Class of 2013 Employment Data Forum

[LRGhost]

ftr I think most of the JD-MBA's in my class do not plan on being lawyers at all.

edit: at nu

Met a JD/MBA prospie at NU's ASW. Dude freaked me out with his complete lack of interest in anything related to law. Didn't want to work in law at all, but said, "I want to have a JD for when the next financial collapse comes along."

Eh?

That's ass backwards. But if I could get an MBA at Kellogg, I wouldn't be interested in law either. But that's not a good reason to have a JD.

[Princetonlaw68]

Agree with this. A lot of these people with WE would probably get biglaw at other T-14s.

If you're the average applicant with no good WE, NU is not going to give you a boost.

For whatever reason, there are a lot of NU fanboys around. I think maybe a couple are grads and most are 0Ls (whose opinion on biglaw hiring I wouldn't consider).

Protip: Being an average bro with no WE at any school that isn't YHSCC and maybe NP leaves you in roughly the same spot. Also, you're fooling yourself if you think the average law student at any T14 hasn't worked at least a year in something he or she could present as 'subtantial'. The nugget of information 0L's should take from this thread is that outside of YHSCCN, there's no discernible difference in the stats until you get to GULC.

When you say "any school," do you actually mean any school, any school that's a T14, or any school that's a T14 (besides GULC)?

[LRGhost]

Agree with this. A lot of these people with WE would probably get biglaw at other T-14s.

If you're the average applicant with no good WE, NU is not going to give you a boost.

For whatever reason, there are a lot of NU fanboys around. I think maybe a couple are grads and most are 0Ls (whose opinion on biglaw hiring I wouldn't consider).

Protip: Being an average bro with no WE at any school that isn't YHSCC and maybe NP leaves you in roughly the same spot. Also, you're fooling yourself if you think the average law student at any T14 hasn't worked at least a year in something he or she could present as 'subtantial'. The nugget of information 0L's should take from this thread is that outside of YHSCCN, there's no discernible difference in the stats until you get to GULC.

When you say "any school," do you actually mean any school, any school that's a T14, or any school that's a T14 (besides GULC)?

I guess T14 but the idea that you're worse off w/o 'good' WE at NU compared to MVPDB whatever is dumb. NU doesn't give you a "boost" compared to those schools but all the stats we have indicates that hiring is roughly the same across the board when you get out of YHSCCN(P).

[Princetonlaw68]

Agree with this. A lot of these people with WE would probably get biglaw at other T-14s.

If you're the average applicant with no good WE, NU is not going to give you a boost.

For whatever reason, there are a lot of NU fanboys around. I think maybe a couple are grads and most are 0Ls (whose opinion on biglaw hiring I wouldn't consider).

Protip: Being an average bro with no WE at any school that isn't YHSCC and maybe NP leaves you in roughly the same spot. Also, you're fooling yourself if you think the average law student at any T14 hasn't worked at least a year in something he or she could present as 'subtantial'. The nugget of information 0L's should take from this thread is that outside of YHSCCN, there's no discernible difference in the stats until you get to GULC.

When you say "any school," do you actually mean any school, any school that's a T14, or any school that's a T14 (besides GULC)?

I guess T14 but the idea that you're worse off w/o 'good' WE at NU compared to MVPDB whatever is dumb. NU doesn't give you a "boost" compared to those schools but all the stats we have indicates that hiring is roughly the same across the board when you get out of YHSCCN(P).

I think it's certainly debatable and by no means gospel, but to call it "dumb" I think is dumb. If we accept the premise that students at Northwestern tend to be more qualified (in terms of their WE), then it's perfectly plausible to make the claim that it very well may be harder to get recruited from there than at another law school that has comparable numbers and less people with the right kind of WE. Northwestern claims their students have great work experience. It seems that many of the students who go there make the same claims.

If it really is the same as other T14s as far as WE, then I agree, the statement is dumb. But if it isn't, I'm just saying prospective students should beware.

(Edit: I just wanted to add that the general consensus on this site seems to be that people at a given school are competing with others from their school for a certain amount of spots that is pre-determined by each firm. That means the quality of the students you are competing against for those spots will affect your chances at getting those spots. If this wasn't the case, GULC, for example, wouldn't have lower numbers than the other T14s. Cornell wouldn't out-do itself (as far as rep) because of its small class size. Class size wouldn't matter. The amount of people you are competing with, and the quality of that competition DEFINITELY will affect your chances of getting certain jobs. I don't think you or anyone else disputes this, so I find it odd that so many people are so quick to refute my claims, and even refer to them as dumb.)

[LRGhost]

I think it's certainly debatable and by no means gospel, but to call it "dumb" I think is dumb. If we accept the premise that students at Northwestern tend to be more qualified (in terms of their WE), then it's perfectly plausible to make the claim that it very well may be harder to get recruited from there than at another law school that has comparable numbers and less people with the right kind of WE. Northwestern claims their students have great work experience. It seems that many of the students who go there make the same claims.

If it really is the same as other T14s as far as WE, then I agree, the statement is dumb. But if it isn't, I'm just saying prospective students should beware.

(Edit: I just wanted to add that the general consensus on this site seems to be that people at a given school are competing with others from their school for a certain amount of spots that is pre-determined by each firm. That means the quality of the students you are competing against for those spots will affect your chances at getting those spots. If this wasn't the case, GULC, for example, wouldn't have lower numbers than the other T14s. Cornell wouldn't out-do itself (as far as rep) because of its small class size. Class size wouldn't matter. The amount of people you are competing with, and the quality of that competition DEFINITELY will affect your chances of getting certain jobs. I don't think you or anyone else disputes this, so I find it odd that so many people are so quick to refute my claims, and even refer to them as dumb.)

Class size matters. There are pretty set amounts for each school. You have people here tripping over themselves to claim that 10 more students getting a favorable result means the school is now the greatest thing ever. I'm not doing that. Last year, it was Duke and Penn who did really well. NU constantly performs better than '12' but what does that mean? It means that 7 or 8 through 12 or 13 are all pretty much the same as far as results go. The only reason Cornell 'outdoes' itself is because people think of it as 13 because they're slaves to the USNWR. If you go into this expecting the middle schools to get pretty much the same jobs, there are no surprises.

NU has been moving away from 'prestigious' work experience. IIRC, it was the last dean who imposed it and it's slowly been whittled away. It would be impossible to sustain considering the number of applicants and their numbers. That said, I doubt you had a disproportionate amount of people with good work experience into the JD program. The JD-MBA would be a different story but that's par for the course for an MBA program. They seem to go on the MBA route, though, so they're not in competition.

[rayiner]

Princetonlaw68, I don't think your contention is dumb but I think you're selectively accounting for WE. Excluding JD-MBA's, NU's firm + clerkship placement last year would be about (EDIT: 69)%. Duke's is maybe 61-2% if you exclude the tiny JD-MBA class (just 4-5 people). So even if we assume the WE boost is significant, is it enough to get 8-9% more of the class jobs? Especially when the large majority of Duke 1L's also have WE? You can't come to a conclusion by accounting just for the unique factors that help your position while ignoring those that hurt your position.

Its also useful to contextualize your theory with numbers. Say NU has 95% people with WE versus 70% at Duke. Total placement of non-JD-MBA's at NU is 70% versus 60% at Duke. We solve for two variables: EW is employment rate of folks with WE. EN is employment rate of people without WE.

.95 x EW + .05 x EN = 0.7
.70 x EW + .30 x EN = 0.6

Using the hypothetical numbers, the values are EW = 72% and EN = 32%. In other words, there has to be a huge gap in employment outcomes between people with and without WE. Empirically, that gap doesn't exist.

[Princetonlaw68]

Princetonlaw68, I don't think your contention is dumb but I think you're selectively accounting for WE. Excluding JD-MBA's, NU's firm + clerkship placement last year would be about 70%. Duke's is maybe 61-2% if you exclude the tiny JD-MBA class (just 4-5 people). So even if we assume the WE boost is significant, is it enough to get 8-9% more of the class jobs? Especially when the large majority of Duke 1L's also have WE? You can't come to a conclusion by accounting just for the unique factors that help your position while ignoring those that hurt your position.

Its also useful to contextualize your theory with numbers. Say NU has 95% people with WE versus 70% at Duke. Total placement of non-JD-MBA's at NU is 70% versus 60% at Duke. We solve for two variables: EW is employment rate of folks with WE. EN is employment rate of people without WE.

.95 x EW + .05 x EN = 0.7
.70 x EW + .30 x EN = 0.6

Using the hypothetical numbers, the values are EW = 72% and EN = 32%. In other words, there has to be a huge gap in employment outcomes between people with and without WE. Empirically, that gap doesn't exist.

You make some fair points, but I just want to know why everyone in favor of NU in this debate seems so sure that the JD-MBAs aren't competition for big law? Do you guys have some sort of stats you're looking at that show you 0% of JD-MBAs are taking the big law jobs?

[09042014]

Princetonlaw68, I don't think your contention is dumb but I think you're selectively accounting for WE. Excluding JD-MBA's, NU's firm + clerkship placement last year would be about 70%. Duke's is maybe 61-2% if you exclude the tiny JD-MBA class (just 4-5 people). So even if we assume the WE boost is significant, is it enough to get 8-9% more of the class jobs? Especially when the large majority of Duke 1L's also have WE? You can't come to a conclusion by accounting just for the unique factors that help your position while ignoring those that hurt your position.

Its also useful to contextualize your theory with numbers. Say NU has 95% people with WE versus 70% at Duke. Total placement of non-JD-MBA's at NU is 70% versus 60% at Duke. We solve for two variables: EW is employment rate of folks with WE. EN is employment rate of people without WE.

.95 x EW + .05 x EN = 0.7
.70 x EW + .30 x EN = 0.6

Using the hypothetical numbers, the values are EW = 72% and EN = 32%. In other words, there has to be a huge gap in employment outcomes between people with and without WE. Empirically, that gap doesn't exist.

You make some fair points, but I just want to know why everyone in favor of NU in this debate seems so sure that the JD-MBAs aren't competition for big law? Do you guys have some sort of stats you're looking at that show you 0% of JD-MBAs are taking the big law jobs?

They don't have to be 0% going for law to exclude them. You exclude them because a very significant percentage don't go into law. And you can't really know which do and which don't. So it's best to just subtract them from the denominator and numerator. Basically pretend they don't exist because we don't have good data on them.

[rayiner]

Princetonlaw68, I don't think your contention is dumb but I think you're selectively accounting for WE. Excluding JD-MBA's, NU's firm + clerkship placement last year would be about 70%. Duke's is maybe 61-2% if you exclude the tiny JD-MBA class (just 4-5 people). So even if we assume the WE boost is significant, is it enough to get 8-9% more of the class jobs? Especially when the large majority of Duke 1L's also have WE? You can't come to a conclusion by accounting just for the unique factors that help your position while ignoring those that hurt your position.

Its also useful to contextualize your theory with numbers. Say NU has 95% people with WE versus 70% at Duke. Total placement of non-JD-MBA's at NU is 70% versus 60% at Duke. We solve for two variables: EW is employment rate of folks with WE. EN is employment rate of people without WE.

.95 x EW + .05 x EN = 0.7
.70 x EW + .30 x EN = 0.6

Using the hypothetical numbers, the values are EW = 72% and EN = 32%. In other words, there has to be a huge gap in employment outcomes between people with and without WE. Empirically, that gap doesn't exist.

You make some fair points, but I just want to know why everyone in favor of NU in this debate seems so sure that the JD-MBAs aren't competition for big law? Do you guys have some sort of stats you're looking at that show you 0% of JD-MBAs are taking the big law jobs?

They don't have to be 0% going for law to exclude them. You exclude them because a very significant percentage don't go into law. And you can't really know which do and which don't. So it's best to just subtract them from the denominator and numerator. Basically pretend they don't exist because we don't have good data on them.

Its also the fairest thing, because JD-MBA's have a advantage on getting big law over regular JDs, if they want it. So best to exclude any legal jobs they get from the numerator, and their class size from the denominator.

[bdubs]

They don't have to be 0% going for law to exclude them. You exclude them because a very significant percentage don't go into law. And you can't really know which do and which don't. So it's best to just subtract them from the denominator and numerator. Basically pretend they don't exist because we don't have good data on them.

You actually have great data on JD-MBAs on the career statistics page but it doesn't include the number/percentage of JD-MBAs who don't participate in OCI.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/ ... jdmba.html

I can tell you that ~50% of JD-MBAs haven't participated in OCI at all over the past few years. Some who participate in OCI get SA offers and decide not to take them. Additionally, several people each year do a biglaw SA and then switch to business for full time.

[rayiner]

They don't have to be 0% going for law to exclude them. You exclude them because a very significant percentage don't go into law. And you can't really know which do and which don't. So it's best to just subtract them from the denominator and numerator. Basically pretend they don't exist because we don't have good data on them.

You actually have great data on JD-MBAs on the career statistics page but it doesn't include the number/percentage of JD-MBAs who don't participate in OCI.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/ ... jdmba.html

I can tell you that ~50% of JD-MBAs haven't participated in OCI at all over the past few years. Some who participate in OCI get SA offers and decide not to take them. Additionally, several people each year do a biglaw SA and then switch to business for full time.

2 of 3 CSM summers my year were JD-MBA's who didn't do law.

[09042014]

They don't have to be 0% going for law to exclude them. You exclude them because a very significant percentage don't go into law. And you can't really know which do and which don't. So it's best to just subtract them from the denominator and numerator. Basically pretend they don't exist because we don't have good data on them.

You actually have great data on JD-MBAs on the career statistics page but it doesn't include the number/percentage of JD-MBAs who don't participate in OCI.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/ ... jdmba.html

I can tell you that ~50% of JD-MBAs haven't participated in OCI at all over the past few years. Some who participate in OCI get SA offers and decide not to take them. Additionally, several people each year do a biglaw SA and then switch to business for full time.

We know they almost all have good outcomes (over 80% are confirmed to have 100k+ jobs). But we don't have data on how many could have gotten biglaw if they wanted to in order to do an apples to apples comparison with other schools.

Really the issue is that this overly simplistic GOOD JOBS vs. BAD JOBS analysis lumps all business and industry into bad jobs. When, at least at Northwestern, 75%+ of those jobs are Good jobs.

67% of NU grads make over 100k
9% are fed clerks
6% are government

That's at least 80% good outcome.

Only 12% of the class makes under 60k or doesn't report a salary. And some of that is local government and PI.

I think it's about a 9/10 chance of getting a decent outcome.

[09042014]

Going off what I just posted:

I think Northwestern's data is proof that the little formula TLS created for Good outcome v. Bad is deeply biased towards schools that place into the Northeast in private firms.

1) Total leaving off government work when it's a pretty damn good gig.

2) Assuming Business and Industry is burger flipping is silly. It includes in house and good non-law business outcomes.

3) 101+ is a poor cut off. NU data shows that firms with 51-101 actually pay more. And many 101+ don't really pay market.

I'm not arguing that Northwestern is getting screwed, I'm arguing the whole methodology is screwed. It's probably screwing schools like Michigan and Gtown a lot harder.

[skers]

Going off what I just posted:

I think Northwestern's data is proof that the little formula TLS created for Good outcome v. Bad is deeply biased towards schools that place into the Northeast in private firms.

1) Total leaving off government work when it's a pretty damn good gig.

2) Assuming Business and Industry is burger flipping is silly. It includes in house and good non-law business outcomes.

3) 101+ is a poor cut off. NU data shows that firms with 51-101 actually pay more. And many 101+ don't really pay market.

I'm not arguing that Northwestern is getting screwed, I'm arguing the whole methodology is screwed. It's probably screwing schools like Michigan and Gtown a lot harder.

That's always been a limitation of the TLS method. Sure, there's a shit ton of other good or even better outcomes, but we don't really have the details to say enough about them. Pretty much every time fed clerk or 101+ firm is going to be a solid outcome.

[20141023]

.

[beepboopbeep]

Going off what I just posted:

I think Northwestern's data is proof that the little formula TLS created for Good outcome v. Bad is deeply biased towards schools that place into the Northeast in private firms.

1) Total leaving off government work when it's a pretty damn good gig.

2) Assuming Business and Industry is burger flipping is silly. It includes in house and good non-law business outcomes.

3) 101+ is a poor cut off. NU data shows that firms with 51-101 actually pay more. And many 101+ don't really pay market.

I'm not arguing that Northwestern is getting screwed, I'm arguing the whole methodology is screwed. It's probably screwing schools like Michigan and Gtown a lot harder.

3) is something that I've been thinking about a fair bit as OCI approaches and I consider boutique firms. If I get one, that job won't be reflected in the >100 + clerkship numbers. But the students getting boutiques almost always could have gotten biglaw and chose not to, given the grades+LR requirements.

The problem with each of these is that it's not really possible without individualized data to distinguish between good outcomes w/r/t small firms, gov or business. Some of them are probably great, some aren't. The firms of >100 + clerkship number is only meant to reflect what we can be SURE of as good outcomes, and assumes schools are losing numbers to boutiques/gov/business relatively equally. It may be the case that NU/UM are getting hit harder, but that's something we need better data for (though it could be approximated by 25th-50th-75th salary ranges).

edit: scooped.

[jbagelboy]

That's always been a limitation of the TLS method. Sure, there's a shit ton of other good or even better outcomes, but we don't really have the details to say enough about them. Pretty much every time fed clerk or 101+ firm is going to be a solid outcome.

Yeah... the reason is because we "know" what the clerkships and biglaw jobs are. Even though federal clerks might be in different courts (district versus CoA) or biglaw associates in different practice areas, a clerk is a clerk and an associate is an associate. The positions in government and business/industry are not fungible in the same manner. TLS's method isn't screwed up; it is the data itself that is screwed up for putting a Starbucks barista who only works 35 hours a week in the same category as a BCG consultant.

Yea the ABA "business" category is pretty ridiculous. That being said, I'll just make the following observation (with all due respect to the jd/mba's out there):

Don't get me wrong, strategy can be a lot of fun and clearly it's worlds better than most legal jobs, but when we are talking about "outcomes," $200,000+ and 3 extra years is a lot of time and money to spend getting the job many people start right after college. Obviously no one will scoff at a Deloitte senior consultant or manager coming out of a JD program, but I think we can all agree starting as an analyst and taking the integrated business route or a FT MBA paid in full by the company is preferable to shelling out all that time and misery on law school just to wind up in the same place. If you really want to work in supply chain, strategy, analytics, forensic accounting ect then going to a feeder undergrad, doing fall on campus recruiting and joining BCG as an analyst is TCR.

On the other hand, if you want to be a judge or a litigator, then it makes more sense to go through law school, and clerking/starting as an associate makes sense as an outcome.

If we're just talking about how to avoid debt poverty, then yes Northwestern & Kellogg are doing a pretty damn good job.

[dixiecupdrinking]

35 hours a week is the baseline for 'full time' in some government jobs, believe it or not. I'd guess most legal positions are exempt so it doesn't matter as much. But it's not crazy to count that as full time. (0Ls: remember this when you are considering whether to go to biglaw.)

[dixiecupdrinking]

That's always been a limitation of the TLS method. Sure, there's a shit ton of other good or even better outcomes, but we don't really have the details to say enough about them. Pretty much every time fed clerk or 101+ firm is going to be a solid outcome.

Yeah... the reason is because we "know" what the clerkships and biglaw jobs are. Even though federal clerks might be in different courts (district versus CoA) or biglaw associates in different practice areas, a clerk is a clerk and an associate is an associate. The positions in government and business/industry are not fungible in the same manner. TLS's method isn't screwed up; it is the data itself that is screwed up for putting a Starbucks barista who only works 35 hours a week in the same category as a BCG consultant.

Yea the ABA "business" category is pretty ridiculous. That being said, I'll just make the following observation (with all due respect to the jd/mba's out there):

Don't get me wrong, strategy can be a lot of fun and clearly it's worlds better than most legal jobs, but when we are talking about "outcomes," $200,000+ and 3 extra years is a lot of time and money to spend getting the job many people start right after college. Obviously no one will scoff at a Deloitte senior consultant or manager coming out of a JD program, but I think we can all agree starting as an analyst and taking the integrated business route or a FT MBA paid in full by the company is preferable to shelling out all that time and misery on law school just to wind up in the same place. If you really want to work in supply chain, strategy, analytics, forensic accounting ect then going to a feeder undergrad, doing fall on campus recruiting and joining BCG as an analyst is TCR.

On the other hand, if you want to be a judge or a litigator, then it makes more sense to go through law school, and clerking/starting as an associate makes sense as an outcome.

If we're just talking about how to avoid debt poverty, then yes Northwestern & Kellogg are doing a pretty damn good job.

I have no idea why anyone would go to law school to be a consultant.

[jbagelboy]

I have no idea why anyone would go to law school to be a consultant.

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. The context of the conversation is that the groupthink of the jd-mba protagonists is that exiting law school into consulting is a "good outcome" on par with being an associate at a market paying firm or a federal clerk (and hence at some law schools business-industry is legit). I'm suggesting we could revisit one element of that logic.

[20141023]

.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I have no idea why anyone would go to law school to be a consultant.

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. The context of the conversation is that the groupthink of the jd-mba protagonists is that exiting law school into consulting is a "good outcome" on par with being an associate at a market paying firm or a federal clerk (and hence at some law schools business-industry is legit). I'm suggesting we could revisit one element of that logic.

Yeah. But this whole conversation needs a lot of revisiting, and has for a while. People try to quantify and rationalize this law school decision process way too much. It's a valuable exercise to some extent, and law school has done it to itself by being so goddamn expensive, but the first and last question really needs to be "do you want to be a lawyer?" not "do the numbers work out?"

[dixiecupdrinking]

I have no idea why anyone would go to law school to be a consultant.

I am not sure that is the reason they go, but places like BCG, Goldman Sachs, etc. have held occasional info sessions trying to recruit interested law students. I guess if someone has already put in the work for 1L year but decides that they actually hate the law, high-end business-related stuff might not be a bad exit option if they don't want to quit school.

It's certainly not the worst option if you're already in too deep, but considering how difficult it is to get these jobs, dropping out is probably a better option for most who are on the fence.

I am mainly thinking of people like the one mentioned upthread doing a JD/MBA to go into business. That is just odd. I can see some value to adding an MBA to a JD you were already going to get, but vice versa is asinine.

[furrrman]

Princetonlaw68, I don't think your contention is dumb but I think you're selectively accounting for WE. Excluding JD-MBA's, NU's firm + clerkship placement last year would be about 70%. Duke's is maybe 61-2% if you exclude the tiny JD-MBA class (just 4-5 people). So even if we assume the WE boost is significant, is it enough to get 8-9% more of the class jobs? Especially when the large majority of Duke 1L's also have WE? You can't come to a conclusion by accounting just for the unique factors that help your position while ignoring those that hurt your position.

Its also useful to contextualize your theory with numbers. Say NU has 95% people with WE versus 70% at Duke. Total placement of non-JD-MBA's at NU is 70% versus 60% at Duke. We solve for two variables: EW is employment rate of folks with WE. EN is employment rate of people without WE.

.95 x EW + .05 x EN = 0.7
.70 x EW + .30 x EN = 0.6

Using the hypothetical numbers, the values are EW = 72% and EN = 32%. In other words, there has to be a huge gap in employment outcomes between people with and without WE. Empirically, that gap doesn't exist.

Minor point but four of NU's 2013 JD-MBAs got 501+ firms (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/ ... jdmba.html). If we exclude JD-MBA entirely we also have to exclude those four jobs from the total and the percentage comes to 69%, not 70%.

Again, minor point, and I agree that for the normal JD it makes sense to take the JD-MBA out of the equation because, for the most part, they aren't competing for the same jobs.

[rayiner]

I have no idea why anyone would go to law school to be a consultant.

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. The context of the conversation is that the groupthink of the jd-mba protagonists is that exiting law school into consulting is a "good outcome" on par with being an associate at a market paying firm or a federal clerk (and hence at some law schools business-industry is legit). I'm suggesting we could revisit one element of that logic.

I think its more about people who aren't debt averse hedging the risk they might like law better. But its not like some people ended up in consulting because they couldn't get big law. I think most JD-MBA's pitch themselves for transactional law, and then realize after an SA that the business side of those transactions is way better.