Latest employment data Forum

[sublime]

..

[exitoptions]

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

We really need to come up with a way to quantify whether people achieved a optimal / close to optimal result rather than whether people obtain a biglaw job. Maybe they should just ask on the survey -- would you have accepted a big law job over the offer you accepted?

[cron1834]

Come now. UVA and Duke are peers. Apples-and-oranges peers, but peers.

[daleearnhardt123]

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

We really need to come up with a way to quantify whether people achieved a optimal / close to optimal result rather than whether people obtain a biglaw job. Maybe they should just ask on the survey -- would you have accepted a big law job over the offer you accepted?

I agree. But because this information doesn't exist, we use the BL+FC number. That's fine when you're comparing two schools that really aren't close, but it's near-useless when you are comparing peers.

[Mack.Hambleton]

If everyone at Michigan tried for NYC biglaw, they'd have Penn like numbers.

so they'd go from 49% biglaw to 70% biglaw numbers? I kinda doubt that



also re: penn vs UVA, school funded is still still 10% for UVA vs 3% for penn

[HalfStudent]

Improvement over last year for the most part but still for more from ideal. Interesting what it will look like 3 years from now when there is 10,000 fewer JDs flooding the market..

[exitoptions]

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

We really need to come up with a way to quantify whether people achieved a optimal / close to optimal result rather than whether people obtain a biglaw job. Maybe they should just ask on the survey -- would you have accepted a big law job over the offer you accepted?

I agree. But because this information doesn't exist, we use the BL+FC number. That's fine when you're comparing two schools that really aren't close, but it's near-useless when you are comparing peers.

It's also fairly useless information for those not interested in big law.

[Clemenceau]

34 school funded jobs is still pretty meh

I get that maybe a school funded gig could be a segue into a full time PI job, but collecting paychecks from your school for 10+ months after graduation seems less than ideal

[daleearnhardt123]

Come now. UVA and Duke are peers. Apples-and-oranges peers, but peers.

I'm guessing this is a sarcastic jab at UVA? Had UVA sent 3 more students into BL+FC, and Duke 3 less, their %s become equal. This, despite the fact that UVA had over 100(!) more students than Duke.

But of course youre right, they're not peers. Duke has clearly passed UVA.

[HalfStudent]

Major problem for UVA is probably its size. The high GPA grads go to New York and elsewhere where there is a legal market but everyone else is stick in Virginia? Nothing there right?

[BigZuck]

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

Naw

This:

HYS
CCNP
DCN
B
MVG

[daleearnhardt123]

34 school funded jobs is still pretty meh

I get that maybe a school funded gig could be a segue into a full time PI job, but collecting paychecks from your school for 10+ months after graduation seems less than ideal

Normally I'd agree, but school funded jobs come in different colors. UVAs school funded jobs are fairly desirable for those interested in PI. You find a PI employer you really like, and even if they can't hire you, UVA will pay you a salary for a year. It's a pretty solid gig for those who don't want biglaw.

[Tiago Splitter]

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

Bolded seems like a self created problem to me.

Seriously. The fact that the school placed more people is relevant if we're talking about giving an award for best career services office. It's meaningless when talking about where a prospective student who plans to finish at median should attend.

[2on1]

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

We really need to come up with a way to quantify whether people achieved a optimal / close to optimal result rather than whether people obtain a biglaw job. Maybe they should just ask on the survey -- would you have accepted a big law job over the offer you accepted?

I agree. But because this information doesn't exist, we use the BL+FC number. That's fine when you're comparing two schools that really aren't close, but it's near-useless when you are comparing peers.

It's also fairly useless information for those not interested in big law.

Since we're on the subject of not wanting BL. I remember seeing somewhere that ~20% of M's 2L class didn't even participate in OCI. Is this common at other schools. Seems kinda high, no?

[daleearnhardt123]

The anti-UVA trolling is crazy. UVA beat Duke in Fed Clerkships (15.1% to 13.4%) and absolutely crushed Penn (7.9%) despite the fact that judges probably consider students from these schools as essentially peers.
In addition, UVA had to place over 120 more students into law jobs than did Duke. And about 60 more than Penn.

Duke, and especially Penn, fare better than UVA under only one metric: BigLaw. While normally that's a critical consideration, using it as the sole consideration is like using a chainsaw to cut through cheese. Sure, it is accurate enough to say that because Penn's biglaw numbers trounce, say, UC Irvine's, that Penn is the better bet for a prospective student. But where the differences are as fine as they are between V and P, other metrics assume substantial importance. All that Penn's biglaw metric tells you is that the students that self-select into Penn go on to self-select into NY biglaw. if UVA attracted the same type of student, it'd probably have the same (if not better) numbers.

Most people on this site will say that public interest and gov jobs are unreliable indicators of student success. UVA sent about 15% of its 2014 class to such positions, Penn sent about 7%. Were UVA a T2 school, or even a non-T14 school, I would agree that these jobs were probably the only options for these students. But at UVA a substantial portion of that percentage self-selected into them. It's foolish to assume Penn is having substantially better results than UVA based on the blunt tool metric that is big-firm self-selection.

Bolded seems like a self created problem to me.

Seriously. The fact that the school placed more people is relevant if we're talking about giving an award for best career services office. It's meaningless when talking about where a prospective student who plans to finish at median should attend.

Not entirely true, for 2 reasons. First, in terms of raw #s, this info indicates that UVA is placing more below-median students into big law.

Second, the most recent incoming class was about 50 students shy of the # of graduates UVA churned out in 2014. Thus, even if you believe UVA puts you at a disadvantage by putting you in such a large class, they have already corrected for that.

[Mack.Hambleton]

34 school funded jobs is still pretty meh

I get that maybe a school funded gig could be a segue into a full time PI job, but collecting paychecks from your school for 10+ months after graduation seems less than ideal

Normally I'd agree, but school funded jobs come in different colors. UVAs school funded jobs are fairly desirable for those interested in PI. You find a PI employer you really like, and even if they can't hire you, UVA will pay you a salary for a year. It's a pretty solid gig for those who don't want biglaw.

lol

[Desert Fox]

If everyone at Michigan tried for NYC biglaw, they'd have Penn like numbers.

so they'd go from 49% biglaw to 70% biglaw numbers? I kinda doubt that



also re: penn vs UVA, school funded is still still 10% for UVA vs 3% for penn

Why? Trying to crack Chicago, California, or god forbid rustbelt biglaw is way harder.

[cron1834]

Come now. UVA and Duke are peers. Apples-and-oranges peers, but peers.

I'm guessing this is a sarcastic jab at UVA? Had UVA sent 3 more students into BL+FC, and Duke 3 less, their %s become equal. This, despite the fact that UVA had over 100(!) more students than Duke.

But of course youre right, they're not peers. Duke has clearly passed UVA.

Dude you are just clowning yourself here.

[Tiago Splitter]

Not entirely true, for 2 reasons. First, in terms of raw #s, this info indicates that UVA is placing more below-median students into big law.

Second, the most recent incoming class was about 50 students shy of the # of graduates UVA churned out in 2014. Thus, even if you believe UVA puts you at a disadvantage by putting you in such a large class, they have already corrected for that.

Second point is reasonable, but first point still says nothing about what a prospective should do. If your school can't sleepwalk you into biglaw from below median without some serious string-pulling from career services then don't compare it to Penn.

[Tiago Splitter]

Why? Trying to crack Chicago, California, or god forbid rustbelt biglaw is way harder.

I guess the question then is why so dumb? Like half the class purposely rolls with an awful bidding strategy. Maybe the intimidator's CSO comments are smarter than I thought.

[Moneytrees]

UVA and Duke still are peers in my eyes. One year doesn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. Last year UVA beat Duke by a small margin. UVA recently cut its class sizes, so I think it's safe to assume that future UVA graduates will continue to have great employment prospects.

[Desert Fox]

Why? Trying to crack Chicago, California, or god forbid rustbelt biglaw is way harder.

I guess the question then is why do dumb? Like half the class purposely rolls with an awful bidding strategy. Maybe the intimidator's CSO comments are smarter than I thought.

Even at schools with great numbers most bidding strategies are really dumb. It's just more forgivable when your dumb strategy is NYC biglaw.

And some people would probably rather risk a strike out rather than move to NYC for their cruel biglaw.

[kingpin101]

UVA and Duke still are peers in my eyes. One year doesn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. Last year UVA beat Duke by a small margin. UVA recently cut its class sizes, so I think it's safe to assume that future UVA graduates will continue start to have great employment prospects.

[Tiago Splitter]

UVA and Duke still are peers in my eyes. One year doesn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. Last year UVA beat Duke by a small margin. UVA recently cut its class sizes, so I think it's safe to assume that future UVA graduates will continue to have great employment prospects.

No one disagrees. Always use several years of data.

Like for example the 2005 data which gives us some insight into PI/Gov "self selction" at certain schools

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf

[Tiago Splitter]

And some people would probably rather risk a strike out rather than move to NYC for their cruel biglaw.

Such dumb.

We do need to constantly remind 0L's of this fact. You don't get to assume employment numbers apply equally everywhere. "I'm going to Penn because it places great in biglaw. Oh and I won't work in NYC, DC, or Chicago. I want Portland or Miami" means you get disqualified from law school.