Detailed C/O 2011 Employment Data (T25) Forum

[whitman]

Duke:

.619 (firms in general) x .763 (firms size 101+) = .47 + .1276 (federal clerkships) = 59.76%

So big law was up 2%, clerkships basically the same, overall up ~ 2% - 3%

[rayiner]

Duke:

.619 (firms in general) x .763 (firms size 101+) = .47 + .1276 (federal clerkships) = 59.76%

So big law was up 2%, clerkships basically the same, overall up ~ 2% - 3%

Gotta adjust for % employed versus % of whole class. Drops it down a couple of %. The net was a drop of 1%.

[rayiner]

Wow Chicago got destroyed.

.576 (firms in general) * .777 (firms size 101+) = .448 + .094 (fed clerkships) = 54.2%

That's a drop of 15.2% in biglaw and 2.6% in clerkships

What's even more interesting is that the # of law school-funded jobs went up from 2 to 25. That's 12% of the class.

[Bronck]

Wow Chicago got destroyed.

.576 (firms in general) * .777 (firms size 101+) = .448 + .094 (fed clerkships) = 54.2%

That's a drop of 15.2% in biglaw and 2.6% in clerkships

What's even more interesting is that the # of law school-funded jobs went up from 2 to 25. That's 12% of the class.

Hadn't even looked at that section of the page. I think the data points, more-or-less, to one conclusion: the strength of the NY market relative to other markets OCI 2009.

[rayiner]

Wow Chicago got destroyed.

.576 (firms in general) * .777 (firms size 101+) = .448 + .094 (fed clerkships) = 54.2%

That's a drop of 15.2% in biglaw and 2.6% in clerkships

What's even more interesting is that the # of law school-funded jobs went up from 2 to 25. That's 12% of the class.

Hadn't even looked at that section of the page. I think the data points, more-or-less, to one conclusion: the strength of the NY market relative to other markets OCI 2009.

I think the unemployment or under-employment data is more telling than the employment data: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0#p5548584. It factors out the PI versus big law self-selection argument to a great degree.

[Tiago Splitter]

I think the unemployment or under-employment data is more telling than the employment data: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0#p5548584. It factors out the PI versus big law self-selection argument to a great degree.

PI tripled at Chicago. Damn.

EDIT: And up 30X from c/o 2008

[ahnhub]

Anyone else find it strange that, in the midst of all these attempts at more "transparency," schools are still being elliptical about law-school funded jobs? Okay I will let you get away with listing a school-funded grad as "employed," but then to go to the trouble of listing full-time/part-time and permanent/short-term employment and classifying those grads as in "full-time, bar-required, permanent" jobs seems like you're missing the point of all this.

[KevinP]

PI tripled at Chicago. Damn.

EDIT: And up 30X from c/o 2008

Wow. UChicago was hit pretty damn hard. I wonder why NYU is still delaying their employment stats.

[KevinP]

Anyone else find it strange that, in the midst of all these attempts at more "transparency," schools are still being elliptical about law-school funded jobs? Okay I will let you get away with listing a school-funded grad as "employed," but then to go to the trouble of listing full-time/part-time and permanent/short-term employment and classifying those grads as in "full-time, bar-required, permanent" jobs seems like you're missing the point of all this.

+1 "to the missing the point of this". I did hear rumors that US News will no longer count law-school funded jobs as part of the employment stats in the rankings. I wonder what effect, if the change is implemented, this would have on law-school funded jobs.

[zozin]

Anyone else find it strange that, in the midst of all these attempts at more "transparency," schools are still being elliptical about law-school funded jobs? Okay I will let you get away with listing a school-funded grad as "employed," but then to go to the trouble of listing full-time/part-time and permanent/short-term employment and classifying those grads as in "full-time, bar-required, permanent" jobs seems like you're missing the point of all this.

Strange? Bare minimum dude.

[skers]

It's a guess (and hope) that the Chicago data is a reflection of no offers.

[soj]

Why did % employed in NY fall so much for Chicago c/o 2011? Here I'm talking about % placement in a region and not overall placement power. I thought NY was the least bad during the recession, so I was surprised to see 18.8-25.1% of c/o 2008-10 ended up in NY but only 12.3% of c/o 2011 did, a difference that seems too big to be explained by random variation.

My guesses are:
1. Students self-selected out of NY more than usual, probably to their detriment (i.e. pulled a Michigan).
2. NY employers were more likely to no-offer SAs.
3. Last resort jobs for students who struck out or were no-offered (e.g. law school-funded positions) were mostly outside NY.

At first I thought the quarter system might have something to do with it (NY employers didn't know how to deal with an unprecedented cut in SA class sizes and didn't leave enough spots for Chicago students), but I would think if anything NY employers would be better prepared to deal with unpredictable class size cuts than employers in smaller markets.

#2 seems pretty plausible, but while some schools saw this shift (UVA, Columbia), others didn't (Stanford, Northwestern). I'd love to see Michigan's employment location statistics, but Michigan lists employers and not employer locations, so I can't tell.

[keg411]

#2 is definitely not true. The NYC no-offers hit the c/o 2008, not the c/o 2011. No offers primarily hurt the class of 2009 (NYC) and the class of 2010 (outside NYC).

However, there were NYC firms with very large classes that cut summer class size for the c/o 2008 (summer 2009) and that probably hurt Chicago since those firms still wanted to fill students from their traditional schools and Chicago. Though I also wouldn't be shocked if the "tell people to bid Chicago" mistake that Michigan made also had an effect on the numbers (with a dash of self-selection).

[rayiner]

It's a guess (and hope) that the Chicago data is a reflection of no offers.

It does include no-offers, but C/O 2011 saw nearly 100% offer rates across the board. After the bad press of no-offering, rescinding so many C/O 2010 folks, and because the C/O 2011 summer class was so small to begin with, firms had very high offer rates.

[jim-green]

Anyway to find academic placement for T14 on 1 page in TLS, or do I have to go to each school's website?

[banjo]

Anyway to find academic placement for T14 on 1 page in TLS, or do I have to go to each school's website?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1#p4188514

Also http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblaw ... -rate.html

[rayiner]

NYU claims the NLJ 250 statistics do not accurately reflect their actual placement. http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/REBUTTAL. It's interesting to compare the "100+ attorney firm" category at various schools with the NLJ 250 placement. Note NYU has yet to release their own C/O 2011 data.

School: 100+ firm placement (NLJ 250 placement)
Columbia: 61% (52%)
NYU: ?? (40%) (NYU claims that another 12.5% were unreported)
Chicago: 45% (45%)
Penn: 58% (57%)
Berkeley: 42% (46%)
Michigan: 34% (32%)
Virginia: 37% (40%)
Duke: 45% (41%)
Northwestern: 53% (52%)
Cornell: 39% (38%)
Georgetown: 34% (38%)
Vandy: 31% (22%)
Texas: 24% (21%)
USC: 35% (33%)

The smallest NLJ 250 firm is 160 attorneys. So for most schools, the 100+ attorney firm figure will be larger than the NLJ 250 firm number. If underreporting by the NLJ's sources is an issue, that might also cause the 100+ attorney firm figure to be larger than the NLJ 250 figure. It's hard to explain situations, like berkeley, where the NLJ 250 number is bigger--it might be a matter of timing.

Most schools seem pretty close, which is good news considering that the data comes from two different sources. The only schools with a big discrepancy (> 5%) are Vandy and Columbia. Vandy might be explained by placement into southern firms that don't meet the NLJ 250 cut-off. Maybe Columbia can be explained by underreporting on the NLJ.

[jim-green]

Is the the "200+ attorney firm" category at schools closer to the NLJ250 figure?

[Bronck]

Is the the "200+ attorney firm" category at schools closer to the NLJ250 figure?

There is no such category. So no.

[jim-green]

Is the the "200+ attorney firm" category at schools closer to the NLJ250 figure?

There is no such category. So no.

Oops, sorry, you are right, it is 250. I was actually using the 250+ number in comparisons myself earlier thinking it meant something related to NLJ250. I stand corrected.

[AlanShore]

BU 2011 employment statistics are out-- http://www.bu.edu/law/prospective/caree ... s2011.html
19.8% of the class in 101+ firms.. eek.

(sorry if I'm super late.. I didn't think I saw them on this thread yet)

Any thoughts on why USC fared so much better in these 2011 employment stats vs BU (and I'm assuming BC)?

[thelawyler]

BU 2011 employment statistics are out-- http://www.bu.edu/law/prospective/caree ... s2011.html
19.8% of the class in 101+ firms.. eek.

(sorry if I'm super late.. I didn't think I saw them on this thread yet)

Any thoughts on why USC fared so much better in these 2011 employment stats vs BU (and I'm assuming BC)?

Because it's generally considered a better school? It really isn't something that's anomalous to this year.

[JusticeHarlan]

BU 2011 employment statistics are out-- http://www.bu.edu/law/prospective/caree ... s2011.html
19.8% of the class in 101+ firms.. eek.

(sorry if I'm super late.. I didn't think I saw them on this thread yet)

Any thoughts on why USC fared so much better in these 2011 employment stats vs BU (and I'm assuming BC)?

Those are really well detailed stats: list of employers, very clear about law school funded positions, reporting numbers for salaries, etc. Kudos to BU.

[AlanShore]

BU 2011 employment statistics are out-- http://www.bu.edu/law/prospective/caree ... s2011.html
19.8% of the class in 101+ firms.. eek.

(sorry if I'm super late.. I didn't think I saw them on this thread yet)

Any thoughts on why USC fared so much better in these 2011 employment stats vs BU (and I'm assuming BC)?

Because it's generally considered a better school? It really isn't something that's anomalous to this year.

ah okay, thanks for the info. For some reason, I thought they were more similar with respect to employment prospects.

[AlanShore]

Fordham Class of 2011 at 9 mos

http://law.fordham.edu/assets/CareerPla ... t_9mos.pdf