WUSTL Employment Prospects Forum

[TubaStL]

Hello! I’m considering WUSTL at the moment and am wondering about realistic salary expectations. US News lists the median private sector starting salary as $162,500, but this number is to be taken with a grain of salt. Would it be realistic to land a six-figure starting salary in the private sector as a top half/top third graduate? I am asking about both the local market (St. Louis) and the overall market. For personal reasons, I am only considering WUSTL at this time (I went there for undergrad).

[nealric]

Keep in mind that legal salaries are bi-modal, which means that you are most likely either making $160k+ or less than half that starting out. Those that land in the big firms end up making the big bucks, those that don't generally do not. Law school transparency is a fantastic service that attempts to quantify what sort of employment opportunities are realistic for graduates.

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/washu/

When reading those reports, you can assume that those doing federal clerkships most likely have access to large firm employment if they want it later (many are on deferred offers from firms).

It's never a good idea to assume you will be in the top half. Most students entering law school think they will be in the top third or at least the top half. A significant portion will be disappointed. It's also worth noting that biglaw hiring has been relatively good the last few years. Things won't look as good as the LST reports if we see a 2008 repeat- there tends to be a "flight to quality" among firms where they focus on only the very top schools during a downturn. Finally, you should be aware that St. Louis is not a particularly big market for large law firms. If you are St. Louis or bust, your chances of finding employment at a large law firm are significantly reduced.

Personally, I would urge you to look beyond WUSTL if at all possible. The law school experience is likely to be very different from your undergraduate experience. Not because of WUSTL per-se, but because you should not ignore higher-ranked or cheaper (scholarship) options if they are available to you. Your school, and the first job you get because of it, will follow you for the rest of your career.

[TubaStL]

Keep in mind that legal salaries are bi-modal, which means that you are most likely either making $160k+ or less than half that starting out. Those that land in the big firms end up making the big bucks, those that don't generally do not. Law school transparency is a fantastic service that attempts to quantify what sort of employment opportunities are realistic for graduates.

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/washu/

When reading those reports, you can assume that those doing federal clerkships most likely have access to large firm employment if they want it later (many are on deferred offers from firms).

It's never a good idea to assume you will be in the top half. Most students entering law school think they will be in the top third or at least the top half. A significant portion will be disappointed. It's also worth noting that biglaw hiring has been relatively good the last few years. Things won't look as good as the LST reports if we see a 2008 repeat- there tends to be a "flight to quality" among firms where they focus on only the very top schools during a downturn. Finally, you should be aware that St. Louis is not a particularly big market for large law firms. If you are St. Louis or bust, your chances of finding employment at a large law firm are significantly reduced.

Personally, I would urge you to look beyond WUSTL if at all possible. The law school experience is likely to be very different from your undergraduate experience. Not because of WUSTL per-se, but because you should not ignore higher-ranked or cheaper (scholarship) options if they are available to you. Your school, and the first job you get because of it, will follow you for the rest of your career.

Thank you for your thorough response. I've been offered a full-tuition scholarship and would be taking on less than $25,000 in debt. There's no way I'd get a similar offer from another T20. I am open to working anywhere—I was just curious as to the status of the St. Louis market.

[almondbutter]

I went to WUSTL so feel free to PM me if you have any further questions, but unless you're going with a really strong scholarship offer (and even this is debatable bc that likely means you could get into some lower T-14s) or basically only can get into WashU due to extreme splitter status, I would strongly recommend not attending WUSTL if you're big law or bust.

Recent stats out of the university are pretty decent in terms of big law; I believe it was slightly under 50% last time I checked, but that's assuming the economy keeps up and I know during the last recession, firms definitely preferred hiring T-14's at the expense of many lower tier schools. Also it is a well known thing that St Louis firms are incredibly tie sensitive. As a point of reference, I was top 5% and I received 0 callbacks from St. Louis firms bc they could, rightfully so, tell that I wasn't going to stay in St. Louis. Now if you went to there for undergrad, it's possible that you have good enough ties but it's always a crapshoot. I've loved my experience at WUSTL, but if you have offers from better schools, I would strongly consider you take a closer look at them.

[nealric]

Keep in mind that legal salaries are bi-modal, which means that you are most likely either making $160k+ or less than half that starting out. Those that land in the big firms end up making the big bucks, those that don't generally do not. Law school transparency is a fantastic service that attempts to quantify what sort of employment opportunities are realistic for graduates.

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/washu/

When reading those reports, you can assume that those doing federal clerkships most likely have access to large firm employment if they want it later (many are on deferred offers from firms).

It's never a good idea to assume you will be in the top half. Most students entering law school think they will be in the top third or at least the top half. A significant portion will be disappointed. It's also worth noting that biglaw hiring has been relatively good the last few years. Things won't look as good as the LST reports if we see a 2008 repeat- there tends to be a "flight to quality" among firms where they focus on only the very top schools during a downturn. Finally, you should be aware that St. Louis is not a particularly big market for large law firms. If you are St. Louis or bust, your chances of finding employment at a large law firm are significantly reduced.

Personally, I would urge you to look beyond WUSTL if at all possible. The law school experience is likely to be very different from your undergraduate experience. Not because of WUSTL per-se, but because you should not ignore higher-ranked or cheaper (scholarship) options if they are available to you. Your school, and the first job you get because of it, will follow you for the rest of your career.

Thank you for your thorough response. I've been offered a full-tuition scholarship and would be taking on less than $25,000 in debt. There's no way I'd get a similar offer from another T20. I am open to working anywhere—I was just curious as to the status of the St. Louis market.

I presumed you had not yet applied to law school. For a full ride, it's not a bad option to consider.

[BobLoblaw18]

Current WUSTL 2L, PM me if you want.

[Jmart082]

I went to WUSTL so feel free to PM me if you have any further questions, but unless you're going with a really strong scholarship offer (and even this is debatable bc that likely means you could get into some lower T-14s) or basically only can get into WashU due to extreme splitter status, I would strongly recommend not attending WUSTL if you're big law or bust.

Recent stats out of the university are pretty decent in terms of big law; I believe it was slightly under 50% last time I checked, but that's assuming the economy keeps up and I know during the last recession, firms definitely preferred hiring T-14's at the expense of many lower tier schools. Also it is a well known thing that St Louis firms are incredibly tie sensitive. As a point of reference, I was top 5% and I received 0 callbacks from St. Louis firms bc they could, rightfully so, tell that I wasn't going to stay in St. Louis. Now if you went to there for undergrad, it's possible that you have good enough ties but it's always a crapshoot. I've loved my experience at WUSTL, but if you have offers from better schools, I would strongly consider you take a closer look at them.

This is very much in line with my thinking on WUSTL, having attended. But if you are intent on going to law school generally, without much of a thought as to whether you would prefer being in biglaw, then a full ride at WUSTL is not a bad choice. The shortcomings with WUSTL are largely due to a lack of name recognition outside the midwest. Essentially everyone thinks I went to law school in Washington D.C., or Washington State. As for the St. Louis market, it's very much a boy's club of lifelong St. Louisans who will almost certainly ask you what high school you went to. Very insular. Not a lot of options for outsiders.

[TubaStL]

I went to WUSTL so feel free to PM me if you have any further questions, but unless you're going with a really strong scholarship offer (and even this is debatable bc that likely means you could get into some lower T-14s) or basically only can get into WashU due to extreme splitter status, I would strongly recommend not attending WUSTL if you're big law or bust.

Recent stats out of the university are pretty decent in terms of big law; I believe it was slightly under 50% last time I checked, but that's assuming the economy keeps up and I know during the last recession, firms definitely preferred hiring T-14's at the expense of many lower tier schools. Also it is a well known thing that St Louis firms are incredibly tie sensitive. As a point of reference, I was top 5% and I received 0 callbacks from St. Louis firms bc they could, rightfully so, tell that I wasn't going to stay in St. Louis. Now if you went to there for undergrad, it's possible that you have good enough ties but it's always a crapshoot. I've loved my experience at WUSTL, but if you have offers from better schools, I would strongly consider you take a closer look at them.

This is very much in line with my thinking on WUSTL, having attended. But if you are intent on going to law school generally, without much of a thought as to whether you would prefer being in biglaw, then a full ride at WUSTL is not a bad choice. The shortcomings with WUSTL are largely due to a lack of name recognition outside the midwest. Essentially everyone thinks I went to law school in Washington D.C., or Washington State. As for the St. Louis market, it's very much a boy's club of lifelong St. Louisans who will almost certainly ask you what high school you went to. Very insular. Not a lot of options for outsiders.

Thank you for your input. I did not grow up in Missouri, but would my having graduated from WUSTL as an undergrad and my enthusiasm for the St. Louis area make it more likely to get interviews with Thompson Coburn, etc?

[acr]

I went to WUSTL so feel free to PM me if you have any further questions, but unless you're going with a really strong scholarship offer (and even this is debatable bc that likely means you could get into some lower T-14s) or basically only can get into WashU due to extreme splitter status, I would strongly recommend not attending WUSTL if you're big law or bust.

Recent stats out of the university are pretty decent in terms of big law; I believe it was slightly under 50% last time I checked, but that's assuming the economy keeps up and I know during the last recession, firms definitely preferred hiring T-14's at the expense of many lower tier schools. Also it is a well known thing that St Louis firms are incredibly tie sensitive. As a point of reference, I was top 5% and I received 0 callbacks from St. Louis firms bc they could, rightfully so, tell that I wasn't going to stay in St. Louis. Now if you went to there for undergrad, it's possible that you have good enough ties but it's always a crapshoot. I've loved my experience at WUSTL, but if you have offers from better schools, I would strongly consider you take a closer look at them.

This is very much in line with my thinking on WUSTL, having attended. But if you are intent on going to law school generally, without much of a thought as to whether you would prefer being in biglaw, then a full ride at WUSTL is not a bad choice. The shortcomings with WUSTL are largely due to a lack of name recognition outside the midwest. Essentially everyone thinks I went to law school in Washington D.C., or Washington State. As for the St. Louis market, it's very much a boy's club of lifelong St. Louisans who will almost certainly ask you what high school you went to. Very insular. Not a lot of options for outsiders.

Thank you for your input. I did not grow up in Missouri, but would my having graduated from WUSTL as an undergrad and my enthusiasm for the St. Louis area make it more likely to get interviews with Thompson Coburn, etc?

That's pretty weak as far as STL ties are concerned. Anyone can show enthusiasm for the STL market, but they're looking for people who grew up in the area and/or with family ties who went to law school locally. And the fact that you went to undergrad at WUSTL doesn't really solve the main problem in the firms' eyes--that WUSTL students want to use the school as a springboard to a more sexy market. STL firms are stupid insular and seem to have an inferiority complex. It can be overcome, but your 1L results need to be all the more higher (and extensive networking). During 1L summer I worked for a non-profit in Chicago because the organization's pro bono work had personally benefited my disabled siblings and they offered me a chance to do substantive legal work, and at OCI the STL firms seemed almost insulted and disinterested in me, despite decent grades, since "Chicago" was listed on my resume for last summer.

[Jmart082]

I went to WUSTL so feel free to PM me if you have any further questions, but unless you're going with a really strong scholarship offer (and even this is debatable bc that likely means you could get into some lower T-14s) or basically only can get into WashU due to extreme splitter status, I would strongly recommend not attending WUSTL if you're big law or bust.

Recent stats out of the university are pretty decent in terms of big law; I believe it was slightly under 50% last time I checked, but that's assuming the economy keeps up and I know during the last recession, firms definitely preferred hiring T-14's at the expense of many lower tier schools. Also it is a well known thing that St Louis firms are incredibly tie sensitive. As a point of reference, I was top 5% and I received 0 callbacks from St. Louis firms bc they could, rightfully so, tell that I wasn't going to stay in St. Louis. Now if you went to there for undergrad, it's possible that you have good enough ties but it's always a crapshoot. I've loved my experience at WUSTL, but if you have offers from better schools, I would strongly consider you take a closer look at them.

This is very much in line with my thinking on WUSTL, having attended. But if you are intent on going to law school generally, without much of a thought as to whether you would prefer being in biglaw, then a full ride at WUSTL is not a bad choice. The shortcomings with WUSTL are largely due to a lack of name recognition outside the midwest. Essentially everyone thinks I went to law school in Washington D.C., or Washington State. As for the St. Louis market, it's very much a boy's club of lifelong St. Louisans who will almost certainly ask you what high school you went to. Very insular. Not a lot of options for outsiders.

Thank you for your input. I did not grow up in Missouri, but would my having graduated from WUSTL as an undergrad and my enthusiasm for the St. Louis area make it more likely to get interviews with Thompson Coburn, etc?

Anecdotally, I can say that TC hired only one person from my class not from St. Louis, and they were URM. The others were attractive women, all predominantly from STL. I might be drawing inferences where there aren't any to be drawn, but I'd be more inclined to say that minority hires not from the area stand a better chance.In interviews, I too was prodded and met with skepticism about my enthusiasm for St. Louis, nearly to point of being insulted, as the previous poster alluded to, because for whatever reason, the market is so incredibly insular. I'd even say that you'd stand a better chance of finding work at the firms that aren't Bryan Cave by going to SLU. WUSTL students are generally viewed as interlopers in St. Louis, who will leave the first chance they get, and no amount of BSing to the contrary seems to dissuade interviewers of that notion.

[carsondalywashere]

There is probably less than 50 spots for "big law" summer associate positions in the entire city. It can even be hard for t14 people from St. Louis to get offers. I'm from St. Louis and went to Northwestern but got shut out by the STL biglaw firms because they thought I was a traitor lol.

[Jmart082]

There is probably less than 50 spots for "big law" summer associate positions in the entire city. It can even be hard for t14 people from St. Louis to get offers. I'm from St. Louis and went to Northwestern but got shut out by the STL biglaw firms because they thought I was a traitor lol.

Should've really gone in on the high school question, inserted a rant about how you live and die by the Cards and the Blues, and are in a state of permanent dejection in the absence of Ted Drewe's. Only then would they have seen you as St. Lunatic enough. Oh, wait. You didn't go to SLU, so I guess there's that.

[kinge]

Keep in mind that legal salaries are bi-modal, which means that you are most likely either making $160k+ or less than half that starting out. Those that land in the big firms end up making the big bucks, those that don't generally do not. Law school transparency is a fantastic service that attempts to quantify what sort of employment opportunities are realistic for graduates.

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/washu/

When reading those reports, you can assume that those doing federal clerkships most likely have access to large firm employment if they want it later (many are on deferred offers from firms).

It's never a good idea to assume you will be in the top half. Most students entering law school think they will be in the top third or at least the top half. A significant portion will be disappointed. It's also worth noting that biglaw hiring has been relatively good the last few years. Things won't look as good as the LST reports if we see a 2008 repeat- there tends to be a "flight to quality" among firms where they focus on only the very top schools during a downturn. Finally, you should be aware that St. Louis is not a particularly big market for large law firms. If you are St. Louis or bust, your chances of finding employment at a large law firm are significantly reduced.

Personally, I would urge you to look beyond WUSTL if at all possible. The law school experience is likely to be very different from your undergraduate experience. Not because of WUSTL per-se, but because you should not ignore higher-ranked or cheaper (scholarship) options if they are available to you. Your school, and the first job you get because of it, will follow you for the rest of your career.

Do you know where I can find the ABA employment stats for WUSTL law c/o 2011? That was probably the worst case scenario right?

[QContinuum]

Do you know where I can find the ABA employment stats for WUSTL law c/o 2011? That was probably the worst case scenario right?

Yes, archived data back to the class of 2010 is available at http://abarequireddisclosures.org/Emplo ... comes.aspx

Here're the stats for WUSTL from 2010-2018:

• 28.6% for class of 2010
• 21.5% for class of 2011
• 26.3% for class of 2012
• 32.3% for class of 2013
• 31.4% for class of 2014
• 33.8% for class of 2015
• 45.1% for class of 2016
• 49.2% for class of 2017
• 52.2% for class of 2018

So as you can see, the most recent 52.2% placement rate is a record high for the school. I don't think we'll see another catastrophic contraction quite like '08 in the near future, but it's quite plausible that we could go back to 2013-15 levels of hiring - so, ~30% placement for WUSTL - if the economy takes a dip, as it's widely predicted to do.

By way of comparison, these are the stats for Cornell, the "last" T13, from 2010-2018:

• 80.7% for class of 2010
• 46.8% for class of 2011
• 64.2% for class of 2012
• 68.4% for class of 2013
• 74.3% for class of 2014
• 66.7% for class of 2015
• 74.5% for class of 2016
• 76.7% for class of 2017
• 75.0% for class of 2018

You see much more consistent(ly strong) hiring, particularly in 2012-2015 when hiring was fairly lackadaisical at WUSTL.

[kinge]

Do you know where I can find the ABA employment stats for WUSTL law c/o 2011? That was probably the worst case scenario right?

Yes, archived data back to the class of 2010 is available at http://abarequireddisclosures.org/Emplo ... comes.aspx

Here're the stats for WUSTL from 2010-2018:

• 28.6% for class of 2010
• 21.5% for class of 2011
• 26.3% for class of 2012
• 32.3% for class of 2013
• 31.4% for class of 2014
• 33.8% for class of 2015
• 45.1% for class of 2016
• 49.2% for class of 2017
• 52.2% for class of 2018

So as you can see, the most recent 52.2% placement rate is a record high for the school. I don't think we'll see another catastrophic contraction quite like '08 in the near future, but it's quite plausible that we could go back to 2013-15 levels of hiring - so, ~30% placement for WUSTL - if the economy takes a dip, as it's widely predicted to do.

By way of comparison, these are the stats for Cornell, the "last" T13, from 2010-2018:

• 80.7% for class of 2010
• 46.8% for class of 2011
• 64.2% for class of 2012
• 68.4% for class of 2013
• 74.3% for class of 2014
• 66.7% for class of 2015
• 74.5% for class of 2016
• 76.7% for class of 2017
• 75.0% for class of 2018

You see much more consistent(ly strong) hiring, particularly in 2012-2015 when hiring was fairly lackadaisical at WUSTL.

Thank you! Why does WUSTL's 2011 ABA report look so different from their 2011 Employment Score on LST? Their long term 2011 JD-required/JD advantage employment% was a bit over 80% according to the ABA report but LST says it was an abysmal 58%. Is there some big difference in methodology that I'm missing?

[QContinuum]

Thank you! Why does WUSTL's 2011 ABA report look so different from their 2011 Employment Score on LST? Their long term 2011 JD-required/JD advantage employment% was a bit over 80% according to the ABA report but LST says it was an abysmal 58%. Is there some big difference in methodology that I'm missing?

My stats above are for BigLaw "placement power" (a metric that roughly combines actual BigLaw placement with federal clerkship placement, under the assumption that - as is typically true - federal clerks could have secured BigLaw positions if they'd chosen to forego clerking).

I've never really used LST but as for ABA reports, I always recommend excluding JD "Advantage" employment. JD "Advantage" is nebulous and is, by definition, jobs that one can get without going to law school. Look only to J.D.-required employment. Think of it this way: Why would you spend three years of your life getting a degree to take a job you could've gotten without the degree?

[kinge]

Thank you! Why does WUSTL's 2011 ABA report look so different from their 2011 Employment Score on LST? Their long term 2011 JD-required/JD advantage employment% was a bit over 80% according to the ABA report but LST says it was an abysmal 58%. Is there some big difference in methodology that I'm missing?

My stats above are for BigLaw "placement power" (a metric that roughly combines actual BigLaw placement with federal clerkship placement, under the assumption that - as is typically true - federal clerks could have secured BigLaw positions if they'd chosen to forego clerking).

I've never really used LST but as for ABA reports, I always recommend excluding JD "Advantage" employment. JD "Advantage" is nebulous and is, by definition, jobs that one can get without going to law school. Look only to J.D.-required employment. Think of it this way: Why would you spend three years of your life getting a degree to take a job you could've gotten without the degree?

Yeah that makes sense. I looked up the methodology and it also looks like the ABA counted "school-funded positions" as "Employed + Bar Passage required" until 2015.