Class of 2013 Employment Stats (updated LST Score Reports) Forum

[lawschool22]

Thanks for this info.

Anyone know when the salary data will come out?

It's already on the websites of each school.

To clarify. It's on some websites. And it's not all of the salary data that schools will publish.

Is publishing salary data required?

[jenesaislaw]

Is publishing salary data required?

No.

[jenesaislaw]

woah woah woah

the emory website says that they had 16 kids goto federal clerkships
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/NEWW ... y-2013.pdf

but the aba format on lst says 0

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/emory/ABA/2013/



im trusting lst but wtf?

WTF indeed. I see what happened. Editing database as we speak.

[lawschool22]

Is publishing salary data required?

No.

I hope you're putting pressure on someone for this lol. Salary data is very useful.

[jenesaislaw]

woah woah woah

the emory website says that they had 16 kids goto federal clerkships
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/NEWW ... y-2013.pdf

but the aba format on lst says 0

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/emory/ABA/2013/



im trusting lst but wtf?

WTF indeed. I see what happened. Editing database as we speak.

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Should be the only school with that problem; almost every other school was part of the same batch. Widener and Emory each were added individually. Widener because I merged their data; Emory because the Emory data are not in the ABA release.

[jenesaislaw]

Is publishing salary data required?

No.

I hope you're putting pressure on someone for this lol. Salary data is very useful.

So, the ABA subcommittee for Standard 509 recommended a salary data requirement. It was killed by a very captured ABA a rung up on the decision ladder. We do not have any plans right now to push again on a Standards change. The capture problem is the same; the interest in a rules change is even less now given how hard and fast enrollments have plummeted.

As such, public pressure is what's needed. Here's a column I wrote last week on NALP Reports: http://www.law.com/sites/kylepatrickmce ... jobs-data/ (also available here without the subscriber wall: --LinkRemoved--) This initiative will prove to be the major source for salary data going forward. As I mention in the piece, we've so far not pursued legal angles to get data from public schools. That's changing this summer.

[Tiago Splitter]

Where can we see the 108 NALP reports you guys have gotten for the class of 2012?

[rayiner]

Is publishing salary data required?

No.

I hope you're putting pressure on someone for this lol. Salary data is very useful.

So, the ABA subcommittee for Standard 509 recommended a salary data requirement. It was killed by a very captured ABA a rung up on the decision ladder. We do not have any plans right now to push again on a Standards change. The capture problem is the same; the interest in a rules change is even less now given how hard and fast enrollments have plummeted.

As such, public pressure is what's needed. Here's a column I wrote last week on NALP Reports: http://www.law.com/sites/kylepatrickmce ... jobs-data/ (also available here without the subscriber wall: --LinkRemoved--) This initiative will prove to be the major source for salary data going forward. As I mention in the piece, we've so far not pursued legal angles to get data from public schools. That's changing this summer.

You guys are the BOSS.

[dd235]

Hastings drop is just amazing...

[cotiger]

In addition to recent job outcome data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects only 19,650 new law jobs per year between 2012 and 2022, a number that is 10% less than an estimate two years ago that projected 21,880 new jobs per year between 2010 and 2020. That ten-year prediction was 9% less than an estimate a few years prior that projected 24,040 new lawyer jobs per year between 2008 and 2018.

I'm confused about this. They seem to be missing their estimations by pretty large margins, and yet they're continuing to lower their projections?

[zman]

In addition to recent job outcome data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects only 19,650 new law jobs per year between 2012 and 2022, a number that is 10% less than an estimate two years ago that projected 21,880 new jobs per year between 2010 and 2020. That ten-year prediction was 9% less than an estimate a few years prior that projected 24,040 new lawyer jobs per year between 2008 and 2018.

I'm confused about this. They seem to be missing their estimations by pretty large margins, and yet they're continuing to lower their projections?

You can't take those seriously, there is NO way they can know.

[jenesaislaw]

Where can we see the 108 NALP reports you guys have gotten for the class of 2012?

They'll be on the site soon. I had to pull them down because they weren't all already redacted and I wanted to launch the site ASAP. Pretty much all of the data are on the school profiles, though. I think the only exception is in-state placement by city.

[jenesaislaw]

In addition to recent job outcome data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects only 19,650 new law jobs per year between 2012 and 2022, a number that is 10% less than an estimate two years ago that projected 21,880 new jobs per year between 2010 and 2020. That ten-year prediction was 9% less than an estimate a few years prior that projected 24,040 new lawyer jobs per year between 2008 and 2018.

I'm confused about this. They seem to be missing their estimations by pretty large margins, and yet they're continuing to lower their projections?

And yet others say they're overly optimistic:

One bit of good news for the legal profession is that between 2010 and 2012, the BLS estimated some growth in the number of lawyers employed in the U.S., 728,200 in 2010, 759,800 today. It’s about the same as in 2008 (759,200). However, back in 2002, the BLS projected 813,000 lawyer jobs for 2012, so once again, the projections were overoptimistic.

Source: http://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress ... s-by-2022/

Keep in mind what I said in the analysis too:

The macroeconomic model predictions aim to reflect how many new entrants the economy will support in each occupation.

This means that the BLS essentially measures how much work there is via support for new jobs, which is different than a raw number of jobs. So 5 people may get hired by 5 different firms, all vying for the same work. That doesn't mean there's 5x as much work.

[04102014]

Yale at 78.8%. Heh.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/yale/2013/

[bk1]

Stickied.

[jenesaislaw]

Yale at 78.8%. Heh.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/yale/2013/

I'll be the first to admit that our metrics aren't perfect. On balance, it's better to underestimate some schools than overestimate many more.

[cotiger]

In addition to recent job outcome data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects only 19,650 new law jobs per year between 2012 and 2022, a number that is 10% less than an estimate two years ago that projected 21,880 new jobs per year between 2010 and 2020. That ten-year prediction was 9% less than an estimate a few years prior that projected 24,040 new lawyer jobs per year between 2008 and 2018.

I'm confused about this. They seem to be missing their estimations by pretty large margins, and yet they're continuing to lower their projections?

And yet others say they're overly optimistic:

One bit of good news for the legal profession is that between 2010 and 2012, the BLS estimated some growth in the number of lawyers employed in the U.S., 728,200 in 2010, 759,800 today. It’s about the same as in 2008 (759,200). However, back in 2002, the BLS projected 813,000 lawyer jobs for 2012, so once again, the projections were overoptimistic.

Source: http://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress ... s-by-2022/

Ok, so they were 6.4% too high from in their 10 year projections from 2002.

But they estimated 131,140 new jobs from 2008-2013. This period coincided with the worst business cycle of several generations, and yet they still undershot the actual count (159,600) by a staggering 21.7%. It's tough to imagine the market for new hires contracting by 27% in the near future if the Great Recession couldn't even come close (the nadir came in 2011 w/ 24,902.. much more than the 19,650/yr estimated by the BLS).

The macroeconomic model predictions aim to reflect how many new entrants the economy will support in each occupation.

This means that the BLS essentially measures how much work there is via support for new jobs, which is different than a raw number of jobs. So 5 people may get hired by 5 different firms, all vying for the same work. That doesn't mean there's 5x as much work.

This doesn't make any sense to me. It implies that the BLS determines what the income should be for a given job and only positions that meet that criteria actually "count". For instance, if work really dried up and the biglaw model completely collapsed, and suddenly for every one of those old 160k entry positions there were three times as many jobs but only paying 40k, surely the BLS wouldn't consider that to be a net job loss in the legal field? If so, then referring to these numbers as "jobs" projections is completely inaccurate.

[jenesaislaw]

These are good questions. I'm friendly with a former statistician from the BLS, I'm forwarding this message to her. I'll see how she responds.

[cotiger]

These are good questions. I'm friendly with a former statistician from the BLS, I'm forwarding this message to her. I'll see how she responds.

Haha awesome, thanks!

[underwear]

Would it be possible to have an option to change the "head-to-head" feature's year?

Either by individual school or as a whole report. Changing the year for each school would ideal, but changing it for the whole report would be much better than looking through several tabs and to see ups/downs.

I had the 2012 data up on my screen to compare it with the 2013's (knowing that you were going to update it), but accidentally went back a page.

(Love the site, btw)

[altoid99]

I love the head to head feature, but it may be more helpful if that feature allowed users to compare the job trends over the years instead of/in addition to the latest year for which there is data.

[jenesaislaw]

Would it be possible to have an option to change the "head-to-head" feature's year?

Either by individual school or as a whole report. Changing the year for each school would ideal, but changing it for the whole report would be much better than looking through several tabs and to see ups/downs.

I had the 2012 data up on my screen to compare it with the 2013's (knowing that you were going to update it), but accidentally went back a page.

(Love the site, btw)

You can actually do that now, we just don't advertise it. Add this to the end of the URL of the schools you want to compare: /2012/

So, http://www.lstscorereports.com/compare/ ... oley/2012/

I originally intended for this to be an obvious feature, but something was getting in the way with how I programmed part of the page I think. I'll revisit it. Maybe I'm making that up? Regardless, the database query can handle it just fine.

If you want to compare schools across years, check out the job trends tab on the school report for jobs data and the key stats page for enrollment trends.

[jenesaislaw]

I love the head to head feature, but it may be more helpful if that feature allowed users to compare the job trends over the years instead of/in addition to the latest year for which there is data.

Check a school's job trends page on each school report.

[Tiago Splitter]

It's tough to imagine the market for new hires contracting by 27% in the near future if the Great Recession couldn't even come close (the nadir came in 2011 w/ 24,902.. much more than the 19,650/yr estimated by the BLS).

Are you sure this is an apples to apples comparison? NALP showed 24,902 people getting LT/FT jobs in 2011, but that might be different than what the BLS is projecting. For example the 24,902 includes clerkships, but generally for every new clerk that's hired one moves on to something else.

[jenesaislaw]

Just added the class dropdown menu for the compare page. It roughly works, but there are definitely bugs. I'm too tired to mess around with it anymore right now, though, so I'm going to hide it again. The /2012/ trick will still work though.