Detailed Employment Stats Forum

[Ialdabaoth]

Just checked out BU out of curiosity and their stats are impressively detailed now: http://www.bu.edu/law/prospective/caree ... html#stats

It's also pretty damn depressing that only 71% of the class of '10 had a full time job 9 months out.

Yeah, looks pretty rough. Also, I wish they had more charts/tables and less writing, haha. I felt like they just really wanted to say that even though the legal market is kind of sucking, BU is still great.

Did you click the little blue arrows? Once you do that you get a lot more data

They deserve a lot of credit for probably being the most upfront school with the data. Under academia they state exactly how many are doing part-time fellowships with them, and under clerkships they even state how many are funded by BU.

Ahh, those arrows weren't working when I tried it on my laptop browser earlier. Wow, that really is some detailed stuff. Thanks for the tip!

[Paul Campos]

This is a very useful project, and I encourage people to pitch in.

A couple of comments:

(1) The following pieces of information are crucial, even for T-6 schools, and increasingly so for everybody below that level:

Permanent v. Temporary employment. A lot of grads at top schools are currently taking temporary jobs. This is a tricky category, because judicial clerkships are temporary, so schools should break out judicial clerkships separately. Note there are also a lot of fake judicial clerkships out there right now. A fake clerkship works like this: Unemployed graduate is told to go volunteer to work for a judge. After securing a volunteer position, the school funds the graduate for a few months or maybe even a year. The school then counts the grad as employed in a judicial clerkship.

It's also tricky because the NALP definition of a temporary job is less than a year. People who sign one or two year contracts are treated as if they were in permanent positions.

(2) Law school funded positions. Note that 11%[!] of the 2010 UVA class is in this category. That tells you what's going on in the lower half of the T-14. How many Chicago and Yale people are in these kinds of positions? The stats they've published don't say.

(3) Percentage of grads who report salary. Once you get outside the T-14 this is the most critical piece of info that is routinely omitted. There are plenty of Tier I schools where the actual percentage reporting salary is shockingly low. Anybody who applies to a school that won't give you this piece of info is out of his or her mind.

(4) Keep in mind that people who report working for firms of 2-10 attorneys often don't have real jobs. They partner up with a classmate and form a "firm," or they're doing temp work for a solo. Note for example that essentially nobody at either Chicago or UVA was in this category in either '08 or '09, but a bunch of people suddenly were in 2010.

[ihhwap1]

.

[PakiGuy87]

Does anyone have a list of all T14 (and beyond if possible) schools that do likewise? If not, maybe we could make this a research/compilation thread. Here are the links I've compiled so far:

Saw this in another thread.

University of Cincinnati College of Law: --LinkRemoved--

I think we're all in agreement that this is a breath of fresh air. We need to see more of this!

[Geist13]

Everyone should calm down a little. My school also now has more detailed numbers up on the website. The numbers are still 100% bullshit though.

[PakiGuy87]

Everyone should calm down a little. My school also now has more detailed numbers up on the website. The numbers are still 100% bullshit though.

Yes, but all the more reason to keep pushing for legit #'s, right?

I'm not saying we need to get carried away but most law schools outside the top schools are unlikely to voluntarily release this information without a little push in the right direction.

Lastly, (and I know this may be futile) have you tried contacting your school's career services center for clarification on the numbers? I wouldn't feel at ease attending a school if I felt they were "bullshitting" their figures.

[Bildungsroman]

Everyone should calm down a little. My school also now has more detailed numbers up on the website. The numbers are still 100% bullshit though.

Explain how the numbers are 100% bullshit. The main complaint against the employment information schools have provided in the past is not that they're fabricating information, but that the information they were releasing was misleading and more incomplete than the schools made clear. The format and level of disclosure that Chicago has adopted actually eliminates many of those concerns. I agree there are a couple of data points that would be useful (like a breakdown of what employment categories the non-salary-reporting respondents fall into) but elite schools are continuing their trend here of not really being the problem.

[Ialdabaoth]

This is a very useful project, and I encourage people to pitch in.

A couple of comments:

(1) The following pieces of information are crucial, even for T-6 schools, and increasingly so for everybody below that level:

Permanent v. Temporary employment. A lot of grads at top schools are currently taking temporary jobs. This is a tricky category, because judicial clerkships are temporary, so schools should break out judicial clerkships separately. Note there are also a lot of fake judicial clerkships out there right now. A fake clerkship works like this: Unemployed graduate is told to go volunteer to work for a judge. After securing a volunteer position, the school funds the graduate for a few months or maybe even a year. The school then counts the grad as employed in a judicial clerkship.

It's also tricky because the NALP definition of a temporary job is less than a year. People who sign one or two year contracts are treated as if they were in permanent positions.

(2) Law school funded positions. Note that 11%[!] of the 2010 UVA class is in this category. That tells you what's going on in the lower half of the T-14. How many Chicago and Yale people are in these kinds of positions? The stats they've published don't say.

(3) Percentage of grads who report salary. Once you get outside the T-14 this is the most critical piece of info that is routinely omitted. There are plenty of Tier I schools where the actual percentage reporting salary is shockingly low. Anybody who applies to a school that won't give you this piece of info is out of his or her mind.

(4) Keep in mind that people who report working for firms of 2-10 attorneys often don't have real jobs. They partner up with a classmate and form a "firm," or they're doing temp work for a solo. Note for example that essentially nobody at either Chicago or UVA was in this category in either '08 or '09, but a bunch of people suddenly were in 2010.

Thanks for this info!

I agree that schools should be clear about the institution-funded positions, but do you think they are truly a bad deal for students? I mean, I would be pretty happy if my school helped me out for up to a year while I gained experience and searched for permanent/better employment.

Also, is it safe to assume that this 11% is probably pretty solidly in the bottom of the class/has some other hindrance to gaining better employment? UVA and others that have published these stats still have very strong employment numbers, e.g. 60%+ in firms with 501+ and a large percentage of the rest in PI, government, and clerkships (even considering the issues with clerkship data and 1-2 year contracts.)

[Ialdabaoth]

Does anyone have a list of all T14 (and beyond if possible) schools that do likewise? If not, maybe we could make this a research/compilation thread. Here are the links I've compiled so far:

Saw this in another thread.

University of Cincinnati College of Law: --LinkRemoved--

I think we're all in agreement that this is a breath of fresh air. We need to see more of this!

Thanks for this!

I like the way they very clearly lay out how many positions are full-time and how many people responded to the salary survey. I'll add this to the OP.

[Ialdabaoth]

Everyone should calm down a little. My school also now has more detailed numbers up on the website. The numbers are still 100% bullshit though.

Explain how the numbers are 100% bullshit. The main complaint against the employment information schools have provided in the past is not that they're fabricating information, but that the information they were releasing was misleading and more incomplete than the schools made clear. The format and level of disclosure that Chicago has adopted actually eliminates many of those concerns. I agree there are a couple of data points that would be useful (like a breakdown of what employment categories the non-salary-reporting respondents fall into) but elite schools are continuing their trend here of not really being the problem.

+1

I'm also interested to see what's prompting you to say the numbers are bullshit.

Do you care to say what school you're referring to?

[NYC Law]

Everyone should calm down a little. My school also now has more detailed numbers up on the website. The numbers are still 100% bullshit though.

Explain how the numbers are 100% bullshit. The main complaint against the employment information schools have provided in the past is not that they're fabricating information, but that the information they were releasing was misleading and more incomplete than the schools made clear. The format and level of disclosure that Chicago has adopted actually eliminates many of those concerns. I agree there are a couple of data points that would be useful (like a breakdown of what employment categories the non-salary-reporting respondents fall into) but elite schools are continuing their trend here of not really being the problem.

+1

I'm also interested to see what's prompting you to say the numbers are bullshit.

Do you care to say what school you're referring to?

In the case of UIUC, the numbers really are bullshit.

[MrAnon]

This is just more chicanery from the schools. These "detailed" statistics don't look all that much different from the prior statistics. They still try to make it appear as if 86% of classes are getting biglaw. And what is "JD preferred"? There are not that many JD preferred jobs. You still cannot tell how many students are employed by the schools themselves in fellowships to make them appear fully employed.

[Ialdabaoth]

This is just more chicanery from the schools. These "detailed" statistics don't look all that much different from the prior statistics. They still try to make it appear as if 86% of classes are getting biglaw. And what is "JD preferred"? There are not that many JD preferred jobs. You still cannot tell how many students are employed by the schools themselves in fellowships to make them appear fully employed.

UVA and a couple of the others do clearly show how many are in positions funded by the school. Also, I'm not sure what exactly you meant with the 86% stat, but several of these also clearly show the percentage of students in positions at firms with 501+ attorneys. Given, some of these positions could be part-time or temporary, but I think this type of employment data is still vastly more helpful than just telling everyone that the median salary of grads is $160,000. Also, a good number of policy-related PI jobs are "JD preferred." That's just one type of job off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are others. Not every one who graduates from a top school wants to practice law, per se.

Bottom line: No, there is not yet one school who provides every important data point, but these types of releases are a step in the right direction. I don't understand why everybody around here is so damn cynical.

[MrAnon]

I don't understand why everybody around here is so damn cynical.

I don't understand why these schools raise tuition across the board 2-3% each year with nary an explanation or rationale for it. If people didn't openly question them they would raise it 10% each year.

[NYC Law]

I don't understand why everybody around here is so damn cynical.

I don't understand why these schools raise tuition across the board 2-3% each year with nary an explanation or rationale for it. If people didn't openly question them they would raise it 10% each year.

I thought most do raise closer to 10% each year. Anyway, entirely supply/demand. And if it's just 2-3% that's just the typical rate of inflation.

[MrAnon]

I don't understand why everybody around here is so damn cynical.

I don't understand why these schools raise tuition across the board 2-3% each year with nary an explanation or rationale for it. If people didn't openly question them they would raise it 10% each year.

I thought most do raise closer to 10% each year. Anyway, entirely supply/demand. And if it's just 2-3% that's just the typical rate of inflation.

The rate they raise tuition is leaps and bounds beyond inflation. Administrator and professor salaries are in a different stratosphere than where they should be. Bottom line for why I am cynical is that the schools don't give a rat about the students so why worship the school as if it is this godlike entity. They are just there to collect some money and sell degrees. It shouldn't have taken this long for them to issue some clarifying employment statistics. Its not that hard. What else do they really have to do all day?

[NYC Law]

I don't understand why everybody around here is so damn cynical.

I don't understand why these schools raise tuition across the board 2-3% each year with nary an explanation or rationale for it. If people didn't openly question them they would raise it 10% each year.

I thought most do raise closer to 10% each year. Anyway, entirely supply/demand. And if it's just 2-3% that's just the typical rate of inflation.

The rate they raise tuition is leaps and bounds beyond inflation. Administrator and professor salaries are in a different stratosphere than where they should be. Bottom line for why I am cynical is that the schools don't give a rat about the students. They are just there to collect some money and sell degrees. It shouldn't have taken this long for them to issue some clarifying employment statistics. Its not that hard. What else do they really have to do all day?

My bottom line is you said 2-3%. Optimal/Normal inflation is 3%. Less than or equal to =/= leaps and bounds above.
The top paid professors don't even break 200k last time I checked. I mean, for high profile professors that teach and publish and have close to 800 pages worth of exams to grade any given semester when they could have just stuck to the biglaw path and made more, the pay isn't really that high. I don't know what administrators are paid. The majority of the money just goes to fund the parent university.

[Ialdabaoth]

I'm with NYC here. My mediocre public undergrad raises tuition 9-11% per year, and I don't whine about it. It's true that most law professors could have made more sticking with biglaw. And all institutions of higher ed are basically in the business of selling degrees. In our society, education, especially some types of education, offers a reasonably reliable path to a fulfilling, secure career and life. I don't think this is the right thread in which to get all philosophical about the rationale of pursuing a legal education and the supposed sinister intentions of law professors and administrators.

We are not "worshipping" schools for releasing this data. Let's just recognize that these new types of stats are better than what's previously been available and attempt to identify ways to get the most out of them and to help prospective law students better understand their investment in law school.

[Hawkeye Pierce]

My bottom line is you said 2-3%. Optimal/Normal inflation is 3%. Less than or equal to =/= leaps and bounds above.
The top paid professors don't even break 200k last time I checked. I mean, for high profile professors that teach and publish and have close to 800 pages worth of exams to grade any given semester when they could have just stuck to the biglaw path and made more, the pay isn't really that high. I don't know what administrators are paid. The majority of the money just goes to fund the parent university.

Not really. I imagine being a law professor is a pretty cushy job.

--LinkRemoved--

In the 2010-2011 school year, U-M’s highest-paid employee is Law School Professor Mark D. Rosenbaum—taking in an impressive $805,092 per year. Rosenbaum has been teaching at U-M since 1993 and is the current legal director of the ACLU in Los Angeles. He has an impressive legal track record, having argued a number of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The next two highest-paid employees are also Law School professors. Karl E. Lutz and Alison E. Hirschel each earn substantial salaries of $774,671 and $738, 420, respectively. In fact, twelve of the top twenty earners are affiliated with the Law School.

2006 law salaries at UVA and UC system
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... w_pro.html

Median at Harvard from a 2007 survey was 241k
--LinkRemoved--

2009 survey shows median salary of professors at schools like Emory, Minnesota are in excess of 200k.
http://www.saltlaw.org/userfiles/SALT_s ... y_2009.pdf
____________

And you're right, it does seem like (at least for Michigan) tuition increases are way above inflation:
- 10% increase from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008, 8% increase the next year. And in years previous we see similar rates of increase.
http://www.law.umich.edu/historyandtrad ... istory.pdf

I was honestly expecting something smaller

[RustytheBeagle]

University of Houston

--LinkRemoved--

Click on the snapshot spreadsheet for the detailed information.

[Blindmelon]

Yey for BU publishing detailed employment data and owning up to the number of BU "fellowships" they give to people so they are employed. Boo for the fact that it doesn't look great. Probably why they lowered their class size. Its going to be worse for 2011 grads... I think much worse.

[Borhas]

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/12/the-univ ... llow-suit/

The above ATL article discusses how Yale and Chicago now publish legitimate, detailed employment data on their websites. Today, I read that UVA also makes these statistics available.

Does anyone have a list of all T14 (and beyond if possible) schools that do likewise? If not, maybe we could make this a research/compilation thread. Here are the links I've compiled so far:

Yale - http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/cdo ... tstats.htm
Harvard - I can't find anything similar.
Stanford - http://www.law.stanford.edu/experience/ ... tatistics/ (terrible detail and only up to '08)
Chicago - http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/employmentdata
NYU - http://www.law.nyu.edu/careerservices/e ... /index.htm
Michigan - http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/classs ... stats.aspx
Penn - http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospectiv ... stics.html (very good, but not as detailed on salary percentiles)
UVA - http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/career/stats.htm
Duke - http://www.law.duke.edu/career/resources/facts (not as detailed)
NU - http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/statistics/
Cornell - http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/career ... istics.cfm (not as detailed)

BU - http://www.bu.edu/law/prospective/caree ... stats.html
Cincinnati - --LinkRemoved-- (clearly differentiates full- and part-time and salary survey respondents)

UC Hastings has pretty detailed stats, probably as detailed as I've seen anywhere

--LinkRemoved--

differentiates between full time, part time, Bar required, JD preferred, firm sizes etc

[Paul Campos]

For an example of how not to do this, check out the University of Washington (currently featured on TLS' front page).

The school's web page claims a 96% nine-month out "employment" rate for its 2010 grads, but provides almost no information about what this "employment" involves. It doesn't differentiate between law jobs and non-law jobs or permanent v. temporary, or full-time versus part-time. It tells you 43% of employed grads are working for "law firms," but it doesn't tell you the size of those firms (how many solos? How many two-person firms formed by a couple of graduates? How many people doing contract work for tiny firms as opposed to having real jobs? Etc). It tells you 15% of employed grads are in "clerkships" but it doesn't tell you anything about those clerkships. And it provides zero salary information.

If you go to the TLS write-up for the school, which seems to be almost brand new, the only additional piece of information is the claim that the median salary for 2010 grads employed by firms nine months after graduation was $95,000. This claim implies strongly that this is based on 100% of the salaries for people working in firms, when it's almost certainly the case that a large proportion of the UW grads working for firms didn't report their salaries (especially those working for smaller firms, and or in temporary and part-time jobs).

Prospective students need to demand much more. Anyone applying to UW right now is doing so on the basis of woefully inadequate employment and salary data.

[Borhas]

For an example of how not to do this, check out the University of Washington (currently featured on TLS' front page).

The school's web page claims a 96% nine-month out "employment" rate for its 2010 grads, but provides almost no information about what this "employment" involves. It doesn't differentiate between law jobs and non-law jobs or permanent v. temporary, or full-time versus part-time. It tells you 43% of employed grads are working for "law firms," but it doesn't tell you the size of those firms (how many solos? How many two-person firms formed by a couple of graduates? How many people doing contract work for tiny firms as opposed to having real jobs? Etc). It tells you 15% of employed grads are in "clerkships" but it doesn't tell you anything about those clerkships. And it provides zero salary information.

If you go to the TLS write-up for the school, which seems to be almost brand new, the only additional piece of information is the claim that the median salary for 2010 grads employed by firms nine months after graduation was $95,000. This claim implies strongly that this is based on 100% of the salaries for people working in firms, when it's almost certainly the case that a large proportion of the UW grads working for firms didn't report their salaries (especially those working for smaller firms, and or in temporary and part-time jobs).

Prospective students need to demand much more. Anyone applying to UW right now is doing so on the basis of woefully inadequate employment and salary data.

It's kind of funny how most TLS regulars probably understand tremendous amount of risk involved, and yet the write ups are generally horseshit like this:

Employment Prospects and Bar Passage:

In recent years, Washington has continued to demonstrate tremendous ability to place its students into some of the top law firms and judicial clerkship positions of Washington state and the Northwest. Of the class of 2010, 96% of graduates were employed within 9 months of graduation, roughly 69% of whom secured employment within the state of Washington. 43% of graduates accepted jobs with private law firms, with a median starting salary of $95,000, while 15% took on judicial clerkships. Outside of the Northwest, job prospects are predictably less stellar for Washington students, although the school’s alumni network allows students the opportunity to pursue employment in all corners of the nation.

http://top-law-schools.com/washington-s ... f-law.html piss poor job Mr. Hadi Sedigh... and people wonder why 0L's have ridiculously skewed employment expectations.


It's better to give NO information than to mislead people.

[WhatSarahSaid]

--LinkRemoved--

Michigan State recently put this up, and the level of detail seems comparable to the other sites. Under a quarter of grads reporting salary is awful, though.