Class of 2009 Employment Data in Graphs (Last Update: T100) Forum

[Borhas]

Obviously, cost matters, but as a total. COA between the schools isn't that much different. COL is higher at UCH, but tuition is higher at UCD.

What I got out of these charts:
1. UCH probably has a bigger OCI list, so the few who benefit from that will have better outcomes (explaining the salary disparity)
2. Other than salary, actual employment isn't much different

[splittinghairs]

True u are right that COA is essentially the same between UCD and UCH, but where u work after law school matters much more for COL. For example, someone whos getting biglaw in Iowa or Wisconsin is much better off than someone getting biglaw in expensive cities like SF, LA, and NY. If I were analyzing employment stats between say UCH and Chicago Kent, I would definitely have to factor the huge difference in COL between SF and Chicago. Chicago is 46% cheaper overall and 67% cheaper in housing. So if I had no ties to either region and despite the fact that UCH is generally more highly regarded than Kent, I would definitely take the COL difference heavily when comparing the reported salary range.

I think the OP alluded to this COL consideration when listing the schools with highest % of known graduates making at least 100k. I think not enough is being placed on COL in terms of where u decide to actually practice law. The magical 160K ceiling is worth differently in different cities. I think most out of state 0L dont realize just how much higher COL is in SF. Housing in SF is more than 3 times the average US housing. But of course thats no knock against SF at all, i think many people who live in SF have a ton of other reasons for choosing it and I am sure it is a great town to live in.

[Borhas]

SoCal is pretty open to both schools, and Sacramento appears to be pretty open to Hastings grads, and SF appears to be pretty open to Davis grads as well.

UCD and UCH compete for the same jobs, in SF and in Sacramento... I think your argument relates more to people's lifestyle goals. Since UCD and UCH both offer access to SF, and Sacramento I think that your point misses the bigger picture.

Even if they don't both have access to each other's nearby city. I don't think lower pay, lower cost of living, and living in Sacramento > higher pay, higher cost of living, and living in SF... I don't think many UCD or UCH students would either. Especially cause SF is the hub for almost all the federal level work in NorCal.

[bk1]

Why is the data for Hastings messed up or has that been addressed?

In the salary info graph it says 5% are employed PT but in the other graph it says closer to 20%.

[aliarrow]

Why is the data for Hastings messed up or has that been addressed?

In the salary info graph it says 5% are employed PT but in the other graph it says closer to 20%.

I noticed but haven't had a chance to look at the data until now. The PT rates in the FT/PT chart are correct, the wrong info got graphed on the salary charts when I redid them, that's an incorrect Part time %. I'm fixing it now.

[bk1]

Why is the data for Hastings messed up or has that been addressed?

In the salary info graph it says 5% are employed PT but in the other graph it says closer to 20%.

I noticed but haven't had a chance to look at the data until now. The PT rates in the FT/PT chart are correct, the wrong info got graphed on the salary charts when I redid them, that's an incorrect Part time %. I'm fixing it now.

Thanks. I'm incredibly grateful for all this info and all the work you've put in.

[aliarrow]

Why is the data for Hastings messed up or has that been addressed?

In the salary info graph it says 5% are employed PT but in the other graph it says closer to 20%.

I noticed but haven't had a chance to look at the data until now. The PT rates in the FT/PT chart are correct, the wrong info got graphed on the salary charts when I redid them, that's an incorrect Part time %. I'm fixing it now.

Thanks. I'm incredibly grateful for all this info and all the work you've put in.

No problem. Luckily the error only affected two charts (T50 and T15), everything else was correct.

[DeeCee]

fantastic job, OP.

[swc65]

and the bro of the year award goes to......


Awesome job on these charts. LoL you should start your own ranking/blog or something get some advertisers and profit!!!

[bk1]

I noticed that Loyola-LA has percentiles of 160,000 and 100,000 so it seems like at least 10% of their class makes 6 figures yet in the "percentage of 6 figures chart" they aren't on there. Unless I am blind.

[aliarrow]

I noticed that Loyola-LA has percentiles of 160,000 and 100,000 so it seems like at least 10% of their class makes 6 figures yet in the "percentage of 6 figures chart" they aren't on there. Unless I am blind.

I did the chart before I did put the Loyola-LA graph/data together, so it just wasn't added yet. It should be around 14%

[protein]

Sorry for being a little slow...

But for the T15 schools, they all have 160k in all the parentheses

Is this an error or is there no detailed salary distribution like the T50/T100 schools or what?

[aliarrow]

Sorry for being a little slow...

But for the T15 schools, they all have 160k in all the parentheses

Is this an error or is there no detailed salary distribution like the T50/T100 schools or what?

It's not an error, the 25th, median, and 75th percentile salaries for most of these schools are all 160k

[Tim0thy222]

This is seriously incredible. Thank you for doing this.

One question - why are public sector, unemployed, and unknown all in the same category? It seems to me like people who make 30k/yr in public service legal jobs, people who are known to be unemployed, and people who didn't respond to the survey are three separate categories, and it would be nice to see the break down.

I'm not asking OP for any extra work, I'm grateful for how much was done so far. I was just wondering if maybe there was a methodological reason for this, or if the data was unavailable.

[bk1]

This is seriously incredible. Thank you for doing this.

One question - why are public sector, unemployed, and unknown all in the same category? It seems to me like people who make 30k/yr in public service legal jobs, people who are known to be unemployed, and people who didn't respond to the survey are three separate categories, and it would be nice to see the break down.

I'm not asking OP for any extra work, I'm grateful for how much was done so far. I was just wondering if maybe there was a methodological reason for this, or if the data was unavailable.

The data you are looking for is available in the "Employment Sector" charts.

The reason that public/unemployed/unknown are lumped together for salary data has to do with the way that the data is either gathered or made available. Public sector salaries are either not asked, or not made available so in salary data charts it is lumped together with the other areas where salary data is unavailable (the unemployed and those who didn't respond).

[Tim0thy222]

This is seriously incredible. Thank you for doing this.

One question - why are public sector, unemployed, and unknown all in the same category? It seems to me like people who make 30k/yr in public service legal jobs, people who are known to be unemployed, and people who didn't respond to the survey are three separate categories, and it would be nice to see the break down.

I'm not asking OP for any extra work, I'm grateful for how much was done so far. I was just wondering if maybe there was a methodological reason for this, or if the data was unavailable.

The data you are looking for is available in the "Employment Sector" charts.

The reason that public/unemployed/unknown are lumped together for salary data has to do with the way that the data is either gathered or made available. Public sector salaries are either not asked, or not made available so in salary data charts it is lumped together with the other areas where salary data is unavailable (the unemployed and those who didn't respond).

Got it. Thanks!

[bport hopeful]

tag

[aliarrow]

There is something else misleading that I'm working on correcting. It hasn't become a major issue until I starting putting together data for the T80-100, since some of the cali schools in this range have massive unknown figures -

For the PartTime/FullTime/Unemployed/Unknown graph, those employed but in an unknown sector were counted as unknown for the sector graph, and I used that same figure for this chart, however to be technically correct, they are known to be employed, it's just the sector thats unknown. Granted, these jobs are most likely the worst jobs and non-legal, however it wouldn't be 100% accurate to not count these people as employed.

Or should I just leave it as is and keep these unknown sectors as unknown on the Fulltime/PartTime graph?

[mrwarre85]

There is something else misleading that I'm working on correcting. It hasn't become a major issue until I starting putting together data for the T80-100, since some of the cali schools in this range have massive unknown figures -

For the PartTime/FullTime/Unemployed/Unknown graph, those employed but in an unknown sector were counted as unknown for the sector graph, and I used that same figure for this chart, however to be technically correct, they are known to be employed, it's just the sector thats unknown. Granted, these jobs are most likely the worst jobs and non-legal, however it wouldn't be 100% accurate to not count these people as employed.

Or should I just leave it as is and keep these unknown sectors as unknown on the Fulltime/PartTime graph?

Keep it as is. The important part is percentage employed in full time legal jobs and the salary ranges. Thanks-- looking forward to your next update.

[aliarrow]

Updated for the full T100. It gets very dicey with the lower tier California schools

[Unemployed]

I'm sure you are used to this by now but...

--ImageRemoved--

[bk1]

Updated for the full T100. It gets very dicey with the lower tier California schools

As if anybody didn't think that CA's legal market wasn't fucking atrocious.

[mrwarre85]

Updated for the full T100. It gets very dicey with the lower tier California schools

As if anybody didn't think that CA's legal market wasn't fucking atrocious.

I don't know, it isn't like the school is going to advertise it. I doubt the majority of applicants to Pacific, USF, and SCU know these stats.

Wow at SCU.

[bk1]

I don't know, it isn't like the school is going to advertise it. I doubt the majority of applicants to Pacific, USF, and SCU know these stats.

Wow at SCU.

No I doubt they do. It's just after seeing Davis/Hastings/Loyola/Pepperdine I'm not surprised considering CA schools seem to be considerably worse than their peers in other places.

[1ferret!]

.