Detailed C/O 2011 UN-Employment Data Forum

[ahnhub]

http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/Pages/ ... ships.aspx

You might have already seen this. It discusses the school funded program.

So yup, that explains that the employment numbers were nine months and only 8 were still part of school funded fellowships and the 13 unemployed were accounted for in the regular stats. Great find sunnyp .

Also validates Campos' 70 grads in fellowships bit.

It validates the number but not quite what he was asserting. His post was suggesting that 70 of those being counted as employed at the 9-month mark were actually being paid by the school so they could report a higher employment rate.

[keg411]

http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/Pages/ ... ships.aspx

You might have already seen this. It discusses the school funded program.

So yup, that explains that the employment numbers were nine months and only 8 were still part of school funded fellowships and the 13 unemployed were accounted for in the regular stats. Great find sunnyp .

Also validates Campos' 70 grads in fellowships bit.

It validates the number but not quite what he was asserting. His post was suggesting that 70 of those being counted as employed at the 9-month mark were actually being paid by the school so they could report a higher employment rate.

Yup. By 9 months only 8 were still in the fellowships and had real jobs (dunno if the 13 unemployed ever had fellowships or not). So it's incredibly important to differentiate.

[rayiner]

So it's safe to say that most schools had a much higher % of grads in post-grad positions at graduation.

I'm guessing that Virginia and NYU, who disclose the total # of people receiving postgrad fellowships in 2010, are not reporting the same thing as Penn and NU, who are reporting the number of people still in postgrad positions at the 9-month mark?

Penn and NU report "law school funded" as an employment category in and of itself at the 9 month mark. NYU includes law-school funded graduates in the other categories, but then lists the number of people who received any such funding separately along with how many of this turned into full-time jobs. UVA lists the number of people who received such funds, but does not give a break down of how many of those turned into full time positions. Crucially with the UVA data, it is impossible to tell what %-age of the graduates reported as employed are law-school funded.

[rayiner]

Added Berkeley.

[shoeshine]

Your current calculation is rather normative. You should take out the metric with law firms with less than 50 attorneys because there are small patent boutiques, that pay market or slightly below it, that hire students right out of law school if their technical background fits their needs. It is more common at some schools than others but I think it is something that you have completely not accounted for.

I have heard of some smaller litigation boutiques that do the same thing (but I can't be sure if those truly exist).

Otherwise your "less than desirable employment" percentage is really just a fabrication.

[shoeshine]

Yeah I found 26 firms on NALP that have between 25-50 lawyers and pay over 120,000+ to first years. There were several in NYC that payed 160k on that list. I am sure I could even find more if I looked between 1-25 lawyers and expanded my list to 100k+(which is market in some places).

Your less than 50 lawyers category is flawed.

[shoeshine]

WTF, why do you count grad school as unemployed and underemployed?

If I choose to get PHD or MBA/JD and spend additional time in school your data counts me as unemployed/underemployed?

Economics 101: You aren't counted in unemployed or underemployed percentages if you are in school. It is a completely separate category.

Bro, you are being just as tricky and disingenuous as the schools.

[NinerFan]

WTF, why do you count grad school as unemployed and underemployed?

If I choose to get PHD or MBA/JD and spend additional time in school your data counts me as unemployed/underemployed?

Economics 101: You aren't counted in unemployed or underemployed percentages if you are in school. It is a completely separate category.

Bro, you are being just as tricky and disingenuous as the schools.

He's probably assuming they couldn't find jobs and are trying to get LLM's to get another shot, but I'd agree with you that one shouldn't assume that everyone seeking additional education after law school is underemployed/unemployed.

[rayiner]

I'm happy to hear suggestions, but I disagree with your two specific points. The basis of the metrics is not a normative statement about the desirability of various jobs, but an empirical observation about whether jobs in a particular reported category are more or less likely to be well-paying. Moreover, the goal is to be conservative--I include a category in the "undesirable jobs" list unless it is probable that most of the jobs in that category will be well-paying jobs.

Each of these categories is going to be under or over-inclusive. The "academic" category, for example, will count as "unemployed" a few people in class who got jobs as law school professors. However, it is more likely to count people who got jobs as high school teachers or research assistants at the law school because they couldn't find a job. E.g. I can guarantee you that Michigan's placement into legal academia did not skyrocket from one person in C/O 2009 to nine people in C/O 2011.

First, there are indeed a number of 1-50 lawyer firms that pay well. However, there are a lot of insurance-defense type firms in this category as well. And there are lots of firms in this category that are not NALP members, who are disproportionately likely to not be well-paying. On the whole I can't say that it is probable that jobs in this category are mostly well-paying.

Second, I count grad school as unemployed because this category is disproportionately full of people getting LLM's because of unemployment. People JD/MBA programs generally receive their degrees simultaneously and are counted with the appropriate graduating class, and so would not be counted as "pursing further education." I think this is also true for JD/PhD's at most schools. Now, the category does unwittingly trap people who pursue a PhD program after their JD for academia and the like, but this is a vanishingly small group of people. There are a lot of schools offering reduced-priced LLM's for people without jobs, and in the face of that I cannot say that it is probable that people pursing graduate degrees mostly would be employed otherwise.

[shoeshine]

I'm happy to hear suggestions, but I disagree with your two specific points. The basis of the metrics is not a normative statement about the desirability of various jobs, but an empirical observation about whether jobs in a particular reported category are more or less likely to be well-paying. Moreover, the goal is to be conservative--I include a category in the "undesirable jobs" list unless it is probable that most of the jobs in that category will be well-paying jobs.

Each of these categories is going to be under or over-inclusive. The "academic" category, for example, will count as "unemployed" a few people in class who got jobs as law school professors. However, it is more likely to count people who got jobs as high school teachers or research assistants at the law school because they couldn't find a job. E.g. I can guarantee you that Michigan's placement into legal academia did not skyrocket from one person in C/O 2009 to nine people in C/O 2011.

First, there are indeed a number of 1-50 lawyer firms that pay well. However, there are a lot of insurance-defense type firms in this category as well. And there are lots of firms in this category that are not NALP members, who are disproportionately likely to not be well-paying. On the whole I can't say that it is probable that jobs in this category are mostly well-paying.

Second, I count grad school as unemployed because this category is disproportionately full of people getting LLM's because of unemployment. People JD/MBA programs generally receive their degrees simultaneously and are counted with the appropriate graduating class, and so would not be counted as "pursing further education." I think this is also true for JD/PhD's at most schools. Now, the category does unwittingly trap people who pursue a PhD program after their JD for academia and the like, but this is a vanishingly small group of people. There are a lot of schools offering reduced-priced LLM's for people without jobs, and in the face of that I cannot say that it is probable that people pursing graduate degrees mostly would be employed otherwise.

If you don't see how what you are doing is manipulating the data then you are just as bad as the schools that put out their 99% employment stats.

I don't have a problem with your original statistics. I have a problem with you mislabeling student as unemployed/underemployed and then claiming to come up with a "Total" for each school.

You should just list the categories and say what they are. Your combination of "academic" and "in-school" with unemployed/underemployed is manipulative and you are basing it off of your anecdotal based personal view of what law students must be doing.

[rayiner]

I don't have a problem with your original statistics. I have a problem with you mislabeling student as unemployed/underemployed and then claiming to come up with a "Total" for each school.

You should just list the categories and say what they are. Your combination of "academic" and "in-school" with unemployed/underemployed is manipulative and you are basing it off of your anecdotal based personal view of what law students must be doing.

I gave the numbers for "academic" and "pursuing graduate degrees" before adding them to the sub-total. E.g.
"Employment is unknown, unemployed, grad school: 3+13+5=21." And the sub-total is called "unemployed, underemployed" not just "unemployed."

And any analysis of data embodies heuristics and estimations. I explained my methodology at the beginning of the post. I think that language makes it clear that post-processing and analysis is being done and that I'm not just reporting the numbers on the schools' websites (which are impossible to compare directly without some post-processing).

[shoeshine]

Okay then post change the labels on the second part.

Put (Unemployed+Underemployed+Academic Employment+Pursuing Graduate Degree)

Also, don't call it less desirable employment unless you are sure it is less desirable. If you don't want to take the <50 lawyers category out, you could change the name to "possibly less desirable employment".

Otherwise, your data is manipulative.

[rayiner]

Okay then post change the labels on the second part.

Put (Unemployed+Underemployed+Academic Employment+Pursuing Graduate Degree)

Also, don't call it less desirable employment unless you are sure it is less desirable. If you don't want to take the <50 lawyers category out, you could change the name to "possibly less desirable employment".

Otherwise, your data is manipulative.

I changed the labels to "Probably unemployed," "probably less than desirable position," and "upper bound" and added explanatory text noting that these numbers reflect analysis and an attempt to compute an upper bound on the number of people who are in tough positions.

[rayiner]

Added U-Wisc.

[rayiner]

Added Virginia. I really hope there is some sort of reporting confusion and there aren't still 64 people on public service fellowships after 9 months, because if that is the case holy crap.

[rayiner]

Added USC. Comparing USC to say Penn really highlights the bi-modality of the whole situation. 70% big law + clerkships versus 40% big law + clerkships doesn't seem so bad until you realize the other 30% doesn't just downgrade to a mid-size firm, but basically end up unemployed or working at small firms making $70k (as shown in the USC salary data).

[thelawyler]

Great work. Now only need to put all of this into an easily digestible spreadsheet so we can make cool graphs and pictures haha

[rayiner]

Great work. Now only need to put all of this into an easily digestible spreadsheet so we can make cool graphs and pictures haha

I'm not really a visual learner, but feel free to use the numbers.

[bk1]

USC =

[thelawyler]

USC =

That number is quite staggering, actually. And I'm sure it gets worse as you move down...

[rayiner]

USC =

That number is quite staggering, actually. And I'm sure it gets worse as you move down...

An interesting statistic is to look at the unemployed or undesirable job figure as a %-age of the class who didn't get big law or a clerkship:

Columbia: 11% / (100% - 69%) = 35%
Penn: 21% / (100% - 70%) = 70%
Berkeley: 25% / (100% - 54%) = 54%
Michigan: 30% / (100% - 44%) = 54%
Virginia: 35% / (100% - 47%) = 66%
Northwestern: 25% / (100% - 61%) = 64%
Cornell: 36% / (100% - 47%) = 68%
USC: 51% / (100% - 39%) = 84%

In other words, people who didn't get big law or a clerkship at Penn had a 70% chance of ending up working at an undesirable job or unemployed. This number puts into relief the bi-modality of legal hiring. Even within the T18, if you strike out of a lucrative job you are more likely than not, and at some schools much more likely than not, going to be in a pretty tough position.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Added Virginia. I really hope there is some sort of reporting confusion and there aren't still 64 people on public service fellowships after 9 months, because if that is the case holy crap.

Wow... half as many people got biglaw in 2011 compared to 2008.

[thelawyler]

USC =

That number is quite staggering, actually. And I'm sure it gets worse as you move down...

An interesting statistic is to look at the unemployed or undesirable job figure as a %-age of the class who didn't get big law or a clerkship:

Columbia: 11% / (100% - 69%) = 35%
Penn: 21% / (100% - 70%) = 70%
Berkeley: 25% / (100% - 54%) = 54%
Michigan: 30% / (100% - 44%) = 54%
Virginia: 35% / (100% - 47%) = 66%
Northwestern: 25% / (100% - 61%) = 64%
Cornell: 36% / (100% - 47%) = 68%
USC: 51% / (100% - 39%) = 84%

In other words, people who didn't get big law or a clerkship at Penn had a 70% chance of ending up working at an undesirable job or unemployed. This number puts into relief the bi-modality of legal hiring. Even within the T18, if you strike out of a lucrative job you are more likely than not, and at some schools much more likely than not, going to be in a pretty tough position.

Well, to be fair, there were probably more people at certain schools like Berk or Mich who self-selected out of participating in OCI and decided to do gov/PI than at Penn/Cornell.

[rayiner]

That number is quite staggering, actually. And I'm sure it gets worse as you move down...

An interesting statistic is to look at the unemployed or undesirable job figure as a %-age of the class who didn't get big law or a clerkship:

Columbia: 11% / (100% - 69%) = 35%
Penn: 21% / (100% - 70%) = 70%
Berkeley: 25% / (100% - 54%) = 54%
Michigan: 30% / (100% - 44%) = 54%
Virginia: 35% / (100% - 47%) = 66%
Northwestern: 25% / (100% - 61%) = 64%
Cornell: 36% / (100% - 47%) = 68%
USC: 51% / (100% - 39%) = 84%

In other words, people who didn't get big law or a clerkship at Penn had a 70% chance of ending up working at an undesirable job or unemployed. This number puts into relief the bi-modality of legal hiring. Even within the T18, if you strike out of a lucrative job you are more likely than not, and at some schools much more likely than not, going to be in a pretty tough position.

Well, to be fair, there were probably more people at certain schools like Berk or Mich who self-selected out of participating in OCI and decided to do gov/PI than at Penn/Cornell.

Sure. What I'm trying to get at really is that the alternative to big law for most people is unemployment/underemployment. There's very little fall-back into PI or government.

[thelawyler]

Yup, that'd be a true story indeed.