Part of Texas's "problem" is that a lot of its grads want to stay in Austin, so they go to one of the many decent (but not "top 250") law firms. I live it to the reader whether it's better to be in Austin at a medium-sized firm or in a crappier city at a bigger firm. To each his or her own.

11:48, you realize these numbers don't take into account students who clerk, right? Obviously, virtually any student at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford could get a job at the "NLJ 250"

I take it this does not include students who clerk right after graduation. Considering that most clerks take jobs at top law firms, inclusion of those numbers would put these figures up around 90+%.

11:48 - simply further confirmation on how useless the USNWR rankings are.

11:48, you realize this doesn't take into account students who clerk, right? Obviously virtually any student at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford could get a job at the "NLJ 250"

Or you could go to a state school on a huge scholarship and still end up at a top firm because of your super awesomeness.

--Mr. Super Awesome

Good point, 11;48 - it's clear that 60% of Yale students failed to get jobs at the "NLJ 250." Their career services office should be embarrassed.

What a useless chart - why not look at the numbers a few years out to correct for the clerkship factor?

About 50% of Yale graduates clerk. Thereafter, I'm sure quite a few slip in to these firms to make some money before going off to do real things with their lives.

Texas had a larger number of students clerking this year than years prior. 13.9% I think.

Almost all of these people could get a 250 firm job.

The data with the graphs released a few weeks ago is better in showing what everybody does in the respected law schools.

This might be the stupidest list in the history of stupid lists.

What this list really says to me is "schools where people can't get clerkships." Yay, hoorah! Columbia sucks!

And since when has Northwestern been a "top law school?" What's next, Fordham T14?

11:48/53/55 - it would also be useful to note how many people from each of these schools didn't care to even apply to a NLJ250 job. For instance, I know that at Gtown/GW in DC, there are hoards of students who only have interest in government or nonprofit work. This probably applies for several other schools, like the comment about Austin students opting for local midsize firms.

While they were conducting this survey, they may as well have asked "how many people don't give a @#*$", and then it would give you a clearer number of what schools have the greatest large law firm potential.

11:55 - You do realize that there is a 40% spread between Yale and Columbia, correct? And that all of the other schools have clerks as well? Yale will still be in about the same place "a few years out" after "correct[ing] for the clerkship factor," douche.

What a useless human you are.

Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, April 28, 2008 11:57 AM

This might be the stupidest list in the history of stupid lists.
----

I agree- If it only includes first year out and excludes clerkships-law firms, then it says almost nothing about anything.

11:59(2) = GW troll.

12:00 - it appears you are the douche - around 50% of Yale graduates clerk - Columbia's numbers are much,much lower. You're making the ridiculous claim that there is a sizeable percentage of Yale graduates who couldn't get a job at the "NLJ 250." That's just stupid, Sorry you went to Columbia, but congratulations on the "NLJ 250" job you got.

In other news, fish attracted to water, Pope attracted to Catholicism.

I agree that this chart is useless. It says that the schools that are the pipelines into NYC are the schools that send the most grads to NYC firms.

This chart presumably is intended to be most useful to a prospective student who is trying to determine which school will offer the best shot at a NLJ 250 firm. The problem is that in that respect the chart is very misleading. For instance, it suggests students at Stanford and Yale would have a tougher time going to a NLJ 250 firm than those from Northwestern or Duke. Obviously not true.

As has been mentioned, clerkships aren't factored in, nor are other public interest jobs. A better ranking would look at the ratio of grads at NLJ firms to the total number of grads who took firm jobs in a given year.

12:00 - only 9% of Columbia students clerk

http://www.law.columbia.edu/careers/career_services/employers/Hiring_Informat/Employment_Stat

Around 50% of Yale graduates do. Does that help explain the disparity?

The assertion that employers go "deeper" into the class of Top 20 law schools rather than go to a lower-tier school to recruit isn't exactly correct. Many of the top law schools don't have GPAs/rankings (Columbia) or even grades (Yale) and/or won't allow potential employers to use this info to select on-campus interviewees so potential employers have to interview whoever such a school sends. An employer doesn't necessarily know where a student ranks in a Top 20 school aside from vague clues like a certain "honors" award or achievement.

This chart is useful in that if your thinking about going to Columbia, realize that it is a fast-track to a big firm job. I went to CLS and didn't realize how easy it is to get sucked into the on-campus interview process and end up at a big firm before you realize it. Unfortunately, there isn't the same emphasis on non-big law jobs.

Yawn. So boring.

Of course what would be interesting (and what people want to know) is what % of students got or could get offers at NLJ 250 firms. Of course that is very hard data to get.

Perhaps you could look at what percentage of 2Ls summered at a NLJ 250 (or better yet 100, 50, and 20 to get some interesting differentiation). It isn't a perfect measure but it would be a much better proxy for school attractiveness to employers (which seems to be the point of this).

I'd also be willing to bet that that sort of ranking would much more reflect USNWR.

Texas isn't on the list b/c it's a regional school. Glad I went T14 -- there is a world of difference.

12:04 - Is there one fucking troll on this board that can do math? If every one of Yale's clerks went to NLJ 250 firms after clerking, then you might have an argument. (They would then have about 88%, assuming your guess on clerk percentage is correct.) However, if you think that is the case then you are also a douche, just like 11:55. You are also forgetting (or not understanding) that the other schools on this list are also sending their fair share of clerks. The fact remains, little would change. Get over it, and yourself.

I guess common sense and logic are lost on many folks here.

Wait are people here seriously trying to argue that the "average" Columbia grad is more attractive to a firm than a YLS grad?

Or put another way, that you actually have a better chance at biglaw by going to Columbia instead of YLS?

Sure... that makes total sense. I'm sure Columbia also gets you better jobs than HLS and Stanford as well...

12:11,

This is a good point. I have friends who had no intention of working in NYC but went to NY law schools (Columbia, NYU, Cornell) and got sucked in to the NYC market, even though it didn't make much sense given their family situation. If you're looking at smaller (more family-friendly) markets, Harvard, UVA, Michigan, Duke place well nationally.

As an HLS 3L I find this chart very embarrassing.

We really need to pick up our clerkship placement re: Yale and Stanford.

12:14, please stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm sure many of the Yale clerks do go to "NLJ 250" firms, but the point is that every single one of them could go to one of these firms. Please stop clinging to this chart to show how your school "beat" Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. Columbia is a nice school, but those are the big boys.

DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT THE LIST DOESN'T TAKE CLERKSHIPS INTO CONSIDERATION!!!!

This chart proves it:

CLS > NYU > HLS > SLS > YLS

Can we stop arguing now? Columbia rules!!!

I'd be more interested for the "lower 1st tier" and 2nd tier schools (i.e. Schools 20-100).

There are too many disparities across the top 10 to 20 schools in terms of those who go into gov't jobs, clerk for an extended period, academia, etc. Just look at Yale, Harvard and maybe even Georgetown on this list.

Making it to Biglaw for the rest of the Top 100 (schools 20-100) is more coveted (i.e. there are a smaller percentage of students preoccupied with federal clerkships, etc. and more who are gunning for Biglaw) and it is more of an achievement for schools 20-100 and something that would a point of distinction and marketing tool for those schools that fare well in this regard.

As an alum of a school ranked in the USNWR 40's, I'd be curious to see if those random schools in the 30's have a better placement rate than us, and if they don't, why the hell are they ranked so much higher?

What about those of us who can't get a clerkship or a job with the NLJ 250? Where's our list?

T3 3L

Wouldn't it be much more illustrative to see what % of each school's students went to a top firm against firm-bound students, ONLY? (I think 12:06PM recommended the same)

It seems stupid to draw conclusions on the "low" firm placement of schools where students may opt into other employment -- e.g., clerkships, executive and legislative branch judicial jobs, public service fellowships, non-profit work, etc.

What this list is "helpful" for is seeing where schools emphasize career placement. If you desperately want to work at a firm and nowhere else, go to Columbia (isn't this the conventional wisdom, anyway, among law admits?). If you are interested in other career options, maybe a different program is better suited for you.

Stupid list, I agree with 12:30 that a more interesting one would look at schools 20-100 and see how those students do.

Also, it means zilch that fewer Yale grads are at big firms. Clerkship effect notwithstanding, it's not hard to believe that some of these folks are - horror of horrors! - working in the public sector.

Columbia grads, with few exceptions, are generally insufferable - shame they're all over Biglaw.

These rankings are useless. It shows that Columbia grads are less likely to get clerkships, go into public interest, or work for the government.

I don't think a firm's prestige on the NLJ or Vault matters. Many great smaller firms are not listed. They are much more selective than firms outside of the top 15 on Vault and NLJ.

I'm a GULC alum and it's not surprising to see that less than 50% of my school gets NLJ 250 jobs. I knew a TON of grads who didn't land BIGLAW jobs, let alone any job in many circumstances. It's sad that people think GULC is a top school because the reality is that you're better off graduating from honors from a lower ranked school than being middle of the class at GULC.

Sure, law firms care about school prestige but they care about grades just as much. People should focus more on grades than school prestige.

Some Yale grads also go to work for the ACLU, SPLC, various DAs, etc., which are very competitive. If you don't have to worry about money, this is what some people do. This is also a group that could get a job at a top 250 firm for sure. They just choose not to.

What's the secred to Columbia's success? Its utter inability to get clerkships!

QUICK! Your sense of self worth could be at stake!
Everyone whose school isn't ranked #1 make a comment as to why their school is better and the other schools suck! The ranking must be flawed somehow if your school is ranked #1! Anyone whose school is better than yours is a better person than you! Everyone you'll ever meet for the rest of your life knows what school you went to and the GPA you had when you were there and will judge you by it!

by not including % going into clerkships, the order of this list is meaningless.

What I see when I look at this list is only that Law Schools near/in big markets have a high draw for firms in those big markets. If anything, it might raise the estimation of a non-market school that still succeeds in attracting big firm interest. It would seem that the bottom line should be "If you want to work in a big firm, go to a school in a big city."

Yay BUSL!

*poof*

FART STUD

This list would be a much more effective tool for prospectives deciding on law schools if it ranked law schools based on total number of students at each school who went to NLJ 250 firms AND federal clerkships (excluding magistrates, bankruptcy, etc.).

(1) I agree that this doesn't reflect school quality. If Yale sent 100% of its students into academia it would not even be on this list but would surely still be high quality.

(2) Clerking IS IRRELEVANT. Many clerks defer firm jobs and their firm offers would still be taken into account on this survey. Thus, a student from Harvard clerking for two years with an outstanding offer at Kirkland would still count here.

(3) I think on the other hand of (1) above.... it is VERY hard to keep up a high % as the market saturates. Thus, a smaller school has an easier time of it. I think the ~350 at NYU and Harvard represent a huge step up from the % at Northwestern. This is the same "it's hard to recruit a large class of high LSATs" problem.

Just shows that the median salaries published by all schools at GULC and lower are lies since they all have less than 50% in Biglaw unless they make up for it with all sorts of numbers making biglaw salaries.

12.46, great logic. I understand that Durham, NC is teaming with NLJ 250 law firms, hence Duke being so high.

40+ comments and nothing about fordham

Is Kellogg Huber in the NLJ 250? No.

Hmmm. It says here that if a person's not married by the time he's 35, he's got a better chance of being robbed at gunpoint by a desperate and somewhat bloated Christian Slater.

12:46 - Great logic. Find the exception and apply it as the rule. Good luck on finals.

law firms like smart peopule. teh ehnd

OMGF - WHERE' S FORDHAM!?!?!? I thought Fordham >>> GULC/BU/GW/BC/HARVARD/YALE.

12:56 - The article said specifically that they did NOT count clerkships. The list is useless.

This is a much more useful chart, as it shows clerkship placement in addition to NLJ 250 placement:

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414employment_trends.pdf

This just in - water is (GASP) wet!

12:46 and 1:14, same comment about Duke could be made about Penn, Michigan, Vanderbilt, Cornell, and Yale

Wow that chart is much better. Why didn't they do that and then rank on NLJ + Clerkships or something similar?

Oh right, because that would end up looking like USNWR.

12:46: No wonder Yale isn't numero uno, New Haven is not a big city, thanks for clearing things up

1:19, is that Yale ego all better now???

Hey, you guys should also note that clerkships aren't taken into consideration on this chart.

Many smart lawyers realize that big prestigious firms suck the life out of you, and thus don't go in the first place. I know people who have turned down Cravath to work at a smaller firm.

Many smart lawyers realize that big prestigious firms suck the life out of you, and thus don't go in the first place. I know people who have turned down Cravath to work at a smaller firm.

Boy, glad I didn't go to Yale!

1:27 -

There is no question you are a retard. Maybe Mich and Vandy. Penn is in Philly, unless you are making another lame UPenn State joke. Yale is a short ride to NYC. Cornell is a bit of a hike to NYC or Philly, not not as bad as Duke to anywhere.

If you don't see the correlation to location and placement, just get it over with and tackle a bus because you are useless.

Interesting for all the talk about Minnesota dominating the Twin Cities and Iowa being in the middle of a cornfield, Minnesota has the lowest NJ250 placement of any of the T1 Big 10 schools.

This list doesn't do anything for the people reading it but would be beneficial to undergrads thinking of where to go to law school. The list doesn't really reflect the school's prestige but instead the desires of students who attend those schools.

A class full of students wanting to do biglaw is very different than a Yale class that will be full of future profs and clerks.

I also think that it is noteworthy that often times it is harder to get one of the prestigous govt. jobs (like DOJ honors, Federal Public Defenders, AUSA, etc.) than to get one of the big firm jobs simply because there are more firm jobs. That would be interesting - to learn how many law schools can get their graduates into DOJ Honors, which accepts at most a couple of hundred, versus the many slots available at big firm jobs throughout the major markets.

Cornell is at least 3 hour drive to NYC, and miles from DC or LA. 1:40 Are you seriously saying that Philly is a market top students should go to? Yale is a short ride? By train is is almost 2 hours (which is not ba, but short ride is a bit much). Duke is less than 2 hour plane ride (granted give yourself at least hour to do security etc.) I have sat in traffic getting to NYU for more than 2 hours. More than 3 even. I guess Boalt is a short hop to LA. Out of top 20, you agree Duke, Vandy and Mich not in top cities. I would argue that New Haven, Philly and San Fran are not top cities for top grads, based on simple fact that if you aksed students for top 5 cities, those three would not be there.

Duke places most grads that got to top firms in top cities, New York, LA and DC. The correlation is between good schools with good programs.

This is 1:49, I reread my post and writign is terrible. Must learn to review before I post. Damn 1:40 for calling me a retard and in my error to prove him wrong prove her right.

1:49 - You are right, there are no NLJ 250 firms in San Fran or Philly. Thanks for that correction.

Penn State > Yale. Not surprising I guess.

(1) I agree that this doesn't reflect school quality. If Yale sent 100% of its students into academia it would not even be on this list but would surely still be high quality.

(2) Clerking IS IRRELEVANT. Many clerks defer firm jobs and their firm offers would still be taken into account on this survey. Thus, a student from Harvard clerking for two years with an outstanding offer at Kirkland would still count here.

(3) I think on the other hand of (1) above.... it is VERY hard to keep up a high % as the market saturates. Thus, a smaller school has an easier time of it. I think the ~350 at NYU and Harvard represent a huge step up from the % at Northwestern. This is the same "it's hard to recruit a large class of high LSATs" problem.

2:00 don't be an idiot, there are NLJ 250 firms in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Miami, Orange County (oops), etc. If survey said that 90% of Cornells grads went to work for NLJ firms in the aforementioned 5 cities, would you think it was a big deal? Wise up and get real.

San Francisco not a top 5 city for law grads? I have to disagree. From a national perspective, I think it goes like this:
NYC
DC
Chicago
LA
San Francisco

Would you put Boston ahead of San Francisco? Atlanta? Houston or Dallas? I'm just not buying it.

Top 5 cities that students want to work, not counting family commitments or where born (i.e. 5 cities anyone anywhere would want to work):

1. New York
2. LA
3. DC
4. Chicago
5. Boston
[ To continue 6. London, 7. San Fran 8. Dallas 9. Miami 10 Philly]

I think this chart is helpful - it shows that schools that USNWR ranks in the top 25 - like Minnesota, WUSTL, and Iowa - aren't as likely to land you a biglaw job as lower "ranked" schools like BC. For people that would chose to go to the "highest ranked" school they get into because they think it is the best path to biglaw this chart matters.

LA is not second - DC is. And SF/SV is not below Boston.

This list was written by a very subtle Boalt troll.

2:17, what are you talking about? Deferrals are not taken into account. The survey isn't about offers, but new hires.

Plus, that commits you to the stupid idea that Yale's placement sucks.

This list is stupid. It shows what percent of the graduating class goes to NLJ 250 firms... but it's a percentage of total graduating students, not of atudents who applied to those firms. Especially at the top schools, almost everyone who applies gets at least one offer.

So really, these rankings have nothing to do with prestige; if everyone who wants such a job gets it, then what this really measures is how many people *want* those jobs. So Columbia, with the highest percentage, really shows itself to have the higest percentage of wannabe corporate douchebags.

And, for the crybabies at Harvard Yale & Stanford: yes, many graduates from your schools clerk before they go to their NLJ 250 jobs. So even though the list doesn't credit you for it, you can be safe in the knowledge that in reality, your schools have even more douchebags than Columbia.

Here is an image of the 2005 data ordered by the aggregate of clerks and the NLJ 250. This is based on that other chart from the law.com article.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2207/2432556220_6952654518_o.gif

That other chart at 1:19 is much better. Fascinating really, I just spent a good 20 minutes of billable time staring at it.

Somebody with some time on their hands (maybe that Tax Prof blog guy) should do an analysis to see what the correlation is between USNWR rankings and the percentage of those hired in the NLJ 250.

SMU, Houston, Villanova, Rutgers all appear to beat their USNWR rankings significantly.

2:41 here. Before everyone jumps on me and calls me bitter or whatever, please note that I went to a top 5 school and have a top 250 job... not being bitter, just honest.

NYC
DC
LA
Chicago
Boston

is my choice for order.

Dallas over Houston?

Miami is a wild card. The legal markets are certainly better in Philly and ATL, and that's saying something, but it's Miami which is a natural draw.

I concur with Boston over SF. SF is more of a niche city to me. Boston seems to have a wider appeal.

I wonder if this list looks at clerkships!

Both the charts on Henderson's site and the NLJ chart show are that some schools are ranked higher by USNWR (like Iowa, Washington, UMN, W&L, Texas) than their biglaw/clerkship prospects are and some schools are ranked lower by USNWR but have better employment/clerkship prospects than their rankings demonstrate (like BC, BU, Fordham, Notre Dame, SMU, Rutgers).

2:48, it being Miami is what flipped it for me. Agree about Philly and Atlanta being better, and in hindsight, Houston over Dallas, due to the Bakers, among other things. I love SF, I just don't think top lawyers want to go there above the other cities, all other things being equal.

Which goes back to my point that Boalt, Penn, Cornell, Yale and Duke are not in the BIG cities people want to go to.

SF(/SV) is more of a "niche city" than Boston? I would say just the opposite. Perhaps you're on the east coast and I'm on the west coast?

(Any replies to this will be anecdotal, but for what it's worth, I grew up on the east coast, went to school at a T14 in the midwest, and am currently working on the west coast.)

Really not trying to start a pissing contest.

2:48, there are far more "big law" jobs in the Bay Area than in Boston (perhaps even when you only include SF).

What about Washington and Lee? They offer a top notch education at a great price and have really intelligent faculty and students.

Does Mexico have any decent law firms?

Here's another vote for SF over Boston (especially when you consider the entire Bay Area). The statement that SF is more of a "niche" city than Boston is just ridiculous. SF is the financial capital of California. (FYI: Grew up on the east cost, went to school on the west coast, and work in the midwest.)

3:47, financial capital of California. Is that like being top dentist in the UK? Not really something you want to boast about. Remind me where Bank of America is HQ'd again?

3:11(1) re: more big law jobs in S.F. than Boston:

There are only 3 San Francisco offices listed on NALP with 250 or more attorneys.

There are 7 in Boston.

More big/national firms have offices in San Francisco, (60 or so to Boston's 40), but their offices, on average, appear to be smaller than the offices of big law firms in Boston.

These data seem to back the guesses of others that (1) Boston has more "big law" jobs (i.e. because there are substantially bigger offices in Boston than S.F.) and (2) that S.F. is more of a "niche" legal market than Boston (an inference can be drawn from the presence of satellite or thinly staffed offices of many national firms, that firms view their presence there as purpose, not growth, driven).

it's simple...until this year it was better to work and then clerk from a financial standpoint. so many columbia grads, including myself, deferred for a year.

the best stat would be one that shows the unemployment rate after law school.

4:00, BofA is based in Charlotte post-merger, but has a huge presence in SF and is still the dominant West Coast bank.

4:05, SF and Boston are probably within 5% in terms of BigLaw jobs - don't know which has more. Certainly when the Valley is through in the mix SF/SV, which is really one market, is MUCH bigger.

4:00--

3:47 here. That is something to boast about. Maybe you haven't heard, but California's economy has grown a bit in the last couple centuries. Now take your busted-ass grill back to the UK for some dental work.

4:14 is absolutely right. I didn't think anyone questioned that SF/SV make up one legal market. That assumption was built in to my comments above.

3:47/4:17 - You miss the Point.

No1. Banking City - New York
No2. Banking City - Charlotte
No3. Banking City - (Maybe) San Fran. [There are a few Midwest cities that may dispute this]

Not sure when coming turd was something to boast about. Its great for Charlotte that BofA is lagest West Coast bank. Great for the NY law firms that do BofA's work.

The funnel is good in that it debunks the whole ranking BS of "trading up" a couple spots.

The only moves that can be said to dramatically impact your chances are moves to the Top 8 from below or to the Top 14 from below. Other than that, climbing a few spots is garbage.

If you don't get a job with Cravath or Venable, then why did you go to law school?

No. You're missing the point. This issue all came up because people were claiming Boston was a bigger market for attorneys than SF. I completely agree that NY and Charlotte are bigger in banking (though the latter is certainly a smaller legal market). But how does Boston square up? That's the relevant question. Furthermore, coming in third usually is something to boast about. Or maybe you think Stanford should feel ashamed for its usual placing in the law school rankings.

Boston over SF/SV?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Talk about an East Coast bias. Clearly SF is a bigger legal market compared to Boston. I just did a quick search on NALP, there are 18 big firms in Boston (firms with 701+ attorneys) compared to 30 big firms in SF alone. This is not taking into account all the firms that have offices in Silicon Valley. If Boston is so popular, where are all these people going to work?

Yeah - everyone who doesn't think SF/SV is a large and important legal market is nuts (or has never left the east coast/midwest). Lets not forget (or for some of you that were in elementary school at the time, learn for the very first time) that the highest paying firms in the late 80's were all in SF/SV. More importantly, the SF/SV firms started the larger round of salary increases before the last one (began by STB - a NYC firm to be sure, but very strong in SV). I know law tends to be east-coast centric, but come on...

SF/SV is where it's at. Remember who started this long series of raises? (Hint: it wasn't anyone in NY)

4:56, there is a bias, but it is actually west coast. Just coz you are there you assume it has to be better.

The point has already been made that there are more offices employing over 200 attorneys in Boston than in San Fran. You are judging it by Firms that employ over 700. Question is, in what office do most of those firms have the majority of their associates. (Clue, it is not San Fran).

4.55, completely agree that Charlotte smaller legal market. Comment probably not aimed at you. It was aimed at person who said that San Fran should be there as it is financial center of California. I just pointed out that there are two larger banking/financial centers, and given that we both agree Charlotte shouldn't be on any top 5 list due to its financial prowess, doesn't that debunk putting San Fran in for same reason.

Yeah, I'm sure that the hundred or so students not going to firms from Yale have significantly better options that the 100 or so Columbia students not going to firms, or the 220 Harvard students not going to firms. Absolute numbers arguably matter a lot more than percentages when you're dealing with a school's ability to get its students into positions as limited in supply as prestigious clerkships. The real mystery here is why Chicago sends so few.

Hey 4:56, I hope to fuck you ain't doing any job that requires half a brain.

I also searched NALP and this time just searched office, as opposed to, you know, FIRM. Only one firm came up in San Fran as having more than 700+ in its office, whereas Boston had 2. I then, amazingly, decided to go INTO each option as opposed to just take there word for it, and discovered that the San Fran firm that said it had 700+ in its office only had 114 in its San Fran office, whereas the two boston firms only had 220 and 485 in their boston office.

The point, dumbo, is that Boston has more firms that hire large numbers of people IN BOSTON than San Fran does. SAN FRAN has more offices from FIRMS that have over 700 people, but these offices are smaller, as SAN FRAN/SV is more of a niche market. (in this instance, you spell niche with an I and a P-with an M and an A thrown in for good measure).

Don't try and come back with a witty retort, you lose, you win nothing. You posted stupid facts without checking. You didn't read NALP right, you didn't read all the posts here that already told you that, you didn't even think to verify it elsewhere. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Stanford and Berkeley send more attorneys to IP specialty firms that are not in the NLJ 250. There are also many prestigious "lifestyle" firms in SF that insecure Columbia grads might turn down because they aren't as highly "ranked" (even though they are more selective than all but the top 50 NLJ firms).

Lol at Bostonians trying to assert that their city is a better legal market than SF/SV! Sorry about your TTT legal market Boston!

5:11, I'm not 4:56. I see your point about SF being a niche, but SF, along with SV, is not a niche. There are more biglaw lawyers now in SV than SF. Also, isn't Boston, with all its insurance work, a niche of its own, in some ways?

USC owns UCLA.

Count V50 lawyers in SF/SV vs. Boston. It's not even close.

Why would anyone attend UCLA, when they can compete against less bright students at USC, and still have a higher chance of landing a big firm gig?

5:18, Boston is a mutt. Insurance in Hartford, Banks in New York, Government in DC, WTF in Philly, but it pulls from them all.

I'm a southerner, in the Southeast so I have no dog in the fight. I just get amazed that people treat law firms like religion, or faith, and don't check numbers. I don't care what work is more prestigous, etc, numbers boil down that there are more big OFFICES in Boston than in San Fran, which would conclude that there is more BIGLAW work in these offices, and more stduents racing to fill them.

Frankly I think you are all mad to live in any of these cities, as down south we have COL joy without any Traffic or Hour woes.

5:11

I love that everyone assumes that this list purports to rank prestige, overall quality, or even chances of landing a BigLaw job. If you assumed any of those things, you just made an ass out of yourself (keep me out of it). All this list does is tell us which law schools have the most graduates going to BigLaw after graduation.

Are you looking for a school which has (1) a good relationship with top firms and (2) a culture of people who want to go to BigLaw? Great; this list is for you.

Are you looking for the school that makes it easiest for you to get a job, or that has the highest employment rate, or that gives you the best long-term prospects, or that has the most prestige, or has something else you're looking for? Find another list.

Trying to portray SF as "SF/SV" is pathetic Palo Alto trolling. SF is a pretty nice city, though somewhat devoid of humans. SV is a hellhole 100 times worse than the San Fernando Valley.

A kiss is not a contract.

SF/SV Shite. Am I missing something? Palo Alto is over 30 miles from San Fran. Do people discuss the New York/White Plains markets together (NYC/WP to 190) or better, New York/Newark markets together. How about that Philly/Trenton market?

Someone tell the poor saps in Baltimore they actually Work in the DC/BLT house. Yeah I work in the DC office, no I don't live in Georgetown area, I live in Dundalk, Baltimore, yeah drive from capital hill, but only 5 mins from our office.

Some people.

The Valley may be undesirable for many reasons (e.g. bad for single people, bad nightlife, poor mass transit), but it's far from a hellhole. Palo Alto/Menlo Park and surrounding communities are among the wealthiest communities in the U.S., with some of the best weather and best public schools in the country, not to mention Stanford. I think comparing the area to Baltimore, Newark, Trenton, or White Plains is a bit nuts.

5:11, your issues run very deep.

whatever - everyone in LA knows UCLA is the best school in town. USC does place well because there's that whole trojan family bs, ensuring that law firms with idiot USC grads will forever hire more idiot USC grads

5:56 - what???? have you ever been to California? SV is one of the nicest places to live in the entire world. And even though many firms have offices in both SF and SV, it is comical to try to argue that they are not a single market

ucla is significantly harder to get into than usc (even though ranked right next to eachother). USC will let in anyone who has a USC grad in their extended family

will someone from the bay area back me up? A lot of firms operate one office in the area that covers both SF and SV. Second, 20 -30 miles is nothing once you get out of the northeast

boston has some big firms - but most of them do insurance, which we here at ATL know isn't even a real practice area

7:28,

Significantly harder to get into UCLA than USC? Then why do they send a higher percentage of students to big firms?

Covington or Arnold & Porter?

7:28 - you crack me up. the list has multiple flaws that other people have brought up and shouldn't be used to judge prestige or quality of schools. just look at admissions statistics and they will bear out that ucla is harder to get into than usc. are you going to argue that usc is better than yale as well?

university of spoiled children produces fine entertainment lawyers

USC > yale

usc to 190

boston > yale

Lewis and Clark to 53

I work in a large SF firm that also has a large SV office. Many SF lawyers work with SV lawyers all the time. I’d say close to half of my work is done with SV lawyers. My sense is that SF/SV are closely connected for a lot of firms, and it’s common to have a lawyer transfer from one office to the other for commuting reasons. (Younger people typically want to live/work in the city and older people typically want to live/work in the valley.)

And frankly, I could not give a rat’s @ss about whether SF is more “prestigious” than Boston. The people in SF are infinitely better than they are in any east coast city and people who choose to live here are the exact kind of people who do not give a rat’s @ss about the prestige level of their city. I like that. If you don't, then please, stay on the east coast.

Yeah, these are pretty useless - they need to take into consideration those who clerk.

About UCLA/USC...law school is a means to an end. Therefore the "best" school is the one that gets you the job that you ultimately want. If you want to clerk or become a professor, then the reputation of UCLA probably makes UCLA a good choice. However, if your goal is a big firm in L.A., then it is a much tougher question. If it is less competitive to get into USC, and they dig deeper into the class (as this list suggests), then it is probably a more strategic choice to go to USC. The alumni network is definitely stronger than UCLA's, and that is valuable.

This chart is much more useful for the NYers (plus, takes clerkships into account, for all you insecure douches):

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/regional_NY.pdf

The list is perhaps of limited use for people who are plotting to go to BigLaw, but that is clearly not the goal of everybody who goes to a top law school. Some folks want to be law professors, some want to work in government, some want to do public interest law... In fact, Harvard has a big push towards public interest, and Yale has always worked hard to market their students as potential law professors after the clerkship. So if this list is intended to say something about the relative merits of the schools, it's telling only a small part of the story.

These rankings do not directly corrolate to employability. They reflect what the students want as much as anything else. IOW, if 15% take NJ250 jobs, that doesn't necessarily mean you have to be top 15% to get a NJ250 job from that school.

What it is good for is comparing schools that have minimal functional difference in what their students want, but are pretty far apart in US News rankings.

Consider this: USC puts 19% of its people in NJ250 jobs. Wisconsin puts 16% of its people in NJ250 jobs. At both, over 60% take firm jobs or clerk, more at USC. USC actually has more unemployed. USC is ranked much higher by US News, IIRC almost twenty spots.

Anyone who would qualify for in-state tuiton to Wisconsin (and who isn't absolutely dreaming about living in LA) would be out of their f***ing mind to chase the rankings and go to USC.

Let me get this straight, people here want to include SF and SV together even though a number of firms have offices in BOTH cities, and even though they are over 30 MILES apart.

First, how many firms have two offices in different parts of Manhatten? Or different parts of DC. A law office is not a Trader Joes, you don't sprinkle them around the ONE city for convinence.

Second, I was not comparing SV to Trenton, Baltimore etc, I was pointing out that White Plains is closer to Manhatten than SV, Baltimore about same to DC, Trenton closer to Philly, Newark is a hell of a lot closer to Manhatten, yet I have never heard anyone say that New York and Newark are one city, even though some firms have offices in both.

If everyone is agreed that SF/SV is better than Boston, does that then mean that we can take it out of top five major legal markets and add Harvard, BO and BU as colleges not in Major markets?

Duke, Harvard, Yale, BO, BU, Mich, Vandy, Penn, Cornell and Virginia. Half the top 10, not bad.

sv and sf are basically a single legal market. it's a west coast thing. for instance, many firms in LA have offices both downtown and on the west side (century city, santa monica, etc), but no one would ever argue that century city and downtown are different legal markets. some have 2 offices in san diego (downtown and north county). deal with it

11:34 is right. If you've ever spent time on the west coast, you know that. As further evidence (and I know it's not the best), notice that the lateral link surveys also group SF and SV together. As in, "Where do you work?" A: SF/SV; Boston; Dallas; New York; DC, etc.

yeah - west coast firms aren't as worried about having all of their people in the same building, so sometimes they open multiple offices in a city/market for the ease both of clients and partners

"If you want to clerk or become a professor, then the reputation of UCLA probably makes UCLA a good choice. However, if your goal is a big firm in L.A., then it is a much tougher question. If it is less "

This is funny. UCLA grads rarely become professors--except maybe at LaVerne, and a few notable exceptions.

I looked at the difference in numbers between USC and UCLA. Not much of a difference. I got into both schools. USC threw me a scholarship. I can either: 1) go to UCLA, and take the chance of ending up in the bottom 50% and having to do insurance defense; or 2) go to USC, and take the chance of ending up in the bottom 50%, but go to school with more attractive women and the warm fuzzy feeling of the Trojan family.

I choose the prize behind door #2.

plus tommy trojan has a big sword

usc is a joke

"This is funny. UCLA grads rarely become professors--except maybe at LaVerne, and a few notable exceptions."
Well, I have no dreams of becoming a professor so didn't look into it - for all I know UCLA may be a terrible choice if you want to become a professor. But, what is relevant is how easy is it to become a professor out of UCLA compared to out of USC. And how easy it is to get into biglaw coming out of ucla compared to out of usc law. I was more interested in which was better for getting into biglaw. USC is a pretty attractive choice, especially when you consider that many people faced with a choice between UCLA and USC often have scholarship money from USC.

What do all UCLA and USC law students have in common? They all got into USC.

They've also all slept with the same (10) USC girls.

Fordham should be on that list ='(

No it shouldn't. And why does your sad face have a mole?

its a tear! and yes it should. it was cheated off the list!

unless you're at the top of the class from fordham, fordham is pretty worthless.