School OCI Data Forum

[Grizz]

#2) i believe chicago was only one of two schools (along with duke) to release its complete list (for class of 2009) of employment data to lawschooltransparency - so how is that being too afraid (even in boom times) to release it?

Vanderbilt released a 2009 list of where all their grads got jobs as well.

Don't worry: no one will volunteer their 2010 data.

According to Observationalist, Vanderbilt is going to release theirs for prospective students, just like last year.

[holydonkey]

Suffolk has 127 unique companies from 152 offices coming to OCI.

Wow. That's really impressive! Also, list updated.

[Anonymous User]

Suffolk has 127 unique companies from 152 offices coming to OCI.

Wow. That's really impressive! Also, list updated.

Suffolk is also a festering TTT.

[miamiman]

#2) i believe chicago was only one of two schools (along with duke) to release its complete list (for class of 2009) of employment data to lawschooltransparency - so how is that being too afraid (even in boom times) to release it?

Vanderbilt released a 2009 list of where all their grads got jobs as well.

Don't worry: no one will volunteer their 2010 data.

According to Observationalist, Vanderbilt is going to release theirs for prospective students, just like last year.

You gotta give them credit but they will stand alone. And potentially to their detriment.

[Grizz]

You gotta give them credit but they will stand alone. And potentially to their detriment.

Pretty much. I'm gonna try to get a hold of the list so I can decide whether to jump off a bridge or just bitch on TLS.

[holydonkey]

Suffolk has 127 unique companies from 152 offices coming to OCI.

Wow. That's really impressive! Also, list updated.

Suffolk is also a festering TTT.

Their OCI seems to indicate they're doing alright.

Other 3rd tier schools, Southwestern and Toledo, only have 8 and 2 attendees at OCI respectively. And many second tier schools are reporting under 30 unique employers. If Suffolk has 127, at least the career services office seems to be doing a good job.

[270910]

Suffolk has 127 unique companies from 152 offices coming to OCI.

Wow. That's really impressive! Also, list updated.

Suffolk is also a festering TTT.

Their OCI seems to indicate they're doing alright.

Other 3rd tier schools, Southwestern and Toledo, only have 8 and 2 attendees at OCI respectively. And many second tier schools are reporting under 30 unique employers. If Suffolk has 127, at least the career services office seems to be doing a good job.

This data is all self reported by (more or less) anonymous users. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people are just mixing up precisely what they mean. If at least 127 different human beings attend Suffolk's OCI and conduct interviews with their students on behalf of legal employers, I will consume both shoes I am currently wearing on a live web cam.

[peterstein]

This data is all self reported by (more or less) anonymous users. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people are just mixing up precisely what they mean. If at least 127 different human beings attend Suffolk's OCI and conduct interviews with their students on behalf of legal employers, I will consume both shoes I am currently wearing on a live web cam.

Seriously. I'm not 100% on what BU of BC OCI is like this year, but there's no way Suffolk is outperforming either of them.

[Anonymous User]

So far, if I remember correctly, we have the following for hard stats:

Yale - 100% SA placement*
Harvard - 100% SA placement*
Stanford - 100% SA placement*
Columbia - 69% SA placement
NYU - 69% SA placement
Chicago - 69% SA placement
Berkeley - XX% SA placement
Virginia - XX% SA placement
Penn - XX% SA placement
Michigan - 50% SA placement
Northwestern - XX% SA placement
Duke - XX% SA placement
Cornell - 43% SA placement
Georgetown - XX% SA placement

*Potential placement.

I propose we fill in the stats for the rest of the T14 with actual hard data. Would people from the remaining schools do what they can to get some good information? This could be really helpful for future 0Ls deciding between schools.

Apparently, Boalt's OCS has told students last year's OCIP placed ~1/3 of the class.

[miamiman]

This data is all self reported by (more or less) anonymous users. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people are just mixing up precisely what they mean. If at least 127 different human beings attend Suffolk's OCI and conduct interviews with their students on behalf of legal employers, I will consume both shoes I am currently wearing on a live web cam.

Disco, you're nothing if not amusing

[98234872348]

This data is all self reported by (more or less) anonymous users. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people are just mixing up precisely what they mean. If at least 127 different human beings attend Suffolk's OCI and conduct interviews with their students on behalf of legal employers, I will consume both shoes I am currently wearing on a live web cam.

Disco, you're nothing if not amusing

It is TCR, though. There is no way in hell Suffolk is outperforming T20 schools.

[como]

So far, if I remember correctly, we have the following for hard stats:

Yale - 100% SA placement*
Harvard - 100% SA placement*
Stanford - 100% SA placement*
Columbia - 69% SA placement
NYU - 69% SA placement
Chicago - 69% SA placement
Berkeley - XX% SA placement
Virginia - XX% SA placement
Penn - XX% SA placement
Michigan - 50% SA placement
Northwestern - XX% SA placement
Duke - XX% SA placement
Cornell - 43% SA placement
Georgetown - XX% SA placement

*Potential placement.

I propose we fill in the stats for the rest of the T14 with actual hard data. Would people from the remaining schools do what they can to get some good information? This could be really helpful for future 0Ls deciding between schools.

Apparently, Boalt's OCS has told students last year's OCIP placed ~1/3 of the class.

Ouch. That doesn't quite tell the whole story though. I wonder how many actually ended up with SA positions as a result of OCIP or independent outreach. I would imagine the number is higher, but it can't be much higher. I'll put Cal down for 40% until someone gives better data.

[miamiman]

So far, if I remember correctly, we have the following for hard stats:

Yale - 100% SA placement*
Harvard - 100% SA placement*
Stanford - 100% SA placement*
Columbia - 69% SA placement
NYU - 69% SA placement
Chicago - 69% SA placement
Berkeley - XX% SA placement
Virginia - XX% SA placement
Penn - XX% SA placement
Michigan - 50% SA placement
Northwestern - XX% SA placement
Duke - XX% SA placement
Cornell - 43% SA placement
Georgetown - XX% SA placement

*Potential placement.

I propose we fill in the stats for the rest of the T14 with actual hard data. Would people from the remaining schools do what they can to get some good information? This could be really helpful for future 0Ls deciding between schools.

Apparently, Boalt's OCS has told students last year's OCIP placed ~1/3 of the class.

Ouch. That doesn't quite tell the whole story though. I wonder how many actually ended up with SA positions as a result of OCIP or independent outreach. I would imagine the number is higher, but it can't be much higher. I'll put Cal down for 40% until someone gives better data.

If I recall correctly, and I admit that my memory is not the best, I believe the ~70% at Columbia/NYU was taken exclusively from their OCI results -- not subsequent resume drops, mass-mailings, etc. By contrast, I do think the Chicago data is a 70% aggregate.

[como]

So far, if I remember correctly, we have the following for hard stats:

Yale - 100% SA placement*
Harvard - 100% SA placement*
Stanford - 100% SA placement*
Columbia - 69% SA placement
NYU - 69% SA placement
Chicago - 69% SA placement
Berkeley - XX% SA placement
Virginia - XX% SA placement
Penn - XX% SA placement
Michigan - 50% SA placement
Northwestern - XX% SA placement
Duke - XX% SA placement
Cornell - 43% SA placement
Georgetown - XX% SA placement

*Potential placement.

I propose we fill in the stats for the rest of the T14 with actual hard data. Would people from the remaining schools do what they can to get some good information? This could be really helpful for future 0Ls deciding between schools.

Apparently, Boalt's OCS has told students last year's OCIP placed ~1/3 of the class.

Ouch. That doesn't quite tell the whole story though. I wonder how many actually ended up with SA positions as a result of OCIP or independent outreach. I would imagine the number is higher, but it can't be much higher. I'll put Cal down for 40% until someone gives better data.

If I recall correctly, and I admit that my memory is not the best, I believe the ~70% at Columbia/NYU was taken exclusively from their OCI results -- not subsequent resume drops, mass-mailings, etc. By contrast, I do think the Chicago data is a 70% aggregate.

OK. Thanks for that. I'll add ~5% to each of Columbia/NYU.

[doyleoil]

I do think the Chicago data is a 70% aggregate.

This is correct.

I believe the ~70% at Columbia/NYU was taken exclusively from their OCI results -- not subsequent resume drops, mass-mailings, etc.

This has been misleading almost since the day people started throwing the number around. 70% = 70% of the people who participated in OCI, not 70% of the whole (eventual) graduating class. IIRC, only about 400 people were represented in the Columbia data as having participated in OCI, a number quite a bit smaller than their total graduating class.

It's still misleading to go solely by the numbers, though. As pointed out elsewhere, there are U of C law review people who elected to go the P.I. route this summer (and almost certainly could have gotten firm jobs). And surely there are people in the Columbia group who didn't participate in EIW (or whatever the hell they call it) who could have gotten firm jobs.

So it's still not correct to think that the raw number purely represents the percent of a class who "could" get a firm job. This is true at all schools, but probably more true the closer to the top you get.

[miamiman]

Doyle, but doesn't that stuff operate at the margins? Maybe ~1-3%?

[Anonymous User]

I do think the Chicago data is a 70% aggregate.

This is correct.

I believe the ~70% at Columbia/NYU was taken exclusively from their OCI results -- not subsequent resume drops, mass-mailings, etc.

This has been misleading almost since the day people started throwing the number around. 70% = 70% of the people who participated in OCI, not 70% of the whole (eventual) graduating class. IIRC, only about 400 people were represented in the Columbia data as having participated in OCI, a number quite a bit smaller than their total graduating class.

It's still misleading to go solely by the numbers, though. As pointed out elsewhere, there are U of C law review people who elected to go the P.I. route this summer (and almost certainly could have gotten firm jobs). And surely there are people in the Columbia group who didn't participate in EIW (or whatever the hell they call it) who could have gotten firm jobs.

So it's still not correct to think that the raw number purely represents the percent of a class who "could" get a firm job. This is true at all schools, but probably more true the closer to the top you get.

I have the list of where all of the members of Virginia Law Review are this summer - several are doing things like DoJ SLIP or whatever that stupid prestigious summer gig is. It's smart to point out that placement power is hard to distinguish from placement results.

[doyleoil]

Doyle, but doesn't that stuff operate at the margins? Maybe ~1-3%?

I donno. I guess I don't really care. It's stupid to try to pin down an exact number (i.e. Como adding 5% here or subtracting 5% there or whatever the fuck he's doing). The broad impression is what matters. And the broad impressions are pretty much what you'd expect given the schools' respective reputations.

If you're choosing a school based on 5% differences here or there, you're doing it wrong. If you're choosing based on 20%+ differences (hard to fake even with small adjustments of data), you're probably doing it right.

[miamiman]

Doyle, but doesn't that stuff operate at the margins? Maybe ~1-3%?

I donno. I guess I don't really care. It's stupid to try to pin down an exact number (i.e. Como adding 5% here or subtracting 5% there or whatever the fuck he's doing). The broad impression is what matters. And the broad impressions are pretty much what you'd expect given the schools' respective reputations.

If you're choosing a school based on 5% differences here or there, you're doing it wrong. If you're choosing based on 20%+ differences (hard to fake even with small adjustments of data), you're probably doing it right.

Well said.

[thechecker]

This data is all self reported by (more or less) anonymous users. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people are just mixing up precisely what they mean. If at least 127 different human beings attend Suffolk's OCI and conduct interviews with their students on behalf of legal employers, I will consume both shoes I am currently wearing on a live web cam.

Seriously. I'm not 100% on what BU of BC OCI is like this year, but there's no way Suffolk is outperforming either of them.

Go to their career services website, they have different PDF's with OCI for public interest, government, IP, and firms.

[como]

Doyle, but doesn't that stuff operate at the margins? Maybe ~1-3%?

I donno. I guess I don't really care. It's stupid to try to pin down an exact number (i.e. Como adding 5% here or subtracting 5% there or whatever the fuck he's doing). The broad impression is what matters. And the broad impressions are pretty much what you'd expect given the schools' respective reputations.

If you're choosing a school based on 5% differences here or there, you're doing it wrong. If you're choosing based on 20%+ differences (hard to fake even with small adjustments of data), you're probably doing it right.

Take a chill, broseph. I'm just trying to help. Obviously the data can't be perfect. Anyone who chooses between Chicago or NYU based on a 5% boost added ad hoc by a Cornell student on TLS is definitely not doing it right. People will just add 5% here or there anyway based on their own perceptions about placement potential.

Whatever, I'll just ditch the project. You're right to point out its futility.

[doyleoil]

Doyle, but doesn't that stuff operate at the margins? Maybe ~1-3%?

I donno. I guess I don't really care. It's stupid to try to pin down an exact number (i.e. Como adding 5% here or subtracting 5% there or whatever the fuck he's doing). The broad impression is what matters. And the broad impressions are pretty much what you'd expect given the schools' respective reputations.

If you're choosing a school based on 5% differences here or there, you're doing it wrong. If you're choosing based on 20%+ differences (hard to fake even with small adjustments of data), you're probably doing it right.

Take a chill, broseph. I'm just trying to help. Obviously the data can't be perfect. Anyone who chooses between Chicago or NYU based on a 5% boost added ad hoc by a Cornell student on TLS is definitely not doing it right. People will just add 5% here or there anyway based on their own perceptions about placement potential.

Whatever, I'll just ditch the project. You're right to point out its futility.

No reason to ditch. But if you're trying to be exact (I'm not saying you should be), then do it right. I was just pointing out that the original 70% number for CLS and NYU has never been used in precisely the right sense. So anyone trying to nail down "exact" figures on that basis has never been doing it right.

But like I just said, there's no point in trying to be exact. Roughly things are shaking out as you'd expect.

[miamiman]

Doyle, but doesn't that stuff operate at the margins? Maybe ~1-3%?

I donno. I guess I don't really care. It's stupid to try to pin down an exact number (i.e. Como adding 5% here or subtracting 5% there or whatever the fuck he's doing). The broad impression is what matters. And the broad impressions are pretty much what you'd expect given the schools' respective reputations.

If you're choosing a school based on 5% differences here or there, you're doing it wrong. If you're choosing based on 20%+ differences (hard to fake even with small adjustments of data), you're probably doing it right.

Take a chill, broseph. I'm just trying to help. Obviously the data can't be perfect. Anyone who chooses between Chicago or NYU based on a 5% boost added ad hoc by a Cornell student on TLS is definitely not doing it right. People will just add 5% here or there anyway based on their own perceptions about placement potential.

Whatever, I'll just ditch the project. You're right to point out its futility.

No, I don't think it's futile. And, I actually think it might be helpful in isolated cases (I'm looking at you Berkeley). Doyle just, rightly, points out the difficulty in pinning down exact percentiles when not only are there statistical issues at play (OCI placement vs. aggregate, % participating vs. % of class) but also more general issues such as firm-eligible students opting out of the process entirely.

[270910]

Doyle, but doesn't that stuff operate at the margins? Maybe ~1-3%?

I donno. I guess I don't really care. It's stupid to try to pin down an exact number (i.e. Como adding 5% here or subtracting 5% there or whatever the fuck he's doing). The broad impression is what matters. And the broad impressions are pretty much what you'd expect given the schools' respective reputations.

If you're choosing a school based on 5% differences here or there, you're doing it wrong. If you're choosing based on 20%+ differences (hard to fake even with small adjustments of data), you're probably doing it right.

Take a chill, broseph. I'm just trying to help. Obviously the data can't be perfect. Anyone who chooses between Chicago or NYU based on a 5% boost added ad hoc by a Cornell student on TLS is definitely not doing it right. People will just add 5% here or there anyway based on their own perceptions about placement potential.

Whatever, I'll just ditch the project. You're right to point out its futility.

No reason to ditch. But if you're trying to be exact (I'm not saying you should be), then do it right. I was just pointing out that the original 70% number for CLS and NYU has never been used in precisely the right sense. So anyone trying to nail down "exact" figures on that basis has never been doing it right.

But like I just said, there's no point in trying to be exact. Roughly things are shaking out as you'd expect.

Right. His point was that the "70%" number from CLS was offers to OCI participants, while the "43%" number from Cornell was "of self reported 2Ls currently working this summer." There are actually several different reasons why those numbers aren't comparable to one another directly, of course, but just listing them as flat percentages in a list is deceiving.

[como]

Right. His point was that the "70%" number from CLS was offers to OCI participants, while the "43%" number from Cornell was "of self reported 2Ls currently working this summer." There are actually several different reasons why those numbers aren't comparable to one another directly, of course, but just listing them as flat percentages in a list is deceiving.

I understand. I don't know the sources of the numbers people are offering, so I can't really tell if the data is comparable.

Let me be more specific.

I believe the numbers given for Chicago are similar to Cornell's insofar as they indicate the percentage of the class in a summer associate class this summer. Obviously, there are many factors to consider when comparing even these numbers. For instance, perhaps a greater percentage of Cornell's class desparately tried to get biglaw, exhausting all avenues, while a significant portion of qualified individuals in Chicago's class never attempted. That would be the sort of scenario that would result in the greatest latent disparity between the figures, but it is certainly possible.

It is still somewhat helpful to try to compare percentages of 2010 SA placements, so I will still solicit statistics. If anyone is offering a number, please make sure it is based on similar data. We can all then continue to speculate ad infinitum about what these numbers truly tell us.