how is the lower spectrum of the t14? Forum

[TMC116]

i LOVE california, going to USC for ugrad....do you guys think cal will stay in t14? or fall to fiscal limits due to failing state budget? Of course id LOVE S but i need backup plans as well.

Yes it will stay in the T14. Stop freaking out, you're halfway through college. Keep your GPA up an don't worry about the LSAT until next summer.

/thread

[westinghouse60]

I actually think its Y HS CC NP MVB DNC G. But that might just be me.

+1 for this

[rayiner]

I actually think its Y HS CC NP MVB DNC G. But that might just be me.

+1 for this

This has no basis in reality. Pretty much no matter what you're doing, except maybe politics, S >> H. Why? Because no matter what you're doing you're competing with 3x as many people to do it form H. This is why S has a substantial edge over H in, for example, federal clerkships. 16% of HLS C/O 2011 got a federal clerkship, versus 23% of SLS C/O 2011. Moreover, 94% of all SLS clerkships were federal (versus less desirable state clerkships), compared to 78% of all HLS clerkships.

0L's on TLS try to make fine distinctions on the prestige scale, but completely miss the fact that below a certain degree, small distinctions in prestige are outweighed by factors like geography, class size, etc. E.g. compare Michigan and Penn. Historically, Michigan has been more prestigious. Indeed, it was only 10 years ago that Penn was consistently ranked outside the T10 (they went on a faculty hiring binge in the early 2000's). Michigan, meanwhile, was once in the top echelon of schools and has never been ranked outside the T10. Yet, you'd much rather be at Penn than Michigan? Why? Because Penn is in a big east-coast city and has strong ties to NYC, and graduates ~270 students each year, while Michigan is in the middle of nowhere, doesn't have strong ties to any specific market, and graduates ~370 students each year. Indeed, if your interest is in just getting a big firm job or clerkship, you should almost certainly take Berkeley, Duke, or Northwestern over Michigan. Why? Because begin consistent feeders into particular markets (Cali, NY, Chicago), and as a result having a ton of firm connections to those markets, matters a lot more than small differences in what the faculty at law schools think of each other.

[EdgarWinter]

.

[ben4847]

I actually think its Y HS CC NP MVB DNC G. But that might just be me.

+1 for this

This is why S has a substantial edge over H in, for example, federal clerkships. 16% of HLS C/O 2011 got a federal clerkship, versus 23% of SLS C/O 2011. Moreover, 94% of all SLS clerkships were federal (versus less desirable state clerkships), compared to 78% of all HLS clerkships.

The first figure is significant, but the second figure actually proves the opposite. You've already listed the amount of federal clerkships, so the 22% of H's clerkships which are state, are a much larger percentage of the class than S's 6% which are state.

Thus, H is getting a lot more state than S. Of course, if those state are supreme court, then it is something to talk about, but if they are appellate or trial court, not as much.

I'm more interested, however, in seeing how those numbers are long term. S is pretty small, and small nuances can make a large difference in their numbers. When 5 more people get a clerkship, it puts them up 2.5%, while all it means is that 5 judges woke up on the right side of the bed.

[ahnhub]

I'm more interested, however, in seeing how those numbers are long term. S is pretty small, and small nuances can make a large difference in their numbers. When 5 more people get a clerkship, it puts them up 2.5%, while all it means is that 5 judges woke up on the right side of the bed.

If you look over the past 3-4 years you'll see those federal clerkship numbers are pretty consistent--Harvard is right around 16-17% of the class getting one, Stanford is 24-30%. You can also say with some certainty that Harvard was affected by the downturn more than Stanford was.

[rayiner]

I actually think its Y HS CC NP MVB DNC G. But that might just be me.

+1 for this

This is why S has a substantial edge over H in, for example, federal clerkships. 16% of HLS C/O 2011 got a federal clerkship, versus 23% of SLS C/O 2011. Moreover, 94% of all SLS clerkships were federal (versus less desirable state clerkships), compared to 78% of all HLS clerkships.

The first figure is significant, but the second figure actually proves the opposite. You've already listed the amount of federal clerkships, so the 22% of H's clerkships which are state, are a much larger percentage of the class than S's 6% which are state.

Thus, H is getting a lot more state than S. Of course, if those state are supreme court, then it is something to talk about, but if they are appellate or trial court, not as much.

I'm more interested, however, in seeing how those numbers are long term. S is pretty small, and small nuances can make a large difference in their numbers. When 5 more people get a clerkship, it puts them up 2.5%, while all it means is that 5 judges woke up on the right side of the bed.

No, they prove the same thing. Having a higher %-age of the class in federal clerkships is better, and having a higher %-age of clerkships in federal courts is better.

[ben4847]

Uhhhh....

Having more sausage pizza is good, and having most of your pizza with sausage is good.

A has 22 sausage pizzas, and 95% of his pizza is sausage.
B has 19 sausage pizzas, ans 78% of his pizza is sausage.

Who has more pizza?

[Mad Hatter]

Uhhhh....

Having more sausage pizza is good, and having most of your pizza with sausage is good.

A has 22 sausage pizzas, and 95% of his pizza is sausage.
B has 19 sausage pizzas, ans 78% of his pizza is sausage.

Who has more pizza?

[BruceWayne]

HYS carry extra cachet in every market. Even NY firms would rather have an H grad than a CLS grad all else being equal. Maybe U Chicago. That's not true at any of the other T14 as far as I can tell. DC firms don't throw themselves at CLS grads over UVA grads.

Outside HYS, maybe U Chicago, it's all about market, not prestige. CLS benefits from feeding into NY. NY is the biggest market, so people there have a safety net, but that's not going to help you much in say Atlanta.

Look, these threads are getting ridiculous and the above response is the most realistic answer.

From everything I have ever seen, in terms of actually GETTING a job (not US News rankings etc.) it's going to work like this.
Non NYC markets
HYS
The top 14 in the region
The rest of the top 14 assuming the student has ties

NYC
HYS
CCNP
The rest of the top 14

That's really all there is to it. Employers don't make this absurdly fine gradations in prestige that law students often want them to make.

[rayiner]

Uhhhh....

Having more sausage pizza is good, and having most of your pizza with sausage is good.

A has 22 sausage pizzas, and 95% of his pizza is sausage.
B has 19 sausage pizzas, ans 78% of his pizza is sausage.

Who has more pizza?

Nobody cares who has more pizza because most people will prefer pasta to non-sausage pizza.

A high %-age federal clerks relative to total clerks means that of the people who want to clerk, most are getting federal clerkships. A high %-age of state clerks relative to total clerks means either that of the people who want to clerk, a lot are missing federal clerkships and settling for state ones, or that people who don't want to clerk are taking state clerkships because they missed big law.

[Chambo]

Anyone else think that this is a bit silly? The elite schools have their prestigious reputations (at least in part) because they can place their well-ranked graduates in many, many markets.

Talking to recent graduates, as well as lawyers who have been practicing for 10, 20 or 30+ years, it seems that being successful at your chosen school will hold as much, if not more weight than just attending a school in the same region. Extreme example: top 10% at UMich may indeed have an easier time getting a great job in DC than a Georgetown grad with mediocre class rank.

Now, I don't want to entirely downplay the amount that attending a school in a given region will help you find jobs in the nearby markets, especially in the case of going to schools on opposite sides of the continent. I just think it may be more important to find a school where you feel comfortable and think you can truly be successful rather than splitting hairs in debating the merits of very fine schools.

[employment_numbers]

The underemployment numbers are really dramatically different between the top of the T14 and the bottom (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx), as defined by grads in part time positions, non-professional jobs, and unemployed.

HYSCCN and Virginia: 2-5%
PBNDM: 8-13%
Cornell: 18%
Georgetown: 24%

In fact, Georgetown's employment statistics are much more like George Washington, BC, and Fordham's than they are like CCN.

[TMC116]

The underemployment numbers are really dramatically different between the top of the T14 and the bottom (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx), as defined by grads in part time positions, non-professional jobs, and unemployed.

HYSCCN and Virginia: 2-5%
PBNDM: 8-13%
Cornell: 18%
Georgetown: 24%

In fact, Georgetown's employment statistics are much more like George Washington, BC, and Fordham's than they are like CCN.

Virginia's data is a bit misleading. They employ a ton of their own students in fellowship positions. The larger point stands, though, Georgetown's stats are not really in the same class as the rest of the T14

[ben4847]

Uhhhh....

Having more sausage pizza is good, and having most of your pizza with sausage is good.

A has 22 sausage pizzas, and 95% of his pizza is sausage.
B has 19 sausage pizzas, ans 78% of his pizza is sausage.

Who has more pizza?

Nobody cares who has more pizza because most people will prefer pasta to non-sausage pizza.

A high %-age federal clerks relative to total clerks means that of the people who want to clerk, most are getting federal clerkships. A high %-age of state clerks relative to total clerks means either that of the people who want to clerk, a lot are missing federal clerkships and settling for state ones, or that people who don't want to clerk are taking state clerkships because they missed big law.

I see. You are saying that people who take state clerkships must have missed biglaw. I don't think that is true at the supreme court level, but maybe.

[employment_numbers]

The underemployment numbers are really dramatically different between the top of the T14 and the bottom (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx), as defined by grads in part time positions, non-professional jobs, and unemployed.

HYSCCN and Virginia: 2-5%
PBNDM: 8-13%
Cornell: 18%
Georgetown: 24%

In fact, Georgetown's employment statistics are much more like George Washington, BC, and Fordham's than they are like CCN.

Virginia's data is a bit misleading. They employ a ton of their own students in fellowship positions. The larger point stands, though, Georgetown's stats are not really in the same class as the rest of the T14

That's true, but so do most top schools:

Virginia: 18%
Chicago: 13%
NYU: 13%
Yale: 12%
Columbia: 9%
Harvard: 6%
Georgetown: 5%

[employment_numbers]

The underemployment numbers are really dramatically different between the top of the T14 and the bottom (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx), as defined by grads in part time positions, non-professional jobs, and unemployed.

HYSCCN and Virginia: 2-5%
PBNDM: 8-13%
Cornell: 18%
Georgetown: 24%

In fact, Georgetown's employment statistics are much more like George Washington, BC, and Fordham's than they are like CCN.

Virginia's data is a bit misleading. They employ a ton of their own students in fellowship positions. The larger point stands, though, Georgetown's stats are not really in the same class as the rest of the T14

Another way to look at the same data is by counting the numbers of grads in Full-time, bar-required jobs, subtracting the number of funded positions. Then you get:

Stanford 89%
Columbia 84%
Harvard 83%
Penn 81%
Yale 77%
Berkeley 76%
NYU 75%
Duke 75%
UVA 74%
Northwestern 74%
Chicago 73%
Cornell 73%
Michigan 70%
.... (Vanderbilt, BC, GW, Texas)
Georgetown 55%

[rayiner]

Uhhhh....

Having more sausage pizza is good, and having most of your pizza with sausage is good.

A has 22 sausage pizzas, and 95% of his pizza is sausage.
B has 19 sausage pizzas, ans 78% of his pizza is sausage.

Who has more pizza?

Nobody cares who has more pizza because most people will prefer pasta to non-sausage pizza.

A high %-age federal clerks relative to total clerks means that of the people who want to clerk, most are getting federal clerkships. A high %-age of state clerks relative to total clerks means either that of the people who want to clerk, a lot are missing federal clerkships and settling for state ones, or that people who don't want to clerk are taking state clerkships because they missed big law.

I see. You are saying that people who take state clerkships must have missed biglaw. I don't think that is true at the supreme court level, but maybe.

I'm not saying they all missed big law. Some people just really want to clerk. But generally, people who don't want to clerk just for the sake of clerking will choose big law over a state clerkship. A high %-age of state clerkships means either that there are a lot of people who just really want to clerk and didn't get a federal clerkship, or that there are people taking state trial clerkships because they missed big law.

[rayiner]

The underemployment numbers are really dramatically different between the top of the T14 and the bottom (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx), as defined by grads in part time positions, non-professional jobs, and unemployed.

HYSCCN and Virginia: 2-5%
PBNDM: 8-13%
Cornell: 18%
Georgetown: 24%

In fact, Georgetown's employment statistics are much more like George Washington, BC, and Fordham's than they are like CCN.

Virginia's data is a bit misleading. They employ a ton of their own students in fellowship positions. The larger point stands, though, Georgetown's stats are not really in the same class as the rest of the T14

Another way to look at the same data is by counting the numbers of grads in Full-time, bar-required jobs, subtracting the number of funded positions. Then you get:

Stanford 89%
Columbia 84%
Harvard 83%
Penn 81%
Yale 77%
Berkeley 76%
NYU 75%
Duke 75%
UVA 74%
Northwestern 74%
Chicago 73%
Cornell 73%
Michigan 70%
.... (Vanderbilt, BC, GW, Texas)
Georgetown 55%

Still misleading. There are three criteria: Long-Term (LT), Full-Time (FT), and Bar-Required (BR). Schools don't all report their school-funded hires as LT+FT. And it's unclear which schools report their school funded hires as BR. E.g., none of NU's 11 school-funded hires are reported as FT. So they cannot be included in the 77% that are reported as LT+FT+BR. Meanwhile, all of UVA's 64 school-funded hires are reported as LT+FT. And they must report them as BR, because only 16 students are reported as being in non-BR jobs. So the 17% school-funded hires are included in their 95% reported LT+FT+BR figure.

[JamMasterJ]

Uhhhh....

Having more sausage pizza is good, and having most of your pizza with sausage is good.

A has 22 sausage pizzas, and 95% of his pizza is sausage.
B has 19 sausage pizzas, ans 78% of his pizza is sausage.

Who has more pizza?

Nobody cares who has more pizza because most people will prefer pasta to non-sausage pizza.

A high %-age federal clerks relative to total clerks means that of the people who want to clerk, most are getting federal clerkships. A high %-age of state clerks relative to total clerks means either that of the people who want to clerk, a lot are missing federal clerkships and settling for state ones, or that people who don't want to clerk are taking state clerkships because they missed big law.

This is why the total amount of "pizza" doesn't matter. Also, 22% / .94 >> 16% * .78, so either way, S is still getting more total clerkships.

[employment_numbers]

Still misleading. There are three criteria: Long-Term (LT), Full-Time (FT), and Bar-Required (BR). Schools don't all report their school-funded hires as LT+FT. And it's unclear which schools report their school funded hires as BR. E.g., none of NU's 11 school-funded hires are reported as FT. So they cannot be included in the 77% that are reported as LT+FT+BR. Meanwhile, all of UVA's 64 school-funded hires are reported as LT+FT. And they must report them as BR, because only 16 students are reported as being in non-BR jobs. So the 17% school-funded hires are included in their 95% reported LT+FT+BR figure.

I don't follow. Subtracting the "funded-LT-FT" hires should lead to a standard dataset of FT-BR jobs that does not include any school-funded jobs; meaning it's non-manipulable.

[rayiner]

Still misleading. There are three criteria: Long-Term (LT), Full-Time (FT), and Bar-Required (BR). Schools don't all report their school-funded hires as LT+FT. And it's unclear which schools report their school funded hires as BR. E.g., none of NU's 11 school-funded hires are reported as FT. So they cannot be included in the 77% that are reported as LT+FT+BR. Meanwhile, all of UVA's 64 school-funded hires are reported as LT+FT. And they must report them as BR, because only 16 students are reported as being in non-BR jobs. So the 17% school-funded hires are included in their 95% reported LT+FT+BR figure.

I don't follow. Subtracting the "funded-LT-FT" hires should lead to a standard dataset of FT-BR jobs that does not include any school-funded jobs; meaning it's non-manipulable.

I'm not quite sure how you did your calculations. E.g. you computed 81% for U Penn. Penn reported 231/274 in LT-FT-BR. It reported 4 school-funded positions in FT-LT. You can't assume they counted all 4 as BR. So they may or may not be in that 231/274. Even if you assume they are, then the number should be 83%, not 81%. E.g. you computed 74% for NU. NU reported 221/287 in LT-FT-BR. It reported 0 school funded positions in FT-LT. So none can be in the 221/287. So the number should be 77%, not 74%.

A couple of the schools are easy. UVA reports 64 school-funded positions as LT-FT, and only 20 positions that are not LT-FT-BR. So they're quite probably all counted as BR. But what about Harvard's 33 school-funded positions that are reported as LT-FT. Harvard reported 52 students as not in LT-FT-BR positions. It's conceivable that 33 school-funded positions were not reported as bar-required and shouldn't be subtracted from the LT-FT-BR figure.

[employment_numbers]

Still misleading. There are three criteria: Long-Term (LT), Full-Time (FT), and Bar-Required (BR). Schools don't all report their school-funded hires as LT+FT. And it's unclear which schools report their school funded hires as BR. E.g., none of NU's 11 school-funded hires are reported as FT. So they cannot be included in the 77% that are reported as LT+FT+BR. Meanwhile, all of UVA's 64 school-funded hires are reported as LT+FT. And they must report them as BR, because only 16 students are reported as being in non-BR jobs. So the 17% school-funded hires are included in their 95% reported LT+FT+BR figure.

I don't follow. Subtracting the "funded-LT-FT" hires should lead to a standard dataset of FT-BR jobs that does not include any school-funded jobs; meaning it's non-manipulable.

I'm not quite sure how you did your calculations. E.g. you computed 81% for U Penn. Penn reported 231/274 in LT-FT-BR. It reported 4 school-funded positions in FT-LT. You can't assume they counted all 4 as BR. So they may or may not be in that 231/274. Even if you assume they are, then the number should be 83%, not 81%. E.g. you computed 74% for NU. NU reported 221/287 in LT-FT-BR. It reported 0 school funded positions in FT-LT. So none can be in the 221/287. So the number should be 77%, not 74%.

A couple of the schools are easy. UVA reports 64 school-funded positions as LT-FT, and only 20 positions that are not LT-FT-BR. So they're quite probably all counted as BR. But what about Harvard's 33 school-funded positions that are reported as LT-FT. Harvard reported 52 students as not in LT-FT-BR positions. It's conceivable that 33 school-funded positions were not reported as bar-required and shouldn't be subtracted from the LT-FT-BR figure.

Ahhh yes. My apologies for the confusion. I was using an indicator that also subtracted small firms (1-10 people) from the statistics because many of those people are better characterized as "self-employed" (i.e. they couldn't get a job so they hung up a shingle).

[Samara]

The underemployment numbers are really dramatically different between the top of the T14 and the bottom (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx), as defined by grads in part time positions, non-professional jobs, and unemployed.

HYSCCN and Virginia: 2-5%
PBNDM: 8-13%
Cornell: 18%
Georgetown: 24%

In fact, Georgetown's employment statistics are much more like George Washington, BC, and Fordham's than they are like CCN.

Virginia's data is a bit misleading. They employ a ton of their own students in fellowship positions. The larger point stands, though, Georgetown's stats are not really in the same class as the rest of the T14

Another way to look at the same data is by counting the numbers of grads in Full-time, bar-required jobs, subtracting the number of funded positions. Then you get:

Stanford 89%
Columbia 84%
Harvard 83%
Penn 81%
Yale 77%
Berkeley 76%
NYU 75%
Duke 75%
UVA 74%
Northwestern 74%
Chicago 73%
Cornell 73%
Michigan 70%
.... (Vanderbilt, BC, GW, Texas)
Georgetown 55%

I talked about this in another thread, but I think this is still unfair to Georgetown because of self-selection. GULC students are more likely to target govt/govt relations/political jobs. Many of these jobs would be counted as BP-preferred, which I believe is why GULC's BP-required numbers are low, but their BP-preferred are high. We can argue over how those jobs should be compared to biglaw, but they are at least acceptable, if not preferred, alternatives for a certain segment of people. It might be only a few, but it's so hard to know that I think it's unfair to trash Georgetown on numbers that are likely skewed against them. To be clear, I think they belong in the lower T14, but I have a hard time making the leap that they should be lumped in with T25 schools.

[rayiner]

The underemployment numbers are really dramatically different between the top of the T14 and the bottom (http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/home.aspx), as defined by grads in part time positions, non-professional jobs, and unemployed.

HYSCCN and Virginia: 2-5%
PBNDM: 8-13%
Cornell: 18%
Georgetown: 24%

In fact, Georgetown's employment statistics are much more like George Washington, BC, and Fordham's than they are like CCN.

Virginia's data is a bit misleading. They employ a ton of their own students in fellowship positions. The larger point stands, though, Georgetown's stats are not really in the same class as the rest of the T14

Another way to look at the same data is by counting the numbers of grads in Full-time, bar-required jobs, subtracting the number of funded positions. Then you get:

Stanford 89%
Columbia 84%
Harvard 83%
Penn 81%
Yale 77%
Berkeley 76%
NYU 75%
Duke 75%
UVA 74%
Northwestern 74%
Chicago 73%
Cornell 73%
Michigan 70%
.... (Vanderbilt, BC, GW, Texas)
Georgetown 55%

I talked about this in another thread, but I think this is still unfair to Georgetown because of self-selection. GULC students are more likely to target govt/govt relations/political jobs. Many of these jobs would be counted as BP-preferred, which I believe is why GULC's BP-required numbers are low, but their BP-preferred are high. We can argue over how those jobs should be compared to biglaw, but they are at least acceptable, if not preferred, alternatives for a certain segment of people. It might be only a few, but it's so hard to know that I think it's unfair to trash Georgetown on numbers that are likely skewed against them. To be clear, I think they belong in the lower T14, but I have a hard time making the leap that they should be lumped in with T25 schools.

I tend to agree. Georgetown's huge PT class includes a lot of people getting their JD's to go back to political work. In my analysis of the un/under-employment at various schools, which ignores whether jobs require bar passage and assumes that any (non school-funded) government job is not undesirable (at least they're IBR-eligible) GULC doesn't look so bad compared to the other lower-T14.

I also think the bar passage required criterion is misleading for schools with big JD-MBA classes (HLS, Penn, NU). Penn and HLS don't break out JD-MBA's separately, but NU does and 5% of the graduating class is accounted for by JD-MBA's who took non-law jobs.