law school employment and T14 syndrome Forum

[bosox31]

DISCLAIMER: A lot of my talk about statistics and the goal of making maximal funds is just to illustrate a point, that should never be the goal. But lacking more tangible data, I use it to highlight my question.

I've been lurking through this board for a little while now and I have a couple questions:

1) I see this grand obsession with T14 here. I understand the website's namesake implies this, but I've been researching schools outside the top 14 and came to some conclusions. For example, Washington and Lee is ranked 34th. According to their graduate data, out of 138 students, 120 reported. Out of them, 69 went to work in law firms and 13 in business. Their private sector median was $145,000. Seems to me like at least 41 of their students made over $145,000, and median of all salaries was $90,000. That's 30% of the graduating class. making over $145,000 according to my math. To me it feels like that's pretty good odds. I don't believe they'd lie in their statistics (although I've heard some schools have), and I'm very careful to check the "percent reporting" when I look at statistics like this.

2) Considering so many school outside of the T14 seem to have similar facts, it seems to me that this T14 infatuation is basically built around people being obscened with this abstract idea of "prestige." I understand HLS opens a lot of doors that may not be opened by a third tier school, but I have been really impressed with websites from schools that offer very attractive experiences but don't necessarily have the holy Top 14 ranking, William and Mary being a great example. A school that has great professors, great career opportunities, what I imagine is a top knotch education, and people say don't go to it unless you have a ton of aid money because it's not Top 14.

3) It seems to me that HLS will be much more difficult to get top 30% in than William and Mary. They both have the top 30% making over $145,000. Wouldn't his odds of making over $145,000 be greater if he went to William and Mary. Are the firms where lawyers make $145,000 less prestiguous, or have less grounds for upwards mobility than the firms where HLS grads work? Or are these really the same firms and it didn't really matter where these people got their degree because they're working a job and not being graded anymore? Is their a great deal of secret handshake bullshit associated with law schools at big firms, where promotions once you work their are not based upon job performance but school-oriented favoritism? I know their's somewhat of a fallacy to the top 30% thing; HLS has more room for people to be in lower percentages and still get those high paying salaries. In the end though, won't the HLS grad have at least as much debt as the William and Mary grad, majority of the time, also going to school in a much more competitive environment? I hope I'm illustrating my point well, I kind of got lost in wordiness here but I think I've said enough about this. Is this Top 14 infatuation something invented by these message board communities (to a certain extent)? I'm sure someone would be better of graduating at the bottom of his class in Harvard compared to William and Mary, but would being in the top 10% of either class have much difference in terms of career prospects?

I guess I'm just confused and am missing something that all these haters seem to have figured out. I was hoping someone could enlighten me.

[thecilent]

I was about to quote and pick-a-part this post, but it would take wayy to long. You're right OP, HLS = W&M

[ggocat]

I'm sure someone would be better of graduating at the bottom of his class in Harvard compared to William and Mary, but would being in the top 10% of either class have much difference in terms of career prospects?

Yes, but maybe not a significant impact on earning potential. As you mentioned, money isn't everything.

going to school in a much more competitive environment?

Although generally higher LSAT/UGPA means you have a slightly better chance of performing well on 1L exams, it may be less competitive at a higher ranked school because competition for jobs is not so fierce. For example, data from about 5 years ago shows that 85% of HLS students went to NALP 250 firms or clerkships compared to less than 30% for W&L. There is "less competition" for HLS students because they can have much worse grades (or high, low, pass, whatever) and still find employment. http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/composite.pdf

[scribelaw]

Lol. Yes, OP, we're all "obscened" with prestige.

Nothing in the legal hiring market has changed since the stats you cite.

[danidancer]

I was about to quote and pick-a-part this post, but it would take wayy to long. You're right OP, HLS = W&M

+1. Giant lol at all those lemmings picking HYS over the T30.

[Grizz]

DISCLAIMER: A lot of my talk about statistics and the goal of making maximal funds is just to illustrate a point, that should never be the goal. But lacking more tangible data, I use it to highlight my question.

I've been lurking through this board for a little while now and I have a couple questions:

1) I see this grand obsession with T14 here. I understand the website's namesake implies this, but I've been researching schools outside the top 14 and came to some conclusions. For example, Washington and Lee is ranked 34th. According to their graduate data, out of 138 students, 120 reported. Out of them, 69 went to work in law firms and 13 in business. Their private sector median was $145,000 blah blah blah kjffdjklsffdjsfd

For the record, I'm more of a T12 or T17 guy, but I immediately stopped reading once you attempted to use massaged school-reported salary stats to justify your claims. If you have really been lurking, you would have known that these are generally full of shit.

[270910]

You are dangerously wrong, OP. One reason for the prestige obsession on this website is that schools BADLY misreport their own data. The gainful employment prospects outside of the T14 were NEVER as rosy as the schools contended and have since bottomed out.

Check the legal employment forum for concrete proof - something like 40 law firms are intereviewing at Notre Dame for like 80 offices as contrasted with >100 firms and hundreds of offices at most T14s.

Keep doing the research. You are quite wrong currently, but that's understandable - schools publish misleading statistics.

[rando]

DISCLAIMER: A lot of my talk about statistics and the goal of making maximal funds is just to illustrate a point, that should never be the goal. But lacking more tangible data, I use it to highlight my question.

I've been lurking through this board for a little while now and I have a couple questions:

1) I see this grand obsession with T14 here. I understand the website's namesake implies this, but I've been researching schools outside the top 14 and came to some conclusions. For example, Washington and Lee is ranked 34th. According to their graduate data, out of 138 students, 120 reported. Out of them, 69 went to work in law firms and 13 in business. Their private sector median was $145,000 blah blah blah kjffdjklsffdjsfd

For the record, I'm more of a T12 or T17 guy, but I immediately stopped reading once you attempted to use massaged school-reported salary stats to justify your claims. If you have really been lurking, you would have known that these are generally full of shit.

Aside from the unhelpful bashing posted above... rad's point is your most egregious error. At least you pointed out that you were looking for percentage reported, but probably not hard enough.

Your point about education is actually probably credited. You will likely get a very similar legal education from W&B or Harvard. Both taught by HYS profs out of similar casebooks and in great facilities. The difference in law schools does lie in prestige to some extent, but ITE employment prospects are a huge indicator of the disparity between schools like Harvard and W&M.

You may be right that there is no great distinction in the T14 anymore. Some people tend to think there is some huge dropoff in prospects from T14 and below. That is really not the case anymore. Prospects at the T25 schools are not fantastic right now, but not doomed. Move on up to Vandy, UCLA, Tex and they are greatly improved. From there, you won't see a great increase in employment potential until you hit the T12 and then still it is rough all the way up to T6ish. There simply is no stark dropoff past the T14 and the history of the moniker is just that those schools have always been the T14.

I suggest you consider the stats from schools like W&L, W&M (well really any law school) with a huge grain of salt. Any unreported numbers are likely to be unemployed numbers. You should also look into what the school counts as employed and what programs it is utilizing to artificially boost its numbers.

Some of the above posters may seem like assholes for not giving a more justified response, but this information really is peppered all over these forums.

[pjo]

going to school in a much more competitive environment?

Although generally higher LSAT/UGPA means you have a slightly better chance of performing well on 1L exams, it may be less competitive at a higher ranked school because competition for jobs is not so fierce. For example, data from about 5 years ago shows that 85% of HLS students went to NALP 250 firms or clerkships compared to less than 30% for W&L. There is "less competition" for HLS students because they can have much worse grades (or high, low, pass, whatever) and still find employment. http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/composite.pdf

this. OP, I noticed that you said you think it'd be easier being top 30% at W&M vs. top 30% at HLS. Although it might seem to be a true statement, it hardly is guaranteed. All the time on these boards ppl say stuff like "oo my GPA and LSAT are well above a schools median, so I'll prob be in the top of the class there". UGPA and LSAT are somewhat of a good indicator of law school performance, however they are by no means a perfect indicator. Why? Because the way law school exams are graded. Grades are given on a bell curve, and for the most part, professors grade not so much on what you know but rather how you say it. You have to tailor an exam to what the professor wants, and this is not always the easiest thing to decipher. Hence why you often hear of ppl with awesome stats, going to a school with a ton of scholly and yet finishing at median. Conversely, you also hear of ppl who got into a school by the skin of their teeth finishing in the top 10%. Don't underestimate the law school grading process. As an anecdote, I was talking to a girl that went to a T25 the other day. She did her last year as a visiting student at a strong regional T2 (family member was sick and it was her home town). I asked her to compare the schools and she seemed to think that as a whole, the T25 school had a classbody with a greater academic vigour than at the T2. She made a statement saying that had she gone to the T2 she thinks she would have been higher ranked. I asked her then if her GPA rose when she went to the T2 her 3L. When she thought about it she had a blank looked on her face and said, "no", her GPA was EXACTLY the same as it was at the T25. You could probably guess how awkward she felt after making the previous statement. I don't think she ever actually put 2 and 2 together. Anyway, this isn't a perfect example, but I think it's better than anything else ppl could offer bc you very rarely see someone go to school at a higher ranked school THEN go to a lower ranked one. Usually it's the opposite.

[vandalvideo]

You are dangerously wrong, OP. One reason for the prestige obsession on this website is that schools BADLY misreport their own data. The gainful employment prospects outside of the T14 were NEVER as rosy as the schools contended and have since bottomed out.

Check the legal employment forum for concrete proof - something like 40 law firms are intereviewing at Notre Dame for like 80 offices as contrasted with >100 firms and hundreds of offices at most T14s.

Keep doing the research. You are quite wrong currently, but that's understandable - schools publish misleading statistics.

I don't see how the amount of firms doing OCI necessarily equate to the employment prospects of a given school. For all we know, the lack of OCI could be made up for in the initiative of the students finding jobs. That statistic alone is insufficient to show that schools fudge data. I'm not saying they don't, but you need to provide a lot more proof to meet that claim.

[pjo]

DISCLAIMER: A lot of my talk about statistics and the goal of making maximal funds is just to illustrate a point, that should never be the goal. But lacking more tangible data, I use it to highlight my question.

I've been lurking through this board for a little while now and I have a couple questions:

1) I see this grand obsession with T14 here. I understand the website's namesake implies this, but I've been researching schools outside the top 14 and came to some conclusions. For example, Washington and Lee is ranked 34th. According to their graduate data, out of 138 students, 120 reported. Out of them, 69 went to work in law firms and 13 in business. Their private sector median was $145,000 blah blah blah kjffdjklsffdjsfd

For the record, I'm more of a T12 or T17 guy, but I immediately stopped reading once you attempted to use massaged school-reported salary stats to justify your claims. If you have really been lurking, you would have known that these are generally full of shit.

Dude! change your avatar back to the Florida flag. I always get confused when ppl change their tar because I get used to just scrolling down and looking at the pictures lol. When I was looking through this thread someone metioned your name and I was like "why are they talking about radlaw? I didn't see him post anything on here"

[270910]

You are dangerously wrong, OP. One reason for the prestige obsession on this website is that schools BADLY misreport their own data. The gainful employment prospects outside of the T14 were NEVER as rosy as the schools contended and have since bottomed out.

Check the legal employment forum for concrete proof - something like 40 law firms are intereviewing at Notre Dame for like 80 offices as contrasted with >100 firms and hundreds of offices at most T14s.

Keep doing the research. You are quite wrong currently, but that's understandable - schools publish misleading statistics.

I don't see how the amount of firms doing OCI necessarily equate to the employment prospects of a given school. For all we know, the lack of OCI could be made up for in the initiative of the students finding jobs. That statistic alone is insufficient to show that schools fudge data. I'm not saying they don't, but you need to provide a lot more proof to meet that claim.

I am a rising second year law student. I am mired in data - firms that have come to my and other schools, now and historically, current and former employment prospects, for summers and at graduation. All schools misreport their employment prospects, and the number of firms coming to OCI is an absolutely crucial measure, because it is extraordinarily rare for the kind of employment students salivate over (big firms, 6 figure salaries, etc.) to be gotten by "initiative." I've seen the data, I've lived the experience, I know countless people for whom it has become reality instead of the marquee on school's websites.

[bosox31]

I mean, I'm asking a question not making a statement, it's fun to act like I'm retarded but I'm just someone that knows less than you. Sorry if I came off like a snob, it just seems that if you trust their employment data that would be the case. If that's all bullshit than obviously it falls apart and then clearly HLS has the better career prospects and salary and so on and so forth, but according to their websites they pan out equally to the layman. And I'm not just saying by using pictures and writing nice things about their faculty, I'm saying in terms of the statistics they lay out for you. That's the point I was trying to make, not to say that HLS and W&M were equivalent...


Anyways, the conclusion is that the majority of law schools misrepresent their data? Isn't that false advertising?

[thecilent]

DISCLAIMER: A lot of my talk about statistics and the goal of making maximal funds is just to illustrate a point, that should never be the goal. But lacking more tangible data, I use it to highlight my question.

I've been lurking through this board for a little while now and I have a couple questions:

1) I see this grand obsession with T14 here. I understand the website's namesake implies this, but I've been researching schools outside the top 14 and came to some conclusions. For example, Washington and Lee is ranked 34th. According to their graduate data, out of 138 students, 120 reported. Out of them, 69 went to work in law firms and 13 in business. Their private sector median was $145,000 blah blah blah kjffdjklsffdjsfd

For the record, I'm more of a T12 or T17 guy, but I immediately stopped reading once you attempted to use massaged school-reported salary stats to justify your claims. If you have really been lurking, you would have known that these are generally full of shit.

Dude! change your avatar back to the Florida flag. I always get confused when ppl change their tar because I get used to just scrolling down and looking at the pictures lol. When I was looking through this thread someone metioned your name and I was like "why are they talking about radlaw? I didn't see him post anything on here"

lol This is funny. But rad can't change back.. NorB FTW

[vandalvideo]

I am a rising second year law student. I am mired in data - firms that have come to my and other schools, now and historically, current and former employment prospects, for summers and at graduation. All schools misreport their employment prospects, and the number of firms coming to OCI is an absolutely crucial measure, because it is extraordinarily rare for the kind of employment students salivate over (big firms, 6 figure salaries, etc.) to be gotten by "initiative." I've seen the data, I've lived the experience, I know countless people for whom it has become reality instead of the marquee on school's websites.

I'm not entirely sure how you can generalize from your own school, even accepting that you are not some outlier at your own school for that matter, to all schools employment prospects. And I'm going to need some king of proof instead of empty claims. What is your basis for stating that people are less likely or extraordinarily unlikely to achieve high grade salaries through initiative and not OCI?

[270910]

I mean, I'm asking a question not making a statement, it's fun to act like I'm retarded but I'm just someone that knows less than you. Sorry if I came off like a snob, it just seems that if you trust their employment data that would be the case. If that's all bullshit than obviously it falls apart and then clearly HLS has the better career prospects and salary and so on and so forth, but according to their websites they pan out equally to the layman. And I'm not just saying by using pictures and writing nice things about their faculty, I'm saying in terms of the statistics they lay out for you. That's the point I was trying to make, not to say that HLS and W&M were equivalent...


Anyways, the conclusion is that the majority of law schools misrepresent their data? Isn't that false advertising?

This chart is badly out of date, but the relative information it shows is still fairly accurate. It was compiled by third parties and NOT the self reports/surveys that schools publish. Take a gander, then tell me how you feel about the Harvard vs. W&M distinction.

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf

[thecilent]

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf

How did BU send so many into academia?

[Grizz]

DISCLAIMER: A lot of my talk about statistics and the goal of making maximal funds is just to illustrate a point, that should never be the goal. But lacking more tangible data, I use it to highlight my question.

I've been lurking through this board for a little while now and I have a couple questions:

1) I see this grand obsession with T14 here. I understand the website's namesake implies this, but I've been researching schools outside the top 14 and came to some conclusions. For example, Washington and Lee is ranked 34th. According to their graduate data, out of 138 students, 120 reported. Out of them, 69 went to work in law firms and 13 in business. Their private sector median was $145,000 blah blah blah kjffdjklsffdjsfd

For the record, I'm more of a T12 or T17 guy, but I immediately stopped reading once you attempted to use massaged school-reported salary stats to justify your claims. If you have really been lurking, you would have known that these are generally full of shit.

Aside from the unhelpful bashing posted above...

Rando's right on this, and I apologize, but these "why T14 threads" really do pop up all too often.

[270910]

I am a rising second year law student. I am mired in data - firms that have come to my and other schools, now and historically, current and former employment prospects, for summers and at graduation. All schools misreport their employment prospects, and the number of firms coming to OCI is an absolutely crucial measure, because it is extraordinarily rare for the kind of employment students salivate over (big firms, 6 figure salaries, etc.) to be gotten by "initiative." I've seen the data, I've lived the experience, I know countless people for whom it has become reality instead of the marquee on school's websites.

I'm not entirely sure how you can generalize from your own school, even accepting that you are not some outlier at your own school for that matter, to all schools employment prospects. And I'm going to need some king of proof instead of empty claims. What is your basis for stating that people are less likely or extraordinarily unlikely to achieve high grade salaries through initiative and not OCI?

This is frustrating to me. There are things which cannot be cited simply - one of those is how large law firms recruit and the effect of the OCI process.

1) Law firms that pay 6 figure salaries to first year associates recruit - almost without exception - through OCI at law schools.

2) They - almost without exception - hire rising 2nd year law students, employ them summer before their third year, and offer them full time employment.

3) Students at my school and at many other schools who failed to obtain those positions have had absolutely awful luck finding employment otherwise. They tend to find JOBS, but they almost NEVER find jobs at the kind of firm people want to start with - huge starting salary, prestigious work, etc.

With respect to data, I have and/or have seen the published statistics for firm hiring from a dozen plus schools, both top flight and somewhat less top flight. As a law student I have also interacted with dozens if not hundreds of students and recent graduates. I'm really not trying to be snooty, I'm trying to tell you that this question - how do law schools send students into the legal market - has been an absolute obsession of mine.

The proof is out there, but it's scattered pieces of data. Like how schools cook their employed at graduation stats by giving students temporary jobs at the school itself. Like how something like 4% of law firms even considered hiring 3Ls last year. Like the fact that out of everyone I know, and everyone I have heard of, I can count on one hand the number of prestigious big firm job offers that came outside of the OCI process. And I'm not talking me and my three buddies down the street. I've been completely obsessed with legal employment prospects for about a year and a half now, and through exposure to law school and working this summer have encountered huge numbers of law students, lawyers, employers, career counselors, etc.

[270910]

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf

How did BU send so many into academia?

Nobody really knows what the academia stat means, because even the top of the class at Yale doesn't go into anything that could be considered "academia" immediately after law school. Best guess is that it's what some schools use to represent things like students getting LLMs, which doesn't fall into the category "graduate school." But it doesn't mean BU is pumping out law professors.

[thecilent]

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414empl ... trends.pdf

How did BU send so many into academia?

Nobody really knows what the academia stat means, because even the top of the class at Yale doesn't go into anything that could be considered "academia" immediately after law school. Best guess is that it's what some schools use to represent things like students getting LLMs, which doesn't fall into the category "graduate school." But it doesn't mean BU is pumping out law professors.

Gotya

[vandalvideo]

1) Law firms that pay 6 figure salaries to first year associates recruit - almost without exception - through OCI at law schools.

[Citation needed]

2) They - almost without exception - hire rising 2nd year law students, employ them summer before their third year, and offer them full time employment.

Will accept for sake of argument

3) Students at my school and at many other schools who failed to obtain those positions have had absolutely awful luck finding employment otherwise. They tend to find JOBS, but they almost NEVER find jobs at the kind of firm people want to start with - huge starting salary, prestigious work, etc.

[Citation needed]

With respect to data, I have and/or have seen the published statistics for firm hiring from a dozen plus schools, both top flight and somewhat less top flight. As a law student I have also interacted with dozens if not hundreds of students and recent graduates. I'm really not trying to be snooty, I'm trying to tell you that this question - how do law schools send students into the legal market - has been an absolute obsession of mine.

And I'm not trying to be snooty either, but [citation needed].

The proof is out there, but it's scattered pieces of data. Like how schools cook their employed at graduation stats by giving students temporary jobs at the school itself. Like how something like 4% of law firms even considered hiring 3Ls last year. Like the fact that out of everyone I know, and everyone I have heard of, I can count on one hand the number of prestigious big firm job offers that came outside of the OCI process. And I'm not talking me and my three buddies down the street. I've been completely obsessed with legal employment prospects for about a year and a half now, and through exposure to law school and working this summer have encountered huge numbers of law students, lawyers, employers, career counselors, etc.

And I would love to listen to your anecdotes all day, but I'm not terribly convinced that you're representative of the majority. It always seems to be those in trouble who are the most vocal. How do I not know there is some silent majority out there who is doing great and getting awesome jobs? I have no horse in this race because I'm going public interest after law school. I'm just tired of empty claims on these forums trying to bolster T14. Prove it to me.

[270910]

1) Law firms that pay 6 figure salaries to first year associates recruit - almost without exception - through OCI at law schools.

[Citation needed]

2) They - almost without exception - hire rising 2nd year law students, employ them summer before their third year, and offer them full time employment.

Will accept for sake of argument

3) Students at my school and at many other schools who failed to obtain those positions have had absolutely awful luck finding employment otherwise. They tend to find JOBS, but they almost NEVER find jobs at the kind of firm people want to start with - huge starting salary, prestigious work, etc.

[Citation needed]

With respect to data, I have and/or have seen the published statistics for firm hiring from a dozen plus schools, both top flight and somewhat less top flight. As a law student I have also interacted with dozens if not hundreds of students and recent graduates. I'm really not trying to be snooty, I'm trying to tell you that this question - how do law schools send students into the legal market - has been an absolute obsession of mine.

And I'm not trying to be snooty either, but [citation needed].

The proof is out there, but it's scattered pieces of data. Like how schools cook their employed at graduation stats by giving students temporary jobs at the school itself. Like how something like 4% of law firms even considered hiring 3Ls last year. Like the fact that out of everyone I know, and everyone I have heard of, I can count on one hand the number of prestigious big firm job offers that came outside of the OCI process. And I'm not talking me and my three buddies down the street. I've been completely obsessed with legal employment prospects for about a year and a half now, and through exposure to law school and working this summer have encountered huge numbers of law students, lawyers, employers, career counselors, etc.

And I would love to listen to your anecdotes all day, but I'm not terribly convinced that you're representative of the majority. It always seems to be those in trouble who are the most vocal. How do I not know there is some silent majority out there who is doing great and getting awesome jobs? I have no horse in this race because I'm going public interest after law school. I'm just tired of empty claims on these forums trying to bolster T14. Prove it to me.

[jnorsky]

I am a rising second year law student. I am mired in data - firms that have come to my and other schools, now and historically, current and former employment prospects, for summers and at graduation. All schools misreport their employment prospects, and the number of firms coming to OCI is an absolutely crucial measure, because it is extraordinarily rare for the kind of employment students salivate over (big firms, 6 figure salaries, etc.) to be gotten by "initiative." I've seen the data, I've lived the experience, I know countless people for whom it has become reality instead of the marquee on school's websites.

I'm not entirely sure how you can generalize from your own school, even accepting that you are not some outlier at your own school for that matter, to all schools employment prospects. And I'm going to need some king of proof instead of empty claims. What is your basis for stating that people are less likely or extraordinarily unlikely to achieve high grade salaries through initiative and not OCI?

Law firms send people (time and money) to recruit at the schools that they want students from, when 160 firms are coming to OCI, then that means 160 firms and X number of offices of those firms want to recruit students from that school. When 40 firms go to an OCI at a school, that means only 40 are willing to send people (again, time and money) to that school to recruit....whats not to understand? OCI is how Big law jobs are obtained in most circumstances ( not all). Obviously big law isnt the end all be all...so then look at PI, Gov agencies, etc....they all recruit at top schools and maybe a handful or other schools. If we look at T-10 schools, most get jobs through OCI, at schools below T-17, im guessing most students get jobs through initiative and hard work and networking, etc... but they will not be the same type or caliber of job that you get through OCI.

[vandalvideo]

OCI is how Big law jobs are obtained in most circumstances ( not all). .

Big crux of the argument, to which I have two objections

A) Assumption; the concentration of wealth is in big law jobs. For all we know, many of these people could be making great bucks in solo practice with strong connections. Am I saying that is the case? No, I don't know, but citation needed to show me not.

B) Where are you getting your evidence for this claim that OCI is how big law divies jobs?