Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Getting the word out

One valuable side effect of this little blog project is that in the 30 days of its existence it's generated nearly 2000 comments from people located in all sorts of places within the American legal system, as well as a few from commentators from other legal systems, and other professions.  Many of these comments add real-life perspective to the often abstract arguments in the posts (to reverse an infamous formula, a half million ruined careers is only a statistic, while each individual story is a tragedy).  The comments can also work as a kind of informal clearinghouse of information for prospective law students and their families, who we can only hope are taking advantage of the recent explosion of on-line information regarding the costs and benefits of going to law school.

Given the propensity of our culture to turn fundamentally structural social problems into personal morality tales, I'm somewhat surprised that there have been very few comments along these lines:


Many of the commenters appear to be commenting from the less-than-credible vantage point of disaffected failure: they failed to get into good law schools because of their collegiate failures; they failed to do well on the LSAT; they failed to do well at the law schools they did manage to attend (leading them to disparage law school exams as poor measures of success, rather than more honestly evaluating their own lack of success) ... and then, utterly unsurprisingly, they failed to secure worthwhile legal jobs, or any jobs at all. So now, their solution is to moan on the Internet about it -- which undoubtedly will lead to every bit as much success as their previous endeavors.
Empirically speaking, this is of course complete nonsense. For one thing, huge numbers of current graduates of first tier -- and indeed top 25, and top 10 --  law schools aren't getting "worthwhile legal jobs," including many who did just fine in law school.  For another, what about the 30,000 annual graduates of ABA-accredited law schools outside the first tier?  Are 80% to 90% of them disaffected failures?  (Based on a probably generous estimate that 10% to 20% of these graduates are currently getting "worthwhile legal jobs," defined liberally as permanent full-time employment that requires a law degree. Update: in comments a law professor at a "non-elite" school suggests the number for his/her own institution is around 30%, which may be more realistic, at least for second-tier schools).

This is why, for all the many problems that beset American legal education, the first step toward any kind of serious reform remains creating some sort of genuine transparency regarding the costs and benefits of getting a law degree.  Consider this great post from The Law School Tuition Bubble.  You really should take the time to read the whole thing (especially if you're a law school administrator or faculty member), but here's a key takeaway about the current financial structure of legal education in this country:

The most surprising thing I found is that unless a law graduate gets a Biglaw starting salary—which I believe will soon deflate rapidly—how much they borrow ultimately won’t matter. Once a fledging lawyer’s initial salary fails to produce a payment that covers the monthly interest, he or she might as well have borrowed as much money from the government as possible and spent it. That’s not to say I condone it, and I absolutely discourage people from taking on this kind of debt just because IBR exists. Not only does Congress flip-flop on student lending laws, but borrowing that kind of money is simply irresponsible for those who know better. The moral hazard IBR creates is even worse than I imagined.  (Emphasis added)

Yes indeed -- for those who know better, which quite clearly doesn't include very large numbers of law school administrators and faculty.  (I would love to know what percentage of law faculty could tell you right now what Income Based Repayment is. My guess would be less than five per cent).  As I said, read the whole thing.

The bottom line is that right now ABA-accredited law schools are pumping out about 1.8 to 2.2 JDs (depending on assumptions) for every available legal job.  Further more, according to the BLS, fully a quarter of the people currently employed full-time as attorneys are making less than $75,000 per year.  (Note that's not a starting salary level -- that's for the profession as a whole).  The linked analysis from LSTB illustrates how that income level would throw the vast majority of current private law school graduates -- and a good number of public-law school grads -- straight into long-term IBR, at immense cost to both themselves and the American taxpayer.  So what we're looking at is a situation in which, over the next decade or so, half of all ABA law school graduates aren't going to get legal jobs (btw I'm simply leaving out of the picture altogether the 16% of law degrees that are awarded by non-ABA accredited schools), while a large proportion of the rest will get jobs that won't come close to allowing them to service the debt they incurred by going to law school. ( And no one should make the mistake of assuming that IBR, as troubling as this new form of quasi-indentured servitude is, will necessarily be around five or ten years from now).

This simply isn't a sustainable situation, and step one is to get that point across to as many people as possible, by getting as much information out into the open as we can.  The commentators on this blog are playing a significant role in that process, and I want to thank them (you) for that.

A couple of administrative notes:

(1) I'm still not moderating comments, so if you're not seeing yours it's probably because it got caught in the spam filter, which I usually check once every  two days or so.  I don't think there's any need for moderation at this point, although I'd prefer it if people avoided Holocaust references and the like. The situation is bad enough on its own terms that it doesn't require over the top rhetoric.

(2) For obvious reasons I understand that commentators almost always prefer to remain anonymous, but I'd like to ask regular commentators to consider picking a handle.  It makes it much easier to have in-thread and cross-thread conversations, and the back and forth between commentators is one of the more valuable features of the site.

76 comments:

  1. I think you are doing very important work. From the inside of the Law School World I know you are making waves that I hope grow into a tsunami. Your writing skill and experience make it hard to argue with your basic points. I have a quibble here and there but you are largely powerful and on target.

    I went into law teaching to teach young lawyers to be great lawyers and to change the world (such a 60s sentimentality!). Over the years as the "Law and ...." people began to take over I often observed that the JD degree was a short cut to PhD status. Some of those folks now have a PhD but most of them do not. I think that we ought to consider the PhD as a requirement for those who want to do primarily social science research. The following book came across my desk this morning:

    Getting a PhD in Law
    Caroline Morris and Cian Murphy

    "Getting a PhD in Law is a unique guide to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Law in the United Kingdom. While there are a wide range of study guides for PhD students in the social sciences and other science-based disciplines, there is very little information available on the process of obtaining a PhD in Law. Research degrees in law share some attributes with those in related disciplines such as the humanities and social sciences. However, legal methodology and the place of the PhD in Law in the young lawyer's career create unique challenges that have not been addressed by existing guides. Getting a PhD in Law fills this clear gap in the market, providing an accessible guide to the PhD process from topic selection to thesis publication. This readable and informative guide draws on interviews and case studies with PhD students, supervisors and examiners. Getting a PhD in Law will be essential reading for the growing numbers of PhD students in the UK's many law schools - and those internationally that wish to learn from UK best practice.

    Caroline Morris is a Lecturer in Law at Queen Mary, University of London.
    Cian Murphy is a Lecturer in Law and the Director of Graduate Research Studies at the School of Law, King's College London.
    Sept 2011 158pp Pbk 9781841133065 US $40"

    The Brits are doing a much better job than we are in modernizing both the practice of law and apparently the teaching of law related social science.
    I wish we would follow their lights.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The commentators on this blog are playing a significant role in that process, and I want to thank them (you) for that.

    You're quite welcome. You, LSTB, and other scam bloggers are doing a great service not just for prospective law students but for the country as a whole. Some (more) major pain is coming, but not enough people are paying attention or care.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The moral hazard problem is a good point. While some 0Ls may be victims, I suspect that many are fully aware that law school is a scam that won't get them a job, but they borrow the money any way because - with IBR - it's Uncle Sam's loss.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is the criteria to qualify for IBR? I tried one of those online IBR calculators using my fiance's debt and income. It said that she would probably qualify, but the monthly payment it proposed was more than enough to pay the interest. Is IBR designed to only help those who can't even pay the interest? Or that just happens to be the situation in the worst cases?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Campos:

    The first sample comment doesn't appear here because you are a Winner at law school. No one can say that a law professor making good money at a T1 was a failure. This is why Orin Kerr and Paul Horwitz make time in their 30-hour schedules to respond to your statements, though the underlying ideas have mostly been voiced elsewhere by anonymous recent graduates two or three years ago.

    As someone who believes that transparency in employment reporting is the cheapest and most easily implemented corrective for the problems we discuss, I appreciate the publicity you've given to the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 4.0 undergrad GPA, 172 LSAT, NYU with grades near the middle of the class (we're not given an official rank, so it's a little bit of guess work).

    I was disaffected already during my third year, despite having just gotten an offer from an AmLaw 200 firm and a starting salary of $160,000.

    After their first summer jobs at a big firm, many people begin to realize just how uninteresting, demeaning, and demoralizing legal practice is. My firm was filled with law school "winners," people from top schools with decent grades, and easily half of my starting class was just there to pay off their loans and then GTFO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm somewhat surprised that there have been very few comments along these lines ...

    I have a hunch that most law faculty and admins who read this blog know that what you're saying is true and have enough of a conscience not to try to argue otherwise. They swallow the guilt and keep trudging along in the path they're now stuck with, needing to provide for their families and lacking the skills to get a job in practice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I became eligible for Income Contingent Repayments (ICR) thru the William D Ford Program (US DEPT of Ed)only after default in 2009.

    The default added 50K (Fifty thousand )onto my Student Loan in penalties and interest. So it jumped from 210K to 260K.

    A Collection agency brokered this deal. The Collection agency is a private company called "GC Services"

    I believe GC services collected 40K in instant taxpayer dollars as a result.

    Now, as I say, my Student Loan is with the US Dept of Ed, and is over 300K. It grows at the rate of almost 2K a month, and it will be well over 700K in 20 years, when it is finally "Abated" or forgiven.

    I posted the telepone conversations from 2009 with GC Services on my blog, and can do so again.

    I asked all about why 40K was being added onto my loan balance in those conversations, with a vague reply.

    Before defaut, my loan was with Sallie Mae for a number of years, and the loan grew from 79K in 1997 to the 300K it is today.

    It still has a fixed 8.25% interest rate. Hence all the growth.

    But through all of this, where is the risk for the banks?

    There is none, because if the banks can't collect from the SL debtor, they collect from the taxpayer.

    What's the old expression? Peter pays for Paul or vice versa?

    In any event, it is a true horror and has cast a horrible pall on my life.

    I will take blame when and where blame is due, but still and, as Alan Collinge might say, and to repeat.....

    Where is the risk for the banks when there is no bankruptcy option for the consumer?

    Oh, I forgot, the Consumer/Civil rights have all been stripped away in order to clear a path for the Student Loan Gravy Train.

    ReplyDelete
  9. After their first summer jobs at a big firm, many people begin to realize just how uninteresting, demeaning, and demoralizing legal practice is.

    Now, this is something I have very little sympathy for. There is tons of information out there about what big law practice is like. If someone can't be bothered to find out what s/he's getting into, then it's no one's fault but his/her own if s/he hates working in big law.

    (This is not meant as a criticism of BL1Y. I've found your contributions here to be very valuable.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Say someone was thinking of creating a website similar to Law School Numbers that instead surveyed recent graduates and asked about their salary and employment status? It would use the questions suggested by Law School Transparency. It would show actual sample sizes and allow a visitor to cut the data any way they wanted.

    All one would need to do is obtain the graduating class list and verify the survey respondent is the actual graduate (using Facebook, LinkedIn, .edu email address, etc.). Then, the site could get a 3rd party auditor to sign off on it's methodology and blow down the facade of high salaries and employment among law school grads, no?

    Am I missing anything here? Any advice?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "What is the criteria to qualify for IBR? I tried one of those online IBR calculators using my fiance's debt and income. It said that she would probably qualify, but the monthly payment it proposed was more than enough to pay the interest. "

    I imagine your fiance doesn't have a ton of student loan debt or makes good money.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not sure I can agree that there is tons of information about what big law practice is like.

    It's certainly common knowledge that you're going to be putting in long, grueling hours. But, that's always followed by tales about how intellectually engaging and rewarding the work is. You pulled an 80 hour week, but you just closed a $3 billion deal! How exciting! I don't think you can really understand how awful the work is until you've actually done it, until you've sat in that chair reading page after page of no action letters, only to finish a deal for someone who has no clue you exist, and then go home to a world that doesn't give two shits what you did all day.

    Of course, the scamblogs and such have greatly changed what information is out there, but when I was starting the conventional wisdom was that law is challenging, but also rewarding.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just off the top of my head, there's Bitter Lawyer, there's Anonymous Lawyer, there's Double Billing, and there are the various viral animations on youtube about miserable law firm associates.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Say someone was thinking of creating a website similar to Law School Numbers that instead surveyed recent graduates and asked about their salary and employment status? It would use the questions suggested by Law School Transparency. It would show actual sample sizes and allow a visitor to cut the data any way they wanted."

    This is the nuclear option to breaking the law school scam. Wait for a school to publish its graduation list (usually around May) and its employment stats for that year (around March of the next year) and get busy calling the grads and report their real situations. Unless the graduate is working for the CIA undercover or something, this information is all public.

    Something tells me your average TTT's 90% employment rate would quickly turn into a 50% employment rate at best.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BL1Y makes a good point about YET ANOTHER aspect of the law school scam. The reward for the winners is actually something the vast majority of people would hate - document review, proof reading, other pathetic and miserable tasks, and all stressful deadlines.

    But hey, at least you paid for some tenured professor to make statements like "women are prostitutes" and "all sex is rape."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Profs and admins have relied on time and shame to keep the dissenters quiet. They could just wait graduates out, because they'd be gone in three years (really two, because nobody cares about anything 3L). But now there are too many people from good schools with good GPA's who aren't getting jobs. Nobody wanted to admit they didn't do that well, but the anonymity provided by the internet has gotten around that.

    You can see now that profs and admins are doing damage control, but I can't imagine they can keep the lid on this much longer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks 9:33. It seems like the law schools and other entrenched groups will do anything to discredit this venture, so I was thinking of making it all web-based so a 3rd party auditor could see how it worked and sign off on its legitimacy. The great part would be that the data would then be more accurate and reliable than the self-policed data given by the schools who don't allow outsiders to see their system.

    My biggest question is how to verify graduate identity. My other issue is how to convince recent graduates to agree to take such a survey. We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Exactly Shark Sandwich, and this again shows the shameless psychopathy of law professors and administrators. Who goes up to someone you just victimized and stole from, and tells them "it was your fault." I'll tell you who - a damn psychopath with zero sense of shame or guilt. You only see this mentality in the most hardened criminals and that's who we have running legal academia: shameless psychopaths.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I just think there is some strange component in human nature where we delude ourselves that things will work out no matter how bleak the facts are on the ground. Generations of primitive human set off for the horizon in primitive rafts until some landed in far off places. How many died doing that? Why did they even try when there was absolutely no evidence they would succeed?

    There was a paralegal in our office (biglaw setting) who I got to know pretty well because the age difference was small and we had similar backgrounds. He saw all the misery around him, as described by the NYU grad above, I TOLD him about the misery involved and unhappy everyone was inside. He saw people being demeaned, he saw temp attys drag their miserable asses through a day, he saw associates have melt downs because of the hours and partners who treated them like chattel. What was his goal? To go to law school so that he could make more money....?!?! Hell, I couldn't even talk him into going to a lower ranked school and get some of his tuition paid for (he ended up in a top 20 school).

    This was before IBR. All the miserable facts were staring him straight in the face every single day. And he still went. We are a stupid and/or risk taking species and we shouldn't have govt policy that midwifes these stupid decisions. No matter how legal academics and admins choose to rationalize all of this it just isn't healthy for society. I'm sure if they and their parents were still paying off student loans they might agree.

    (my friend ended up working at a DA's office, luckily, and Im sure is taking full advantage of IBR).

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Thanks 9:33. It seems like the law schools and other entrenched groups will do anything to discredit this venture, so I was thinking of making it all web-based so a 3rd party auditor could see how it worked and sign off on its legitimacy."

    It's hilarious to see a victim confront the victimizer. The victim brings in all sorts of fairness and ethical considerations that the victimizer never cared about! You don't need to audit a damn thing. You get the list, start calling, and keep detailed records of how you got the information. This could easily be done in a spreadsheet. If the school sues you for telling the truth (something they would never dare do) you have evidence that you are telling the truth.

    You can find most people's contact information via the state bar, linkedin, facebook etc. You can send the surveys that way, and call those who do not respond. If they do not respond to two phone calls then you count them as a "refused to respond" in the survey.

    This is all very easily doable for someone with HTML programming skills, and actually your website would instantly vault into one of the most popular in the academic world. The downside is that it will take a lot of work to do such detailed surveys of 200 law schools. So perhaps pick a few egregious violators and survey only them (Loyola Law School, Brooklyn, NYLS, Cooley, UCLA . . .)

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Just off the top of my head, there's Bitter Lawyer, there's Anonymous Lawyer, there's Double Billing, and there are the various viral animations on youtube about miserable law firm associates."

    As I said up above, the information has changed a lot in the last few years. Bitter Lawyer started in 2008, and even it doesn't really discuss the drudgery of law that much; it focuses more on the comic side and office gossip type stuff. ATL, which does give a lot more detail on the douchy way firms treat associates, isn't much older. Anonymous Lawyer was published in 2007.

    A big part of what makes the law school 'scam' debate such a mess is that there are so many differently situated people. There are those locked in to meaningless, but well paying careers, the lost generation, and the newest students who have a lot more information available.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks 9:44.

    I have several victim friends and was almost a victim myself - took the LSAT senior year of college, but decided to work first and never looked back.

    I'm one of the few scamblog fanatics that has no vested interest in this other than seeing these corrupt statistics exposed. I work with data and web sites all day long so I think I could add some light here with a little programming help.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Be careful 9:50, because the actual act of getting data from 400 graduates is going to be a time intensive task. But if you do it, even if you just do it for 10 schools (which is still about 4,000 people you have to get in touch with), it would be a monumentally important website.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 9:22: This kind of project would produce all sorts of valuable information. Keep in mind that a statistically representative sample of a law school class could consist of a fairly small percentage of the total grads if you control for class rank.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't want to hijack comments on this thread, but thanks for the input 9:54.

    I'd prefer to do it all online so I wouldn't have to call many people to keep costs and time under control. I'm hoping the angst of disgruntled and unsatisfied law school students will lead them to quickly sign up and take the survey, and forward along to all their classmates leading me to do less manual follow ups (beyond some emails). The survey would be generic and applied across all 200 schools and be written per LST's recommendations.

    Crowdsourcing could shed some light on this dark industry.

    Any comments/tips/feedback/warnings are highly welcome. You can reach me at lawschoolsalaries@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. "9:22: This kind of project would produce all sorts of valuable information. Keep in mind that a statistically representative sample of a law school class could consist of a fairly small percentage of the total grads if you control for class rank."

    I would contact everyone rather than sample, because a sample would give the law schools an excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I'd prefer to do it all online so I wouldn't have to call many people to keep costs and time under control. I'm hoping the angst of disgruntled and unsatisfied law school students will lead them to quickly sign up and take the survey, and forward along to all their classmates leading me to do less manual follow ups (beyond some emails). The survey would be generic and applied across all 200 schools and be written per LST's recommendations."

    I don't think that would work and so you might as well not even do it. Too many flaws with that to list.

    ReplyDelete
  28. How about an exhaustive (emails, phone calls) survey for just one school. Then you would only have to contact 400 people and it would still provide very valuable information that could be extrapolated upon to guess what goes on at other schools.

    Or maybe two schools. One "good" school (say UCLA) and one "bad" one (say NYLS or Loyola).

    ReplyDelete
  29. 10:19 here. Actually I may not understand what you mean by "do it all online." If you send e.g. secured links for each survey respondent (such that only they could respond to the survey, as opposed to having a public website that anyone, even a 5 year old, could respond to) that could work.

    ReplyDelete
  30. What BL1Y didn't mention is what happens after biglaw. While I knew biglaw would be miserable, I thought there would be great exit opportunities. I doubt preparing closing sets is setting me up for success when they decide to "manage" me out.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Right - I would have a database that contains the names of graduates for a given school in a given year.

    There would be a secure log in procedure (still figuring out details) that would verify the survey respondent as the actual graduate. They would take the survey once, and only once, and their name would be removed from the list of outstanding graduate records from that school/class.

    Then, they could forward the link to their classmates, or share it on Facebook, or something like that to take advantage of their network. This is still a very early work in progress and I'm open to all ideas as I'm not a law student or graduate myself (but do work in research, so have a little survey methodology and data background).


    Thanks for all the feedback-
    lawschoolsalaries@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  32. I agree 10:38. I know so many Lathamed biglawyers who are struggling. Many admit they're worse off than a TTT who started off unemployed. At least that TTT had 3-4 years to figure out shitlaw. They wasted that time doing document review and proof reading boilerplate.

    ReplyDelete
  33. More power to you 10:42. Again, if you do this right and in such a way that gets credible data (something guaranteed if you personally contact each person) it would be one of the most important legal academia websites ever.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Don't most schools just have a formula for e-mail addresses (last name + first initial, etc.)? I know my law school used our initials and then a random number and letter for our e-mail ID so maybe others have started doing that as well.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well I know this stuff is all in the alumni directory. So if you can get one graduate to privately send you that information you're set.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The bigger problem is skyrocketing tuition because of federal guaranteed student loans and not accurate employee data. Everyone knows they are lying through their teeth and they will poo poo any results you come up with. And people will be stupid enough to ignore the accurate data anyway.

    Follow the money...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Non-tenure track faculty from non-elite law school here.

    I tend to agree with 11:20 based on what I've seen. However, I'm under the impression that about 50% of our (borderline top 100) school have semi-permanent to permanent $60-70K law jobs within a couple months of getting their bar cards. If the real number is actually more like 10-20% as suggested by Campos, it would drastically change my thinking about a lot of things.

    I'm in touch with a number of our 2009 and 2010 grads and that 10-20% number just seems way too low to me. Not that this justifies the various tricks schools (mine included) use to "massage the numbers" but it seems to me the real problem is the tuition increases. A bad job market will turn itself around at some point, but if you're $200K in the hole there's just no coming back from that.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It's probably closer to 50% 1:26, but it's no where near the "99% employed in nine months" figure published by the schools. I think the 10-20% number meant high paying ($100k) jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @1:26: To check the numbers, I decided to pull up the employment stats for Louisville. Ranked #100, and I picked it because it's not in a major legal market. The data is for the class of 2009 (most recent US News data available, obviously 2010 and 2011 will be worse, but those years don't reflect the norm).

    98.2% of graduates responding.
    Of those responding, 93.8% have some employment within 9 months, 0.9% are unemployed and seeking work.

    75% of those with jobs had jobs requiring bar admission, and of that 75%, 98.7% were in full time positions (not necessarily permanent).

    With 71% of grads working full time in the private sector responding, the 25-50-75 salary figures were $47,800, $55,000, $86,100. Median public service salary was $53,000.

    So, the $60-70k range you refer to is somewhere between the 50-75th percentiles, and bear in mind that only 75% of employed grads are getting those jobs, so overall it's probably about 47% of your students getting those jobs, not far from your estimate.

    No law school is going to be devoid of bad outcomes for graduates, due to any number of factors, poor performance on the graduate's part, a bad economy, the law of large numbers. What law schools should be asking is how many bad outcomes is too many. Sort of a maxi-min approach (worrying less about the average, and more about maximizing the position of the worst off students). Having a full 25% of your class earning less than $48,000? That's pretty rough.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "With 71% of grads working full time in the private sector responding, the 25-50-75 salary figures were $47,800, $55,000, $86,100. Median public service salary was $53,000."

    PLEASE BE CAREFUL WITH THIS PART OF YOUR REASONING! IT'S WHERE THEY PULL THE SCAM! See comment here for an explanation. http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2011/09/01/aba-falls-short-in-efforts-to-improve-law-school-placement-data

    ReplyDelete
  41. In the case of Louisville, they had 113 graduates but only about 51% of them reported a non-zero salary. http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=louisville

    On second though, I think you actually incorporated this information in your post.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Tenure track faculty member from a non-elite school here, responding to (or corroborating) 1:26 PM:

    I've been trying to do my share of due diligence here, but students, they are lying to your professors, too.

    As best as I can tell from anecdotal evidence, around 70% of our students are employed at the nine month mark in legally related positions.

    The 30% not listed is not off being a cushy CEO somewhere--they got a job not requiring a JD. Of that 70%, I think 30% have a job-job--like the good old fashioned one with salary and benefits. The other 40% are cobbling together contract work, short-term projects, and *gulp* self-employment, which scares the piss out of me.

    These figures should not be taken as gospel.

    So, by my extremely inaccurate count, for 30% law school has led to no change in employability. For 40%, law school has changed employment patterns, but they'd probably have been better off just getting three years of experience and seniority somewhere.

    30% have decent jobs, starting at 50K and going up from there. Maybe 2-3% of our students break the six figure mark.

    My numbers aren't 10-20% either, but 70% is fucking unconscionable. I persist in believing that this is not just a tuition crises, but also an overproduction problem, with classic bubble tendencies--overinvestment, the belief that expansion is the solution to all short-term cashflow woes, and self-interest overcoming logical capacity to think.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have found it extremely difficult to persuade a 0L to take seriously the risks associated with pursuing a law degree. I have a friend, a lovely and otherwise intelligent young woman, who has convinced herself that she wants to be a lawyer. Over the course of the past year I gently suggested to her that the job market for young attorneys is very poor. I have also been candid about my mostly negative attitude towards my Biglaw job. Her response to my gentle suggestions have been to: (i) change the subject, or (ii) voice unhappiness that people can't be happy for her choice to pursue a legal career.

    This fall, she matriculated at a third tier law school with an annual tuition of more than $35,000, which of course excludes books and living expenses.

    I ask this seriously. Is there any way to convince an early-twenty-something, who has never held a real job in her life, who has never had the experience of paying off debt, that the riskss outweigh the probable rewards?

    ReplyDelete
  44. My numbers aren't 10-20% either, but 70% is fucking unconscionable.

    I would go further -- costs of attendance are such that the only graduates who are coming out ahead are the 2-3% with six-figure salaries (and maybe the few who got full rides). The other 95+% would have been better off not going to law school.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @3:14 Is there any way to convince an early-twenty-something, who has never held a real job in her life, who has never had the experience of paying off debt, that the riskss outweigh the probable rewards?

    Yes. Just maybe not that twenty-something.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I ask this seriously. Is there any way to convince an early-twenty-something, who has never held a real job in her life, who has never had the experience of paying off debt, that the riskss outweigh the probable rewards?

    I don't know the answer to your question, but maybe you'll have better luck presuading her to drop out next fall, when (probably) she will not be at the top of her class and will have no summer job prospects.

    ReplyDelete
  47. 3:03: Based on the info I've been able to get my hands on, your 30% figure for people who have acquired real legal jobs within a few months of graduation (that is jobs that are permanent, full-time, and require a law degree) is very plausible for lots of middling schools. I think it's too high for a lot of third and fourth tier schools. On reflection the 10%-20% estimate for low-ranked schools may be a bit pessimistic, but it is far closer to whatever the real number is than what these schools are advertising.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @Law Office Computing - As someone who did his master's at Queen Mary, University of London, I guess I have to throw in some words of caution about just how awesome the study of PhD's in law are:

    - Since we don't have JDs in the UK, but vocational qualifications only, academia is mostly seen as an alternate route for those who fail the vocational qualifications or fail to get a training contract/pupillage to become a solicitor/barrister.

    - As such, most of the British people doing PhDs in law, at least in my experience, are not doing so to be lawyers, but to become academics. Instead, most of the people who go back into practice after doing their PhDs at QM seem to be foreigners. In fact, I would say that majority of people doing their PhDs in law at QM, at least where I studied in QMIPRI, were originally from outside the UK.

    - PhD students receive a substantial grant - something like 14,000 pounds a year, of which maybe 4-5,000 goes on fees. This also adds to the attraction of a PhD (although try getting by on 9,000 pounds a year in London). It also means that people taking it have to submit a decent proposal for a research project.

    Basically, if you don't think a JD is necessary for a lawyer, then a PhD is hardly necessary. I would only do it out of academic interest - as it happens I know exactly what I would look into if I was going to do it, but the prospect of living in London on a small amount of money is not exactly appetising. I prefer my current job.

    And, as I pointed out on the other thread, at least in England & Wales (Scotland and NI I have no idea) we have our own version of the law school scam. English graduates of LLB and post-grad conversion courses taking out loans to pay ~15,000 pounds a year (increasing at 10% per year) to study for the LPC or BVC in expectation of receiving a training contract/pupillage which only 30-40% of them will actually receive.

    This despite our law schools being essentially for-profit organisations in which the teachers are not necessarily well-paid. This also despite the academic pretensions in law schools seen in the US. This also despite the basic requirement for a pupillage/traineeship to become a barrister/solicitor, something you must basically have by your second year or you should give up. This despite entrance to vocational training to become a barrister being limited to those who get a good pass at undergraduate level, with many requiring a strong pass.

    Put simply, the problem is over-supply.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @3:14

    Check out my earlier story about my friend "Jane" who dreamed similar dreams. It took me three years and many emails to convince her. She is now happily employed as a teacher probably making more than she would the first few years out of law school. But "Jane" is not the only victim of my wrath. I used to say, 15-20 years ago, that law school was worth the effort even if you did not practice law. I now believe the exact opposite is true. Lawyers have developed such a bad general reputation that in many quarters the JD degree is a negative. In all events, at these prices only a few will catch up.

    BTW,I reject the "shitlaw" label. Many honorable people practice SmallLaw or Solo and with modern technology they can do a credible professional job and live a happy life--so long as they don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in long term debt to retire. There's the rub.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @3:14

    It is really difficult to talk someone out of going to law school. Everything about law school sounds great in theory. It seems prestigious. Many prospective students make up fantasies in their minds about what a JD will do for them. The law schools' websites and promotional materials are very effective at confirming whatever fantasy a prospective student has about the utility of a JD.

    Law schools existences depend upon enrolling as many people as possible who have no real idea of what practicing law is like. As long as 0Ls have stars in their eyes about "doing international law" (whatever the hell that is) or "using their JD to passionately advocate on behalf of X group of people," they will continue to enroll. Every law school is more than happy to do its part to keep these fantasies alive until the 0L has signed on the dotted line and taken their seat in their 1L class.

    I think the best way to discourage potential law school scam victims is to do as much as possible to enlighten them as to what a JD can actually be used for and what praticing law is really like. I suppose there is a tendency to soften blows, and try to gently talk people out of things. With law school, I think the harsh, unpleasant approach is the way to go. Explain what its like to deal with idiotic political hack judges and deranged clients who think that a $2,000 retainer creates a period of indentured servitude. Explain doc review and the biglaw pyramid. Explain that there are very few warm, romantic situations in which an attorney is able to come to the rescue of a deserving client.

    Maybe the easiest way to give a real world example of what its like to practice law would be to provide all prospective students with the Additional Disclosures booklet that comes with most credit card offers in the mail. Have them read the entire booklet carefully and completely. Then let them know that practicing law will involve reading that booklet 5-7 days a week for 8-15 hours a day.

    If that doesn't scare them off, nothing will.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 1:26 back again.

    @ 3:03: Those numbers seem realistic at my school as well. I think the middle 40% arguably may end up with a higher ceiling than they would've had without law school, so it'd probably be worth it without factoring in cost. I agree with you that about 1/3 of the people at a non-elite school are no more employable after law school, unless they manage to make a go of it as self-employed solos. (In my experience a handful will actually manage to do this quite successfully, but not many.)

    And it's definitely important for everyone to know that the administration is not being honest with the faculty on this. Obviously, as Campos says, the information is there if we want to go digging, but there's obviously little incentive for the tenured folks to do so.

    The only reason I know anything at all about how we got our employment numbers is because I happened to have a committee assignment that was relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This has got to be some of the best advice ever. On the bright side, a stint on law review and years of corporate doc review will teach you to spot the difference between an italicized and un-italicized period. This is a pretty important skill for highly intelligent people to master.


    ----------------
    Maybe the easiest way to give a real world example of what its like to practice law would be to provide all prospective students with the Additional Disclosures booklet that comes with most credit card offers in the mail. Have them read the entire booklet carefully and completely. Then let them know that practicing law will involve reading that booklet 5-7 days a week for 8-15 hours a day.

    If that doesn't scare them off, nothing will.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I wonder if the length of law school and the relatively young age in which people enroll conspire to create a situation in which the typical 0L is literally not concerning him or herself with what it means to be a lawyer. Because the choice, from their perspective, isn't to become a lawyer, but to become a law student.

    I had a tendency when I was young to see the future in very small increments. As a freshman in high school, I was hardly thinking past sophomore year, let alone graduation. When I entered college, the 4 years until graduation might as well have been 20. It was simply too far away to be real. I think we might have more success if we could convince 0Ls that law school itself is a miserable experience, but it isn't. Being a 1L is fun. And perhaps more significantly, being a 0L is fun. 0Ls get to impress people with their status as a soon to be law student, and they get to enjoy the fantasy of what their legal career (which is too far away to be real) is going to be like.

    ReplyDelete
  54. As a 2009 graduate from a tier 2 school (University of San Diego), I'd venture to say that maybe 7%, at most 10% of the class had "biglaw" or "midlaw" jobs that paid more than 100k a year. I think this number is probably higher than at other peer schools with similar rankings because we had many students who had PhDs and went into intellectual property law, or we had students who worked for Qualcomm (headquartered in San Diego) and went to work directly for Qualcomm after graduation.

    A few people, top 5%-ish got biglaw gigs from OCIs, and a few people got into midlaw (Best Best & Krieger, or other similar firms with 30-40 attorneys). There are many graduates in the top 10-15% who didn't have jobs upon graduation, and probably still don't have jobs.

    The interesting thing is that many people who don't fall into the above categories simply disappeared. People don't account for the fact that in many cities, there is biglaw or solos, and not much in between. Sure, I know 30 attorneys that have started their own solo shops, and technically they count as employed at graduation, but many of these attorneys make less than 10-20k per year and live like a college student (numerous roommates, still show up at random law school functions for free food, etc.).

    I have to really strain to list people from my class who are employed, but I can easily rail off over two dozen people who have never worked as an attorney, despite passing the bar, etc. With that said, I really don't think the 20-30% number is unreasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  55. One of my daughters, who is now a highly successful practicing lawyer, came home from college one year and wanted me to get her a summer job at a law firm so she could see what it was like. She came home the first day mad as hell. "I thought you were going to get me a job that would show me what it is like to be a lawyer" she exclaimed. When I asked what was wrong she responded "they put me a little room with a bunch of boxes and I spent all day looking for a contract"--what could I say?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Being a 1L is fun?!?!? Ummm, OK.


    And this x100 - one of the better comments since this blog began:

    "Have them read the entire booklet carefully and completely. Then let them know that practicing law will involve reading that booklet 5-7 days a week for 8-15 hours a day.

    If that doesn't scare them off, nothing will."

    ReplyDelete
  57. The whole "blame the victim" mentality that sits at the core of dismissing this as a problem solely of law school "losers" is pretty pathetic. Blaming the victim is what weak people do who can't stand the fact that often bad things happen to people who don't deserve it.

    Frankly, I'd call myself a huge law school "winner" (full scholarship to a Tier 2 school, GPA over 4.0 as a 1L, etc) and I'm disgusted by the system. If I didn't already have a solid job (non-legal, had it before law school, stayed at it through law school, will return to it after law school), I'd be absolutely shitting bricks right about now.

    We are a stupid and/or risk taking species and we shouldn't have govt policy that midwifes these stupid decisions.

    Gotta disagree with that one. I'm a big free-market proponent, but one of the basic assumptions of the free market is that the actors within it are autonomous agents with full information seeking to maximize personal gain. When the market systematically fails to provide full information, and in fact is rife with false and misleading information is PRECISELY when government should step in with a rolled up newspaper and start smacking people on the nose, shouting "bad boy! bad boy! clean up your mess!"

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anyone who bases an argument on the "efficient market hypothesis" or any derivation thereof is (a) an idiot; (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power; (c) trying to get you to buy something at an irrational price (e.g., las vegas tract housing, legal education); or (d) some combination of (a)-(c).

    Law professors contort the facts to make the law school fraud somehow the fault of its victims.

    If you draw your paycheck from the misery of others, Shame on you. Your parents should have taught you better.

    ReplyDelete
  59. (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    (b) tying to rationalize taking advantage of those who have less information and power;

    ReplyDelete
  60. BrezzyWheeze - #1, you are not a law school "winner" - you go to a tier 2 school that probably wouldn't exist without govt backed loans and wouldn't be able to get a biglaw job with your tier 2 degree. #2, you completely misunderstood the govt midwiving argument. He was saying that the govt loan program helped to create this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You don't have a buyer beware proposition to hang your hat on when (a) there is fraud involved, (b) you did it, and (x) making sure no one got hoodwinked was your responsibility and (y) you didn't do it.

    Thanks for playing, but this is a pointless debate unless you're willing start from the assumption that fraud is just swell or that it's entirely appropriate for there to be greater consumer protection for buying a gallon of milk than for signing yourself up for a quarter-million of non-dischargeable debt (in order to be trained by the gatekeepers of a supposedly ethics-driven profession, no less).

    ReplyDelete
  62. @8:28
    I don't see what tearing down OP accomplishes. Many, many commenters on this blog have taken the view that accepting a full ride to a Tier 2 school (which OP did) is far wiser than paying sticker at a middle to lower-Tier 1. OP is doing well at school, and admits that without his current non-legal job, he'd be screwed. Relax. (PS, I'm not him (or her), in case you were wondering.)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Breezywheezy was smart enough to enter law school with absolutely no risk and I'd definitely call him/her a winner. Good move Breezywheezy.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The whole discussion of whether a true "free market" exists is a classic controversy. Indeed one of the key "inventors" of the efficient market hypothetis (sort of a FMH for investments) says none of it is true because there is so much disinformation in the markets that it renders the hypothesis a fantasy. However, there's nothing wrong with believing and trying to move towards that ideal. Sure, there is misinformation, but that doesn't mean you let people get away with stock market or other fraud once you find out what they are doing!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ummm, is Rick Perry reading this blog?!

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/05/rick-perrys-plan-10000-for-a-ba

    ReplyDelete
  66. you completely misunderstood the govt midwiving argument. He was saying that the govt loan program helped to create this mess.

    My bad. I don't tend to read internet forum comments carefully. Because, you know, it's internet comments.

    ReplyDelete
  67. One other problem with blaming "government loans" is that the government pays retirees an average of about $50,000 per year in entitlements [citation needed; I did read this in a paper by an expert though].

    Let me ask you "government loans are the problem" folks this question: Would you rather see $50,000 being loaned to a 22 year old, per year, for three years of education, or would you prefer that be given to a 70 year old alive for a few years longer than they would otherwise live? Not saying I know the answer to this difficult question but it's not so obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I defend my statement that being a 1L is fun. There is a fantasy element to law school that is strongest in the beginning and fades over the course of three years (and beyond). As a 1L, you are still clueless enough to be able to indulge the fantasy that law school makes you a big deal, that your legal career is going to be great, that none of the problems you hear about will apply to you, etc. 1Ls are very excited to be 1Ls, at least until the first semester grades come back.

    ReplyDelete
  69. 4:43,

    Great post and points. I concur. For me, 1L year was a blast - I simply had a great time. It was probably the most fun year of my life (from a purely social/hedonistic standpoint). You are absolutely right about the fantasy element. As a 1L, I recall some very big-headed folks who were the "life of the class" and seemed to have it made. After grades came out and they didn't make law review, quite a few of them disapeared into the shadows for 2L and 3L year.

    I could not agree more with you about the "short view" that prospective and first year law students have. This is human nature and not a character flaw. For me, there was no analysis about what came after law school. All I knew was that I had the GI Bill, weekly NYS unemployment checks, and that I was excited as hell to be leaving the Army and getting back to campus after a four year hiatus. I was fired up to be a law student - not thinking about what life is actually like as a lawyer.

    Things worked out well for me, but looking back I was breathtakingly uninformed about law school, legal hiring or the profession. I actually matriculated not knowing that law review was an important credential and almost blew off the writing competition. Thank God I didn't as the law review turned out to be one of my best law school experiences.

    I owe whatever "career success" I've had to the dual degree program (JD/MPH) I completed. Ironically, I did not know my university even offered this program until the end of my 1L year. Who had time to do due dilligence about career options with all of the bar nights and "beer and circus" events sponsored for 1Ls?

    ReplyDelete
  70. I wouldn't say that 1L year was 'fun,' but I would say it was engaging and interesting. I definitely do agree about the fantasy element of it. You had your whole career before you at that point, dreams of becoming a Big Law partner, or maybe even a judge.

    There was a ton of stress, but not the soul crushing stress of work. It was the excited kind of stress that comes from knowing you might be on call, at any moment you'd have to defend yourself from a Socratic bombardment.

    Fun? Not really. Sex is fun. Comedy is fun. But, it was certainly new and exciting. That's not a reason to go, though.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "I defend my statement that being a 1L is fun. There is a fantasy element to law school that is strongest in the beginning and fades over the course of three years (and beyond)."

    That's fair. During 1L every kid thinks they'll wind up either (a) a biglaw partner, (b) a legendary trial attorney, (c) a politician . . . and they carry themselves and argue "policy" questions with the vigor of such a person. It's hilarious to see their delusions and compare them to the future them, when they see what law is really like.

    ReplyDelete
  72. 1L was not "fun" for me. It was a lot of time away from my young children (with my youngest only a few months only, born that prior May), a lot of stress for my wife, and being unemployed for the fist time in decades (I had worked part-time during both high school & undergrad). My twenty-something year old rich-kid classmates, they had fun.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Right, the fun is linked to youth and the inexperience and shortened time-horizon that comes with it. For an older person, especially somebody with full (or better) appreciation for the stakes, I would think it would be stressful as all hell. I was too dumb to be stressed.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Would you rather see $50,000 being loaned to a 22 year old, per year,"

    I would rather see the $50,000 spent on the proverbial hookers and blow than loaned to a 22 year old. See, that loan isn't benefiting the 22 year old at all. Because the university just raises tuition to suck down the entire amount.

    Law students would be far better off if student loans were illegal. In the 1960s, before student loans, you could work your way through college or law school with a part time minimum wage job.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I agree that being a law student is far more fun than working at a law firm job. When you are a law student, you have the autonomy to decide when you will work, how much time you will put into it, and what to focus on.

    So even if law school is stressful, it's not boring.

    As Campos points out, law firm work is both stressful and boring at the same time. The tedium just sucks the life out of you.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I'd like to point out to 9/7 4:26 that if the 70yo worked a decent amount during his life, his gov't "loan" is actually a bad ROI on all the SS and Medicare taxes he paid. Not really the same.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.