Latest employment data Forum

[starry eyed]

How are 12 people from H unemployed seeking. Smdh

fat and weird

[Mal Reynolds]

I know four Chicago students who struck out. Those are just the ones I've heard about.

Bad grades? Bad interviewers? Too fat? All three?

Some are at least one of the above. Others aren't. You can still strike out so don't make these assumptions.

[starry eyed]

I know four Chicago students who struck out. Those are just the ones I've heard about.

Bad grades? Bad interviewers? Too fat? All three?

Some are at least one of the above. Others aren't. You can still strike out so don't make these assumptions.

such ambiguity..

[Tiago Splitter]

Well there goes the "go to Harvard if you wanna clerk" argument. I guess now you gotta go UVA.

[kcdc1]

2: Harvard - BL+FC-71%, FTLTBR-90%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-85%
https://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads ... -Final.pdf

These numbers are not particularly impressive - makes Harvard seem like just another T14 except they don't offer merit scholarships. I don't see a good reason to give Harvard the same pass Yale gets either.

[WheatThins]

One thing to keep in mind:

This data reflects only graduates for a school.

Somewhere like WUSTL, which takes a ton of transfers (who rarely get biglaw/fed clerkship jobs) and loses a sizable number of transfers to T14s (who tend to get biglaw jobs), will have skewed employment numbers.

I wish schools could show outcomes for students who matriculated at a school instead of the graduates.

So when looking at the data, I'd make a mental note of which schools take in the most transfers and adjust appropriately.

[bowser]

2: Harvard - BL+FC-71%, FTLTBR-90%, FTLTBR (w/o LSF)-85%
https://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads ... -Final.pdf

These numbers are not particularly impressive - makes Harvard seem like just another T14 except they don't offer merit scholarships. I don't see a good reason to give Harvard the same pass Yale gets either.

Well, the fact that Harvard's BL+FC number isn't going up when hiring in Biglaw has increased could indicate a sizable chunk of them legitimately don't want Biglaw. The fed clerk thing is a little weird.

[Rigo]

One thing to keep in mind:

This data reflects only graduates for a school.

Somewhere like WUSTL, which takes a ton of transfers (who rarely get biglaw/fed clerkship jobs) and loses a sizable number of transfers to T14s (who tend to get biglaw jobs), will have skewed employment numbers.

I wish schools could show outcomes for students who matriculated at a school instead of the graduates.

So when looking at the data, I'd make a mental note of which schools take in the most transfers and adjust appropriately.

I don't see why this matters. Why should schools be responsible for students who transfer out or withdraw a few days after orientation for personal reasons?

[Finalfan]

WUSTL will graduate far fewer next year. I expect their numbers to jump by 5-10% in the big law/clerkship category.

[bowser]

One thing to keep in mind:

This data reflects only graduates for a school.

Somewhere like WUSTL, which takes a ton of transfers (who rarely get biglaw/fed clerkship jobs) and loses a sizable number of transfers to T14s (who tend to get biglaw jobs), will have skewed employment numbers.

I wish schools could show outcomes for students who matriculated at a school instead of the graduates.

So when looking at the data, I'd make a mental note of which schools take in the most transfers and adjust appropriately.

I don't see why this matters. Why should schools be responsible for students who transfer out or withdraw a few days after orientation for personal reasons?

Accounting for transfers out would give a better indication of your chances at Biglaw or clerking when you matriculate. He's right in that if ~30 people transfer out of WUSTL, a strong majority of them would have gotten Biglaw if they stayed at WUSTL.

[Rigo]

WUSTL will graduate far fewer next year. I expect their numbers to jump by 5-10% in the big law/clerkship category.

It will be short lived with their c/o 2017* fuck up.

*Edited to fix year.

[starry eyed]

One thing to keep in mind:

This data reflects only graduates for a school.

Somewhere like WUSTL, which takes a ton of transfers (who rarely get biglaw/fed clerkship jobs) and loses a sizable number of transfers to T14s (who tend to get biglaw jobs), will have skewed employment numbers.

I wish schools could show outcomes for students who matriculated at a school instead of the graduates.

So when looking at the data, I'd make a mental note of which schools take in the most transfers and adjust appropriately.

By this logic every non-HYS has skewed employment data

[hoos89]

WUSTL will graduate far fewer next year. I expect their numbers to jump by 5-10% in the big law/clerkship category.

It will be short lived with their c/o 2016 fuck up.

Yeah but that's probably a blip in itself.

[Tiago Splitter]

One thing to keep in mind:

This data reflects only graduates for a school.

Somewhere like WUSTL, which takes a ton of transfers (who rarely get biglaw/fed clerkship jobs) and loses a sizable number of transfers to T14s (who tend to get biglaw jobs), will have skewed employment numbers.

I wish schools could show outcomes for students who matriculated at a school instead of the graduates.

So when looking at the data, I'd make a mental note of which schools take in the most transfers and adjust appropriately.

By this logic every non-HYS has skewed employment data

At some T-14's I'd bet the transfers do better than the regulars.

[Rigo]

Accounting for transfers out would give a better indication of your chances at Biglaw or clerking when you matriculate. He's right in that if ~30 people transfer out of WUSTL, a strong majority of them would have gotten Biglaw if they stayed at WUSTL.

It's hard to say. Had these transfers stayed, they might have just gobbled up all the biglaw jobs that just shifted to other non-transfers after they left.

Sure maybe it'd be interesting information, but it's silly to hold schools accountable for outcomes that are no longer in their control.

[hoos89]

Accounting for transfers out would give a better indication of your chances at Biglaw or clerking when you matriculate. He's right in that if ~30 people transfer out of WUSTL, a strong majority of them would have gotten Biglaw if they stayed at WUSTL.

It's hard to say. Had these transfers stayed, they might have just gobbled up all the biglaw jobs that just shifted to other non-transfers after they left.

Sure maybe it'd be interesting information, but it's silly to hold schools accountable for outcomes that are no longer in their control.

Right but they did leave, so they didn't gobble up those jobs, and typically there will always be some transfers. Point isn't what the school's placement power is so much as what outcome a 0L can expect. WUSTL has a ton of transfers out and in every year. The transfers out typically do pretty well, but the transfers in typically do quite poorly. 0Ls coming to WUSTL don't really need to worry about the outcomes of students who transfer in, but the outcomes of students who transfer out are potentially relevant to them.

[starry eyed]

WUSTL will graduate far fewer next year. I expect their numbers to jump by 5-10% in the big law/clerkship category.

Pretty bold statent given firm
Grade cutoffs remain the same. If they did decide to dig deeper into a class it's evident that they will go to the T14.

[Rigo]

If someone intends to transfer, then they should just look at Columbia outcomes or whatever.

[Rigo]

The main reason for transferring is because you feel your current school won't help you achieve your employment goals, so adding outcomes of those who transfer out would inflate a school's desirable outcomes to the point where it would be misleading for 0L's.

[WheatThins]

Accounting for transfers out would give a better indication of your chances at Biglaw or clerking when you matriculate. He's right in that if ~30 people transfer out of WUSTL, a strong majority of them would have gotten Biglaw if they stayed at WUSTL.

It's hard to say. Had these transfers stayed, they might have just gobbled up all the biglaw jobs that just shifted to other non-transfers after they left.

Sure maybe it'd be interesting information, but it's silly to hold schools accountable for outcomes that are no longer in their control.

I'm not saying that schools should be held accountable. If you want to dock whatever school in whatever rankings for taking in 100 transfers who don't get jobs - that's fine.

I'm saying that this data is relevant to students who are deciding on which school to matriculate. To that end, 0Ls should be aware that the numbers reflect graduates of a school, and not those who begin at the school.

I'm using WUSTL as an example, but this could apply to any other "T20" school. Let's say that 200 students begin as a 1L. 20 transfer to T14s (and overwhelmingly get biglaw jobs), and 80 transfer into the school (and don't).

Now WUSTL has 260 graduates, and their numbers reflect that 30% are 101+ (so 75ish people). In reality, those 75 people got biglaw, but so did (almost all of) those 20 people who transfered out. 95 total. And the ones who stayed, they weren't really competing against the transfers. So 95/200.

Again, these numbers are hypotheticals. I have no idea how many transfers WUSTL gained and lost. And I'm not supporting the taking in of mass transfers. It's a racket.

[Finalfan]

WUSTL will graduate far fewer next year. I expect their numbers to jump by 5-10% in the big law/clerkship category.

It will be short lived with their c/o 2016 fuck up.

you mean 2017?

[Rigo]

WUSTL will graduate far fewer next year. I expect their numbers to jump by 5-10% in the big law/clerkship category.

It will be short lived with their c/o 2016 fuck up.

you mean 2017?

Oh shoot. Yeah. My bad.

[hoos89]

If someone intends to transfer, then they should just look at Columbia outcomes or whatever.

You can't assume you will be able to transfer going in, but it is still relevant to your outcomes going in. If 10% of a school transfers out and all get big law, and 30% of the remainder gets big law, but 20% of that are transfers in, and only 10% of them got big law, then the probability of a random 0L getting big law is actually more like 40% than 30%.

[Tiago Splitter]

I'm not sure why rigo is arguing against this in theory because it's absolutely right. That said, WUSTL only had 13 transfers out and took in 44 so the net benefit for an incoming 0L would be pretty small if it exists at all if that ratio continues.

[WheatThins]

If someone intends to transfer, then they should just look at Columbia outcomes or whatever.

You can't assume you will be able to transfer going in, but it is still relevant to your outcomes going in. If 10% of a school transfers out and all get big law, and 30% of the remainder gets big law, but 20% of that are transfers in, and only 10% of them got big law, then the probability of a random 0L getting big law is actually more like 40% than 30%.

Exactly.