Top Law Schools

Ran into this ranking of law schools by the percentage of students that got biglaw or federal clerkships (class of 2012) --LinkRemoved--

1. University of Pennsylvania (75.2%)
2. Stanford University (74.0%)
3. Harvard University (69.7%)
4. Columbia University (66.5%)
5. University of Chicago (66.0%)
6. Yale University (64.7%)
7. Cornell University (63.9%)
8. Duke University (63.7%)
9. University of California, Berkeley (60.3%)
10. New York University (57.3%)
11. Northwestern University (55.4%)
12. University of Virginia (52.7%)
13. University of California, Irvine (51.8%)
14. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (51.4%)

Can someone explain? How are Duke and Cornell placing more than UVA and Michigan? And for someone who is deadset on NYC biglaw, is it generally true that median ranking student at Cornell has an edge over median student at UVA? I ask because I am going to have to choose between T7-14 schools and I want NYC only.

mulhollanddrive wrote:Ran into this ranking of law schools by the percentage of students that got biglaw or federal clerkships (class of 2012) --LinkRemoved--

1. University of Pennsylvania (75.2%)
2. Stanford University (74.0%)
3. Harvard University (69.7%)
4. Columbia University (66.5%)
5. University of Chicago (66.0%)
6. Yale University (64.7%)
7. Cornell University (63.9%)
8. Duke University (63.7%)
9. University of California, Berkeley (60.3%)
10. New York University (57.3%)
11. Northwestern University (55.4%)
12. University of Virginia (52.7%)
13. University of California, Irvine (51.8%)
14. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (51.4%)

Can someone explain? How are Duke and Cornell placing more than UVA and Michigan? And for someone who is deadset on NYC biglaw, is it generally true that median ranking student at Cornell has an edge over median student at UVA? I ask because I am going to have to choose between T7-14 schools and I want NYC only.

I think it's because UVA and Michigan have more people going into public interest. UVA - 19.8%, Michigan - 16%. In comparison, Duke - 9.3% and Cornell - 13.7%

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other&show=jobs

Public interest by choice? one fifth of the UVA class......?

mulhollanddrive wrote:Public interest by choice? one fifth of the UVA class......?

Presumably. UVA has a reputation for public interest.

mulhollanddrive wrote:Ran into this ranking of law schools by the percentage of students that got biglaw or federal clerkships (class of 2012) --LinkRemoved--

1. University of Pennsylvania (75.2%)
2. Stanford University (74.0%)
3. Harvard University (69.7%)
4. Columbia University (66.5%)
5. University of Chicago (66.0%)
6. Yale University (64.7%)
7. Cornell University (63.9%)
8. Duke University (63.7%)
9. University of California, Berkeley (60.3%)
10. New York University (57.3%)
11. Northwestern University (55.4%)
12. University of Virginia (52.7%)
13. University of California, Irvine (51.8%)
14. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (51.4%)

Can someone explain? How are Duke and Cornell placing more than UVA and Michigan? And for someone who is deadset on NYC biglaw, is it generally true that median ranking student at Cornell has an edge over median student at UVA? I ask because I am going to have to choose between T7-14 schools and I want NYC only.

These lists move around a lot year to year. So there is clearly a lot of randomness in the data. Some years schools just have bad luck. Some years more students choose non big law jobs. Taking a look at one and assuming it's gospel is stupid.

Then there are plenty of good jobs that don't appear on that list. Fed gov. jobs, in house, public interest, real nonlaw jerbs, etc. etc.

It also doesn't account for regional biases. A person who goes to Michigan, aims for Chicago biglaw then strikes out, would not have a better shot going to Cornell and aiming for Chicago biglaw. IMO this is a big factor in the wide separation between the lower T14. It's very likely that going to Michigan and aiming for NYC, you have a way better than 51.4% shot. Probably the 65% or better the NYC schools provide.

mulhollanddrive wrote:Public interest by choice? one fifth of the UVA class......?

Some people looking at these kinds of numbers seem to wonder if law grads are self-selecting into PI (PI by hoice), and seem to evaluate a class's results based on the assumption that it's a backup, a fallback for people who don't get biglaw. The thing is, if you don't do anything to make yourself competitive for PI, if you aim for biglaw and don't get it, it's not especially easy to get PI. So while obviously I can't prove this is what the numbers mean, I don't think people seeing a larger percentage of PI should assume that means that particular class had problems finding employment. (Personally, I'd see high percentages of PI as a good sign, because I think a lot of people go to law school intending to do PI, but get sucked into the biglaw path because 1) OCIs make it easier and 2) they get scared about the debt.)

To expand on what Desert Fox said, while "biglaw" may have a consensus definition of firms with 101 plus attorneys, there are law firms in Mississippi (and Alabama, and other similar states) that are considered "biglaw" that pay well (not 160k a year well, but well for MS) that take form the top of the class. They are our version of "biglaw"- they have lower salaries but are in areas with a much lower cost of living.

Significance: it makes schools like Bama look worse than they really are.

But thanks for sharing, nonetheless, OP. Just giving some context.

Louis1127 wrote:To expand on what Desert Fox said, while "biglaw" may have a consensus definition of firms with 101 plus attorneys, there are law firms in Mississippi (and Alabama, and other similar states) that are considered "biglaw" that pay well (not 160k a year well, but well for MS) that take form the top of the class. They are our version of "biglaw"- they have lower salaries but are in areas with a much lower cost of living.

Significance: it makes schools like Bama look worse than they really are.

But thanks for sharing, nonetheless, OP. Just giving some context.

Meh. I'm pretty sure Bama is who we think it is.

BigZuck wrote:

Louis1127 wrote:To expand on what Desert Fox said, while "biglaw" may have a consensus definition of firms with 101 plus attorneys, there are law firms in Mississippi (and Alabama, and other similar states) that are considered "biglaw" that pay well (not 160k a year well, but well for MS) that take form the top of the class. They are our version of "biglaw"- they have lower salaries but are in areas with a much lower cost of living.

Significance: it makes schools like Bama look worse than they really are.

But thanks for sharing, nonetheless, OP. Just giving some context.

Meh. I'm pretty sure Bama is who we think it is.

Ha. I know what you mean. Just saying the top of the class at Bama goes to firms in Bham and Jackson, MS that may very well have less than 100 attorneys, but it is still our biglaw, and pays around 100k a year. Those jobs are not reflected in these statistics. But considering that Bama games their medians really hard and doesn't place well outside of the state (except for Jackson, MS for some reason), they are indeed where they should be.

Louis1127 wrote:To expand on what Desert Fox said, while "biglaw" may have a consensus definition of firms with 101 plus attorneys, there are law firms in Mississippi (and Alabama, and other similar states) that are considered "biglaw" that pay well (not 160k a year well, but well for MS) that take form the top of the class. They are our version of "biglaw"- they have lower salaries but are in areas with a much lower cost of living.

Significance: it makes schools like Bama look worse than they really are.

But thanks for sharing, nonetheless, OP. Just giving some context.

And 101+ isn't even big law in some major cities. And many great botiques are below it. It's a rough measure at best.

hawkeye10 wrote:

mulhollanddrive wrote:Public interest by choice? one fifth of the UVA class......?

Presumably. UVA has a reputation for public interest.

Ha! That is what every school says to explain its employment numbers.

Honestly the numbers on TLS have only ever really confirmed that NYU and maybe Berkeley have legitimate public service self selection.

This article is just wrong. Their metric is insane: they discount school funded positions from the 101+ firm numbers? apples and oranges, bro. What a pathetic caveat. Use LST, or draw from the ABA data yourself: http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/. Last year Harvard was 71.4, Chicago was 70.7, CLS was 72.0, Penn was 77, Stanford 75 (they got the top two right). In terms of 3-year averages, which tend to be more telling, it's:

SLS 76.6
CLS 73.5
Penn 71.0
Chicago 65.7
NYU 62.0

Only on a "blog" could one post such information and then link to the site they presumably drew the data from where a quick search reveals their incompetence.

daryldixon wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

mulhollanddrive wrote:Public interest by choice? one fifth of the UVA class......?

Presumably. UVA has a reputation for public interest.

Ha! That is what every school says to explain its employment numbers.

Honestly the numbers on TLS have only ever really confirmed that NYU and maybe Berkeley have legitimate public service self selection.

Really? I don't think that UVA has to cite public interest as a way to explain its numbers. Without school funded positions, its employment percentage was 79.7% - better than Yale, Northwestern, and GULC.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other


What numbers on TLS?

NYU - 21.6% vs. UVA's - 19.8% Really, not much of a difference.

Berkeley - 14.7% vs. UVA's - 19.8%

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other&show=jobs

hawkeye10 wrote:

daryldixon wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

mulhollanddrive wrote:Public interest by choice? one fifth of the UVA class......?

Presumably. UVA has a reputation for public interest.

Ha! That is what every school says to explain its employment numbers.

Honestly the numbers on TLS have only ever really confirmed that NYU and maybe Berkeley have legitimate public service self selection.

Really? I don't think that UVA has to cite public interest as a way to explain its numbers. Without school funded positions, its employment percentage was 79.7% - better than Yale, Northwestern, and GULC.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other


What numbers on TLS?

NYU - 21.6% vs. UVA's - 19.8% Really, not much of a difference.

Berkeley - 14.7% vs. UVA's - 19.8%

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other&show=jobs

Getting any job isn't the hard part .

Desert Fox wrote: Getting any job isn't the hard part .

True. I talked to someone who graduated from a T14 in 2008, and in their first job as an attorney they made less than the poverty line while working in public interest. Before that, I thought that 25k for a PD position that I'd seen was horrific.

But are there any weird disadvantages/difficulties in getting NYC from UVA? Because obviously the median student at NYU > median student at Cornell. But does median at UVA > median at Cornell to NY firms?

Or do NY firms generally lump UVA/Cornell students into the same broad category and see no difference? (as in, they're evaluated by the same class rank standards/cut-offs)

Or does UVA's distance from NY and Cornell's home market/alumni actually give an edge to the Cornell median student over the UVA median student?

Thanks, everyone, for your interest. As many of you have noted, there are obviously limitations, many of which I tried to include in my original post. It's definitely a rough metric, as it doesn't take into account regionalism, certain kinds of self-selection, certain other elite employment outcomes, etc. It's simply another metric to include in your consideration, which I hope may be of some utility. I think the more kinds of useful metrics out there, the more ways students have of splicing the data.

jbagelboy wrote:This article is just wrong. Their metric is insane: they discount school funded positions from the 101+ firm numbers? apples and oranges, bro. What a pathetic caveat. Use LST, or draw from the ABA data yourself: http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/. Last year Harvard was 71.4, Chicago was 70.7, CLS was 72.0, Penn was 77, Stanford 75 (they got the top two right). In terms of 3-year averages, which tend to be more telling, it's:

SLS 76.6
CLS 73.5
Penn 71.0
Chicago 65.7
NYU 62.0

Only on a "blog" could one post such information and then link to the site they presumably drew the data from where a quick search reveals their incompetence.

Well, jbagelboy, even if it may be "insane," "pathetic," and "reveals [my] incompetence" (adjectives I'd happily attribute to myself in a variety of contexts), I, at least, would argue that it is not necessarily "wrong."

The ABA discloses the full-time, long-term, JD-required employment; the full-time, long-term, JD-required school-funded employment; and breakdowns in employment by type. It does not, however, break down school-funding by employment type (e.g., the number of school-funded positions at firms of more than 500, etc.) So, I had a choice. I could ignore the fact that there are some full-time, long-term, JD-required positions that receive school funding, and assume that all 101+ firm jobs were not school-funded; or, I could discount those positions by the overall percentage of full-time, long-term, JD-required that were school-funded; or, I could use a different discount measure.

I know of at least a couple of schools that do, in fact, provide school funding for full-time, long-term, JD-required law firm jobs. I think at many of these schools, it's probably the exception. In fact, I know that, at some schools, they only provide school funding to government or non-profit positions. (Hence, the "pathetic caveat.") And, granted, I don't think that Wachtell is taking students from a school and not paying them, allowing the school to pay the salary instead. But, I didn't feel as comfortable ignoring the fact that there are these school-funded positions out there without any indication of which positions are funded. So, I opted for a discount. And, again, as I noted, "A sound case could be made for an alternative ranking that included all the big law firm employment without any discount." It looks like you'd prefer that method, jbagelboy, and, as I indicate, I think it's entirely sound.

But, I do concede, as you and others noted, perhaps the three-year averages would have been more useful to even out peaks and valleys from one-off years. I'll keep it in mind for the future. Thanks for the constructive feedback.

I know of at least a couple of schools that do, in fact, provide school funding for full-time, long-term, JD-required law firm jobs.

Oh really. Which ones are paying a biglaw associate's salary?

Even if that is the case, you do acknowledge that the vast majority of school-funded positions do not go to funding such jobs? So it would be inappropriate to discount by anywhere near the full amount of school-funded positions.

I mean, they have NYU funding 38 biglaw associates positions. C'mon.

derekmuller wrote:Thanks, everyone, for your interest. As many of you have noted, there are obviously limitations, many of which I tried to include in my original post. It's definitely a rough metric, as it doesn't take into account regionalism, certain kinds of self-selection, certain other elite employment outcomes, etc. It's simply another metric to include in your consideration, which I hope may be of some utility. I think the more kinds of useful metrics out there, the more ways students have of splicing the data.

jbagelboy wrote:This article is just wrong. Their metric is insane: they discount school funded positions from the 101+ firm numbers? apples and oranges, bro. What a pathetic caveat. Use LST, or draw from the ABA data yourself: http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/. Last year Harvard was 71.4, Chicago was 70.7, CLS was 72.0, Penn was 77, Stanford 75 (they got the top two right). In terms of 3-year averages, which tend to be more telling, it's:

SLS 76.6
CLS 73.5
Penn 71.0
Chicago 65.7
NYU 62.0

Only on a "blog" could one post such information and then link to the site they presumably drew the data from where a quick search reveals their incompetence.

Well, jbagelboy, even if it may be "insane," "pathetic," and "reveals [my] incompetence" (adjectives I'd happily attribute to myself in a variety of contexts), I, at least, would argue that it is not necessarily "wrong."

The ABA discloses the full-time, long-term, JD-required employment; the full-time, long-term, JD-required school-funded employment; and breakdowns in employment by type. It does not, however, break down school-funding by employment type (e.g., the number of school-funded positions at firms of more than 500, etc.) So, I had a choice. I could ignore the fact that there are some full-time, long-term, JD-required positions that receive school funding, and assume that all 101+ firm jobs were not school-funded; or, I could discount those positions by the overall percentage of full-time, long-term, JD-required that were school-funded; or, I could use a different discount measure.

I know of at least a couple of schools that do, in fact, provide school funding for full-time, long-term, JD-required law firm jobs. I think at many of these schools, it's probably the exception. In fact, I know that, at some schools, they only provide school funding to government or non-profit positions. (Hence, the "pathetic caveat.") And, granted, I don't think that Wachtell is taking students from a school and not paying them, allowing the school to pay the salary instead. But, I didn't feel as comfortable ignoring the fact that there are these school-funded positions out there without any indication of which positions are funded. So, I opted for a discount. And, again, as I noted, "A sound case could be made for an alternative ranking that included all the big law firm employment without any discount." It looks like you'd prefer that method, jbagelboy, and, as I indicate, I think it's entirely sound.

But, I do concede, as you and others noted, perhaps the three-year averages would have been more useful to even out peaks and valleys from one-off years. I'll keep it in mind for the future. Thanks for the constructive feedback.

I think its important that you highlighted this info as opposed to the problematic 90%+ employment figures schools love to show, and I didn't intend a personal slant, even if my post came off that way. TLS is anonymous for a reason. But I think you can see how (and you acknowledge), for example, saying that only 64% of Yale grads have "elite" outcomes, or only 66% of Chicago grads do, is .. well, for lack of a better word at the moment, "wrong," and I am doubtful of the value of the display.

I also think with a little poking around you could discover with more detail where the school funded positions and "large firm" positions overlap. It sounds like you know what you are talking about, and so you would be aware that the reality is, 80-85% of HSCCN do 2L SA's at large firms with over 90% re-offer rates for post-grad. The "school funded" positions, on the other hand, are largely PI, research, or academic, and they are generally awarded/granted after OCI's, not in conjunction with or before. I didn't just look at the numbers and immediately discard them. I read your methodology, read the ABA reports, and saw what was going on.

I guess my harsh phrasing aside (sorry), when every data point has so many caveats, the list itself becomes somewhat deceptive.

ETA: also what cotiger said.

mulhollanddrive wrote:But are there any weird disadvantages/difficulties in getting NYC from UVA? Because obviously the median student at NYU > median student at Cornell. But does median at UVA > median at Cornell to NY firms?

Or do NY firms generally lump UVA/Cornell students into the same broad category and see no difference? (as in, they're evaluated by the same class rank standards/cut-offs)

Or does UVA's distance from NY and Cornell's home market/alumni actually give an edge to the Cornell median student over the UVA median student?

There is likely some edge, but I don't think it's huge in the aggregate.

I also don't think CCN median students have much advantage over Cornell median students.