employment prospects: Harvard vs Yale vs Stanford Forum

[anstone1988]

TLS wisdom holds that Stanford and Yale are the two law schools with the best employment prospects. How do these two schools stack up against each other, and against Harvard?

Overall
Unemployment for the Class of 2010 (unemployed and seeking work/total # of graduates)
Stanford: 0.0% (0/174) *1 person with employment status unknown
Yale: 1.9% (4/209) *1 person with employment status unknown
Harvard: 2.7% (16/589)

Private Practice
Percentage going into private practice for the Class of 2010
Stanford: 55.5%
Yale: 35.8%
Harvard: 59.3%

Percentage going to 250+ among all private practice jobs for the Class of 2010
Stanford: 87.4%
Yale: 82.4% *4.4% classified as unknown
Harvard: 89.9% (0.533/0.593)

25th-50th-75th for salary
Stanford: $160000-$160000-$160000
Yale: $160000-$160000-$160000
Harvard: $160000-$160000-$160000

Clerkship
Percentage of graduating class pursuing clerkship for the Class of 2010
Stanford: 31.0% (54/174)
Yale: 36.3%
Harvard: 20.7%

Percentage of graduating class pursuing federal clerkship for the Class of 2010
Stanford: 29.3% (51/174)
Yale: 30.0% (0.363*0.826)
Harvard: 16.3%

Percentage of federal clerkship among all clerkship for the Class of 2010
Stanford: 92.6% (50/54)
Yale: 82.6%
Harvard: 78.7% (0.163/0.207)

Percentage of state & local clerkship among all clerkship for the Class of 2010
Stanford: 5.5% (1/54)
Yale: 11.6%
Harvard: 19.8% (0.041/0.207)

Academia
Percentage of graduates going into academia for the Class of 2010
Stanford: 2%
Yale: 3%
Harvard: 0.7%

http://www.law.stanford.edu/experience/ ... tatistics/
http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/cdo ... tstats.htm
http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/care ... index.html

[071816]

They're both TTTs. Don't bother.

[duckmoney]

Retake and ED UVA

[1988AndX]

Nice analysis! Yale's employment stats (4 unemployed graduates seeking work and a percentage of 82.6 for federal clerkship among all clerkship) are a little surprising; maybe they just seem surprising in comparison to Stanford's baller employment stats.

[abacus]

How does HLS compare?

[moneybagsphd]

Yale>>>STTTanford

[romothesavior]

Retake/reapply or don't go.

[Scuppers]

--LinkRemoved--

[ahnhub]

Outside of the fact that a whopping 1/3 of the class gets an Article III clerkship, I think it's probably impossible to verify the "Yale lets you do whatever the hell you want" theory through just employment numbers. This is probably one you just have to take their word for it.

[Jaeger]

I think it's entirely possible that those 4 unemployed from Yale, are from wealthy families and they don't necessarily have to work/backpacking through Europe.

[JCFindley]

Retake and ED UVA

Or ASU

[Easy-E]

Retake and ED UVA

Or ASU

Yeah like ASU has any spots left.

[anstone1988]

I think it's entirely possible that those 4 unemployed from Yale, are from wealthy families and they don't necessarily have to work/backpacking through Europe.

Those 4 are unemployed and are seeking employment. There are 3 more unemployed graduates who are not seeking employment. What was surprising for me was that such a high percentage (much higher than Stanford's percentage) of Yale Law grads work in state and local clerkship. Therefore, it's really hard to believe that you can do whatever you want after graduating from Yale.

[MTBike]

[BruceWayne]

Although it's obviously still a high number for fed clerks, but only 36.3% of Yale c/o 2010 got a fed clerkship? Didn't it used to be something like 43% at one point? People weren't kidding when they said the clerkship market has gotten absurdly competitive.

[bernaldiaz]

Although it's obviously still a high number for fed clerks, but only 36.3% of Yale c/o 2010 got a fed clerkship? Didn't it used to be something like 43% at one point? People weren't kidding when they said the clerkship market has gotten absurdly competitive.

I read somewhere that even though it was 30%, the year before it was only 31% for the year's graduates, but 46% of them eventually ended up in clerkships, as a bunch of people did something else for a year. I'm trying to remember where I read it so I can give you the source, maybe someone remembers what I'm saying.

[Tiago Splitter]

Although it's obviously still a high number for fed clerks, but only 36.3% of Yale c/o 2010 got a fed clerkship? Didn't it used to be something like 43% at one point? People weren't kidding when they said the clerkship market has gotten absurdly competitive.

I read somewhere that even though it was 30%, the year before it was only 31% for the year's graduates, but 46% of them eventually ended up in clerkships, as a bunch of people did something else for a year. I'm trying to remember where I read it so I can give you the source, maybe someone remembers what I'm saying.

"3 As with the other data on this chart, the judicial clerkship percentages include only those graduates whose first job was a clerkship. In recent years we have seen an increasing number of graduates choose to work for one or two years before clerking. For example, while 36.3% of the Class of 2010 clerked in their first job after law school, to date 46% of the Class has served as a judicial clerk at some point since graduating."

http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/cdo ... tstats.htm

[abl]

Although it's obviously still a high number for fed clerks, but only 36.3% of Yale c/o 2010 got a fed clerkship? Didn't it used to be something like 43% at one point? People weren't kidding when they said the clerkship market has gotten absurdly competitive.

I read somewhere that even though it was 30%, the year before it was only 31% for the year's graduates, but 46% of them eventually ended up in clerkships, as a bunch of people did something else for a year. I'm trying to remember where I read it so I can give you the source, maybe someone remembers what I'm saying.

"3 As with the other data on this chart, the judicial clerkship percentages include only those graduates whose first job was a clerkship. In recent years we have seen an increasing number of graduates choose to work for one or two years before clerking. For example, while 36.3% of the Class of 2010 clerked in their first job after law school, to date 46% of the Class has served as a judicial clerk at some point since graduating."

http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/cdo ... tstats.htm

That's standard, and will be the case at most top schools. Obviously the absolute percentages will be different, but I suspect that the relative percentages will be similar.

[lessthanjake]

I think that Yale and Stanford being less numbers-based in admissions skews the numbers in employment. Stanford and Yale accept people for things outside of numbers, such as fantastic work experience, interesting personalities, advanced degrees, etc. These things will continue to help those students get jobs/clerkships after law school. If we assume that Yale and Stanford admits have better soft factors on average than Harvard admits (and I think this assumption is very reasonable), then it is logical to conclude that Yale/Stanford's employment numbers will be better even though an individual student would not be better off going there (their soft factors are the same no matter what school they go to).

Also, why is there such a difference in Harvard's clerkship numbers compared to the other two?

Is it self-selection? Yale, and to some degree Stanford, have a more academic reputation than Harvard. I imagine that cross-admits who are more academic leaning (and want to clerk) are likely to choose Yale/Stanford over Harvard, leaving Harvard with a student body less interested in clerking.

I could buy that Yale just has a better reputation amongst judges (although I don't think there's actually data to support that; they get equal judge/lawyer scores from USNWR for instance). This might give them a leg up. However, I can't buy that Stanford does. I also don't buy the small school thing because i can't see a judge wanting someone at the top 20% at Stanford over an otherwise equal candidate from Harvard at the top 10%. The fact that Harvard is large just means that there are a greater number of statistically impressive (ie. high grades) candidates from there, but all of those people should have a leg up on anyone statistically less superior from Stanford.

The only thing I can buy for clerkship numbers is that small schools give you more access to professors which allows for better recommendations, which is really important in clerkships.

[Flash]

I think that Yale and Stanford being less numbers-based in admissions skews the numbers in employment. Stanford and Yale accept people for things outside of numbers, such as fantastic work experience, interesting personalities, advanced degrees, etc. These things will continue to help those students get jobs/clerkships after law school. If we assume that Yale and Stanford admits have better soft factors on average than Harvard admits (and I think this assumption is very reasonable), then it is logical to conclude that Yale/Stanford's employment numbers will be better even though an individual student would not be better off going there (their soft factors are the same no matter what school they go to).

Also, why is there such a difference in Harvard's clerkship numbers compared to the other two?

Is it self-selection? Yale, and to some degree Stanford, have a more academic reputation than Harvard. I imagine that cross-admits who are more academic leaning (and want to clerk) are likely to choose Yale/Stanford over Harvard, leaving Harvard with a student body less interested in clerking.

I could buy that Yale just has a better reputation amongst judges (although I don't think there's actually data to support that; they get equal judge/lawyer scores from USNWR for instance). This might give them a leg up. However, I can't buy that Stanford does. I also don't buy the small school thing because i can't see a judge wanting someone at the top 20% at Stanford over an otherwise equal candidate from Harvard at the top 10%. The fact that Harvard is large just means that there are a greater number of statistically impressive (ie. high grades) candidates from there, but all of those people should have a leg up on anyone statistically less superior from Stanford.

The only thing I can buy for clerkship numbers is that small schools give you more access to professors which allows for better recommendations, which is really important in clerkships.

Your friendly neighborhood Harvard troll.

[PMan99]

Also, why is there such a difference in Harvard's clerkship numbers compared to the other two?

Because OP picked Stanford's best year for clerkships? In 2 of the 3 years that there's data for on the schools' websites, Stanford is closer to Harvard than Yale.

Also I don't think it's controversial to say that clerking for the top courts in CA or NY is a better for most people than clerking for the District of South Dakota. Since you're talking about a miniscule number of students clerking at state/local from Yale, this has to be taken into consideration before trying to pretend that Stanford is equal.

[Blessedassurance]

Harvard is superior to both.

Imagine if Harvard had a class size of 170 - 200...

[tgir]

The "unemployed, seeking work" numbers don't tell you much. The students at all these schools, though perhaps Yale most of all, ended up at HYS because they wouldn't settle for anything less than their dream school, even in the face of lots of money or perhaps a more practical option. It's hard to know which people are unemployed because they are super-picky and which ones are unemployed because they are unemployable.

As for clerkships, as someone noted, not all federal clerkships are the same in competitiveness--not by a long shot--which makes the summary numbers much less informative.

Moral of the story: Don't get caught up in the minute differences in the statistics. Go wherever you'll be happy.

[Flash]

Harvard is superior to both.

Imagine if Harvard had a class size of 170 - 200...

Imagine if Yale and Stanford had class sizes of 70-90. They'd probably have nearly 100% clerkship levels!

[lessthanjake]

I think that Yale and Stanford being less numbers-based in admissions skews the numbers in employment. Stanford and Yale accept people for things outside of numbers, such as fantastic work experience, interesting personalities, advanced degrees, etc. These things will continue to help those students get jobs/clerkships after law school. If we assume that Yale and Stanford admits have better soft factors on average than Harvard admits (and I think this assumption is very reasonable), then it is logical to conclude that Yale/Stanford's employment numbers will be better even though an individual student would not be better off going there (their soft factors are the same no matter what school they go to).

Also, why is there such a difference in Harvard's clerkship numbers compared to the other two?

Is it self-selection? Yale, and to some degree Stanford, have a more academic reputation than Harvard. I imagine that cross-admits who are more academic leaning (and want to clerk) are likely to choose Yale/Stanford over Harvard, leaving Harvard with a student body less interested in clerking.

I could buy that Yale just has a better reputation amongst judges (although I don't think there's actually data to support that; they get equal judge/lawyer scores from USNWR for instance). This might give them a leg up. However, I can't buy that Stanford does. I also don't buy the small school thing because i can't see a judge wanting someone at the top 20% at Stanford over an otherwise equal candidate from Harvard at the top 10%. The fact that Harvard is large just means that there are a greater number of statistically impressive (ie. high grades) candidates from there, but all of those people should have a leg up on anyone statistically less superior from Stanford.

The only thing I can buy for clerkship numbers is that small schools give you more access to professors which allows for better recommendations, which is really important in clerkships.

Your friendly neighborhood Harvard troll.

Nope. I think Yale > Harvard and that Stanford and Harvard are peer schools. However, I cannot reconcile those opinions (specifically the 2nd one) with the fact that these schools outperform Harvard so much in clerkships and to a smaller degree in all employment.

If all lawyer/judge/employer surveys put Yale and Harvard about equal and slightly ahead of Stanford, then there seems to be no logical basis in thinking that Stanford students would actually be preferred by these same people over Harvard students solely by virtue of their school. It's not trolling to say that; it's pretty logical. If they aren't preferred because of their school, then there must be other factors at work making the numbers look the way they do. In essence, I think it's reasonable to think that we have biased samples. There's something different about Stanford students compared to Harvard students (besides what school they go to) that makes the numbers skew the way they do. That conclusion leads me to speculate on what those differences might be. Self-selection and the different admissions criteria seem like believable differences that would, in fact, bias the data.

This isn't trolling; it's just trying to come up with the most reasonable explanation for data that doesn't immediately make sense.