Law school applicants value school rankings over job placement rates
Given that fresh-faced law school grads are facing the worst job market in 18 years, you might think pre-law students would be dissuaded from stepping into the breach. Apparently not.
June 21, 2012 at 08:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Given that fresh-faced law school grads are facing the worst job market in 18 years, you might think pre-law students would be dissuaded from stepping into the breach. Apparently not.
Kaplan Test Prep released its 2012 survey on Tuesday on how prospective law students are selecting their law schools, and found that the paucity of jobs has not really influenced those decisions. In the two years since the previous study, Kaplan found that pre-law students continue to place a much higher value on where a law school stands in the rankings than on how many of its graduates land legal jobs.
When asked “What is most important to you when picking a law school to apply to?”, 32 percent of respondents cited a law school's ranking; followed by geographic location (22 percent); academic programming (20 percent); and affordability/tuition (13 percent). Interestingly, only 8 percent of respondents were most concerned with a law school's job placement statistics.
These factors ranked in the same order in the October 2010 survey, but a school's ranking increased in importance in the 2012 survey.
Kaplan also asked, “How important a factor is a law school's ranking in determining where you will apply?” Eighty-six percent of respondents said that ranking is “very important” or “somewhat important” in deciding where to apply, which is the same exact percentage as the October 2010 survey.
As for where pre-law students hoped to eventually hang their hats, 38 percent said they hoped to chase the big bucks by working in Big Law, and 31 percent responded that they wanted to go into public interest law. There was a three-way tie among other options, with 23 percent saying they wanted to work for boutique firms, another 23 percent saying they wanted to use their JDs to go into politics at some point and a separate 23 percent responding that they wanted to use their degrees for business purposes.
Coincidentally, these career desires closely mirror what respondents told Kaplan when asked the same question in the October 2010 survey.
“While it may seem counterintuitive that pre-law students aren't placing greater importance on a school's job placement stats, most applicants know that there is a direct correlation between where a student graduates from, their starting salary and career prospects, which is likely why rankings are consistently the most important consideration by far,” Jeff Thomas, director of pre-law programs, Kaplan Test Prep, said in a release. “But with some law schools cutting their number of seats and the job market tight, pre-law students may have to think more strategically now.” The American Bar Association recently noted that the only about 8 percent of 2011 law school grads were picked up by law firms with more than 250 attorneys. Following up on those figures, the Wall Street Journal yesterday ranked the top 25 law schools based on the percentage of 2011 grads who landed long-term positions at firms with more than 250 attorneys.
The top 25 schools in order of percentage of graduates who landed Big Law roles are:
- Columbia University (59%)
- University of Pennsylvania (53%)
- Northwestern University (48%)
- Harvard University (46%)
- University of Chicago (44%)
- Stanford University (43%)
- New York University (42%)
- (tie) Duke University & University of California-Berkeley (38%)
- Cornell University (35%)
- University of Virginia (33%)
- University of Southern California (31%)
- Georgetown University (30%)
- Yale University (29%)
- University of Michigan (29%)
- Vanderbilt University (25%)
- Fordham University (22%)
- University of Texas at Austin (21%)
- University of California-Los Angeles (20%)
- Boston College (19%)
- George Washington University (18%)
- Boston University (16%)
- Emory University (15%)
- Washington University (14%)
- University of Washington (12%)
For more details on the ranking, read the Wall Street Journal.
For more on Kaplan's survey, click here.
And for more from InsideCounsel on law school job placement and careers, read:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBallooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
The Reason a GC Abruptly Departs May Not Be What You Think
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250