Brief question about employment prospects Forum

[Troianii]

So there's a hyper-focus on job prospects from law schools, understandably so, especially here at TLS. It's to the point where tier 1 schools (that is, top 50 per USNEWS) are crapped on all the time as a dead end.

Now don't get me wrong, I completely get the idea of looking at law schools and focusing on the downsides (to minimize it - there isn't much of a downside at HYS, even the 25th percentile of grads are set). But, and this can be purely anecdotal, but I've known a few lawyers in my life and, excluding my school's pre-law advisor, the lawyers I know went to unranked law schools, and they're pretty successful. Like really, really successful. One has their own firm (w/o a partner) w/over 10 lawyers, and one is that kind of international lawyer that seems to be what people think of but almost doesn't exist - the type who actually travels all over Europe and Asia for meetings.

Now I'm just curious - are these people I know anomalies? Exceptions that make the rule?

[pancakes3]

You've seen the NALP employment numbers on LST. I don't know what's not to get.

[girlrunning]

So there's a hyper-focus on job prospects from law schools, understandably so, especially here at TLS. It's to the point where tier 1 schools (that is, top 50 per USNEWS) are crapped on all the time as a dead end.

Now don't get me wrong, I completely get the idea of looking at law schools and focusing on the downsides (to minimize it - there isn't much of a downside at HYS, even the 25th percentile of grads are set). But, and this can be purely anecdotal, but I've known a few lawyers in my life and, excluding my school's pre-law advisor, the lawyers I know went to unranked law schools, and they're pretty successful. Like really, really successful. One has their own firm (w/o a partner) w/over 10 lawyers, and one is that kind of international lawyer that seems to be what people think of but almost doesn't exist - the type who actually travels all over Europe and Asia for meetings.

Now I'm just curious - are these people I know anomalies? Exceptions that make the rule?

Two things:

First, you need to consider when these people graduated. When the economy contracted, it never really rebounded. There are tons of T-14 and other well-respected schools lawyers who were left without a job during the market crash and even "lost classes" that never got the opportunity to begin their careers (even those who were properly credentialed) because of what happened. Things are different now.

Second, can people do well (TLS definition of "well") graduating from unranked or lower ranked schools? Sure, especially from strong regional schools, but these people are at the top of their class generally or are at the top + [insert some kind of extra factor, like EIC of the Law Review, etc.]. But this is not something that you look to as a way to excuse attending one of these schools. Being in the top of your class is difficult and never guaranteed. If this is the reason you're asking this (or if another 0L finds this and they're thinking of doing this), study harder for the LSAT. Even if you decide to attend a regional school, a high LSAT score = more scholarship money.

[Clearly]

Times have simply changed. It used to be the case in previous generations that nearly any jd could, and often did, make you successful. That's simply not the case anymore. That time is long gone. LST is the best predictor of a schools ability to place people into lawyer jobs in this economy. The reality is that the kids that ate graduating from those same schools today often face a 50%+ of unemployment, while the lucky ones who get a legal job often make 50k, which would never pay back the loans of a sticker student. I know you want to resist this reality, but that just how it is now.

[Paul Campos]

Look up "survivorship bias."

Also, retake.

[BigZuck]

Of course the successful lawyers you know are successful. You just don't know the metric butt-ton of unsuccessful lawyers out there because they aren't even lawyers, they failed and are now doing something else.

Sample size also

Also just based on reading your posts you also tend to think in terms of X percentile means this and Y percentile means this and Z tier means this outcome and that's not really how legal employment works

[Troianii]

Times have simply changed. It used to be the case in previous generations that nearly any jd could, and often did, make you successful. That's simply not the case anymore. That time is long gone. LST is the best predictor of a schools ability to place people into lawyer jobs in this economy.

Certainly seems like it. The legal market was just completely shaken up after the crash.

The reality is that the kids that ate graduating from those same schools today often face a 50%+ of unemployment, while the lucky ones who get a legal job often make 50k, which would never pay back the loans of a sticker student. I know you want to resist this reality, but that just how it is now.

*sigh* no, no actually, I'm not wanting to resist jobs data. I've been checking jobs data through LST pretty much every other day. What I'm asking, phrased another way, is how often people at less competitive schools (above the 75th percentile in jobs data) actually end up being wildly successful without haven't gone to what most of us would consider a good school.

[Clearly]

Times have simply changed. It used to be the case in previous generations that nearly any jd could, and often did, make you successful. That's simply not the case anymore. That time is long gone. LST is the best predictor of a schools ability to place people into lawyer jobs in this economy.

Certainly seems like it. The legal market was just completely shaken up after the crash.

The reality is that the kids that ate graduating from those same schools today often face a 50%+ of unemployment, while the lucky ones who get a legal job often make 50k, which would never pay back the loans of a sticker student. I know you want to resist this reality, but that just how it is now.

*sigh* no, no actually, I'm not wanting to resist jobs data. I've been checking jobs data through LST pretty much every other day. What I'm asking, phrased another way, is how often people at less competitive schools (above the 75th percentile in jobs data) actually end up being wildly successful without haven't gone to what most of us would consider a good school.

Better timing, and of course the fact that failures don't talk about failing, so you only hear the positive anecdotes.

[crumb cake]

More "success" per capita in the T14 = better chances at becoming like the lawyers you know, OP.

No one has ever said it's not possible out of a TTT, just that the odds are stacked against you.

[pancakes3]

*sigh* no, no actually, I'm not wanting to resist jobs data. I've been checking jobs data through LST pretty much every other day. What I'm asking, phrased another way, is how often people at less competitive schools (above the 75th percentile in jobs data) actually end up being wildly successful without haven't gone to what most of us would consider a good school.

What does this mean?

[Troianii]

Also just based on reading your posts you also tend to think in terms of X percentile means this and Y percentile means this and Z tier means this outcome and that's not really how legal employment works

Yes, I tend to judge job outcomes and prospects based on the best data available. Should I be using a palm reader instead?

[A. Nony Mouse]

You will find grads from all kinds of schools just about everywhere (except maybe the snootiest of biglaw firms, and even then, maybe the #1 in the class who's related to someone or has some other kind of great connections). So of course people at less competitive schools can be wildly successful. But the problem is you don't know where the rest of the people in their class ended up, and which group you would be in if you went to that school. And if fewer grads of School A end up in legal jobs, period, than grads of School B, chances are good that fewer School A grads are going to be wildly successful (in law) compared to School B grads. I guess I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for when you say "how often are they wildly successful" - how do you quantify that?

(I'm not knocking regional schools at all - I went to one, it was great, I had a great outcome. Everyone I know from my class has a job. But I don't think anyone would deny that the number of people who had what TLS would call successful outcomes was way less than at, say, Columbia. Some of that comes down to how you define success, of course, but if it's money and prestige, the comparison works.)

[Troianii]

No one has ever said it's not possible out of a TTT, just that the odds are stacked against you.

I think I did hear someone say that on TLS

Thanks for the response - I'm aware, as I said in the op, of that, I'm just curious about data beyond the quartiles. Job data we have based on schools are pretty much just recent grads - we can see starting salaries, but it's harder to get 10yr prospect data for grads of such and such law school. And unfortunately, in typical TLS fashion, when I ask "how rare is this kind of outcome from TTT", the TLS response is mostly "don't go to TTT" or something of the sort. *sigh*

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, I don't think anyone has/tracks that kind of 10-year data.

[Troianii]

Yeah, I don't think anyone has/tracks that kind of 10-year data.

I'm not aware of anyone who does. I was really just curious because one I knew went to a third tier school and was surprised to hear they had their own medium sized firm, the second I thought was impressively successful, and because of that I somewhere along the line assumed they went to a top school (at least tier 1) and was then surprised to find out they went what I think is actually TTT - like actually 4th tier, and that one recently made partner. :/ on some level it just increased the amount of respect I had for them. But of course that left me a bit curious.

[NoBladesNoBows]

[dumdeedum]

One of my friends made 6 figures straight out of a lowly ranked school in NYC, and her partner (same school) landed a super competitive, well-paying position after a couple of years of dues-paying.

Both had upper 160/lower 170 LSATs, 3.6+ GPAs, paid nothing for school (including CoL), and pretty effortlessly blew most of their classmates out of the water for all 3 years. Which is an important detail. Most of their classmates aren't doing too great on the job/debt front. They both concede that recruiting is much snobbier than they initially expected, so it was harder. Both seem much happier than the average lawyer, because they 'made it' with zero debt and have pretty sweet savings/disposable income. Going to a low ranked school can actually pan out pretty well, but it's a much bigger gamble, and even moreso if you have similar stats to most people going to that school.

[BigZuck]

Also just based on reading your posts you also tend to think in terms of X percentile means this and Y percentile means this and Z tier means this outcome and that's not really how legal employment works

Yes, I tend to judge job outcomes and prospects based on the best data available. Should I be using a palm reader instead?

I don't understand what you're saying here

You talk about things like "Tier 1" or "Tier 4" as if those are meaningful distinctions. They aren't really. I guess maybe on some level they are if you paint with a super broad brush but we have LST and stuff so those distinctions should go out the window.

It also seems like you think that "X percent of the class gets a good outcome so you want to fall within X percentile if you want a good outcome" but that usually isn't how that works either.

Anyway, I'm still not sure what you were looking for from this thread. The successful people you know are successful. That is correct. There are large swaths of unsuccessful people though. Maybe you just don't know them?

Are you asking how to quantify how successful an applicant will be if they attend a certain school? How could we possibly do that? Even if we knew that they had the makings of a great law student and they would finish in the top 10% of the class and that percentile assures a good outcome (and there's no way we could figure any of that out with any degree of certainty), all it might take is one bad cold during finals time to drop them out of "good outcome" territory. There's just too many variables to accurately assess an individual's chances at a good outcome. The best thing we can do is look at the job data on sites like LST and figure out what the average outcome seems to be. Hopefully that data will keep getting better and better and we can do a better and better job of figuring out the average outcome.

[Troianii]

I don't understand what you're saying here

You talk about things like "Tier 1" or "Tier 4" as if those are meaningful distinctions. They aren't really. I guess maybe on some level they are if you paint with a super broad brush but we have LST and stuff so those distinctions should go out the window.

They're good ballpark figures. If I told anyone who knew what the terms mean, they could get the general idea of what a T14 and a tier 4 school looks like, especially in employment prospects. Those tiers are just rough guidelines, which are very useful when you don't want to be uber-specific for any various reason, but still want to give an idea of what you're talking about (in this case, a tier 4 school)

It also seems like you think that "X percent of the class gets a good outcome so you want to fall within X percentile if you want a good outcome" but that usually isn't how that works either.

^_- no idea where you're getting that apart from the fact that I use percentiles which, again, are pretty useful. It's all about chances - kind of like bumping your LSAT score 10pts can get you a really improved outcome, but there's always the possibility it doesn't. We make decisions based on probabilities. Yeah, if 14% of a graduating class from Hogwarts Law School landed biglaw jobs that doesn't mean that anyone in the top 14% of a future graduating class will get biglaw, nor does it mean that the top 14% of that graduating class did - you actually thought that's what I was saying? At any point?

Anyway, I'm still not sure what you were looking for from this thread. The successful people you know are successful. That is correct. There are large swaths of unsuccessful people though. Maybe you just don't know them?

Looking for a gauge of just how rare that kind of success out of such a school is. Sounds to me like for where they went to school (tier 3&4) they're wildly successful (relative to their graduating class).

Are you asking how to quantify how successful an applicant will be if they attend a certain school? How could we possibly do that? Even if we knew that they had the makings of a great law student and they would finish in the top 10% of the class and that percentile assures a good outcome (and there's no way we could figure any of that out with any degree of certainty), all it might take is one bad cold during finals time to drop them out of "good outcome" territory. There's just too many variables to accurately assess an individual's chances at a good outcome. The best thing we can do is look at the job data on sites like LST and figure out what the average outcome seems to be. Hopefully that data will keep getting better and better and we can do a better and better job of figuring out the average outcome.

No, that's not what I'm asking. Let me put it another way - with the given level of success (a partner at a law firm who does the international work that many want but hardly really exists, and one who has their own mid-size firm to themselves), how many lawyers out of a tier 3 or 4 would likely be able to achieve that ten years out? 5%? 1%? I'm curious to what degree their success was an anomaly: it makes a big difference if 1% of grads from such schools have that success or 20% do.

[Troianii]

Look up "survivorship bias."

Also, retake.

Thanks for the response, but I already plan on a retake, and this isn't survivorship bias. I only recently found out where one went to school, and only recently found out about the other one's huge success, and I was curious just how much an anomaly their experience was. Not whether or not they were anomalies, but to what degree they're outliers. And if I were to know, for example that only 2% of grads from such schools have such success, then I would know that 98% don't. So I don't think that's survivorship bias, but I appreciate the response.

[pancakes3]

I only recently found out where one went to school, and only recently found out about the other one's huge success, and I was curious just how much an anomaly their experience was. Not whether or not they were anomalies, but to what degree they're outliers.

but in the OP you said explicitly

Now I'm just curious - are these people I know anomalies?

[NoBladesNoBows]

[Troianii]

I only recently found out where one went to school, and only recently found out about the other one's huge success, and I was curious just how much an anomaly their experience was. Not whether or not they were anomalies, but to what degree they're outliers.

but in the OP you said explicitly

Now I'm just curious - are these people I know anomalies?

Ok, i see your point. perhaps I should have been more clear so that no one would think I was suggesting that running your own mid size firm is the norm for TTTT grads. I thought that'd be taken for granted, but obviously should have been more clear in my OP.

[pancakes3]

I only recently found out where one went to school, and only recently found out about the other one's huge success, and I was curious just how much an anomaly their experience was. Not whether or not they were anomalies, but to what degree they're outliers.

but in the OP you said explicitly

Now I'm just curious - are these people I know anomalies?

Ok, i see your point. perhaps I should have been more clear so that no one would think I was suggesting that running your own mid size firm is the norm for TTTT grads. I thought that'd be taken for granted, but obviously should have been more clear in my OP.

If you meant for us to take for granted that these outcomes are not the norm for TTTT grads, then haven't you already answered your own question? To what degree are these outcomes an anomaly? To a degree that it should be presumed that it is not the norm.

[Paul Campos]

Nobody knows the answer to the question you're posing. There's not very much longitudinal data on law grads, and what there is usually isn't stratified in a way that would address your question. So there's no way of knowing whether 2% or 5% or 10% of low-ranked law school grads are "wildly successful," which is a pretty vague term. Here's what's known:

About half the people who have gotten law degrees over the past 40 years are currently practicing law in one way or another.

The single most common form of private legal practice is to be a solo. The average earnings of a solo lawyer in the US are currently around $49,000.

The median income of people of people who report themselves to be working as licensed attorneys is around $110,000. Again, this figure omits the roughly half of law grads who are not working as lawyers.

Outcomes for recent grads in the early part of their careers are on average worse than outcomes for older grads were at comparable points in their career, because of a flat or declining market for legal services, and the greatly increased cost of legal education.

Private legal practice is essentially a sales job, and the compensation structure reflects that, i.e., it's basically pyramid-like.