Class of 2013 Employment Data Forum

[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.

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.

I disagree that this is stupid. You are welcome to have your opinion though.

[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 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.

I don't think he's using it to determine which school is "better," just to use a more robust averaging to see about how well they place in the current market.

[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?

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.

of course you do realize nyu is twice the size of cornell, chicago, yale etc? how many transfers do they take? when it's all said and done, how many people graduate from nyu? (their 2013 entering class was 440 students).

[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.

of course you do realize nyu is twice the size of cornell, chicago, yale etc? how many transfers do they take? when it's all said and done, how many people graduate from nyu? (their 2013 entering class was 440 students).

All of this information is included in their ABA disclosures.

Dunno how class size is relevant when considering percentages.

[Princetonlaw68]

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.[/quote]

of course you do realize nyu is twice the size of cornell, chicago, yale etc? how many transfers do they take? when it's all said and done, how many people graduate from nyu? (their 2013 entering class was 440 students).[/quote]

All of this information is included in their ABA disclosures.

Dunno how class size is relevant when considering percentages.[/quote]


I think he's alluding to the fact that the reason NYU may lag behind schools of equal "prestige" could simply be a product of the fact that their class size is larger, and very well may have nothing to do with self-selection.

[Nelson]

I don't think he's using it to determine which school is "better," just to use a more robust averaging to see about how well they place in the current market.

Adding an arbitrary multiplier to your averages does not make your statistical model more robust. Trimming outliers would, but the sample size is too small for you to make any assumptions or predictions about normality.

[cotiger]

I don't think he's using it to determine which school is "better," just to use a more robust averaging to see about how well they place in the current market.

Adding an arbitrary multiplier to your averages does not make your statistical model more robust. Trimming outliers would, but the sample size is too small for you to make any assumptions or predictions about normality.

Fair enough. Robust was the wrong word to use.

Though to be fair, it's not really a model, per se. I agree that weighting is arbitrary and not inherently meaningful, which is why it's not appropriate for anything outside of personal use. But we all weigh different factors in making decisions. I simply choose to weigh more recent outcomes more highly than outcomes from the boom and bust time.

Personally, I'm cool with discounting c/o 2011 but still including it (for my own personal use) because while I do think it is an outlier and not as relevant to the current market, it still provides information such as "Which schools are likely to hurt the most if another crash comes?" (Cornell) as well as generally pulling the numbers in a more conservative direction.

eta: the largest difference between weighting and a simple average is 1.4% at UChi. So it's not like any of this makes much difference anyway.

[Princetonlaw68]

I don't think he's using it to determine which school is "better," just to use a more robust averaging to see about how well they place in the current market.

Adding an arbitrary multiplier to your averages does not make your statistical model more robust. Trimming outliers would, but the sample size is too small for you to make any assumptions or predictions about normality.

You have a good point, and I guess I can't argue that the multipliers probably shouldn't be used outside of personal use, but do you really and truly believe that a stat from 3 years ago is EXACTLY as predictive as a stat from the most recent year? You believe that there is absolutely no difference at all in the predicitive value of a stat from the most recent year and that of a stat from 3 years ago? Even if what you're saying about the firms and their unchanging views on schools is true (which I don't doubt is true, and I agree with), the market changes from year to year, and if the market was better or worse in the most recent year, then that should at least be a thought. However, I will concede that the use of multipliers may not solve the problem because of the necessary arbitrariness that would have to be involved.

[stayquiet]

BYU's: http://www.law2.byu.edu/page/categories ... 3Final.pdf

19/135= 14%

[BVest]

UT is still yet to post, but here's the page where they post it.

Tick Tock, Texas.

[lawschool22]

I think he's alluding to the fact that the reason NYU may lag behind schools of equal "prestige" could simply be a product of the fact that their class size is larger, and very well may have nothing to do with self-selection.

Just food for thought, but this effect works in the opposite direction as well. Schools with smaller class sizes will see more variability percentage-wise YOY due to each graduate having a larger impact on the overall percentage.

In any case this entire discussion is somewhat pointless. A +/- 5% difference in biglaw+fed clerkship rate among schools is just not significant.

I will grant that Columbia's 78% is very impressive, although that could be partly aberration, as I believe that is up fairly significantly over last year. Still, though, it supports the conventional wisdom that Columbia is very good for biglaw.

I too agree that a 3-year average is better to use, but I wouldn't weight it really. I don't think the preferences of hiring partners change all that much over the course of three years.

[jenesaislaw]

I need to correct a mistake. The employment data this year will be for 9 months after graduation, not 10 months after graduation. I've said erroneously that the change to 10 months will happen this year. It is next year. Sorry about the mixed signals.

[Otunga]

I think he's alluding to the fact that the reason NYU may lag behind schools of equal "prestige" could simply be a product of the fact that their class size is larger, and very well may have nothing to do with self-selection.

Just food for thought, but this effect works in the opposite direction as well. Schools with smaller class sizes will see more variability percentage-wise YOY due to each graduate having a larger impact on the overall percentage.

In any case this entire discussion is somewhat pointless. A +/- 5% difference in biglaw+fed clerkship rate among schools is just not significant.

Isn't the general attitude still that median at the lower t14 is iffy for biglaw? Or is it top 60% where you've got to work your ass off/be an amazing interviewer/have excellent non-grades credentials?

[lawschool22]

I think he's alluding to the fact that the reason NYU may lag behind schools of equal "prestige" could simply be a product of the fact that their class size is larger, and very well may have nothing to do with self-selection.

Just food for thought, but this effect works in the opposite direction as well. Schools with smaller class sizes will see more variability percentage-wise YOY due to each graduate having a larger impact on the overall percentage.

In any case this entire discussion is somewhat pointless. A +/- 5% difference in biglaw+fed clerkship rate among schools is just not significant.

Isn't the general attitude still that median at the lower t14 is iffy for biglaw? Or is it top 60% where you've got to work your ass off/be an amazing interviewer/have excellent non-grades credentials?

I don't think it necessarily works exactly like that. If 60% of a class get biglaw, that doesn't mean you need to be at 60th percentile or better (although you should try to be, of course). There will be people from the bottom of the class that get biglaw and people at the top who don't. Also the people at the tippy tippy top will potentially be going for other things, like prestigious PI, fed gov, etc. This means that in certain cases biglaw will reach lower into a class than the percentages would suggest. Although if you're in the bottom quarter you better be an awesome interviewer and person in general (have good we, etc.).

If you get median at a lower T14 (excluding Gtown) I think you're still in decent shape for biglaw, assuming everything else about you and your resume is competitive.

[Princetonlaw68]

I think he's alluding to the fact that the reason NYU may lag behind schools of equal "prestige" could simply be a product of the fact that their class size is larger, and very well may have nothing to do with self-selection.

Just food for thought, but this effect works in the opposite direction as well. Schools with smaller class sizes will see more variability percentage-wise YOY due to each graduate having a larger impact on the overall percentage.

In any case this entire discussion is somewhat pointless. A +/- 5% difference in biglaw+fed clerkship rate among schools is just not significant.

Isn't the general attitude still that median at the lower t14 is iffy for biglaw? Or is it top 60% where you've got to work your ass off/be an amazing interviewer/have excellent non-grades credentials?

I don't think it necessarily works exactly like that. If 60% of a class get biglaw, that doesn't mean you need to be at 60th percentile or better (although you should try to be, of course). There will be people from the bottom of the class that get biglaw and people at the top who don't. Also the people at the tippy tippy top will potentially be going for other things, like prestigious PI, fed gov, etc. This means that in certain cases biglaw will reach lower into a class than the percentages would suggest. Although if you're in the bottom quarter you better be an awesome interviewer and person in general (have good we, etc.).

If you get median at a lower T14 (excluding Gtown) I think you're still in decent shape for biglaw, assuming everything else about you and your resume is competitive.

I've spoken to a couple of people at Gtown who claim that if you are median there and you want big law, you will probably get it. This could be due to the whole people at Gtown don't all want big law thing.

[yost]

I found Michigan's numbers:

(17+32+148+31)/399 = 57.1%

Link

[03152016]

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.

Yeah, NYU has terrible biglaw numbers this year...

Cornell better than all but Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Stanford and Chicago -- is this shocking or what? I mean I knew Cornell placed extremely well in NYC but dang even better than NYU!

The data doesn't support that assertion; the biglaw and clerkship numbers haven't been broken down geographically. Overall though, 63.5% of NYU grads landed in NY state, compared to 56.4% of Cornell grads. Re: the biglaw numbers, there is a gap in firm prestige; I don't know of V10/V100 stats, but the NJL250 stats show a sizable gap -- 54.93% of NYU grads to Cornell's 45.08%. And self-selection comes into play here -- NYU sent 11.55% of grads into PI work, compared to Cornell's 5.7%. Cornell's employment numbers are great, but that doesn't mean Cornell places better in NYC than NYU.

[d cooper]

I found Michigan's numbers:

(17+32+148+31)/399 = 57.1%

Link

Solid firm increase. GULC's looking pretty lonely.

[04102014]

I found Michigan's numbers:

(17+32+148+31)/399 = 57.1%

Link

7% of the class is "unemployed-seeking"

[yost]

I found Michigan's numbers:

(17+32+148+31)/399 = 57.1%

Link

Solid firm increase. GULC's looking pretty lonely.

Yup. Still trailing the rest of the bottom T14 by a bit, but nowhere near as bad as GULC. I'm encouraged.

[francesfarmer]

I found Michigan's numbers:

(17+32+148+31)/399 = 57.1%

Link

DOUBLE OOF

[04102014]

I found Michigan's numbers:

(17+32+148+31)/399 = 57.1%

Link

7% of the class is "unemployed-seeking"

For comparison's sake, here are some other "unemployed-seeking" stats:

Penn – 1.5%
NYU – 1.7%
Harvard – 2.1%
Duke – 2.9%

[cotiger]

I found Michigan's numbers:

(17+32+148+31)/399 = 57.1%

Link

7% of the class is "unemployed-seeking"

Over an eighth of the class is either unemployed-seeking, ST, or PT

[AAJD2B]

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.

Yeah, NYU has terrible biglaw numbers this year...

Cornell better than all but Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Stanford and Chicago -- is this shocking or what? I mean I knew Cornell placed extremely well in NYC but dang even better than NYU!

The data doesn't support that assertion; the biglaw and clerkship numbers haven't been broken down geographically. Overall though, 63.5% of NYU grads landed in NY state, compared to 56.4% of Cornell grads. Re: the biglaw numbers, there is a gap in firm prestige; I don't know of V10/V100 stats, but the NJL250 stats show a sizable gap -- 54.93% of NYU grads to Cornell's 45.08%. And self-selection comes into play here -- NYU sent 11.55% of grads into PI work, compared to Cornell's 5.7%. Cornell's employment numbers are great, but that doesn't mean Cornell places better in NYC than NYU.

....and that's why you'll be paying sticker to attend NYU? Enjoy!

[AAJD2B]

I need to correct a mistake. The employment data this year will be for 9 months after graduation, not 10 months after graduation. I've said erroneously that the change to 10 months will happen this year. It is next year. Sorry about the mixed signals.

Thanks for the heads up and your hard work!