Top Law Schools

Continuing in the vein of my previous thread (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=150329), I've accumulated quite a bit more information on my own personal spreadsheet. I think it's turned out to be a pretty convenient one-stop-shopping reference for a lot of the data that is constantly thrown around here, so I figure I may as well share it too.

And no, I'm not endorsing any particular interpretation of -- or even implying the usefulness of -- the below data. Use it to whatever extent you feel it is informative (or not). It should also be pretty self-explanatory; however, if you have any questions, please check the previous thread to see if I already answered them before asking. I'll try to pop in a bit and update this over the next few weeks as well.

Unfortunately, the chart is too complex to share here in text form like the previous one, so I'm only posting the picture version for now. Enjoy.



EDIT: Corrected a few small formatting issues.
EDIT II: Updated the file to be a .png per a helpful suggestion. It's a bit clearer now, but it may take a little longer to load...

Awesome. Thanks!

Dude--Thanks so much for the hard work---that is an incredible amount of information in one place

juevonate wrote:Dude--Thanks so much for the hard work---that is an incredible amount of information in one place

+1

Dig it. Thanks!

TYVM

You're all quite welcome. Hopefully the new, clearer version will be a little bit easier on the eyes.

boushi wrote:You're all quite welcome. Hopefully the new, clearer version will be a little bit easier on the eyes.

This is awesome- thank you!

I love this.

Thanks!

Can someone explain the last column to me better? It looks like about 50% of class (with some variation) on average becomes partners for each school in t14. Then another Big Law statistic shows that only 20% of associates become partners. So is it because it is easier to become partner in Mid Law/Small Law? Why the discrepancy?

Alex-Trof wrote:Thanks!

Can someone explain the last column to me better? It looks like about 50% of class (with some variation) on average becomes partners for each school in t14. Then another Big Law statistic shows that only 20% of associates become partners. So is it because it is easier to become partner in Mid Law/Small Law? Why the discrepancy?

sounds like it's because the law school you go to helps you make partner. among those 20% in your general biglaw stat, probably around 50% of them are t14 grads- percentages chosen to make the two stats you gave be inclusive of each other. (i say this assuming that the more likely you are to attend a t14, the more likely you are to gun for/get big law if you don't want (can't get) PI, clerkship, etc)

also the Tex.Aust. down there is just too good. anyone who goes to UT right now must be over the moon about all this

paulinaporizkova wrote:

Alex-Trof wrote:Thanks!

Can someone explain the last column to me better? It looks like about 50% of class (with some variation) on average becomes partners for each school in t14. Then another Big Law statistic shows that only 20% of associates become partners. So is it because it is easier to become partner in Mid Law/Small Law? Why the discrepancy?

sounds like it's because the law school you go to helps you make partner. among those 20% in your general biglaw stat, probably around 50% of them are t14 grads- percentages chosen to make the two stats you gave be inclusive of each other. (i say this assuming that the more likely you are to attend a t14, the more likely you are to gun for/get big law if you don't want (can't get) PI, clerkship, etc)

I am curious about this as well. Are the data representing associates that were made partner last year? If so, where did you find these data? If these are people that made partner last year then shouldn't we be comparing them to the class size of the school 7-10 years ago?


BTW awesome chart! Thanks for posting it.

paulinaporizkova wrote:

Alex-Trof wrote:Thanks!

Can someone explain the last column to me better? It looks like about 50% of class (with some variation) on average becomes partners for each school in t14. Then another Big Law statistic shows that only 20% of associates become partners. So is it because it is easier to become partner in Mid Law/Small Law? Why the discrepancy?

sounds like it's because the law school you go to helps you make partner. among those 20% in your general biglaw stat, probably around 50% of them are t14 grads- percentages chosen to make the two stats you gave be inclusive of each other. (i say this assuming that the more likely you are to attend a t14, the more likely you are to gun for/get big law if you don't want (can't get) PI, clerkship, etc)

I thought so too, but thinking more about it, I am not so sure anymore. Why would law school you went to matter in terms of promotions in Big Law? Once you get a job, its not like you're going to form cliques with fellow alumni and be more liked by partners that graduated from the same school. I mean, I can see partners marginally caring about what school you went to when promoting you, but I doubt it is a very important factor. I also doubt that people who went to lower ranked law schools are less capable to be noticed/liked/promoted than T14 people. It might actually be the opposite since only the very top kids from lower ranked schools do Big Law and it is harder to get into.

Alex-Trof wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:

Alex-Trof wrote:Thanks!

Can someone explain the last column to me better? It looks like about 50% of class (with some variation) on average becomes partners for each school in t14. Then another Big Law statistic shows that only 20% of associates become partners. So is it because it is easier to become partner in Mid Law/Small Law? Why the discrepancy?

sounds like it's because the law school you go to helps you make partner. among those 20% in your general biglaw stat, probably around 50% of them are t14 grads- percentages chosen to make the two stats you gave be inclusive of each other. (i say this assuming that the more likely you are to attend a t14, the more likely you are to gun for/get big law if you don't want (can't get) PI, clerkship, etc)

I thought so too, but thinking more about it, I am not so sure anymore. Why would law school you went to matter in terms of promotions in Big Law? Once you get a job, its not like you're going to form cliques with fellow alumni and be more liked by partners that graduated from the same school. I mean, I can see partners marginally caring about what school you went to when promoting you, but I doubt it is a very important factor. I also doubt that people who went to lower ranked law schools are less capable to be noticed/liked/promoted than T14 people. It might actually be the opposite since only the very top kids from lower ranked schools do Big Law and it is harder to get into.

Well if it's not the prestige of the degree, and it's not that there's a distinction in ability/competence between T14 grads...then what is it? I can't think of any other possibilities, and there must be some reason for this discrepancy, right? So, one would think it is one or the other, or more likely, a combination of both factors.

sundance95 wrote: Well if it's not the prestige of the degree, and it's not that there's a distinction in ability/competence between T14 grads...then what is it? I can't think of any other possibilities, and there must be some reason for this discrepancy, right? So, one would think it is one or the other, or more likely, a combination of both factors.

You're probably right. I was looking through the numbers again and it looks like the higher percentage people school sends to Big Law the higher percentage of the class makes partner (I know, I know it is just one snapshot of data and is not enough to draw an inference like that). My theory, which could be completely wrong, is the experience a person gets working in Big Law is actually very valuable and is an important contributing factor that places more lawyers in Mid/Small Law on partner tracks. Thus, it could be another reason to pursue Big Law aside from 160K and Lockstep salary.

Alex-Trof wrote: Why would law school you went to matter in terms of promotions in Big Law?

Has no one considered that it might actually have to do with (gasp!) quality of education?

le_taon wrote:

Alex-Trof wrote: Why would law school you went to matter in terms of promotions in Big Law?

Has no one considered that it might actually have to do with (gasp!) quality of education?

I considered it. As 0L I have no idea what is going on in the classroom and how it translates into job performance, but from what I've heard and read, stuff you learn in law school is largely irrelevant to what you do after it. Besides, if only 10% of a lesser ranked school does Big Law, chances are those 10% are on law review, moot court, doing all kind of crap in school to make themselves stand out to get hired, while only a small percentage of people who go into Big Law from t14 will be on law review. Most will probably be average or somewhat above average.

Alex-Trof wrote:

le_taon wrote:

Alex-Trof wrote: Why would law school you went to matter in terms of promotions in Big Law?

Has no one considered that it might actually have to do with (gasp!) quality of education?

I considered it. As 0L I have no idea what is going on in the classroom and how it translates into job performance, but from what I've heard and read, stuff you learn in law school is largely irrelevant to what you do after it. Besides, if only 10% of a lesser ranked school does Big Law, chances are those 10% are on law review, moot court, doing all kind of crap in school to make themselves stand out to get hired, while only a small percentage of people who go into Big Law from t14 will be on law review. Most will probably be average or somewhat above average.

nvmd

The last column is the only one I added myself. I took the data about partner promotions from the Law.com survey (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1) and simply weighted it by the number of graduates in a year exactly as the column header suggests. I understand there are definitely flaws in this methodology (as with the Leiter methodology of similarly weighting the supreme court placement by average class size) but to me it seems to give at least a somewhat more useful metric than the number provided by law.com by itself.

That column cannot be interpreted as a "per capita" statement about partner promotion or anything like that. It is merely meant to give a sense of what the raw number of partner promotions to the left means relative to the schools' sizes. Honestly, it's impossible for me to actually turn that number into a straight-up "this percentage of graduates become partners" because I don't have access to the underlying methodology or data of the Law.com report and don't know for sure, really, what their partner promotion number means.

Wow. This kicks a lot of ass. We need to come up with a master formula which weigh all these other rankings for a custom TLS ranking.

If we're going to have the most recent data for all of the other figures, it seems odd that a schools' placement in legal academia in the mid-90s should be even remotely relevant. At the very least, may I suggest that more recent figures be included along side the Leiter data (whether that is 2003-2010, or even the more recent 2008-2009/10 data)? I've updated that information based on Larry Solum's entry level hiring data (the same source Leiter uses for his hiring information), and that can be found here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p4188514.

Apart from that, an impressive compilation.

As everyone already knows, and was proven in a recent American Law Journal, the value of an elite degree waters downs over time (instead of compounds). It's why getting a decent first job is so important - it sets you career track for the near future. If you end up taking a job that any one else could have gotten, you might as well have attended a lower ranked school.

I know a lot of posters claim that they want to attend certain schools because "the degree stays with them for the rest of their life." That doesn't matter. If you don't hit the job market on your feet, the value of the elite degree has already been already heavily watered down.

FlightoftheEarls wrote:If we're going to have the most recent data for all of the other figures, it seems odd that a schools' placement in legal academia in the mid-90s should be even remotely relevant. At the very least, may I suggest that more recent figures be included along side the Leiter data (whether that is 2003-2010, or even the more recent 2008-2009/10 data)? I've updated that information based on Larry Solum's entry level hiring data (the same source Leiter uses for his hiring information), and that can be found here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p4188514.

Apart from that, an impressive compilation.

Thanks for the great link and additional data. The Leiter data I used for this is actually relatively recent (he posted the study on Jan. 31, 2011), and seems to be inclusive of grads from 1995-2010 (the faculty info covers 2010-11). You can find it here: http://leiterrankings.com/new/2011_LawTeachers.shtml. It is a bit newer than the one you referenced in your previous post, I believe.

Of course, given the nature of academic employment, the later years are actually likely to be a poor indicator of true placement, as young lawyers often take time for a fellowship or work before truly entering academia, as I understand it. In that sense, I think going back to 1995 or so may make some sense, and it may be difficult to truly get any solid measure of the most recent placement prospects. Another limitation is that Leiter only looked at academics at the law schools he ranked as having among the 35 best faculties, though that is a distinction that may actually make the info a bit more useful to the TLS crowd. I encourage anyone looking at my chart to go check the Leiter methodology and come to their own conclusion about how to interpret it.

Regarding the info in your post, however, it looks like it might be a very good supplement to the Leiter data I already put into the chart. I'll look it over more tonight and see if I can add it in. I'm also considering adding Leiter's scholarly impact data; however, with only limited space left before the chart becomes too wide to be easily reviewed on many laptop screens (including mine), I'm going to have to play around with it a bit and be picky.

Alex-Trof wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:

Alex-Trof wrote:Thanks!

Can someone explain the last column to me better? It looks like about 50% of class (with some variation) on average becomes partners for each school in t14. Then another Big Law statistic shows that only 20% of associates become partners. So is it because it is easier to become partner in Mid Law/Small Law? Why the discrepancy?

sounds like it's because the law school you go to helps you make partner. among those 20% in your general biglaw stat, probably around 50% of them are t14 grads- percentages chosen to make the two stats you gave be inclusive of each other. (i say this assuming that the more likely you are to attend a t14, the more likely you are to gun for/get big law if you don't want (can't get) PI, clerkship, etc)

I thought so too, but thinking more about it, I am not so sure anymore. Why would law school you went to matter in terms of promotions in Big Law? Once you get a job, its not like you're going to form cliques with fellow alumni and be more liked by partners that graduated from the same school. I mean, I can see partners marginally caring about what school you went to when promoting you, but I doubt it is a very important factor. I also doubt that people who went to lower ranked law schools are less capable to be noticed/liked/promoted than T14 people. It might actually be the opposite since only the very top kids from lower ranked schools do Big Law and it is harder to get into.

What on God's earth would convince you that this magically stops when you become an adult? Sorry, but life is full of Mean Girls. People are always looking for a way to pack-up, and individuals are always looking to differentiate themselves from you on criteria that may be meaningless (I.e., the renowned Harvard and Trojan Networks). Can you overcome that by performing well, or poorly? I would hope so and data seems to suggest it. However, most have also indicated that biglaw associates get very few chances to distinguish themselves until they are at least being considered for a partner position. Who do you think the Harvard alum is going to keep an eye out for--the one guy they hired from DePaul, or the fellow Harvard grad who took eight minutes to learn whatever the old man's nickname was on campus?