Class of 2013 Employment Data Forum

[AAJD2B]

At the end of the day, they're all fine schools with great employment prospects.

As much as BIGLAW NYC is the less preferred path, it actually opens way more exit options than other markets. NYC experience is a brand that sells very well throughout the country and world.

[Paul Campos]

A couple of clarifications:

(1) Nobody knows with any precision how many entry-level jobs at 100+ firms in 2013 were staff attorney positions rather than partner track, but what's clear is that the number is much higher than it was five years ago (when it was negligible). The big law entry level market has on its surface shrunk from 8,250 jobs in 2007 to 5,690 in 2012, but the real shrinkage has been greater, because of the increasing segmentation of the hiring market into partner track and staff positions. This change is especially noteworthy at the sub-elite level, where some (not all) schools that appear to have big law + fed clerk numbers in the 15%-30% range would have significantly lower numbers than that if you removed staff attorney jobs. Such schools are already tricky propositions, given the relation between cost and putative outcomes, and this change can make them somewhat trickier yet. The problem of course is that the precise numbers are either non-existent or impossible for applicants to get.

(2) Despite these caveats, it does seem likely that things are going to get at least a little better than they've been for the next few years of law graduates. For one thing matric numbers really are collapsing -- the 2014 class is going to have about 36,500 people, down from 52,500 four years ago. For another, effective as opposed to nominal tuition is, for the first time in basically forever, actually declining. As long as the hiring market doesn't contract further (a big if of course) things will improve.

Without wishing to sound too preachy, I'd like to say that TLS has in its own way played a positive role in these developments. The regular posters who never tire of pointing out the facts of life to previously clueless 0Ls are, I believe, actually affecting the market for law school admissions in a positive way. So keep up the good work and all that.

[Blessedassurance]

Don't forget there is probably a bit of self-selection coming into play at some of these schools though. People know Cornell does well at biglaw NYC, so people targeting that (which, helpfully, is also one of the easier markets to crack) might choose Cornell over another similar school. Whereas someone choosing a different career path might do the opposit

Exactly. Cornell has a great rep of placement in NYC. While I know its hard for Northeasterner's to understand, many folks would much prefer anyplace else. Thus, they pick other schools, with more competitive job markets. (Self-selection is also a likely reason that some will take $$ at a lower T14 and turn down NYU at sticker, while others grovel for the chance to pay sticker at NYU.)

but how will those people enjoy the opera and museums that nyc has to offer? what about THE CULTURE?

[AAJD2B]

^^^

And lets also not forget that big firm placement is not necessarily the same as placement in the most elite firms. Look at any of the top firms in NYC, and you will undoubtedly see that there is FAR more NYU representation than Cornell. Of course, you have to adjust for differences in class size, but the point is still quite clear. Yes, Cornell might place well into biglaw, but your chances at the upper tier of firms is far greater out of NYU than Cornell.

Uhm, elite firms does not necessarily mean elite experience. At many of these higher ranked firms, you're pushing paper as a junior associate; not interfacing with clients or negotiating terms of an agreement.

I would rather substance than glorified paralegal work.

[cotiger]

^^^

And lets also not forget that big firm placement is not necessarily the same as placement in the most elite firms. Look at any of the top firms in NYC, and you will undoubtedly see that there is FAR more NYU representation than Cornell. Of course, you have to adjust for differences in class size, but the point is still quite clear. Yes, Cornell might place well into biglaw, but your chances at the upper tier of firms is far greater out of NYU than Cornell.

Not that size is everything, but I'd just like to note that, among students who landed big law at Cornell, the percent that got it at firms of 500+ is 85.58% (95/111). This number is 85.62% for NYU (268/313). So basically the same number.

If we expand that to the average of the last four years, NYU places 84% of their biglaw grads into 501+ firms vs 80% at Cornell.

[kaiser]

^^^

And lets also not forget that big firm placement is not necessarily the same as placement in the most elite firms. Look at any of the top firms in NYC, and you will undoubtedly see that there is FAR more NYU representation than Cornell. Of course, you have to adjust for differences in class size, but the point is still quite clear. Yes, Cornell might place well into biglaw, but your chances at the upper tier of firms is far greater out of NYU than Cornell.

Not that size is everything, but I'd just like to note that, among students who landed big law at Cornell, the percent that got it at firms of 500+ is 85.58% (95/111). This number is 85.62% for NYU (268/313). So basically the same number.

Right, and I'm saying that not all firms of 500+ are of the same caliber. At the upper tier of those massive firms (based on crude rankings like Vault), you will find much more NYU representation. Which is why saying "I want NYC biglaw" and "I want the most prestigious NYC biglaw firm possible" are two separate goals that may induce different choices.

[kaiser]

^^^

And lets also not forget that big firm placement is not necessarily the same as placement in the most elite firms. Look at any of the top firms in NYC, and you will undoubtedly see that there is FAR more NYU representation than Cornell. Of course, you have to adjust for differences in class size, but the point is still quite clear. Yes, Cornell might place well into biglaw, but your chances at the upper tier of firms is far greater out of NYU than Cornell.

Uhm, elite firms does not necessarily mean elite experience. At many of these higher ranked firms, you're pushing paper as a junior associate; not interfacing with clients or negotiating terms of an agreement.

I would rather substance than glorified paralegal work.

No doubt, and I may very well agree with you. My comment was most certainly not to say that the experience at a so-called "elite" firm is better, more useful, more practical, etc. Its just an observation that, if one indeed was solely focused on so-called prestige alone (for whatever reason), then that student would have to parse through the stats a bit more deeply.

I personally don't care about prestige much at all, and find substantive experience, mentorship, etc. to be much more attractive. That is why I woudl have been much more inclined to take some $$ at Cornell, and turn down CCN schools at sticker. But again, its not about what I happen to value.

[Blessedassurance]

i love how the nyu apologists are quick to point out their positive biglaw stats when they're better but resort to their whole nyc-for-scocial-justice-warriors schtick when their numbers stink.

[kaiser]

i love how the nyu apologists are quick to point out their positive biglaw stats when they're better but resort to their whole nyc-for-scocial-justice-warriors schtick when their numbers stink.

Except the numbers never "stink". While slightly less NYU students (as a matter of percentage) work in biglaw relative to Columbia and Chicago (and even Penn), that representation is typically at the most elite NYC firms. On top of that, NYU has a higher percentage of students going into PI of any of the schools I mentioned above. So I'm not sure in what universe that "stinks"

[lawschool22]

i love how the nyu apologists are quick to point out their positive biglaw stats when they're better but resort to their whole nyc-for-scocial-justice-warriors schtick when their numbers stink.

Not sure what your point is other than maybe trying to pick a fight with us "NYU apologists?"

I don't think it's incompatible to say that NYU has positive biglaw stats (which it does), but also say that it tends to attract a higher percentage of PI-minded individuals than other similar schools (which it does) that could lead to slightly lower biglaw numbers than it would have otherwise.

Are you really trying to say that NYU's biglaw numbers "stink?"

[Tuxedo]

SMU: 22.6 + 1.6 = 24.2%

[Princetonlaw68]

^^^

And lets also not forget that big firm placement is not necessarily the same as placement in the most elite firms. Look at any of the top firms in NYC, and you will undoubtedly see that there is FAR more NYU representation than Cornell. Of course, you have to adjust for differences in class size, but the point is still quite clear. Yes, Cornell might place well into biglaw, but your chances at the upper tier of firms is far greater out of NYU than Cornell.

Not that size is everything, but I'd just like to note that, among students who landed big law at Cornell, the percent that got it at firms of 500+ is 85.58% (95/111). This number is 85.62% for NYU (268/313). So basically the same number.

If we expand that to the average of the last four years, NYU places 84% of their biglaw grads into 501+ firms vs 80% at Cornell.

Good point. I've seen people use this last 3 year metric on here many times before, and I mostly agree with it. A little off topic, but one thing I strongly believe is that even though looking at the last 3 years is certainly better than looking only at the most recent year, not all of the last 3 years are of equal value. I do believe that the most recent year is a better indicator of what's truly occurring than 2 years ago, and that the number from 2 years ago is better than 3 years ago, etc. Because of this, maybe we could change the formula a little bit to account for this? Maybe instead of (A+B+C)/3 (A= most recent, B=year before, C=year before that) we could do something like (A(1.2)+B(1.0)+C(.8 ))/3? Just a thought. I know the 1.2 1 and .8 are arbitrary, but I think it would be better than the current method.

[cotiger]

^^^

And lets also not forget that big firm placement is not necessarily the same as placement in the most elite firms. Look at any of the top firms in NYC, and you will undoubtedly see that there is FAR more NYU representation than Cornell. Of course, you have to adjust for differences in class size, but the point is still quite clear. Yes, Cornell might place well into biglaw, but your chances at the upper tier of firms is far greater out of NYU than Cornell.

Not that size is everything, but I'd just like to note that, among students who landed big law at Cornell, the percent that got it at firms of 500+ is 85.58% (95/111). This number is 85.62% for NYU (268/313). So basically the same number.

If we expand that to the average of the last four years, NYU places 84% of their biglaw grads into 501+ firms vs 80% at Cornell.

Good point. I've seen people use this last 3 year metric on here many times before, and I mostly agree with it. A little off topic, but one thing I strongly believe is that even though looking at the last 3 years is certainly better than looking only at the most recent year, not all of the last 3 years are of equal value. I do believe that the most recent year is a better indicator of what's truly occurring than 2 years ago, and that the number from 2 years ago is better than 3 years ago, etc. Because of this, maybe we could change the formula a little bit to account for this? Maybe instead of (A+B+C)/3 (A= most recent, B=year before, C=year before that) we could do something like (A(1.2)+B(1.0)+C(.8 ))/3? Just a thought. I know the 1.2 1 and .8 are arbitrary, but I think it would be better than the current method.

I use a 5:4:2:1 weighting for my personal usage (meaning 75% weight goes to the last two classes--the ones that are post-crash "new normal"), but I think for general consumption a simple average is the most neutral and least arbitrary measure.

[lawschool22]

^^^

And lets also not forget that big firm placement is not necessarily the same as placement in the most elite firms. Look at any of the top firms in NYC, and you will undoubtedly see that there is FAR more NYU representation than Cornell. Of course, you have to adjust for differences in class size, but the point is still quite clear. Yes, Cornell might place well into biglaw, but your chances at the upper tier of firms is far greater out of NYU than Cornell.

Not that size is everything, but I'd just like to note that, among students who landed big law at Cornell, the percent that got it at firms of 500+ is 85.58% (95/111). This number is 85.62% for NYU (268/313). So basically the same number.

If we expand that to the average of the last four years, NYU places 84% of their biglaw grads into 501+ firms vs 80% at Cornell.

Good point. I've seen people use this last 3 year metric on here many times before, and I mostly agree with it. A little off topic, but one thing I strongly believe is that even though looking at the last 3 years is certainly better than looking only at the most recent year, not all of the last 3 years are of equal value. I do believe that the most recent year is a better indicator of what's truly occurring than 2 years ago, and that the number from 2 years ago is better than 3 years ago, etc. Because of this, maybe we could change the formula a little bit to account for this? Maybe instead of (A+B+C)/3 (A= most recent, B=year before, C=year before that) we could do something like (A(1.2)+B(1.0)+C(.8 ))/3? Just a thought. I know the 1.2 1 and .8 are arbitrary, but I think it would be better than the current method.

You're taking imprecise data and trying to come up with a precise ranking. That isn't going to do much for you. At the end of the day most of these are quality schools and we need to just consider our overall goals, and probably most importantly, total COA. Not whether Penn has 69% biglaw + fed or 66%.

[JustHawkin]

Anyone find Vanderbilt's data by any chance?

[californiauser]

There is no doubt in my mind that Michigan's 2013 numbers will show them to be a clear bottom-dweller of the T14 along with Georgetown. Upon this occurrence, I believe that a new T12 designation should be enforced. I've noticed that people are quick to jump down GULC's throat and start proclaiming T13 whenever the stats are observed, but nowhere near as many people seem to be able to stomach the fact that Michigan does not compare to the other non GULC T14s either. Why not T12? I've never seen anyone write T12.

In fact, I'd bet anything Michigan's numbers are going to be closer to GULC's than they are to the next-to-worst T14. (It's a given that they certainly won't be better than any T-14 besides GULC).

I realize you're probably flame but UM places 3%-4% less at the top 250 firms in comparison to UVA, Berk, and Cornell. It's definitely the 13th strongest big law school, but it's close enough to the rest to deserve to be included in the t13--unless the ABA data shows something inexplicably bad.

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202643450571

[rad lulz]

f

[Nelson]

The ABA breakout of firms by size is going to cause so many stupid TLS arguments. Fixating on percentage variation of placement into firms of 500+ attorneys is pointless.

What we're learning from this is that while the ABA data is much better than nothing (or the NLJ250 self reported numbers), it's not a complete picture. Ideally, schools should be providing granular information on outcomes for all of their students. That's never going to happen. So instead we're left with just anecdotes tossed back and forth and confirmation bias makes the available anecdotes unreliable.

[Blessedassurance]

NYU has a higher percentage of students going into PI of any of the schools I mentioned above.

the above is their shtick.

do you have a comprehensive list of those PI jobs? do you know how many students are in school-funded positions?

[Nelson]

I do believe that the most recent year is a better indicator of what's truly occurring than 2 years ago, and that the number from 2 years ago is better than 3 years ago, etc. Because of this, maybe we could change the formula a little bit to account for this? Maybe instead of (A+B+C)/3 (A= most recent, B=year before, C=year before that) we could do something like (A(1.2)+B(1.0)+C(.8 ))/3? Just a thought. I know the 1.2 1 and .8 are arbitrary, but I think it would be better than the current method.

So you think that hiring trends vary from school to school annually in a meaningfully predictive way? Think about that for a second.

[Blessedassurance]

i love how the nyu apologists are quick to point out their positive biglaw stats when they're better but resort to their whole nyc-for-scocial-justice-warriors schtick when their numbers stink.

but also say that it tends to attract a higher percentage of PI-minded individuals than other similar schools (which it does) that could lead to slightly lower biglaw numbers than it would have otherwise.

how did you figure the number of "pi-minded individuals"? you will quickly find out that some people develop an aversion to biglaw once they strike out. they find out "they would have never liked it anyways."

[Princetonlaw68]

I do believe that the most recent year is a better indicator of what's truly occurring than 2 years ago, and that the number from 2 years ago is better than 3 years ago, etc. Because of this, maybe we could change the formula a little bit to account for this? Maybe instead of (A+B+C)/3 (A= most recent, B=year before, C=year before that) we could do something like (A(1.2)+B(1.0)+C(.8 ))/3? Just a thought. I know the 1.2 1 and .8 are arbitrary, but I think it would be better than the current method.

So you think that hiring trends vary from school to school annually in a meaningfully predictive way? Think about that for a second.

I think that the most recent year is definitely more predicitive than 3 years ago. How much more, I cannot say.

[cotiger]

NYU has a higher percentage of students going into PI of any of the schools I mentioned above.

the above is their shtick.

do you have a comprehensive list of those PI jobs? do you know how many students are in school-funded positions?

NYU has 7.8% of LTFT grads in school-funded positions.

However, this isn't particularly different from many other T14 schools. Chicago (7.0%), Columbia (6.6%), Cornell (8.3%), GULC (12.4%), Penn (5.0%), and Yale (6.9%) all have significant numbers of LTFT grads in school-funded positions.

[Nelson]

I do believe that the most recent year is a better indicator of what's truly occurring than 2 years ago, and that the number from 2 years ago is better than 3 years ago, etc. Because of this, maybe we could change the formula a little bit to account for this? Maybe instead of (A+B+C)/3 (A= most recent, B=year before, C=year before that) we could do something like (A(1.2)+B(1.0)+C(.8 ))/3? Just a thought. I know the 1.2 1 and .8 are arbitrary, but I think it would be better than the current method.

So you think that hiring trends vary from school to school annually in a meaningfully predictive way? Think about that for a second.

I think that the most recent year is definitely more predicitive than 3 years ago. How much more, I cannot say.

That's stupid. What would possibly be the rationale for that? Firms change their mind about how many people to hire from a particular school? Don't be ridiculous. These trends are deeply ingrained in the prejudices of individuals embedded in incredibly slow to change hierarchical organizations.

Year-to-year fluctuations are far more likely due to chance and variations in the makeup of groups of hundreds of individuals with varying backgrounds and preferences. But that kind of explanation is far too rational for TLS's 0L population.

[cotiger]

I do believe that the most recent year is a better indicator of what's truly occurring than 2 years ago, and that the number from 2 years ago is better than 3 years ago, etc. Because of this, maybe we could change the formula a little bit to account for this? Maybe instead of (A+B+C)/3 (A= most recent, B=year before, C=year before that) we could do something like (A(1.2)+B(1.0)+C(.8 ))/3? Just a thought. I know the 1.2 1 and .8 are arbitrary, but I think it would be better than the current method.

So you think that hiring trends vary from school to school annually in a meaningfully predictive way? Think about that for a second.

I think the last two years of data are probably more descriptive of the current market (and the market of the next couple of years) than the stats for c/o 2011 (crash) and c/o 2012 (still in bubble) are.