Top Law Schools

Apparently the C/O 2011 data was due to NALP this week, and law schools have started to post it. This thread will be updated as more schools in the T25 post their C/O 2011 data. As in my previous thread, I'll track three figures: % of whole class placed into firms of 100+ attorneys, % of whole class placed into federal clerkships, the sum of those two numbers.

EDIT: Added 2010 data for reference.
EDIT: Add comparison, in groups, for 2008-2010.

For C/O 2011:
Columbia: 61% biglaw (-8%), 8% clerkship (-2%) = 69% (-10%)
NYU: 43% biglaw (-14%), 11% clerkship (+1%) = 54% (-13%)
Chicago: 45% biglaw (-15%), 9% clerkship (-3%) = 54% (-18%)
Penn: 58% biglaw (-1%), 12% clerkship (-1%)[1] = 70% (-2%)
Berkeley: 42% biglaw (-10%), 12% clerkship (+4%) = 54% (-6%)
Michigan: 34% biglaw (-14%), 10% clerkship (+3%) = 44% (-11%)
Virginia: 37% biglaw (-14%), 10% clerkship (-0%) = 47% (-14%)
Duke: 45% biglaw (+0%), 12% clerkship (-1%) = 57% (-1%)
Northwestern: 53% biglaw (+1%), 8% clerkship (+0%) = 61% (+1%)
Cornell: 39% biglaw (-37%), 8% clerkship (+3%) = 47% (-34%)
Georgetown: 34% biglaw (-9%), 6% clerkship[2] = 40% (-7%)
Vandy: 31% biglaw (+1%), 10% clerkship (-3%) = 41% (-2%)
Texas: 24% biglaw (-4%) + 7% clerkships (-4%) = 31% (-8%)
USC: 35% biglaw (+1%) + 4% clerkships (-1%) = 39% (+0%)
GWU: 20% biglaw (-9%) + 5% clerkships (+0%) = 25% (-9%)
Wisc: 10% biglaw (-3%) +2% clerkships (+1%) = 12% (-2%)
Illinois: 14% biglaw (-9%) + 5% clerkships (+1%) = 19% (-8%)
Fordham: 26% biglaw (-7%) + 3% clerkships (??) = 28% (-??%)

For C/O 2010:
Yale: 28% clerkship
Stanford: 29% clerkship
Harvard: 57% biglaw + 16% clerkship = 73%
Columbia: 69% biglaw + 10% clerkship = 79%
NYU: 57% biglaw + 10% clerkship = 67%
Chicago: 60% biglaw + 12% clerkship = 72%
Penn: 59% biglaw + 10% clerkship = 69%
Berkeley: 52% biglaw + 8% clerkship = 60%
Michigan: 48% biglaw + 7% clerkship = 55%
Virginia: 51% biglaw + 10% clerkship = 61%
Duke: 45% biglaw + 13% clerkship = 58%
Northwestern: 53% biglaw + 8% clerkship = 60%
Cornell: 76% biglaw + 5% clerkship = 81%
Georgetown: 43% biglaw + 4% clerkship = 47%
UCLA: 32% biglaw + 6% clerkship[2] = 38%
Texas: 28% biglaw + 11% clerkships = 39%
Vandy: 30% biglaw + 13% clerkships = 43%
USC: 34% biglaw + 5% clerkships = 39%
Minnesota: 15% biglaw + 5% clerkships = 20%
Illinois: 23% biglaw + 4% clerkships = 27%
GWU: 29% biglaw + 5% clerkships = 34%
U Wash: Does not post detailed employment data.
BC: 35% biglaw + ?% clerkships[3] = 35% + ?%
BU: 37% biglaw + ?% clerkships[3] = 37% + ?%
ND: Does not post detailed employment data.
Fordham: 33% biglaw + ?% clerkships[3] = 33% + ?%
Wash U: Does not post detailed employment data.
W&L: 12% biglaw + 11% clerkships = 23%
Emory: 24% biglaw + 7% clerkships = 31%
Wisc: 13% biglaw +1% clerkships = 14%


For C/O 2008 -2010:

I've clumped these into groups. The Vandy/USC/GW group is a little loose, because Vandy generally outperforms and GW underperforms the group, but the other two are pretty tight. The source spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... WDNxX2JPQQ

Harvard:
2008 79%
2009 81%
2010 74%

Chicago, Penn:
2008 88%
2009 84%
2010 75%

NYU, Duke, Michigan, Virginia, NU:
2008 79%
2009 76%
2010 63%

Vandy, USC, GW:
2008 62%
2009 61%
2010 41%

It is interesting to look at the relative decline from 2008 to 2010:

Harvard: -6%
Chicago, Penn: -14%
NYU, Duke, Michigan, Virginia, NU: -20%
Vandy, USC, GW: -34%

This is empirical evidence of the CW that recruiting was cut back more at lower-ranked schools.

Michigan has posted some very detailed statistics of employers who hired from C/O 2009-2011. I put together a chart looking at the V100 firms on that list: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... ZFVkWkxmUQ

Michigan C/O 2009: 57% V100
Michigan C/O 2010: 42% V100
Michigan C/O 2011: 27% V100

[1] Using an estimate, assuming distribution of federal/non-federal clerkships is same at graduation as it is overall.
[2] School doesn't break down federal/non-federal, so I assume 80% federal, which is typical for the T14.
[3] School doesn't break down federal/non-federal, and I have no basis for guessing the breakdown

I mean, I know I can google it pretty quickly, but any chance you can also bracket a % change for each field from 2010 for quick reference?

Bronck wrote:I mean, I know I can google it pretty quickly, but any chance you can also bracket a % change for each field from 2010 for quick reference?

Good idea.

So Federal doesn't distinguish between AIII and non-AIII?

rad lulz wrote:So Federal doesn't distinguish between AIII and non-AIII?

No, for a couple of reasons.

1) Schools tend to break down sub-categories of Federal clerkships only in the grad+alumni data, not the grads-only data. I think that the imprecision from not distinguishing AIII from AI clerkships is less than the imprecision of projecting the breakdown from the grad+alumni data back to grads-only data. For NU grads+alumni, for example, only 1/48 Federal clerkships were AI.
2) A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields. Penn's employment stats give a very detailed breakdown of grad+alumni clerkship data. At Penn for the 2010-2011 hiring season, there were 68 Federal clerks. 57 were Article III. 7 were Bankruptcy or Tax. Only 4 were Magistrate or ALJ.

Note that excluding state clerkships also excludes Delaware Chancery Court, which is a quite desirable clerkship, as well as other desirable state clerkships. In the Penn data, for example, 3 people went to Delaware Chancery Court.

rayiner wrote:A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields.

Although I imagine that for someone interested in practicing bankr. that bankr. ct. > regular fed. dist. ct., I doubt that the argument can be made for taking a bankr./tax ct. over an COA clerkship.

Maybe it can, though. I really don't know.

nevermind

Indifferent wrote:

rayiner wrote:A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields.

Although I imagine that for someone interested in practicing bankr. that bankr. ct. > regular fed. dist. ct., I doubt that the argument can be made for taking a bankr./tax ct. over an COA clerkship.

I don't think that argument is any harder to make than the argument for taking a district court clerkship over a COA clerkship.

rayiner wrote:

Indifferent wrote:

rayiner wrote:A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields.

Although I imagine that for someone interested in practicing bankr. that bankr. ct. > regular fed. dist. ct., I doubt that the argument can be made for taking a bankr./tax ct. over an COA clerkship.

I don't think that argument is any harder to make than the argument for taking a district court clerkship over a COA clerkship.

I am assuming you mean w/r/t the relative prestige of the district, i.e. D.C. Dist. Ct. or Del. Bankr. Ct. > 10th Cir. in New Mexico?

Indifferent wrote:

rayiner wrote:

Indifferent wrote:

rayiner wrote:A Tax or Bankruptcy clerkship is quite valuable for people going into those fields.

Although I imagine that for someone interested in practicing bankr. that bankr. ct. > regular fed. dist. ct., I doubt that the argument can be made for taking a bankr./tax ct. over an COA clerkship.

I don't think that argument is any harder to make than the argument for taking a district court clerkship over a COA clerkship.

I am assuming you mean w/r/t the relative prestige of the district, i.e. D.C. Dist. Ct. or Del. Bankr. Ct. > 10th Cir. in New Mexico?

I mean, that on the whole court of appeals clerkships are more desirable than bankruptcy or tax clerkships, but that is also true for court of appeals clerkships versus federal district clerkships. On the other hand, it is not necessarily true that federal district clerkships are more desirable than tax or bankruptcy clerkships, given the specific interests of the people who tend to pursue those clerkships. As such if we're going to include district clerkships in a measure of "desirable clerkships" it is quite reasonable to also include tax and bankruptcy clerkships.

Is it me or is USC's first number supposed to be around 60%? Just did a rough calculation from their 2010 statistics

ocuviper wrote:Is it me or is USC's first number supposed to be around 60%? Just did a rough calculation from their 2010 statistics

As noted in the OP, "big law" refers to firms with 100+ attorneys.

USC C/O 2010 had 195 graduates: http://weblaw.usc.edu/careers/statistics/

Of those, 57 were in firms of 500+ attorneys, 5 in firms of 250-500 attorneys, and 5 in firms of 100-250 attorneys, for a total of 67. 67 / 195 = 34%.

What are the salary stats for firms in the 100-250 lawyer range (that are in large markets like NY, Dc, etc)? Do they tend to be market-paying?

rayiner wrote: Texas: TTTexas blocks employment data behind password protection.

looks like they just changed their entire layout this year (would've been helpful 2 years ago!)

--LinkRemoved--

CO 2010:
TTTexas: 29% biglaw + 11% clerkships = 40%

CO2011: (yikes!)
TTTexas: 24% biglaw + 6% clerkships = 30%

f0bolous wrote:

rayiner wrote: Texas: TTTexas blocks employment data behind password protection.

looks like they just changed their entire layout this year (would've been helpful 2 years ago!)

--LinkRemoved--

CO 2010:
TTTexas: 29% biglaw + 11% clerkships = 40%

CO2011: (yikes!)
TTTexas: 24% biglaw + 6% clerkships = 30%

Updated, thanks!

Stanford clerkship > Yale clerkship? What caused the meteoric rise of Stanford with regards to clerkship placement?

Updated analysis of Chicago, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, and NU for 2008-2010. Summary graphic is below. The ratios are the sum of people working at firms of 50+ attorneys + federal clerkships. Yes, the grouping is massive pro-Penn trolling.



Source Excel file is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... RW80Rm4yQQ

rayiner wrote:Updated analysis of Chicago, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, and NU for 2008-2010. Summary graphic is below. The ratios are the sum of people working at firms of 50+ attorneys + federal clerkships. Yes, the grouping is massive pro-Penn trolling.



Source Excel file is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... RW80Rm4yQQ

Any particular reason you chose these 7 schools? Just curious. Unless you're just too lazy to add the rest.

iamrobk wrote:

rayiner wrote:Updated analysis of Chicago, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, and NU for 2008-2010. Summary graphic is below. The ratios are the sum of people working at firms of 50+ attorneys + federal clerkships. Yes, the grouping is massive pro-Penn trolling.



Source Excel file is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... RW80Rm4yQQ

Any particular reason you chose these 7 schools? Just curious. Unless you're just too lazy to add the rest.

Berkeley and Columbia don't have detailed data before 2010. Cornell doesn't have any data up right now. Y/S/H aren't on there because I'm lazy and everyone knows those folks all get jobs.

rayiner wrote:

iamrobk wrote:

rayiner wrote:Updated analysis of Chicago, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, and NU for 2008-2010. Summary graphic is below. The ratios are the sum of people working at firms of 50+ attorneys + federal clerkships. Yes, the grouping is massive pro-Penn trolling.



Source Excel file is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B11ijy ... RW80Rm4yQQ

Any particular reason you chose these 7 schools? Just curious. Unless you're just too lazy to add the rest.

Berkeley and Columbia don't have detailed data before 2010. Cornell doesn't have any data up right now. Y/S/H aren't on there because I'm lazy and everyone knows those folks all get jobs.

Ah fair enough. I figured about HYS, didn't know about the other 3.

Very useful data, thanks!

I also noticed this gem: "the some of those two numbers."

Top 20?

KevinP wrote:Very useful data, thanks!

I also noticed this gem: "the some of those two numbers."

That is not a gem.

Jaeger wrote:Top 20?

Added the rest of the T20, except U Wash which doesn't report jack shit.

Thanks for the info.

Is there anyway to find the stats for BC/BU/ND/Fordham?