don't think the job number just transfers over when considering that lots of places still care about what percentile you were in regardless of how arbitrary and meaningless it may be.

Regarding Biglaw: I don't know why people on TLS count that 100-250 group, from what I have been told, a lot of that is crappy insurance work. Though I suppose the botiques that aren't counted who pay market make up a small amount of the difference, though those are usually harder to get than actual big law (unless your patent. if you're patent, and don't get total crap for grades, OCI is basically a free candy factory.)
Last edited by sadday on Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby Cobretti » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:10 pm

sadday wrote:I think you (op) are failing to account for something - Grades.

Regarding overall employment;

Imagine a school with 100 people and the top 50 of those people get jobs. The next year the school only takes 50 people. Is an employer who took someone in the top half last year now just going to be willing to take people in the bottom 25%, Probably not.

My point is not that the numbers wont get better, just that firms generally don't want someone in the bottom 10% regardless if the year before they would have been in top half.

Now lots of jobs don't care about grades, so again the percentages should go up as the class gets smaller, but I don't think the job number just transfers over when considering that lots of places still care about what percentile you were in regardless of how arbitrary and meaningless it may be.

Regarding Biglaw: I don't know why people on TLS count that 100-250 group, from what I have been told, a lot of that is crappy insurance work.

OP is talking about macro level supply, not micro level supply of a specific school.

sadday
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:55 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby sadday » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:12 pm

Cobretti wrote:
sadday wrote:I think you (op) are failing to account for something - Grades.

Regarding overall employment;

Imagine a school with 100 people and the top 50 of those people get jobs. The next year the school only takes 50 people. Is an employer who took someone in the top half last year now just going to be willing to take people in the bottom 25%, Probably not.

My point is not that the numbers wont get better, just that firms generally don't want someone in the bottom 10% regardless if the year before they would have been in top half.

Now lots of jobs don't care about grades, so again the percentages should go up as the class gets smaller, but I don't think the job number just transfers over when considering that lots of places still care about what percentile you were in regardless of how arbitrary and meaningless it may be.

Regarding Biglaw: I don't know why people on TLS count that 100-250 group, from what I have been told, a lot of that is crappy insurance work.

OP is talking about macro level supply, not micro level supply of a specific school.


I know, but it applies all around. My point is just that there are less people in top half now, and firms wont just hire someone in the bottom half just because, unless they really need someone and a law clerk wont do, or don't care about grades, but those don't apply for this.
Last edited by sadday on Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15495
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:15 pm

sadday wrote:Regarding Biglaw: I don't know why people on TLS count that 100-250 group, from what I have been told, a lot of that is crappy insurance work. Though I suppose the botiques that aren't counted who pay market make up a small amount of the difference, though those are usually harder to get than actual big law (unless your patent. if you're patent, and don't get total crap for grades, OCI is basically a free candy factory.)

Go look at the salary data. Everything from 51 and up looks pretty good. A lot of the stuff below 50 is pretty good too. While you're right that there are some shitty 100+ jobs, 100+ is actually a conservative count of good outcomes.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby Cobretti » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:17 pm

sadday wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
sadday wrote:I think you (op) are failing to account for something - Grades.

Regarding overall employment;

Imagine a school with 100 people and the top 50 of those people get jobs. The next year the school only takes 50 people. Is an employer who took someone in the top half last year now just going to be willing to take people in the bottom 25%, Probably not.

My point is not that the numbers wont get better, just that firms generally don't want someone in the bottom 10% regardless if the year before they would have been in top half.

Now lots of jobs don't care about grades, so again the percentages should go up as the class gets smaller, but I don't think the job number just transfers over when considering that lots of places still care about what percentile you were in regardless of how arbitrary and meaningless it may be.

Regarding Biglaw: I don't know why people on TLS count that 100-250 group, from what I have been told, a lot of that is crappy insurance work.

OP is talking about macro level supply, not micro level supply of a specific school.


I know, but it applies all around. My point is just that there are less people in top half now, and firms wont just hire someone in the bottom half just because, unless they really need someone and law clerk wont do, or don't care about grades, but those don't apply for this.

But if supply is decreasing and demand is at least staying constant, won't they "really need someone"? Obviously doesn't mean they'll go from snubbing people at median to taking bottom 10%... its all at the margins.

sadday
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:55 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby sadday » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:22 pm

Cobretti wrote:
sadday wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
sadday wrote:I think you (op) are failing to account for something - Grades.

Regarding overall employment;

Imagine a school with 100 people and the top 50 of those people get jobs. The next year the school only takes 50 people. Is an employer who took someone in the top half last year now just going to be willing to take people in the bottom 25%, Probably not.

My point is not that the numbers wont get better, just that firms generally don't want someone in the bottom 10% regardless if the year before they would have been in top half.

Now lots of jobs don't care about grades, so again the percentages should go up as the class gets smaller, but I don't think the job number just transfers over when considering that lots of places still care about what percentile you were in regardless of how arbitrary and meaningless it may be.

Regarding Biglaw: I don't know why people on TLS count that 100-250 group, from what I have been told, a lot of that is crappy insurance work.

OP is talking about macro level supply, not micro level supply of a specific school.


I know, but it applies all around. My point is just that there are less people in top half now, and firms wont just hire someone in the bottom half just because, unless they really need someone and law clerk wont do, or don't care about grades, but those don't apply for this.

But if supply is decreasing and demand is at least staying constant, won't they "really need someone"? Obviously doesn't mean they'll go from snubbing people at median to taking bottom 10%... its all at the margins.


I don't know enough about law firm hiring to know what it means for a law firm to really really need to hire a lawyer even if it's below what they normally like vs just hiring a paralegal until they get what they want.

User avatar
bugsy33
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby bugsy33 » Fri May 01, 2015 11:36 am

I think one other thing to consider is that there are still a few (not a lot) of JD advantage jobs and business jobs that are better outcomes than the general shitlaw job. If the legal market alone could take 96% of 2017 grads, I think it might get to the point where the lower paying firms start getting rejected for some of the better non-legal positions. I think there's a sizeable portion of law school grads who would rather do some type of consulting than take a 40k/yr insurance defense job.

All in all it looks like starting in 2016/17 smaller firms are going to have to up the ante to get quality employees. While outcomes might still be pretty bad out of TTT and TTTT schools, I think it stands to reason that growing firms are going to need employees, and they may be willing to overlook mediocre grades to get associates from reputable schools.

Traynor Brah
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:23 pm

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby Traynor Brah » Fri May 01, 2015 11:43 am

LOL Bugsy remember when we had to talk you out of going to Wisconsin at full sticker out of state?

User avatar
bugsy33
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby bugsy33 » Fri May 01, 2015 12:06 pm

Traynor Brah wrote:LOL Bugsy remember when we had to talk you out of going to Wisconsin at full sticker out of state?


Yes, I remember when ya'll talked me out of taking a half ride to Wisconsin out of state. But yeah, thank-you for doing that, it would've been the wrong choice.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22842
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri May 01, 2015 12:58 pm

I think one of the questions here is whether the people who are all getting legal jobs are getting the jobs they wanted - what expectations are they taking to law school? I don't think not landing in the biglaw/fed clerk bucket is the end of world, but if, say, 30% of those not in biglaw etc. went to law school to get a biglaw job, then the improved market doesn't mean much.

Obviously some expectations are completely unrealistic (going to my law school assuming you will get biglaw would be one), but I'm not sure people's goals and the job market are aligning even if the market is improving. I guess that's my concern with posts like the OP's, that it will encourage people to think models and bottles are back (or were ever a thing) so maybe going to Cal Western on that half scholarship really is a good idea.

(And like I said, I don't think the non BL outcomes are all objectively bad, but I'm still curious about grads' assessments of their outcomes. I think everyone in my class who wanted a legal job has one, but I don't know that all of them got jobs that they believe made the investment worthwhile.)

BigZuck
Posts: 10870
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby BigZuck » Fri May 01, 2015 1:28 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think one of the questions here is whether the people who are all getting legal jobs are getting the jobs they wanted - what expectations are they taking to law school? I don't think not landing in the biglaw/fed clerk bucket is the end of world, but if, say, 30% of those not in biglaw etc. went to law school to get a biglaw job, then the improved market doesn't mean much.

Obviously some expectations are completely unrealistic (going to my law school assuming you will get biglaw would be one), but I'm not sure people's goals and the job market are aligning even if the market is improving. I guess that's my concern with posts like the OP's, that it will encourage people to think models and bottles are back (or were ever a thing) so maybe going to Cal Western on that half scholarship really is a good idea.

(And like I said, I don't think the non BL outcomes are all objectively bad, but I'm still curious about grads' assessments of their outcomes. I think everyone in my class who wanted a legal job has one, but I don't know that all of them got jobs that they believe made the investment worthwhile.)
I could be wrong but I think the OP was more about rationalizing attending "T41"s, not TTTTs

User avatar
LA Spring
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:52 pm

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby LA Spring » Fri May 01, 2015 3:02 pm

bugsy33 wrote:Someone tell me why I'm wrong with these numbers for the prospective class of 2017..

In comparing 2014 to 2017 is there any significant projected difference? If you could cut and paste ’14 over to ’17, wouldn’t it all look about the same?

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22842
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri May 01, 2015 5:48 pm

BigZuck wrote:I could be wrong but I think the OP was more about rationalizing attending "T41"s, not TTTTs

Sure, I didn't mean the OP literally, so much as lurking others looking to justify bad decisions.

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby californiauser » Fri May 01, 2015 6:27 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think one of the questions here is whether the people who are all getting legal jobs are getting the jobs they wanted - what expectations are they taking to law school? I don't think not landing in the biglaw/fed clerk bucket is the end of world, but if, say, 30% of those not in biglaw etc. went to law school to get a biglaw job, then the improved market doesn't mean much.

Obviously some expectations are completely unrealistic (going to my law school assuming you will get biglaw would be one), but I'm not sure people's goals and the job market are aligning even if the market is improving. I guess that's my concern with posts like the OP's, that it will encourage people to think models and bottles are back (or were ever a thing) so maybe going to Cal Western on that half scholarship really is a good idea.

(And like I said, I don't think the non BL outcomes are all objectively bad, but I'm still curious about grads' assessments of their outcomes. I think everyone in my class who wanted a legal job has one, but I don't know that all of them got jobs that they believe made the investment worthwhile.)


Do people not attending top schools even know what a clerkship is prior to law school?

I can't imagine someone who hasn't done enough research to realize how important the law school you attend is would be dead-set on big law from the LSAT on either.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22842
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: 2017 Employment Market Number Crunching - Looks Good To Me

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri May 01, 2015 7:19 pm

Yes, people not at top schools know what clerkships are before going to school. Some people not at top schools actually get clerkships. But if you want to scratch them and just focus on biglaw, that's fine too. The least educated about the legal market are probably the people most likely to think that all lawyers make money and all of the legal jobs out there are basically big law jobs.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.