Top Law Schools

Hey all,

So I noticed that Fordham (one of the few schools I'm waiting to here back from) has posted it's placement stats for the class of 2009. I thought I'd do some analysis and break it down to see what the numbers really mean, in terms of those members of the Fordham graduating class of 2010 who were employed by law firms. These statistics should be somewhat helpful to those wondering if they should attend Fordham. It should be noted that 2009 stats are of dubious predictive value based on how the Class of 2009 went through OCI before things got truly bad in the legal market, yet graduated after the bubble burst. Still, some numbers are better than no numbers. Feel free to correct me if my methodology is off somehow, this is the first time I've tried something like this.

Source: http://law.fordham.edu/career-planning/17281.htm

Results:
[data removed]

What it means:

Column A: For Fordham students who went off to practice in law firms, this designates the size of the law firm.
Example: Cell A6 says "101 -> 250," which means that the data in that row (row 6) will refer to Fordham grads from the class of 2009 that work in firms with at least 101 lawyers but no more than 250.

Column B: What percent of Fordham grads from the class of 2009 who reported being employed in any firm were employed in firms of that size.
Example: Cell B6 says "9.26%," which means that 9.26% of Fordham grads employed in firms wound up in firms of that size. Note that this is NOT 9.26% of ALL Fordham 2009 grads, but 9.26% of those grads who were employed by a law firm. Column E breaks it down by the percentage of the entire class.

Columns C,D: The reported mean and median salaries, respectively, for the Fordham alums employed in firms of that size.

Column E: What percent of the ENTIRE Fordham class of 2009 reported belonging to each category. This number was found by multiplying the response rate for the survey (93% of grads from 2009 reported salary data) by the percent of the class that went into private firms (70.46%) by the percent of graduates who work in firms of each size (column B)
Example: Cell E6 was derived by multiplying (.93) [the response rate] by (.7046) [the percent of grads in private firms] by (.0926) [the percent of graduates in firms of the size 101 through 250] to arrive at the percentage of the entire class that reported being employed by firms of that size (in this case, 6.05%).


So what does this tell us? For example, of the class of 2009, about 37% of all Fordham grads reported working for firms of more than 500 lawyers, and just over 50% of the class was employed by firms of over 100 lawyers (ie, adding together cells E6, E7, and E8).


Columns F through I deal with deferral rates from law firms. Fordham gave the percentages of start dates for grads employed by law firms, but did not specify deferral percentages by size of firm; therefore, to get a rough approximation, I simply applied the stats equally throughout. This is probably wrong, as larger firms probably had higher deferral rates, but should serve as a decent approximation.

Column F: Fordham notes that 44% of grads in firms started with their firm in Fall 2009. So to get Column F, I multiplied the results in Column E by .44 to arrive at an approximation for the percent of the total class who was going to be starting a law firm job in Fall 2009.
Example: 37.42% of Fordham grads reported jobs in firms of size 500+; assuming that 44% of them started in Fall 2009, that leaves us with 16.46% of all Fordham grads for that year started at a firm of that size in the Fall of 2009.

Column G: Same as Column F, but for those who started in January or February of 2010 (28% of those with jobs at firms started in January or February of 2010).
Example: 37.42 of Fordham alums reported jobs in firms of size 500+; assuming that 28% of them started in Fall 2009, that leaves us with 10.48% of all Fordham grads for that year started at a firm of that size in the Fall of 2009.

Column H: What percent of Fordham grads started no later than February 2010; this is simply Columns F and G added together for simplicity's sake.

Column I: Those Fordham grads for the class of 2009 who are employed in law firms and either will be starting after February 2010, or did not report a starting date.


Conclusion:
Big law remains a decent possibility from Fordham if these numbers hold (this, of course, is a big 'if,' and depends on how one defines big law). Just over 50% of the class of reported working for firms of over 100+ lawyers and being payed on average at or near market rate. These numbers will probably be down for next year, and only time will tell if they will rebound by the time current applicants are entering the job market.

This also gives a rough estimate on how deferrals have affected the market. While about 50% of the class has jobs in firms of at least 101 lawyers, a smaller percentage (about 36% of the entire class) have actually started that job by February 2010. Again, this is the least reliable part of the analysis, as it makes the assumptions that the percent of grads for each sized firms suffered deferrals equally.

Hope this helps anyone trying to make a choice involving Fordham. Sorry if this was too long or too poorly explained. Feel free to ask questions or point out gaping flaws in my methodology.

Great information! Thanks.

nyknicks wrote:Great information! Thanks.

+ 1. Not 100% sure what to make of it yet, but it looks slightly better than I figured it would...

IBOS

Beautifully done, and my commendation to the OP. Fordham does a good job of tracking down where grads are working... our CSO response rate is always above 98%, and I'm pleased that 93% sent salary data. As ever, I am very proud of my school.

I was recently in admissions, and have this to share: our head of admissions thinks things were worse for the class of 2010 than for the class of 2011, and he predicts better hiring for our year (2012). More part time students are electing to stay PT in an attempt to wait out the market, and the thought has crossed my mind more than once. I also learned that firms in the NLJ under reported for the year 2009, and many schools have internal data inconsistent with the NLJ250 chart. This happened because not every firm reported all of their new hires. I was given reason to believe that the picture was rosier almost across the board for the class of 2009 (again, as pointed out, because these students were recruited before the crash.) Just a few interesting perspectives from those who know far more than we do. I don't know specific numbers/details, but I had a fascinating discussion of hiring trends, and I am cautiously optimistic for NYC.

A+ information.

I wish more schools would post 2009 stats.

this is better than i expected though.

Big law remains a decent possibility from Fordham if these numbers hold

They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools, that means fewer than 20% will get biglaw.

Yeah this Class of 2009 data is largely irrelevant because the real carnage won't be seen until we get Class of 2011 numbers. People are looking at 2009 numbers and saying, "oh its bad, but things will recover" not even realizing that they haven't actually seen the real bad figures that are soon to come in a year or two.

nealric wrote:They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools...

Problematic assumption. Firms may have reduced hiring by more than 53% at lower-ranked schools.

nealric wrote: ...that means fewer than 20% will get biglaw.

50.85% * (7/15) = 23.73%

starsong wrote:

nealric wrote:They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools...

Problematic assumption. Firms may have reduced hiring by more than 50% at lower-ranked schools.

nealric wrote: ...that means fewer than 20% will get biglaw.

50.85% * (7/15) = 23.73%

LOOK. We all took the LSAT so we know howz to dooz logic 'K?

erniesto wrote:

starsong wrote:

nealric wrote:They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools...

Problematic assumption. Firms may have reduced hiring by more than 50% at lower-ranked schools.

nealric wrote: ...that means fewer than 20% will get biglaw.

50.85% * (7/15) = 23.73%

LOOK. We all took the LSAT so we know howz to dooz logic 'K?

Exactness never hurts.

starsong wrote:

nealric wrote:They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools...

Problematic assumption. Firms may have reduced hiring by more than 53% at lower-ranked schools.

As to this assertion, you a. have no source provided (not to say that I disagree) and b. fail to take into account that Fordham is, by many, considered a "lower ranked school"

mistergoft wrote:

starsong wrote:

nealric wrote:They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools...

Problematic assumption. Firms may have reduced hiring by more than 53% at lower-ranked schools.

As to this assertion, you a. have no source provided (not to say that I disagree) and b. fail to take into account that Fordham is, by many, considered a "lower ranked school"

a. I said "may" have reduced hiring, not "did" reduce hiring. None of us has actual data, which is why I called nealric's assumption problematic, not necessarily wrong. It seems plausible that firms may have cut their entire recruiting from certain schools, or taken 1 student instead of 3.

b. I meant "lower" relative to Fordham. #31 is "lower" than #30, etc.

mistergoft wrote:

starsong wrote:

nealric wrote:They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools...

Problematic assumption. Firms may have reduced hiring by more than 53% at lower-ranked schools.

As to this assertion, you a. have no source provided (not to say that I disagree) and b. fail to take into account that Fordham is, by many, considered a "lower ranked school"

That is not an assertion of anything other than a countering possibility. As such no definite source needs to be provided. However, we already have anecdotal statements, albeit from a self-interested party, that this possibility actually has a decent probability of being correct. And finally I challenge anyone who thinks a top 30 school is low ranked in a 200 law school system to qualify such a statement.

nealric wrote:

Big law remains a decent possibility from Fordham if these numbers hold

They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools, that means fewer than 20% will get biglaw.

Thanks for that data. Although I admit I lack a full understanding with how deferments work, I think that 15:7 ratio is roughly on track with the fact that only 44% of those with law firm jobs didn't get deferred into 2010 or beyond; firms realized how many slots they had to fill, and both of those numbers suggest they needed a bit under half as many bodies to fill the open slots then previously needed.

I will say that I don't expect these numbers to be predictive for the classes in the coming years, only that they paint a picture of the class of 2009. The people who will benefit most from more data are those who are deciding where to attend this cycle (the classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012 have locked themselves in already, barring a transfer) and it'll be even harder to predict how 2013 will look than any of those others. I thought this would be a good way to compare Fordham to various peer schools, seeing as how a number of people have started threads weighing their choices, and this is the most up to date data we have.

erniesto wrote:

mistergoft wrote:

starsong wrote:

nealric wrote:They won't. According to the NLJ, Firms hiring the class of '09 had an average of 15 summer associates per class. Firms hiring the class of 2011 hired on average 7. Assuming Fordham is hit proportionally to other law schools...

Problematic assumption. Firms may have reduced hiring by more than 53% at lower-ranked schools.

As to this assertion, you a. have no source provided (not to say that I disagree) and b. fail to take into account that Fordham is, by many, considered a "lower ranked school"

That is not an assertion of anything other than a countering possibility. As such no definite source needs to be provided. However, we already have anecdotal statements, albeit from a self-interested party, that this possibility actually has a decent probability of being correct. And finally I challenge anyone who thinks a top 30 school is low ranked in a 200 law school system to qualify such a statement.

Yes but the evidence is anecdotal, which makes it virtually if not completely bereft of any significance. And even anecdotal evidence typically has a source of some sort, rather than just idle speculation.

I don't know what you mean by "qualify" considering to qualify a statement means to make an modify, limit, restrict, or restrain; it doesn't really make sense in the context you used it. If you want someone to explain why they would make such an assertion, that's easy: if I attend a T10 school, a school ranked in the T30 would, in my perspective, be considered "low ranked." It is a completely subjective standard, much like "top-law-schools".

so what percentage of the class of 2009 would you consider got biglaw?

timertimer61 wrote:so what percentage of the class of 2009 would you consider got biglaw?

No to be pedantic, but to answer that you fist need to define "biglaw" and "got."

Most favorably, we can say that somewhere around half of the class got jobs paying at or near market rate.
Less favorably, we can note that many of these jobs aren't at NLJ250 law firms or similarly sized firms, and that number is closer to a third of the class.
Least favorably, we can see that many of those have been deferred (hence defining what you mean by "got," as they secured such a job but haven't necessarily started yet), and the number of Fordham grads from 2009 working at very large firms right now is probably around a quarter of the class (though as noted deferments data is less accurate).

Make of that what you will.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

timertimer61 wrote:so what percentage of the class of 2009 would you consider got biglaw?

No to be pedantic, but to answer that you fist need to define "biglaw" and "got."

Most favorably, we can say that somewhere around half of the class got jobs paying at or near market rate.
Less favorably, we can note that many of these jobs aren't at NLJ250 law firms or similarly sized firms, and that number is closer to a third of the class.
Least favorably, we can see that many of those have been deferred (hence defining what you mean by "got," as they secured such a job but haven't necessarily started yet), and the number of Fordham grads from 2009 working at very large firms right now is probably around a quarter of the class (though as noted deferments data is less accurate).

Make of that what you will.

what is market rate? 160K?
and i wonder how clerkship alters the data, b/c im sure people that got clerkship could have gone to "biglaw"...
was there any statistic on clerkships?

timertimer61 wrote:

JusticeHarlan wrote:

timertimer61 wrote:so what percentage of the class of 2009 would you consider got biglaw?

No to be pedantic, but to answer that you fist need to define "biglaw" and "got."

Most favorably, we can say that somewhere around half of the class got jobs paying at or near market rate.
Less favorably, we can note that many of these jobs aren't at NLJ250 law firms or similarly sized firms, and that number is closer to a third of the class.
Least favorably, we can see that many of those have been deferred (hence defining what you mean by "got," as they secured such a job but haven't necessarily started yet), and the number of Fordham grads from 2009 working at very large firms right now is probably around a quarter of the class (though as noted deferments data is less accurate).

Make of that what you will.

what is market rate? 160K?
and i wonder how clerkship alters the data, b/c im sure people that got clerkship could have gone to "biglaw"...
was there any statistic on clerkships?

Yes, market these days is considered $160k

Clerkship data was provided (you can see the data yourself here: http://law.fordham.edu/career-planning/17281.htm), which says 5.12% of the class did clerkships. What is unknown is what clerkships these were: state trial court level? Appellate? Federal? I'd agree that most students who got federal clerkships could probably (and will probably) get federal clerkships, I'm not sure the same is true of every clerk (though perhaps for many).

From the class of 2007, Fordham's clerkship rates were 5.7% overall, 4.2% federal (source: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... iii_clerks). I'm not comfortable saying those proportions held for 2009, considering how many fewer Columbia and NYU grads (to say nothing of Penn, Michigan, and Cornell, and other T14 schools that usually place in New York big law) are getting private firms jobs and might be taking shelter in federal clerskships in New York.