Class of 2012 Employment Statistics (new LST Score Reports) Forum

[RELIC]

Interesting to see Mich with such a high public servie score at %16. (compared to a schools like Penn with 5.2% or Duke with 9.3%)

You have to imagine a good deal of those folks could have gotten big-law.

Perhaps this helps validate some of the thought that self selection has played into their lower placement numbers?

The bolded is not necessarily true.

[WhatOurBodiesAreFor]

Interesting to see Mich with such a high public servie score at %16. (compared to a schools like Penn with 5.2% or Duke with 9.3%)

You have to imagine a good deal of those folks could have gotten big-law.

Perhaps this helps validate some of the thought that self selection has played into their lower placement numbers?

The bolded is not necessarily true.

a great deal (50+% of them) is not necessarily true. a good deal (say, 20-40%) is a pretty solid assumption. You at least have to admit Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if there weren't, comparatively, so many more people set on PI.

Remember if we went on Biglaw numbers alone, Yale would be like 10 and Penn would be 1.

[RELIC]

Interesting to see Mich with such a high public servie score at %16. (compared to a schools like Penn with 5.2% or Duke with 9.3%)

You have to imagine a good deal of those folks could have gotten big-law.

Perhaps this helps validate some of the thought that self selection has played into their lower placement numbers?

The bolded is not necessarily true.

a great deal (50+% of them) is not necessarily true. a good deal (say, 20-40%) is a pretty solid assumption. You at least have to admit Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if there weren't, comparatively, so many more people set on PI.

Remember if we went on Biglaw numbers alone, Yale would be like 10 and Penn would be 1.

No I don't have to admit that because it is not true. Michigan has shitty job placement because they have no home market. They have had shitty placement for the last couple years so it is not just a one year blip.

Also, did you look at that list of employers that their recent grads went to that they published last year? It was a joke. Some of these PI graduates were going to organizations that weren't even in the legal field or organizations that had less than 5 people working there.

Bottom Line: the job prospect for Michigan grads are much worse than its T10 peers.

[SportsFan]

Interesting to see Mich with such a high public servie score at %16. (compared to a schools like Penn with 5.2% or Duke with 9.3%)

You have to imagine a good deal of those folks could have gotten big-law.

Perhaps this helps validate some of the thought that self selection has played into their lower placement numbers?

The bolded is not necessarily true.

a great deal (50+% of them) is not necessarily true. a good deal (say, 20-40%) is a pretty solid assumption. You at least have to admit Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if there weren't, comparatively, so many more people set on PI.

Remember if we went on Biglaw numbers alone, Yale would be like 10 and Penn would be 1.

No I don't have to admit that because it is not true. Michigan has shitty job placement because they have no home market. They have had shitty placement for the last couple years so it is not just a one year blip.

Also, did you look at that list of employers that their recent grads went to that they published last year? It was a joke. Some of these PI graduates were going to organizations that weren't even in the legal field or organizations that had less than 5 people working there.

Bottom Line: the job prospect for Michigan grads are much worse than its T10 peers.

Someone should post the graph of T14 placement into biglaw from 2008-2011 (I don't think it was ever updated with class of 2012 data).

[megagnarley]

Interesting to see Mich with such a high public servie score at %16. (compared to a schools like Penn with 5.2% or Duke with 9.3%)

You have to imagine a good deal of those folks could have gotten big-law.

Perhaps this helps validate some of the thought that self selection has played into their lower placement numbers?

The bolded is not necessarily true.

a great deal (50+% of them) is not necessarily true. a good deal (say, 20-40%) is a pretty solid assumption. You at least have to admit Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if there weren't, comparatively, so many more people set on PI.

Remember if we went on Biglaw numbers alone, Yale would be like 10 and Penn would be 1.

No I don't have to admit that because it is not true. Michigan has shitty job placement because they have no home market. They have had shitty placement for the last couple years so it is not just a one year blip.

Also, did you look at that list of employers that their recent grads went to that they published last year? It was a joke. Some of these PI graduates were going to organizations that weren't even in the legal field or organizations that had less than 5 people working there.

Bottom Line: the job prospect for Michigan grads are much worse than its T10 peers.

It may not be true, but then again, what you say does nothing to invalidate it.

The fact that a number of people in PI went to smaller orgs does not discredit the fact that out of the 60 or so people that went into PI, a good deal of them went into competitive PI work, and further does nothing to invalidate the fact that this contingent is inarguable larger, percentage wise, than other schools with lower public service numbers as their ranks are peppered with a similar mixed bag of PI employment outcomes.

Also, this "No home market" idea is a fallacy. Is Duke's home market Durham? No. Not even DC. NYC is the biggest target.

Mich has been placing lower. There is no arguing this. But I think to brush off the enormous public service number that readily is brash. And to reduce it to something as simple as no home market is oversimplifying, though the fact that it is more complex arguably makes Michigan an even more frightening place to attend.

But then again thats just like, my opinion, man.

edit: spellz

[WhatOurBodiesAreFor]

Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if they had the same percentage of people as Duke/Cornell/Penn/NU shooting for these positons. Period.

[Ruxin1]

Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if they had the same percentage of people as Duke/Cornell/Penn/NU shooting for these positons. Period.

Other than your ass where was this pulled from?

[moonman157]

I do think that it's interesting that the non-HYS T14 schools that are outperformed by their "peers" in terms of biglaw numbers are the schools with the greatest emphasis on PI: NYU, Michigan, and GULC.

[RELIC]

Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if they had the same percentage of people as Duke/Cornell/Penn/NU shooting for these positons. Period.

Nope. They likely have the exact same percentage shooting for those jobs but ITE the firms are not hiring like they used to from Michigan. People that strike out go into all kind of different jobs but some of them go into PI work. Not desirable PI work (which can be as hard to come by as Big Law) but crappy direct service type jobs that the school can count as public interest.

[WhatOurBodiesAreFor]

It's common sense. If 10% more Michigan grads than Duke self-select to PI, a good 20-40% of those people would give Biglaw if they wanted it. Do you seriously think Michigan grads, as a whole, are as keen to do Biglaw/clerkships as Duke grads? They aren't.

No doubt Michigan is lagging behind its peers. But Michigan is known for PI and people go there knowing there is no home market. It's totally futile to read a whole lot into their inferior Biglaw/clerkship numbers.

Maybe I'm missing something, but none of you have told me what yet. And you guys are usually pretty good at this.

[Tiago Splitter]

Michigan's PI/GOV employment has increased substantially in the last few years. Interpret from that what you will.

[sinfiery]

I could never find that data, link!?

Only Clerk+NLJ for anything not on LST

[megagnarley]

Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if they had the same percentage of people as Duke/Cornell/Penn/NU shooting for these positons. Period.

Nope. They likely have the exact same percentage shooting for those jobs but ITE the firms are not hiring like they used to from Michigan. People that strike out go into all kind of different jobs but some of them go into PI work. Not desirable PI work (which can be as hard to come by as Big Law) but crappy direct service type jobs that the school can count as public interest.

Citation?

edit: damn bold feature

[megagnarley]

I could never find that data, link!?

Only Clerk+NLJ for anything not on LST

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=michigan

See: public service score

[sinfiery]

I see. Biggest change is in the government category, not really "PI" designated jobs. Are those jobs including bad outcomes? I'm not sure.

(Although the PI score takes into account Govt and PI)


Also an increase in the business category along with government dictate the only real significant change in 09 to 12 data give or take a hit in fed clerkships rate for Mich.


ETAA: In fact, a school like CLS had a very substantial change from 09 to 12 on both the PI and government (and business) categories whereas Mich and NYU only had changes in the government/business category. Kind of leads one to assume there was a change of heart more from CLS than NYU/Mich.


ETAAA: You see Penn has almost no firm jobs under 100 people whereas UVA has them to a significant amount almost every year it has been reported. Is this by choice?




All in all, we need data from the boom (06/7) to dictate how much is self selection and how much isn't. And we don't have it. So we assume there is zero self selection. Which is purely in favor of schools that wouldn't be thought to have a PI/Local small firm preference (40% of UVA students come from VA, could explain the small firm #, could not..)/business/govt/academia/etc.



But one thing seems to be clear, it was the government category that inflated as you go from 09-->12 but not PI even though LST PI includes PI and Government, kind of giving you a false sense of what the category that changed was.

[Betharl]

Michigan's Biglaw/clerkship number would be a few points higher if they had the same percentage of people as Duke/Cornell/Penn/NU shooting for these positons. Period.

Nope. They likely have the exact same percentage shooting for those jobs but ITE the firms are not hiring like they used to from Michigan. People that strike out go into all kind of different jobs but some of them go into PI work. Not desirable PI work (which can be as hard to come by as Big Law) but crappy direct service type jobs that the school can count as public interest.

I mean, we can't know for sure, but it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that 100% of the additional people (in % terms) Michigan placed into PI when compared to Penn did so because they could't get Big Law or something better. Michigan very well may place worse than its "peers," and in fact I would argue that it does, but I think "PI bias" is a real thing at some schools, Michigan included. The support for these students as well as the recruiting efforts aren't the same across all schools, so certain school definetely end up with a higher % of students interested in PI/Gov from the start. The real argument is in judging the extent of this bias, and I think a couple points is reasonable. FWIW, I'm going to a t14 with historically low PI placement.

[NoodleyOne]

ETAAA: You see Penn has almost no firm jobs under 100 people whereas UVA has them to a significant amount almost every year it has been reported. Is this by choice?




All in all, we need data from the boom (06/7) to dictate how much is self selection and how much isn't. And we don't have it. So we assume there is zero self selection. Which is purely in favor of schools that wouldn't be thought to have a PI/Local small firm preference (40% of UVA students come from VA, could explain the small firm #, could not..)/business/govt/academia/etc.

UVA likely places a good number both in the state and elsewhere in the south, while Penn is pretty much an NYC feeder, so that could explain that. In my limited experience, it does seem that there is a significant percentage of PI focused people from the ones I met at ASW, but it's hard to tell for sure. I just find it hard to believe that Penn has that much more clout than any other school... I would guess self-selection plays a big role across the board.

[SportsFan]

I see. Biggest change is in the government category, not really "PI" designated jobs. Are those jobs including bad outcomes? I'm not sure.

(Although the PI score takes into account Govt and PI)


Also an increase in the business category along with government dictate the only real significant change in 09 to 12 data give or take a hit in fed clerkships rate for Mich.


ETAA: In fact, a school like CLS had a very substantial change from 09 to 12 on both the PI and government (and business) categories whereas Mich and NYU only had changes in the government/business category. Kind of leads one to assume there was a change of heart more from CLS than NYU/Mich.


ETAAA: You see Penn has almost no firm jobs under 100 people whereas UVA has them to a significant amount almost every year it has been reported. Is this by choice?




All in all, we need data from the boom (06/7) to dictate how much is self selection and how much isn't. And we don't have it. So we assume there is zero self selection. Which is purely in favor of schools that wouldn't be thought to have a PI/Local small firm preference (40% of UVA students come from VA, could explain the small firm #, could not..)/business/govt/academia/etc.



But one thing seems to be clear, it was the government category that inflated as you go from 09-->12 but not PI even though LST PI includes PI and Government, kind of giving you a false sense of what the category that changed was.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... h#p4262534

Has links to the NLJ250 numbers from 05, 07, 08, 09, and 2010. Maybe someone can find full employment breakdowns from those years.

[rad lulz]

Has links to the NLJ250 numbers from 05, 07, 08, 09, and 2010. Maybe someone can find full employment breakdowns from those years.

In those years, NLJ250 was basically the only consistent and non-shitty data we had available

[lhanvt13]

Has links to the NLJ250 numbers from 05, 07, 08, 09, and 2010. Maybe someone can find full employment breakdowns from those years.

In those years, NLJ250 was basically the only consistent and non-shitty data we had available

I wonder when the next time they publish it is..

[jenesaislaw]

Has links to the NLJ250 numbers from 05, 07, 08, 09, and 2010. Maybe someone can find full employment breakdowns from those years.

In those years, NLJ250 was basically the only consistent and non-shitty data we had available

I wonder when the next time they publish it is..

Q1 2014 for the class of 2013.

[lhanvt13]

Has links to the NLJ250 numbers from 05, 07, 08, 09, and 2010. Maybe someone can find full employment breakdowns from those years.

In those years, NLJ250 was basically the only consistent and non-shitty data we had available

I wonder when the next time they publish it is..

Q1 2014 for the class of 2013.

thx

[cahwc12]

Has anyone else noticed that the unemployment rate for law school graduates (9.2%) is actually higher than the national average (7.7%)?

[RELIC]

Has anyone else noticed that the unemployment rate for law school graduates (9.2%) is actually higher than the national average (7.7%)?

I think it is 10.6% for 2012 grads but I also think that the national average is calculated very differently.

[Nickg415]

Has anyone else noticed that the unemployment rate for law school graduates (9.2%) is actually higher than the national average (7.7%)?

I think it is 10.6% for 2012 grads but I also think that the national average is calculated very differently.

This is very true. the method for calculating the national unemployment rate is much more forgiving in that it excludes people who are not actively looking for employment. Much of the improvement in the national employment rate hasn't necessarily been due to an increase rate of new job creation but a decrease in the work force due to people not actively looking for jobs.

Edit: It looks like the ABA uses the same type of calculation (unemp/seeking), as long as they define the workforce the same the calculations should be comparable.