Class of 2013 Employment Data Forum

[bdubs]

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.

You're way off here. First, no one comes from an MBA program (or a T14 law school) and starts at the same level as an undergrad. The associate positions at MBB pay almost exactly the same as an associate position ( 135k salary but bonus in the 30-40k range, plus 20k signing, with much better benefits).

Second, being a consultant is usually not considered a for life kind of thing. Consulting firms use up or out too but the exit options are infinitely better than from most law firms ( law is a pie eating contest, you just get more of the same).

Third, as Ray said the JDMBA is an option. It is only one year more than an MBA and no extra time relative to a JD. Yes it costs more in tuition and some of my consultant friends kind of regret the extra money but no one ascribes zero value to the additional degree.

[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.

You're way off here. First, no one comes from an MBA program (or a T14 law school) and starts at the same level as an undergrad. The associate positions at MBB pay almost exactly the same as an associate position ( 135k salary but bonus in the 30-40k range, plus 20k signing, with much better benefits).

Second, being a consultant is usually not considered a for life kind of thing. Consulting firms use up or out too but the exit options are infinitely better than from most law firms ( law is a pie eating contest, you just get more of the same).

Third, as Ray said the JDMBA is an option. It is only one year more than an MBA and no extra time relative to a JD. Yes it costs more in tuition and some of my consultant friends kind of regret the extra money but no one ascribes zero value to the additional degree.

Nowhere did I indicate a 22yr old analyst is in the same position as an associate starting post-mba. I actually confirmed the opposite. Nor did I discuss a pay differential b/t biglaw and consulting. I feel like you should actually read what I'm suggesting about ex ante outcomes and how we approach bus/industry category.

FWIW I was an analyst so I'm not just speaking out of my ass. Some of my former project managers had jd/mba's and did value the degree. It's different to start a jd/mba program and aim for finance and consulting than to go to law school, strike out or alienate from a firm, and decide to go into strategy instead - at which point you've accumulated substantial unnecessary loans/wasted opportunity cost and spent extra time in oppressive conditions.

And it's common knowledge that finance and biglaw aren't "for life" for 3/4 of people too. The industry attrition is comparable across white collar service.

[Tiago Splitter]

It's different to start a jd/mba program and aim for finance and consulting than to go to law school, strike out or alienate from a firm, and decide to go into strategy instead - at which point you've accumulated substantial unnecessary loans/wasted opportunity cost and spent extra time in oppressive conditions.

I'm not quite sure which way you're arguing but it seems the former scenario is the dumber one, not the latter. Going to law school hoping to get biglaw but having to "settle" for a 135k consulting gig makes law school seem like a better bet. If you went in hoping to do something other than law you probably wasted quite a bit of time and money.

[Princetonlaw68]

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.

I know this isn't relevant at all, but I just wanted to point out that USNWR is not the only reason people think Cornell outdoes itself. I think the "outdoes itself" mentality is largely based on the fact that the standards for admission into Cornell are so much lower than any of the other law schools that place comparably. If you look at the numbers for students who attend Cornell, they are the worst in the T14, and the only other T14 that even comes close to their numbers is GULC (which still has better numbers, even with having to fill a class 3X the size). I'm not saying it matters that Cornell's admission standards are lower, as that shouldn't affect one's decision to go there, but I'm simply pointing out that Cornell does not only outdo itself in employment outcomes as far as USNWR, but it also outdoes itself as far as the (comparatively) low quality of the students there.

(No offense to anyone who attends Cornell, of course)

[bdubs]

You're way off here. First, no one comes from an MBA program (or a T14 law school) and starts at the same level as an undergrad. The associate positions at MBB pay almost exactly the same as an associate position ( 135k salary but bonus in the 30-40k range, plus 20k signing, with much better benefits).

Second, being a consultant is usually not considered a for life kind of thing. Consulting firms use up or out too but the exit options are infinitely better than from most law firms ( law is a pie eating contest, you just get more of the same).

Third, as Ray said the JDMBA is an option. It is only one year more than an MBA and no extra time relative to a JD. Yes it costs more in tuition and some of my consultant friends kind of regret the extra money but no one ascribes zero value to the additional degree.

Nowhere did I indicate a 22yr old analyst is in the same position as an associate starting post-mba. I actually confirmed the opposite. Nor did I discuss a pay differential b/t biglaw and consulting. I feel like you should actually read what I'm suggesting about ex ante outcomes and how we approach bus/industry category.

FWIW I was an analyst so I'm not just speaking out of my ass. Some of my former project managers had jd/mba's and did value the degree. It's different to start a jd/mba program and aim for finance and consulting than to go to law school, strike out or alienate from a firm, and decide to go into strategy instead - at which point you've accumulated substantial unnecessary loans/wasted opportunity cost and spent extra time in oppressive conditions.

And it's common knowledge that finance and biglaw aren't "for life" for 3/4 of people too. The industry attrition is comparable across white collar service.

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

Seemed to imply you meant that people were going from JD or JD-MBA into analyst roles.

Now you are referring to a very narrow set of people who came from strategy consulting into law school as just a JD. I can count that subset of people at NU on one hand. I doubt that much of the T14 is much different given the high % of K-JD and the relatively small set of people who actually would turn down a free MBA (if one is offered) for a JD. For 99% of students "settling" for consulting isn't even a consideration.

[thevuch]

can someone explain to me what the public interest/government parts on the aba required disclosures, what sort of jobs those are?

note: im looking for folks who become public defenders, goto DA offices, US attorneys etc

[Rahviveh]

can someone explain to me what the public interest/government parts on the aba required disclosures, what sort of jobs those are?

note: im looking for folks who become public defenders, goto DA offices, US attorneys etc

This might help

http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/classs ... stats.aspx

I think its kind of cool Michigan does this breakdown and wish other schools followed suit

[20141023]

.

[jenesaislaw]

Here's an explanation of all ABA data terms: http://www.lstscorereports.com/guides/ABA-Data-Terms/

[20141023]

.

[jenesaislaw]

Yeah, this is because NALP considers those jobs public interest instead of government (http://www.nalp.org/uploads/ERSS/2014gr ... thFAQs.pdf) and have considered them such for years.

ETA: My understanding was that the ABA and NALP would resolve this by now. Just emailed ABA to see what's going on with that.

[20141023]

.

[jenesaislaw]

Well, I don't know if "wrong" is right. I'm fairly certain it was an active decision.

[Princetonlaw68]

What do you guys think of the notion that just the big law number alone would be a better way for a 0L, whose not from a family of politicans or anything, to figure out his/her chances of getting big law, rather than fed clerk + big law. I say this because although the Federal Clerkship is the hardest to get and most elite (and presumably almost anyone who could get it through merit could also have done big law), some people say these fed clerk positions are really just based on connections most of the time, and not qualifications. What do you think of this? (Big law, of course, can involve connections, but for the vast majority of cases, it is based on merit). (I'm also aware that it's probably not usually just family connections when you're talking about schools like HYS and maybe a few others. I'm more just referring to the rest of the schools.)

I could be completely wrong, but I've heard people I know who are lawyers say things along these lines about fed clerkships.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

[jbagelboy]

What do you guys think of the notion that just the big law number alone would be a better way for a 0L, whose not from a family of politicans or anything, to figure out his/her chances of getting big law, rather than fed clerk + big law. I say this because although the Federal Clerkship is the hardest to get and most elite (and presumably almost anyone who could get it through merit could also have done big law), some people say these fed clerk positions are really just based on connections most of the time, and not qualifications. What do you think of this? (Big law, of course, can involve connections, but for the vast majority of cases, it is based on merit). (I'm also aware that it's probably not usually just family connections when you're talking about schools like HYS and maybe a few others. I'm more just referring to the rest of the schools.)

I could be completely wrong, but I've heard people I know who are lawyers say things along these lines about fed clerkships.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

The connections for clerkships you're referring to are usually through your professors in law school and participation on law review, not nepotistic arrangements through family/ect. So no, I wouldn't credit this argument. And to your final suggestion, the people I know with serious connections in the judiciary (like parent is Art3 judge) attend top schools.

[lawschool22]

What do you guys think of the notion that just the big law number alone would be a better way for a 0L, whose not from a family of politicans or anything, to figure out his/her chances of getting big law, rather than fed clerk + big law. I say this because although the Federal Clerkship is the hardest to get and most elite (and presumably almost anyone who could get it through merit could also have done big law), some people say these fed clerk positions are really just based on connections most of the time, and not qualifications. What do you think of this? (Big law, of course, can involve connections, but for the vast majority of cases, it is based on merit). (I'm also aware that it's probably not usually just family connections when you're talking about schools like HYS and maybe a few others. I'm more just referring to the rest of the schools.)

I could be completely wrong, but I've heard people I know who are lawyers say things along these lines about fed clerkships.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

These are not based on the type of connections you're referring to. They really are based on grades, professor recommendations and relationships, writing ability, interviewing ability, and willingness to go anywhere geographically (someone correct me if I'm missing something). Someone with these characteristics typically could get biglaw if they wanted to, and so that is why we usually include it to get a general sense of "good" outcomes from a given school.

[Princetonlaw68]

What do you guys think of the notion that just the big law number alone would be a better way for a 0L, whose not from a family of politicans or anything, to figure out his/her chances of getting big law, rather than fed clerk + big law. I say this because although the Federal Clerkship is the hardest to get and most elite (and presumably almost anyone who could get it through merit could also have done big law), some people say these fed clerk positions are really just based on connections most of the time, and not qualifications. What do you think of this? (Big law, of course, can involve connections, but for the vast majority of cases, it is based on merit). (I'm also aware that it's probably not usually just family connections when you're talking about schools like HYS and maybe a few others. I'm more just referring to the rest of the schools.)

I could be completely wrong, but I've heard people I know who are lawyers say things along these lines about fed clerkships.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

The connections for clerkships you're referring to are usually through your professors in law school and participation on law review, not nepotistic arrangements through family/ect. So no, I wouldn't credit this argument.

Okay, no argument here. I have no idea. And you would also say that the professors only do this for top students (or at least top enough that they'd basically be guaranteed big law at their given school)?

[Tiago Splitter]

What do you guys think of the notion that just the big law number alone would be a better way for a 0L, whose not from a family of politicans or anything, to figure out his/her chances of getting big law, rather than fed clerk + big law. I say this because although the Federal Clerkship is the hardest to get and most elite (and presumably almost anyone who could get it through merit could also have done big law), some people say these fed clerk positions are really just based on connections most of the time, and not qualifications. What do you think of this? (Big law, of course, can involve connections, but for the vast majority of cases, it is based on merit). (I'm also aware that it's probably not usually just family connections when you're talking about schools like HYS and maybe a few others. I'm more just referring to the rest of the schools.)

I could be completely wrong, but I've heard people I know who are lawyers say things along these lines about fed clerkships.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

The connections for clerkships you're referring to are usually through your professors in law school and participation on law review, not nepotistic arrangements through family/ect. So no, I wouldn't credit this argument.

Okay, no argument here. I have no idea. And you would also say that the professors only do this for top students (or at least top enough they they'd basically be guaranteed big law at their given school)?

Well the positions are competitive and usually require strong grades. It's not like the profs refuse to make calls for people with bad grades, there just isn't much point.

[lawschool22]

What do you guys think of the notion that just the big law number alone would be a better way for a 0L, whose not from a family of politicans or anything, to figure out his/her chances of getting big law, rather than fed clerk + big law. I say this because although the Federal Clerkship is the hardest to get and most elite (and presumably almost anyone who could get it through merit could also have done big law), some people say these fed clerk positions are really just based on connections most of the time, and not qualifications. What do you think of this? (Big law, of course, can involve connections, but for the vast majority of cases, it is based on merit). (I'm also aware that it's probably not usually just family connections when you're talking about schools like HYS and maybe a few others. I'm more just referring to the rest of the schools.)

I could be completely wrong, but I've heard people I know who are lawyers say things along these lines about fed clerkships.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

The connections for clerkships you're referring to are usually through your professors in law school and participation on law review, not nepotistic arrangements through family/ect. So no, I wouldn't credit this argument.

Okay, no argument here. I have no idea. And you would also say that the professors only do this for top students (or at least top enough that they'd basically be guaranteed big law at their given school)?

Not necessarily. At many schools professors really want to see students who want clerkships succeed. If you have developed a good relationship with one or a few professors, they will bend over backwards to pull on their network and connections to get you an interview. But they will be realistic with you about your chances from a grades perspective.

[Princetonlaw68]

What do you guys think of the notion that just the big law number alone would be a better way for a 0L, whose not from a family of politicans or anything, to figure out his/her chances of getting big law, rather than fed clerk + big law. I say this because although the Federal Clerkship is the hardest to get and most elite (and presumably almost anyone who could get it through merit could also have done big law), some people say these fed clerk positions are really just based on connections most of the time, and not qualifications. What do you think of this? (Big law, of course, can involve connections, but for the vast majority of cases, it is based on merit). (I'm also aware that it's probably not usually just family connections when you're talking about schools like HYS and maybe a few others. I'm more just referring to the rest of the schools.)

I could be completely wrong, but I've heard people I know who are lawyers say things along these lines about fed clerkships.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

The connections for clerkships you're referring to are usually through your professors in law school and participation on law review, not nepotistic arrangements through family/ect. So no, I wouldn't credit this argument.

Okay, no argument here. I have no idea. And you would also say that the professors only do this for top students (or at least top enough they they'd basically be guaranteed big law at their given school)?

Well the positions are competitive and usually require strong grades. It's not like the profs refuse to make calls for people with bad grades, there just isn't much point.

Alright, fair enough. Makes sense. I guess fed clerk + big law is definitely a good way to look at chances of getting big law from a given school then. Thanks.

[Princetonlaw68]

What do you guys think of the notion that just the big law number alone would be a better way for a 0L, whose not from a family of politicans or anything, to figure out his/her chances of getting big law, rather than fed clerk + big law. I say this because although the Federal Clerkship is the hardest to get and most elite (and presumably almost anyone who could get it through merit could also have done big law), some people say these fed clerk positions are really just based on connections most of the time, and not qualifications. What do you think of this? (Big law, of course, can involve connections, but for the vast majority of cases, it is based on merit). (I'm also aware that it's probably not usually just family connections when you're talking about schools like HYS and maybe a few others. I'm more just referring to the rest of the schools.)

I could be completely wrong, but I've heard people I know who are lawyers say things along these lines about fed clerkships.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

The connections for clerkships you're referring to are usually through your professors in law school and participation on law review, not nepotistic arrangements through family/ect. So no, I wouldn't credit this argument.

Okay, no argument here. I have no idea. And you would also say that the professors only do this for top students (or at least top enough that they'd basically be guaranteed big law at their given school)?

Not necessarily. At many schools professors really want to see students who want clerkships succeed. If you have developed a good relationship with one or a few professors, they will bend over backwards to pull on their network and connections to get you an interview. But they will be realistic with you about your chances from a grades perspective.

Alright, well if you need grades that would almost certainly land you big law, then my argument is not valid.

[lawschool22]

Alright, well if you need grades that would almost certainly land you big law, then my argument is not valid.

Yeah, I think that's the overarching reason for why we lump them together.

[JCougar]

You need grades that are considerably above the Biglaw cutoff to nab a clerkship. Usually in the top 10% of your class at a T14. And more like top 5% from schools T15-30. I think at T10 or better schools, though, you can nab federal clerkships if you're below top 10% or so based on astonishingly good writing samples, etc.

[rayiner]

You need grades that are considerably above the Biglaw cutoff to nab a clerkship. Usually in the top 10% of your class at a T14. And more like top 5% from schools T15-30. I think at T10 or better schools, though, you can nab federal clerkships if you're below top 10% or so based on astonishingly good writing samples, etc.

The thing to remember is that top 15-20% at a T14 is competitive for NYC V10 firms. It's difficult to strike out in this range, because those firms need so many bodies that they'll call back tons of people and hire most of them. Some, like S&C, will give offers to almost anyone in the top 10%.

[Jchance]

tl;dr

Hastings' number is starting to look like American U's number... Looks like Hastings is expecting another huge drop in ranking next year.