AM LAW: SUMMER ASSOCIATE HIRING DOWN 44 PERCENT OVER 2009 Forum

[blsingindisguise]

If not, I can tell you from firsthand experience that this is false.

Sorry to hear that. Do you mind sharing your experience even though the above post was indeed a flame? I've been hearing a lot of success stories lately, but I think the most helpful advice comes from those who have seen the other side of the coin. Unless that's asking too much?[/quote]

I know for a fact that the biglaw numbers from last year's OCI were nowhere near the top 10% of the class. Probably somewhere around 2-4%. I will say no more than that.

[Matthies]

Oh hi what's going on in this thread?

Clintonius and lawschoollll has a mutual, escalating flame going for a bit, but they fessed up and it was obvious anyways. Other than that, it is just depressing news.

Yea this is just summer SA class sizes, wait till we get the offer rates stats, then TLS will really implode.

[doyleoil]

Oh hi what's going on in this thread?

Clintonius and lawschoollll has a mutual, escalating flame going for a bit, but they fessed up and it was obvious anyways. Other than that, it is just depressing news.

Yea this is just summer SA class sizes, wait till we get the offer rates stats, then TLS will really implode.

Offer rates will likely not be as low this summer. That's not a legit source of pessimism (even though there are many others).

[Matthies]

Oh hi what's going on in this thread?

Clintonius and lawschoollll has a mutual, escalating flame going for a bit, but they fessed up and it was obvious anyways. Other than that, it is just depressing news.

Yea this is just summer SA class sizes, wait till we get the offer rates stats, then TLS will really implode.

Offer rates will likely not be as low this summer. That's not a legit source of pessimism (even though there are many others).

WTF you talking about Willis, any stat that TLS can get its hands on and make generalizatuions about the leagal profesion, the ceonomy and if they can afford models and bottles five years out is a legit source of pessimism. First we will have the offer rates disater, then will come the defer rates disater, then will come the the defered accosiates geting defered at public intrest jobs disater. Come on man

[clintonius]

YOU SHUT THE GODDAMN HELL UP

/suffocates under the weight of debt

[doyleoil]

WTF you talking about Willis, any stat that TLS can get its hands on and make generalizatuions about the leagal profesion, the ceonomy and if they can afford models and bottles five years out is a legit source of pessimism. First we will have the offer rates disater, then will come the defer rates disater, then will come the the defered accosiates geting defered at public intrest jobs disater. Come on man

hmm - okay - sweet

[Sell Manilla]

Bump: has anyone ran across a guesstimate at trends for raw total of ALL JD positions over the past few years, & raw total of all JD grads?

[Matthies]

Bump: has anyone ran across a guesstimate at trends for raw total of ALL JD positions over the past few years, & raw total of all JD grads?

Yes = 5 total JD postions in last decade and 11 billion total new raw JDs during that time. Hence we can calauctae that have a -95674.876 chace of finding a job, therefore you should not worry about that, and istead spend your time researching the very top shelf firms you might want to bid on at OCI in 2017.

[Matthies]

YOU SHUT THE GODDAMN HELL UP

/suffocates under the weight of debt

<--- defers my debt by taking community college classes online till I die

[Sell Manilla]

Bump: has anyone ran across a guesstimate at trends for raw total of ALL JD positions over the past few years, & raw total of all JD grads?

Yes = 5 total JD postions in last decade and 11 billion total new raw JDs during that time. Hence we can calauctae that have a -95674.876 chace of finding a job, therefore you should not worry about that, and istead spend your time researching the very top shelf firms you might want to bid on at OCI in 2017.

I realize this thread's been de-railed by flamery, but I'm srs.

[Matthies]

Bump: has anyone ran across a guesstimate at trends for raw total of ALL JD positions over the past few years, & raw total of all JD grads?

Yes = 5 total JD postions in last decade and 11 billion total new raw JDs during that time. Hence we can calauctae that have a -95674.876 chace of finding a job, therefore you should not worry about that, and istead spend your time researching the very top shelf firms you might want to bid on at OCI in 2017.

I realize this thread's been de-railed by flamery, but I'm srs.

Ok, but for serious what good wwould that do?I mean could you really get anything personaly benifical out of having tjhose numbers, or more importanly if you tried to, would that show maybe your puting to much thought into this?

[Sell Manilla]

It matters very much if you haven't started law school yet. A few days ago I had my first serious second-guessing.

I have solid reasons for wanting to go, but I'd like confirmation that it's somewhat reasonable from a market standpoint. Someone recently asked me about future etc. & I told 'em that law took a harder hit than the bad economy in general, & his response was.... pause... "& you still want to go to law school?"

Made me feel childish & idealistic.

[Matthies]

It matters very much if you haven't started law school yet. A few days ago I had my first serious second-guessing.

I have solid reasons for wanting to go, but I'd like confirmation that it's somewhat reasonable from a market standpoint. Someone recently asked me about future etc. & I told 'em that law took a harder hit than the bad economy in general, & his response was.... pause... "& you still want to go to law school?"

Made me feel childish & idealistic.

This is why statistics are bad when taken way out of context, which law students love to do because everything they do up till they get a job is based on statistics for people who were not them who did not do what they did when they did it and are at least a year after the fact when hey will be doing it. Total number of legal jobs created to JDs would tell you one thing and one thing only: total number of legal jobs to JD. Then speculation would run amuck.

What it would not tell you is how many of these folks with JDs really wanted to be lawyers, or worked really hard to find a job, or what grades they got or what connections they had or the myriad of other real world personal to the individual things that actually gets people with JDs legal job, and the stuff people should actually be focusing on.

In the end it like this, basically in this economy you got two choices: go to the very best school you can so that the school can find you a job (and as we can all see what that window of very best schools that can do that in ITE and where you have to land for it to work is getting smaller and smaller) or be willing to make it happen for yourself. If you can't answer yes to one or both of those questions then the stats should tell you nothing more than its going to be rough out there for you because most folks, the ones that make up the largest parts of the number of JDs to legal jobs stats aren't in either of those two categories.

Solid reasons for wanting to go, and a it being somewaht reasonable from a market standpoint, are reasons to go to law school, but they don't get you a legal job. Unfornutly going to law school and geting a legal job are not one and the same thing. So decide not based on why you want to go, but how far your willing to go once you get there.

[JohnBoy]

This is why statistics are bad when taken way out of context, which law students love to do because everything they do up till they get a job is based on statistics for people who were not them who did not do what they did when they did it and are at least a year after the fact when hey will be doing it. Total number of legal jobs created to JDs would tell you one thing and one thing only: total number of legal jobs to JD. Then speculation would run amuck.

What it would not tell you is how many of these folks with JDs really wanted to be lawyers, or worked really hard to find a job, or what grades they got or what connections they had or the myriad of other real world personal to the individual things that actually gets people with JDs legal job, and the stuff people should actually be focusing on.

In the end it like this, basically in this economy you got two choices: go to the very best school you can so that the school can find you a job (and as we can all see what that window of very best schools that can do that in ITE and where you have to land for it to work is getting smaller and smaller) or be willing to make it happen for yourself. If you can't answer yes to one or both of those questions then the stats should tell you nothing more than its going to be rough out there for you because most folks, the ones that make up the largest parts of the number of JDs to legal jobs stats aren't in either of those two categories.

Solid reasons for wanting to go, and a it being somewaht reasonable from a market standpoint, are reasons to go to law school, but they don't get you a legal job. Unfornutly going to law school and geting a legal job are not one and the same thing. So decide not based on why you want to go, but how far your willing to go once you get there.

I agree for the most part, but it might be able to help in deciding if you take a full ride from a lesser ranked school or attend a higher ranked at sticker. Regardless, ITE I wouldn't attend a law school that does not have a strong LARP.

[Anonymous User]

Bump: has anyone ran across a guesstimate at trends for raw total of ALL JD positions over the past few years, & raw total of all JD grads?

Here are some NALP statistics from the last few years.

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/PerspectivesonFallRec09.pdf

SUMMER PROGRAMS: Median Size, Average Size, % Receiving Offer, % Accepting Offer
2006: 6, 11, 90.8%, 73.4%
2007: 6, 13, 92.8%, 76.8%
2008: 6, 13, 89.9%, 79.7%
2009: 6, 12, 69.3%, 84.5%

So while summer class programs shrunk only slightly on average (those that were given SA positions in the fall of 2008, I should add), offer rates dropped 20 points, and acceptance rates increased 5 points (as those who had offers had fewer alterantives).

FALL RECRUITING: Median # Offers, Average # Offers, % Interviews Resuling in Offer, % of Offers Accepted
2006: 15, 37, 62.7%, 28.8%
2007: 15, 39, 60.0%, 29.1%
2008: 10, 30, 46.6%, 32.5%
2009: 7, 16, 36.4%, 42.6%

So offer numbers dropped 50%, and more than 60% in two years; and interviews resulting in an offer dropped, too.

It goes on and on. From 133 law schools reporting, 54% reported a decrease of 30% or more in the number of employers interviewing. 20% of law firms did not go on campus at all after they did so in 2008. Summer programs were shorter. 38.7% of those who did accept offers got a deferred start date (including 45% in New York, 77% in Boston, 47% in DC, 57% in LA, 59% in SF, and 45% in Chicago). From 119 school reporting, 42% of schools created on-campus post-graduate jobs. Etc.

[Matthies]

Bump: has anyone ran across a guesstimate at trends for raw total of ALL JD positions over the past few years, & raw total of all JD grads?

Here are some NALP statistics from the last few years.

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/PerspectivesonFallRec09.pdf

SUMMER PROGRAMS: Median Size, Average Size, % Receiving Offer, % Accepting Offer
2006: 6, 11, 90.8%, 73.4%
2007: 6, 13, 92.8%, 76.8%
2008: 6, 13, 89.9%, 79.7%
2009: 6, 12, 69.3%, 84.5%

So while summer class programs shrunk only slightly on average (those that were given SA positions in the fall of 2008, I should add), offer rates dropped 20 points, and acceptance rates increased 5 points (as those who had offers had fewer alterantives).

FALL RECRUITING: Median # Offers, Average # Offers, % Interviews Resuling in Offer, % of Offers Accepted
2006: 15, 37, 62.7%, 28.8%
2007: 15, 39, 60.0%, 29.1%
2008: 10, 30, 46.6%, 32.5%
2009: 7, 16, 36.4%, 42.6%

So offer numbers dropped 50%, and more than 60% in two years; and interviews resulting in an offer dropped, too.

It goes on and on. From 133 law schools reporting, 54% reported a decrease of 30% or more in the number of employers interviewing. 20% of law firms did not go on campus at all after they did so in 2008. Summer programs were shorter. 38.7% of those who did accept offers got a deferred start date (including 45% in New York, 77% in Boston, 47% in DC, 57% in LA, 59% in SF, and 45% in Chicago). From 119 school reporting, 42% of schools created on-campus post-graduate jobs. Etc.

Good post. Which is all true, and good numbers to keep in the back of your mind, so long as you also realize that only the largest employers tend to do OCI (and for the most part only large employers pay to be part of NALP or report to them), and that most lawyers, some 70% says the ABA work in firms of less than 50 total employees. The info in the report (which again I think is very good to understand in context) takes into account only on campus/SA pregraduation hiring, which is not how most law students actually end up getting jobs. hence the problem with these numbers being taken out of context is that prospective, and even current law students, seem them as the total pie, when they are actually just a small slice and most won't even be in the position to be affected by them. Yet they will fixate on them 100%.

[Anonymous User]

Good post. Which is all true, and good numbers to keep in the back of your mind, so long as you also realize that only the largest employers tend to do OCI (and for the most part only large employers pay to be part of NALP or report to them), and that most lawyers, some 70% says the ABA work in firms of less than 50 total employees. The info in the report (which again I think is very good to understand in context) takes into account only on campus/SA pregraduation hiring, which is not how most law students actually end up getting jobs. hence the problem with these numbers being taken out of context is that prospective, and even current law students, seem them as the total pie, when they are actually just a small slice and most won't even be in the position to be affected by them. Yet they will fixate on them 100%.

But this is wrong at so many levels. First, it assumes that smaller employers were not hurt to the same degree, or were not hurt *more* so, than larger firms. Second, it ignores the trickle-down effect; that is, better students will start scooping to lower jobs, on down the line, putting the strain at the bottom of the class, where "most" of the students will most definitely "be affected by them." If a guy on law review can't get a Vault 100 job, he's going to look down the line; and that secondary journal guy who two years ago might've gotten that 40-person firm job will be left out in the cold. And on and on and on.

You're acting like the fact that the top firms at OCI, where what used to be the most stable, most lucrative, and most desirable positions, are dramatically cutting back will just result in no effect on the rest of the class. In reality, it has a massive effect.

[Sell Manilla]

This is why statistics are bad when taken way out of context, which law students love to do because everything they do up till they get a job is based on statistics for people who were not them who did not do what they did when they did it and are at least a year after the fact when hey will be doing it. Total number of legal jobs created to JDs would tell you one thing and one thing only: total number of legal jobs to JD. Then speculation would run amuck.

What it would not tell you is how many of these folks with JDs really wanted to be lawyers, or worked really hard to find a job, or what grades they got or what connections they had or the myriad of other real world personal to the individual things that actually gets people with JDs legal job, and the stuff people should actually be focusing on.

In the end it like this, basically in this economy you got two choices: go to the very best school you can so that the school can find you a job (and as we can all see what that window of very best schools that can do that in ITE and where you have to land for it to work is getting smaller and smaller) or be willing to make it happen for yourself. If you can't answer yes to one or both of those questions then the stats should tell you nothing more than its going to be rough out there for you because most folks, the ones that make up the largest parts of the number of JDs to legal jobs stats aren't in either of those two categories.

Solid reasons for wanting to go, and a it being somewaht reasonable from a market standpoint, are reasons to go to law school, but they don't get you a legal job. Unfornutly going to law school and geting a legal job are not one and the same thing. So decide not based on why you want to go, but how far your willing to go once you get there.

I think that you think that I'm reading too far into the meaning of the stats I was asking for. Global supply & demand. That's it. There's no taking it out of context: it's a pretty broad context for OTHER stats.

Many, many people fit into both of your categories & still find themselves in absurd debt with no JD job at graduation. If it was as simple as going to a good school or doing everything you can to make it for yourself... well... it just isn't, so nevermind. Claiming that it is discredits all those who've worked hard & are screwed right now.

[Sell Manilla]

@ Anonymous: Thank you very, very much. Over 60% decrease in offers over 2 years...
I read the first page of the PDF you linked, & no mention of how many total JD jobs the NALP accounts for, nor a guesstimate at what % of all JD jobs that are accessible to fresh JD grads they might represent.

Are these numbers farther along in the PDF? Do you or does anyone else have a link for these numbers? Anyone have guesses?

Also, does anyone have a link for the % increase in JD grads over the past few years?

[bwv812]

.

[Sell Manilla]

Not exactly what you are looking for (only shows first year enrollment at ABA schools), but it took me about 30 seconds to find this:
http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage ... Page2.aspx

Thanks. I've been meaning to register with LSAC. This is a good catalyst.

I also suggest you try acquainting yourself with the search function of this forum and with google in general.

Searched in google briefly. Whole lotta info on rising costs but nothing on total grads. Whole lotta not-help on the search function here, & I thought "hey, I'll bet someone on TLS already has a perfect link for this". Thanks for being so warm & cozy & polite & not at all a total dick!

[sundevil77]

Generally speaking, isn't it like 30,000 JD jobs to be filled per year right now with about 45,000 new JDs per year? I'm positive I've run across that statistic on TLS and it's backed up by some reliable source. I know that doesn't tell you much sell manila, but I think that speaks to a snapshot of the macro legal situation.

[bwv812]

.

[romothesavior]

Generally speaking, isn't it like 30,000 JD jobs to be filled per year right now with about 45,000 new JDs per year? I'm positive I've run across that statistic on TLS and it's backed up by some reliable source. I know that doesn't tell you much sell manila, but I think that speaks to a snapshot of the macro legal situation.

I have also heard that statistic, but I think it is 1) outdated and 2) not very helpful. Of those 30,000 legal jobs, how many of those are just downright atrocious jobs?

[RPK34]

Generally speaking, isn't it like 30,000 JD jobs to be filled per year right now with about 45,000 new JDs per year? I'm positive I've run across that statistic on TLS and it's backed up by some reliable source. I know that doesn't tell you much sell manila, but I think that speaks to a snapshot of the macro legal situation.

I have also heard that statistic, but I think it is 1) outdated and 2) not very helpful. Of those 30,000 legal jobs, how many of those are just downright atrocious jobs?

And does "legal jobs" include support staff type of jobs, ie paralegal?