Top schools hired by NLJ 250 firms in 2009!!! Forum

[Son of Cicero]

I think the biggest problem is that no-offers weren't made by school. So a few data points here and there could have skewed some of these numbers. A disproportionate number of CLS and Penn students could have gotten no-offered in relation to Michigan/UVA students. Also, note that for the class of '10 (the current 3L's), Chicago students got more screwed with no-offers than New York students and Philly went down even further (at least from what I've heard anecdotally), so the numbers might look very different next year. '09 was the first year of deferrals/no-offers but the data will likely become clearer next year (when we see the full scope of no-offers) and the year after.

This is a good point. Maybe the data can be explained not just by a "New York got fucked the hardest" theory, but by a "New York got fucked the earliest" theory. The havens for Virginia/Michigan/GULC students may have responded to the economic crisis more slowly (meaning that the schools that feed NYC more heavily looked worse off when this data was collected, but that other schools were hit even harder as time went on)

[AngryAvocado]

Well im guessing it is b/c Penn is so NY heavy (a few to DC and Philly) and Philly got crushed and so did NYC. While both UVA and Michigan are much more diversified in-terms of where graduates go. Michigan does spread through the Midwest and a substantial amount to Chicago, plus they still send more to DC then Penn does. The same with UVA, which feeds through the south and DC with NYC as the #1 destination but not by the large percentage it is for Penn graduates....still no excuse, Penn got owned

Yes, UVA and Michigan have more diverse geographic placement, but not so much more that it accounts for the difference, I don't think. I'll let someone who's better with statistics determine that for sure.

Not to mention DC and Chicago are much harder markets to get into GPA-wise, even ITE, because they are much smaller. The theory doesn't explain the marked contrast between Columbia and NYU, since both supposedly target NYC.

NYU went down by .1% more than Columbia. This is the only relevant comparison in a discussion about the relative impact of the economic downturn. And the notion of a single-market meltdown would account for the proportionate drop better than would any alternative I can think of.

Also GULC placed more into big law than Penn, even though GULC targets DC which is the hardest market to get.

This fact is also not inconsistent with the "New York got fucked the hardest" theory. The Class of 2009 was hired before the economic crisis, so the fact that DC has always been harder to get doesn't matter; a relatively large percentage of GULC students may well have ended up in D.C. in past years due to proximity, and this trend continued during Fall 2007 when the class of 2009 went through OCI. Maybe almost all of the GULC students who went to NYC got no offered last year., whereas the D.C. people who had more difficulty securing jobs during sunnier days were able to keep these jobs while their peers in NYC - like students at Penn, NYU, and CLS - got screwed.

I'm definitely subscribing to the "NYC got fucked the hardest" explanation, though I'm still unsure about why some schools (like Chicago) fared poorly relative to schools like Michigan and UVA despite not placing primarily into NYC.

As a tangent, I think this data probably does reflect ITE pretty well despite the fact that many of these people probably interviewed in fall of '08. I remember when I came out of college at about the same time with a nice corporate gig lined up, a lot of my friends who also had good offers lined up in finance and elsewhere had their offers revoked in the midst of the shitstorm that was breaking lose. Keep in mind, these were people who probably would have found great jobs elsewhere had they not already been hired, but were totally fucked when their offers were retracted. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar sort of "worst case scenario" happened for a lot of these associates.

[existenz]

Well, I'm glad I got admitted to Michigan despite silence from the rest of the T14. They are not a bad option at all considering these placement stats.

[fortissimo]

Well im guessing it is b/c Penn is so NY heavy (a few to DC and Philly) and Philly got crushed and so did NYC. While both UVA and Michigan are much more diversified in-terms of where graduates go. Michigan does spread through the Midwest and a substantial amount to Chicago, plus they still send more to DC then Penn does. The same with UVA, which feeds through the south and DC with NYC as the #1 destination but not by the large percentage it is for Penn graduates....still no excuse, Penn got owned

Yes, UVA and Michigan have more diverse geographic placement, but not so much more that it accounts for the difference, I don't think. I'll let someone who's better with statistics determine that for sure.

Not to mention DC and Chicago are much harder markets to get into GPA-wise, even ITE, because they are much smaller. The theory doesn't explain the marked contrast between Columbia and NYU, since both supposedly target NYC.

NYU went down by .1% more than Columbia. This is the only relevant comparison in a discussion about the relative impact of the economic downturn. And the notion of a single-market meltdown would account for the proportionate drop better than would any alternative I can think of.

Except Chicago was similarly screwed. (Hence Chicago's decline in big law placement, one that was comparable to Columbia's.) Since NYC and Chicago are Michigan's main two markets, and both contracted big time (the schools that typically solely feed into those markets got screwed), then why did Mich's big law placement stay relatively constant? There has to be another explanation...

[09042014]

Yes, UVA and Michigan have more diverse geographic placement, but not so much more that it accounts for the difference, I don't think. I'll let someone who's better with statistics determine that for sure.

Not to mention DC and Chicago are much harder markets to get into GPA-wise, even ITE, because they are much smaller. The theory doesn't explain the marked contrast between Columbia and NYU, since both supposedly target NYC.

NYU went down by .1% more than Columbia. This is the only relevant comparison in a discussion about the relative impact of the economic downturn. And the notion of a single-market meltdown would account for the proportionate drop better than would any alternative I can think of.

Except Chicago was similarly screwed. (Hence Chicago's decline in big law placement, one that was comparable to Columbia's.) Since Chicago and NYC are Michigan's main two markets, and both contracted big time, then why did Mich's big law placement stay relatively constant? There has to be another explanation...

UofChi's primary market is NYC. NU's whose biggest market is Chicago did well. It might be fair to say that Chicago's market held out pretty good for class of 09.

[Son of Cicero]

Yes, UVA and Michigan have more diverse geographic placement, but not so much more that it accounts for the difference, I don't think. I'll let someone who's better with statistics determine that for sure.

Not to mention DC and Chicago are much harder markets to get into GPA-wise, even ITE, because they are much smaller. The theory doesn't explain the marked contrast between Columbia and NYU, since both supposedly target NYC.

NYU went down by .1% more than Columbia. This is the only relevant comparison in a discussion about the relative impact of the economic downturn. And the notion of a single-market meltdown would account for the proportionate drop better than would any alternative I can think of.

Also GULC placed more into big law than Penn, even though GULC targets DC which is the hardest market to get.

This fact is also not inconsistent with the "New York got fucked the hardest" theory. The Class of 2009 was hired before the economic crisis, so the fact that DC has always been harder to get doesn't matter; a relatively large percentage of GULC students may well have ended up in D.C. in past years due to proximity, and this trend continued during Fall 2007 when the class of 2009 went through OCI. Maybe almost all of the GULC students who went to NYC got no offered last year, whereas the D.C. people who had more difficulty securing jobs during sunnier days were able to keep these jobs while their peers in NYC - like students at Penn, NYU, and CLS - got screwed.

I'm definitely subscribing to the "NYC got fucked the hardest" explanation, though I'm still unsure about why some schools (like Chicago) fared poorly relative to schools like Michigan and UVA despite not placing primarily into NYC.

Yeah, this is why I think "earliest" might need to replace "hardest." And it's more of a general theory for how the fallout progressed. NYC was highly responsive, and Chicago was pretty quick to adjust as well. Firms in the major markets are more aware of storms on the horizon (1) because the nature of their work forces them to be forward-looking, and (2) because they are often involved in grand scale affairs where the players are subject to constant health-monitoring by the media, shareholders, etc., whereas in smaller markets the firms devote fewer resources to the task of figuring out the "personal," practical significance of events on the world stage (because these events affect them less directly and more slowly), with the consequence being that a shift in firms' strategies might not come until later, when the money has started to dry up. So schools that overwhelmingly feed certain major markets were super screwed early on, whereas schools that send a higher percentage of their graduates into disparate regions looked better at a certain point (perhaps when this data was released), but it's unclear how badly they ultimately fared.

[erniesto]

NYC's demise can't fully explain the drop of CCN + Penn + Cornell when Michigan and Virginia took such tiny hits.

Are there are other factors on the table?

BTW, does anyone have these numbers for the entire top 50 from last year? I want to see whether Cardozo is up, because I suspect they might be. My classmates and I visited last spring, and the numbers they gave us didn't look that rosy, after we accounted for response percentages. I had a frank conversation with a top 5% BLS student (class of 2009), and things didn't sound as good there.

What do you guys think? I'm frankly surprised, and happy for them if they are up, though they need to stop with the scholarship yanking. They have more money than we do (yes, really), and can afford to avoid playing games like this.

Either way, its interesting to see that Cardozo is placing almost 20% in the NJL250. The impression I've been getting is that only the top 15% got "decent" jobs and were really on the bubble of being tier 2. Assuming this data is factual, this works against that info. I guess Cardozo and Brooklyn really weren't peer schools this past year.

[keg411]

Ten percent differences in placement aren't that significant in the long run. Worry more about studying smart.

I'm interested in this stuff mostly from a trends/stats POV. Also, I've been following this for a while since my sister is a 3L at DCNG and went through OCI in '08, so I was always kind of watching the OCI/NJL250/BigLaw hiring structure play out with the financial crisis even before I decided apply to law school. It's pretty fascinating. (And I'm pretty much an outside observer because unless I hit a 171+ yesterday, I'm not going anywhere that is getting me BigLaw)

I'm also curious about how much this will affect people's decisions on schools. Will this information be taken further into account (hence all the sudden interest for those who are UNC vs. Wake, Loyola-Chicago showing up at the bottom and IU-B being well below the other midwestern T20-30ish schools). Or will it all be a non-factor when USNWR comes out again in March/April/whenever.

[RVP11]

As a tangent, I think this data probably does reflect ITE pretty well despite the fact that many of these people probably interviewed in fall of '08.

I think you're wrong. The class of 2011 is the low point. I think you'll see most of the T14 under 50%, GULC under 40%, BU/BC/ND/GW/WUSTL under 20%, a lot of other T30 under 10%, etc.

There may be a decent chance that these 2009 numbers will be similar to those for 2012, though. But I wouldn't count on it, especially the lower down the totem pole you go.

[rayiner]

Well im guessing it is b/c Penn is so NY heavy (a few to DC and Philly) and Philly got crushed and so did NYC. While both UVA and Michigan are much more diversified in-terms of where graduates go. Michigan does spread through the Midwest and a substantial amount to Chicago, plus they still send more to DC then Penn does. The same with UVA, which feeds through the south and DC with NYC as the #1 destination but not by the large percentage it is for Penn graduates....still no excuse, Penn got owned

Yes, UVA and Michigan have more diverse geographic placement, but not so much more that it accounts for the difference, I don't think. I'll let someone who's better with statistics determine that for sure.

Not to mention DC and Chicago are much harder markets to get into GPA-wise, even ITE, because they are much smaller. The theory doesn't explain the marked contrast between Columbia and NYU, since both supposedly target NYC. Also GULC placed more into big law than Penn, even though GULC targets DC which is the hardest market to get.

Remember that the hits evidenced in the data didn't happen at OCI. These people did OCI in 2007, when the market was booming. The hits came in late 2008 when firms chose not to give out offers to 2L SAs because they were laying off tons of attorneys.

That's an important distinction because of the geographic distribution of the layoffs. NYC laid off at about twice the rate of it's representation in the NLJ250, Chicago was a bit over it's representation, and DC laid-off almost no one.

I'm definitely subscribing to the "NYC got fucked the hardest" explanation, though I'm still unsure about why some schools (like Chicago) fared poorly relative to schools like Michigan and UVA despite not placing primarily into NYC.

U of Chicago places more into NYC than Chicago. And while Chicago did get hit too, as I said before, Chicago firms laid off a lot fewer NLJ250 lawyers per capita than did NYC firms.

[fortissimo]

U of Chicago places more into NYC than Chicago. And while Chicago did get hit too, as I said before, Chicago firms laid off a lot fewer NLJ250 lawyers per capita than did NYC firms.

What percentage does UChicago place into NYC? Because Michigan places almost twice as many into NYC than Chicago...yet its big plaw placement remained relatively the same while Chicago's declined. (Ideas?)

[insidethetwenty]

I'm proud of Vandy. Just sayin'

[spritecan]

Where do Penn students work since they are pushed out of NYC and Philadelphia?

[redginseng]

Where do Penn students work since they are pushed out of NYC and Philadelphia?

Don't know.

But what's interesting is that Nova and Temple's biglaw placement didn't experience any change from 2005 level.

[spritecan]

can someone post a screenshot of the chart? i'm at work right now and for some reason, none of the charts are popping up.

gracias

--ImageRemoved--
--ImageRemoved--

Vandy's placement is pretty surprising.

[bigben]

...

[09042014]

Is this generally expected to be the low point? Is this the final result of the bleeding, or could next year be even worse?

It's more like the new norm. Won't get worse, but won't get much better in the foreseeable future.

I bet 2011 will be worse. Nowhere near 25% of UIUC or ND students got 2l SAs at NLJ250 firms.

These numbers posted include people who aren't actually working, but are being differed.

[bigben]

Is this generally expected to be the low point? Is this the final result of the bleeding, or could next year be even worse?

It's more like the new norm. Won't get worse, but won't get much better in the foreseeable future.

I bet 2011 will be worse. Nowhere near 25% of UIUC or ND students got 2l SAs at NLJ250 firms.

These numbers posted include people who aren't actually working, but are being differed.

Oops, nevermind. c/0 2009? Yeah, it will be much worse.

[Stringer Bell]

Except Chicago was similarly screwed. (Hence Chicago's decline in big law placement, one that was comparable to Columbia's.) Since NYC and Chicago are Michigan's main two markets, and both contracted big time (the schools that typically solely feed into those markets got screwed), then why did Mich's big law placement stay relatively constant? There has to be another explanation...

This is a very good point.

[09042014]

Is this generally expected to be the low point? Is this the final result of the bleeding, or could next year be even worse?

It's more like the new norm. Won't get worse, but won't get much better in the foreseeable future.

I bet 2011 will be worse. Nowhere near 25% of UIUC or ND students got 2l SAs at NLJ250 firms.

These numbers posted include people who aren't actually working, but are being differed.

Oops, nevermind. c/0 2009? Yeah, it will be much worse.

We need to remember these guys OCI'd in 2007 at the peak of the boom. A lot of them did get no offered, but even more of class of 10 got no offered. Class of 11 just never got the SA jobs in the first place.

[bigben]

For this chart to be even remotely meaningful you need the sum of clerkships + firm hiring.

The conclusion that Harvard and Yale got 'beat out' by Northwestern is ridiculous.

Same thing for beesknees, you need that clerkship info as well before you make that claim for Vandy. This data is also not 'ITE' data as disco pointed out.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

Nice.

[OperaSoprano]

NYC's demise can't fully explain the drop of CCN + Penn + Cornell when Michigan and Virginia took such tiny hits.

Are there are other factors on the table?

BTW, does anyone have these numbers for the entire top 50 from last year? I want to see whether Cardozo is up, because I suspect they might be. My classmates and I visited last spring, and the numbers they gave us didn't look that rosy, after we accounted for response percentages. I had a frank conversation with a top 5% BLS student (class of 2009), and things didn't sound as good there.

What do you guys think? I'm frankly surprised, and happy for them if they are up, though they need to stop with the scholarship yanking. They have more money than we do (yes, really), and can afford to avoid playing games like this.

Either way, its interesting to see that Cardozo is placing almost 20% in the NJL250. The impression I've been getting is that only the top 15% got "decent" jobs and were really on the bubble of being tier 2. Assuming this data is factual, this works against that info. I guess Cardozo and Brooklyn really weren't peer schools this past year.

I can't find comparable information from 2008, either. The most recent non self-reported Cardozo data I have is the NLJ 2005 hiring graph, which looks to be about 12%. Cardozo is a newer school with tons of money, and YU has some prominent alumni, I believe. I'm thinking this is good for them, but I'm also wondering how they bucked the trend, and why BLS failed to do so, given their similar placement in 2005. (BLS is a much older, more established law school, though I'm quite certain Cardozo is wealthier.)

Also, I wish to congratulate Observationalist publicly. His trolling worked.

[bigben]

We need to remember these guys OCI'd in 2007 at the peak of the boom. A lot of them did get no offered, but even more of class of 10 got no offered. Class of 11 just never got the SA jobs in the first place.

Definitely. '10 will be much worse, and '11 worse yet.

From there, '11 will be the new norm with only a slight uptick and then leveling off. There is certainly no indication of a return to the boom levels. Just a new and different era of sorts.

[09042014]

We need to remember these guys OCI'd in 2007 at the peak of the boom. A lot of them did get no offered, but even more of class of 10 got no offered. Class of 11 just never got the SA jobs in the first place.

Definitely. '10 will be much worse, and '11 worse yet.

From there, '11 will be the new norm with only a slight uptick and then leveling off. There is certainly no indication of a return to the boom levels. Just a new and different era of sorts.

I think some schools will be doing better than others. No offers hit schools indiscriminately, but schools like WUSTL, UIUC and ND will get hammered in the 2011 data. Firms stuck with t14's when shit got bad.

[bigben]

We need to remember these guys OCI'd in 2007 at the peak of the boom. A lot of them did get no offered, but even more of class of 10 got no offered. Class of 11 just never got the SA jobs in the first place.

Definitely. '10 will be much worse, and '11 worse yet.

From there, '11 will be the new norm with only a slight uptick and then leveling off. There is certainly no indication of a return to the boom levels. Just a new and different era of sorts.

I think some schools will be doing better than others. No offers hit schools indiscriminately, but schools like WUSTL, UIUC and ND will get hammered in the 2011 data. Firms stuck with t14's when shit got bad.

The impact was disproportionate, but T14s were far from being spared the carnage.