Please correct me if I'm mistaken Forum

[Liberal Theory]

I'm poor at math and numerical analysis so I hope I am just reading the reality of the employment situation wrong, but I just recently crunched the numbers from the most recent two ABA reports from my schools I intend on applying to, namely SMU, UT, TTU, UH, and Baylor.

I knew that the market was generally not well, but I'm in North Texas, a great legal market. I believed and still want to believe the t14-or-bust mentality is an exaggeration of the prestige whores on the internet.

But after factoring in the total number of graduates from a given school and then counting only the number of people who got jobs at firms 11+, govt, clerkship, academic and the like, I feel I may have been too optimistic. I had assumed most people from any school would come out okay, even if not in the job they want or with a lot of debt. That's fine with me, I was and am still willing to pay any price to practice law. But that means I want to actually use my degree in the future.

It seems that the numbers suggest that at UT there is only a 75% chance of that happening, for SMU it seems like if you're below median you're dead in the water. And its 47-39% at all the others.

Please tell me there is something I am missing, or is it actually as bad as people say?

[sparkytrainer]

Yeah, it is. At some of those schools, you have less than a coin flips chance of ever practicing law. Ever.

[cavalier1138]

Holy shit. You mean that a bunch of practicing lawyers and the raw data showing how bad the job market is were telling the truth?

[stego]

If the standard is "will ever be a practicing lawyer," why are we using a cutoff of law firms with 11+ attorneys?

If being employed by a firm of 2-10 employees counts as practicing law, then all of these Texas law schools, even TTU, give you greater than coin flip odds of being a practicing attorney.

Now, maybe there are just a bunch of 2-person law firms that are really just two unemployed law grads being unemployed together. But I can't confirm that just based on the data.

[Liberal Theory]

If the standard is "will ever be a practicing lawyer," why are we using a cutoff of law firms with 11+ attorneys?

If being employed by a firm of 2-10 employees counts as practicing law, then all of these Texas law schools, even TTU, give you greater than coin flip odds of being a practicing attorney.

Now, maybe there are just a bunch of 2-person law firms that are really just two unemployed law grads being unemployed together. But I can't confirm that just based on the data.

I see what you mean. Don't get me wrong, I want to be an attorney no matter what. Even if it meant the stress and uncertainty of solo/duo/trio practice or whatever. I also didn't factor in "business and industry" or whatever the hell kind of jobs "JD advantage" is. But still if I could avoid those outcomes by any means I will.

[MKC]

I work at a firm with 5-10 attorneys, and it's a great job. I would classify the firm as a boutique, and although the salary doesn't match market, it's decent, and we have interesting cases that don't involve insurance companies or personal injury. There are good jobs at small firms, so I wouldn't write those off entirely.

[QContinuum]

JD Advantage means jobs that don't require a JD. I.e., jobs that don't involve practicing law. And don't be fooled by the moniker: For many allegedly JD Advantage jobs, having a JD does not, in fact, give you any competitive advantage over a non-lawyer.

[Veil of Ignorance]

I work at a firm with 5-10 attorneys, and it's a great job. I would classify the firm as a boutique, and although the salary doesn't match market, it's decent, and we have interesting cases that don't involve insurance companies or personal injury. There are good jobs at small firms, so I wouldn't write those off entirely.

Ballpark salary?