Class of 2013 Employment Data Forum

[aboutmydaylight]

Re: NYU vs. CCP

I think a more plausible theory is that NYU's class, on average, has slightly worse softs/WE than CLS. CLS and NYU attract people with similar numbers--the difference may be that CLS's class has more people with banking/consulting/international or other prestigious WE or language skills. That can make a difference at OCI. This theory is supported by the huge number of CLS students with Ivy undergrads and/or international backgrounds.

Same could be said w/r/t Penn vs. VBM.

For the record, I think the PI-focus and class size also play some role.

Man I really doubt it. The applicant pool at Columbia and NYU is virtually the same. Only difference in acceptance being an LSAT point or two. I don't see any reason to assume one group is significantly different from the other excluding the LSAT scores.

[californiauser]

Re: NYU vs. CCP

I think a more plausible theory is that NYU's class, on average, has slightly worse softs/WE than CLS. CLS and NYU attract people with similar numbers--the difference may be that CLS's class has more people with banking/consulting/international or other prestigious WE or language skills. That can make a difference at OCI. This theory is supported by the huge number of CLS students with Ivy undergrads and/or international backgrounds.

Same could be said w/r/t Penn vs. VBM.

For the record, I think the PI-focus and class size also play some role.

christ, stop with this bs. let it die or take it to another thread

[SLS_AMG]

I'm fascinated right now by how badly Michigan's struggling students did relative to other T14s (such as UVA). LST's under-employment score for Mich is going to be rough.

But UVA is still hiring over 16% of its own grads that it can't place to boost its employment score. That's just ridiculous.

FWIW I think Berkeley, Michigan and UVA could become a lot stronger and be more in line with Penn and NYU if they would shrink their class sizes.

[xJD2017x]

I'm fascinated right now by how badly Michigan's struggling students did relative to other T14s (such as UVA). LST's under-employment score for Mich is going to be rough.

But UVA is still hiring over 16% of its own grads that it can't place to boost its employment score. That's just ridiculous.

Who is going to hire them in Virginia?? No one.

[rpupkin]

Now don't get me wrong, I am also entering the profession but I won't be paying sticker to go anywhere and with my networking and affiliations, not to mention my growing business partnership, I believe I am better informed on what's at stake here and have several back-up plans in case things don't work out.

Your belief is wrong. Your so-called experience has made you soft. Those of us who have gone straight through have something you have lost: the ability to battle. Your "networking and affiliations" won't save you when the pressure is on. Prepare to join the ranks of the beaten.

[Gooner91]

I'm fascinated right now by how badly Michigan's struggling students did relative to other T14s (such as UVA). LST's under-employment score for Mich is going to be rough.

But UVA is still hiring over 16% of its own grads that it can't place to boost its employment score. That's just ridiculous.

FWIW I think Berkeley, Michigan and UVA could become a lot stronger and be more in line with Penn and NYU if they would shrink their class sizes.

Not just for UVa but other schools as well, how many of these school funded jobs/fellowships lead to LTFT jobs? Is there any data on this?

[04102014]

+1

They are too busy debating prestige and defending turfs without realizing what's truly at stake here. Most of them are still wiping snot out of their noses with no working experience in the real world. I just have to chuckle.

Now don't get me wrong, I am also entering the profession but I won't be paying sticker to go anywhere and with my networking and affiliations, not to mention my growing business partnership, I believe I am better informed on what's at stake here and have several back-up plans in case things don't work out.

But hey, what do I know?

[MissouriMisery]

Berkeley employment #s?

[Princetonlaw68]

Now don't get me wrong, I am also entering the profession but I won't be paying sticker to go anywhere and with my networking and affiliations, not to mention my growing business partnership, I believe I am better informed on what's at stake here and have several back-up plans in case things don't work out.

Your belief is wrong. Your so-called experience has made you soft. Those of us who have gone straight through have something you have lost: the ability to battle. Your "networking and affiliations" won't save you when the pressure is on. Prepare to join the ranks of the beaten.

It's pretty much a fact that K-JDs do worse at OCI than people with legit work experience. I hate to break the news to you...

[rpupkin]

Now don't get me wrong, I am also entering the profession but I won't be paying sticker to go anywhere and with my networking and affiliations, not to mention my growing business partnership, I believe I am better informed on what's at stake here and have several back-up plans in case things don't work out.

Your belief is wrong. Your so-called experience has made you soft. Those of us who have gone straight through have something you have lost: the ability to battle. Your "networking and affiliations" won't save you when the pressure is on. Prepare to join the ranks of the beaten.

It's pretty much a fact that K-JDs do worse at OCI then people with legit work experience. I hate to break the news to you...

It's definitely a fact that people with legit work experience make wild assertions without evidence. Case in point: you.

[Princetonlaw68]

Now don't get me wrong, I am also entering the profession but I won't be paying sticker to go anywhere and with my networking and affiliations, not to mention my growing business partnership, I believe I am better informed on what's at stake here and have several back-up plans in case things don't work out.

Your belief is wrong. Your so-called experience has made you soft. Those of us who have gone straight through have something you have lost: the ability to battle. Your "networking and affiliations" won't save you when the pressure is on. Prepare to join the ranks of the beaten.

It's pretty much a fact that K-JDs do worse at OCI then people with legit work experience. I hate to break the news to you...

It's definitely a fact that people with legit work experience make wild assertions without evidence. Case in point: you.

At least I don't sit and convince myself of wild assertions like somehow going straight from undergrad to law school is better than having work experience because you are "more prepared to battle." Ridiculous. At least what I'm saying is backed up by the fact that firms do look for people with certain kinds of work experience. No firm specifically prefers K-JDs...

[04102014]

Well, things have gone downhill fast.

[AAJD2B]

Now don't get me wrong, I am also entering the profession but I won't be paying sticker to go anywhere and with my networking and affiliations, not to mention my growing business partnership, I believe I am better informed on what's at stake here and have several back-up plans in case things don't work out.

Your belief is wrong. Your so-called experience has made you soft. Those of us who have gone straight through have something you have lost: the ability to battle. Your "networking and affiliations" won't save you when the pressure is on. Prepare to join the ranks of the beaten.

O rly?

Whatever you say.

Now excuse me while I head to my business dinner with a few Cayman Islands hedge-fund managers, many of whom know my work product.

My connects are not limited to US shores, thank you very much. But I will let you decide my future, just like the rest.

[lecsa]

.

[d cooper]

Now don't get me wrong, I am also entering the profession but I won't be paying sticker to go anywhere and with my networking and affiliations, not to mention my growing business partnership, I believe I am better informed on what's at stake here and have several back-up plans in case things don't work out.

Your belief is wrong. Your so-called experience has made you soft. Those of us who have gone straight through have something you have lost: the ability to battle. Your "networking and affiliations" won't save you when the pressure is on. Prepare to join the ranks of the beaten.

O rly?

Whatever you say.

Now excuse me while I head to my business dinner with a few Cayman Islands hedge-fund managers, many of whom know my work product.

My connects are not limited to US shores, thank you very much. But I will let you decide my future, just like the rest.

wat

[rpupkin]

At least what I'm saying is backed up by thefact that firms do look for people with certain kinds of work experience.

Wrong.

No firm specifically prefers K-JDs...

Also wrong.

Your purported "facts" have gotten you nowhere. In fact, the poor reasoning skills you've demonstrated ITT are an excellent example of why most firms steer clear of "non-traditional" grads with "experience."

[kaiser]

Now don't get me wrong, I am also entering the profession but I won't be paying sticker to go anywhere and with my networking and affiliations, not to mention my growing business partnership, I believe I am better informed on what's at stake here and have several back-up plans in case things don't work out.

Your belief is wrong. Your so-called experience has made you soft. Those of us who have gone straight through have something you have lost: the ability to battle. Your "networking and affiliations" won't save you when the pressure is on. Prepare to join the ranks of the beaten.

O rly?

Whatever you say.

Now excuse me while I head to my business dinner with a few Cayman Islands hedge-fund managers, many of whom know my work product.

My connects are not limited to US shores, thank you very much. But I will let you decide my future, just like the rest.

Do people like you really exist in the world? I feel so bad for your future classmates. Man oh man

[Gooner91]

O rly?

Whatever you say.

Now excuse me while I head to my business dinner with a few Cayman Islands hedge-fund managers, many of whom know my work product.

My connects are not limited to US shores, thank you very much. But I will let you decide my future, just like the rest.

Goodbye peasants I am off to the Caymen Islands...

[californiauser]

I'm fascinated right now by how badly Michigan's struggling students did relative to other T14s (such as UVA). LST's under-employment score for Mich is going to be rough.

But UVA is still hiring over 16% of its own grads that it can't place to boost its employment score. That's just ridiculous.

FWIW I think Berkeley, Michigan and UVA could become a lot stronger and be more in line with Penn and NYU if they would shrink their class sizes.

I think I read somewhere that UVA had the highest percentage of self-placed grads in the T-14. 16% is crazy.

Not sure why GULC and Mich get slammed on here but Virginia gets a pass for this bs

[jbagelboy]

Re: NYU vs. CCP

I think a more plausible theory is that NYU's class, on average, has slightly worse softs/WE than CLS. CLS and NYU attract people with similar numbers--the difference may be that CLS's class has more people with banking/consulting/international or other prestigious WE or language skills. That can make a difference at OCI. This theory is supported by the huge number of CLS students with Ivy undergrads and/or international backgrounds.

Same could be said w/r/t Penn vs. VBM.

For the record, I think the PI-focus and class size also play some role.

Man I really doubt it. The applicant pool at Columbia and NYU is virtually the same. Only difference in acceptance being an LSAT point or two. I don't see any reason to assume one group is significantly different from the other excluding the LSAT scores.

Lol okay, the applicant pool may be substantially the same but the admitted pool is not. 1 LSAT point is not the only difference, since for years, they had the same LSAT median while Columbia had an ~8% lower acceptance rate. It's no secret that CLS is "more competitive" in the sense that their admission rate over the past few years has hovered around ~16% vs. 22-25% at NYU. Something must account for that, and I wouldn't be surprised it if came down to the type of softs banjo referred to.

That being said, the student body will be similar since for most the choice comes down to $$. But the set of applicants admitted to CLS and WL or denied at NYU is far smaller than the set admitted at NYU and reserved or denied at CLS.

[Princetonlaw68]

At least what I'm saying is backed up by thefact that firms do look for people with certain kinds of work experience.

Wrong.

No firm specifically prefers K-JDs...

Also wrong.

Your purported "facts" have gotten you nowhere. In fact, the poor reasoning skills you've demonstrated ITT are an excellent example of why most firms steer clear of those "non-traditional" grads with "experience."

You keep saying that the assertions I'm making are wild and unsupported. Yours aren't? How about you provide some evidence for any of what you're saying...

[lawschool22]

Going to NYU on an RTK is one thing, going to NYU as Joe Average law student paying sticker is another. The issue is that we don't have good ways to disaggregate the outcomes of those two situations or know the proportions of those populations at NYU compared to other peer schools. Absent data, there's no point in arguing about it, just take the data we do have for what it is and move on.

I'm not trying to argue the relative quality of the PI outcomes at NYU vs. CCP, etc. My only point is that I think it's fair to assume you have a small, but statistically significant increased number of people at NYU who do not seek biglaw. Sure, they may end up in shitty PI. But the point is that if you have fewer people gunning for biglaw in the first place, your ultimate biglaw placement percentages are likely to be somewhat lower than peer schools.

I'm not saying NYU is a magical PI school that gets everyone top-quality PI outcomes. I'm just saying that it's reasonable to assume you have fewer people gunning for biglaw in the first place.

On the flip side, I think Columbia benefits from the reverse effect. That is, a higher number of people gunning for biglaw than it's peers --> slightly higher biglaw placement.

I'm not going to come flat out and say you are wrong about NYU (although there's no "reverse effect" at CLS...), but I think it might be interesting for you to revisit these "assumptions"/claims as an actual law student. Having never attended law school, where do you draw this type of information from? "The data" doesn't tell you any of this. Is it just regurgitation of adcom stereotypes matched with #s published by the american bar? I'm asking sincerely, not trying to patronize or insult you. You make a lot of valuable admissions contributions on this site, so don't take this the wrong way, but some 0L generated information is dangerous when applied and read carelessly.

Also when you say "peers" you are really referring to the TLS/USNWR-invented groupings, yes? It may surprise you that hiring partners and public interest employers often don't share these machinations. There are schools where some V50s will traditionally hire from most - in new york, that "peer" group tends to be Columbia, Harvard, and NYU. In Chicago, it might be UChi, NU, and Harvard, or in SF, Stanford, Yale, and Cal, ect. You throw around "peer" rather loosely. I think blessedassurance's points wrt student bodies at NYU, Harvard, Berkeley ect are not strawmen here.

Maybe my position is coming across stronger than I intend it too. I am obviously not basing this off data, since this type of data isn't available. I'm simply trying to use the info we do have to give my thoughts. No one should take it as gospel. In my truly humble opinion, I don't think it is a stretch to say there is some effect from this. As ohpo points out it isn't quantifiable, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. This may be an area where we will have to simply agree to disagree.

I of course don't think anyone should base any decisions on what I am saying, in the same way I don't think someone should go to NYU over Penn because NYU is #6, or go to Penn over NYU because Penn's biglaw + fed score is a few % points higher. As always, cost, location goals, and career goals reign supreme.

I think we can all agree that the schools we are discussing are each elite schools, and that variances in the single digits on these %'s are simply not meaningful as far as a decision-making tool is concerned.

[banjo]

Re: NYU vs. CCP

I think a more plausible theory is that NYU's class, on average, has slightly worse softs/WE than CLS. CLS and NYU attract people with similar numbers--the difference may be that CLS's class has more people with banking/consulting/international or other prestigious WE or language skills. That can make a difference at OCI. This theory is supported by the huge number of CLS students with Ivy undergrads and/or international backgrounds.

Same could be said w/r/t Penn vs. VBM.

For the record, I think the PI-focus and class size also play some role.

Man I really doubt it. The applicant pool at Columbia and NYU is virtually the same. Only difference in acceptance being an LSAT point or two. I don't see any reason to assume one group is significantly different from the other excluding the LSAT scores.

Lol okay, the applicant pool may be substantially the same but the admitted pool is not. 1 LSAT point is not the only difference, since for years, they had the same LSAT median while Columbia had an ~8% lower acceptance rate. It's no secret that CLS is "more competitive" in the sense that their admission rate over the past few years has hovered around ~16% vs. 22-25% at NYU. Something must account for that, and I wouldn't be surprised it if came down to the type of softs banjo referred to.

That being said, the student body will be similar since for most the choice comes down to $$. But the set of applicants admitted to CLS and WL or denied at NYU is far smaller than the set admitted at NYU and reserved or denied at CLS.

Well said.

[lecsa]

.

[DrStudMuffin]

UVA info is up Firms: 17, 25, 140: 182 + 47 federal clerkship = 229 / 364 graduating class = 62.91%

Or 50% in firms 100+ and 12.91% in federal clerkships.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/aba/2013employment.pdf

I'm fascinated right now by how badly Michigan's struggling students did relative to other T14s (such as UVA). LST's under-employment score for Mich is going to be rough.

Huh? Are we now viewing school funded positions as desirable outcomes? Granted, a school funded job is better than unemployment, but when you account for the fact that UVA hired 59 of its graduates I hardly think Michigan looks as bad as you say in comparison. (An argument could be made that Michigan should provide these positions for its graduates as well to soften the landing, but that's a different point)

For reference, when you add up unemployed - not seeking, unemployed - seeking, employment status unknown, university employed, FTST, PTLT, and PTST, the percentages are: Michigan - 17.54%, UVA - 18.68%.

Feel free to check my work on that, I did it rather quickly.

edit: uber scooped