Class of 2013 Employment Data Forum

[LRGhost]

getting paid $30,000 is probably worse in the long term for the same reason unpaid internships has been worse for UG students in the long term. obviously it's good for the individual but bad for students as a whole

[thereelfeels]

Penn State: --LinkRemoved--

4+1+3+4/200 = 6%

[swampman]

getting paid $30,000 is probably worse in the long term for the same reason unpaid internships has been worse for UG students in the long term. obviously it's good for the individual but bad for students as a whole

This might be true if the fellowships were placing people at private firms, but we're talking PI. A big reason PI orgs don't hire entry level attorneys is that they just don't have the money to train people from scratch, or they have the money to train somebody but they have to wait for someone else to retire/die before the position opens up. Even if PI orgs did replace these fellowships with entry level jobs, entry level salaries are often not dramatically better than $30k. But really what would happen is people would go back to volunteering at the PI org after graduation and hoping a position opens up somewhere before they starve.

[JCougar]

School-funded jobs are not all bad, but neither are all business/government/PI. So if you're not including the latter, you shouldn't include the former.

I wish we had a breakdown of "Government" at least. It would be really helpful to sort out FedGov jobs from State and Local ones, and include at least FedGov in the "good jobs" score. That's not to say all state and local jobs are bad, but a certain percentage of them are.

Fair point. Some of the top grads I know (order of the coif at T-14) went straight to the DOJ (no biglaw). And certain federal government jobs are what biglaw attorneys want and lateral to (DOJ, SEC). There's no good reason to do biglaw first if you can get one of these jobs straight out and you're interested in the subject material. They have great benefits, probably better QOL and much, much more substantive work.

Lol I know a 3L at a lower T14 graduating and going to continue unpaid FT at a DA's office (where they worked 2L), and that counts as Gov't.

Yeah, it cuts both ways. FedGov is much, much more substantive work, but I also know of someone doing an unpaid DOJ job. I think those jobs count against your 120 PSLF loan payments, though. You can make 12 payments of $0 and only have 9 years left when they hire you full time.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

But hey why does LST count school funded in the employment score? I get that school funded positions are a good thing, but including them as equals to normal paid jobs earned in a competive job market makes little sense to me... Does LST worry that changing their rubric might incentivize some schools to cut back on funding or duration for these programs?

I feel like LST does a pretty solid job explaining what percentage of the "little green number" is made up of school funded jobs.

Does it? My understanding is the school funded metric on LST is ALL school funded, not just FTLT school funded. At many schools, 10% of the class might be school funded but only 2% is LTFT school funded. At others, they are counting 100% if their school funded as LTFT, thus increasing their employment score dramatically.

So should LST alter the school funded percentage to only include LTFT school funded? That would be more fair and reduce gaming, but I still think the best scenario is to remove all school funded from the employment score.

[cotiger]

But hey why does LST count school funded in the employment score? I get that school funded positions are a good thing, but including them as equals to normal paid jobs earned in a competive job market makes little sense to me... Does LST worry that changing their rubric might incentivize some schools to cut back on funding or duration for these programs?

I feel like LST does a pretty solid job explaining what percentage of the "little green number" is made up of school funded jobs.

Does it? My understanding is the school funded metric on LST is ALL school funded, not just FTLT school funded. At many schools, 10% of the class might be school funded but only 2% is LTFT school funded. At others, they are counting 100% if their school funded as LTFT, thus increasing their employment score dramatically.

So should LST alter the school funded percentage to only include LTFT school funded? That would be more fair and reduce gaming, but I still think the best scenario is to remove all school funded from the employment score.

School-funded rate is all types of school-funded positions. The red asterisk next to the employment score tell how many were in LTFT positions.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

School-funded jobs are not all bad, but neither are all business/government/PI. So if you're not including the latter, you shouldn't include the former.

I wish we had a breakdown of "Government" at least. It would be really helpful to sort out FedGov jobs from State and Local ones, and include at least FedGov in the "good jobs" score. That's not to say all state and local jobs are bad, but a certain percentage of them are.

Fair point. Some of the top grads I know (order of the coif at T-14) went straight to the DOJ (no biglaw). And certain federal government jobs are what biglaw attorneys want and lateral to (DOJ, SEC). There's no good reason to do biglaw first if you can get one of these jobs straight out and you're interested in the subject material. They have great benefits, probably better QOL and much, much more substantive work.

Lol I know a 3L at a lower T14 graduating and going to continue unpaid FT at a DA's office (where they worked 2L), and that counts as Gov't.

Yeah, it cuts both ways. FedGov is much, much more substantive work, but I also know of someone doing an unpaid DOJ job. I think those jobs count against your 120 PSLF loan payments, though. You can make 12 payments of $0 and only have 9 years left when they hire you full time.

That counts as gov so long as the school is paying a salary. The person would count as school funded, LTFT, gov. Right?

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

But hey why does LST count school funded in the employment score? I get that school funded positions are a good thing, but including them as equals to normal paid jobs earned in a competive job market makes little sense to me... Does LST worry that changing their rubric might incentivize some schools to cut back on funding or duration for these programs?

I feel like LST does a pretty solid job explaining what percentage of the "little green number" is made up of school funded jobs.

Does it? My understanding is the school funded metric on LST is ALL school funded, not just FTLT school funded. At many schools, 10% of the class might be school funded but only 2% is LTFT school funded. At others, they are counting 100% if their school funded as LTFT, thus increasing their employment score dramatically.

So should LST alter the school funded percentage to only include LTFT school funded? That would be more fair and reduce gaming, but I still think the best scenario is to remove all school funded from the employment score.

School-funded rate is all types of school-funded positions. The red asterisk next to the employment score tell how many were in LTFT positions.

Thanks, I never saw that.

So yeah. Basically what I've been saying is this asterisk should be larger.

[JCougar]

That counts as gov so long as the school is paying a salary. The person would count as school funded, LTFT, gov. Right?

I don't know if you can get school funding for those types of jobs. My school doesn't give you funding for them. You have to truly be a "volunteer," but those jobs actually consider you a full-time employee.

IOW, schools might be counting them as non-school-funded LTFT, JD-required. And that means they count as "employed" on both LST and US News.

[brianiac16]

Arizona State just posted, if they aren't already in here somewhere:

3+12+3 +2= 9.8%

Edit: http://www.law.asu.edu/Portals/0/Files/ ... 20Form.pdf

[logicspeaks]

I can't lie - I've checked to see if UCI was up about 5 times today. I'm really curious about whether or not their clerkship numbers held up.

[pluto111]

very curious about this as well. I have heard that the raw number of clerkships should be similar, but obviously the percentage will go down because the class of 2013 is larger.

[Hrun]

UC Davis

2.04 + 14.28 = 16.3%

http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/current/care ... stics.html

[twenty]

I think those jobs count against your 120 PSLF loan payments, though.

Only Americorps and Peace Corps qualify, so no, volunteering for DOJ will not count as a year for PSLF purposes.

[jbagelboy]

No Minnesota yet huh? Checked their website, couldn't find it.

[BigZuck]

UC Davis

2.04 + 14.28 = 16.3%

http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/current/care ... stics.html

I thought we agreed to stop making fun of the TTTs?

[Tiago Splitter]

Ok so what did I miss...

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

That counts as gov so long as the school is paying a salary. The person would count as school funded, LTFT, gov. Right?

I don't know if you can get school funding for those types of jobs. My school doesn't give you funding for them. You have to truly be a "volunteer," but those jobs actually consider you a full-time employee.

IOW, schools might be counting them as non-school-funded LTFT, JD-required. And that means they count as "employed" on both LST and US News.

My understanding is that the ABA asks for paid positions. All the employment surveys I have seen have asked students if they had found gainful employment or paid employment.

Counting unpaid volunteers as employed would also be like, morally wrong and stuff. So I don't think they would do that.

[BigZuck]

Ok so what did I miss...

A couple people are still waiting on UT, would you mind getting on the horn tomorrow morning and posting that for us?

TYIA

[cotiger]

Ok so what did I miss...

Here's what we have so far of T14+UT/Vandy/UCLA/USC

[Hrun]

UC Davis

2.04 + 14.28 = 16.3%

http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/current/care ... stics.html

I thought we agreed to stop making fun of the TTTs?

At least I didn't post Hastings'. I looked at their 103 unemployed of 373 and didn't even bother.

[Mack.Hambleton]

Ok so what did I miss...

Here's what we have so far of T14+UT/Vandy/UCLA/USC

why does no one from Columbia want to clerk?

[BigZuck]

Ok so what did I miss...

Here's what we have so far of T14+UT/Vandy/UCLA/USC

why does no one from Columbia want to clerk?

Can't buy bottles and/or models in NYC on a clerk's salary IMO

[jenesaislaw]

Few opines..

Should LST stop counting school funded in LTFT? If not, shouldn't you at least show which schools are gaming LTFT by recording so many school funded peps in this category? Maybe change school funded and include a breakdown, or just flat out remove all school funded from the employment score as suggested above.

Is there anyway to distinguish between state and local clerkships? Having state Supreme Court and traffic court in the same category is very meh, no?

You don't want to play around too much though. I think people assume that a student funded position at Yale and one at George Washington are not the same outcome. The more factual the data the more useful.

[and later you wrote:]
Does LST worry that changing their rubric might incentivize some schools to cut back on funding or duration for these programs?

On our new site, coming VERY soon, the red asterisk is bigger, so others will not miss it as easily (I hope). You'll also have the opportunity to create custom scores so that you can exclude it. There's been good discussion in this thread about why we don't exclude the school-funded jobs from the Employment Score, but instead use the asterisk. We will not be changing our position anytime soon for a number of reasons, including the incentive -- though that's low on the totem pole because I don't think any school will stop doing them because of the Employment Score. Now, if U.S. News starts excluding them, we might have a real incentive.

I feel like LST does a pretty solid job explaining what percentage of the "little green number" is made up of school funded jobs.

School funded jobs are tricky. I'm inclined to say that a lot of schools will use them to boost their employment numbers, (i.e, GWU) but I think a reasonable case can be made for school funded positions being a valuable asset to a graduating PI-gunner student. Most PI hiring doesn't legitimately happen until anywhere from a year to three years after the student graduates, and being able to rely on a steady stream of income for at least the first year is pretty advantageous.

Very good post. And not just because you say we do a pretty solid job.

There's going to be a story on NPR Morning Edition (Planet Money) on Friday about school-funded jobs, following up on the Economist piece that ran last week. I spent 40 minutes recording at NPR HQ yesterday, so I'm sure I said at least one ill-advised thing. Hopefully the piece captures all I tried to convey about the positives and negatives; what it's a symptom of (irresponsible enrollment growth); and how the graduate's perspective differs from the prospective student's perspective when it comes to these programs.

[Blessedassurance]

following up on the Economist piece that ran last week.

link to the economist piece?