Top Placing Classes (NLJ250 and Federal Clerkships) Forum

[Dignan]

Date used:

Clerkships
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=75513

Firms
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

We may be adding figures from different years here. I think the clerkship data is for the class of 2008, while the hiring data is for the class of 2009. The clerkship thread is quoting figures from the April 2009 USNWR rankings, which I believe are based on 2008 graduates.

I've heard that a couple of schools--Harvard and Columbia--increased their clerkship placement significantly with the class of 2009, which was no doubt partly due to the lousy big law market. It's probably misleading to combine the 2009 firm figures with the 2008 clerkship figures.

According to snotrocket, the data was last updated in June 2009 -- which, I believe, is after the Class of 2009 clerks started working, and well after they were hired.

I think you are misreading snotrocket's post. The "EDIT: 6/14/09" line pertained to an edit that snotrocket made to his own post; it wasn't reflecting the date that UNSWR updated its data. Actually, all the data seems to be from UNSWR April 2009 rankings. At one point in the post, the clerkship data is discussed in the context of the 9-month employment graduation rate, which we know can't possibly be about people who graduated in May or June of 2009.

[showNprove]

.

[OperaSoprano]

Anything for you, OS.

<3

Can you fix the economy in New York, please?

[rayiner]

SYH, MVC, NCDN, BVPC?

[270910]

SYH, MVC, NCDN, BVPC?

SY

HMVCNCD

NBVPC

GUTU

T17. All and only schools that place >= 40%, grouped by declining order within deciles.

hehe. GUTU looks silly

[Mattalones]

After looking at data like the that on this thread (which is very useful ... Thanks OP!!!), I find my self left to do the same thing as most other people on this forum by speculating "my chances." At the same time, it remains true that generalized statistics don't instantiate (e.g. You can't rightfully say, "Only 40% of people from school X get NLJ250 jobs, so my chances of getting an NLJ250 job are only 40%."). This is clear to me, but consider an example to clarify (if you already agree, just skip the example and go to the part marked with "***").

Example - Think about two very different people at the same school:
1) The super-person who came in to school X with a 4.0+ and a 180 with a full ride, and then busts a 4.0 in 1L would have performed just as well if the school had different placement stats into NLJ250 firms.
2) The super slacker who slide through UG and the LSAT primarily on smarts, who gets about a 2.0 in 1L: This guy (or girl) just performs this way, and his (or her) school's NLJ250 placement percent clearly didn't make her perform this way.

I know these are extreme examples, but it is just to make the point clearer by contrasting. So, the super-person will likely be the person to get a good NLJ250 job, and the slacker clearly won't be the top candidate.

***I admit that there is a minimum threshold of NLJ250 placement potential for going to law school to make sense (assuming the person has NLJ250 as a goal). What I am curious about is, "What is this threshold for a decently-hard-working and intelligent law student?" In other words, if someone very competent and capable of becoming decently successful at an NLJ250 firm is choosing a law school based on its placement, what MINIMUM percentage of NLJ250 placement should that person look for in a law school to feel decently secure in choosing that law school?

What I know cannot be the answer:
*100%
*"Just go to Yale, dude!"
*"Stay away from TTT and TTTT schools, man."
*"There is no exact number, so don't waist your time thinking about this."

There has to be some rational, approximate balance, and I have not seen much discussion of it on TLS.

Any thoughts???

[270910]

After looking at data like the that on this thread (which is very useful ... Thanks OP!!!), I find my self left to do the same thing as most other people on this forum by speculating "my chances." At the same time, it remains true that generalized statistics don't instantiate (e.g. You can't rightfully say, "Only 40% of people from school X get NLJ250 jobs, so my chances of getting an NLJ250 job are only 40%."). This is clear to me, but consider an example to clarify (if you already agree, just skip the example and go to the part marked with "***").

Example - Think about two very different people at the same school:
1) The super-person who came in to school X with a 4.0+ and a 180 with a full ride, and then busts a 4.0 in 1L would have performed just as well if the school had different placement stats into NLJ250 firms.
2) The super slacker who slide through UG and the LSAT primarily on smarts, who gets about a 2.0 in 1L: This guy (or girl) just performs this way, and his (or her) school's NLJ250 placement percent clearly didn't make her perform this way.

I know these are extreme examples, but it is just to make the point clearer by contrasting. So, to super-person will be the person to get a good NLJ250 job, and the slacker clearly won't be the top candidate.

***I admit that there is a minimum threshold of NLJ250 placement potential for going to law school to make sense (assuming the person has NLJ250 as a goal). What I am curious about is, "What is this threshold for a decently-hard-working and intelligent law student?" In other words, if someone very competent and capable of becoming decently successful at an NLJ250 firm is choosing a law school based on its placement, what MINIMUM percentage of NLJ250 placement should that person look for in a law school to feel decently secure in choosing that law school?

What I know cannot be the answer:
*100%
*"Just go to Yale, dude!"
*"Stay away from TTT and TTTT schools, man."
*"There is no exact number, so don't waist your time thinking about this."

There has to be some rational, approximate balance, and I have not seen much discussion of it on TLS.

Any thoughts???

Christ. What a good question, what a naive question, what an impossible question to answer. Where to begin?

First, toss out everything you thought you knew about the LSAT/GPA predicting law school performance or hard work predicting law school performance. I know hard working people above both of my LS's medians who got ravaged by grades. I know people who looked like morons in class, skipped tons of reading, made it into the school by the skin of their teeth, kicked ass and took names. I also know people who comport with expectations and everyone inbetween. It's (probably) not random, but you can NOT count on obtaining any particular class rank just because you want it / try hard. It takes something more than earnest effort, and hell if I've figured out precisely what that something more is.

Second, once grades come down, it's very hard to draw lines about who will and will not get 6-figure / NLJ / Biglaw type jobs. A lot comes down to the market you pick, your ties to the market, your efforts at selecting the proper firms with which to interview, how well you interview, and your other accomplishments. That is to say, a median UVA student gunning for DC biglaw with no connections or work experience will get dope-slapped by OCI. A sub-median Michigan student wanting to work in the local bigfirm type office in her home market with 0 competition from other top schools might slide into the position. Sterling grades cure all, but once you get to the squishy middle you control your destiny to a large extent.

So those were two non-answers. To be more particular, I'd say that at sticker you'd be a fool to pay for less than a 40-50% chance at 'making it'. A lot of the people who don't get big firm jobs or clerkships when they graduate will still have rewarding legal careers - but be advised that almost none will break into the ranks of traditional 'biglaw', for better or for worse.

My own estimate from being on the inside is that ITE, the Top 14 are still good values at sticker. They were AMAZING values at sticker a few years ago, but I don't think their worth has dropped through the floor even ITE.

[oneforship]

***I admit that there is a minimum threshold of NLJ250 placement potential for going to law school to make sense (assuming the person has NLJ250 as a goal). What I am curious about is, "What is this threshold for a decently-hard-working and intelligent law student?" In other words, if someone very competent and capable of becoming decently successful at an NLJ250 firm is choosing a law school based on its placement, what MINIMUM percentage of NLJ250 placement should that person look for in a law school to feel decently secure in choosing that law school?

What I know cannot be the answer:
*100%
*"Just go to Yale, dude!"
*"Stay away from TTT and TTTT schools, man."
*"There is no exact number, so don't waist your time thinking about this."

There has to be some rational, approximate balance, and I have not seen much discussion of it on TLS.

Any thoughts???

Wouldn't it be somewhere between the bolded? I mean, at most law schools, you're surrounding yourself with people who are "decently hard working" and "capable of becoming decently successful at an NLJ250 firm." There are just so many factors in play here, between the curved grades, prior work experience, networking and interviewing ability that I really don't think you can say there is any safe percentage. It all depends on what kind of personal risk every individual is willing to take on the balance between debt & placement.

*0L disclaimer.

[jss1100]

For those interested in how the rest of the "Go To Schools" shake out:
29. Wake Forest 25.7

47. UNC 16.3

I'm confused. TLS consensus is UNC >>>>>>>>>> Wake Forest.

This does not seem to be the case at all.

UNC's extremely high peer review scores do not seem to help in placement to these upper-tier jobs?

what am I missing? is it the fact that UNC places better in NC, a state whose legal market is more "mid-law" than 'big-law"?

I don't know much about that, but I can say two things for certain:

1. TLS Consensus is often somewhere between "misguided" and "blatantly wrong."
2. In 2009, if these data are correct, you needed to be top 16% at UNC to have the same "bigtime" placement that the top 25% at Wake had.

Does this suggest that Wake's job prospects are really better than UNC? I dunno. Gah, I am having to decide between these two schools and I felt pretty set on UNC but job prospects/outcomes are very important to me.

[Helmholtz]

re: Wake vs. UNC

Chances are very good you're not going to end up with a biglaw job or article iii clerkship after graduation. Simple as that. Don't go to either expecting one. I would be paying a lot more attention to the opportunities the median student is getting instead of somebody who was top 10% and making $160k in a major market.

[fortissimo]

Note: For clerkships, I used snotrocket's data, which appears to be for the Class of 2008. Thus, the title "Class of 2009" for this thread is a misnomer. Regardless, I think putting the data together is useful enough to keep the thread up since it puts the firm placement for schools like Yale in perspective.


Data used:

Clerkships
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=75513

Firms
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

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

1. Stanford - 77.1%
2. Yale - 72.1%
3. Harvard - 65.7%
4. Michigan - 64.6%
5. Virginia - 64.0%
6. Columbia - 63.3%
7. Northwestern - 62.3%
8. Chicago - 62.2%
9. Duke - 61.0%
10. NYU - 57.0%
11. Berkeley - 55.9%
12. Vanderbilt - 55.0%
13. Penn - 52.8%
14. Cornell - 52.4%
15. Georgetown - 48.4%
16. USC - 47.2%
17. Texas - 47.1%
18. UCLA - 41.7%
19. Boston College - 38.0%
20. Notre Dame - 37.8%

Damn! Thanks for compiling this.

I'm glad to see Michigan and Virginia doing so well. Our schools are pretty similar all-around, except one has more fratty douches.

But I am also curious as to why NYU, Penn, and Berkeley got owned?

[rayiner]

Yeah, trying to predict class performance based on incoming stats is a path towards fail. 1L isn't random, but it's all about execution, and neither LSAT nor GPA really measure how well someone can figure out what needs to be done then do it.

[09042014]

I'd like to see an accurate accounting of what percentage of students from each school get a market 2L SA position. Probably pretty hard to calculate though.

[fortissimo]

FWIW. These numbers also miss self-selection for public interest and government positions, many of which are obviously highly competitive. Which may help explain why Harvard drops ten points relative to stanford. It also puts berkeley's position in some context, as berkeley traditionally places 10 percent of its class in public interest and a smaller but significant percent in government.

Then you have to include the PI/Gov't placement of all the other schools. I know Virginia and Michigan, for instance, place about 8%.

Meaning Mich and Virginia would still own the rankings?LOL /end trolling. I don't think the rankings would be that different if we were to include government/PI since a lot of schools place about the same amount into PI/government (i.e. ~10%)

[rayiner]

One of the things that needs to be borne in mind is that these charts minimize placement differences somewhat, because no-offers didn't happen in any predictable way across school ranks. Indeed, the schools that had the best placement (into elite NYC biglaw) probably got hit with the bulk of the no-offers. Consider:

80% of CLS gets a 2L SA through OCI. Another 10% could get it, but choose to do something else (elite boutiques, PI, etc). This is consistent with what would've been the case for C/O 2009 at OCI.

40% of GWU gets a 2L SA through OCI. If more people could've gotten such offers, they would've taken them, so this number is not saturated. This is consistent with what would've been the case for C/O 2009 at OCI.

Now, say 30% of NYC 2L SA's get no-offered, compared to 10% of DC 2L SA's (DC firms shed an order of magnitude fewer NJL250 jobs per capita than NYC firms).

Now, suddenly CLS is at 56% NLJ250 placement, while GWU is at 36%. Suddenly you go from 90% versus 40% being able to get biglaw at OCI to 56% versus 36% actually getting it.

[women'ssoccer]

re: Wake vs. UNC

Chances are very good you're not going to end up with a biglaw job or article iii clerkship after graduation. Simple as that. Don't go to either expecting one. I would be paying a lot more attention to the opportunities the median student is getting instead of somebody who was top 10% and making $160k in a major market.

Yea. In no way do I feel I will be getting anything like a 160K job out of UNC or Wake.

I would love a 75K-100K job in NC, however. And the fact that 20% of WFU grads got NJL250 whereas 15% of UNC grads got it, seems to suggest that Wake would be a better choice to land a upper-level (salary-wise) job, ie a 75-100K job (median salary for lawyers is like 50K i think).


Helmz, I realize that my reasoning above is sloppy. But, before reading this I was sure UNC was better to get a 75K+ job, now I'm having second thoughts, or at least the 2 might be closer than I thought.

Do you have an inclination as to which school is better for my goals (75k job)? I only want to work in NC. (Note: WFU and UNC would both cost 15K for me.)

[rayiner]

SYH, MVC, NCDN, BVPC?

SY

HMVCNCD

NBVPC

GUTU

T17. All and only schools that place >= 40%, grouped by declining order within deciles.

hehe. GUTU looks silly

Rancid Stanford trolling, but I'm so going to try and make HMVCNCD happen.

[Helmholtz]

re: Wake vs. UNC

Chances are very good you're not going to end up with a biglaw job or article iii clerkship after graduation. Simple as that. Don't go to either expecting one. I would be paying a lot more attention to the opportunities the median student is getting instead of somebody who was top 10% and making $160k in a major market.

Yea. In no way do I feel I will be getting anything like a 160K job out of UNC or Wake.

I would love a 75K-100K job in NC, however. And the fact that 20% of WFU grads got NJL250 whereas 15% of UNC grads got it, seems to suggest that Wake would be a better choice to land a upper-level (salary-wise) job, ie a 75-100K job (median salary for lawyers is like 50K i think).


Helmz, I realize that my reasoning above is sloppy. But, before reading this I was sure UNC was better to get a 75K+ job, now I'm having second thoughts, or at least the 2 might be closer than I thought.

Do you have an inclination as to which school is better for my goals (75k job)? I only want to work in NC. (Note: WFU and UNC would both cost 15K for me.)

First of all, there are hardly any 75K-100K jobs, relatively speaking. In the new hiring legal jobs, you're pretty much making $160k or you're making $50k. My gut instinct would definitely point towards UNC over Wake, but I would suggest that you do a lot of talking to current/former students and possibly attorneys in the location and/or area of law that you want to get into. I'm afraid I can't give you anywhere near a de facto answer.

[postitnotes]

New tiers:
Yale, Stanford

Harvard, Mich, UVA, Columbia, Northwestern, Chicago, Duke

NYU, Berk, Vandy, Penn, Cornell

I'm surprised as to how poorly Penn, NYU, and Berkeley did, and how well Vanderbilt did. Vandy is the new T-14?

[Helmholtz]

I'm surprised as to how poorly Penn, NYU, and Berkeley did, and how well Vanderbilt did. Vandy is the new T-14?

Not unless USNWR tells us so. Because, you know, those are the rankings which actually matter.

[kittenmittons]

120 for using one flawed data point for new tier creation.

[postitnotes]

I'm surprised as to how poorly Penn, NYU, and Berkeley did, and how well Vanderbilt did. Vandy is the new T-14?

Not unless USNWR tells us so. Because, you know, those are the rankings which actually matter.

You're right. Rankings based on spending per capita and number of books in the library >>>> employment prospects.

[09042014]

SYH, MVC, NCDN, BVPC?

SY

HMVCNCD

NBVPC

GUTU

T17. All and only schools that place >= 40%, grouped by declining order within deciles.

hehe. GUTU looks silly

T13 and leave GUTU off.

[RVP11]

re: Wake vs. UNC

Chances are very good you're not going to end up with a biglaw job or article iii clerkship after graduation. Simple as that. Don't go to either expecting one. I would be paying a lot more attention to the opportunities the median student is getting instead of somebody who was top 10% and making $160k in a major market.

Yea. In no way do I feel I will be getting anything like a 160K job out of UNC or Wake.

I would love a 75K-100K job in NC, however. And the fact that 20% of WFU grads got NJL250 whereas 15% of UNC grads got it, seems to suggest that Wake would be a better choice to land a upper-level (salary-wise) job, ie a 75-100K job (median salary for lawyers is like 50K i think).


Helmz, I realize that my reasoning above is sloppy. But, before reading this I was sure UNC was better to get a 75K+ job, now I'm having second thoughts, or at least the 2 might be closer than I thought.

Do you have an inclination as to which school is better for my goals (75k job)? I only want to work in NC. (Note: WFU and UNC would both cost 15K for me.)

First of all, there are hardly any 75K-100K jobs, relatively speaking. In the new hiring legal jobs, you're pretty much making $160k or you're making $50k. My gut instinct would definitely point towards UNC over Wake, but I would suggest that you do a lot of talking to current/former students and possibly attorneys in the location and/or area of law that you want to get into. I'm afraid I can't give you anywhere near a de facto answer.

I think the "there are hardly any 75k-100k jobs" thing is overstated. The most ubiquitous bimodal graph still shows something like 20% of new respondents in the mythical "MidLaw" range from about 70k to about 120k.

In most U.S. cities, you have a MUCH better chance of making 70k-120k than making 160k. Just an even better chance of making only 40k.

[Helmholtz]

re: Wake vs. UNC

Chances are very good you're not going to end up with a biglaw job or article iii clerkship after graduation. Simple as that. Don't go to either expecting one. I would be paying a lot more attention to the opportunities the median student is getting instead of somebody who was top 10% and making $160k in a major market.

Yea. In no way do I feel I will be getting anything like a 160K job out of UNC or Wake.

I would love a 75K-100K job in NC, however. And the fact that 20% of WFU grads got NJL250 whereas 15% of UNC grads got it, seems to suggest that Wake would be a better choice to land a upper-level (salary-wise) job, ie a 75-100K job (median salary for lawyers is like 50K i think).


Helmz, I realize that my reasoning above is sloppy. But, before reading this I was sure UNC was better to get a 75K+ job, now I'm having second thoughts, or at least the 2 might be closer than I thought.

Do you have an inclination as to which school is better for my goals (75k job)? I only want to work in NC. (Note: WFU and UNC would both cost 15K for me.)

First of all, there are hardly any 75K-100K jobs, relatively speaking. In the new hiring legal jobs, you're pretty much making $160k or you're making $50k. My gut instinct would definitely point towards UNC over Wake, but I would suggest that you do a lot of talking to current/former students and possibly attorneys in the location and/or area of law that you want to get into. I'm afraid I can't give you anywhere near a de facto answer.

I think the "there are hardly any 75k-100k jobs" thing is overstated. The most ubiquitous bimodal graph still shows something like 20% of new respondents in the mythical "MidLaw" range from about 70k to about 120k.

Perhaps I overstated it, but I did add a "relatively speaking," i.e. the number of midlaw firms is quite small compared to the alternatives.