Class of 2013 Employment Data Forum

[lecsa]

.

[BigZuck]

Student at T14 here. I've been talking with my school's career services a lot lately and generally trying to see what my options will be after graduation. Jumping in here because this thread needs to get back on track. I have no skin in this game, I just want to keep 0Ls from relying on this garbage subtier stuff.

The only meaningful distinction among the top schools is:

YHS
Rest of T14

(Yes, at equal price, Y over Columbia; Columbia over Cornell; maybe even Cornell over Georgetown- I'll concede that Georgetown may actually be in decline)

People here seem to acknowledge that this metric of firms of 101+ and fed clerkships is imperfect, then we go ahead remaking these tiers again relying on this data. The point occasionally comes up that people at NYU/Michigan/Georgetown self-select into non-firm jobs. The thread generally agrees with it, but then this subtier stuff wins out.

Do you really think that these schools' PI focus can't account for the 5 percentage points that separate them from their traditional peers? When people decide on a law school, they'll decide to go to the school that they can most associate with - it's not like there is a perfectly equal distribution of people who want to go into private practice and those who do not. Sure, many (most?) people who go in thinking that decide later to do a few years of firm work first. But don't you think the schools that have historically been strong at placing into PI keep more people on this track? Again, we're not taking into account here the people who specifically chose school X because of their PI focus.

Obviously there are other factors. A school's career services might not be getting the right firms to come to OCI. They might not be making their students good interviewers. But to assume this, or that all the sudden law firms have changed their hiring practices, in face of the fact that these PI-focused schools tend to attract the people who won't help their firm/fed. clerkship numbers (or even LST numbers), is not something we can do with the information we have. We shouldn't be doing anything with these numbers besides pointing out that Georgetown does seem to be in decline, Columbia is kicking ass, Penn may actually be distinguishing itself from its peer, or broad generalizations like that. That is literally all we can do. NU is not better than UVA. Cornell is not better than NU. Duke is not better than Michigan. Penn is not better than NYU. This is all garbage and useless and could be dangerous for 0Ls who actually believe all of this T12, CCNP, stuff to be true.

Anyway, simple point here is that a difference in >10 percentage points isn't going to tell you anything at all. It just won't. We'd be assuming way too much and those assumptions would be in conflict with many things we commonly believe to be true about certain law schools' student bodies and the nature of post-grad hiring (for example, people may prefer mid-sized firms to larger ones or wanted a state/local clerkship before starting to practice).

You're way too concerned about people making obvious jokes

Lol Michigan and Georgetown though. Seriously.

0Ls should really focus on grade cutoffs for biglaw; at G, median has a pretty good chance of getting Biglaw (fuck, man, I was barely above median and am summering at a V100 this year as a 1L); at Texas and Vandy, not so much. Just look at the disparity between G's PI/Gov rating (even taking School-funded jobs out) versus V and T; if you really think that DC's only T14 isn't sending at least 8-9% into desirable PI/Gov jobs, then go ahead and believe that. And for those speaking of G's putative decline, why the hell would that be? It's not like G's student medians are appreciably different from the rest of the 7-14 schools (equal to M and NU, higher than Cornell and B), all reputational indices put it on par with DNC, etc. Even without factoring for self-selection, G's FedClerk + Biglaw numbers are still higher than UT and Vandy's. And for obtaining desirable PI + Gov work, is there really any comparison between those two schools and Georgetown?

Georgetown's class size for the class of 2016 was 544, down 6% and may be decreasing further this year.

Speaking of M, doesn't Michigan release granular data about what positions each student took? It should be pretty easy (but exhausting) to figure out which PI and government positions were actually desirable, no?

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, some of the T-14s cut their class size after this thread's employment information, so I think employment percentages should improve for these schools by quite a bit.

Looks like Michigan's class size also went down for Class of 2016, to 315. https://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivest ... stics.aspx

The data used in this thread reports 399 students for Class of 2013, so they cut it down by quite a bit (just based on these numbers, down by around 20%). I don't know how many transfers they'll have but I think they used to have 360 to 370 entering as 1Ls, so they cut their class size by at least around 50 students. If they accept fewer transfers, then maybe they'll cut it by around 70 or so.

Some of the smaller schools (Cornell, Vandy) can't afford to cut more students since they need the money, but the bigger schools like Georgetown and Michigan can and have done so. Frankly, if the larger schools keep this up, they will probably do better employment wise than the smaller schools (who don't have the endowments or money to do anything about their class sizes).

Evidence that smaller class sizes will = better employment?

Just because there is a smaller pool to pick from doesn't necessarily mean employers will relax their standards IMO. Especially when it comes to large firms.

[lecsa]

.

[sublime]

..

[haus]

Evidence that smaller class sizes will = better employment?

Just because there is a smaller pool to pick from doesn't necessarily mean employers will relax their standards IMO. Especially when it comes to large firms.

Seems highly unlikely that a business is going to opt to restrict its growth because X school of law has less people in a given years graduating class.

[lecsa]

.

[BigZuck]

I am interested to see how the class drop at WUSTL affects outcomes. C/o 2013 was like 300, and my class (2016) is like 185ish. I don't expect the raw numbers to quite hold (that would be almost 50% in 100+ firms and fed clerkships) but 40% or even slightly higher shouldn't be out of the question.

I'm still really suspicious that a firm who normally goes for, say, top 10% at WUSTL will say "Oh, there's less kids in the top 10%, lets open it up to the plebs in the top 15%" instead of just going after a few more NU kids or something (if they even had some sort of quota to fill). I get how having less students might help out kids at the bottom of the class but not sure if it necessarily helps out kids trying to get grade sensitive jobs.

I'm a clueless 1L that knows next to nothing about legal hiring though so I reserve my right to be totally wrong.

[BigZuck]

Evidence that smaller class sizes will = better employment?

Just because there is a smaller pool to pick from doesn't necessarily mean employers will relax their standards IMO. Especially when it comes to large firms.

Seems highly unlikely that a business is going to opt to restrict its growth because X school of law has less people in a given years graduating class.

Fair. I guess firms have strict quotas. I never knew that.

[Tiago Splitter]

Evidence that smaller class sizes will = better employment?

Just because there is a smaller pool to pick from doesn't necessarily mean employers will relax their standards IMO. Especially when it comes to large firms.

Seems highly unlikely that a business is going to opt to restrict its growth because X school of law has less people in a given years graduating class.

Fair. I guess firms have strict quotas. I never knew that.

Firms also have grade cutoffs, so I don't think you're totally wrong.

[sublime]

..

[09042014]

Evidence that smaller class sizes will = better employment?

Just because there is a smaller pool to pick from doesn't necessarily mean employers will relax their standards IMO. Especially when it comes to large firms.

Seems highly unlikely that a business is going to opt to restrict its growth because X school of law has less people in a given years graduating class.

Fair. I guess firms have strict quotas. I never knew that.

Firms also have grade cutoffs, so I don't think you're totally wrong.

Firms need bodies. But have T14 really reduced size in any significant way?

[californiauser]

I really doubt participation is only 78% at Michigan. Here they say 380 2Ls and 3Ls participated in OCI, so unless a pretty huge number of 3Ls are going through OCI (which could be viewed as a bit of bad sign on its own aside from no offers), I don't see how you'd get that number.

I'm just giving people the information I was told. Interpret it however you wish. Just realize that the stats you're citing don't disprove what I'm saying/was told since it doesn't differentiate between 2l and 3l students, nor does it specify whether or not the 380 includes public interest groups that come to OCI (which are included in the OCI information a few sentences before the number you're citing). The 78% is allegedly the number interviewing for big firms.

[jbagelboy]

I really doubt participation is only 78% at Michigan. Here they say 380 2Ls and 3Ls participated in OCI, so unless a pretty huge number of 3Ls are going through OCI (which could be viewed as a bit of bad sign on its own aside from no offers), I don't see how you'd get that number.

I'm just giving people the information I was told. Interpret it however you wish. Just realize that the stats you're citing don't disprove what I'm saying/was told since it doesn't differentiate between 2l and 3l students, nor does it specify whether or not the 380 includes public interest groups that come to OCI (which are included in the OCI information a few sentences before the number you're citing). The 78% is allegedly the number interviewing for big firms.

I mean, when I see 78% of Mich 2L's participated in OCI, I'm thinking the bottom 15% or so didn't because, why the fuck would they, and I can believe some 5-7% are legitimate holdouts for public interest - even at CLS some top and above median students don't do EIP, usually to chase IHR unicorns. In fact, I'm guessing some single digit percentage of students at every T14 except Yale who COULD get jobs don't participate at all in on-campus firm recruiting. So I'm not sure how that helps explain Michigan numbers specifically.

[californiauser]

I really doubt participation is only 78% at Michigan. Here they say 380 2Ls and 3Ls participated in OCI, so unless a pretty huge number of 3Ls are going through OCI (which could be viewed as a bit of bad sign on its own aside from no offers), I don't see how you'd get that number.

I'm just giving people the information I was told. Interpret it however you wish. Just realize that the stats you're citing don't disprove what I'm saying/was told since it doesn't differentiate between 2l and 3l students, nor does it specify whether or not the 380 includes public interest groups that come to OCI (which are included in the OCI information a few sentences before the number you're citing). The 78% is allegedly the number interviewing for big firms.

I mean, when I see 78% of Mich 2L's participated in OCI, I'm thinking the bottom 15% or so didn't because, why the fuck would they, and I can believe some 5-7% are legitimate holdouts for public interest - even at CLS some top and above median students don't do EIP, usually to chase IHR unicorns. In fact, I'm guessing some single digit percentage of students at every T14 except Yale who COULD get jobs don't participate at all in on-campus firm recruiting. So I'm not sure how that helps explain Michigan numbers specifically.

Employers don't see your grades until after you interview at Michigan. I met a guy with a 2.7 who is heading to a market paying firm next year. Anecdotal? Sure, but i really doubt people are t interviewing just because of low grades. What would you have to lose by interviewing? It's amazing what people tell you when alcohol is flowing.

[Tiago Splitter]

Firms need bodies. But have T14 really reduced size in any significant way?

CLS went from 404 down to 352 from 2010-2013 and now it looks like Michigan is down from 376 to 315. Looks like Duke went from 238-209. NU may have dropped although the way they count their AJD and JD/MBA people is weird. UVA 368-330. GULC knocked off 50 or so.

So I guess the answer is kind of. Although it's probably more just a return to the numbers before the big run-up in applicants. Still probably helps around the edges, but like BigZuck I'm not convinced that firms won't just hire more from other schools if they need to make up the difference.

[20141023]

.

[Cobretti]

your NU data for 2015/2016 is off. NU cut class size this last cycle, so I think you're likely not including either the AJDs or JD/MBAs in the 2015 #.

[20141023]

.

[worldtraveler]

I really doubt participation is only 78% at Michigan. Here they say 380 2Ls and 3Ls participated in OCI, so unless a pretty huge number of 3Ls are going through OCI (which could be viewed as a bit of bad sign on its own aside from no offers), I don't see how you'd get that number.

I'm just giving people the information I was told. Interpret it however you wish. Just realize that the stats you're citing don't disprove what I'm saying/was told since it doesn't differentiate between 2l and 3l students, nor does it specify whether or not the 380 includes public interest groups that come to OCI (which are included in the OCI information a few sentences before the number you're citing). The 78% is allegedly the number interviewing for big firms.

I mean, when I see 78% of Mich 2L's participated in OCI, I'm thinking the bottom 15% or so didn't because, why the fuck would they, and I can believe some 5-7% are legitimate holdouts for public interest - even at CLS some top and above median students don't do EIP, usually to chase IHR unicorns. In fact, I'm guessing some single digit percentage of students at every T14 except Yale who COULD get jobs don't participate at all in on-campus firm recruiting. So I'm not sure how that helps explain Michigan numbers specifically.

Berkeley has similar numbers that opt out of OCI or do it but only for plaintiff side firms. I don't think MI's opt-out numbers are that much higher than peer schools. It would be helpful if we knew OCI figures at each school though. I gather that at some opting out is far less common.

[Tiago Splitter]

your NU data for 2015/2016 is off. NU cut class size this last cycle, so I think you're likely not including either the AJDs or JD/MBAs in the 2015 #.

Good catch - the class size (206) for the C/O 2015 didn't include AJD's or JD-MBA's. It looks like the class size is correct for C/O 2016 (based on the Standard 509 Information Report and this, there were 174 JD matrics, 28 AJD matrics, and 27 JD-MBA matrics for a total of 229 for the entering class of 2013). I've updated it to reflect the correct numbers.

Anyway, for the past 10 years, the max entering class was 4,497, and the minimum entering class size was 4,264, which comes out to a difference of 223 students. This means that there has been at most a 5% variation in the total number of students attending T14 schools over the past decade.

It also looks like you didn't include GULC part time students up until recently. LST has them at 591 1L's entering in 2010 while you put them at 469. Not a huge difference but it's something. We'll see if the downward trend continues this fall.

[20141023]

.

[MissouriMisery]

Anybody called berkeley and asked about employment? I mean, I doubt it changed much, but at this point I'm just curious.

[worldtraveler]

Anybody called berkeley and asked about employment? I mean, I doubt it changed much, but at this point I'm just curious.

I know that we had good clerkship numbers and now have postgrad fellowships, so expect unemployment to be very low, but beyond that I don't really know.

[McGruff]

,

[carolinainmymind]

your NU data for 2015/2016 is off. NU cut class size this last cycle, so I think you're likely not including either the AJDs or JD/MBAs in the 2015 #.

Good catch - the class size (206) for the C/O 2015 didn't include AJD's or JD-MBA's. It looks like the class size is correct for C/O 2016 (based on the Standard 509 Information Report and this, there were 174 JD matrics, 28 AJD matrics, and 27 JD-MBA matrics for a total of 229 for the entering class of 2013). I've updated it to reflect the correct numbers.

Anyway, for the past 10 years, the max entering class was 4,497, and the minimum entering class size was 4,264, which comes out to a difference of 223 students. This means that there has been at most a 5% variation in the total number of students attending T14 schools over the past decade.

It also looks like you didn't include GULC part time students up until recently. LST has them at 591 1L's entering in 2010 while you put them at 469. Not a huge difference but it's something. We'll see if the downward trend continues this fall.

Damn... good catch, again. With that being the case, the Class of 2016 has the lowest T14 enrollment of the past 10 years (4,286 students), which is 333 students less than the peak enrollment during that time - the Class of 2013 (4,619 students).

Was told at UVA's open house this weekend that they are planning on shrinking c/o 2017 even further than 2016. Apparently they are targeting 300 this year, down from 330 last year and 350-360 from prior years. Came from a current student, not the school though. Could be looking at an even smaller c/o 2017 for the t14 if this is true and others are doing the same.