Are folks overconservative? Quantifying the long tail Forum

[wons]

An imperfect, but relevant study re: partnership odds: http://www.adamsmithesq.com/2012/03/thebestandbrightest. Long story short, Cornell grades who get into big law to begin with are more likely to make partner than Harvard grads.

Aside from the sample size issues with the schools who have smaller numbers of people going into BigLaw, that reflects the dwindling chances of BigLaw employment from lesser schools more than the chances of making partner.

[bk1]

How so? Unless you didn't actually read the link.

[wons]

How so? Unless you didn't actually read the link.

Because he compares partners being made in year X (which is now) with first year associates in year X.

To do this right, you need to compare partners being made in year X with first year associates in year X-9ish (I'd average years 8 through 10).

Normally this wouldn't be an issue, but this leaves the study vulnerable to a crash in hiring from lesser schools . . . which is exactly what happened in 2008, well AFTER the newly-minted partners would have been hired as first year associates.

Note also that the author doesn't give you the raw numbers, just percentages, so you can't assess the sample size (and error bars) for schools like Hastings, etc.

[rayiner]

How so? Unless you didn't actually read the link.

Because he compares partners being made in year X (which is now) with first year associates in year X.

To do this right, you need to compare partners being made in year X with first year associates in year X-9ish (I'd average years 8 through 10).

Normally this wouldn't be an issue, but this leaves the study vulnerable to a crash in hiring from lesser schools . . . which is exactly what happened in 2008, well AFTER the newly-minted partners would have been hired as first year associates.

Note also that the author doesn't give you the raw numbers, just percentages, so you can't assess the sample size (and error bars) for schools like Hastings, etc.

The 2011 partnership class would've been mostly C/O 2003 grads, which was also a very down year for first-year associate hiring. I remember looking at some old data (in 2009) which I can't find anymore, but it was not a substantially better year than 2011. Also, the 2011 partnership class was smaller than usual because of the recession.

The data isn't good enough where I'm going to come out and say outright that people from lower-ranked schools are more likely to make partner, but I'm going to use it as evidence to rebut your claim that people from HYS are more likely to make partner.

[wons]

You can use it, but that doesn't mean you're using it correctly. If this is your rebuttal, I think it proves the strength of my argument.

How so? Unless you didn't actually read the link.

Because he compares partners being made in year X (which is now) with first year associates in year X.

To do this right, you need to compare partners being made in year X with first year associates in year X-9ish (I'd average years 8 through 10).

Normally this wouldn't be an issue, but this leaves the study vulnerable to a crash in hiring from lesser schools . . . which is exactly what happened in 2008, well AFTER the newly-minted partners would have been hired as first year associates.

Note also that the author doesn't give you the raw numbers, just percentages, so you can't assess the sample size (and error bars) for schools like Hastings, etc.

The 2011 partnership class would've been mostly C/O 2003 grads, which was also a very down year for first-year associate hiring. I remember looking at some old data (in 2009) which I can't find anymore, but it was not a substantially better year than 2011. Also, the 2011 partnership class was smaller than usual because of the recession.

The data isn't good enough where I'm going to come out and say outright that people from lower-ranked schools are more likely to make partner, but I'm going to use it as evidence to rebut your claim that people from HYS are more likely to make partner.

[rayiner]

You can use it, but that doesn't mean you're using it correctly. If this is your rebuttal, I think it proves the strength of my argument.

Your argument is hand-waving plus a totally ad-hoc back of the envelope calculation with numerous questionable assumptions. My argument is based on an analysis produced by the NLJ, and published on several major legal blogs. It has certain weaknesses, based on the limited availability of data, but the specific one you highlight (that first year classes might be artificially small in the 2011 data), is addressed in my post above. Moreover, your specific objection: "[it] reflects the dwindling chances of BigLaw employment from lesser schools more than the chances of making partner," is an assertion that you don't even attempt to quantify or support with any evidence. You present no evidence that NLJ 250 hiring is down at lower-ranked schools relative to the recession years of C/O 2003-2004, nor do you show that the margin of the disparities shown in the chart can be explained by such a decrease in hiring.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

You're more likely to be this guy (http://www.rosestreet.net/?p=28), than to make partner at V10. Many times more likely, in fact. Quantity that.

this is awesome. thanks for posting it

[wons]

Look, you should stop giving bad advice on this forum because its harmful to folks who read it, who give up opportunities because of your irrational nonuberance. The difference between my quickie caluclation and this one is that I limited the study to schools whose hiring power has stayed, more or less, constant over time, and then incorporated (effectively) 30 years of partnership data to wash out bumps due to small sample size and market conditions. Cornell is Cornell and has been since the 70's; same for Harvard. This study sucks because the sample sizes for shitty schools is small (presumably, since they don't report their raw data) and the 2008 artifact is huge.

Let's look solely at T14 numbers - which we agree aren't nearly as affected by the 2008 bias.


Stanford 9%
Berkeley 9%
Northwestern 9%
U/Penn 10%
U/Chicago 10%
Columbia 13%
NYU 15%
Harvard 16%
Georgetown 18%
U/Michigan 20%
Yale 21%
Duke 22%

Simply put, do these numbers make any sense at all? Of course not. There's no structure in any direction - if you wouldn't advise a student to pass up Yale for Hastings based on these numbers, would you advise them to take Duke over Stanford?

An issue here might be that these are NLJ250 partnership and associate numbers. Making partner at an NLJ250 firm is a bit like getting into a T30 school - not much of an achievement at all.

I think its profoundly unfair to the 0Ls here - who see you as a voice of reason - to basically steer people away from the law because it treated you badly. It sucks that the law treats so many folks unfairly - and it undoubtedly does - but that doesn't mean we should set out on a crusade to keep other people from having a chance to succeed.

You can use it, but that doesn't mean you're using it correctly. If this is your rebuttal, I think it proves the strength of my argument.

Your argument is hand-waving plus a totally ad-hoc back of the envelope calculation with numerous questionable assumptions. My argument is based on an analysis produced by the NLJ, and published on several major legal blogs. It has certain weaknesses, based on the limited availability of data, but the specific one you highlight (that first year classes might be artificially small in the 2011 data), is addressed in my post above. Moreover, your specific objection: "[it] reflects the dwindling chances of BigLaw employment from lesser schools more than the chances of making partner," is an assertion that you don't even attempt to quantify or support with any evidence. You present no evidence that NLJ 250 hiring is down at lower-ranked schools relative to the recession years of C/O 2003-2004, nor do you show that the margin of the disparities shown in the chart can be explained by such a decrease in hiring.

[bk1]

I think its profoundly unfair to the 0Ls here - who see you as a voice of reason - to basically steer people away from the law because it treated you badly. It sucks that the law treats so many folks unfairly - and it undoubtedly does - but that doesn't mean we should set out on a crusade to keep other people from having a chance to succeed.

what is this i dont even

Following your advice I'll stop my crusade against buying lottery tickets since it is stopping people from having a chance to succeed.

[Tiago Splitter]

irrational nonuberance.

[nouseforaname123]

An imperfect, but relevant study re: partnership odds: http://www.adamsmithesq.com/2012/03/thebestandbrightest. Long story short, Cornell grades who get into big law to begin with are more likely to make partner than Harvard grads.

Aside from the sample size issues with the schools who have smaller numbers of people going into BigLaw, that reflects the dwindling chances of BigLaw employment from lesser schools more than the chances of making partner.

Wait, I thought this thread was all about proving that outliers matter? Why are you so dismissive of outliers from lesser schools?

[Kikero]

Making partner at an NLJ250 firm is a bit like getting into a T30 school - not much of an achievement at all.

K

[bombaysippin]

Making partner at an NLJ250 firm is a bit like getting into a T30 school - not much of an achievement at all.

Ohhhhh shots fired.

[rayiner]

The difference between my quickie caluclation and this one is thimited the study to schools whose hiring power has stayed, more or less, constant over time, and then incorporated (effectively) 30 years of partnership data to wash out bumps due to small sample size and market conditions. Cornell is Cornell and has been since the 70's; same for Harvard.

Not true. Leverage and thus big firm hiring has increased dramatically over the last few decades. This has not happened uniformly through the T14. The gap, historically, was bigger.

Let's look solely at T14 numbers - which we agree aren't nearly as affected by the 2008 bias.

Stanford 9%
Berthwestern 9%
U/Penn 10%
U/Chicago 10%
Columbia 13%
NYU 15%
Harvard 16%
Georgetown 18%
U/Michigan 20%
Yale 21%
Duke 22%

Simply put, do these numbers make any sense at all? Of course not. There's no structure in any direction - if you wouldn't advise a student to pass up Yale for Hastings based on these numbers, would you advise them to take Duke over Stanford?

These numbers show that 10-20% of associates at these schools will make partner, and there is little correlation with rank. On that basis, I'd advise taking Duke with money over sticker at Stanford. What I reject is your utterly unsubstantiated claim that associates from higher ranking schools are shown preference when it comes to getting assignments or making partner. Partners don't give enough of a shit about you to look at your firm bio.

An issue here might be that these are NLJ250 partnership and associate numbers. Making partner at an NLJ250 firm is a bit like getting into a T30 school - not much of an achievement at all.

Outside a handful of lockstep firms, which make maybe 100-200 partners per year, your income as a partner will be proportional to your ability to develop business, not the prestige of your firm.

I think its profoundly unfair to the 0Ls here - who see you as a voice of reason - to basically steer people away from the law because it treated you badly.

Law has treated me well, and in fact most of my law school friends are happy. I'm not telling anyone not to go to a T14. I'm telling them to be realistic about what they're getting into. Taking on a lot of debt to get HYS on your resume, on the basis of nebulous assertions about getting a leg up on partnership, is not realistic.

[Borg]

The difference between my quickie caluclation and this one is thimited the study to schools whose hiring power has stayed, more or less, constant over time, and then incorporated (effectively) 30 years of partnership data to wash out bumps due to small sample size and market conditions. Cornell is Cornell and has been since the 70's; same for Harvard.

Not true. Leverage and thus big firm hiring has increased dramatically over the last few decades. This has not happened uniformly through the T14. The gap, historically, was bigger.

Let's look solely at T14 numbers - which we agree aren't nearly as affected by the 2008 bias.

Stanford 9%
Berthwestern 9%
U/Penn 10%
U/Chicago 10%
Columbia 13%
NYU 15%
Harvard 16%
Georgetown 18%
U/Michigan 20%
Yale 21%
Duke 22%

Simply put, do these numbers make any sense at all? Of course not. There's no structure in any direction - if you wouldn't advise a student to pass up Yale for Hastings based on these numbers, would you advise them to take Duke over Stanford?

These numbers show that 10-20% of associates at these schools will make partner, and there is little correlation with rank. On that basis, I'd advise taking Duke with money over sticker at Stanford. What I reject is your utterly unsubstantiated claim that associates from higher ranking schools are shown preference when it comes to getting assignments or making partner. Partners don't give enough of a shit about you to look at your firm bio.

An issue here might be that these are NLJ250 partnership and associate numbers. Making partner at an NLJ250 firm is a bit like getting into a T30 school - not much of an achievement at all.

Outside a handful of lockstep firms, which make maybe 100-200 partners per year, your income as a partner will be proportional to your ability to develop business, not the prestige of your firm.

I think its profoundly unfair to the 0Ls here - who see you as a voice of reason - to basically steer people away from the law because it treated you badly.

Law has treated me well, and in fact most of my law school friends are happy. I'm not telling anyone not to go to a T14. I'm telling them to be realistic about what they're getting into. Taking on a lot of debt to get HYS on your resume, on the basis of nebulous assertions about getting a leg up on partnership, is not realistic.

This is all correct. The premise of this thread is the most outrageous load of BS I could ever imagine. If you pick a law school based on your "chances of making partner in biglaw," you've already demonstrated such an abject inability to think critically that you have no chance whatsoever of doing anything that involves mental acuity, much less making partner in biglaw.

[Pulsar]

OP's psyche is probably too fragile to take reasoned argument that HYS does not determine the course of one's future.

And as long as we're throwing around data, might I direct your attention to: http://witnesseth.typepad.com/blog/2012 ... -from.html

BETTER TAKE THOSE RUBIES PEOPLE

[dixiecupdrinking]

Nonuberance.