Top Law Schools

Now that new rankings are out, should we also be expecting updated job stats/class sizes before it's time to put down deposits? LST is updated through 2015; does anyone know where to find more recent data?

It's not out yet. Hopefully early April.

The ABA job stats can only be collected once graduates have been out of school for 9 months. So most schools are probably still collating all their data and getting survey responses back from alumni. It's pretty normal for this process to not be done yet.

I'll start a thread in early April like last year to compile the ABA job stats. They are officially due out April 14ish but some schools post them a little early

cavalier1138 wrote:The ABA job stats can only be collected once graduates have been out of school for 9 months. So most schools are probably still collating all their data and getting survey responses back from alumni. It's pretty normal for this process to not be done yet.

It's actually 10 months now.

Cool. Thank you everyone for your responses

April 14 seems like a pretty generous deadline considering that most people graduate in early May. How does that constitute 10 months? I assume schools are trying to weasel out of providing the data before most incoming applicants have made decisions...?

cron1834 wrote:April 14 seems like a pretty generous deadline considering that most people graduate in early May. How does that constitute 10 months? I assume schools are trying to weasel out of providing the data before most incoming applicants have made decisions...?

Maybe, but I doubt there is much statistical deviation in job placement year over year for a given school. 50% vs. 52% vs. 48% for BL+FC (or whatever numbers you want to input) are not at all relevant for the school's job placement. That could be +/- 2-3 students going into those jobs.

I doubt much will actually be learned about a given school, but there will always be learning in the relative strength of the market.

UVA2B wrote:

cron1834 wrote:April 14 seems like a pretty generous deadline considering that most people graduate in early May. How does that constitute 10 months? I assume schools are trying to weasel out of providing the data before most incoming applicants have made decisions...?

Maybe, but I doubt there is much statistical deviation in job placement year over year for a given school. 50% vs. 52% vs. 48% for BL+FC (or whatever numbers you want to input) are not at all relevant for the school's job placement. That could be +/- 2-3 students going into those jobs.

I doubt much will actually be learned about a given school, but there will always be learning in the relative strength of the market.

The fluctuations are often more than that, but I agree applicants should average at least the last 3 years instead of putting a lot of weight on what might be an outlier year.

Rigo wrote:

UVA2B wrote:

cron1834 wrote:April 14 seems like a pretty generous deadline considering that most people graduate in early May. How does that constitute 10 months? I assume schools are trying to weasel out of providing the data before most incoming applicants have made decisions...?

Maybe, but I doubt there is much statistical deviation in job placement year over year for a given school. 50% vs. 52% vs. 48% for BL+FC (or whatever numbers you want to input) are not at all relevant for the school's job placement. That could be +/- 2-3 students going into those jobs.

I doubt much will actually be learned about a given school, but there will always be learning in the relative strength of the market.

The fluctuations are often more than that, but I agree applicants should average at least the last 3 years instead of putting a lot of weight on what might be an outlier year.

It definitely depends on the school and what type of jobs you're looking at. And taking recent averages is the right thing to do.

I randomly pulled NU from the last three years, and BL alone was within 1% of the reported outcomes per ABA disclosures (61ish%). I believe that this changes based on the school you're looking at, but even going to 3-5% departure, it's a not insignificant amount for a given year, but the historical placement won't demonstrably change.

ETA: defined BL as 100+ attorneys, willing to accept differing definitions of BL, but the underlying premise remains the same

UVA2B wrote: I randomly pulled NU from the last three years, and BL alone was within 1% of the reported outcomes per ABA disclosures (61ish%).

I just don't get what you're saying here.
NU Biglaw+FedClerk placement rose 4% from c/o 2014 to 2015, and that was one of the lower fluctuations within the T13/14.

Rigo wrote:

UVA2B wrote: I randomly pulled NU from the last three years, and BL alone was within 1% of the reported outcomes per ABA disclosures (61ish%).

I just don't get what you're saying here.
NU Biglaw+FedClerk placement rose 4% from c/o 2014 to 2015, and that was one of the lower fluctuations within the T13/14.

Maybe I'm working with incomplete info, but I pulled employment stats from NU website. I double checked my numbers and realized I did horrible arithmetic for C/O 2015.

2013: 158/258=61.2%
2014: 162/262=61.8%
2015: 179/264=67.8%

That's a big jump, and worth noting. But the point remains the same: while taking historical data for a given school gives good insight, it's likely more a reality of the market than a given school suddenly out-punching its weight.

UVA2B wrote: Maybe I'm working with incomplete info, but I pulled employment stats from NU website. I double checked my numbers and realized I did horrible arithmetic for C/O 2015.

2013: 158/258=61.2%
2014: 162/262=61.8%
2015: 179/264=67.8%

You're making the mistake of dividing by full-time employed graduates, not total graduates.
http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org
So you should be using 288, not 264 for c/o 2015

Rigo wrote:

UVA2B wrote: Maybe I'm working with incomplete info, but I pulled employment stats from NU website. I double checked my numbers and realized I did horrible arithmetic for C/O 2015.

2013: 158/258=61.2%
2014: 162/262=61.8%
2015: 179/264=67.8%

You're making the mistake of dividing by full-time employed graduates, not total graduates.
http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org
So you should be using 288, not 264 for c/o 2015

Fair, and the numbers seemed a bit inflated. Thanks for checking my math

cron1834 wrote:April 14 seems like a pretty generous deadline considering that most people graduate in early May. How does that constitute 10 months? I assume schools are trying to weasel out of providing the data before most incoming applicants have made decisions...?

Perhaps, but schools have argued for years that the 9 month deadline wasn't representative because a lot of people outside the top schools won't get jobs until after bar passage. It's a go-to talking point whenever ttt deans get interviewed.

The counter was exactly what you said: incoming applicants should have this info before making their decision. So they compromised at 10 months. Either way, as others have said, one year shouldn't have much impact on any decision.

Seems like they started being released in April last year. Here is last year's information:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=262376

One year "fluctuations" shouldn't take on outsized importance... but more data is better than less, and more recent data is better than older data. There's literally no good reason why it shouldn't be made available earlier if it has a nonzero worth, which it does.

I concede the political point about TTT deans, Tiago. Hopefully we agree that if a meaningful portion of your TTT school's students are getting jobs ten months out, then a) you should be subject to MORE transparency, not less and b) you should be inventivized to get them jobs more quickly, not protected.

cron1834 wrote:One year "fluctuations" shouldn't take on outsized importance... but more data is better than less, and more recent data is better than older data. There's literally no good reason why it shouldn't be made available earlier if it has a nonzero worth, which it does.

I concede the political point about TTT deans, Tiago. Hopefully we agree that if a meaningful portion of your TTT school's students are getting jobs ten months out, then a) you should be subject to MORE transparency, not less and b) you should be inventivized to get them jobs more quickly, not protected.

The funny thing is they insist that if the numbers were collected 12 or 18 months out the picture would look much better, but for whatever reason they find themselves incapable of collecting this data on their own.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

cron1834 wrote:One year "fluctuations" shouldn't take on outsized importance... but more data is better than less, and more recent data is better than older data. There's literally no good reason why it shouldn't be made available earlier if it has a nonzero worth, which it does.

I concede the political point about TTT deans, Tiago. Hopefully we agree that if a meaningful portion of your TTT school's students are getting jobs ten months out, then a) you should be subject to MORE transparency, not less and b) you should be inventivized to get them jobs more quickly, not protected.

The funny thing is they insist that if the numbers were collected 12 or 18 months out the picture would look much better, but for whatever reason they find themselves incapable of collecting this data on their own.

I wonder if that would really be the case. Is it possible that some % of graduating lawyers begin their career working unpaid internships, which then become paid a year or two down the road?

Moneytrees wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

cron1834 wrote:One year "fluctuations" shouldn't take on outsized importance... but more data is better than less, and more recent data is better than older data. There's literally no good reason why it shouldn't be made available earlier if it has a nonzero worth, which it does.

I concede the political point about TTT deans, Tiago. Hopefully we agree that if a meaningful portion of your TTT school's students are getting jobs ten months out, then a) you should be subject to MORE transparency, not less and b) you should be inventivized to get them jobs more quickly, not protected.

The funny thing is they insist that if the numbers were collected 12 or 18 months out the picture would look much better, but for whatever reason they find themselves incapable of collecting this data on their own.

I wonder if that would really be the case. Is it possible that some % of graduating lawyers begin their career working unpaid internships, which then become paid a year or two down the road?

That's possible, but that's not a desirable outcome so I don't think it matters

Tiago Splitter wrote:

cron1834 wrote:One year "fluctuations" shouldn't take on outsized importance... but more data is better than less, and more recent data is better than older data. There's literally no good reason why it shouldn't be made available earlier if it has a nonzero worth, which it does.

I concede the political point about TTT deans, Tiago. Hopefully we agree that if a meaningful portion of your TTT school's students are getting jobs ten months out, then a) you should be subject to MORE transparency, not less and b) you should be inventivized to get them jobs more quickly, not protected.

The funny thing is they insist that if the numbers were collected 12 or 18 months out the picture would look much better, but for whatever reason they find themselves incapable of collecting this data on their own.

Truly terrible. Even if they're right about that, there's still value in, say, 6-month data, on the radical assumption that one doesn't want to be underemployed for 18 months

cron1834 wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

cron1834 wrote:One year "fluctuations" shouldn't take on outsized importance... but more data is better than less, and more recent data is better than older data. There's literally no good reason why it shouldn't be made available earlier if it has a nonzero worth, which it does.

I concede the political point about TTT deans, Tiago. Hopefully we agree that if a meaningful portion of your TTT school's students are getting jobs ten months out, then a) you should be subject to MORE transparency, not less and b) you should be inventivized to get them jobs more quickly, not protected.

The funny thing is they insist that if the numbers were collected 12 or 18 months out the picture would look much better, but for whatever reason they find themselves incapable of collecting this data on their own.

Truly terrible. Even if they're right about that, there's still value in, say, 6-month data, on the radical assumption that one doesn't want to be underemployed for 18 months

Lol good point. It would be interesting to see if the employment stats do go up after 18 months though. It would truly be depressing if 40% of total grads never found jobs working in law.